O heauenly Father that the controuersie about the Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of thy déer Sonne our Sauiour Iesu Christe hath troubled not of late onlye the Churche of England Fraunce Germanie and Italye but also many yéere agoe The fault is ours na dout therfore for we have deserued thy plague But O Lord be mercifull and reléeue our miserie with some lighte of grace Thou knowest O Lord how this wicked world rolleth vp and down and réeleth to and fro and careth not what thy will is so it may abide in wealth If trueth haue wealthe who are so stoute to defende the trueth as they But if Christes crosse be laid on trueths back then they vanish away straight as Waxe before the fier But these are not they O Heauenly Father for whome I make my moste moane but for those silly ones O Lord which haue a zeale vnto thée those I mean which wold Note and wish to know thy wil and yet are letted holden backe and blinded by the subtilties of Sathan and his ministers the wickednes of this wretched worlde and the sinfull lusts and affections of the flesh Alas Lord thou knowest that we bée of our selues but flesh wherein there dwelleth nothing that is good How then is it possible for man without thée O Lord to vnderstand thy trueth indéed Can the naturall man perceiue the wil of God O Lord to whom thou giuest a zeale of thée giue them also we beseech thée the knowledge of thy blessed wil. Suffer not them O Lord blindely to be led for to striue against thée as thou diddest those Alas which crucified thine own Sonne forgiue them O Lord for thy déere Sonnes sake for they know not what they doo They doo think Alas O Lord for lack of knowledge that they doo vnto thée good seruice euen when against thée they doo moste extremelye rage Remember O Lord we beséech thee for whome thy Martyr Stephen did praye and whome thyne holy Apostle Paule did so truelye and earnestlye loue that for their saluation hée wished himself accursed for them Remember O heauenly Father the prayer of thy déere Sonne our Sauiour Christe vpon the crosse when be saide vnto thée O Father forgiue them they know not what they doo With this forgiuenes O good Lord giue me I beséech thée thy grace so héer bréefly to set foorth the sayings of thy Sonne our Sauiour Christe and of his Euangelistes and of his Apostles that in this aforesaid controuersie the lighte of the trueth by the lantern of thy woord may shine vnto all them that loue thée Of the Lords last supper doo speak expreslye the Euangelists Mathew Mark and Luke but none more plainelye nor more fully declareth the same then dooth S. Paule partely in the tenth Chapter but specially in the xj chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians As Mathew and Mark doo agrée much in woordes so doo likewise Luke and S. Paule But all iiij no doubte as they were all taught in one schoole and inspired with one spirit so taught they as one trueth God grant vs to vnderstande it wel Amen Mathew setteth foorth Christes Supper thus When euen was come he sat down with the xij c. As they did eat Jesus took bread and gave thankes brake it and gave it to the disciples Math. 26. and saide Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gaue thankes gaue it to them saying Drink ye al of this for this is my blood of the newe testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes I say vnto you I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine tree untill that daye when I shall drink that newe in my fathers kingdome And when they had sayed grace they went out Now Mark speaketh it thus And as they eate Jesus took bread blessed and brake and gaue to Mark 14. them and saied take eat this is my body And took the cup gaue thankes and gaue it to them and they all drank of it And he said vnto them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many Verily I saye vnto you I wil drink no more of the fruit of the vine vntill that day that I drink that newe in the kingdome of God. Héere Mathew and Mark doo agree not only in the matter but also almoste fully in the forme of woords In Mathew gaue thankes Mark hath one woorde Blessed which signifieth in this place al one And where Mathew saith Drink ye al of this Mark saith they al drank of it And where Mathew saithe of this fruit of the vine Mark leaueth out the woord this and saith of the fruit of the vine Now let us see likewise what agréement in forme of woords is betwéene S. Luke and S. Paule Luke writeth thus He took bread gaue thankes brake it and gaue it to them saying Luke 22. this is my body which is giuen for you this doo in remembrance of me Likewise also when they had supped he took the Cup saying this Cup is the newe Testament in my bloud which is shedde for you Saint Paule setteth foorth the Lords Supper thus The Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betraied took 1 Cor. 11. Bread and gaue thankes and brake and saide take eate this is my body which is broken for you This doo in remembrance of me After the same maner he took the Cup when supper was doon saying this Cup is the new testament in my bloud This doo as often as yee shall drink it in remembrance of me For as often as ye shall eate this breade and drinke this cup ye shall shewe the Lords deathe vntill he come Héere where S. Luke saith which is given Paule saith which is broken And as Luke addeth to the woordes of Paule spoken of the Cup which is shed for you so likewise Paule addeth to the woords thereof this doo as often as yee shall drinke it in remembrance of me The rest that followeth in S. Paule both there and in the tenth Chapter perteineth unto the right vse of the Lords Supper Thus the Euangelistes and S. Paule haue rehearsed the woords and woorke of Christe whereby he did institute and ordaine this holy Sacrament of his bodye and blood to be a perpetuall remembrance vnto his comming againe of him selfe I say that is of his body giuen for vs and of his blood shed for the remission of sinnes But this remembrance which to thus ordained as the author thereof is Christe bothe God and Man so by the almightye power of God if far passeth al kindes of remembrances that any other man is able to make either of him selfe or of any other thinge For whosoever receiueth this holy Sacrament thus ordeined in remembrance of Christe he receiueth therwith either death or life In this I trust we doo al agrée For S. Paule saith of the godly receiuers in the tenth Chapter of his first Epistle vnto
the Cerinthians The Cup of blessinge which we blesse is it not the pertaking or felowship of Christes bloud And also saithe the Breade which wee break and meaneth at the Lords Lable Is it not the partaking or felowship of Christs body Now the partaking of Christes body and of his blood vnto the faithfull and godly is the partaking or felowship of life and immortalitie And againe of the bad and vngodly receiuers S. Paule as plainly saith thus He that eateth of this bread and drinketh of this cup vnworthily is gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Note O how necessary then it is if we loue life and would eschue deathe to trye and examine our selues before we eate of this bread and drink of this cup for els assuredly he that eateth and drinketh thereof vnworthilye eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he estéemeth not the Lords body that is he reuerenceth not the Lordes bodye with the honour that is due vnto him And that which was saide that with the receite of the holye Sacrament of the blessed body and bloud of Christe is receiued of every one good and bad either life or death it is not ment that they whiche are dead before God may heerby receiue life or the liuinge before God can heerby receiue death For as none is meete to receiue naturall food wherby the natural life is nourished except he be borne and liue before so no man can feed by the receit of this holy Sacrament of the food of eternall life except he be regenerated and borne of God before And on the other side no man heer receiueth damnation whiche is not dead before Thus hethertoo without al doubt God is my witnesse I saye so far as I doo knowe there is no controuersie amonge them that be learned in the Churche of England concerninge the matter of this Sacrament but al doo agree whether they be new or olde and to speak plain and as some of them doo odiously cal either other whether they be Protestantes Papists Pharisies or Gospellers And as all doo agree hithertoo in the aforesaid Doctrine so all doo deteste abborre and condemne the wicked heresie of the Messalonians which otherwise be called Eutichets which saide that the holy Sacrament can neither doo no good nor harme All do also condemne those wicked Anabaptistes which put no difference between the Lords Table and the Lords meat and their owne And because charity would that we should if it be possible and so far as we may with the sauegarde of good conscience and maintenance of the trueth agree with all men therfore me thinkes it is not charitablye doon to burthen any man either newe or olde as they call them further then such doo declare themselues to dissent from that we are perswaded to be trueth or pretend thertoo to be controuersies where as none such are in deed and so to multiply the debate the which the more it doth increase the further it doth depart from the vnitie that the true Christian should desire And again this is true that trueth nother needeth nor wil be What it is to lye The slaunderous lyes of the Papists maintained with lies It is also a true prouerb That it is euen sinne to lye vpon the Deuil For though by thy lye thou doost neuer so much speak against the Deuil yet in that thou liest in deed thou woorkest the Deuils woorke thou doost him seruice and takest the Deuils part Now whether then they doo godlye and charitablye which either by their Pen in Writing or by their Woordes in Preaching doo beare the simple people in hand that those which thus doo teach and beleue doo go about to make the holye Sacrament ordeined by Christe himselfe a thing no better then a peece of common Bread or that doo saye that such doo make the holye Sacrament of the blessed bodye and blood of Christe nothing els but a bare signe or a figure to represent Christe none otherwise then the Ivye bushe doth represent the Wine in a Tauern or as a vile person gorgiouslye apparalled maye represent a King or a Prince in a playe Alas let men leaue lying and speak trueth everye one not only to his neighbour but also of his neighboure for wee are members one of an other saith Saint Paule The controuersie no doubt which at this daye troubleth the Church wherin any mean learned man either olde or newe dooth stand in is not whether the holy Sacrament of the body and blood of Christe is no better then a peece of common breade or no or whether the Lords Table is no more to be regarded then the Table of any earthly man or no or whether it is but a bare signe or figure of Christe and nothing else or no. For all do graunt that S. Paules woordes doo require that the bread which we break is the partaking of the body of Christe and also doo graunte him that eateth of that bread or drinketh of that cup vnwoorthely to be gilty of the Lords death and to eate and drinke his owne damnation because be esteemeth not the Lords body All doo graunt that these woords of S. Paule when he saith If we eate it aduantageth vs nothing or if wee eate not wee want nothing therby are not spoken of the Lords Table but of other common meats Thus then betherto yet we all agree But now let vs see Wherin the controuerfie consisteth wherin the dissention doth stand The vnderstanding of it wherin it cheeflye standeth is a step to the true searching foorthe of the trueth For who can seeke well a remedye if he knowe not before the disease It is neither to be denied nor dissembled that in the matter of this Sacrament there be diuers poyntes wherin men counted to be learned cannot agree As whether there be any Transubstantiation of the bread or no any corporall and carnall presence of Christes substance or no. Whether adoration due only vnto God is to be doon vnto the Sacrament or no and whether Christes bodye be there offered in deed vnto the heauenly Father by the Preeste or no and whether the euill man receiueth the naturall body of Christe or no. Yet neuertheles as in a man diseased in diuers partes commonly the originall cause of such diuers diseases which is spred abroad in the body doo come from one cheefe member as from the stomacke or from the head euen so all fiue aforesaid doo chiefly hange vpon this one question which is What is the matter of the Sacrament whether is it the naturall substance of bread or the naturall substance of Christs owne body The trueth of this question truelye tried out and agreed vpon no doubt shall cease the controuersie in all the rest For if it be Christes owne natural body born of the Virgin then assuredlye seeing that all learned men in England so far as I knowe bothe newe and olde graunt there to be but one substance then I say they must needs
trueth of Godes Woorde And yet I will do it vnder this protestation call me Protestant who lusteth I passe not therof My protestation shall be thus that my minde is and euer shal be God willinge to set foorth sincerelye the true sence and meaninge to the beste of my vnderstanding of Godes most holy woorde and not to decline from the same either for feare of worldly danger or els for hope of gaine I doo proteste also due obedience submission of my iudgemente in this my writing and in all other mine affairs vnto those of Christs Church which be truly learned in Gods holy Woord gathered in Christs Name and guided by his Spirit After this protestation I doo plainely affirme and say that the second Answere to the cheef question question and principall poynt I am perswaded to be the very true meaning and sence of Gods holy Woord that is that the naturall substance of bread and wine is the true materiall substance of the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of our Sauiour Christe and the places of Scripture wherupon this my faith is grounded be these both concerning the Sacrament of the body and also the bloud Firste let vs repete the beginninge of the institution of the Lords Supper wherin all the three Euangelists and S. Paule almost in woords doo agree saying that Iesus took bread gaue thanks brake and gaue it to the Disciples sayinge Take eate this is my bodye Heer it appeareth plainly that Christe calleth very bread his body For that which he took was very bread In this all men doo agree And that which he took after he had giuen thankes he brake and that which he took and brake he gaue to his disciples and that which be took brake and gaue to his Disciples he saide him selfe of it This is my body So it appeareth plainelye that Christ called very bread his body But very bread canot be his bodye in very substance therof therfore it must needs haue an other meaninge Which meaninge appeareth plainelye what it is by the next sentence that followeth immediatly both in Luke and in Paule And that is this Doo this in remembrance of me Wher-vpon it seemeth vnto me to be euident that Christe did take bread and called it his bodye for that he would therby institute a perpetuall remembrance of his body speciallye of the singuler benefite of our redemtion which he would then procure and purchase vnto vs by his bodye vpon the Crosse But bread retaining still his owne very naturall substance may be thus by grace and in a sacramental signification his body wheras els the very bread which he took brake and gaue them could not be any wise his naturall bodye For that were confusion of substances and therfore the very woordes of Christe ioynes with the next sentence following both enforceth vs to confesse the verye bread to remaine still and also openeth vnto vs how that bread maye be and is thus by his deuine power his body which was giuen for vs. But heere I remember I haue red in some writers of the contrarye opinion which Christe did take be brake For say they after his taking he blessed it as Mark dooth speak And by his blessing be changed the natural substance of the bread into the natural substance of his body and so although he took the bread and blessed it yet because in blessing he changed the substance of it he brake not the breade which then was not there but only the forme therof Vnto this obiection I haue two plain answers both grounded vpon Gods woord The one I will heer rehearse the other answer I will differ vntil I speak of the Sacrament of the blood Mine answere heer is taken out of the plaine woords of S. Paule which dooth manifestly confound this fantastical inuention first inuented I â—een of Pope Innocentius and after confirmed by the subtile sophister Duns and lately renewed now in our daies with an eloquent stile and much finenesse of wit. But what can crafty inuention subtiltye in sophismes eloquence or finenesse of wit Mar. Antho. Constan Gardenar preuaile against the vnfallible Woorde of God What neede we to striue and contend what thinge we break for Paule saieth speaking vndoubtedly of the Lords Table The bread saieth he which we break is it not the partaking or felowship of the Lords body Wherupon it followeth that after the thanks giving it is bread which we break And how often in the Acts of the Apostles is the Lords Supper signified by breaking of bread They did perseuer saith S. Luke in the Apostles Doctrine Communion and Acts 2. 20. breaking of bread And they brake breade in euery house And again in an other place when they were come together to breake bread c. S. Paule which setteth foorth moste fully in his writinge both the doctrine and the right vse of the Lords Supper and the Sacramentall eating and drinkinge of Christs body and blood calleth it fiue times bread bread bread bread bread The sacramentall bread is the misticall body and so it is called The second reason in Scripture 1 Cor. 10. as it is called the naturall body of Christe But Christs misticall body is the congregation of Christians Now no man was euer so fond as to say that that sacramentall breade is transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the congregatione Wherfore no man shoulde likewise think or saye that the breade is transubstantiated and changed into the naturall substance of Christes humaine nature But my minde is not héere to write what may be gathered out of Scriptures for this purpose but onely to note heer breefly those which seem vnto me to be the most plaine places Therfore contented to haue spoken thus muche of the Sacramentall bread I will nowe speake a little of the Lords cup. And this shall be my third Argument grounded vpon Christes The third Argument owne woordes The natural substance of the sacramentall Wine remaineth still and is the material substance of the Sacrament of the blood of Christe Therfore it is likewise so in the sacramentall Bread. I know that he that is of a contrarye opinion will denye the former parte of mine Argument But I will prooue it thus by the plaine woords of Christe himselfe both in Mathewe and in Marke Christes woordes are these after the wordes saide vpon the cup I saye vnto you saith Christe I will not drinke hencefoorthe of this fruite of the vine tree vntill I shall drink that new in my fathers kingdome Heere note how Christe calleth plainly his cup the fruit of the vine tree But the fruit of the vine is very natural wine Wherfore the naturall substance of the wine doothe remaine still in the Sacrament of Christes Blood. And heer in speaking of the Lords Cup it commeth vnto my remembrance the vanitie of Innocentius his fantasticall inuention which by Paules woordes I did confute before and héer did promise somwhat more to
how plainly it repugneth vnto the manifest woords the true sence and meaning of holy Scripture in many places especially in the Epistle to the Hebrewes the matter it is so long and other haue written in it at large that my minde is nowe not to intreate therof any further For only in this my scribling I intend to search out and set foorthe by the Scriptures according to Godes gracious gifte of my poore knowledge whether the true sence and meaninge of Christes woordes in the institution of his holye supper doo require any Transubstantiation as they cal it or that the very substance of breade and wine doo remaine still in the Lordes Supper and be the materiall substance of the holy Sacramente of Christe our Sauiours blessed bodye and bloode Yet there remaineth one vaine Quidditi of Duns in this matter the whiche because some Gardener in the answere to the 15. obiection that write now doo seeme to like it so well that they have stripped him out of Dunces dusty and darke termes and pricked him and painted him in freshe coloures of an eloquent stile and may therfore deceaue the more excepte the errour be warelye eschewed Duns saith in these woords of Christe This is my bodye this pronowne demonstratiue meaning the woorde This if ye will knowe what it dooth showe or demonstrate whether the bread that Christ took or no he answereth no but onely one thing in substance 〈◊〉 paintethe wherof the nature or name it doothe not tell but leaueth that to be determined and told by that which followeth the woord Is that is by Praedicatum as the Logician dooth speake and therfore he calleth this pronowne demonstratiue This Indiuiduum vagum that is a wandring proper name wherby we may poynte out and shewe anye one thing in substance what thinge soeuer it be That this imagination is vaine and vntruely applyed vnto these woordes of Christe This is my bodye it may appeare plainely in the woordes of Luke and Paule said vpon the cup conferred with the forme of woords spoken vpon the cup in Mathewe and Marke For as vpon the breade it is said of all This is my bodye so of Mathew and Mark it is saide vpon the cup This is my blood Then if in the woords This is my body the woorde This be as Duns calleth it a wandringe name to appoynte and shewe foorth any one thing whereof the name and nature it doothe not tell so muste it be likewise in those woordes of Mathewe and Marke vpon the Lords cup This is my bloode But in the woordes of Mathewe and Marke it signifieth and poynteth out the same that it dooth in the Lords woords vpon the cup in Luke and Paule where it is said This cup is the new testament in my blood c. Therefore in Mathewe and Marke the pronown demonstratiue this doothe not wander to poynte onelye one thing in substance not shewinge what it is but tellethe it plainelye what it is no lesse in Mathewe and Marke vnto the eye then is doon in Luke and Paule by putting too this woord cup booth vnto the eye and vnto the eare For taking the cup and demonstrating or shewing it vnto his disciples by this pronowne demonstratiue this and saying vnto them Drink ye all of this it was then all one to saye This is my blood as to saye This cup is my blood meaninge by the cup as the nature of the speach dooth require the thinge conteined in the cup. So likewise without al doubt when Christe had taken breade giuen thanks and broken it and giuing it to his disciples said Take and so demonstrating and shewing that bread which hee had in his bandes to saye then This is my body and to haue saide This bread is my body As it were all one if a man lackinge a Knife and going to his Oisters would say vnto an other whom he saw to haue two kniues Sir I praye you lend mee the one of your-kniues Were it not now all one to answere him Sir holde I will lende you this to eat your meat but not to open Oisters withall and holde I wil lend you this Knife to eate your meat but not to open Oysters This similitude serueth but for this purpose to declare the nature of speach withall where as the thinge that is demonstrated and shewed is euidently perceiued and openly knowen to the eye But O good Lord what a wonderfull thing is it to see how some men doo labour to teach what is demonstrated and shewed by the pronowne demonstratiue this in Christes woordes when he saieth This is my body This is my blood how they labour I saye to teache what that This was then indeede when Christe spake in Gard. to the 130. Obiection the beginning of the sentence the woorde This before he had pronounced the reste of the woords that folowed in the same sentence so that their doctrine maye agree with their Transubstantiation God makers agree not among them selues which indeed is the verye foundation wherein al their erronious doctrine dooth stande And heere the Transubstantiatours doo not agree amonge them selues no more then they doo in the woords which wrought the Transubstantiation when Christe did first institute his Sacrament wherin Innocentius a Bishop of Rome of the latter daies and Duns as was noted before do attribute the woorke unto the woord Benedixit Blessed but the rest for the moste parte to Hoc est corpus meum This is my body c. Duns therefore with his secte because he puttech the change before must needs say that this when Christe spake it in the beginning of the sentence was in deed Christes body For in the change the substance of bread did depart and the change was now doon in Benedixit saith he that went before and therefore after him and his that this was then indeed Christes body though the woord did not import so muche but onely one thinge in substance whiche substance after Duns the breade beinge gone must needs be the substance of Christs body But they that put their Transubstantiation to be wrought by these woordes of Christe This is my bodye and doo say that when the whole sentence was finished then this change was perfected and not before they can not say but yet Christes this in the beginning of the sentence before the other woords were fully pronounced was bread in deed But as yet the change was not doon and so long the bread must needs remain and so longe with the uniuersall consent of al transubstantiatours the naturall substance of Christes body can not come and therefore must their this of necessitye demonstrate and shewe the substance which was as yet in the pronouncing of the first woord this by Christe but bread But how can they make and verifie Christs woords to be true demonstrating the substance which in the demonstration is but bread and say thereof This is my body that is as they saye the natural substance of Christs body
Christ indeed yea the same that is still in Heaven without all moving from place to place unspeakably and far passing our natural Reason which is in this Mystery so captivate that it cannot conceive how it is there without a lively Faith to Gods word But let this pass You do grant that this Bread doth quicken or give Life which if it do then it is not a natural Bread but a super-substantial Bread. Rochest So doth the effectual and lively Word of God which for that it nourisheth the Soul it doth give Life for the Divine Essence infuseth it self unspeakably into the faithful Receiver of the Sacrament Glin. How then say you to holy Damascene a Greek Author who as one Tritenius saith flourished one thousand years past he saith thus The Body that is of the holy Virgin Mary is joyned to the Divinity after the Consecration in verity and indeed not so as the Body once assumpted into Heaven and sitting on the Fathers right Hand doth remove from thence and cometh down at the Consecration time but that the same Bread and Wine are substantially transumpted into the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ If saith he thou dost not know the manner how it is brought to pass let it be enough to thee to believe that it is done by the Operation of the Holy Ghost and we do know no more but that the living Word of God is working and Almighty but the very manner how is inscrutable to us and no great marvel saith he for we cannot well express how the material Bread Wine or Water are transumpted naturally into the same Body and Blood of the Receiver and be become another Body than they were before So saith this great Ancient Clerk also this Shew-bread with Wine and Water are changed by the coming of the Holy Ghost into Christs Body and Blood and they be not two Bodies there but very one of Christ and the same Rochest First I deny Master Doctor that Damascene was one thousand years past Secondarily I say That he is not to be holden as an Ancient Father for that he maintaineth in his Works evil and damnable Doctrine as the worshipping of Images and such like Thirdly I say That indeed God by his holy Spirit is the worker of that which is done in the Sacrament Also I grant that there is a Mutation of the common Bread and Wine spiritually into the Lords Bread and Wine by the sanctifying of them in the Lords Word But I deny that there is any Mutation of the Substances for there is no other change there indeed than there is in us which when we do receive the Sacrament worthily then are we changed into Christs Body Bones and Blood not in nature but spiritually and by Grace much like as Isaiah saw the burning Coal even so we see not there the very simple Bread as it was before the Consecration for an Union cannot be but of two very things Wherefore if we be joyned to Christ receiving the Sacrament then there is no Adnihilation of Bread which is when it is reduced to nothing as it is in your feigned Transubstantiation Glin. So I perceive you would have me to grant that the Sacrament is but a Figure which Theophylactus doth deny Rochest You say Truth he denieth it indeed to be a Figure but he meaneth that it is not only a Figure Glin. Whereas St. Paul saith That we being many are one Bread he speaketh not nor meaneth one material Bread as you do here Ergo he speaketh of heavenly Bread. And holy Chrysostome upon Matthew saith That the Paschal Lamb was a Figure but the Mystery is the verity For the Disciples would not have been offended to have drunk a figure of Christ's Blood being well accustomed to figures For Christ did not institute a figure for a figure but the clear verity instead of the figure as St. John saith Grace and Verity was given by Christ Dost thou see Bread saith Chrysostome doth it avoid or pass as other meats do which we receive God forbid Ergo c. Madew That ancient Clerk Origen upon the 15th of St. Matth. saith thus As touching that which is material in the Sacrament it descendeth and issueth out as other nutriments do but as concerning that which is celestial it doth not so Glin. Chrysost Homily 83. upon Matthew saith That we cannot be deceived of Christ's Word but our natural Senses may be deceived in this point very soon and easily his said words cannot be false but our senses be many times beguiled of their judgments Because therefore that Christ said This is my body let us not at any hand doubt saith he but let us believe it and well perceive it with the eyes of our understanding And within a little after in that place he saith thus It was not enough that he was become man and afterwards was scourged for us but also he did reduce and bring us to be as one body with him not through Faith only but in very deed also he maketh us his Body And after that he saith that these works are not of mans power But the same things that he wrought in his last Supper he now worketh also by his Precept to his right Ministers and we do occupy the place of the same Ministers but he it is that doth sanctify and transumpt the creatures he performeth still the same Rochest Mr. Doctor you must understand that in that place St. Chrysostome sheweth us that Christ delivered to us no sensible thing at his last Supper Glin. Honourable Sir by your patience I grant that he gave to his Disciples no sensible thing in substance but a thing insensible his own precious Body and Blood under the only kinds of Creatures And truly as it seemeth Theophylactus best knew the meaning of Chrysostome because all Authors accept him as a faithful Interpreter of him And he hath these same plain words Transelemented and Transformed Also Theophylactus Alexandrinus super Marcum Cyrillus and St. Augustine saith That before the consecration it is bread but afterwards it is Christs very Body In like manner St. Augustine upon the 33d Psalm saith That in the last Supper Christ did bear himself in his own hands Now every man may bear the figure of his body in his own hands but St. Augustin saith it there for a Miracle Irenaeus in his fifth Book is of the same mind And St. Austin saith I do remember my words c. The Law and Figures were by Moses but the verity and Body came by Christ Rochest Well say what you list it is but a figurative speech like to this If you will receive and understand he is Elias for a property but indeed he was not Elias but John the Baptist And so in this place Christ calleth it his Body when it was very Bread. But better than the common Bread because it was sanctified by the Word of Christ Langdale I will prove it by another means Christ did
significations when as héer what soeuer thou saiest was in the cup nother that nor the cup it self taking euerye woorde in his proper signification was the new testament but in vnderstanding that which was in the cup by the cup that is a figuratiue speache yea and also thou canst not verifie or truly say of that whether thou saiest it was wine or Christs bloud to be the new testament without a figure also Thus in one sentence spoken of Christe in the institution of the Sacrament of his bloud the figure must help vs twise So vntrue it is that some doo write that Christe vseth no figure in the doctrine of faith nor in the institution of his sacraments But some say if we shall thus admit figures in doctrine then shall all the articles of our faith by figures and allegories shortly be transformed and vnlosed I say it is like fault and euen the same to denye the figure where the place so reguirethe to be understanded as bainly to Aug. de doc Christiana li. 3. ca. 16. make it a figuratiue speach which is to be vnderstanded in his proper signification The rules wherby the speech is knowen when it is figuratiue wherby it is none S. Augustine in his booke De doctrina Christiana giueth diuers learned lessons very necessary to be knowen of the students in Gods woorde Of the which oue I wil rehearse which is this If saith he the scripture dooth seeme to commaund a thing which is wicked or vngodly or to forbid a thing that charitie doth require then know saith he that the speach is figuratiue And for example he bringethe the saying of Christe in the vj. chapter of S. Iohn Except ye eate of the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his blood Gardiner in his answers to the 161. 226. obiection Note ye can not haue life in you It seemeth to commaund a wicked or anvngodly thing wherfore it is a figuratiue speech commaunding to haue Communion and felowship with Christs passion and deuoutly and holsomly to lay vp in memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. And héer I can not but maruail at some men surely of much excellent finenesse of wit and of great eloquence that are not ashamed to write and saye that this aforesaide saying of Christe is after S. Augustine a figuratiue speache indéede howbeit not vnto the learned but to the vnlearned Héere let any man that but indifferently vnderstandeth the Latin tongue reade the place in S. Austine and if ye perceiue not cléerly S. Augustins woords and mine to be contrarye let me abide therof the rebuke This lesson of S. Augustine I haue therfore the rather set foorthe because it teacheth vs to vnderstand that place in Iohn figuratiuely Euen so surely the same lesson with the example of S. Augustins expositions therof teacheth vs nor onlye by the same to vnderstand Christes woordes in the Institution of the Sacrament both of his body and of his blood figuratiuely but also the very trewe meaning and vnderstandinge of the same For if to commaunde to eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and to drinke his bloode séemeth to commaund an inconuenience and an vngodlines is euen so indéed if it be vnderstanded as the woords doo stande in their proper signification and therfore must be vnderstanded figuratiuelye and spiritually as S. Augustine dooth godly and learnedly interprete them then surely Christe commaunding in his last Supper to eat his body and drinke his bloode séemed to commaund in sound of woordes as grate and euen the same inconuenience and vngodlynesse as did his woordes in the vj. of S. Iohn and therfore must euen by the same reason be likewise vnderstanded and expounded figuratiuely and spiritually as S. Augustine did the other Wherunto that exposition of S. Augustine may seeme to be the more meete for that Christe in his supper to the commaundement of eating and drinkinge of his body and blood addeth Doe this in remembrance of me Which woords surelye were the keye that opened and reuealed the spirituall and godlye exposition vnto Saint Augustine But I haue taried longer in settinge foorth the forme of The Lords Cup as the Preests say Christes woords vpon the Lordes cup written by Paule and Luke then I did intend to doe And yet in speaking of the forme of Christs woords spoken vpon his cup commeth now to my remembrance the forme of woords vsed in the Latin Masse vpon the Lords cup. Wherof I do not a little meruaile what should be the cause seeing the Latin Masse agréeeth with the Euangelists and Paule in the forme of woords said vpon the bread why in the woordes saide vpon the Lordes cup it differeth from them all yea and addeth to the woordes of Christe spoken vpon the cup these woords Misterium fidei that is the misterie of faithe whiche are not red to be attributed vnto the Sacrament of Christes blood nother in the Euangelists nor in Paule nor so far as I know in any other place of holye Scripture yea and if it may haue some good expositione yet why it should not be as wel added vnto the woordes of Christ vpon his Bread as vpon his Cup surelye I doo not sée the misterie And because I sée in the vse of the Latin Masse the Sacramente of the blood abused when it is denyed vnto the laye people cleane contrarye vnto Gods moste certain woorde for why I doo beséech thée should the Sacrament of Christs blood he denied vnto the lay Christian more then to the Preeste Did not Christe shed his blood aswel for the lay godlye man as for the godlye Preeste If thou wilt saye yes that he did so But the Sacrament of the blood is not to be receiued without the offeringe vp and sacrificinge therof vnto God the Father bothe for the quicke and for the dead and no man may make oblation of Christs blood vnto God but a Preest and therfore the Preest alone and that but in his Masse only may receiue the Sacrament of the blood And call you this Maisters Mysterium fidei Alas alas I feare me this is before God Misterium iniquitatis the misterye of iniquitie such as S. Paule speaketh of in his Epistle to the Thessalonians The Lord be mercifull vnto vs and 2 Thes 2. Praier Psal 67. blesse vs lighten his countenance vpon vs and be mercifull vnto vs. That we may know thy waye vpon earthe and amonge all people thy saluation This kinde of oblation standeth vpon Transubstantiation his The Masse sacrifice iniurious to Christs passion 〈◊〉 germaine and they doo grow both vpon one ground The Lord weede it out of his Vinâ—arde shortlye if it be his blessed wil and pleasure that bitter root To speake of this oblatione howe muche is it iniurious vnto Christes passion How it can not but with highe blasphemy and hainous arrogancy and intollerable pride be claimed of any man other then of Christe himselfe how muche and
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
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
of the deuine nature and yet neuerthelesse the substance or nature of the bread and wine dooth not departe nor goe away Note these woords I beséeche you and consider whether any thing can be more plainely spoken then these woordes be against the errour of Transubstantiatione which is the ground and bitter root wherupon springe all the horrible errours before rehearsed Wherfore seing that the falshood dooth appeare so manifestlye and by so many waies so plainly so cléerly and so fullye that no man needeth to be deceiued but he that will not sée or will not vnderstande let vs al that doo loue the trueth embrace it and forsake the falshood For he that loueth the trueth is of God and the lack of the loue therof is the cause why God suffereth men to fall into errours and to perish therin yea and as S. Paule saieth why he sendeth vnto them illusions that they beleue lyes vnto their own condemnation because saithe he they loued not the trueth This trueth no doubte is Gods woord For Christe him self saith vnto his father Thy woord is trueth The loue and Ioh. 17. light wherof almighty God our heauenly father giue vs and lighten it in our harts by his holy spirit through Iesus Christe out Lorde Amen Vincit Veritas Mr. FOX 2 d Volume of Acts and Monuments Edit London 1684. Lib. 9. pag. 106. The Disputation held at Cambridge before the Kings Commissioners June 20. 1549. wherein Bishop Ridley moderated GLin Well yet once again to you thus The very true Body P. 106. of Christ is to be honoured but the same very true Body is in the Sacrament Ergo the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is to be honoured Rochest Wellbeloved Friends and Brethren in our Saviour Christ you must understand that this Disputation with other that shall be after this are appointed to search for the plain truth of the Holy Scriptures in these matters of Religion which of a long Season have been hidden from us by the false Glosses of the Church of Rome and now in our days must be revealed to us Englishmen through the great Mercy of God principally and secondarily through the most gentle Clemency of our natural Sovereign Lord the Kings Majesty whom the living Lord long preserve to reign over us in Health Wealth and Godliness to the maintenance of Gods holy Word and to the extirpation of all blind Glosses of Men that go about to subvert the Truth Because therefore that I am one that doth love the Truth and have professed the same amongst you therefore I say because of conferring my mind with yours I will here gladly declare what I think in this point now in Controversy Not because this worshipful Doctor hath any need of my help in dissolving of Arguments proposed against him for as me seemeth he hath answered hitherto very well and Clerkly according to the Truth of Gods Word But now to the purpose I do grant unto you Mr. Opponent that the old Ancient Fathers do record and witness a certain Honour and Adoration to be due unto Christs Body but they speak not of it in the Sacrament but of it in Heaven at the right hand of the Father as holy Chrysostome saith Honour thou it and then eat it but that Honour may not be given to the outward sign but to the Body of Christ it self in Heaven For that Body is there only in a sign virtually by Grace in the exhibition of it in Spirit Effect and Faith to the worthy receiver of it For we receive virtually only Christs Body in the Sacrament Glin. How then if it please your good Lordship doth Baptism differ from this Sacrament For in that we receive Christ also by Grace and virtually Rochest Christ is present after another sort in Baptism than in this Sacrament for in that he purgeth and washeth the Infant from all kind of Sin but here he doth feed spiritually the receiver in Faith with all the merits of his blessed Death and Passion and yet he is in Heaven still really and substantially As for Example The Kings Majesty our Lord and Master is but in one place wheresoever that this Royal Person is abiding for the time and yet his mighty Power and Authority is every where in his Realms and Dominions So Christs real Person is only in Heaven substantially placed but his might is in all things created effectually For Christs Flesh may be understood for the Power or inward Might of his Flesh Glin. If it please your Fatherhood St. Ambrose and St. Augustine do say That before the Consecration it is but very Bread and after the Consecration it is called the very Body of Christ Madew Indeed it is the very Body of Christ Sacramentally after the Consecration whereas before it is nothing but common Bread and yet after that it is the Lords Bread and thus must St. Ambrose and St. Augustine be understood Glin. The Bread after Consecration doth feed the Soul Ergo The substance of common Bread doth not remain The Argument is good for St. Ambrose De Sacramentis saith thus After the Consecration there is not the thing that Nature did form but that which the blessing doth consecrate And if the Benediction of the Prophet Elias did turn the nature of Water how much more then doth the Benediction of Christ here both God and Man Madew That Book of St. Ambrose is suspected to be none of his Works Rochest So all the Fathers say Glin. I do marvel at that for St. Augustin in his Book of Retractations maketh plain that that was his own very Work. Rochest He speaketh indeed of such a Book so intituled to St. Ambrose but yet we do lack the same Book indeed Glin. Well let it then pass to other mens Judgments What then say you to holy St. Cyprian 1200 years past Who saith That the Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples was not changed in form or quality but in very nature and by the Almighty word was made Flesh Madew I do answer thus That this word Flesh may be taken two ways either for the substance it self or else for a natural property of a fleshly thing So that Cyprian there did mean of a natural Property and not of fleshly Substance And contrariwise in the Rod of Aaron where both the Substance and also the Property was changed Glin. Holy St. Ambrose saith The Body there made by the mighty Power of Gods word is the Body of the Virgin Mary Rochest That is to say That by the Word of God the thing hath a Being that it had not before and we do consecrate the Body that we may receive the Grace and Power of the Body of Christ in Heaven by this Sacramental Body Glin. By your Patience my Lord if it be a Body of the Virgin as St. Ambrose saith which we do consecrate as Ministers by Gods holy Word then must it needs be more than a Sacramental or Spiritual Body yea a very Body of
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
the sante Fathers The Body of Christ is so called properly and improperly properly that Body which was taken of the Virgin. Improperly as the Sacrament and the Church That the Church is not properly the Body of Christ cannot be doubted by any It remains that we now prove the same of the Sacrament It may easily be observed from what Chrysostom writeth in this place that that which Christ called his Body when he said Take eat this is my Body and which be received together with his Apostles is in another manner his Body than is his very proper Body which was fed with that other This did eat that was eaten and each is called his Body but in a different manner He gave the Sacrament of his Body and not the Body it self visibly conceived that is his visible Body which is referred to his proper Body But this Body wherever it is is visible It is to be observed That the truth of the Lords Body may be spoken two ways and ought to be understood two ways For one verity of his Body is required in the Sacrament another simply and out of the Sacrament As for what concerns our purpose the very words of Cyprian sufficiently demonstrate how the Letter is not to be followed in those things which relate to this Mystery how far all carnal Sense is to be removed and all things to be referred to a spiritual Sense that with this Bread is present the Divine Virtue the effect of Eternal Life that the Divine Essence is infused that the Words are Spirit and Life that a spiritual Precept is delivered that this Body this Flesh and Blood this Substance of the Body ought not to be understood after a common manner nor according to the Dictates of human Reason but is so named thought and believed because of certain eminent Effects Virtues and Properties which are joyned to it which are naturally found in the Body and Blood of Christ to wit that it feed and quicken our Souls and prepare our Bodies to Resurrection and Immortality Here it is to be remembred that the words are spiritual and spiritually to be understood that it is indeed named Flesh and Blood but that this ought to be understood of the Spirit and Life that is of the lively Virtue of the Flesh of our Lord so that the Efficacy of Life is conferred on the external Signs When Theophylact said That the Bread is not the Figure of our Lords Body he means that it is not only or a bare Figure of it See how Chrysostom saith That we are really as I may so say turned into the Flesh of Christ Yet who doth not see that this is a spiritual not a carnal Conversion So the Bread is really turned and transelementated into the Flesh of Christ but by a spiritual not a carnal Conversion inasmuch as as the Bread obtains the Virtue of the Flesh How much better did Cyprian Ambrose Epiphanius Emysenus and others speak who teach a like change to be performed in the Eucharist as is performed in Baptism by which the external Signs remain the same and by Grace acquire a new substance in the same manner The Exposition and Doctrine of Bertram concerning the Sacrament ought in my Opinion to be diligently examined and embraced for two Reasons That this may appear more manifestly and be remembred the better I thought it not unfit to subjoyn from what I have already taught a certain Comparison between the two Bodies of Christ The proper Body of Christ hath Head Breast and distinct Members the mystical Body hath not The proper Body hath Bones Veins and Nerves the mystical Body hath not That is organical this is not That is not a Figure this is a Figure of the proper Body That is human and corporeal by its Nature this is Heavenly Divine and Spiritual The matter of that is not subject to Corruption the material part of this is Bread and is corrupted That is contained in one place this is present wheresoever the Sacrament is celebrated but not as in a place That is not the Sacrament of another Body this the Sacrament of another That was taken of the Body of the Virgin Mary and was once created this is not taken of the Virgin but is created daily by the mystical Benediction potentially That is a natural Body this supernatural Lastly That is simply properly and absolutely his Body this in a certain respect only and improperly Nor is it enough here if we flee one way of carnally understanding it and fall upon another For he who literally understands the eating of the Flesh of Christ and as altho it were a proper Speech he is a carnal Capernaite whether he imagine it to be properly done this way or that way For it is probable that all the Capernaites understood Christ carnally but not all the same way For it is not therefore to be accounted a Spiritual sense because they say the Flesh of Christ is there invisibly present For if they mean his proper Flesh we do not therefore not eat it carnally because we do not see it Now in this Sacrament the ancient Fathers observed two things for each of which it might deservedly be called and esteemed the Body of Christ but more especially when it comprehends both For the Bread is justly called his Body as well because it is the figure of his true Body as because it hath the lively vertue of it conjoyned to it much more but most especially because it comprehendeth both It is therefore to be admired what they mean who will not suffer it to be called a figure nor acknowledg any figure in the words of Institution but contumeliously call those who own it Figurative men whereas it is manifest that all the Ancients did so call it And indeed if there be no figure in it it will be neither a sign nor Sacrament So that those who traduce the maintainers of the other opinion as Sacramentaries do indeed take away all Sacrament from it There is yet another thing which the Ancient Fathers acknowledging to be in this Sacrament taught it to be truly the Body of our Lord And that is the efficacious and lively vertue of the Body it self which is joyned with the Bread and Wine by Grace and Mystical Benediction and is called by divers names although it be the same thing by Augustine the Intelligible Invisible and Spiritual Body by Jerome the Divine and Spiritual Flesh by Irenaeus an Heavenly Thing by Ambrose the Spiritual Food and Body of the Divine Spirit by others some other like thing And this doth chiefly cause this Sacrament to be worthy of the appellation of his true Body and Blood since it doth not only externally bear the Image and Figure of it but also carrieth along with it the inward and hidden natural propriety of the same Body so that it cannot be esteemed an empty Figure or the sign of a thing wholly absent but the very Body of our Lord Divine indeed
he not offered in verity For the Apostle saith Not that he might offer up himself oftentimes for then must he have suffered oftentimes since the beginning of the World. Now where Christ is not offered there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice Ergo In the Mass there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice For Christ appeared once in the latter end of the World to put sin to flight by the offering up of himself And as it is appointed to all men that they shall once dye and then cometh the Judgment even so Christ was once offered to take away the Sins of many And unto them that look for him shall he appear again without sin unto salvation Another Argument Where there is any Sacrifice that can make the comers thereunto Da perfect there ought men to cease from offering any more Expiatory and Propitiatory Sacrifices But in the New Testament there is one only Sacrifice now already ri long since offered which is able to make the comers thereunto perfect for ever Ergo In the New Testament they ought to cease from offering i. any more Propitiatory Sacrifice Sentences of the Scripture tending to the same end and purpose out of which also may be gathered other manifest Arguments for more confirmation thereof By the which will saith the Apostle we are sanctified by the offering Heb. 10. up of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all And in the same place But this man after that he had offered one Sacrifice for sin sitteth for ever at the Right hand of God c. For with one Offering hath he made perfect for ever them that are sanctified and by himself hath he purged our Sins I beseech you to mark these words by himself the which well weighed will without doubt cease all controversie The Apostle plainly denieth any other Sacrifice to remain for him that treadeth under his feet the Blood of the Testament by the which he was made holy Christ will not be crucified again he will not his death to be had in derision He hath reconciled us in the Body of his Flesh Mark I beseech you he Col. 1. saith not in the Mystery of his Body but in the Body of his Flesh If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the 1 John 2. Righteous and he is the Propitiation for our Sins not for ours only but for the Sins of the whole World. I know that all these places of the Scripture are avoided by two manner of subtil shifts The one is by the distinction of the bloody and unbloody Sacrifice as tho our unbloody Sacrifice of the Church were any other than the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving than a commemoration a shewing forth and a Sacramental Representation of that one only bloody Sacrifice offered up once for all The other is by depraving and wresting the Sayings of the Ancient Fathers unto such a strange kind of sense as the Fathers themselves indeed never meant For what the meaning of the Fathers was is evident by that which St. Augustine writeth in his Epistle to Boniface and in the 83d Chapter of his Ninth Book against Faustus the Manichee besides many other Places likewise by Eusebius Emissenus Cyprian Chrysostom Fulgentius Bertram and others who do wholly concord and agree together in this unity in the Lord that the Redemption once made in Verity for the Salvation of Man continueth in full effect for ever and worketh without ceasing unto the end of the World That the Sacrifice once offered cannot be consumed That the Lord's Death and Passion is as effectual the vertue of that Blood once shed as fresh at this day for the washing away of sins as it was even the same day that it flowed out of the blessed Side of our Saviour And finally that the whole substance of our Sacrifice which is frequented of the Church in the Lord's Supper consisteth in Prayers Praise and giving of Thanks and in remembring and in shewing forth of that Sacrifice once offered upon the Altar of the Cross that the same might continually be had in reverence by Mystery which once only and no more was offered for the Price of our Redemption These are the things right worshipful Mr. Prolocutor and ye the rest of the Commissioners which I could presently prepare to the answering of your three foresaid Prophesies being destitute of all help in this shortness of time sudden warning and want of Books Wherefore I appeal to my first Protestation most humbly desiring the help of the same as much as may be to be granted unto me And because ye have lately given most unjust and cruel Sentence against me I do here appeal so far forth as I may to a more indifferent and just censure and judgment of some other Superior Competent and Lawful Judge and that according to the approved state of the Church of England Howbeit I confess I am ignorant what that is at this present through the trouble and alteration of the state of the Realm But if this Appeal may not be granted to me upon Earth then do I fly even as to my only Refuge and alone Haven of Health to the Sentence of the Eternal Judge that is of the Almighty God to whose most merciful Justice towards us and most just Mercifulness I do wholly commit my self and all my Cause nothing at all despairing of the Defence of my Advocate and alone Saviour Jesus Christ to whom with the Everlasting Father and the Holy Spirit the Sanctifier of us all be now and for ever all Honour and Glory Amen Ridley Of Christ's Real Presence there may be a double understanding P. 56. If you take the Real Presence of Christ according to the Real and Corporal Substance which he took of the Virgin that Presence being in Heaven cannot be on the Earth also But if you mean a Real Presence secundum rem aliquam quae ad Corpus Christi pertinet i. e. according to something that appertaineth to Christ's Body certes the Ascension and abiding in Heaven are no let at all to that Presence Wherefore Christ's Body after that sort is here present to us in the Lord's Supper by Grace I say as Epiphanius speaketh it I grant the Bread to be converted and turned into the Flesh of P. 60. Christ but not by Transubstantiation but by a Sacramental Conversion or turning It is Transformed saith Theophylact in the same place by a Mystical Benediction and by the accession or coming of the Holy Ghost unto the Flesh of Christ He saith not by expulsion or driving away the Substance of Bread and by substituting or putting in its place the Corporal Substance of Christ's Flesh And where he saith It is not a Figure of the Body we should understand that saying as he himself doth elsewhere add one that is it is no naked or bare Figure only For Christ is present in his Mysteries neither at any time as Cyprian saith doth the Divine Majesty
acquainted Weston Here are two which Mr. Cranmer had yesterday take them if it please you Rid. I am content with them I trust they are honest men The First Proposition In the Sacrament of the Altar by the virtue of God's Word spoken of the Priest the Natural Body of Christ born of the Virgin Mary and his Natural Blood is Really Present under the Forms of Bread and Wine The Answer of N. Ridley In matters appertaining to God we may not speak according to the sense of Man nor of the World. Therefore this Proposition or Conclusion is framed after another manner of Phrase or kind of Speech than the Scripture useth Again it is very obscure and dark by means of sundry words of doubtful signification And being taken in the sense which the Schoolmen teach and at this time the Church of Rome doth defend it is false and erroneous and plain contrary to the Doctrine which is according to Godliness The Explication How far the diversity and newness of the Phrase in all this first Proposition is from the Phrase of the Holy Scripture and that in every part almost it is so plain and evident to any that is but meanly exercised in Holy Writ that I need not now especially in this Company of Learned Men to spend any time therein except the same shall be required of me hereafter First There is a double sense in these words by virtue of God's Word for it is doubtful what word of God this is whether it be that which is read in the Evangelists or in St. Paul or any other And if it be that which is in the Evangelists or in St. Paul what that is If it be in none of them then how it may be known to be God's Word and of such virtue that it should be able to work so great a matter Again There is a doubt of these words of the Priest whether no man may be called a Priest but he who hath Authority to make a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead and how it may be proved that this Authority was committed of God to any man but to Christ alone It is likewise doubted after what Order the Sacrificing Priest shall be whether after the Order of Aaron or else after the Order of Melchisedech for as far as I know the Holy Scripture doth allow no more Weston Let this be sufficient Rid. If we lack time at this present there is time enough hereafter Weston These are but evasions or starting holes you consume the time in vain Rid. I cannot start from you I am captive and bound Weston Fall to it my Masters Smith That which you have spoken may suffice at this present Rid. Let me alone I pray you for I have not much to say behind West Go forward Rid. Moreover there is ambiguity in this word Really whether it be taken as the Logicians term it transcendenter that is most generally and so it may signifie any manner of thing which belongeth to the Body of Christ by any means after which sort we also grant Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as in Disputation if occasion be given shall be declared or whether it be taken to signifie the very same thing having Body Life and Soul which was assumed and taken of the Word of God into the Unity of Person In which sense fith the Body of Christ is really in Heaven because of the true manner of his Body it may not be said to be here in the earth There is yet a further doubtfulness in these words under the forms of Bread and Wine whether the forms be there taken to signifie the only accidental and outward shews of Bread and Wine or there withal the substantial Natures thereof which are to be seen by their qualities and perceived by exterior senses Now the Error and Falseness of the Proposition after the sense of the Roman Church and Schoolmen may hereby appear in that they affirm the Bread to be Transubstantiated and changed to the Flesh assumed of the Word of God and that as they say by virtue of the Word which they have devised by a certain number of words and cannot be found in any of the Evangelists or in S Paul and so they gather that Christ's Body is really contained in the Sacrament of the Altar Which Position is grounded upon the Foundation of the Transubstantiation which Foundation is monstrous against Reason and destroyeth the Analogy or Proportion of the Sacraments and therefore this Proposition also which is built upon this rotten Foundation is false erroneous and to be counted as a detestable Heresie of the Sacramentaries Weston We lose time Ridley You shall have time enough West Fall to reasoning You shall have some other day for this matter Rid. I have no more to say concerning my Explication If you will give me leave and let me alone I will but speak a word or two for my confirmation Weston Go to say on The Confirmation of the aforesaid Answer There ought no Doctrine to be established in the Church of Tes God which dissenteth from the Word of God from the Rule of Faith and draweth with it many absurdities that cannot be avoided But this Doctrine of the first Proposition is such ti-no Ergo It ought not to be established and maintained in the Church of God. The Major or first part of my Argument is plain and the Minor or second part is proved thus The Doctrine maintaineth a real corporal and carnal presence of Christ's Flesh assumed and taken of the Word to be in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and that not by virtue and Grace only but also by the whole Essence and Substance of the Body and Flesh of Christ But such a presence disagreeth from God's Word from the Rule of Faith and cannot but draw with it many absurdities Ergo The second part is true The first part of this Argument is manifest and the second may yet futher be confirmed thus Weston Thus you consume time which might be better bestowed on other matters Mr. Opponent I pray you to your Arguments Smith I will here reason with you upon Transubstantiation which you say is contrary to the Rule and Analogy of Faith. The contrary whereof I prove by the Scriptures and the Doctors But before I enter Argumentation with you I demand first whether in the sixth Chapter of John there be any mention made of the Sacrament or of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Rid. It is against reason that I should be impeached to prosecute that which I have to speak in this Assembly being not so long but that it may be comprehended in few words West Let him read on Rid. First of all this Presence is contrary to many places of the holy Scripture Secondly It varieth from the Articles of the Faith. Thirdly It destroyeth and taketh away the Institution of the Lord's Supper Fourthly It maketh precious things common to
prophane and ungodly persons for it casteth that which is holy unto Dogs and pearls unto Swine Fifthly It forceth men to maintain many Monstrous Miracles without necessity and Authority of God's Word Sixthly It giveth occasion to the Hereticks which erred concerning the two Natures in Christ to defend their Heresies thereby Seventhly It falsifieth the sayings of the Godly Fathers it falsifieth also the Catholick Faith of the Church which the Apostles taught the Martyrs confirmed and the Faithful as one of the Fathers saith do retain and keep until this day Wherefore the 2 d part of mine Argument is true The Probation of the Antecedent or former part of this Argument by the Parts thereof 1. This carnal Presence is contrary to the Word of God as appeareth Joh. 16. I tell you the truth It is profitable to you that I go away for if I go not away the Comforter shall not come unto you Act. 3. Whom the Heavens must receive until the time of restoring of all things which God hath spoken Mat. 9. The Children of the Bridegroom cannot mourn so long as the Bridegroom is with them But now is the time of mourning Joh. 16. But I will see you again and your hearts shall rejoice Joh. 14. I will come again and take you to my self Mat. 24. If they shall say unto you Behold here is Christ or there is Christ believe them not c. 2. It varieth from the Articles of the Faith He ascended into Heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father from whence and not from any other place saith St. Augustine he shall come to judg both the quick and the dead 3. It destroyeth and taketh away the Institution of the Lord's Supper which was commanded only to be used and continued until the Lord himself should come If therefore he be really present in the body of his flesh then must the Supper cease For a remembrance is not of a thing present but of a thing past and absent And there is a difference between Remembrance and Presence and as one of the Fathers saith A Figure is in vain where the thing figured is present It maketh precious things common to prophane and ungodly Persons and constraineth men to confess many absurdities For it affirmeth that Whoremongers and Murtherers yea and as some of them hold opinion that Mice Rats and Dogs also may receive the very real and corporal Body of the Lord wherein the fulness of the Spirit of Light and Grace dwelleth contrary to the manifest words of Christ in six Places and Sentences of the 6th Chapter of St. John. 4. It confirmeth also and maintaineth that beastly kind of Cruelty of the Anthropophagi that is the Devourers of Man's Flesh for it is a more cruel thing to devour a quick Man that to slay him Pie. He requireth time to speak Blasphemies Leave your Blasphemies Rid. I had little thought to have had such reproachful words at your hands West All is quiet Go to your Arguments Mr. Doctor Rid. I have not many things more to say West You utter Blasphemies with a most impudent face leave off I say and get you to the Argument Rid. 5. It forceth men to maintain many monstrous Miracles without any necessity and authority of God's Word For at the coming of this presence of the Body and Flesh of Christ they thrust away the Substance of Bread and affirm that the Accidents remain without any Subject and instead thereof they place Christ's Body without his qualities and the true manner of a Body And if the Sacrament be reserved so long until it mould and Worms breed some say that the Substance of Bread miraculously returneth again and some deny it Other some affirm that the real Body of Christ goeth down into the Stomach of the Receivers and doth there abide so long only as they shall continue to be good but another sort hold that the Body of Christ is carried into Heaven so soon as the forms of Bread be bruised with the Teeth O Works of Miracles Truly and most truly I see that fulfilled in these Men whereof St. Paul prophesied 2 Thess 2. Because they have not received the love of the truth that they might be saved God shall send them strong Delusions that they should believe a Lye and be all damned which have not believed the Truth This gross Presence hath brought forth that fond phantasie of Concomitance whereby is broken at this day and abrogated the Commandment of the Lord for distributing of the Lord's Cup to the Laity 6. It giveth occasion to Hereticks to maintain and defend their Errors as to Marcion who said that Christ had but a Phantastical Body and to Eutiches who wickedly confounded the two Natures in Christ 7. Finally It falsifieth the Sayings of the Godly Fathers and the Catholick Faith of the Church which Vigilius a Martyr and grave Writer saith was taught of the Apostles confirmed with the Blood of Martyrs and was continually maintained by the Faithful until his time By the Sayings of the Fathers I mean of Justin Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Eusebius Emisenus Athanasius Cyril Epiphanius Hierome Chrysostome Augustine Vigilius Fulgentius Bertram and others most ancient Fathers All those places as I am sure I have read making for my purpose so am I well assured that I could shew the same if I might have the use of mine own Books which I will take to me to do even upon the peril of my life and loss of all that I may lose in this World. But now my Brethren think not because I disallow that Presence which the first Proposition maintaineth as a Presence which I take to be forged Phantastical and besides the Authority of God's Word perniciously brought into the Church by the Romanists that I therefore go about to take away the true Presence of Christ's Body in his Supper rightly and duly administred which is grounded upon the Word of God and made more plain by the Commentaries of the Faithful Fathers They that think so of me the Lord knoweth how far they are deceived and to make the same evident unto you I will in few words declare what true Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper I hold and affirm with the Word of God and the Ancient Fathers I say and confess with the Evangelist Luke and Apostle Paul that the Bread on the which thanks are given is the Body of Christ in the remembrance of him and his Death to be set forth perpetually of the Faithful until his coming I say and confess the Bread which we break to be the Communion and partaking of Christ's Body with the Ancient and the Faithful Fathers I say and believe that there is not only a signification of Christ's Body set forth by the Sacrament but also that therewith is given to the Godly and Faithful the Grace of Christ's Body that is the food of Life and Immortality And this I hold with Cyprian I say also with St.