graunt Transubstantiation that is a change of the substance of breade into the substance of Christes bodye Then also they must needs graunt the carnal and corporal presence of Christes body Then must the Sacrament be adorred with the honour due to Christe him selfe for the vnitie of the two natures in one person Then if the Preest do offer the Sacrament he dooth offer indeed Christe him self And finally the murtherer the aduouterer or wicked man receiuinge the Sacrament muste needes then receiue also the naturall substance of Christes owne blessed bodye bothe fleshe and blood Now on the other side if after the trueth shal be truely tried out it shall be found that the substance of breade is the naturall substance of the Sacrament although for the change of the vse office and dignitie of the bread the bread indeed Sacramentally is changed into the bodye of Christe as the water in Baptisme is sacramentally changed into the fountaine of regeneration and yet the natural substance therof remaineth al one as was before if I saye the true solucion of that former question wherupon all these controuersies doo hang be that the natural substance of bread is the materiall substance in the Sacrament of Christes blessed body then must it needes followe of the former proposition confessed of al that be named to be learned so far as I doo knowe in England whiche is that there is but one materiall substance in the Sacrament of the body and one only likewise in the Sacrament of the blood that there is no such thinge indeede and in truethe as they call Transubstantiation for the substance of bread remaineth stil in the Sacrament of the body then also the naturall substance of Christes humain nature which he took of the Virgin Mary is in Heauen where it reigneth now in glory and not heer inclosed vnder the forme of bread then the godly honour which is onely due vnto God the creator may not be doon vnto the creature without idolatrye and sacrilege is not to be doon vnto the holye Sacrament Then also the wicked I mean the impenitent murtherrer aduluterer or suche like doo not receiue the naturall substance of the blessed body and blood of Christe Finally then dooth it followe that Christes blessed body and blood which was once onlye offered and shed vpon the Crosse beinge auaylable for the sinnes of all the whole world is offered vp no more in the naturall substance therof nother by the Preest nor any other thing But heer before wee go any further to search in this matter and to wade as it were to search and trye out as we may the trueth heerof in the Scripture it shall doo well by the way to know whether they that thus make answere and solucione vnto the former principall question doo take away simply and absolutely the presence of Christes bodye and blood from the Sacrament ordeined by Christe and dulye ministred according to his holy ordinance and institution of the same Vndoubtedly they doo deny that btterlye either so to saye or so to meane Heerof if any man doo or will doubt the bookes which are written already in this matter of them that thus doo answere will make the matter plaine Now then will you saye what kinde of presence doo they graunt and what doo they denye Breeflye they deny the presence of Christs body in the naturall substance of his humain and assumpt nature and graunt the presence of the same by grace that is they affirme and saye that the substance of the naturall bodye and blood of Christe is only remaining in Heaven and so shall be vnto the latter daye when he shall come againe in glorye accompanied with the Angels of Heauen to iudge both the quicke and the deade And that the same natural substance of the very body and blood of Christe because it is vnited vnto the deuine nature in Christe the second person of the Trinitle Therfore it hath not onely life in it selfe but is also able to giue and dooth giue life vnto so many as be or shal be partakers therof that is that to all that doo beleeue on his name which are not borne of blood as S. Iohn saith or of the wil of the fleshe or of the will of man but are borne of God though the self-same substance abide still in Heauen and they for the time of their pilgrimage dwel heer vpon Earth by grace I say that is by the life mencioned in Iohn and the properties of the same meete for our pilgrimage heer upon earth the same body of Christe is heere present with vs. Euen as for example wee saye the same Sunne which in substance neuer remoueth his place out of the Heauens is yet present heer by his beams light and naturall influence where it shineth vpon the earth For Gods Woord and his Sacraments be as it were the beams of Christ which is Sol iustitiae the Sunne of righteousnes Thus hast thou heard of what sort or sect soeuer thou be wherin dooth stand the principall state and cheef poynte of all the controuersies which doo properly pertain vnto the nature of this Sacrament As for the vse therof I graunt there be many other thinges wherof heer I haue spoken nothing at all And nowe leaste thou iustely mightest complain and say that I haue in openinge of this matter doon nothing els but digged a pitte and haue not shut it vp again or broken a gap and haue not made it vp again or opened the booke and haue not closed it again or els to call me what thou listest as neuterall dissembler or what soeuer els thy lust and learning shall serue thee to name me woorsse Therfore heer now I wil by Gods grace not only shortly but so cleerely and plainly as I can make thee to knowe whether of the aforesaid two answers to the former principall state and cheef poynt dooth like me best yea and also I will holde all those accursed whiche in this matter that now so troubleth the Church of Christ haue of God receiued the kepe of knowledge and yet go about to shut up the doores so that they themselues will not enter in nor suffer other that woulde And as for mine owne parte I consider but of late what charge and cure of soule hath bin committed vnto me wherof God knoweth how soon I shal be called to giue accounte and also now in this worlde what perill and danger of the lawes concerning my life I am now in at this present time What folly were it then for me now to dissemble with God of whom assuredly I looke and hope by Christe to haue euerlasting life Seing that such charge and danger bothe before God and man doo compasse mee in round about on euery side therfore God willing I will frankly and freelye vtter my minde and thoughe my bodye be captiue yet my tung and my pen as long as I may shall frely set forth that which vndubtedlye I am perswaded to be the
Gardener to the 198. obiection bin impugned of some that wrote in his time or neere vnto the same Nay saith an other if this solucion wil not serue we maye saye that Chrisostome did not speak of the vessels of the Lordes cup or suche as were then vsed at the Lordes table but of the vessels vsed in the Temple in the olde lawe This answer wil serue no more then the other For héere Chrisostom speaketh of such vessells wherin was that whiche was called the body of Christe althoughe it was not the true body saith he of Christe but the misterye of Christes bodye Now of the vessels of the olde lawe the writers doo vse no such manner of phrase for their sacrifices were not called Christes body For then Christ was not but in shadows and figures and not by the Sacrament of his body reuealed Erasmus which was a man that coulde vnderstande the woordes and sence of the writers although hee would not be séene to speak against this errour of Transubstantiatione because he durste not yet in this time declareth plainly that this sayinge of the writer is none otherwise to be understanded Yet can I saithe the third Papist finde out a fine and subtil solucion Gardener in the same place for this place and graunt all that yet is saide both allowinge heere the writer and also that he ment of the vessels of the Lordes Table For saith he the body of Christe is not conteined in them at the Lordes Table as in a place but as in a misterye Is not this a pritty shifte and a misticall solution But by the same solution then Christs bodye is not in the Lordes Table nor in the Preestes handes nor in the pixe and so is hee heere no where For they will not saye that he is either heere or there as in a place This answere pleaseth so well the maker that he him self after he had plaid with it a little while and shewed the finenesse of his wit and eloquence therein is content to giue it ouer and saye but it is not to be thought that Chrisostome would speak after this finenesse or subtiltie and therfore he returneth againe vnto the second answere for his shoote anker which is sufficiently confuted before An other shorte place of Chrisostome I wil reherse which if any indifferency may be heard in-plaine termes setteth foorth the trueth of this matter Before the bread saith Chrisostome ad Cesarium monachum be halowed we call it bread but the grace of God sanctifying it by the meanes of the preeste it is deliuered now from the name of bread and esteemed woorthy to be called Christs body although the nature of bread tarry in it still These be Chrisostoms woords wherin I praye you what can be Gardener to the 202. Obiection said or thoughte more plaine against this errour of Transubstantiation then to declare that the breade abideth so still And yet to this so plaine a place some are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it saying we graunt that nature of bread remaineth stil thus for that it may be seene felte and tasted and yet the corporal substance of the bread therfore is gone leaste two bodies shoulde be confused together and Christe shoulde be thought impanate What contrarietie and falsehood is in this answere the simple man may easily perceiue Is not this a plain contrarietye to graunt that the nature of bread remaineth so still that it may be séene felte and tasted and yet to saye the corporall substance is gon to auoid absurdity of Christs impanation And what manifest falshood is this to saye or mean that if the breade should remain still then must followe the inconuenience of impanation As though the very breade coulde not be a Sacrament of Christs body as water is of baptisme excepte Christe shoulde vnite the nature of breade to his nature in vnitie of persone and make of the bread God. Now let vs heare Theodoretus which is the last of the thrée Gréek Theodoret Authors He writeth in his dialogue Contra Eutichen thus He that calleth his naturall body corn and breade and also named himself a Vine tree euen he the same hath honoured the Symboles that is the Dial. 1. sacramental signes with the names of his body and blood not changing indeed the nature it selfe but adding grace vnto the nature What can be more plainly saide then this that this olde writer saieth That although the Sacraments beare the name of the body and blood of Christe yet is not their nature changed but abideth still And where is then the Papists Transubstantiation The same writer to the second dialogue of the same woorke againste th' aforesaide heretique Eutyches writeth yet more plainly against this errour of Transubstantiation if any thing can be saide to be more plaine For hee maketh the heretike to speake thus againste him that defendeth the true doctrine whom he calleth Orthodoxus As the Sacramentes of the bodye and bloode of our Lorde are one thinge before the inuocation and after the inuocation they be changed and are made an other so likewise the Lordes body saithe the heretike is after the assumption or assention into heauen turned into the substance of God the heretike meaninge thereby that Christe after his ascention remaineth no more a man. To this Orthodoxus answereth thus and saith in the heretike Thou art taken saith he in thine owne snare For those misticall Symbols or Sacraments after the sanctification doo not goe out of theire owne nature but they tarrye and abide stil in their substance figure and shape yea and are sensibly seene and groped to be the same they were before c. At these words the papistes doo startle and to saye the trueth these woordes be so plaine so full and so cléere that they can not tell what to say but yet they will not cease to go about to play the cuttles and to caste their colours ouer them that the trueth which is so plainly told should not haue place This Author wrote say they before the determination of the Churche As who would say whatsoever that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome determined in his congregationes with his monks and friers that must be for so Duns saith holden for an article and of the substance of our faith Some doo charge this D. Moreman in the Conuâ—cation house author that he was suspected to be a Nestorian which thing in Calcedon Counsaile was tryed and prooued to be false But the foulest shift of al and yet the best that they can finde in this matter when none other will serue is to say that Theodoret vnderstandeth by the woord substance accidents and not substance indéed This glose is like a glose of a lawyer vpon a decrée the text whereof beginning thus Statuimus that is We decree The glose of the Lawyer there after many other pritty shifts there set foorth which he thinketh will not well serue to his purpose and therfore at the
a Thousand Years past And so far off is it that they do confirm this Opinion of Transubstantiation that plain they seem to me both to think and to speak the contrary Dionysius in many places calleth it Bread. The places are so manifest and plain that it needeth not to recite them Ignatius to the Philadelphians saith I beseech you Brethren cleave fast unto one Faith and to one kind of Preaching using together one manner of Thanksgiving For the Flesh of the Lord Jesus is one and his Blood is one which was shed for us There is also one Bread broken for us and one Cup of the whole Church Irenaeus writeth thus Even as the Bread that cometh of the Earth receiving God's Vocation is now no more common Bread but Sacramental Bread consisting of two Natures Earthly and Heavenly even so our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are now no more corruptible having hope of the Resurrection Tertullian is very plain for he calleth it a Figure of his Body c. Chrysostome writeth to Caesarius the Monk albeit he be not received of diverse yet will I read the place to fasten it more deeply in your minds for it seemeth to shew plainly the substance of Bread to remain The words are these Before the Bread is sanctified we name it Bread but by the grace of God sanctifying the same through the Ministry of the Priest it is delivered from the Name of Bread and is counted worthy to bear the Name of the Lord's Body although the very substance of Bread notwithstanding do still remain therein and now is taken not to be two Bodies but one Body of the Son c. Cyprian saith Bread is made of many Grains And is that natural Bread and made of Wheat Yea it is so indeed The Book of Theodoret in Greek was lately printed at Rome which if it had not been his it should not have been set forth there especially seeing it is directly against Transubstantiation For he saith plainly That Bread still remaineth after the Sanctification Gelasius also is very plain in this manner The Sacrament saith he which we receive of the Body and Blood of Christ is a Divine Matter By reason whereof we are made partakers by the same of the Divine Nature and yet it ceaseth not still to be the substance of Bread and Wine And certes the representation and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ be celebrated in the action of the Mysteries c. After this he recited certain places out of Augustine and Cyril which were not noted Isichius also confesseth that it is Bread. Also the Judgment of Bertram in this matter is very plain and manifest And thus much for the Second Ground The Third Ground The Third Ground is the Nature of the Sacrament which consisteth of Three Things that is Vnity Nutrition and Conversion As touching Vnity Cyprian thus writeth Even as of many Grains is made one Bread so are we one mystical Body of Christ Wherefore Bread must still needs remain or else we destroy the Nature of a Sacrament Also they that take away Nutrition which cometh by Bread do take away likewise the Nature of a Sacrament For as the Body of Christ nourisheth the Soul even so doth Bread likewise nourish the Body of Man. Therefore they that take away the Grains or the Union of the Grains in the Bread and deny the Nutrition or Substance thereof in my judgment are Sacramentaries For they take away the Similitude between the Bread and the Body of Christ for they which affirm Transubstantiation are indeed right Sacramentaries and Capernaites As touching Conversion that like as the Bread which we receive is turned into our Substance so are we turned into Christ's Body Rabanus and Chrysostome are Witnesses sufficient The Fourth Ground They who say That Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist do take from him the Verity of Man's Nature Eutiches granted the Divine Nature in Christ but his Humane Nature he denied So they that defend Transubstantiation ascribe that to the Humane Nature which onely belongeth to the Divine Nature The Fifth Ground The Fifth Ground is the certain perswasion of this Article of Faith He ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the Right Hand c. Augustine saith The Lord is above even to the end of the World but yet the verity of the Lord is here also For his Body wherein he rose again must needs be in one place but his verity is spread abroad every where Also in another place he saith Let the godly also receive that Sacrament but let them not be careful speaking there of the presence of his Body For as touching his Majesty his Providence his invisible and unspeakable Grace these words are fulfilled which he spake I am with you to the end of the World. But according to the flesh which he took upon him according to that which was born of the Virgin was apprehended of the Jews was fastned to a Tree taken down again from the Cross lapped in Linnen Cloths was buried and rose again and appeared after his Resurrection so ye shall not have me always with you and why because that as concerning his Flesh he was conversant with his Disciples forty days and they accompanying him seeing him but not following him he went up into Heaven and is not here for he sitteth at the right hand of his Father and yet he is here because he is not departed hence as concerning the presence of his Divine Majesty Mark and consider well what St. Augustine saith he is ascended into Heaven and is not here saith he Believe not them therefore which say that he is here still in the Earth Moreover Doubt not saith the same Augustine but that Jesus Christ as concerning the nature of his Manhood is there from whence he shall come And remember well and believe the Profession of a Christian man that he arose from death ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the Right hand of his Father and from that Place and none other not from the Altars shall he come to judge the quick and the dead and he shall come as the Angel said as he was seen to go into Heaven that is to say in the same form and substance unto the which he gave immortality but changed not Nature After this form meaning his Humane Nature we may not think that it is every-where And in the same Epistle he saith Take away from the Bodies limitation of places and they shall be no-where and because they are no-where they shall not be at all Vigilius saith If the Word and the Flesh be both of one nature seeing that the Word is every-where why then is not the Flesh also every-where For when it was in Earth then verily it was not in Heaven and now when it is in Heaven it is not surely in Earth And it is so certain that it is not in Earth that as concerning the same we look for him from Heaven whom as concerning the Word we believe
absent himself from the Divine Mysteries And I also worship Christ in the Sacrament but not because P. 61. he is included in the Sacrament Like as I worship Christ also in the Scriptures not because he is really included in them Notwithstanding I say that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament but yet Sacramentally and Spiritually according to his Grace giving Life and in that respect really that is according to his Benediction giving Life Furthermore I acknowledg gladly the true Body of Christ to be in the Lord's Supper in such sort as the Church of Christ which is the Spouse of Christ and is taught of the Holy Ghost and guided by God's Word doth acknowledg the same But the true Church of Christ doth acknowledg a Presence of Christ's Body in the Lord's Supper to be communicated to the Godly by Grace and spiritually as I have often shewed and by a Sacramental Signification but not by the Corporal Presence of the Body of his Flesh We worship I confess the same true Lord and Saviour of P. 65. the world which the Wise men worshipped in the Manger howbeit we do it in a Mystery and in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and that in Spiritual Liberty as saith S. Aug. lib. 3. de Doct. Christiana Not in carnal servitude that is we do not worship servilely the signs for the things for that should be as he also saith a part of a servile Infirmity but we behold with the eyes of Faith him present after Grace and spiritually set upon the Table and we worship him who sitteth above and is worshipped of the Angels for Christ is always assistant to his Mysteries as the said Augustine saith And the Divine Majesty as saith Cyprian doth never absent it self from the Divine Mysteries but this Assistance and Presence of Christ as in Baptism it is wholly Spiritual and by Grace and not by any Corporal Substance of the Flesh Even so it is here in the Lord's Supper being rightly and according to the Word of God duly ministred Ridley My Protestation always saved that by this mine P. 420. Answer I do not condescend to your Authority in that you are Legate to the Pope I answer thus In a sense the first Article is true and in a sense it is false for if you take really for vere for spiritually by Grace and Efficacy then it is true that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ is in the Sacrament vere realiter indeed and really but if you take these terms so grosly that you would conclude thereby a Natural Body having Motion to be contained under the Forms of Bread and Wine vere realiter then really is not Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament no more than the Holy Ghost is in the Element of Water in our Baptism Because this Answer was not understood the Notaries wist not how to note it wherefore the Bishop of Lincoln willed him to answer either Affirmatively or Negatively either to grant the Article or to deny it Rid. My Lord you know that where any Equivocation which is a word having two significations is except distinction be given no direct Answer can be made for it is one of Aristotle's Fallacies containing two Questions under one the which cannot be satisfied with one Answer For both you and I agree herein that in the Sacrament is the very true and Natural Body and Blood of Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into Heaven which sitteth on the Right Hand of God the Father which shall come from thence to judg the quick and the dead only we differ in modo in the way and manner of being we confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament and dissent in the manner of being there I being fully by God's Word thereunto perswaded confess Christ's Natural Body to be in the Sacrament indeed by Spirit and Grace because that whosoever receiveth worthily that Bread and Wine receiveth effectually Christ's Body and drinketh his Blood that is he is made effectually Partaker of his Passion and you make a grosser kind of being enclosing a Natural a Lively and a Moving Body under the shape or form of Bread and Wine Now this difference considered to the Question thus I answer That in the Sacrament of the Altar is the Natural Body and Blood of Christ vere realiter indeed and really for spiritually by Grace and Efficacy for so every worthy Receiver receiveth the very true Body of Christ but if you mean really and indeed so that thereby you would include a lively and a moveable Body under the forms of Bread and Wine then in that sense is not Christ's Body in the Sacrament really and indeed This Answer taken and penned of the Notaries the Bishop of Lincoln proposed the second Question or Article To whom he answer'd Rid. Always my Protestation reserved I answer thus That in the Sacrament is a certain Change in that that Bread which was before common Bread is now made a lively presentation of Christ's Body and not only a Figure but effectually representeth his Body that even as the Mortal Body was nourished by that visible Bread so is the Internal Soul fed with the Heavenly food of Christ's Body which the eye of Faith seeth as the bodily eye seeth only Bread. Such a Sacramental mutation I grant to be in the Bread and Wine which truly is no small change but such a change as no mortal man can make but only that Omnipotency of Christ's Word Then the Bishop of Lincoln willed him to answer directly either Affirmatively or Negatively without further Declaration of the Matter Then he Answered Ridley That notwithstanding the Sacramental Mutation of the which he spake and all the Doctors confessed the true Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine remaineth with the which the Body is in like sort nourished as the Soul is by Grace and Spirit with the Body of Christ Even so in Baptism the Body is washed with the visible Water and the Soul is cleansed from all filth by the Invisible Holy Ghost and yet the Water ceaseth not to be Water but keepeth the nature of Water still In like sort in the Sacrament of the Lords-Supper the Bread ceaseth not to be Bread. Extracts from Bishop Poynets Diallaction I Will so divide the question that it may be briefly reduced to three heads First I will shew that the true Body of Christ is given to the Faithful in the Sacrament and that the words Nature and Substance are not to be rejected but that the Ancients treating of this Sacrament did use them In the next place I will shew that there is a difference between the proper Body of Christ and that which is present in the Sacrament and that the Ancient Fathers thought so Lastly I will shew what manner of Body this is which is received in this Mystery and why it is called by that Name according to the Doctrine of
A BRIEF DECLARATION OF THE LORDS SUPPER WRITTEN BY BISHOP RIDLEY Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Brief Declaration of the Lord's Supper c. Guil. Needham RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep Cant. a Sacr. Dom. Junii 7. 1688. A BRIEF DECLARATION OF THE Lords Supper WRITTEN By Dr. NICHOLAS RIDLEY Bishop of LONDON During his IMPRISONMENT With some other Determinations and Disputations concerning the same Argument by the same Author To which is Annexed An Extract of several Passages to the same Purpose out of a Book Intituled DIALLACTION written by Dr. JOHN POYNET Bishop of Winchester in the Reigns of E. 6. and Q. Mary LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard M DC LXXX VIII THE PREFACE THE Doctrine of Transubstantiation maintained by our Adversaries of the Church of Rome is so gross and highly repugnant to the first principles of reason and universal sense of mankind that directly to defend it would be no less impossible than unsuccessful Artifices therefore were necessarily to be invented which might palliate the deformity of so monstrous an Opinion and divert inquisitive persons from a direct examination of it by amusing them with confident assertions and extraneous Controversies Among these the difference of Opinion between the first Reformers and present Divines of the Church of England hath of late been proposed and urged with the greatest vehemency as if the first Reformers had believed somewhat equivalent to Transubstantiation and our present Divines by asserting no other than a figurative Presence of the material Body of Christ had degenerated from the belief of their Forefathers We might justly admire the unreasonable confidence of those men who are not ashamed to propose so manifest and gross a falshood and esteem it the highest folly if we did not remember that it is taken up to defend a desperate Cause which admits no better Remedies Can any Man in his right wits believe that so many hundred Martyrs should suffer death and spend their blood for so inconsiderable a nicety as was the difference between them and their Persecutors in the Doctrine of the Eucharist if these late Representers may be believed That both Parties should dispute so earnestly and vehemently against each other and yet after all agree in the main That the Romish Bishops should treat the Reformers as Hereticks for denying Transubstantiation and the Reformers lay down their lives rather than acknowledge it and yet neither the first to have defined it to be true nor the last believed it to be false Such crude Positions can find no entertainment but in a mind already fitted to receive Transubstantiation it self that is devoid of Sense and Reason If we enquire the Reasons and Arguments wherewith our Adversaries maintain such incredible and extravagant assertions we shall find them to be no other than these That the first Reformers taught and asserted a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament That they maintained the Body and Blood to be verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful Communicants That they frequently affirmed the natural and substantial Body of Christ that very Body which was taken by him of the Virgin Mary to be present in the Sacrament These very expressions are at this day used by the Divines of the Church of England whom yet our Adversaries pretend to have departed from the belief of their Forefathers in this matter So that if they prove the first Reformers to have believed a material presence of Christ's Body they will prove our Present Divines to believe the same For the whole Controversy will come to this issue Whether they believed any material Presence of Christ's Body or any part of it either by conversion substitution or union If they positively disowned this as most certainly they did then whatsoever expressions they might use they could believe no other than a figurative Presence of Christ's Body properly so called which our Adversaries now traduce under the name of Zuinglianism And indeed if we give them leave to explain themselves they tell us That in such expressions they use the terms of Real Presence Nature and Substance not as Philosophers but as Divines and that by denying the Eucharist to be a figure only or a naked figure they mean no more than that it is a true and real communication of the virtues and benefits of his Body not only a meer figurative commemoration of them which is the true notion of Zuinglianism To prove this and vindicate the honour of the first Reformers and modern Divines of our Church and demonstrate the intire conformity of the belief of both it is thought convenient to cause some one Treatise of the first Reformers concerning this Subject to be Reprinted that so every one might judge for himself whether the pretensions of our Adversaries be indeed true and just or rather the Present is intirely conformable to the precedent Doctrine of the Church of England To this end among all the Writings of the first Reformers this Treatise of Bishop Ridley which we here publish will conduce most by reason of the great and eminent Authority of the Author which was so highly considerable beyond that of any other Reformer that he may justly be esteemed the Standard of the Doctrine of the Church of England at that time Not only the assurance of his great learning and eminent station in the Church renders this probable but that great part which he had in managing the Affairs of the Reformation and the extraordinary deference paid to his Authority and trust reposed in him by all Convocations and the whole body of the Reformers demonstrate it None can reasonably be put in competition with him except Archbishop Cranmer and he also in his disputation at Oxford professed that he received his Opinion concerning the Eucharist from Bishop Ridley This the Romish Clergy were so sensible of in the time of Queen Mary that by a plausible calumny they endeavoured to persuade the World that the private opinion of Ridley was the only foundation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England For Brooks Bishop of Glocester Fox's Martyrol Vol. 3. p. 425. Queen Maries Commissioner disputing against him in the publick Schools at Oxford used this among other Arguments What a weak and feeble stay in Religion is this I pray you Latimer leaneth to Cranmer Cranmer to Ridley and Ridley to the singularity of his own Wit So that if you can overthrow the singularity of Ridley 's Wit then must needs the Religion of Cranmer and Latimer fall also To which I may add the words of Dr. Fecknam Abbot of Westminster in his Speech in Parliament Primo Elizabethae made in defence of the Church of Rome which I have seen in Manuscript Dr. Ridley the notablest learned of that Opinion in this Realm did set forth at Paul 's Cross the real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament with these words which
vs vpon the crosse as in the same place and euidently there it may appeare An other euident and cleer place wher in it appeareth that by the Sacramental bread which Christe called his bodye he ment a figure of his body As vpon the 3 Psalme where S. Augustine speaketh this in plain termes Christe did admit Iudas vnto the feaste in the which he commended vnto his disciples the figure of his body This was Christes laste Supper before his passion wherin he did ordeine the sacrament of his body as all learned men do agree S. Augustine also in his 23. Epistle to Bonifacius teacheth how Sacraments doo beare the names of the thinges whereof they be Sacraments both in Baptisme and in the Lords table euen as we call euery good friday the day of Christes passion and euery Easter daye the daye of Christes resurrection when in very deed there was but one day wherin he suffred and but one day wherin he rose And why doo we then call them so which are not so indeede but because they are in like time and course of the yeere as those days were wherin those thinges were doone Was Christe saithe sainte Augustine offered any more but once And he offered himself And yet in a Sacramente or representation not onelye euerye solemne feast of Easter but also every daye to the People he is offered so that he dooth not lye that saith he is euery day offered For if Sacraments had not some similitude or likenes of those things whereof they be Sacraments they coulde in no wise be Sacraments and for their similitudes or likenes commonly they have the names of the things whereof they be Sacraments Therefore as after a certaine manner of speech the Sacrament of Christs body is Christs body the Sacramente of Christes blood is Christs bloode so likewise the Sacrament of faith is faith After this maner of speach as S. Augustine teacheth in his questiones Question 57. Super Leuiticum and Contra Adimantum it is said in scripture that vij eares of corne be vij yeeres seuen Kine be seaven yeeres and the rock was Christe and blood is the soule the which last saying saith Saint Augustine in his booke Contra Adimantum is vnderstanded Cap 13. to bee spoken by a signe or figure For the Lord himselfe did not sticke to saye This is my body when Contra Maximinum Li. Ca. 22. hee gaue the signe of his body For we must not consider in Sacramentes saithe S. Augustine in an other 〈◊〉 what they be but what they doo signifie or they be signs of things beinge one thing in themselves and yet signifying an nother thing For the heauenly bread saith he speakinge of the Sacramentall breade by some maner of speach is called Christes body when in very deed it is the sacramente of his body c. What can be more plaine or more cleerly spoken then are these places of S. Augustine before rehearsed if men were not obstinately bent to maintaine an vntrueth and to receiue nothinge whatsoeuer dooth set it foorthe Yet one place more of S. Augustine wil I alleage which is very cleare to this purpose that Christes naturall body is in heauen and not heer corporally in the Sacrament and so let him departe In his 50. treatice whiche he writeth vpon Iohn he teacheth plainly and cleerly how Christe being both God and man is both heer after a certaine maner and yet in heauen and not heere in his naturall body and substance which he took of the blessed hirgin Mary speaking thus of Christe and sayinge By his deuine Maiestie by his prouidence and by his vnspeakeable and inuincible grace that is fulfilled which he spake Beholde I am with you vnto the ende of the Worlde But as concerning his flesh which hee took in his incarnatione as touchinge that whiche was borne of the Virgine as concerninge that whiche was apprehended by the Iewes and crucified vpon a tree and taken down from the crosse lapped in linnen clothes and buried and rose againe and appeared after his resurrection as concerninge the fleshe he said ye shall not ever haue me with you Why so For as concerning his fleshe he was conuersant with his Disciples xl daies and they accompanying seeing and not following him he wentvp into heaven and is not heere By the presence of his deuine maiestie he did not departe as concerninge the presence of his deuine maiestie we have Christe ever with us but as concerninge the presence of his flesh he said truely to his disciples ye shall not ever have me with you For as concerninge the presence of his fleshe the Church had him but a few daies nowe it holdeth him by Faith though it se him not Thus much S. Augustine speaketh repeating one thing so often and all to declare and teach how we should vnderstand the maner of Christes beinge heere with vs whiche is by his grace by his providence and by his deuine nature and how he is absent by his naturall bodye whiche was born of the virgin Mary died rose for us and is assended into heauen there sitteth as in the articles of our faith on the right hand of God and thence and from none other place saith S. Augustine he shall come on the latter daye to iudge the quick and the dead At the which daye the righteous shall then lift up their heads and the light of Gods trueth shal so shine that falshood and errours shall be put into perpetuall confusion righteousnes shall haue the vpper hand and trueth that daye shall beare awaye the victorye all th' enemies therof quite ouerthrowen to be troden vnder foot for euermore O Lord Lord I beseech thee hasten this day then shalt thou be glorified with the glory due unto thy holy name and unto thy deuine maiesty and we shal sing unto thee in all ioy and felicitie laude and praise for euer mere Amen Héer now would I make an end For me thinks S. Augustine is in this matter so full and plaine and of that authoritye that it should not néed after this his declaration being so firmelye grounded vpon Gods woorde and so well agréeinge with the other ancient Authors to bring in for the confirmation of this matter any moe and yet I saide I would alleage thrée of the Latin Church to testifie the truethe in this cause Nowe therefore the laste of all shal be Gelasius whiche was a Bishop of Rome but one that was Bishop of that See before the wicked vsurpation and tiranny therof spred and burst out abroade into al the world For this man was before Bonifacius yea and Grigorye the firste in whose daies bothe corruption of doctrine and tirannicall vsurpation did chée flye growe and had the vpper hand Gelasius in an Epistle of the two natures of Christe Contra Eutichen Gelasius writeth thus The Sacraments of the body and blood of Christe which we receiue are godly things wherby and by the same wee are made partakers
to be with us in Earth Also the same Vigilius saith Which things seeing they be so the course of the Scripture must be searched of us and many Testimonies must be gathered to shew plainly what a wickedness and sacriledg it is to refer those things to the property of the Divine Nature which do only belong to the nature of the Flesh and contrariwise to apply those things to the nature of the Flesh which do properly belong to the Divine Nature Which thing the Transubstantiators do whilst they affirm Christ's Body not to be contained in any one place and ascribe that to his Humanity which properly belongeth to his Divinity as they do who will have Christ's Body to be in no one certain place limited Now in the latter Conclusion concerning the Sacrifice because it dependeth upon the first I will in few words declare what I think For if we did once agree in that the whole Controversie in the other would soon be at an end Two things there be which do perswade me that this Conclusion is true that is certain places of the Scripture and also certain Testimonies of the Fathers Saint Paul saith Hebrews the 9th Christ being become an High Priest of good things to come by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle not made with hands that is not of this building neither by the Blood of Goats and Calves but by his own Blood entred once into the Holy Place and obtained for us eternal Redemption c. And now in the end of the World he hath appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself And again Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many Moreover he saith With one offering hath he made perfect for ever those that are sanctified These Scriptures do perswade me to believe that there is no other oblation of Christ albeit I am not ignorant there are many Sacrifices but that which was once made upon the Cross The Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers which confirm the same are out of Augustine ad Bonif. Epist 23. Again in his Book of 43 Questions in the 41st Question Also in his 20th Book against Faustus the Manichee Chap. 21. And in the same Book against the said Faustus Chap. 28. thus he writeth Now the Christians keep a memorial of the Sacrifice past with a holy Oblation and participation of the Body and Blood of Christ Fulgentius in his Book De fide calleth the same Oblation a Commemoration And these things are sufficient for this time for a Scholastical Determination of these matters VOL. III. Bishop Ridley 's Answer to the Three Propositions proposed to him in the Disputation at Oxford April 12. 1554. I Received of you the other day Right Worshipful Mr. Prolocutor and ye my Reverend Masters Commissioners from the Queens Majesty and her Honourable Council Three Propositions whereunto ye commanded me to prepare against this day what I thought good to answer concerning the same Now whilst I weighed with my self how great a charge of the Lord's Flock was of late committed unto me for the which I must once render an account to my Lord God and that how soon he knoweth and that moreover by the Commandment of the Apostle Peter I ought to be ready alway to give a Reason of the Hope that is in me with Meekness and Reverence unto every one that shall demand the same Besides this considering my Duty to the Church of Christ and to your Worships being Commissioners by Publick Authority I determined with my self to obey your Commandment and so openly to declare unto you my mind touching the foresaid Propositions and albeit plainly to confess unto you the Truth in these things which ye now demand of me I have thought otherwise in times past than now I do yet God I call to record unto my Soul I lye not I have not altered my Judgment as now it is either by constraint of any Man or Laws either for the dread of any dangers of this World either for any hope of Commodity but only for the love of the Truth revealed unto me by the Grace of God as I am undoubtedly perswaded in his holy Word and in the reading of the Ancient Fathers These things I do rather recite at this present because it may happen to some of you hereafter as in times past it hath done to me I mean if ye think otherwise of the matters propounded in these Propositions than I now do God may open them unto you in time to come But howsoever it shall be I will in few words do that which I think ye all look I should do that is as plainly as I can I will declare my Judgment herein Howbeit of this I would ye were not ignorant that I will not indeed wittingly and willingly speak in any Point against Gods Word or dissent in any one jot from the same or from the Rules of Faith or Christian Religion which Rules that same most Sacred word of God prescribeth to the Church of Christ whereunto I now and for ever submit my self and all my doings And because the matter I have now taken in hand is weighty and ye all well know how unready I am to handle it accordingly as well for lack of time as also lack of Books therefore here I protest that I will publickly this day require of you that it may be lawful for me concerning all mine Answers Explications and Confirmations to add or diminish whatsoever shall seem hereafter more convenient and meet for the purpose through more sound Judgment better Deliberation and more exact Trial of every particular Thing Having now by the way of Preface and Protestation spoken these few words I will come to the Answer of the Propositions propounded unto me and so to the most brief Explication and Confirmation of mine Answers Weston Reverend Mr. Doctor concerning the lack of Books there is no cause why you should complain What Books soever you will name you shall have them and as concerning the Judgment of your Answers to be had of your self with further deliberation it shall I say be lawful for you until Sunday next to add unto them what you shall think good your self My mind is that we should use short Arguments lest we should make an infinite process of the thing Ridley There is another thing besides which I would gladly obtain at your hands I perceive that you have Writers and Notaries here present By all likelihood our Disputations shall be published I beseech you for Gods sake let me have liberty to speak my mind freely and without interruption not because I have determined to protract the time with a solemn Preface but lest it may appear that some be not satisfied God wot I am no Orator nor have I learned Rhetorick to set Colours on the matter Weston Among this whole Company it shall be permitted you to take two for your part Rid. I will chuse two if there were any here with whom I were
Augustine that we eat Life and we drink Life with Emisene that we feel the Lord to be present in Grace with Athanasius that we receive Celestial Food that cometh from above the propriety of natural Communion with Hilary the nature of Flesh and Benediction which giveth life in Bread and Wine with Cyril and with the same Cyril the virtue of the very Flesh of Christ Life and Grace of his Body the property of the only begotten that is to say Life as he himself in plain words expounded it I confess also with Basil that we receive the mystical Advent and coming of Christ Grace and Virtue of his very Nature the Sacrament of his very Flesh with Ambrose the Body by Grace with Epiphanius Spiritual Flesh but not that which was crucified with Hierom Grace flowing into a Sacrifice and the Grace of the Spirit with Chrysostom Grace and invisible Verity Grace and Society of the Members of Christ's Body with Augustine Finally with Bertram who was the last of all these I confess that Christ's Body is in the Sacrament in this respect namely as he writeth Because there is in it the Spirit of Christ that is the power of the Word of God which not only feedeth the Soul but also cleanseth it But of these I suppose it may appear unto all men how far we are from that Opinion whereof some go about falsly to slander us to the world saying we teach that the Godly and Faithful should receive nothing else at the Lord's Table but a Figure of the Body of Christ The Second Proposition After the Consecration there remaineth no Substance of Bread and Wine neither any other Substance than the Substance of God and Man. The Answer The second Conclusion is manifestly false directly against the Word of God the Nature of the Sacrament and the most evident Testimonies of the godly Fathers and it is the rotten Foundation of the other two Conclusions propounded by you both of the first and also of the third I will not therefore now tarry upon any further Explication of this Answer being contented with that which is already added afore to the Answer of the first Proposition The First Argument for the Confirmation of this Answer It is very plain by the Word of God that Christ did give Bread unto his Disciples and called it his Body But the Substance of Bread is another manner of Substance than is the Substance of Christ's Body God and Man. Therefore the Conclusion is false The second part of mine Argument is plain and the first is proved thus The Second Argument That which Christ did take on the which he gave Thanks Da and the which he brake he gave to his Disciples and called it his Body But he took Bread gave Thanks on Bread and brake Bread. ti Ergo The first part is true And it is confirmed with the Authorities of the Fathers Irenaeus si Tertullian Origen Cyprian Epiphanius Hierom Augustine Theodoret Cyril Rabanus and Bede whose places I will take upon me to shew most manifest in this behalf if I may be suffered to have my Books as my request is Bread is the Body of Christ Ergo. It is Bread. The Third Argument As the Bread of the Lord's Table is Christ's natural Body so Ba it is his mystical Body But it is not Christ's mystical Body by Transubstantiation Ergo It is not his natural Body by Transubstantiation ro eo The second part of my Argument is plain and the first is proved thus As Christ who is the Verity spake of the Bread This is my Body which shall be betrayed for you speaking there of his natural Body even so St. Paul moved with the same Spirit of Truth said We though we be many yet are we all one Bread and one Body which be partakers of one Bread. The Fourth Argument We may no more believe Bread to be Transubstantiate into the Body of Christ than the Wine into his Blood. But the Wine is not Transubstantiate into his Blood Ergo Neither is that Bread therefore Transubstantiate into his Body The first part of this Argument is manifest and the second part is proved out of the Authority of God's Word in Matthew and Mark I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine c. Now the fruit of the Vine was Wine which Christ drank and gave to his Disciples to drink With this Sentence agreeth plainly the place of Chrysostome on the 20th Chapter of Matthew as Cyprian doth also affirming That there is no Blood if Wine be not in the Cup. The Fifth Argument The words of Christ spoken upon the Cup and upon the Ba Bread have like effect and working But the words spoken upon the Cup have not virtue to Transubstantiate ro Ergo It followeth that the words spoken upon the Bread have eo no such virtue The second part of the Argument is proved because they would then Transubstantiate the Cup or that which is in the Cup into the New Testament But neither of these things can be done and very absurd it is to confess the same The Sixth Argument The Circumstances of the Scripture the Analogy and proportion of Da the Sacraments and the Testimony of the faithful Fathers ought to rule us in taking the meaning of the Holy Scripture touching the Sacrament But the Words of the Lord's Supper the Circumstances of the ti Scripture the Analogy of the Sacraments and the Sayings of the Fathers do most effectually and plainly prove a figurative speech in the words of the Lord's Supper Ergo A figurative sense and meaning is specially to be received in si these words This is my Body The Circumstances of the Scripture Do this in remembrance of me As oft as ye shall eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shall shew forth the Lord's death Let a man prove himself and so eat of this bread and drink of this cup. They came together to break Bread and they continued in breaking of Bread. The Bread which we break c. For we being many are all one Bread and one Body c. The Analogy of the Sacraments is necessary for if the Sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of the things whereof they be Sacraments they could in no wise be Sacraments And this similitude in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is taken three manner of ways 1. The first consisteth in nourishing as you shall read in Rabanus Cyprian Austin Irenaeus and most plainly in Isidore out of Bertram 2. The second in the uniting and joyning of many into one as Cyprian teacheth 3. The third is a similitude of unlike things Where like as the Bread is turned into one Body so we by the right use of this Sacrament are turned through Faith into the Body of Christ The sayings of the Fathers declare it to be a figurative speech as it appeareth in Origen Tertullian Chrysostom in opere imperfecto
Augustin Ambrose Basil Gregory Nazianzen Hilary and most plainly of all in Bertram Moreover the sayings and places of all the Fathers whose names I have before recited against the assertion of the first Proposition do quite overthrow Transubstantiation But of all most evidently and plainly Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostom to Caesarius the Monk Augustine against Adamantus Gelasius Cyril Epiphanius Chrysostom again on the 20th of Matth. Rabanus Damascene and Bertram Here Right Worshipful Mr. Prolocutor and ye the rest of the Commissioners it may please you to understand that I do not lean to these things only which I have written in my former Answers and Confirmations but that I have also for the proof of that I have spoken whatsoever Bertram a man Learned of sound and upright Judgment and ever counted a Catholick for these Seven hundred years until this our age hath written His Treatise whosoever shall read and weigh considering the time of the Writer his Learning Godliness of life the Allegations of the Ancient Fathers and his manifold and most grounded Arguments I cannot doubtless but much marvel if he have any fear of God at all how he can with good Conscience speak against him in this matter of the Sacrament This Bertram was the first that pulled me by the Ear and that first brought me from the common Error of the Romish Church and caused me to search more diligently and exactly both the Scriptures and the Writings of the old Ecclesiastical Fathers in this matter And this I protest before the face of God who knoweth that I lye not in the things I now speak The Third Proposition In the Mass is the lively Sacrifice of the Church propitiable and available for the sins as well of quick as of the dead The Answer to this Proposition I answer to this third Proposition as I did to the first And moreover I say that being taken in such sense as the words seem to import it is not only erroneous but withal so much to the derogation and defacing of the Death and Passion of Christ that I judge it may and ought most worthily to be counted wicked and blasphemous against the most precious Blood of our Saviour Christ The Explication Concerning the Romish Mass which is used at this day or the lively Sacrifice thereof propitiatory and available for the sins of the quick and the dead the Holy Scripture hath not so much as one syllable There is ambiguity also in the name of Mass what it signifieth and whether at this day there be any such indeed as the Ancient Fathers used seeing that now there be neither Catecumeni nor Poenitentes to be sent away Again touching these words The lively Sacrifice of the Church There is doubt whether they are to be understood Figuratively and Sacramentally for the Sacrament of the lively Sacrifice after which sort we deny it not to be in the Lord's Supper or properly and without any figure of the which manner there was but one only Sacrifice and that once offered namely upon the Altar of the Cross Moreover in these words as well as it may be doubted whether they be spoken in mockage as men are wont to say in sport of a foolish and ignorant person that he is apt as well in conditions as in knowledg being apt indeed in neither of them both There is also a doubt in the word Propitiable whether it signify here that which taketh away sin or that which may be made available for the taking away of sin That is to say whether it is to be taken in the active or in the passive signification Now the falsness of the Proposition after the meaning of the Schoolmen and the Romish Church and Impiety in that sense which the words seem to import is this that they leaning to the foundation of their fond Transubstantiation would make the quick and lively body of Christ's Flesh united and knit to the Divinity to lye hid under the accidents and outward shews of Bread and Wine Which is very false as I have said before and they building upon this foundation do hold that the same Body is offered unto God by the Priest in his dayly Massings to put away the sins of the quick and the dead whereas by the Apostle to the Hebrews it is evident that there is but one Oblation and one true and lively Sacrifice of the Church offered upon the Altar of the Cross which was is and shall be for ever the propitiation for the sins of the whole World and where there is Remission of the same there is saith the Apostle no more offering for sin Arguments confirming his Answer No Sacrifice ought to be done but where the Priest is meet to offer Ce the same All other Priests be unmeet to offer Sacrifice for sin but Christ alone la rent Ergo No other Priests ought to Sacrifice for sin but Christ alone The second part of my Argument is thus proved No honour in God's Church ought to be taken where a man is not Fe called as Aaron It is a great honour in God's Church to Sacrifice for Sin ri son Ergo. No man ought to Sacrifice for Sin but only they who are called But only Christ is called to that honour Ergo No other Priest but Christ ought to Sacrifice for Sin. That no man is called to this degree of Honour but Christ alone it is evident For there are but two only Orders of Priesthood allowed in the Word of God Namely the Order of Aaron and the Order of Melchisedech But now the Order of Aaron is come to an end by reason that it was unprofitable and weak and of the Order of Melchisedech there is but one Priest alone even Christ the Lord who hath a Priesthood that cannot pass to any other An Argument That thing is in vain and to no effect where no necessity is Ba wherefore it is done To offer up any more Sacrifice Propitiatory for the quick and the ro dead there is no necessity for Christ our Saviour did that fully and perfectly once for all Ergo To do the same in the Mass it is in vain co Another Argument After that Eternal Redemption is found and obtained there needeth Fe no more daily offering for the same But Christ coming an high Bishop c. found and obtained for us ri Eternal Redemption Ergo There needeth now no more daily Oblation for the Sins of o. the quick and the dead Another Argument All remission of Sins cometh only by shedding of Blood. Ca mes tres In the Mass there is no shedding of Blood. Ergo In the Mass there is no Remission of Sins and so it followeth also that there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice Another Argument In the Mass the Passion of Christ is not in verity but in a Mystery representing the same yea even there where the Lord's Supper is duly ministred But where Christ suffereth not there is
and Spiritual but present by Grace full of vertue powerful in efficacy For this is very frequent that the names of things themselves be ascribed to their virtue and efficacy The Fathers therefore in Treating of the Sacraments use the words Nature and Substance not Philosophically but Theologically that is they speak not as natural Philosophers but as men disputing of Divine matters they give the name of Nature and Substance to Grace Virtue and Efficacy the nature of the Sacrament so requiring But this that the Spiritual virtue is inseparable from the Elements is to be understood to be true as long as the Sign serveth for that use and is directed to that end for which it was destined by the Word of God. For if we apply it to other uses and abuse it against the institution of Christ it either is altogether not a Sacrament or ceaseth to be a Sacrament The dignity and due honour of the Sacraments is not injured but remaineth whole and inviolate while we confess both the truth of the Body and the nature and substance of it to be received by the Faithful together with the Symbols which also the ancient Fathers testifie to be done And then this distinction which also those Fathers diligently observed being received between that proper or assumed Body of the Lord and this Symbolical Body or Sacrament of the Body the analogy of our Faith is not violated which no ways ought to be shaken since we attribute to each Body his peculiar properties For we say that the proper and assumed Body is in a place and circumscribed with a space by reason of the modus of a true Body as Augustine saith c. All men see that we also here affirm the Substance to be present and assert our Communion with Christ naturally and as I may say substantially But then these words ought to be understood after the manner not of Philosophers but of Divines Neither should we quarrel about the term of Transubstantiation although barbarous and not in the least necessary Provided they meant thereby such a Transmutation of Substances as the Ancients taught that is a Sacramental one such as is also performed in a man regenerated by Baptism who is made a new man and a new creature Such as is also performed when we are converted into the Flesh of Christ which examples the ancient Fathers used If any here require a Miracle for some Fathers call the Eucharist a great Miracle it is in truth no less wonderful that Bread and Wine which are earthly Creatures and apt only to nourish the Body should by virtue of the Mystical Benediction obtain that inward force and such powerful efficacy as to cleanse nourish sanctifie and prepare to immortality both our 〈…〉 and to make us the 〈…〉 and one Body with 〈…〉 Diallacticon Viri boni literati de veritate natura atque substantia corporis sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia Ad calcem Becae Opusculorum Vol. II. Par. 2. p. 31. Genevae 1573. f. CAusam ita partiri placuit ut summatim ad tria capita revocetur Primò ostendam veritatem corporis Christi in Eucharistia dari fidelibus nec has voces Naturam at que Substantiam fugiendas esse sed Veteres de hoc Sacramento disserentes ita locutos fuisse Deinde discrimen esse monstrabo inter corpus Domini proprium illud quod inest in Sacramento veteresque Patres ita censuisse Postremo cujusmodi sit hoc Corpus quod accipitur in Mysterio cur eo nomine censeatur indicabo secundum eorundem Patrum sententiam p. 33 34. Corpus Christi dicitur propriè impropriè propriè Corpus illud sumptum ex Virgine impropriè ut Sacramentum Ecclesia Quod Ecclesia propriè Corpus Christi non sit nemini dubium est de Sacramento restat ut nunc idem Probemus p. 38. Non difficile est animadvertere ex his quae scribit hoc loco Chrysostomus aliter esse Corpus quod Christus ipse Corpus suum appellavit cum diceret Accipite edite hoc meum est Corpus quod ipse quoque simul sumebat cum discipulis aliter ipsum Corpus proprium quod illo altero vescebatur Hoc comedebat illud comesum est utrumque Corpus sed diversa ratione dicitur p. 39. Sacramentum videlicet Corporis dedit non ipsum visibiliter sive visibile Corpus quod ad proprium Corpus refertur Hoc autem Corpus ubicunque est visibile est p. 40. Observandum est veritatem Dominici Corporis dup citer dici ac debere dupliciter accâ—â—i Alia namque veritas Corporis requiritur in Mysterio alia simpliciter absque Mysterio p. 41. Quod ad nostrum institutum attinet ipsa Cypriani verba satis indicant quam non sequenda sit litera in his quae de hoc Mysterio dicuntur quam procul arcendus est carnis Sensus ad Sensum spiritualem omnia referenda huic Pani Divinae Virtutis praesentiam adesse Vitae Aeternae effectum Divinam insundi essentiam verba Spiritum vitam esse spirituale documentum tradi hoc Corpus hunc sanguinem carnem hanc substantiam Corporis non communi more nec ut humana ratio dictat accipi oportere sed ita nominari existimari credi propter eximios quosdam Effectus Virtutes Proprietates conjunctas quae Corpori sanguini Christi natura insunt nempe quod pascat animas nostras vivificet simul Corpora ad Resurrectionem Immortalitatem praeparet p. 46. Hic cogitandum est verba spiritualia esse spiritualiter intelligenda carnem quidem sanguinem nominari sed de Spiritu Vitâ id est vivificâ Dominicae carnis Virtute debere intelligi proinde vim Vitae signis externis inditam esse Ibid. Theophylactus quum dicit panem non esse Figuram Corporis Dominici sensit non tantum Figuram esse p. 47. Ecce Chrysostomus dicit realiter ut ita loquar nos converti in carnem Christi sed spiritualem illam non carnalem Conversionem esse quis non videt Ita reipsâ convertitur transelementatur Panis in carnem Christi sed spirituali non carnali Conversione quia Panis virtutem carnis assequitur p. 48. Quanto melius locuti sunt Cyprianus Ambrosius Epiphanius Emysenus alii qui similem Commutationem in Eucharistiâ cum ea quae fit in Baptismo confirmant quâ fit ut signa maneant eadem per gratiam novam acquirant substantiam similiter p. 49. Cujus ego viri Bertrami Expositionem de Sacramento viam disputandi duas ob causas diligenter expendendam amplectendam arbitror p. 52. Quod ut magis appareat memoriâ reponatur non inutile fore putavi ex his quae supra memoravimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quandam per collationem subjungere Corpus Christi proprium habet caput pectus membra dinstincta Corpus