reuealed the spirituall and godly exposicion vnto S. Augustine But I haue taried longer in setting furthe y e forme of Christes wordes vpon the Lordes cuppe written by Paule and Luke than I did inteÌ„de to do And yet in speaking of the forme of Christes wordes spoken vpon his cuppe cometh now to my remebrauÌ„ce the forme of wordes vsed in the latine Masse vpon the Lordes cuppe Wherof I doo not a litell maruaile what shoulde be the cause seing the latine Masse agreeth with the euangelistes and Paule in the forme of wordes sayed vpon the bread why in the wordes sayed vpon the Lordes cuppe it diffreth from them all yea and addeth to the wordes of Christ spoken vpon the cuppe these wordes Misterium fidei that is the mysterie of faith which ar not redde to be attributed vnto the sacrament of Christes blood nother in the euangelistes nor in Paule nor so farre as I knowe in any other place of holy scripture yea and if it maye haue som good exposicion yet why it should not be aswell added vnto the wordes of Christ vpon his breade as vpon his cuppe surely I doo not see y e mysterie And bicause I see in the vse of the latine masse the sacrament of y e blood abused whan it is denyed vnto the laye people cleane contrary vnto Goddes most certain worde for why I doo beseche the should the sacrameÌ„t of Christes blood be denyed vnto the lay christiaÌ„ more thaÌ„ to y e priest Did not Christ sheade his blood aswell for y e laye godly maÌ„ as for y e godly priest If thow wilt saye yeas that he did so But yet y e sacrameÌ„t of the blood is not to be receaued without the offring vp sacrificeing therof vnto God the father bothe for the quicke and for the dead and no man maye make oblacion of Christes blood vnto God but a priest and therfore the priest alone that but in his Masse only maye receaue the sacrament of the blood And call you this Maisters Misterium fidei Alas alas I feare me this is before God Misterium iniquitatis the misterie of iniquitie suche as S. Paule speaketh of in his epistle to the Thessalonians The Lorde be mercifull vnto vs and blesse vs lighten his countenaunce vpon vs and be mercifull vnto vs. That we may knowe thy waye vpon earthe and among all people thy saluacion This kynde of oblacion standeth vponTransubstanciacion his cousyn germayne and they doo growe bothe vpoÌ„ one grouÌ„de The lord wede it out of his vineyard shortly if it be his blessed wil pleasure y e bitter roote To speake of this oblacioÌ„ how muche is it iniurious vnto Christes passion How it can not but with highe blasphemye and haynous arrogauncie intolerable pryde be claimed of any man other than of Christ hym self how much and how playnly it repugneth vnto the manifest wordes the true sense and meaning of holy scripture in many places especially in the epistle to the Hebrues the mater is so long and other haue written in it at large that my mynde is nowe not to intreate therof any further For onlye in this my scribling I intende to search out and set furth by the scriptures according to Goddes gracious gifte of my poore knowlage whether the true sense and meaniÌ„g of Christes wordes in y e institucioÌ„ of his holy supper do requyre any TraÌ„substaÌ„ciacioÌ„ as they cal it or that the very substauÌ„ce of bread and wyne doo remayne still in the Lordes supper and be the material substaunce of the holy Sacrament of Christ our saueours blessed body and blood Yet ther remayneth one vayne Quidditie of Duns in this mater y t which bicause some that write now doo seme to like it so well that they haue strypped him out of Dunces dustye and darke termes and pricked hym and paynted hym in freshe colours of an eloquent stile may therfore deceaue the more except the errour be warely eschued Duns sayeth in these wordes of Christ This is my body this pronowne demonstratyue meanyng the worde this if ye will knowe what it dothe shewe or demonstrate whether y e bread that Christ toke or no he answereth no but only one thing in substaunce it poynteth wherof the nature or name it dothe not tell but leaueth that to be determyned and tolde by that which foloweth y e worde is that is by Praedicatum as the logician dothe speake and therfore he calleth this pronowne demonstratiue This Indiuiduum Vagum that is a waÌ„dring propre name wherby we maye poynt out and shewe any one thing in substaunce what thing so euer it be That this ymaginacion is vayne and vntruly applyed vnto these wordes of Christ This is my body it may appeare plainly in y e wordes of Luke and Paule sayed vpon the cuppe coÌ„ferred with y e forme of wordes spokeÌ„ vpoÌ„ y e cuppe in Mathewe and Marke For as vpoÌ„ the bread it is sayed of al This is my body so of Matthewe and Marke it is sayed of the cuppe This is my blood Than if in the wordes This is my body the worde this be as Duns calleth it a waÌ„dring name to appoynt and shewe furthe any one thing wherof the name and nature it dothe not tell so must it be likewyse in those wordes of Matthewe and Marke vpon the Lordes cuppe This is my blood But in the wordes of Matthewe and Marke it signifieth and poynteth out y e same that it dothe in the Lordes wordes vpon the cuppe in Luke and Paule wher it is sayd This cuppe is the newe testament in my blood c. Therfore in Matthewe Marke the ê“nowne demonstratyue this dothe not wandre to poynt only one thing in substaunce not shewing what it is but telleth it plainlie what it is no lesse in Mathewe and Marke vnto the eie than is done in Luke and Paule by puttiÌ„g to this worde cuppe bothe vnto the eie and vnto the eare For taking the cuppe and demoÌ„strating or shewing it vnto his disciples by this ê“nowne demonstratiue this and sayeng vnto them Drinke ye all of this it was than al one to say This is my blood as to saye This cuppe is my blood meanyng by the cuppe as the nature of the speche dothe require the thing conteyned in the cuppe So likewise without all doubt whan Christ hade taken bread geuen thankes and broken it and giuing it to his disciples sayed Take and so demonstrating and shewing that bread which he hade in his handes to saye than This is my body to haue saied This bread is my body As it were all one if a man lacking a knyfe goiÌ„g to his oisters wold say vnto an other whoÌ„ he sawe to haue two kniues Sir I praye you lende me the one of your knyues Were it not now all one to answer hym Sir holde I will lende you this to eate your meate but not to open oysters withall and holde I will lende you this knyfe to eate your
Verily I saye vnto you I wil drinke no more of the frute of the vyne vntil that daye that I drinke that newe in the kingdome of God Here Matthewe and Marke do agree not only in y e mater but also almost fully in the forme of wordes In Matthewe gaue thākes Marke hathe one worde Blessed which signifieth in this place all one And where Matthewe sayeth Drynke ye all of this Marke sayeth they al dranke of it And wher Matthewe sayeth of this frute of y e vyne Marke leaueth out y e worde this and sayeth of y e frute of the vyne Now let vs see likewise what agrement in forme of wordes is betwene S. Luke and S. Paule Luke wryteth thus He toke bread gaue thākes brake it and gaue it to them sayēg This is my body which is geuē for you This doo in the remembraunce of me Likewise also whan they hade supped he toke the cupp sayeng This cuppe is the newe testament in my blood which is shedde for you Saint Paule setteth furthe y e Lordes supper thus The Lorde Iesus the same night in the which he was betrayed toke bread and gaue thankes brake and sayed Take eate this is my body which is broken for you This doo in remembraunce of me After the same maner he toke the cuppe whan supper was done sayeng This cuppe is the newe testament in my blood This doo as often as ye shall drinke it in the remēbraūce of me For as often as ye shall eate this bread drinke this cuppe ye shal shewe y e Lordes death vntil he come Here wher Luke sayeth which is geuen Paule sayeth which is broken And as Luke addeth to the wordes of Paule spoken of the cuppe which is shedde for you so likewise Paule addeth to the wordes therof This doo as often as you shall drinke it in the remembraunce of me The rest that foloweth in S. Paule bothe ther and in y e 10. chap. perteyneth vnto the right vse and doctrine of the Lordes supper Thus the Euangelistes S. Paule haue rehearced the wordes worke of Christ wherby he did institute ordayne this holy sacramēt of his body blood to be a perpetuall remēbraūce vnto his cōmyng again of him self I saye y t is of his body geuē for vs of his blood shedde for y e remission of synnes But this remēbraunce which is thus ordayned as y e autor therof is Christ bothe God and man so by the almightie power of God it farre passeth all kyndes of remembraunces that any other man is able to make eyther of hym selfe or of any other thing For who so euer receaueth this holy Sacramēt thus ordayned in remēbraūce of Christ he receaueth ther with either deathe or life In this I trust we doo all agree For S. Paule sayeth of y e godly receauours in y e 10. chap. of his furst epistle vnto the Corinthiās The cuppe of blessing which we blesse is it not the partaking or feloweship of Christes blood And also he sayeth The bread which we breake meaneth at the Lordes table is it not the partaking or feloweship of Christes bodye Now the partakīg of Christes body and of his blood vnto the faithfull and godly is the partaking or feloweship of life immortalitie And agayn of the badde and vngodly receauours S. Paule as playnly sayeth thus He that eateth of this bread eand drynketh of this cuppe vnworthily is giltie of the body and blood of y e Lorde O how necessary thā it is if we loue life wolde eschue deathe to trye and examine our selues before we eate of this bread and drynke of this cuppe for elles assuredly he that eateth and drynketh therof vnworthily eateth drynketh his owne damnacion bicause he estemeth not the Lordes body y t is he reuerenceth not the Lordes bodye w t y e honour that is due vnto him And that which was sayd that w t the recept of the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ is receaued of euery one good badde either life or deathe it is not mēt that they which are dead before God maie hereby receaue life or the lyuing before God can hereby receaue deathe For as non is mete to receaue natural fode wherby y e natural life is nourished except he be borne liue before so no man cā fede by the recept of this holy sacrament of the fode of eternal life except he be regenerated borne of God before And on the other syde no man here receaueth damnacion which is not dead before Thus hitherto without all doubt God is my witnesse I saye so farre as I doo knowe ther is no controuersie among them that be learned in the churche of Englande concerning the mater of this sacrament but all doo agree whether they be newe or olde and to speake playne and as som of them doo odiously call either other whether they be protestauntes papistes Pharisees or gospellers And as al doo agree hitherto in y e aforesayed doctrine so al do deteste abhorre cōdēne y e wicked heresie of y e Messalonianes which other wise be called Euticheres which said y t y e holy Sacramēt cā nother do good nor harme Al do al so cōdēne those wicked Anabaptistes which put no difference betwene the Lordes table and the lordes meate their owne And bicause charitie wolde that we should if it be possible and so farre as we maye with the sauegarde of good cōscience mayntenaunce of the truthe agree with all men therfore me thinkes it is not charitably done to burthen any man either newe or olde as they cal them further than such doo declare them selues to dissent from that we are persuaded to be truthe or pretende therto to be controuersies wher as non suche are in dede and so to multiplye the debate the which the more it dothe encreace the further it dothe departe from the vnitie that the true christian should desyre And agayn this is true that truthe nother nedeth nor wilbe maynteyned with lies It is also a true prouerbe that it is euen synne to lye vpō the deuil for though by thy lye thow doest synne neuer so muche to speake agaynst the deuil yet in y t thou lyest in dede thow workest the deuilles worke thow doest him seruice and takest the deuilles parte Now whether than they doo godly and charitably which either by their pen in writing or by their wordes in preaching doo beare the symple people in hāde that those which thus doo teache beleue doo goo about to make the holy Sacrament ordayned by Christ him self a thing no better than a piece of common bread or that doo saye that suche doo make the holy Sacrament of the blesed body and blood of Christ nothing elles but a bare signe or a figure to represent Christ non otherwise than the Iuye bushe dothe represent the wyne in a tauerne or as a vile persone gorgiouslye
by the subtile sophister Duns and lately renewed nowe in our dayes with an eloquent stile muche finesse of wytte But what can craftye inuencion subtiltie in sophismes eloquēce or fynesse of wytte preuayle against the vnfallible worde of God What nede we to striue and cōtend what thing we breake for Paul sayeth speaking vndoubtedly of the Lordes table The bread sayeth he which we breake is it not the partaking or feloweship of the Lordes bodye Whervpon it foloweth that after the thākes geuyng it is bread which we breake And how oftē in the Actes of y e apostles is the Lordes supper signified by breaking of bread They did perseuer sayeth S. Luke in the Apostles doctrin cōmunion breakīg of bread And they brake bread in euery house And again ī an other place whā they were come together to break bread c. s. Paul which setteth furth most fully in his wryting bothe the doctrine ye right vse of y e Lordes supper y e sacramētal eating drīking of Christes body blood calleth it fyue times bread bread bread bread bread The sacramental bread is the mysticall body and so it is called in scripture ▪ 1. Cor. 10. as it is called the natural body of Christ. But Christes mystical body is the congregacion of christianes Now nomā was euer so fonde as to saye that that sacramētal bread is transubstanciated and chaunged in to the substaunce of the congregaciō Wherfore no man should likewise thinke or saye y t y e bread is trāsubstāciated chaūged in to y e natural substaunce of Christes humayne nature But my mynde is not here to wryt what maye be gathered out of scriptures for this purpose but only to note here briefly those which seme vnto me to be the most playne places Therfore contented to haue spoken thus muche of the sacramētal bread I will now speake a litel of y e Lordes cuppe And this shalbe my thrid argumēt groūded vpō Christes owne wordes The natural substaunce of the sacramental wyne remayneth still and is y e material substaūce of the sacrament of y e blood of Christ Therfore it is like wise so in y e Sacramental bread I know that he that is of a cōtrary opinion wil denye the former parte of myne Argument But I wil proue it thus by the playne wordes of Christ him self bothe in Mathewe and in Marke Christes wordes are these after the wordes said vpō the cup. I saie vnto you saieth Christ I wil not drīke hēcefurthe of this frute of the vyne tree vntil I shall drinke that newe in my fathers kingdome Here note how Christ calleth playnlie his cuppe the frute of the vyne tree But the frute of the vyne tree is very natural wyne Wherfore the natural substaunce of the wyne dothe remayne still in the Sacrament of Christes blood And here in speaking of y e Lordes cup it cometh vnto my remembraunce y e vanitie of Innocentius his sātastical inuencion which by Paules wordes I did confute before here did promise somwhat more to speake that is this If the transubstanciacion be made by this worde Blessed in Marke sayed vpon the bread as Innocentius that pope did saye Than surely seing that worde is not sayed of Christ nother in any of the euangelistes nor in S. Paule vpon the cuppe Ther is no transubstanciacion of the wyne at al. For wher the cause dothe faile ther can not folowe the effecte But the sacramental bread the sacramental wyne doo bothe remayne in their natural substaunce alike and if the one be not chaunged as of the sacramental wyne it appeareth euidētly than ther is no such transubstanciacion in nother of them bothe All that put affirme this chaunge of y e substaunce of bread wyne in to the substaunce of Christes bodye and blood called Transubstanciacion doo also say this chaunge to be made by a certain forme of prescripte wordes and non other But what they be that make the chaunge either of the one or of the other vndoubtedly euē they that doo write most fynely in these our dayes almost confesse playnlye that they can not tell For although they graunt to certayn of the olde autors as Crysostome and Ambrose that these wordes This is my body are the wordes of consecracion of the sacrament of the body yet saye they these wordes maye well be so called bicause they doo assure vs of the consecracion therof whether it be done before these wordes be spoken or no. But as for this their doubt concerning the sacrament of the bodye I let it passe Let vs now considre the wordes which perteyne to the cuppe This is furst euidēt y t as Matthewe muche agreeth w t Marke likewise Luke with Paule much agreeth herin in forme of wordes so in the same the forme of wordes in Matthewe and Marke is diuerse frō that which is in Luke Paule y e olde autors doo most rehearse y e forme of wordes in Matthewe Marke bicause I wene they semed to thē most cleare But here I wold knowe whether it is credible or no that Luke and Paule whan they celebrated the Lordes supper w t their congregaciones that they did not vse the same forme of wordes at the Lordes table which they wrote Luke in his gospel and Paule in his epistle Of Luke bicause he was a phisicion whether some will graunt that he might be a priest or no and was hable to receaue y e ordre of priesthoode which they saye is geuen by vertue of these wordes sayed by the bishop Take thou autoritie to sacrifice for the quycke and the dead I can not tell but if they shoulde be so strayt vpon Luke either for his crafte or elles for lacke of suche power geuen him by vertue of thaforesaid wordes than I wene bothe Petre and Paule are in daungier to be deposed of their priesthoode for the crafte either of fyshing which was Petres or making of tētes which was Paules were more vile than the the science of phisike And as for those sacramental wordes of the ordre of Priesthoode to haue autoritie to sacrifice bothe for y e quyck and the dead I wene Petre Paule yf they were bothe alyue were not hable to proue that euer Christ gaue them such autoritie or euer saied any suche wordes vnto them But I will let Luke goo and bicause Paule speaketh more for hym self I will rehearse his wordes That sayeth Paule which I receaued of the Lorde I gaue vnto you For the Lorde Iesus c. And so he setteth furth the hole instituciō right vse of the Lordes supper Now seing that Paule here sayeth that which he receaued of the Lorde he hade geuen them and that which he hath receaued and geuen them before by worde of mouthe now he rehearseth wryteth the same in his epistle is it credible that Paule wolde neuer vse this forme of wordes vpon the Lordes cuppe which
as he sayeth he receaued of the Lorde that he hade geuen them before and now rehearseth in his Epistle I trust no man is so farre from all reasō but he wil graūt me that this is not likely so to be Now than if you graunt me that Paule did vse the forme of wordes which he writeth Let vs than rehearse and considre Paules wordes which he sayeth Christ spake thus vpon y e cup. This cup is the new testamēt in my blood this do as often as ye shal drinke it in the remembraunce of me Here I wold knowe whether that Christes wordes spokē vpō the cuppe were not as mightye in worke and as effectuall in significacion to all intentes constructiones and purposes as our Parliamēt men doo speake as they were spoken vpon the bread If this be graunted which thing I thinke no man can denye than further I reasō thus But the worde is in the wordes spoken vpō the Lordes bread dothe mightily signifie saye they the chaunge of the substaunce of that which goeth before it in to y e substaūce of y t which foloweth after y t is of the substaunce of bread in to the substaunce of Christes bodye whan Christ sayeth This is my bodye Now than if Christes wordes which are spoken vpon the cuppe which Paule here rehearseth be of the same might and power bothe in working and signifieng Than must this worde is whan Christ sayeth This cuppe is the newe testament c. turne the substaūce of the cuppe in to the substaunce of the newe testament And if thow wilt saye that this worde is nother maketh nor signifieth any suche chaunge of the cuppe although it be saide of Christ that this cuppe is the newe testament yet Christ ment no suche chaunge as that Mary Sir euen so saye I whā Christ sayde of the bread which he toke and after thankes geuen brake and gaue them sayeng Take eate this is my body he ment no more any suche chaunge of the substaūce of bread in to the substaūce of his naturall bodye than he ment of the chaunge and Transubstanciacion of the cuppe in to the substaunce of the newe testament And if thow wilt saye that the worde cuppe here in Christes wordes dothe not signifie the cuppe it self but the wyne or thīg conteyned in the cuppe by a figure called Metonimia for y e Christes wordes ment and so must nedes be takē thow sayest very well But I praye the by the waye here note two thinges Furst that this worde is hathe no suche streynght or significacion in the Lordes wordes to make or to signifie any transubstantiacion Secōdly that the Lordes wordes wherby he instituted the sacramēt of his blood he vseth a figuratyne speache Now vayne than is it that some so earnestly doo saye as if were an infallible rule that in doctrine in the institucion of the sacramentes Christ vsed no figures but all his wordes are to be strayned to their propre significaciōs whā as here what so euer thou sayest was in y e cuppe nother y t nor the cup it selfe taking euery worde in his propre significaciō was y e new testamēt but in vnderstanding that which was in the cuppe by the cuppe y t is a figuratiue speache yea also thou cannest not verifie or truly saye of that whether thou sayest it was wyne or Christes blood to be the newe testament without a figure also Thus in one sentence spoken of Christ in the institucion of the sacrament of his blood the figure must helpe vs twyse So vntrue is it that some doo wryte that Christ vseth no figure in the doctrine of faythe nor in the institucion of his Sacramentes But some saye yf we shal thus admitte figures in doctrine than shall all the articles of our fayth by figures and allegories shortlye be transformed and vnlosed I saye it is lyke fault euē the same to deny y e figure where y e place so requireth to be vnderstanden as vaynely to make it a figuratiue speache which is to be vnderstāden in his propre significacion The rules wherby y e speche is knowen whan it is figuratiue wherby it is none S. Augustine in his boke De doctrina christiana geueth diuerse learned lessons very necessarie to be knowen of y e studentes in Goddes worde Of the which one I will rehearse which is thys If sayeth he the scripture dothe seme to commaūde a thing which is wicked or vngodlye or to forbidde a thing that charitie dothe require than knowe thou sayeth he that the speche is figuratiue And for exāple he bringeth the sayeng of Christ in y e .6 chap. of S. Io. Except ye eate the fleshe of the sōne of mā drinke his blood ye can not haue lyfe in you it semeth to cōmaunde a wicked or an vngodly thing Wherfore it is a figuratiue speche cōmaūding to haue cōmuniō felowship w t Christes passiō deuoutly holsomlye to laye vp in memorie that his fleshe was crucified and wounded for vs. And here I can not but maruel at some men surely of muche excellēt fynesse of wyt of great eloquēce that are not ashamed to wryte say y t this aforesaid sayeng of Christ is after S. Austin a figuratiue speche in dede howbeit not vnto the learned but to the vnlearned Here let any man that but indifferently vnderstandeth the latine tongue read the place in S. Austen if he perceaue not clearly S Augustines wordes mynde to be cōtrary let me abyde therof the rebuke This lessō of S. Augustine I haue therfore the rather set furthe bicause it teacheth vs to vnderstāde that place in Iohn̄ figuratyuely Euen so surely the same lesson with the example of S. Augustines exposiciones therof teacheth vs not only by the same to vnderstande Christes wordes in the institucion of the Sacrament bothe of his body and of his blood figuratyuely but also the very true meanyng and vnderstanding of the same For if to commaunde to eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and to drinke his blood semeth to commaunde an inconueniēce and an vngodlynesse and is euen so in dede if it be vnderstandē as the wordes doo stāde in their propre significacion and therfore must be vnderstanden figuratyuely spiritually as S. Augustine dothe godly and learnedly interprete them Than surely Christ commaunding in his last supper to eate his body and to drinke his blood semed to cōmaunde in sounde of wordes as great and euen the same inconuenience and vngodlinesse as did his wordes in the .6 chap. of S. Iohn̄ and therfore must euen by the same reason be lykewise vnderstanden and expounded figuratyuely spiritually as S. Augustine did the other Wherunto that exposicion of S. Augustine may seme to be the more mere for that Christ in his supper to the commaundement of eating and drinking of his body blood addeth Doo this in the remēbraunce of me Which wordes surely were the keye that opened
man drinke his blood c. This lettre dothe kill Yf in that place the lettre dothe kil wherin is cōmaūded the eating of Christes fleshe than surelye in those wordes of Christe wherin Christ cōmaundeth vs to eate his body the literal sense therof likewise dothe kill For it is no lesse crime but euen the same and all one in the literal sense to eate Christes bodye to eate Christes fleshe Wherfore if the one doo kil except it be vnderstanden figuratiuely and spiritually than the other surely dothe kill likewise But that to eate Christes fleshe dothe kil so vnderstanden Origene affirmeth playnly in his wordes aboue rehearsed Wherfore it can not be iustly denyed but to eate Christes body literally vnderstanden must nedes after hym kill likewise The answer that is made to this place of Origen of the papistes is so folishe that it bewrayeth it self without any further confutacion It is the same that they make to a place of S. Augustine in his boke De doctrina Christiana Wher as Saint Augustine speaketh in effecte y e same thing that Origene dothe here The papistes answer is this To y e carnal mā y e literal sense is hurtful but not so to the spiritual As though to vnderstande that in his propre sense which ought to be taken figuratiuely were to the carnall man a daungerous perile but to the spiritual man non at all Now to Chrisostome whom I bring for the seconde wrytour in the greke churche He speaking agaynst y e vnholy vsing of mānes body which after S. Paule ought to be kept pure and holy as the very tēple of the holy goost sayeth thus If it be a fault sayeth he to translate the holyed vesselles in the which is conteyned not the true body of Christ but the mysterie of the body to priuate vses how muche more offence is it to abuse and defile the vesselles of our body These be the wordes of Chrisostome But I trowe that here many fowle shiftes are deuised to defeate this place The autor sayeth one is suspected I answer But in this place neuer fault was foūde with hym vnto these our dayes And whether this autor was Iohn̄ Chrisostome him self the Archebishop of Constantinopole or no that is not the mater For of all it is graunted that he was a writour of that age and a man of great learnyng so that it is manifest that this which he wryteth was the receaued opiniō of learned men in his dayes Or elles vndoubtedly in suche a mater his sayeng shoulde haue bē impugned of som y t wrote in his tyme or nere vnto the same Naye sayeth an other if this soluciō will not serue we maye saye that Chrisostome did not speake of the vesselles of the Lordes cuppe or such as were than vsed at the Lordes table but of the vesselles vsed in the temple in the olde lawe This answer will serue no more than the other For here Chrisostome speaketh of suche vesselles wherin was y e which was called the body of Christ although it was not y e true body sayeth he of Christ but the mystery of Christes bodye Now of the vessels of the olde lawe the wrytours doo vse no suche maner of phrase for their sacrifices were not called Christes body For than Christ was not but in shadowes and figures and not by the Sacrament of his body reuealed Erasmus which was a mā that coulde vnderstande the wordes and sense of the wrytour although he wolde not be sene to speake agaynst this errour of transubstanciacion bicause he durst not yet in his tyme declareth playnely that this sayeng of this wrytour is non otherwise to be vnderstanden Yet can I sayeth the thirde papist fynde out a fyne subtil solucion for this place graunt all that yet is sayed bothe allowing here the wrytour also that he ment of the vessels of the Lordes table For sayeth he the body of Christ is not conteyned in them at the Lordes table as in a place but as in a mysterie Is not this a prety shifte and a mystical solucion But by the same solucion than Christes body is not in the Lordes table nor in the priestes handes nor in the pixe and so is he here no where For they will not saye that he is either here or ther as in a place This answer pleaseth so well the maker that he hym self after he had played with it a litel while and shewed the fynesse of his wytte eloquence therin is content to geue it ouer say but it is not to be thought that Chrisostome wolde speake after this fynesse or subtiltie and therfore he returneth agayn vnto the seconde answer for his shoore Ancor which is sufficiētly confuted before An other shorte place of Chrisostome I will rehearse which if any indifferēcy maye be hearde in playne termes setteth furth the truth of this mater Before y e bread saieth Chrisostome Ad Cesariū Monachū be halowed we cal it bread but y e grace of God sanctifieng it by the meanes of the priest it is deliuered now frō the name of bread and estemeth worthy to be called Christes body although the nature of bread tarye in it still These be Chrisostomes wordes wherin I praye you what can be sayed or thought more playne against this errour of transubstanciaciō than to declare that the bread abydeth so still And yet to this so playn a place som are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it sayeng we graunt y e nature of bread remayneth still thus for that it maye be sene felt and tasted and yet the corporal substaunce of y e bread therfore is gone least two bodies should be confused together Christe should be thought impanate What contrarietie and falshead is in this answer the symple man maie easily perceaue Is not this a playne contrarietie to graunt that the natur of bread remayneth so still y t it maye be sene felt and tasted yet to saye the corporal substaunce is gone to auoide absurditie of Christes impanacion And what manifest falshead is this to saye or meane that if the bread should remayne still than must folowe the inconuenience of impanaciō As though the very bread could not be a sacrament of Christes body as water is of baptisme except Christ should vnyte the nature of bread to his nature in vnitie of persone and make of the bread God Now let vs heare Theodoretus which is the last of the thre Greke autors He wryteth in his dialoge Contra Eutichen thus He that calleth his natural body corne and bread and also named hym self a vyne tree euen he the same hathe honoured the Symboles that is the sacramental signes with the names of his body and blood not chaungeing in dede the nature it self but adding grace vnto the nature what can be more playnly sayed than this that this olde wrytour sayeth that although the Sacramentes beare the name of the body and blood of Christ
yet is not their nature chaūged but abydeth stil. And wher is thā the papistes transubstantiacion The same wrytour in y e secōde dialoge of y e same worke against thaforesaid heretike Eutiches wryteth yet more playnly agaynst this errour of transubstanciacion if any thing can be sayed to be more playne For he maketh the heretike to speake thus against hym that defendeth the true doctrine whom he calleth Orthodoxus As the sacramentes of the body and blood of our Lorde are one thing before the inuocacion and after the inuocaciō they be changed and are made an other so likewise the Lordes body saythe the heretike is after the assūpcion or ascension in to heauen turned in to the substance of God the heretike meaning therby that Christ after his assension remayneth no more a mā To this Orthodoxus answereth thus sayeth to y e heretike Thow art taken sayeth he in thyne owne snare For those mystical symboles or sacramētes after the sanctificacion doo not goo out of their owne nature but they tarye and abyde still in their substaunce figure and shape yea are sensibly sene groped to be y e same they were before c. At these wordes the papistes doo startle and to saye the truthe these wordes be so playne so ful so cleare that they can not tell what to saye but yet they will not ceasse to goo about to playe the cuttles and to cast their colours ouer them that the truthe which is so plainly told should not haue place This autor wrote saye they before the determinacion of the churche As who wold saye what so euer that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome determined in his congregacions with his monkes and friers that must be for so Duns sayeth holden for an article and of the substaūce of our faithe Some do charge this autor that he was suspected to be a Nestorian which thing in Calcedon counsail was tried and proued to be false But the fowlest shifte of all and yet the best that they can finde in this mater whan none other will serue is to saye that Theodorete vnderstandeth by the worde substaunce accidētes and not substaunce in dede This glose is like a glose of a lawer vpon a decree y e text wherof beginneth thus Statuimus that is We decree The glosse of the lawer ther after many other prety shiftes ther set furthe which he thinketh will not well serue to his purpose and therfore at the last to cleare the mater he sayeth thus after y e mynde of one lawer Vel Dic sayeth he Statuimus id est abrogamus y t is or expoūde we do decree that is we abrogate or disanull Is not this a goodly and worthy glose who will not say but he is worthy in the lawe to be reteyned of counsail that can glose so wel and fynde in a mater of difficultie such fyne shiftes And yet this is the lawe or at least the glose of the lawe And therfore who can tell what perile a man maye incurre to speake against it except he were a lawer in dede which can kepe him self out of the briers what wynde so euer blowe Hitherto ye haue hearde three wrytours of the Greke churche not all what they doo saye for that were a labour to great for to gather and to tedious for y e reader But one or two places of euery one the which how playne how ful and how cleare they be against the errour of transubstanciacion I referre it to the iudgement of the indifferent reader And now I will likewise rehearse the sayenges of other three olde auncient wytours of the latine church so make an ende And furst I will begynne with Tertullian whom Cipriane the holy martyr so highly estemed that whan so euer he wolde haue his boke he was wont to saye Geue vs now the Maister This olde wrytour in his .4 boke agaynst Marcion the heretike saieth thus Iesus made y e breade which he toke and distributed to his disciples his body sayeng This is my body That is to saye sayeth Tertullian afigure of my body In this place it is playne that after Tertullianes expolicion Christ ment not by calling the bread his body the wyne his blood that either the bread was the naturall body or the wyne his natural blood but he called thē his body and blood bicause he wolde institute thē to be vnto vs sacramentes that is holy tokens and signes of his body and of his blood that by them remēbring and firmely beleuing the benefites procured to vs by his body which was torne crucified for vs and of his blood which was shedde for vs vpō the crosse and so with thākes receauing these holy sacraments according to Christes institucion might by the same be spiritually nouryshed and fedde to the encrease of all godlynesse in vs here in our pilgrimage iournaye wherin we walke vnto euerlasting lyfe This was vndoubtedly Christ our saueours mīde and this is Tertullianes exposicion The wranglyng that the Papistes doo make to elude this sayeng of Tertullian is so farre out of frame that it euen wearieth me to thinke on it Tertullian wryteth here saye they as none hathe done hitherto before him This sayeng is toto manyfest false for Origene Hilarie Ambrose Basil Gregorie Nazianzene saint Augustine and other olde autors lykewyse doo call the sacrament a figure of Christes bodye And where they saye that Tertullian wrote this whan he was in a heate of disputacion with an heretike couetyng by all meanes to ouerthrowe his aduersarie As who saye he wolde not take hede what he dyd saye and specially what he wolde wryte in so hyghe a mater so that he might haue the better hande of his aduersarie Is this credible to be true in any godlye wyse man How muche lesse thā is it worthy to be thought or credited in a man of so great a wytte learning and excellencye as Tertullian is worthilye estemed euer for to haue ben Lykewyse this autor in his furst boke agaynst the same heretike Marcion wryteth thus God did not reiect bread which is his creature for by it he hath made a representaciō of his body Now I praye you what is this to saye that Christ hathe made a representacion by bread of his body but that Christ hade instituted and ordayned bread to be a sacrament for to represent vnto vs his body Now whether the representacion of one thing by an other requireth the corporal presence of the thing which is so represented or no euery man that hathe vnderstanding is hable in this point the mater is so cleare of it self to be a sufficient iudge The seconde doctour and wrytour of the latine churche whose sayenges I promysed to set furthe is S. Augustine of whose learning and estimacion I nede not to speake For all the churche of Christ bothe hathe and euer hathe hade hym for a man of most singular learnyng witte and diligence
A brief declaracion of the Lordes Supper written by the syngular learned man and most constaunt Martir of Iesus Christ Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London prisoner in Oxforde a litel before he suffred deathe for the true testimonie of Christ. Roma 8. For thy sake are we killed all daye long and are compted as shepe appointed to be slayne Neuertheles in all these thinges we ouercome through him that loued vs. Anno. 1555. To the Reader VNderstande good reader that this great clearke and blessed Martir bishop Nicholas Ridley sought not by setting furthe this notable godly piece of learned worke the vayne glorie of the world nor temporal frendship of men for his present aduauncement muche lesse he hunted hereby for Bishoprikes and benefices as all his aduersaries the enemies of Christes truthe and ordinaunce the Papistes cōmonly doo but hauing consideracion of the great charge of soule committed vnto him and of thaccompte therof which the iustice of God wolde require at his handes intending therwithall to be founde blameles in the great daye of the Lorde seing he was put aparte to defende the Gospel he not only forsoke landes goodes world frendes and him selfe withall and testified the truthe specified in this boke by his learned mouthe in the open presence of the worlde but also to leaue a sure monument and loue token vnto his flocke he hathe regestred it by his owne penne in this forme ensuyng and sealed it vp with his blood Forasmuch than as he hath approued him selfe no vayne disputour no wethercocke nor hipocrite seyng he hathe willingly geuen his lyfe for the truthe and inasmuche also as his loue and most constaunt christian conscience speaketh frely vnto thee gentill reader I beseche thee for Christes sake and thyne owne lende him thine indifferent heart and pacient hearyng ⧠MAny thynges confounde a weake memorie a fewe places well weighed and perceaued lyghten the vnderstādyng Truthe is ther to be searched wher it is certayne to be hade Though God dothe speake the truthe by man yet in mannes worde which God hath not reuealed to be his a mā may doubt without mystrust in god Christ is the truthe of God reuealed vnto man from heauen by God hym selfe and therfore in his worde the truthe is to be founde which is to be embraced of al that be his Christ biddeth vs aske we shall haue searche and we shall fynde knocke and it shal be opened vnto vs. Therfore our heauenly father the autor and fountayne of all truthe the botomles sea of al vnderstanding sende downe we beseche the thy holy spirite in to our heartes and lyghten our vnderstanding wyth the beames of thy heauenly grace We aske thee this O merciful father not in respecte of our desartes but for thy deare sonne oure saueour Iesus Christes sake Thou knowest O heauenly father that the controuersie about the Sacrament of the blessed bodye and blood of thy deare sonne our saueour Iesu Christ hathe troubled not of late only y e churche of Englāde Fraunce Germanye and Italie but also many yeares agoo The fault is ours no doubt therfore for we haue deserued thy plague But O Lorde be mercifull and releue our myserie with som light of grace Thow knowest o Lorde how this wicked world rolleth vp and downe and releth to fro and careth not what thy will is so it maye abyde in wealthe If truthe haue wealthe who are so stowte to defende the truthe as they But if Christes crosse be layed on truthes backe than they vanyshe awaye straight as waxe before y e fire But these are not they O heauenly father for whom I make my most moane but for those sely ones O Lord which haue a zeale vnto thee those I meane which wold and wishe to knowe thy will and yet are letted holden backe blynded by the subtilties of Satan and his Ministers the wickednesse of this wretched worde and the synful lustes and affectiones of the fleshe Alas Lorde thow knowest that we be of our selues but fleshe wherin ther dwelleth nothing that is good How than is it possible for mā without the O Lorde to vnderstande thy truthe in dede Can the natural man perceaue the will of God O Lorde to whom thow gauest a zeale of thee geue them also we beseche thee y e knowlage of thy blessed will Suffre not thē O Lorde blyndlye to be ledde for to stryue against thee as thow diddest those Alas which crucified thine owne sōne forgeue them O Lorde for thy deare sonnes sake for they knowe not what they doo They do thinke Alas O Lorde for lacke of knowlage that they doo vnto the good seruice euen whan agaynst thee they doo most extremely rage Remembre O Lorde we beseche the for whom thy martyr Stephan did praye and whom thyne holy Aopstle Paule did so truly and earnestly loue that for their saluacion he wished hym self accursed for them Remembre O heauenly father the prayer of thy deare sonne our saueour Christe vpon the crosse whan he sayd vnto thee O father forgeue them they knowe not what they doo With this forgeuenesse O good Lorde geue me I beseche the thy grace so here briefly to set furthe the sayenges of thy sonne our saueour Iesu Christ of his Euāgelistes and of his apostles that in this aforesaide cōtrouersie the light of the truthe by y e lanterne of thy worde maye shyne vnto al them that loue the. Of the Lordes last supper do speake expressely the euāgelistes Matthewe Marke Luke but non more playnlye nor more fully declareth y e same than dothe S. Paule partly in the 10. Chaptre but especially in y e 11. Chap. of his furst epistle to y e Corinthianes As Matthewe and Marke doo agree muche in wordes so do likewise Luke and S. Paule But al. iiij no doubt as they were all taught in one schole inspired w t one spirite so taught they all one truthe God graunt vs to vnderstande it well Amen Matthewe setteth furthe Christes supper thus Whan euē was come he sate downe w t the .xij. c. As they did eate Iesus toke bread and gaue thankes brake it and gaue it to the disciples and sayed Take eate This is my body And he toke the cuppe gaue thankes gaue it to them sayeng Drynke ye al of this for this is my blood of the newe testament that is shedde for many for the Remission of synnes I saye vnto you I will not drynke hencefurthe of this frute of the vyne tree vntil that daye whan I shall drynke that newe in my fathers kingdome And whā they hade sayed grace they went out c. Now Marke speaketh it thus And as they eate Iesus toke bread blessed and brake and gaue to them and saied Take eate This is my body And he toke the cuppe gaue thākes and gaue it to them and they all dranke of it And he sayed vnto them This is my blood of the newe testament which is shedde for many
apparailed ▪ maye represent a kyng or a prince in a playe Alas let men leaue lyeng and speake the truthe euery one not only to his neighbour but also of his neighbour for we are membres one of an other sayeth saint Paule The controuersie no doubt which at this daye troubleth the churche wherin any meane learned man either olde or newe dothe stande in is not whether the holy Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is no better than a piece of cōmō bread or no or whether the Lordes table is no more to be regarded thā the table of any earthy man or no or whether it is but a bare signe or figure of Christ and nothing elles or no. For all doo graunt that S. Paules wordes doo require that the bread which we breake is the partaking of the body of Christ and also doo graunt hym that eateth of that bread or drinketh of y e cuppe vnworthily to be giltie of the Lordes death and to eate and drinke his owne damnacion bicause he estemeth not the Lordes body All doo graunt that these wordes of S. Paule whan he sayeth If we eate it auantageth vs nothing or if we eate not we want nothīg therby are not spoken of the Lordes table but of other common meates Thus thā hitherto yet we al agree But now let vs see wherin the dissensiō dothe stande The vnderstāding of it wherin it chiefli stādeth is a steppe to the true searching furthe of the truth For who can seke well a remedie if he knowe not before y e disease It is nother to be denyed nor dissembled that in the mater of this Sacramēt ther be diuerse poyntes wherin men counted to be learned can not agree As whether ther be any Transubstanciation of the bread or no any corporal carnall presence of Christes substaūce or no Whether adoracion due onlye vnto God is to be done vnto the Sacrament or no and whether Christes bodye be ther offred in dede vnto y e heauēly father by y e priest or no and whether y e euil man receaueth the naturall bodye of Christ or no. Yet neuerthelesse as in a man diseased in dyuerse partes commonlye the originall cause of suche diuerse diseases which is spredde abroade in the body doo come from one chefe membre as from the stomacke or from the head euen so all fyue aforesayed doo chiefly heng vpon this one question which is what is the mater of the Sacrament whether is it the naturall substaunce of bread or the natural substaunce of Christes owne body The truthe of this questiō truly tryed out and agreed vpon no doubt shal ceasse the cōtrouersie in al y e rest For if it be Christes owne natural body borne of the virgine than assuredly seing that all learned men in Englande so farre as I knowe bothe newe olde graūt there to be but one substaunce than I saye they must nedes graunt Transubstanciacion that is a chaūge of y e substaunce of bread into the substaunce of Christes bodye Thā also they must nedes graunt the carnall and corporal presence of Christes bodye Than must the Sacramēt be adored with y e honour due to Christ him selfe for the vnitie of the two natures in one persone Than yf y e priest do offre the Sacrament he dothe offre in dede Christ him selfe And finally the murtherour the aduouterour or wicked mā receauing the Sacramēt must nedes than receaue also the natural substaūce of Christes owne blessed bodye bothe fleshe and blood Nowe on y e other syde yf after the truthe shalbe truly tryed out it shalbe founde that the substaūce of bread is the naturall substaunce of the Sacrament although for the chaunge of the vse office and dignitie of y e bread the bread in dede sacramentally is chaunged into the bodye of Christ as the water in Baptisme is sacramētally chaūged into the fountayne of regeneration yet the natural substaunce therof remayneth all one as was before yf I say the true solucion of that former question whervpon al these controuersies do heng be that the naturall substaunce of bread is the material substaunce in the Sacrament of Christes blessed body than must it nedes folowe of the former proposicion confessed of all that be named to be learned so farre as I do knowe in Englande which is that ther is but one material substaunce in the Sacrament of the bodye and one only lykewise in the Sacrament of the blood that ther is no suche thing in dede and in truthe as they call Transubstanciacion for the substaunce of bread remayneth stil in the Sacrament of the bodye than also the natural substaūce of Christes humane nature which he toke of the virgine Mary is in heauē where it reigneth nowe in glorie and not here inclosed vnder the forme of bread than that godly honour which is only due vnto God y e creatour may not be done vnto the creature without idolatrie and sacrilege is not to be done vnto the holy Sacrament Than also the wicked I meane the impenitēt murtherour aduouterour or suche like do not receaue the natural substaūce of y e blessed body blood of Christ. Finally thā dothe it folowe y e Christes blessed body blood which was once only offred shedde vpō the crosse being auaileable for the sinnes of al the hole worlde is offred vp nomore in'the natural substaūce therof nother by y e priest nor any other thing But here before we go any further to searche in this mater to wade as it were to search trye out as we may y e truthe hereof in the scripture it shall do wel by the way to knowe whether they that thus make answere solucion vnto the former principal questiō do take awaye symplie and absolutly the presence of Christes body blood from the Sacrament ordayned by Christ and duely ministred according to his holy ordinaunce and instituciō of the same Undoubtedly they doo denye that vtterlye either so to saye or so to meane Hereof yf any man do or will doubt the bookes which are writtē already in this mater of them that thus doo answere will make the mater playne Now than wil you say what kynd of presence do they graunt what do they denye Bryefly they denie the presence of Christes body in the naturall substaunce of his humane assumpt nature and graunt the presence of the same by grace that is they affirme and saye that the substaūce of the naturall body and blood of Christ is onlye remaynyng in heauē and so shalbe vnto the later daye whan he shall come agayne in glorie accompanied with the Aūgelles of heauen to iudge bothe the quicke and the deade And that the same natural substaūce of the very bodye blood of Christ bycause it is vnited vnto the diuine nature in Christ y e secōde person of the Trinitie Therfore it hathe not onlye lyfe in it selfe but is also hable to geue dothe geue lyfe vnto so
many as be or shalbe partakers therof that is y t to all y t do beleue on his name which are not borne of blood as S. Io. sayeth or of y e wil of y e fleshe or of y e wil of maÌ„ but are borne of God though the selfe same substaunce abyde styll in heauen and they for the tyme of their pilgrimage dwel here vpon earthe By grace I saye that is by the gyfte of thys lyfe mencioned in Iohn and the propreties of the same mete for our pilgrimage here vpon earth the same bodye of Christ is here preseÌ„t with vs. Euen as for example we saye y e same Sunne which in substauÌ„ce neuer remoueth his place out of the heauens is yet present here by his beames light and naturall influence where it shyneth vpon the earthe For Goddes worde and his Sacramentes be as it were the beames of Christ which is Sol iusticiae the SuÌ„ne of ryghteousnes Thus haste thou hearde of what sorte or secte so euer thou be wherin dothe stande the principall state and chiefe point of all the controuersies which do ê“prely perteyne vnto the nature of this SacrameÌ„t As for the vse therof I graunt ther be many other thinges wherof here I haue spoken nothyng at all And now least thou iustly mightest complayne and say that I haue in opening of this mater done nothyng elles but digged a pitte and haue not shut it vp again or broken a gap haue not made it vp agayne or opened y e boke haue not closed it agayne or elles to cal me what thou lustest as neutrall dissembler or what so euer elles thy lust learnyng shall serue to thee to name me worse Therfore here now I wil by Goddes grace not only shortly but so clearely â–ª playnly as I caÌ„ make y e to know whether or y e aforesaid two answeres to y e former principal state chief poiÌ„t dothe lyke me best yea and also I will holde al those accursed which in this mater y t now so troubleth y e churche of Christ haue of God receaued the keye of knowlage yet goo about to shutte vp y e doores so y t they theÌ„ selues wil not entre in nor suffre other that wolde And as for myne owne parte I coÌ„sydre bothe of late what charge cure of soule hathe ben coÌ„mitted vnto me wherof God knoweth howe sone I shalbe called to geue accoÌ„pte also now in this worlde what perile dauÌ„ger of y e lawes coÌ„cernyng my life I am now in at this pÌ„seÌ„t tyme. What folye where it thaÌ„ for me now to disseÌ„ble w t God of whoÌ„ assuredly I loke hope by Christ to haue euerlastiÌ„g life Seing y t suche charge dauÌ„ger bothe before God maÌ„ doo compasse me in rouÌ„de about on euery syde therfore God willing I will frankely frely vttre my mynde though my body be captyue yet my toÌ„gue my pen as long as I maye shall frely set furthe that which vndoubtedly I am persuaded to be y e truthe of Goddes worde And yet I wil do it vnder this protestacion call me protestauÌ„t who iusteth I passe not therof My protestacion shalbe thus that my mynde is euer shalbe God willing to set furthe syncerely the true sense and meanyng to the best of my vnderstanding of Goddes most holy worde not to decline from the same either for feare of worldly daunger or elles for hope of gayne I doo proteste also due obedience submission of my iudgement in this my wryting and in all other myne affaires vnto those of Christes church which be truly learned in Goddes holy worde gathered in Christes name and guided by his spirite After this protestacion I doo playnly affirme and saye y t the seconde answer made vnto the chief question and principal poynt I am persuaded to be the very true meanyng and sense of Goddes holy worde that is that the naturall substaunce of bread and wyne is the true material substaunce of the holy sacrament of the blessed body blood of our saueour Christ and the places of scripture whervpon this my faithe is grouÌ„ded be these bothe coÌ„cerning y e sacrameÌ„t of y e body also of y e blood Furst let vs repete the begynnyng of the institucioÌ„ of the Lordes supper wherin al y e three euaÌ„gelistes and S. Paule almost in wordes doo agree sayeng that Iesus toke bread gaue thaÌ„kes brake and gaue it to the disciples sayeng Take eate this is my body Here it appeareth playnly that Christ calleth very bread his body For that which he toke was very bread In this all meÌ„ doo agree And that which he toke after he hade geuen thankes he brake and that which he toke and brake he gaue to his disciples that which he toke brake and gaue to his disciples he sayed hym self of it This is my bodye So it appeareth playnlie that Christ called very bread his body But very breade caÌ„not be his body in very substauÌ„ce therof therfore it must nedes haue an other meaniÌ„g Which meanyng appeareth playnly what it is by the next sentence that foloweth imediatlye bothe in Luke in Paule And y t is this Doo this in remeÌ„brauÌ„ce of me Whervpon it semeth vnto me to euident that Christ did take bread called it his bodye for that he wolde therby institute a perpetual remeÌ„braunce of his body specially of y e singular benefite of our redempcion which he wolde than procure and purchace vnto vs by his body vpon the crosse But bread reteynyng still his owne very natural substaunce maye be thus by grace and in a sacrameÌ„tal significacioÌ„ his body wheras elles the very bread which he toke brake and gaue them could not be in any wise his natural body For that were confusion of substaunces and therfore the very wordes of Christ ioyned with the next sentence folowing bothe enforceth vs to confesse the very bread to remayne still and also openeth vnto vs how that bread may be and is thus by his diuine power his body which was geueÌ„ for vs. But here I remembre I haue red in some writours of the contrarie opinion which doo denye that y t which Christ did take he brake For saye they after his taking he blessed it as Marke doth speake And by his blessing he chaunged the natural substaunce of the breade in to the natural substaunce of his bodye and so although he toke the bread and blessed it yet bicause in blessing he chaunged the substaunce of it he brake not the bread which than was not ther but only the forme therof Unto this obiection I haue two playne answers bothe grounded vpoÌ„ Goddes worde The one I will here rehearse the other answer I will differre vntil I speake of the SacrameÌ„t of the blood Myne answer here is takeÌ„ out of y e plaine wordes of S. Paul which dothe manifestlye confounde this fantastical inuencion furst inueÌ„ted I wene of Pope Innocentius after confirmed
meat but not to open oysters This similitude serueth but for this purpose to declare y e nature of speche withall wher as the thing that is demonstrated and shewed is euidently perceaued and openly knowen to the eie But O good Loord what a wonderfull thing is it to see how som mē doo labour to teache what is demonstrated and shewed by the pronowne demonstratyue this in Christes wordes whan he sayeth This is my body This is my blood how they labour I saye to teache what that this was than in dede whā Christ spake in the begynnyng of the sentence the worde this before he hade pronounced the rest of the wordes that folowed in the same sentence so that their doctrine maye agree with their Transubstanciacion which in dede is the very foūdacion wherin al their erroneous doctrine dothe stande And here the Transubstanciatours doo not agree amōg them selues no more than they doo in the wordes which wrought the Transubstanciacion whan Christ did furst institute his Sacrament Wherin Innocentius a bishop of Rome of the later dayes and Duns as was noted before doo attribute the worke vnto the worde Benedixit Blessed but the rest for the most parte to Hoc est corpus meum This is my body c. Duns therfore w t his secte bicause he putteth the chaūge before must nedes saye y t this whan Christ spake it in the begynnyng of the sentence was in dede Christes body For in the chaunge the substaunce of bread did departe and the chaunge was now done in Benedixit sayeth he that went before and therfore after hym and his that this was than in dede Christes body though y e worde did not importe so much but only one thing in substaunce which substaunce after Duns the bread being gone must nedes be the substaunce of Christes body But they that put their Trāsubstanciacion to be wrought by these wordes of Christ This is my body and doo saye that whan the hole sentence was finished than this chaūge was perfected and not before they cānot saye but yet Christes this in the begynnyng of the sentence before the other wordes were fully pronounced was bread in dede But as yet y e chaunge was not done so long the bread must nedes remayne and so long w t the vniuersal cōsent of al transubstaūciatours the naturall substaunce of Christes body can not come and therfore must their this of necessite demōstrate shewe the substaunce which was as yet in the pronoūceing of the furst worde this byChrist but bread But how can they make and verifie Christes wordes to be true demonstrating the substaunce which in the demonstracion is but bread and saye therof This is my body y t is as they saye the natural substaunce of Christes body except they wold saye that y e verbe is signifieth is made or is chaunged in to And so thā if the same verbe is be of y e same effecte in Christes wordes spoken vpō the cuppe and rehearsed by Luke Paule the cuppe or the wyne in the cuppe must be made or turned in to the newe testamēt as was declared before Ther be som among the Transubstanciatours which walke so wylylie and so warely betwene these two aforesaid opiniones allowing them bothe and holding playnly nother of them bothe that me thynkes they may be called Neutralles Ambodexters or rather suche as can shifte on bothe sydes They plaie on bothe partes For with the later they do allowe the doctrine of the last sillable which is that transubstanciacion is done by myracle in an instaunt at y e sounde of the last sillable um in this sentence Hoc est corpus meum And they doo alowe also Duns his fantastical imaginaciō of Indiuiduum vagum that demōstrateth as he teacheth in Christes wordes one thing in substaunce than being after his mynde the substaunce of the body of Christ. A maruailous thing how any mā can agree with bothe these two they being so cōtrarie the one to the other For the one sayeth the worde this demonstrateth the substaūce of bread and the other sayeth no not so the bread is gone and it demonstrateth a substaunce which is Christes body Tushe sayeth this thrid man ye vnderstāde nothing at al. They agree wel ynough in the chief poynt which is the grounde of al that is bothe do agree and beare witnesse that ther is transubstanciacion They do agree in dede in that conclusion I graunt But their processe and doctrine therof do euē aswel agree together as did y e false witnesse before Annas and Caiphas agaīst Christ or the two wicked iudges against Susāna For against Christ the false witnesses did agre no doubt to speake all against hym And the wicked iudges were bothe agreed to condemne poore Susanna but in examinacion of their witnesses they dissented so farre that all was founde false y t they went about both y t wher in they agreed also those thinges which they brought for their proues Thus muche haue I spoken in searching out a solucion for this principal questiō which was what is the material substaunce of the holy Sacrament in the Lordes supper Now least I shoulde seme to set by myne owne conceate more than is mete or lesse to regarde the doctrine of the olde ecclesiastical wrytours than is conuenient for a man of my poore learning and simple wytte for to doo And bicause also I am in dede persuaded y t the olde ecclesiasticall wrytours vnderstode the true meanyng of Christ in this mater and haue bothe so truly and so playnly set it furthe in certayn places of their wrytinges that no mā which will vouchesafe to reade them and without preiudice of a corrupte iudgement wil indifferently weighe thē cōstrue their myndes non other wise than they declare them selues to haue ment I am persuaded I saye that in reading of them thus no man can be ignoraunt in this mater but he that will shutte vp his owne eies and blyndfelde hym selfe Whan I speake of ecclesiastical wrytours I meane of suche as were before the wicked vsurpaciō of the sea of Rome was growē so vnmeasurably great that not only with tyrannical power but also with corrupte doctrine it beganne to subuerte Christes gospel to turne the state that Christ his apostles set in y e church vpside downe For the causes aforesaid I wil rehearse certayn of their sayenges and yet bicause I take them but for wytnesses and expoūders of this doctrine and not as the autors of the same and also for that now I wil not be tedious I will rehearse but fewe y t is three olde writours of the Greke churche and other three of the Latine churche which doo seme vnto me to be in this mater most playne The Greke autors are Origene Chrisostome and Theodoret. The Latyne are Tertulliane S. Augustine and Gelasius I knowe ther can be nothing spoken so playnly but y e craftye witte furnished with eloquence can
bothe in setting furthe the true doctrine of Christes religion also in the defence of the same against heretikes This autor as he hathe written most pleynteously in other maters of our faithe so likewise in this argument he hathe written at large in many of his workes so playnly against this errour of transustanciacion y t the papistes loue least to heare of hym of al other wrytours partly for his autoritie partly bicause he openeth the mater more fully than any other doth Therfore I will rehearse mo places of him thā hertofore I haue done of the other And furst what can be more playne than that which he wryteth vpon the 89. psalme speakīg of the sacrament of the Lordes body and blood and rehearsing as it were Christes wordes to his disciples after this maner It is not this body which ye doo see that ye shall eate nother shall ye drynke this blood which the souldyours y t crucifie me shall spill or sheade I doo commende vnto you a mysterie or a sacramēt which spiritually vnderstanded shall geue you life Now if Christ hade no moo natural and corporal bodies but that one which they thā presently bothe hearde sawe nor other natural blood but that which was in the same body and the which the souldiours did afterwarde cruelly shede vpon the crosse and nother this body nor this blood was by this declaracion of S. Augustine either to be eaten or dronken but the mysterie therof spiritually to be vnderstanded than I conclude if this sayeng and exposicion of S. Augustine be true that y e mysterie which the disciples should eate was not the natural body of Christ but a mysterie of the same spiritually to be vnderstāded For as S. Augustine sayeth in his 20. boke Contra Faustum ca. 21. Christes fleshe and blood was in the olde testament promysed by similitudes and signes of their sacrifices and was exhibited in dede and in truthe vpon y e crosse but the same is celebrated by a sacrament of remembraunce vpō y e aultare And in his boke De fide ad Petrum ca. 19. he sayeth that in these sacrifices meanyng of the olde lawe it is figuratiuely signified what was than to be geuen but in this sacrifice it is euidently signified what is allready geuen vnderstāding in the sacrifice vpon the aultare the remembraunce and thākes geuing for the fleshe which he offred for vs for the blood which he shedde for vs vpon the crosse as in the same place and euidently ther it maye appeare An other euident and cleare place wherin it appeareth that by the sacramentall bread which Christ called his body he ment a figure of his body As vpon the .3 Psalme wher S. Augustine speaketh this in playne termes Christ did admytte Iudas vnto the feast in the which he commēded vnto his disciples the figure of his bodye This was Christes last supper before his passion wherin he did ordayne the sacrament of his body as all learned men doo agree S. Augustine also in his 23. epistle to Bonifacius teacheth how sacramentes doo beare the names of y e thinges wherof they be sacramentes bothe in Baptisme and in the Lordes table euen as we call euery good frydaye the daye of Christes passiō and euery Easter daye the daye of Christes resurrection whan in very dede ther was but one daye wherin he suffred and but one daye wherin he rose And why doo we than call them so which are not so in dede but bicause they are in like tyme and course of the yeare as those dayes were wherin those thinges wer done Was Christ sayeth S. Augustī offred any more but once And he offred him self And yet in a sacrament or represētaciō not only euery solēne feast of Easter but also euery day to y e people he is offred so y t he dothe not lye y t sayeth He is euery daye offred For if Sacramētes hade not sō similitudes or likenesse of those thinges wherof they be Sacramētes they could in no wise be sacramētes for their similitudes and likenesse commonly they haue the names of the thinges wherof they be sacramētes Therfore as after a certayn maner of speche y e sacramēt of Christes body is Christes body the sacrament of Christes blood is Christes blood so likewise the Sacrament of faithe is faithe After this maner of speche as S. Augustine teacheth in his questiones Super Leuiticum Cōtra Adamantinū it is sayed in scripture that .vii eares of corne be seuen yeares seuen kyen be vii yeares y e rocke was Christ blood is y e soule the which last sayeng sayeth S. Augustine in his boke Contra Adimantinum is vnderstanded to be spoken in a signe or figure For the Lord himself did not sticke to saye This is my body whan he gaue the signe of his body For we must not considre in sacramētes sayeth S. Augustine in an other place What they be but what they doo signifie for they be signes of thinges being one thing in them selues and yet signifieng an other thing For the heauenly bread sayeth he speaking of the sacramental bread by some maner of speache is called Christes body whan in very dede it is the Sacrament of his body c. What can be more playne or more clearly spoken than are these places of S. Augustine before rehearsed if men were not obstinately bent to mayntene an vntruthe to receaue nothing what so euer dothe set it furthe Yet one place more of S. Augustine will I allege which is very cleare to this purpose that Christes natural body is in heauen and not here corporally in the Sacrament and so let him departe In his .50 treatise which he wryteth vpon Iohn̄ he teacheth playnly and clearly how Christ being bothe God and man is bothe here after a certayn maner and yet in heauen and not here in his natural body and substaunce which he toke of the blessed virgin Mary speaking thus of Christ and sayeng By his diuine Maiestie by his prouidence and by his vnspeakeable inuisible grace y t is fulfilled which he spake Beholde I am with you vnto the ende of the worlde But as concernyng his fleshe which he toke in his incarnacion as touching that which was borne of the virgine as concernyng that which was apprehended by the Iewes crucified vpon a tree and taken downe from the crosse lapped in lynen clothes and buryed and rose agayn and appeared after his resurrection as concernyng that fleshe he sayed ye shall not euer haue me with you Why so For as cōcernyng his fleshe he was conuersaūt with his disciples .xl. Dayes and they accompanyeng seing and not folowīg hym he wēt vp in to heauen is not here By y e presēce of his diuine maiestie he did not departe as concernyng y e presēce of his diuine maiestie w c haue Christ euer w t vs but as concernyng y e presence of his fleshe he sayed truly to his disciples Ye
shall not euer haue me with you For as coÌ„cernyng the preseÌ„ce of his fleshe the churche hade hym but a fewe dayes now it holdeth hym by faithe though it see hym not Thus muche S. Augustine speaketh repeting one thing so often and al to declare and teache how we should vnderstande the maner of Christes being here with vs which is by his grace by his prouidence by his diuine nature and how he is absent by his natural body which was borne of the virgin Mary died and roose for vs is ascended in to heauen and ther sitteth as is in the articles of our faithe on the right hande of God thence from non other place sayeth S. Augustine he shall com on the later daye to iudge y e quycke the dead At y e which daye the righteous shall than lifte vp their heades and the light of Goddes truthe shall so shyne that falshead and errours shalbe put in to perpetual confusion righteousnesse shal haue the vpperhande and truthe that daye shal beare awaye y e victorie al thenemies therof quyte ouerthrowne to be troden vnder foote for euermore O Lorde Lorde I beseche the hasten this daye than shalt thow be glorified with the glorie due vnto thy holy name and vnto thy diuine maiestie and we shal syng vnto thee in al ioye and felicitie laude and praise for euer more Amen Here now wold I make an ende For me thinkes S. Augustine is in this mater so full and playne and of that autoritie that it should not nede after this his declaracion being so firmely grounded vpon Goddes worde and so well agreing with the other auncient autors to bring in for the coÌ„firmacion of this mater any moo and yet I sayed I wolde allege three of the latin churche to testifie the truthe in this cause Now therfore y e last of all shalbe Gelasius which was a bishop of Rome but one that was bishop of that sea before y e wicked vsurpacion and tyrannye therof spredde burst out abrode in to all the worlde For this man was before Bonifacius yea and Gregorie the furst in whose dayes bothe corruption of doctrine and tirannical vsurpacion did chiefly growe and hade the vpperhande Gelasius in an epistle of the twoo natures of Christ Contra Eutichen writeth thus The sacramentes of the body and blood of Christ which we receaue are godly thinges wherby and by the same we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet neuerthelesse the substaunce or nature of the bread wyne dothe not departe nor go awaye Note these wordes I beseche you and considre whether any thing can be more playnly spoken than these wordes be agaynst the errour of traÌ„substanciacion which is the grouÌ„de and bitter roote wherupon spring all the horrible errours before rehearsed Wherfore seing that y e falshead dothe appeare so manifestly and by so many wayes so playnly so clearlye and so fully that no maÌ„ nedeth to be deceaued but he that will not see or will not vnderstande Let vs all that doo loue the truthe embrace it forsake the falsehead For he that loueth the truthe is of God and the lacke of the loue therof is the cause why God suffreth men to fall in to errours and to perishe therin yea and as S. Paule sayeth why he seÌ„deth vnto them illusiones y t they beleue lies vnto their owne condemnacion bicause sayeth he they loued not the truthe This truthe no doubt is Goddes worde For Christ hym selfe sayeth vnto his father Thy worde is truthe The loue and light wher of almightie God our heauenly father geue vs lyghten it in our heartes by his holy spirite through Iesus Christ our Lorde Amen Vincit Veritas The. blessed martirs prayer Note Math. 2â— Mar. 14. Luce. 22. â— Cor. 11. Note what it is to lye The slauÌ„derous lies of the papistes wherin the controuersy consisteth Answer to the chief question ArgumeÌ„t Maâ— â–ª Antho. const Gardiner Act. 2.20 The. 2. reason The. 3. ArgumeÌ„t The papistes affirme they wotte not what Gardiner to the 48. obiection Petre and Paule had no such priesthode as the papistes haue Note well the Papistes errour confuted Aug. De Doc. christiana li. 3. ca. 16. Gardiner in his answers to the 161. 22â— obiection Note The Lordes cuppe as the priestes say 2. Thess. 2. Prayer Psal. 67. The masse sacrifice iniurious to Christes passioÌ„ Hebr. 9.10 Gardiner in the answer to the. 15. obiection Gard. to the. 13. obiection God makers agree not among them selues Gardiner a Neutral or Iacke of bothe Sydes Gard. to the. 84 obiection Godmakers agree against the truthe Note The consent of the olde autors Origene Eccl. Hist. Li. 6. ca. 3 The papistes obiection against Origene An other obiection Gard. to the. 166 â–ª Gard. in the same place Li. 3. ca. â—6 Chrisosto In opere imperfecto ho. 11. in Matth. Gardi to the â—98 obiection Gard. in the same place Gard. to the 201. obiection Theodores Dial â— D. More man in the conuocacion house Distinc. ca 4. Statuimus Tertullian â–ª Gard. to the .16 obiection Augustine Question â–ª 57. Cap. 13. Contra Maximinum li. ca. 2â— Gelasius Io. 17.