I heard staying then present how that the Devil did believe the Sacrament of God was able to make of Stones Bread And we English people we do confess that Christ was the very Son of God and yet will not believe that of Bread he made his very Body Flesh and Blood wherefore we are worse than the Devil since that our Saviour by express words did more plainly affirm the same when at his last Supper he took Bread and said unto his Disciples Take ye eat this is my Body which shall be given for you And shortly after the said Mr. Doctor Ridley notwithstanding this most plain and open Speech at Paul's Cross did deny the same Whether Fecknam hath truly represented the words of Ridley is uncertain But from the last words of this passage it is manifest that some even in that time taking occasion from this Sermon had charged Bishop Ridley with asserting a Material Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament and that he constantly denied himself to have meant or intended any such presence In this therefore and such like expressions he intended only as himself assures us to oppose those who so lightly esteemed the Sacrament Ibid. vol. 3. p. 35. as to make of it but a figure For that but maketh it a bare sign without any more profit But to clear his intention in this matter from all remaining suspicion of any kind of Material Presence I will annex a larger explication of it in his own words in his last examination before the Queens Commissioners September 30. 1555. In like sort as touching the Sermon which I made at Pauls Cross you shall understand that there were at Pauls and divers other places fixed railing Bills against the Sacrament terming it Jack of the Box the Sacrament of the Halter Round Robbin with suchlike unseemly terms For which causes I to rebuke the unreverend behaviour of certain evil disposed persons Preached as reverendly of that Matter as I might declaring what estimation and reverence ought to be given to it what danger ensued the mis-handling thereof affirming in that Sacrament to be truly and verily the Body and Blood of Christ effectually by Grace and Spirit Which words the unlearned understanding not supposed that I had meant of the gross and carnal being which the Romish Decrees set forth That a Body having life and motion should be indeed under the shapes of Bread and Wine This Treatise was written by Bishop Ridley during his imprisonment a little before his death and several Copies of it dispersed abroad of which some being carried beyond Sea Dr. Grindall and other English Exiles conceived a great desire of causing it to be translated into Latin Ibid. p. 374. and Printing it The Bishop hearing of this desired that by all means they would lay aside their resolution till they should see how God would dispose of him Accordingly it was omitted till his death Immediately after his Martyrdom it was Translated into elegant Latin but in a Paraphrastical way and Printed at Geneva 1556. in 12s The English Copy was Printed at London 1586. 12s which we have now caused to be faithfully Reprinted adding to it out of Mr. Fox's Martyrology divers Speeches Disputations and Determinations upon the same subject which might farther illustrate and confirm his Opinion Lastly Because the late Bishop of Oxford in his last Treatise disputing of the ancient Opinion of the Reformed Church of England concerning the Eucharist and as his Cause required it maintaining the same assertion with our Adversaries That some material sort of Presence was then believed doth mightily urge the Authority of the Learned Dr. Poynet Bishop of Winchester at that time proposed in his Diallection and because that Book is not in English I have selected and annexed several passages out of it which may demonstrate what was indeed his notion of the Real Presence That he denied all manner of Material Presence and perfectly agreeth with Ridley in explaining the nature of it And consequently that he is fouly either Misrepresented or Mistaken by the Bishop of Oxford A BREEF DECLARATION OF THE Lordes Supper WRITTEN By the singuler Learned Man and moste constant Martyr of Christe NICHOLAS RIDLEY Bishop of LONDON Prisoner in Oxford a little before he suffered Death for the true testimonye of JESUS CHRISTE ROM VIII For thy sake are we killed all day long and are counted as sheep apoynted to be slain Neuerthelesse in all these thinges we ouercome through him that loue vs. Printed at LONDON 1586. And Reprinted for Ric. Chiswell 1688. TO THE READER VNderstand good Reader that this great Clark and blessed Martyr Bishop Nicholas Ridley sought not by settinge foorth any notable peece of learned woork the vaine glory of the World nor temporall freendship of men for his present aduancement much lesse he hunted heerby for Bishopricks and Benefices as al his aduersaries the enemies of Christs Trueth and Ordinance commonly doo but hauing consideration of the great charge of Soules committed vnto him and of the account thereof which the Iustice of God would require at his handes intending therwithal to be found blamles in the great daye of the Lord seeing he was put a parte to defende the Gospell He not only forsook Landes Goodes World Freends and himselfe with all and testified the Trueth specified in this Book by his learned mouth in the open presence of the World but also to leaue a sure Monument and Loue Token vnto his Flocke hee hath registred it by his owne Pen in this forme ensuinge and sealed it vp with his Blood. Forasmuch then as he hath proued himselfe no vain disputer no wethercocke nor hipocrite seeing hee hath willinglye giuen his life for the Trueth and in as much also as his loue and moste constant christen Conscience speaketh vnto thee gentle Reader I beseech thee for Christs sake and thine owne lend him thine indifferent hart and pacient hearing A BREEFE DECLARATION OF THE Lordes Supper MANY things confounde a weake memory A few places wel weighed and perceiued lighten the vnderstanding Trueth is there to be searched where it is certain to be had though God dooth speake the trueth by man yet in mans woord which God hath not reuealed to be his a man may doubt without mistrust in God. Christe is the trueth of God reuealed vnto man from Heauen by God him self and therefore in his woord the trueth is to be founde which is to be embraced of al that be his Christ biddeth vs aske and we shall haue search and we shall finde knocke and it shall be opened unto vs. Therefore our Heauenly The blessed Martirs praier Father the Author and fountain of al trueth the bottomles Sea of al vnderstanding send down we beseech thée thy holy spirit into our harts and lighten our vnderstanding with the beames of thy heauenly grace We ask thée this O mercifull Father not in respect of our deserts but for thy déere Sonne our Sauiour Iesus Christs sake Thou knowest
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
laste to cleere the matter he saith thus after the minde of one Lawyer Vel dic saith he Statuimus id est abrogamus that is Distine Ca. 4. Statuimus or expound we doo decree that is we abrogate or disanul Is not this a goodlye and woorthye glose who will not saye but he is woorthye in the lawe to be reteined of counsaile that can glose so well and finde in a matter of difficultie such fine shifts And yet this is the lawe or at least the glose of the lawe And therfore who can tell what perill a man may incurre to speak against it except he were a lawyer indeed whiche can keep him self out of the briers what winde soeuer blowe Hethertoo ye haue hearde thrée writers of the Gréeke Church not all what they doo saye for that were a labour too greate for to gather and too tedious for the Reader But one or two places of euery one the which how plain how ful and how cleere they be againste the errour of Transubstantiation I refer it to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader And now I wil likewise rehearse the sayings of other thrée old antient writers of the Latin Church and so make an end And first I wil begin with Tertullian whom Ciprian the holy martyr Tertullian so highly estéemed that whensoeuer he would haue his book he was wonte to saye Giue vs now the Maister This olde writer in his fourthe booke against Martian the heretike saith thus Iesus made the bread which he tooke and distributed to his disciples his body saying This is my body That is to say saith Tertullian a figure of my body In this place it is plaine that after Tertullians exposition Christe mente not by callinge the breade his bodye and the wine his blood that either the breade was the naturall bodye or the wine his natural blood but he called them his bodye and blood because he would institute them to be vnto vs Sacramentes that is holye tokens and signes of his bodye and of his blood that by them remembring and firmly belieuing the benefites procured to us by his body which was torne and crucified for vs and of his blood which was shed for vs vpon the crosse and so with thanks receiuing these holy Sacramentes according to Christes institution might by the same be spiritually nourished and fed to the increase of all godlines in vs heere in our pilgrimage and iourney wherein we walke vnto euerlasting life This was vndoubtedlye Christe our Sauiours mind and this is Tertullians exposition The wrangling that the Papists doo make to elude this sayinge Gardener to the 16. Obiection of Tertullian is so far out of frame that it euen werieth me to think on it Tertullian writeth heere say they as none hath deon hithertoo before him This saying is too too manifeste false for Origene Hilarye Ambrose Basill Grigorie Nazianzene Saint Augustine and other old authors likewise doo call the sacrament a figure of Christes bodye And where they say that Tertullian wrote this when he was in a heate of disputatione with an heretike coueting by all means to ouerthrow his aduersarye As who saye he would not take heed what he did say and specially what he would write in so high a matter so that he might haue the better hand of his aduersarye Is this credible to be true in any godly wise man How muche lesse then is it woorthye to be thought or credited in a man of so great a wit learning and excellency as Tertullian is worthily esteemed euer to haue been Likewise this author in his first booke againste the same heretike Martion writeth thus God did not reiect bread which is his creature for by it he hath made a representation of his body Now I praye you what is this to say that Christe hath made a representation by bread of his body but that Christ had instituted and ordeined bread to be a Sacrament for to represent unto vs his body Now whether the representatione of one thing by an other requireth the corporal presence of the thinge which is so represented or no euerye man that hath vnderstanding is able in this poynte the matter is so cleere of it selfe to be a sufficient iudge The second doctour and writer of the Latin Churche whose Augustine sayinges I promised to set foorth is S. Augustine of whose learning and estimation I neede not to speake For all the Church of Christe both hath and euer hath had him for a man of moste singuler learning witte and dilligence both in setting foorth the true doctrine of Christes religion and also in the defence of the same againste heretikes This author as he hath written moste plenteously in other matters of our faith so like wise in this argumente hee hath written at large in many of his woorkes so plainly against this errour of Transubstantiation that the Papists loue leaste to heare of him of all other writers partely for his authoritie and partely because he openeth the matter more fully then any other dooth Therfore I will rehearse more places of him then heertofore I haue doon of the other And first what can be more plaine then that which he writeth vpon the 89. Psalme speaking of the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood and rehearsinge as it were Christes woords to his Disciples after this manner It is not this bodye whiche ye doo see that ye shall eate nother shall ye drinke this blood which the Souldiers that crucifie me shall spill or shed I doo commend vnto you a misterye or a Sacrament which spiritually vnderstanded shall give you life Now if Christe had no more naturall and corporall bodies but that one which they then presently both heard and sawe nor other natural blood but that which was in the same body and the which the souldiers did afterward cruelly shed vpon the crosse and nother this bodye nor this bloode was by this declaration of S. Augustine either to be eaten or drunken but the misterie thereof spiritually to be vnderstanded then I conclude if this saying and exposition of S. Augustine be true that the mistery which the disciples should eate was not the naturall body of Christ but a mistery of the same spiritually to be understanded For as S. Augustine saithe in his 20. book Contra Faustum Ca. 21 Christes flesh and blood was in the olde Testament promised by similitudes and signes of their sacrifices and was exhibited indeed and in trueth vpon the crosse but the same is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance vpon the aulter And in his book De fide ad Petrum Ca. 19. he saithe that in these sacrifices meaning of the olde law it is siguratiuely signified what was then to be giuen but in this sacrifice it is euidentlye signified what is already giuen vnderstanding in the sacrifice vpon the aulter the remembrance and thanks giuing for the fleshe which he offered for vs and for the bloode which he shed for
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
Christ indeed yea the same that is still in Heaven without all moving from place to place unspeakably and far passing our natural Reason which is in this Mystery so captivate that it cannot conceive how it is there without a lively Faith to Gods word But let this pass You do grant that this Bread doth quicken or give Life which if it do then it is not a natural Bread but a super-substantial Bread. Rochest So doth the effectual and lively Word of God which for that it nourisheth the Soul it doth give Life for the Divine Essence infuseth it self unspeakably into the faithful Receiver of the Sacrament Glin. How then say you to holy Damascene a Greek Author who as one Tritenius saith flourished one thousand years past he saith thus The Body that is of the holy Virgin Mary is joyned to the Divinity after the Consecration in verity and indeed not so as the Body once assumpted into Heaven and sitting on the Fathers right Hand doth remove from thence and cometh down at the Consecration time but that the same Bread and Wine are substantially transumpted into the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ If saith he thou dost not know the manner how it is brought to pass let it be enough to thee to believe that it is done by the Operation of the Holy Ghost and we do know no more but that the living Word of God is working and Almighty but the very manner how is inscrutable to us and no great marvel saith he for we cannot well express how the material Bread Wine or Water are transumpted naturally into the same Body and Blood of the Receiver and be become another Body than they were before So saith this great Ancient Clerk also this Shew-bread with Wine and Water are changed by the coming of the Holy Ghost into Christs Body and Blood and they be not two Bodies there but very one of Christ and the same Rochest First I deny Master Doctor that Damascene was one thousand years past Secondarily I say That he is not to be holden as an Ancient Father for that he maintaineth in his Works evil and damnable Doctrine as the worshipping of Images and such like Thirdly I say That indeed God by his holy Spirit is the worker of that which is done in the Sacrament Also I grant that there is a Mutation of the common Bread and Wine spiritually into the Lords Bread and Wine by the sanctifying of them in the Lords Word But I deny that there is any Mutation of the Substances for there is no other change there indeed than there is in us which when we do receive the Sacrament worthily then are we changed into Christs Body Bones and Blood not in nature but spiritually and by Grace much like as Isaiah saw the burning Coal even so we see not there the very simple Bread as it was before the Consecration for an Union cannot be but of two very things Wherefore if we be joyned to Christ receiving the Sacrament then there is no Adnihilation of Bread which is when it is reduced to nothing as it is in your feigned Transubstantiation Glin. So I perceive you would have me to grant that the Sacrament is but a Figure which Theophylactus doth deny Rochest You say Truth he denieth it indeed to be a Figure but he meaneth that it is not only a Figure Glin. Whereas St. Paul saith That we being many are one Bread he speaketh not nor meaneth one material Bread as you do here Ergo he speaketh of heavenly Bread. And holy Chrysostome upon Matthew saith That the Paschal Lamb was a Figure but the Mystery is the verity For the Disciples would not have been offended to have drunk a figure of Christ's Blood being well accustomed to figures For Christ did not institute a figure for a figure but the clear verity instead of the figure as St. John saith Grace and Verity was given by Christ Dost thou see Bread saith Chrysostome doth it avoid or pass as other meats do which we receive God forbid Ergo c. Madew That ancient Clerk Origen upon the 15th of St. Matth. saith thus As touching that which is material in the Sacrament it descendeth and issueth out as other nutriments do but as concerning that which is celestial it doth not so Glin. Chrysost Homily 83. upon Matthew saith That we cannot be deceived of Christ's Word but our natural Senses may be deceived in this point very soon and easily his said words cannot be false but our senses be many times beguiled of their judgments Because therefore that Christ said This is my body let us not at any hand doubt saith he but let us believe it and well perceive it with the eyes of our understanding And within a little after in that place he saith thus It was not enough that he was become man and afterwards was scourged for us but also he did reduce and bring us to be as one body with him not through Faith only but in very deed also he maketh us his Body And after that he saith that these works are not of mans power But the same things that he wrought in his last Supper he now worketh also by his Precept to his right Ministers and we do occupy the place of the same Ministers but he it is that doth sanctify and transumpt the creatures he performeth still the same Rochest Mr. Doctor you must understand that in that place St. Chrysostome sheweth us that Christ delivered to us no sensible thing at his last Supper Glin. Honourable Sir by your patience I grant that he gave to his Disciples no sensible thing in substance but a thing insensible his own precious Body and Blood under the only kinds of Creatures And truly as it seemeth Theophylactus best knew the meaning of Chrysostome because all Authors accept him as a faithful Interpreter of him And he hath these same plain words Transelemented and Transformed Also Theophylactus Alexandrinus super Marcum Cyrillus and St. Augustine saith That before the consecration it is bread but afterwards it is Christs very Body In like manner St. Augustine upon the 33d Psalm saith That in the last Supper Christ did bear himself in his own hands Now every man may bear the figure of his body in his own hands but St. Augustin saith it there for a Miracle Irenaeus in his fifth Book is of the same mind And St. Austin saith I do remember my words c. The Law and Figures were by Moses but the verity and Body came by Christ Rochest Well say what you list it is but a figurative speech like to this If you will receive and understand he is Elias for a property but indeed he was not Elias but John the Baptist And so in this place Christ calleth it his Body when it was very Bread. But better than the common Bread because it was sanctified by the Word of Christ Langdale I will prove it by another means Christ did
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
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
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
vs vpon the crosse as in the same place and euidently there it may appeare An other euident and cleer place wher in it appeareth that by the Sacramental bread which Christe called his bodye he ment a figure of his body As vpon the 3 Psalme where S. Augustine speaketh this in plain termes Christe did admit Iudas vnto the feaste in the which he commended vnto his disciples the figure of his body This was Christes laste Supper before his passion wherin he did ordeine the sacrament of his body as all learned men do agree S. Augustine also in his 23. Epistle to Bonifacius teacheth how Sacraments doo beare the names of the thinges whereof they be Sacraments both in Baptisme and in the Lords table euen as we call euery good friday the day of Christes passion and euery Easter daye the daye of Christes resurrection when in very deed there was but one day wherin he suffred and but one day wherin he rose And why doo we then call them so which are not so indeede but because they are in like time and course of the yeere as those days were wherin those thinges were doone Was Christe saithe sainte Augustine offered any more but once And he offered himself And yet in a Sacramente or representation not onelye euerye solemne feast of Easter but also every daye to the People he is offered so that he dooth not lye that saith he is euery day offered For if Sacraments had not some similitude or likenes of those things whereof they be Sacraments they coulde in no wise be Sacraments and for their similitudes or likenes commonly they have the names of the things whereof they be Sacraments Therefore as after a certaine manner of speech the Sacrament of Christs body is Christs body the Sacramente of Christes blood is Christs bloode so likewise the Sacrament of faith is faith After this maner of speach as S. Augustine teacheth in his questiones Question 57. Super Leuiticum and Contra Adimantum it is said in scripture that vij eares of corne be vij yeeres seuen Kine be seaven yeeres and the rock was Christe and blood is the soule the which last saying saith Saint Augustine in his booke Contra Adimantum is vnderstanded Cap 13. to bee spoken by a signe or figure For the Lord himselfe did not sticke to saye This is my body when Contra Maximinum Li. Ca. 22. hee gaue the signe of his body For we must not consider in Sacramentes saithe S. Augustine in an other 〈◊〉 what they be but what they doo signifie or they be signs of things beinge one thing in themselves and yet signifying an nother thing For the heauenly bread saith he speakinge of the Sacramentall breade by some maner of speach is called Christes body when in very deed it is the sacramente of his body c. What can be more plaine or more cleerly spoken then are these places of S. Augustine before rehearsed if men were not obstinately bent to maintaine an vntrueth and to receiue nothinge whatsoeuer dooth set it foorthe Yet one place more of S. Augustine wil I alleage which is very cleare to this purpose that Christes naturall body is in heauen and not heer corporally in the Sacrament and so let him departe In his 50. treatice whiche he writeth vpon Iohn he teacheth plainly and cleerly how Christe being both God and man is both heer after a certaine maner and yet in heauen and not heere in his naturall body and substance which he took of the blessed hirgin Mary speaking thus of Christe and sayinge By his deuine Maiestie by his prouidence and by his vnspeakeable and inuincible grace that is fulfilled which he spake Beholde I am with you vnto the ende of the Worlde But as concerning his flesh which hee took in his incarnatione as touchinge that whiche was borne of the Virgine as concerninge that whiche was apprehended by the Iewes and crucified vpon a tree and taken down from the crosse lapped in linnen clothes and buried and rose againe and appeared after his resurrection as concerninge the fleshe he said ye shall not ever haue me with you Why so For as concerning his fleshe he was conuersant with his Disciples xl daies and they accompanying seeing and not following him he wentvp into heaven and is not heere By the presence of his deuine maiestie he did not departe as concerninge the presence of his deuine maiestie we have Christe ever with us but as concerninge the presence of his flesh he said truely to his disciples ye shall not ever have me with you For as concerninge the presence of his fleshe the Church had him but a few daies nowe it holdeth him by Faith though it se him not Thus much S. Augustine speaketh repeating one thing so often and all to declare and teach how we should vnderstand the maner of Christes beinge heere with vs whiche is by his grace by his providence and by his deuine nature and how he is absent by his naturall bodye whiche was born of the virgin Mary died rose for us and is assended into heauen there sitteth as in the articles of our faith on the right hand of God and thence and from none other place saith S. Augustine he shall come on the latter daye to iudge the quick and the dead At the which daye the righteous shall then lift up their heads and the light of Gods trueth shal so shine that falshood and errours shall be put into perpetuall confusion righteousnes shall haue the vpper hand and trueth that daye shall beare awaye the victorye all th' enemies therof quite ouerthrowen to be troden vnder foot for euermore O Lord Lord I beseech thee hasten this day then shalt thou be glorified with the glory due unto thy holy name and unto thy deuine maiesty and we shal sing unto thee in all ioy and felicitie laude and praise for euer mere Amen Héer now would I make an end For me thinks S. Augustine is in this matter so full and plaine and of that authoritye that it should not néed after this his declaration being so firmelye grounded vpon Gods woorde and so well agréeinge with the other ancient Authors to bring in for the confirmation of this matter any moe and yet I saide I would alleage thrée of the Latin Church to testifie the truethe in this cause Nowe therefore the laste of all shal be Gelasius whiche was a Bishop of Rome but one that was Bishop of that See before the wicked vsurpation and tiranny therof spred and burst out abroade into al the world For this man was before Bonifacius yea and Grigorye the firste in whose daies bothe corruption of doctrine and tirannicall vsurpation did chée flye growe and had the vpper hand Gelasius in an Epistle of the two natures of Christe Contra Eutichen Gelasius writeth thus The Sacraments of the body and blood of Christe which we receiue are godly things wherby and by the same wee are made partakers