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
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
speake and that is this if this Transubstantiatione be made by this woorde Blessed in Mark said vpon the breade as Innocentius that Pope did saye then surely seeing that woord is not saide of Christe neither in any of the Euangelistes nor in S. Paule vpon the cup There is no Transubstantiatione of the Wine at all For where the cause dooth falle there cannot follow the effect But the sacramental Bread and the sacramental Wine doo both remain in their naturall substance a like and if the one be not changed as of the sacramental Wine it appeareth euidently then there is no such Transubstantiatione in nother of them both All that trust and affirme this change of the substance of breade The Papists affirme they wot not what and mine into the substance of Christes Bodye and Blood called Transubstantiation doo also say this change to be made by a certaine forme of prescripte woordes and none other But what they be that make the change either of the one or of the other vndoubtedlye euen they that doo write moste finelye in these our daies almost confesse plainely that they can not tel For althoughe they graunt to certaine of the olde authors as Chrisostom and Ambrose that these woords This is my body are the woords of consecration Gardener to the 48. Objection of the Sacrament of the bodye yet say they these woords may wel be so called because they doo assure vs of the cousecration therof whether it be doon before these woords be spoken or no. But as for this their doubte concerning the Sacrament of the bodye I let it passe Let vs now consider the woords which pertain to the Cup. This is first euident that as Mathewe much agréeeth with Mark and likewise Luke with Paule muche agréeeth béerein in forme of woordes so in the same forme of woordes in Mathew and Mark is diuers from that which is in Luke and Paule the olde authors doo moste rehearse the forme of woordes in Mathewe and Marke because I wéene they séemed to them moste cléere But béer I woulde knowe whether it is credibly or no that Luke and Paule when they celebrated the Lordes Supper with their congregations that they did not not vse the same forme of woords at the Lords Table which they wrote Luke in his Gospell and Paule in his Epistle Of Luke because he was a Phisition whether some will graunt that he might be a Préesse or no and was able to receiue the order of préesthood which they say is giuen by the vertue of these woordes saide by the Bishop Take thou authoritye to Sacrifice for the quick and the deade I can not tell but if they shoulde be so straight vpon Luke either for his crafte or eis for lack of suche Peter and Paule had no such preesthood as the Papists haue power giuen him by vertue of the aforesaid woords then I wéene both Peter and Paule are in danger to be deposed of their préesthood for the craft either of Fishinge which was Peters or making of Tentes which was Paules were more vile then the science of Phisicke And as for those sacramentall woords of the order of Préesthood to haue authoritie to sacrifice both for the quicke and the deade I wéene Peter and Paule if they were both a liue were not able to prooue that euer Christe gaue them such authoritie or euer said any such woordes vnto them But I will let Luke goe and because Paule speaketh more for him selfe I will rehearse his woords That saith Paule whiche I receiued of the Lord I gaue vnto you For the Lorde Jesus c. And so he setteth foorth the whole institution and right vse of the Lordes Supper Now séeing that S. Paule heer saith that whiche he receiued of the Lord he had giuen them and that whiche he hath receiued and giuen them before by woord of mouth now he rehearseth and writeth the same in his Epistle is it crediblye that Paule woulde neuer vse this forme of woords vpon the Lords cop which as he saith he receaued of the Lord that he had giuen them before and now rehearseth in his Epistle I trust no man is far from al reason but he wil graunt me that this is not likely so to be Now then if you graunt mee that Paule did vse the forme of woords which he writeth Let vs then rehearse and consider Paules woorde which he saith Christ spake thus vpon the Cuppe This Cup is the New Testament in my blood this doo as often as ye shall drinke it in the remembrance of me Héer I woulde knowe whether that Christs woords spoken vpon the cup were not as mighty in woork and as effectuall in signification to all intentes constrictions and purposes as all our Parliament men doo speak as they were spoken vpon the breade If this be graunted which thinge I think no man can deny then further I reason thus But the woorde Is in the woords spoken vpon the Lords breade dooth mightely signifie say they the change of the substance of that which goeth before it into the substance of that which followeth after that is of the substance of bread into the substance of Christes bodye when Christe saith This is my body Now then if Christs woords which are spoken vpon the cup which Paule heere rehearseth be of the same might and power both in woorking and signifying then must this woord Is when Christe saithe This Cup is the new Testament c. turne the substance of the cup into the substance of the new testament And if thou wilt saye that this woorde Is nother maketh nor signifieth any such change of the cup Although it be said of Christe that this cup is the new testament yet Christ ment no such change as that Marry sir euen so saye I when Christe said of the bread which hée took and after thanks giuen brake and gaue them saying Take eat this is my body he ment no more any such change of the substance of breade into the substance of his naturall body then he ment of the change and transubstamiation of the cup into the substance of the newe Tellament And if thou wilt saye that the woord Cup héer in Christs woords dooth not signifie the Cup it self but the Wine or thing centeined in the cup by a figure called Metonymia for that Christs Note well the Papists errour consuted woordes so ment and muste néeds be taken thou saist very wel But I pray thée by the way héer note two things First that this woorde Is hath no suche strength or signification in the Lordes woords to make or to signifie any transubstanciation Secondly that the Lords woords wherby he instituted the Sacrament of his blood he vseth a figuratiue speach How vaine then is it that some so earnestly doo say as it were an infallible rule that in doctrine and in the institution of the Sacraments Christe vsed no figurs but all his woordes are to be strained to their proper
significations when as héer what soeuer thou saiest was in the cup nother that nor the cup it self taking euerye woorde in his proper signification was the new testament but in vnderstanding that which was in the cup by the cup that is a figuratiue speache yea and also thou canst not verifie or truly say of that whether thou saiest it was wine or Christs bloud to be the new testament without a figure also Thus in one sentence spoken of Christe in the institution of the Sacrament of his bloud the figure must help 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
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
except they would say that the verbe Is signifieth is made or is changed into And so then if the same verbe Is be of the same effect in Christs woords spoken upon the cup and rehearsed by Luke and Paule the cup or the wine in the Cup muste bee made or turned into the newe Testamente as was declared before There be some among the Transubstantiatours which walke so wilâ—lye and so warely between these two aforesaid opinions Gardener a neutrall or lack of both sides allowing them both and bolding plainelye nother of them bothe that me thinks they may be called Neutrals Ambodexters or rather suche as can shift on both sides They play on both partes For with the later they doo allow the doctrine of the last sillable which is that Transubstantiatione is doone by miracle in an instant at the sound of the last syllable um in this sentence Hoc est corpus meum And they doo allowe also Duns his fantasticall imagination of Individium vagum that demonstrateth as he teacheth in Christes woords one thing in substance then being after his minde the substance of the body of Christe A merhailous thinge how one man can agrée with both these two they being so contrary the one to the other For the one saithe the woorde this demonstrateth the substance of bread and the other saith no not so the bread is gone and it demonstrateth a substance whiche is Christes body Gard. to the 4. obiectiou Tushe saith this third man yée vnderstand nothing at all They agree well inough in the chéef poynte whiche is the ground God makers agree against the trueth Note of all that is both doth agrée and beare witnes that there is Transubstantiation They do agrée indéed in that conclusion I graunt But their processe and doctrine therof doo euen aswell agrée togeather as did the false witnes before Annas Caiphas against Christ or the two wicked Iudges against Susanna For againste Christe the false witnesses did agrée no doubt to speak all againste him And the wicked iudges were both agréeed to condemne poore Susanna but in examination of their witnesses they dissented so far that al was found false that they went about both that wherin they agréeed and also those thinges which they brought for their proofes Thus muche haue I spoken in searchinge out a solucione for The consent of the olde authors this principall question which was what is the materiall substance of the holye Sacramente in the Lords supper Now least I should seem to set by mine owne conceite more then is méet or lesse to regard the doctrine of the old ecclestasticall writers then is conuenient for a man of my poore learning and simple wit for to doo And because also I am indéed perswaded that the olde ecclesiastical writers understood the true meaning of Christ in this matter and have both so truly and so plainly set it foorth in certain places of their writinges that no man whiche will vouchsafe to reade them and without preiudice of a corrupt iudgement will indifferently weigh them consâ—er their mindes none otherwise then they declare themselves to have mente I am perswaded I say that in reading of them thus no man can be ignorant in this matter but he that wil shut up his own eies and blindféeld himself When I speake of Ecclesiastical writers I mean of such as were before the wicked vsurpation of the see of Rome was growen so unmeasurably great that not only with tirannical power but also with corrupt doctrine it began to subuert Christes gospell and to turne the state that Christe and his Apostles set in the Church vpside down For the causes aforesaide I will rehearse certain of their sayings and yet because I take them but for witnesses and expounders of this doctrine and not as the authors of the same and also for that now I wil not be tedious I will rehearse but fewe that is thrée olde writers of the Gréeke Church and other three of the Latin Church which do seem unto me to be in this matter most plaine The Gréek Authors are Origen Chrisostome and Theodoret. The Latin are Tertulliane S. Augustine and Gelasius I know there call be nothinge spoken so plainly but the crafty wit furnished with eloquence can darken it and weest it quite from the true meaning to a contrary sence And I know also that eloquence craft and finenes of wit hath gone about to bleare mens eies and to stop their eares in the aforenamed writers that men shoulde nother heare nor see what those Authors bothe write and teache so plainely that excepte men shoulde be made both starke blinde and or ase they can not but of necessitie if they will reade and way them indifferently both he are and see what they doo meane when eloquence crafte and finenesse of wit have 〈◊〉 all that they can Now let us he are the olde writers of the Greeke Church Origene which lived about 1250. yéeres agoe a man for the excellency of his learninge so highlye esteemed in Christes Church Origen that he was counted and iudged the singular teacher in his time of Eccle Hist Li. 6. Ca. 3. Christs religion the confounder of heresies the schoolmaister of many godly matters and an opener of highe misteries in scripture He writing upon the iv chapter of Saint Mathewes gospell saieth bus But if any thing enter into the mouth it goeth away in to the belly and is auoided into the draught Yea and that meat whiche is sanctified by the woord of God and praier concerning the matter thereof it goeth away into the belly and is auoided into the draughte But for the praier which is added vnto it for the proportion of the faith it is made profitable makinge the minde able to perceive and see that which is profitable For it is not the immateriall substance of breade but the woord which is spoken vpon it that is profitable to the man that eateth it not vnwoorthely And his I mean of the Typical and Simbolical that is Sacramentall bodye Thus far goe the woords of Origene where it is plaine firste that Origene speaking heer of the sacrament of the Lords supper as the laste woordes doo plainely signifie dooth meane and teache that the material substance therof is receiued digested and auoided as the material substance of other bread and meats is which coulde not be if there were no materiall substance of bread at all as the fantasticall opinion of Transubstantiation dooth put It is a world too see the answere of the Papistes to this place of Origen in the disputations which were in this The Papists obiection against Origene matter in the Parliamente house and in both the vniuersities of Cambridge and Oxforde they that defended Transubstantiation said that this parte of Origen was but set forth of late by Erasmus and therefore is to be suspected But how vaine this their answere is it appeareth plainly For so maye all
the good olde authors which lay in olde libraries and are set foorth of late be by this reason reâ—â—cted as Clement Alexandrinus Theodoretus Iustinus Ecclesiastica An other obiection historia Nicephori and other such An other answere they had saying that Origen is noted to haue erred in some poyntes and therfore faithe is not to be giuen in this matter vnto him But this answer well waighed dooth minister good matter to the cleere confutation of it selfe For indeed we graunte that in some poynts Origen did erre But those errours are gathered out and noted both of S. Ierome and Epiphanius so that his woorkes those errours excepted are now so much the more of authoritie that suche great learned men took pains to take out of him whatsoever they thoughte in him to be written amis But as concerninge this matter of the Lords Supper nother they nor yet euer any other anciente Author did euer say that Origen did erre Now because these two answers have beene of late so confuted Gardener to the 166. and confounded that it is well perceiued that they will take no place therfore some whiche haue written since that time haue forged two other answers euen of the same moulde The former whereof is that Origen in this place spake not of the Sacramente of bread or wine of the Lords table but of an other misticall meat of the which S. Augustine maketh mencion to be giuen vnto them that were taught the faithe before they were baptised But Origens owne woordes in two sentences before rehearsed being put togither prooue this answere vntrue For he saith that he meaneth of that figuratiue and misticall bodye which profiteth them that doo receiue it woorthilye alludinge so plainelye vnto S. Paules woords spoken of the Lords Supper that it is a shame for any learned man once to open his mouth to the contrarye And that breade which S. Augustin speaketh of he can not proue that any suche thing was vsed in Origens time Yea and though that coulde bee proued yet was there neuer breade in any time called a sacramentall body sauing the sacramentall bread of the Lords table which is called of Origen the typicall and symboticall body of Christe The second of the two new found answers is yet moste monstrous Gardener in the same place of al other which is this But let vs graunt say they that Origen spake of the Lordes Supper and by the matter therof was vnderstanded the materiall substance of bread and wine what then say they For thoughe the materiall substance was once gone and departed by reason of Transubstantiation whils the formes of the bread and the wine did remaine yet now it is no inconuenience to saye that as the material substance did departe at the entring in of Christes body vnder th' aforesaid formes so whan the said formes be destroyed and doo not remaine then commeth again the substance of bread and wine And this say they is very meet in this misterye that that which began with the miracle shall ende in a miracle If I had not red this fantasie I would scarcelye haue beleued that any learned man euer would haue set foorth such a foolishe fantasie which not onelye lacketh al ground either of Gods woord reason or of any ancient writer but also is clean contrary to the common rules of schoole diuinitie which is that no miracle is to be affirmed and put without necessitie And although for their former miracle which is their Transubstantiation they haue some colour though it be but vaine saying it is doone by the power and vertue of these woords of Christe This is my body yet to make this seconde miracle of returninge the materiall substance againe they haue no colour at al. Or els I pray them shew me by what woords of Christe is the second miracle wrought Thus ye may sée that the sleights and shifts which crafte and witte can inuente to wreste the true sence of Origen cannot take place But now let vs heare an other place of Origen and so we wil let him go Origen in the eleuen Homile Super Leuiticum saith that there is also euen in the foure Gospells and not onelye in the olde Testament a letter meaninge a litterall sence whiche killethe For if thou followe saith he the letter in that sayinge Excepte ye eate the fleshe of the Sonne of Man and drink his blood c. This letter dooth kill If in that place the letter dooth kil wherin is commaunded the eating of Christes flesh then surelye in those woordes of Christe wherein Christe commaundeth vs to eate his body the literall sence therof likewise dooth kil For it is no lesse crime but euen the same and all one in the literall sence to eate Christes bodye and to eate Christes fleshe Wherefore if the one doo kill excepte it be vnderstanded figuratiuelye and spirituallye then the other surelye doothe kill likewise But that to eate Christes fleshe dooth kill so vnderstanded Origen affirmeth plainly in his woordes aboue rebearsed Wherefore it cannot be iustly denied but to eate Christes bodye literally vnderstanded must néeds after him kill likewise The answere that is made to this place of Origen of the Papists is so foolish that it be wraieth it self without any further confutation It is the same that they make to a piace of S. Augustin in Lib. 3. ca. 16. his book De doctrinae Christiana Whereas S. Augustine speaketh in effecte the same thinge that Origen dooth héer The Papists answer is this To the carnal man the literal sence is hurtfull but not so to the spirituall As though to vnderstande that in his proper sence which ought to be taken figuratiuely were to the carnall man a dangerous perill but to the spirituall man none at all Now to Chrisostome whom I bringe for the second writer in the Chrisostome Gréek Church He speaking against the unholy vsinge of mans body which after S. Paule ought to be kept pure and holy as the very temple of the Holy Ghost saith thus If it be a fault saith he In opere imperfect ho. 9. in Matthe to translate the holy vessels in the which is conteined not the trewe bodye of Christe but the mistery of the body to private vses how much more offence is it to a buse and defile the vessels of our body These be the woordes of Chrisostome But I trowe that héer many fowle shifts are deuised to defeat this place The Author saith one is suspected I answere but in this place neuer fault was found with him vnto these our daies And whether this author was Iohn Chrisostome him selfe the Archbishop of Constantinople or no that is not the matter For of all it is graunted that he was a writer of that age and a man of great learninge so that it is manifest that this which he writeth was the receiued opinion of learned men in his daies Or els vndoubtedly in such a matter his sayinge shoulde haue
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
a Thousand Years past And so far off is it that they do confirm this Opinion of Transubstantiation that plain they seem to me both to think and to speak the contrary Dionysius in many places calleth it Bread. The places are so manifest and plain that it needeth not to recite them Ignatius to the Philadelphians saith I beseech you Brethren cleave fast unto one Faith and to one kind of Preaching using together one manner of Thanksgiving For the Flesh of the Lord Jesus is one and his Blood is one which was shed for us There is also one Bread broken for us and one Cup of the whole Church Irenaeus writeth thus Even as the Bread that cometh of the Earth receiving God's Vocation is now no more common Bread but Sacramental Bread consisting of two Natures Earthly and Heavenly even so our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are now no more corruptible having hope of the Resurrection Tertullian is very plain for he calleth it a Figure of his Body c. Chrysostome writeth to Caesarius the Monk albeit he be not received of diverse yet will I read the place to fasten it more deeply in your minds for it seemeth to shew plainly the substance of Bread to remain The words are these Before the Bread is sanctified we name it Bread but by the grace of God sanctifying the same through the Ministry of the Priest it is delivered from the Name of Bread and is counted worthy to bear the Name of the Lord's Body although the very substance of Bread notwithstanding do still remain therein and now is taken not to be two Bodies but one Body of the Son c. Cyprian saith Bread is made of many Grains And is that natural Bread and made of Wheat Yea it is so indeed The Book of Theodoret in Greek was lately printed at Rome which if it had not been his it should not have been set forth there especially seeing it is directly against Transubstantiation For he saith plainly That Bread still remaineth after the Sanctification Gelasius also is very plain in this manner The Sacrament saith he which we receive of the Body and Blood of Christ is a Divine Matter By reason whereof we are made partakers by the same of the Divine Nature and yet it ceaseth not still to be the substance of Bread and Wine And certes the representation and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ be celebrated in the action of the Mysteries c. After this he recited certain places out of Augustine and Cyril which were not noted Isichius also confesseth that it is Bread. Also the Judgment of Bertram in this matter is very plain and manifest And thus much for the Second Ground The Third Ground The Third Ground is the Nature of the Sacrament which consisteth of Three Things that is Vnity Nutrition and Conversion As touching Vnity Cyprian thus writeth Even as of many Grains is made one Bread so are we one mystical Body of Christ Wherefore Bread must still needs remain or else we destroy the Nature of a Sacrament Also they that take away Nutrition which cometh by Bread do take away likewise the Nature of a Sacrament For as the Body of Christ nourisheth the Soul even so doth Bread likewise nourish the Body of Man. Therefore they that take away the Grains or the Union of the Grains in the Bread and deny the Nutrition or Substance thereof in my judgment are Sacramentaries For they take away the Similitude between the Bread and the Body of Christ for they which affirm Transubstantiation are indeed right Sacramentaries and Capernaites As touching Conversion that like as the Bread which we receive is turned into our Substance so are we turned into Christ's Body Rabanus and Chrysostome are Witnesses sufficient The Fourth Ground They who say That Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist do take from him the Verity of Man's Nature Eutiches granted the Divine Nature in Christ but his Humane Nature he denied So they that defend Transubstantiation ascribe that to the Humane Nature which onely belongeth to the Divine Nature The Fifth Ground The Fifth Ground is the certain perswasion of this Article of Faith He ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the Right Hand c. Augustine saith The Lord is above even to the end of the World but yet the verity of the Lord is here also For his Body wherein he rose again must needs be in one place but his verity is spread abroad every where Also in another place he saith Let the godly also receive that Sacrament but let them not be careful speaking there of the presence of his Body For as touching his Majesty his Providence his invisible and unspeakable Grace these words are fulfilled which he spake I am with you to the end of the World. But according to the flesh which he took upon him according to that which was born of the Virgin was apprehended of the Jews was fastned to a Tree taken down again from the Cross lapped in Linnen Cloths was buried and rose again and appeared after his Resurrection so ye shall not have me always with you and why because that as concerning his Flesh he was conversant with his Disciples forty days and they accompanying him seeing him but not following him he went up into Heaven and is not here for he sitteth at the right hand of his Father and yet he is here because he is not departed hence as concerning the presence of his Divine Majesty Mark and consider well what St. Augustine saith he is ascended into Heaven and is not here saith he Believe not them therefore which say that he is here still in the Earth Moreover Doubt not saith the same Augustine but that Jesus Christ as concerning the nature of his Manhood is there from whence he shall come And remember well and believe the Profession of a Christian man that he arose from death ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the Right hand of his Father and from that Place and none other not from the Altars shall he come to judge the quick and the dead and he shall come as the Angel said as he was seen to go into Heaven that is to say in the same form and substance unto the which he gave immortality but changed not Nature After this form meaning his Humane Nature we may not think that it is every-where And in the same Epistle he saith Take away from the Bodies limitation of places and they shall be no-where and because they are no-where they shall not be at all Vigilius saith If the Word and the Flesh be both of one nature seeing that the Word is every-where why then is not the Flesh also every-where For when it was in Earth then verily it was not in Heaven and now when it is in Heaven it is not surely in Earth And it is so certain that it is not in Earth that as concerning the same we look for him from Heaven whom as concerning the Word we believe
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.
Augustine that we eat Life and we drink Life with Emisene that we feel the Lord to be present in Grace with Athanasius that we receive Celestial Food that cometh from above the propriety of natural Communion with Hilary the nature of Flesh and Benediction which giveth life in Bread and Wine with Cyril and with the same Cyril the virtue of the very Flesh of Christ Life and Grace of his Body the property of the only begotten that is to say Life as he himself in plain words expounded it I confess also with Basil that we receive the mystical Advent and coming of Christ Grace and Virtue of his very Nature the Sacrament of his very Flesh with Ambrose the Body by Grace with Epiphanius Spiritual Flesh but not that which was crucified with Hierom Grace flowing into a Sacrifice and the Grace of the Spirit with Chrysostom Grace and invisible Verity Grace and Society of the Members of Christ's Body with Augustine Finally with Bertram who was the last of all these I confess that Christ's Body is in the Sacrament in this respect namely as he writeth Because there is in it the Spirit of Christ that is the power of the Word of God which not only feedeth the Soul but also cleanseth it But of these I suppose it may appear unto all men how far we are from that Opinion whereof some go about falsly to slander us to the world saying we teach that the Godly and Faithful should receive nothing else at the Lord's Table but a Figure of the Body of Christ The Second Proposition After the Consecration there remaineth no Substance of Bread and Wine neither any other Substance than the Substance of God and Man. The Answer The second Conclusion is manifestly false directly against the Word of God the Nature of the Sacrament and the most evident Testimonies of the godly Fathers and it is the rotten Foundation of the other two Conclusions propounded by you both of the first and also of the third I will not therefore now tarry upon any further Explication of this Answer being contented with that which is already added afore to the Answer of the first Proposition The First Argument for the Confirmation of this Answer It is very plain by the Word of God that Christ did give Bread unto his Disciples and called it his Body But the Substance of Bread is another manner of Substance than is the Substance of Christ's Body God and Man. Therefore the Conclusion is false The second part of mine Argument is plain and the first is proved thus The Second Argument That which Christ did take on the which he gave Thanks Da and the which he brake he gave to his Disciples and called it his Body But he took Bread gave Thanks on Bread and brake Bread. ti Ergo The first part is true And it is confirmed with the Authorities of the Fathers Irenaeus si Tertullian Origen Cyprian Epiphanius Hierom Augustine Theodoret Cyril Rabanus and Bede whose places I will take upon me to shew most manifest in this behalf if I may be suffered to have my Books as my request is Bread is the Body of Christ Ergo. It is Bread. The Third Argument As the Bread of the Lord's Table is Christ's natural Body so Ba it is his mystical Body But it is not Christ's mystical Body by Transubstantiation Ergo It is not his natural Body by Transubstantiation ro eo The second part of my Argument is plain and the first is proved thus As Christ who is the Verity spake of the Bread This is my Body which shall be betrayed for you speaking there of his natural Body even so St. Paul moved with the same Spirit of Truth said We though we be many yet are we all one Bread and one Body which be partakers of one Bread. The Fourth Argument We may no more believe Bread to be Transubstantiate into the Body of Christ than the Wine into his Blood. But the Wine is not Transubstantiate into his Blood Ergo Neither is that Bread therefore Transubstantiate into his Body The first part of this Argument is manifest and the second part is proved out of the Authority of God's Word in Matthew and Mark I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine c. Now the fruit of the Vine was Wine which Christ drank and gave to his Disciples to drink With this Sentence agreeth plainly the place of Chrysostome on the 20th Chapter of Matthew as Cyprian doth also affirming That there is no Blood if Wine be not in the Cup. The Fifth Argument The words of Christ spoken upon the Cup and upon the Ba Bread have like effect and working But the words spoken upon the Cup have not virtue to Transubstantiate ro Ergo It followeth that the words spoken upon the Bread have eo no such virtue The second part of the Argument is proved because they would then Transubstantiate the Cup or that which is in the Cup into the New Testament But neither of these things can be done and very absurd it is to confess the same The Sixth Argument The Circumstances of the Scripture the Analogy and proportion of Da the Sacraments and the Testimony of the faithful Fathers ought to rule us in taking the meaning of the Holy Scripture touching the Sacrament But the Words of the Lord's Supper the Circumstances of the ti Scripture the Analogy of the Sacraments and the Sayings of the Fathers do most effectually and plainly prove a figurative speech in the words of the Lord's Supper Ergo A figurative sense and meaning is specially to be received in si these words This is my Body The Circumstances of the Scripture Do this in remembrance of me As oft as ye shall eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shall shew forth the Lord's death Let a man prove himself and so eat of this bread and drink of this cup. They came together to break Bread and they continued in breaking of Bread. The Bread which we break c. For we being many are all one Bread and one Body c. The Analogy of the Sacraments is necessary for if the Sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of the things whereof they be Sacraments they could in no wise be Sacraments And this similitude in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is taken three manner of ways 1. The first consisteth in nourishing as you shall read in Rabanus Cyprian Austin Irenaeus and most plainly in Isidore out of Bertram 2. The second in the uniting and joyning of many into one as Cyprian teacheth 3. The third is a similitude of unlike things Where like as the Bread is turned into one Body so we by the right use of this Sacrament are turned through Faith into the Body of Christ The sayings of the Fathers declare it to be a figurative speech as it appeareth in Origen Tertullian Chrysostom in opere imperfecto
Augustin Ambrose Basil Gregory Nazianzen Hilary and most plainly of all in Bertram Moreover the sayings and places of all the Fathers whose names I have before recited against the assertion of the first Proposition do quite overthrow Transubstantiation But of all most evidently and plainly Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostom to Caesarius the Monk Augustine against Adamantus Gelasius Cyril Epiphanius Chrysostom again on the 20th of Matth. Rabanus Damascene and Bertram Here Right Worshipful Mr. Prolocutor and ye the rest of the Commissioners it may please you to understand that I do not lean to these things only which I have written in my former Answers and Confirmations but that I have also for the proof of that I have spoken whatsoever Bertram a man Learned of sound and upright Judgment and ever counted a Catholick for these Seven hundred years until this our age hath written His Treatise whosoever shall read and weigh considering the time of the Writer his Learning Godliness of life the Allegations of the Ancient Fathers and his manifold and most grounded Arguments I cannot doubtless but much marvel if he have any fear of God at all how he can with good Conscience speak against him in this matter of the Sacrament This Bertram was the first that pulled me by the Ear and that first brought me from the common Error of the Romish Church and caused me to search more diligently and exactly both the Scriptures and the Writings of the old Ecclesiastical Fathers in this matter And this I protest before the face of God who knoweth that I lye not in the things I now speak The Third Proposition In the Mass is the lively Sacrifice of the Church propitiable and available for the sins as well of quick as of the dead The Answer to this Proposition I answer to this third Proposition as I did to the first And moreover I say that being taken in such sense as the words seem to import it is not only erroneous but withal so much to the derogation and defacing of the Death and Passion of Christ that I judge it may and ought most worthily to be counted wicked and blasphemous against the most precious Blood of our Saviour Christ The Explication Concerning the Romish Mass which is used at this day or the lively Sacrifice thereof propitiatory and available for the sins of the quick and the dead the Holy Scripture hath not so much as one syllable There is ambiguity also in the name of Mass what it signifieth and whether at this day there be any such indeed as the Ancient Fathers used seeing that now there be neither Catecumeni nor Poenitentes to be sent away Again touching these words The lively Sacrifice of the Church There is doubt whether they are to be understood Figuratively and Sacramentally for the Sacrament of the lively Sacrifice after which sort we deny it not to be in the Lord's Supper or properly and without any figure of the which manner there was but one only Sacrifice and that once offered namely upon the Altar of the Cross Moreover in these words as well as it may be doubted whether they be spoken in mockage as men are wont to say in sport of a foolish and ignorant person that he is apt as well in conditions as in knowledg being apt indeed in neither of them both There is also a doubt in the word Propitiable whether it signify here that which taketh away sin or that which may be made available for the taking away of sin That is to say whether it is to be taken in the active or in the passive signification Now the falsness of the Proposition after the meaning of the Schoolmen and the Romish Church and Impiety in that sense which the words seem to import is this that they leaning to the foundation of their fond Transubstantiation would make the quick and lively body of Christ's Flesh united and knit to the Divinity to lye hid under the accidents and outward shews of Bread and Wine Which is very false as I have said before and they building upon this foundation do hold that the same Body is offered unto God by the Priest in his dayly Massings to put away the sins of the quick and the dead whereas by the Apostle to the Hebrews it is evident that there is but one Oblation and one true and lively Sacrifice of the Church offered upon the Altar of the Cross which was is and shall be for ever the propitiation for the sins of the whole World and where there is Remission of the same there is saith the Apostle no more offering for sin Arguments confirming his Answer No Sacrifice ought to be done but where the Priest is meet to offer Ce the same All other Priests be unmeet to offer Sacrifice for sin but Christ alone la rent Ergo No other Priests ought to Sacrifice for sin but Christ alone The second part of my Argument is thus proved No honour in God's Church ought to be taken where a man is not Fe called as Aaron It is a great honour in God's Church to Sacrifice for Sin ri son Ergo. No man ought to Sacrifice for Sin but only they who are called But only Christ is called to that honour Ergo No other Priest but Christ ought to Sacrifice for Sin. That no man is called to this degree of Honour but Christ alone it is evident For there are but two only Orders of Priesthood allowed in the Word of God Namely the Order of Aaron and the Order of Melchisedech But now the Order of Aaron is come to an end by reason that it was unprofitable and weak and of the Order of Melchisedech there is but one Priest alone even Christ the Lord who hath a Priesthood that cannot pass to any other An Argument That thing is in vain and to no effect where no necessity is Ba wherefore it is done To offer up any more Sacrifice Propitiatory for the quick and the ro dead there is no necessity for Christ our Saviour did that fully and perfectly once for all Ergo To do the same in the Mass it is in vain co Another Argument After that Eternal Redemption is found and obtained there needeth Fe no more daily offering for the same But Christ coming an high Bishop c. found and obtained for us ri Eternal Redemption Ergo There needeth now no more daily Oblation for the Sins of o. the quick and the dead Another Argument All remission of Sins cometh only by shedding of Blood. Ca mes tres In the Mass there is no shedding of Blood. Ergo In the Mass there is no Remission of Sins and so it followeth also that there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice Another Argument In the Mass the Passion of Christ is not in verity but in a Mystery representing the same yea even there where the Lord's Supper is duly ministred But where Christ suffereth not there is
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