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
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
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
Gardener to the 198. obiection bin impugned of some that wrote in his time or neere vnto the same Nay saith an other if this solucion wil not serue we maye saye that Chrisostome did not speak of the vessels of the Lordes cup or suche as were then vsed at the Lordes table but of the vessels vsed in the Temple in the olde lawe This answer wil serue no more then the other For héere Chrisostom speaketh of such vessells wherin was that whiche was called the body of Christe althoughe it was not the true body saith he of Christe but the misterye of Christes bodye Now of the vessels of the olde lawe the writers doo vse no such manner of phrase for their sacrifices were not called Christes body For then Christ was not but in shadows and figures and not by the Sacrament of his body reuealed Erasmus which was a man that coulde vnderstande the woordes and sence of the writers although hee would not be séene to speak against this errour of Transubstantiatione because he durste not yet in this time declareth plainly that this sayinge of the writer is none otherwise to be understanded Yet can I saithe the third Papist finde out a fine and subtil solucion Gardener in the same place for this place and graunt all that yet is saide both allowinge heere the writer and also that he ment of the vessels of the Lordes Table For saith he the body of Christe is not conteined in them at the Lordes Table as in a place but as in a misterye Is not this a pritty shifte and a misticall solution But by the same solution then Christs bodye is not in the Lordes Table nor in the Preestes handes nor in the pixe and so is hee heere no where For they will not saye that he is either heere or there as in a place This answere pleaseth so well the maker that he him self after he had plaid with it a little while and shewed the finenesse of his wit and eloquence therein is content to giue it ouer and saye but it is not to be thought that Chrisostome would speak after this finenesse or subtiltie and therfore he returneth againe vnto the second answere for his shoote anker which is sufficiently confuted before An other shorte place of Chrisostome I wil reherse which if any indifferency may be heard in-plaine termes setteth foorth the trueth of this matter Before the bread saith Chrisostome ad Cesarium monachum be halowed we call it bread but the grace of God sanctifying it by the meanes of the preeste it is deliuered now from the name of bread and esteemed woorthy to be called Christs body although the nature of bread tarry in it still These be Chrisostoms woords wherin I praye you what can be Gardener to the 202. Obiection said or thoughte more plaine against this errour of Transubstantiation then to declare that the breade abideth so still And yet to this so plaine a place some are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it saying we graunt that nature of bread remaineth stil thus for that it may be seene felte and tasted and yet the corporal substance of the bread therfore is gone leaste two bodies shoulde be confused together and Christe shoulde be thought impanate What contrarietie and falsehood is in this answere the simple man may easily perceiue Is not this a plain contrarietye to graunt that the nature of bread remaineth so still that it may be séene felte and tasted and yet to saye the corporall substance is gon to auoid absurdity of Christs impanation And what manifest falshood is this to saye or mean that if the breade should remain still then must followe the inconuenience of impanation As though the very breade coulde not be a Sacrament of Christs body as water is of baptisme excepte Christe shoulde vnite the nature of breade to his nature in vnitie of persone and make of the bread God. Now let vs heare Theodoretus which is the last of the thrée Gréek Theodoret Authors He writeth in his dialogue Contra Eutichen thus He that calleth his naturall body corn and breade and also named himself a Vine tree euen he the same hath honoured the Symboles that is the Dial. 1. sacramental signes with the names of his body and blood not changing indeed the nature it selfe but adding grace vnto the nature What can be more plainly saide then this that this olde writer saieth That although the Sacraments beare the name of the body and blood of Christe yet is not their nature changed but abideth still And where is then the Papists Transubstantiation The same writer to the second dialogue of the same woorke againste th' aforesaide heretique Eutyches writeth yet more plainly against this errour of Transubstantiation if any thing can be saide to be more plaine For hee maketh the heretike to speake thus againste him that defendeth the true doctrine whom he calleth Orthodoxus As the Sacramentes of the bodye and bloode of our Lorde are one thinge before the inuocation and after the inuocation they be changed and are made an other so likewise the Lordes body saithe the heretike is after the assumption or assention into heauen turned into the substance of God the heretike meaninge thereby that Christe after his ascention remaineth no more a man. To this Orthodoxus answereth thus and saith in the heretike Thou art taken saith he in thine owne snare For those misticall Symbols or Sacraments after the sanctification doo not goe out of theire owne nature but they tarrye and abide stil in their substance figure and shape yea and are sensibly seene and groped to be the same they were before c. At these words the papistes doo startle and to saye the trueth these woordes be so plaine so full and so cléere that they can not tell what to say but yet they will not cease to go about to play the cuttles and to caste their colours ouer them that the trueth which is so plainly told should not haue place This Author wrote say they before the determination of the Churche As who would say whatsoever that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome determined in his congregationes with his monks and friers that must be for so Duns saith holden for an article and of the substance of our faith Some doo charge this D. Moreman in the Conuâ—cation house author that he was suspected to be a Nestorian which thing in Calcedon Counsaile was tryed and prooued to be false But the foulest shift of al and yet the best that they can finde in this matter when none other will serue is to say that Theodoret vnderstandeth by the woord substance accidents and not substance indéed This glose is like a glose of a lawyer vpon a decrée the text whereof beginning thus Statuimus that is We decree The glose of the Lawyer there after many other pritty shifts there set foorth which he thinketh will not well serue to his purpose and therfore at the
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
a Thousand Years past And so far off is it that they do confirm this Opinion of Transubstantiation that plain they seem to me both to think and to speak the contrary Dionysius in many places calleth it Bread. The places are so manifest and plain that it needeth not to recite them Ignatius to the Philadelphians saith I beseech you Brethren cleave fast unto one Faith and to one kind of Preaching using together one manner of Thanksgiving For the Flesh of the Lord Jesus is one and his Blood is one which was shed for us There is also one Bread broken for us and one Cup of the whole Church Irenaeus writeth thus Even as the Bread that cometh of the Earth receiving God's Vocation is now no more common Bread but Sacramental Bread consisting of two Natures Earthly and Heavenly even so our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are now no more corruptible having hope of the Resurrection Tertullian is very plain for he calleth it a Figure of his Body c. Chrysostome writeth to Caesarius the Monk albeit he be not received of diverse yet will I read the place to fasten it more deeply in your minds for it seemeth to shew plainly the substance of Bread to remain The words are these Before the Bread is sanctified we name it Bread but by the grace of God sanctifying the same through the Ministry of the Priest it is delivered from the Name of Bread and is counted worthy to bear the Name of the Lord's Body although the very substance of Bread notwithstanding do still remain therein and now is taken not to be two Bodies but one Body of the Son c. Cyprian saith Bread is made of many Grains And is that natural Bread and made of Wheat Yea it is so indeed The Book of Theodoret in Greek was lately printed at Rome which if it had not been his it should not have been set forth there especially seeing it is directly against Transubstantiation For he saith plainly That Bread still remaineth after the Sanctification Gelasius also is very plain in this manner The Sacrament saith he which we receive of the Body and Blood of Christ is a Divine Matter By reason whereof we are made partakers by the same of the Divine Nature and yet it ceaseth not still to be the substance of Bread and Wine And certes the representation and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ be celebrated in the action of the Mysteries c. After this he recited certain places out of Augustine and Cyril which were not noted Isichius also confesseth that it is Bread. Also the Judgment of Bertram in this matter is very plain and manifest And thus much for the Second Ground The Third Ground The Third Ground is the Nature of the Sacrament which consisteth of Three Things that is Vnity Nutrition and Conversion As touching Vnity Cyprian thus writeth Even as of many Grains is made one Bread so are we one mystical Body of Christ Wherefore Bread must still needs remain or else we destroy the Nature of a Sacrament Also they that take away Nutrition which cometh by Bread do take away likewise the Nature of a Sacrament For as the Body of Christ nourisheth the Soul even so doth Bread likewise nourish the Body of Man. Therefore they that take away the Grains or the Union of the Grains in the Bread and deny the Nutrition or Substance thereof in my judgment are Sacramentaries For they take away the Similitude between the Bread and the Body of Christ for they which affirm Transubstantiation are indeed right Sacramentaries and Capernaites As touching Conversion that like as the Bread which we receive is turned into our Substance so are we turned into Christ's Body Rabanus and Chrysostome are Witnesses sufficient The Fourth Ground They who say That Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist do take from him the Verity of Man's Nature Eutiches granted the Divine Nature in Christ but his Humane Nature he denied So they that defend Transubstantiation ascribe that to the Humane Nature which onely belongeth to the Divine Nature The Fifth Ground The Fifth Ground is the certain perswasion of this Article of Faith He ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the Right Hand c. Augustine saith The Lord is above even to the end of the World but yet the verity of the Lord is here also For his Body wherein he rose again must needs be in one place but his verity is spread abroad every where Also in another place he saith Let the godly also receive that Sacrament but let them not be careful speaking there of the presence of his Body For as touching his Majesty his Providence his invisible and unspeakable Grace these words are fulfilled which he spake I am with you to the end of the World. But according to the flesh which he took upon him according to that which was born of the Virgin was apprehended of the Jews was fastned to a Tree taken down again from the Cross lapped in Linnen Cloths was buried and rose again and appeared after his Resurrection so ye shall not have me always with you and why because that as concerning his Flesh he was conversant with his Disciples forty days and they accompanying him seeing him but not following him he went up into Heaven and is not here for he sitteth at the right hand of his Father and yet he is here because he is not departed hence as concerning the presence of his Divine Majesty Mark and consider well what St. Augustine saith he is ascended into Heaven and is not here saith he Believe not them therefore which say that he is here still in the Earth Moreover Doubt not saith the same Augustine but that Jesus Christ as concerning the nature of his Manhood is there from whence he shall come And remember well and believe the Profession of a Christian man that he arose from death ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the Right hand of his Father and from that Place and none other not from the Altars shall he come to judge the quick and the dead and he shall come as the Angel said as he was seen to go into Heaven that is to say in the same form and substance unto the which he gave immortality but changed not Nature After this form meaning his Humane Nature we may not think that it is every-where And in the same Epistle he saith Take away from the Bodies limitation of places and they shall be no-where and because they are no-where they shall not be at all Vigilius saith If the Word and the Flesh be both of one nature seeing that the Word is every-where why then is not the Flesh also every-where For when it was in Earth then verily it was not in Heaven and now when it is in Heaven it is not surely in Earth And it is so certain that it is not in Earth that as concerning the same we look for him from Heaven whom as concerning the Word we believe
absent himself from the Divine Mysteries And I also worship Christ in the Sacrament but not because P. 61. he is included in the Sacrament Like as I worship Christ also in the Scriptures not because he is really included in them Notwithstanding I say that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament but yet Sacramentally and Spiritually according to his Grace giving Life and in that respect really that is according to his Benediction giving Life Furthermore I acknowledg gladly the true Body of Christ to be in the Lord's Supper in such sort as the Church of Christ which is the Spouse of Christ and is taught of the Holy Ghost and guided by God's Word doth acknowledg the same But the true Church of Christ doth acknowledg a Presence of Christ's Body in the Lord's Supper to be communicated to the Godly by Grace and spiritually as I have often shewed and by a Sacramental Signification but not by the Corporal Presence of the Body of his Flesh We worship I confess the same true Lord and Saviour of P. 65. the world which the Wise men worshipped in the Manger howbeit we do it in a Mystery and in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and that in Spiritual Liberty as saith S. Aug. lib. 3. de Doct. Christiana Not in carnal servitude that is we do not worship servilely the signs for the things for that should be as he also saith a part of a servile Infirmity but we behold with the eyes of Faith him present after Grace and spiritually set upon the Table and we worship him who sitteth above and is worshipped of the Angels for Christ is always assistant to his Mysteries as the said Augustine saith And the Divine Majesty as saith Cyprian doth never absent it self from the Divine Mysteries but this Assistance and Presence of Christ as in Baptism it is wholly Spiritual and by Grace and not by any Corporal Substance of the Flesh Even so it is here in the Lord's Supper being rightly and according to the Word of God duly ministred Ridley My Protestation always saved that by this mine P. 420. Answer I do not condescend to your Authority in that you are Legate to the Pope I answer thus In a sense the first Article is true and in a sense it is false for if you take really for vere for spiritually by Grace and Efficacy then it is true that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ is in the Sacrament vere realiter indeed and really but if you take these terms so grosly that you would conclude thereby a Natural Body having Motion to be contained under the Forms of Bread and Wine vere realiter then really is not Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament no more than the Holy Ghost is in the Element of Water in our Baptism Because this Answer was not understood the Notaries wist not how to note it wherefore the Bishop of Lincoln willed him to answer either Affirmatively or Negatively either to grant the Article or to deny it Rid. My Lord you know that where any Equivocation which is a word having two significations is except distinction be given no direct Answer can be made for it is one of Aristotle's Fallacies containing two Questions under one the which cannot be satisfied with one Answer For both you and I agree herein that in the Sacrament is the very true and Natural Body and Blood of Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into Heaven which sitteth on the Right Hand of God the Father which shall come from thence to judg the quick and the dead only we differ in modo in the way and manner of being we confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament and dissent in the manner of being there I being fully by God's Word thereunto perswaded confess Christ's Natural Body to be in the Sacrament indeed by Spirit and Grace because that whosoever receiveth worthily that Bread and Wine receiveth effectually Christ's Body and drinketh his Blood that is he is made effectually Partaker of his Passion and you make a grosser kind of being enclosing a Natural a Lively and a Moving Body under the shape or form of Bread and Wine Now this difference considered to the Question thus I answer That in the Sacrament of the Altar is the Natural Body and Blood of Christ vere realiter indeed and really for spiritually by Grace and Efficacy for so every worthy Receiver receiveth the very true Body of Christ but if you mean really and indeed so that thereby you would include a lively and a moveable Body under the forms of Bread and Wine then in that sense is not Christ's Body in the Sacrament really and indeed This Answer taken and penned of the Notaries the Bishop of Lincoln proposed the second Question or Article To whom he answer'd Rid. Always my Protestation reserved I answer thus That in the Sacrament is a certain Change in that that Bread which was before common Bread is now made a lively presentation of Christ's Body and not only a Figure but effectually representeth his Body that even as the Mortal Body was nourished by that visible Bread so is the Internal Soul fed with the Heavenly food of Christ's Body which the eye of Faith seeth as the bodily eye seeth only Bread. Such a Sacramental mutation I grant to be in the Bread and Wine which truly is no small change but such a change as no mortal man can make but only that Omnipotency of Christ's Word Then the Bishop of Lincoln willed him to answer directly either Affirmatively or Negatively without further Declaration of the Matter Then he Answered Ridley That notwithstanding the Sacramental Mutation of the which he spake and all the Doctors confessed the true Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine remaineth with the which the Body is in like sort nourished as the Soul is by Grace and Spirit with the Body of Christ Even so in Baptism the Body is washed with the visible Water and the Soul is cleansed from all filth by the Invisible Holy Ghost and yet the Water ceaseth not to be Water but keepeth the nature of Water still In like sort in the Sacrament of the Lords-Supper the Bread ceaseth not to be Bread. Extracts from Bishop Poynets Diallaction I Will so divide the question that it may be briefly reduced to three heads First I will shew that the true Body of Christ is given to the Faithful in the Sacrament and that the words Nature and Substance are not to be rejected but that the Ancients treating of this Sacrament did use them In the next place I will shew that there is a difference between the proper Body of Christ and that which is present in the Sacrament and that the Ancient Fathers thought so Lastly I will shew what manner of Body this is which is received in this Mystery and why it is called by that Name according to the Doctrine of
A BRIEF DECLARATION OF THE LORDS SUPPER WRITTEN BY BISHOP RIDLEY Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Brief Declaration of the Lord's Supper c. Guil. Needham RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep Cant. a Sacr. Dom. Junii 7. 1688. A BRIEF DECLARATION OF THE Lords Supper WRITTEN By Dr. NICHOLAS RIDLEY Bishop of LONDON During his IMPRISONMENT With some other Determinations and Disputations concerning the same Argument by the same Author To which is Annexed An Extract of several Passages to the same Purpose out of a Book Intituled DIALLACTION written by Dr. JOHN POYNET Bishop of Winchester in the Reigns of E. 6. and Q. Mary LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard M DC LXXX VIII THE PREFACE THE Doctrine of Transubstantiation maintained by our Adversaries of the Church of Rome is so gross and highly repugnant to the first principles of reason and universal sense of mankind that directly to defend it would be no less impossible than unsuccessful Artifices therefore were necessarily to be invented which might palliate the deformity of so monstrous an Opinion and divert inquisitive persons from a direct examination of it by amusing them with confident assertions and extraneous Controversies Among these the difference of Opinion between the first Reformers and present Divines of the Church of England hath of late been proposed and urged with the greatest vehemency as if the first Reformers had believed somewhat equivalent to Transubstantiation and our present Divines by asserting no other than a figurative Presence of the material Body of Christ had degenerated from the belief of their Forefathers We might justly admire the unreasonable confidence of those men who are not ashamed to propose so manifest and gross a falshood and esteem it the highest folly if we did not remember that it is taken up to defend a desperate Cause which admits no better Remedies Can any Man in his right wits believe that so many hundred Martyrs should suffer death and spend their blood for so inconsiderable a nicety as was the difference between them and their Persecutors in the Doctrine of the Eucharist if these late Representers may be believed That both Parties should dispute so earnestly and vehemently against each other and yet after all agree in the main That the Romish Bishops should treat the Reformers as Hereticks for denying Transubstantiation and the Reformers lay down their lives rather than acknowledge it and yet neither the first to have defined it to be true nor the last believed it to be false Such crude Positions can find no entertainment but in a mind already fitted to receive Transubstantiation it self that is devoid of Sense and Reason If we enquire the Reasons and Arguments wherewith our Adversaries maintain such incredible and extravagant assertions we shall find them to be no other than these That the first Reformers taught and asserted a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament That they maintained the Body and Blood to be verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful Communicants That they frequently affirmed the natural and substantial Body of Christ that very Body which was taken by him of the Virgin Mary to be present in the Sacrament These very expressions are at this day used by the Divines of the Church of England whom yet our Adversaries pretend to have departed from the belief of their Forefathers in this matter So that if they prove the first Reformers to have believed a material presence of Christ's Body they will prove our Present Divines to believe the same For the whole Controversy will come to this issue Whether they believed any material Presence of Christ's Body or any part of it either by conversion substitution or union If they positively disowned this as most certainly they did then whatsoever expressions they might use they could believe no other than a figurative Presence of Christ's Body properly so called which our Adversaries now traduce under the name of Zuinglianism And indeed if we give them leave to explain themselves they tell us That in such expressions they use the terms of Real Presence Nature and Substance not as Philosophers but as Divines and that by denying the Eucharist to be a figure only or a naked figure they mean no more than that it is a true and real communication of the virtues and benefits of his Body not only a meer figurative commemoration of them which is the true notion of Zuinglianism To prove this and vindicate the honour of the first Reformers and modern Divines of our Church and demonstrate the intire conformity of the belief of both it is thought convenient to cause some one Treatise of the first Reformers concerning this Subject to be Reprinted that so every one might judge for himself whether the pretensions of our Adversaries be indeed true and just or rather the Present is intirely conformable to the precedent Doctrine of the Church of England To this end among all the Writings of the first Reformers this Treatise of Bishop Ridley which we here publish will conduce most by reason of the great and eminent Authority of the Author which was so highly considerable beyond that of any other Reformer that he may justly be esteemed the Standard of the Doctrine of the Church of England at that time Not only the assurance of his great learning and eminent station in the Church renders this probable but that great part which he had in managing the Affairs of the Reformation and the extraordinary deference paid to his Authority and trust reposed in him by all Convocations and the whole body of the Reformers demonstrate it None can reasonably be put in competition with him except Archbishop Cranmer and he also in his disputation at Oxford professed that he received his Opinion concerning the Eucharist from Bishop Ridley This the Romish Clergy were so sensible of in the time of Queen Mary that by a plausible calumny they endeavoured to persuade the World that the private opinion of Ridley was the only foundation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England For Brooks Bishop of Glocester Fox's Martyrol Vol. 3. p. 425. Queen Maries Commissioner disputing against him in the publick Schools at Oxford used this among other Arguments What a weak and feeble stay in Religion is this I pray you Latimer leaneth to Cranmer Cranmer to Ridley and Ridley to the singularity of his own Wit So that if you can overthrow the singularity of Ridley 's Wit then must needs the Religion of Cranmer and Latimer fall also To which I may add the words of Dr. Fecknam Abbot of Westminster in his Speech in Parliament Primo Elizabethae made in defence of the Church of Rome which I have seen in Manuscript Dr. Ridley the notablest learned of that Opinion in this Realm did set forth at Paul 's Cross the real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament with these words which
graunt Transubstantiation that is a change of the substance of breade into the substance of Christes bodye Then also they must needs graunt the carnal and corporal presence of Christes body Then must the Sacrament be adorred with the honour due to Christe him selfe for the vnitie of the two natures in one person Then if the Preest do offer the Sacrament he dooth offer indeed Christe him self And finally the murtherer the aduouterer or wicked man receiuinge the Sacrament muste needes then receiue also the naturall substance of Christes owne blessed bodye bothe fleshe and blood Now on the other side if after the trueth shal be truely tried out it shall be found that the substance of breade is the naturall substance of the Sacrament although for the change of the vse office and dignitie of the bread the bread indeed Sacramentally is changed into the bodye of Christe as the water in Baptisme is sacramentally changed into the fountaine of regeneration and yet the natural substance therof remaineth al one as was before if I saye the true solucion of that former question wherupon all these controuersies doo hang be that the natural substance of bread is the materiall substance in the Sacrament of Christes blessed body then must it needes followe of the former proposition confessed of al that be named to be learned so far as I doo knowe in England whiche is that there is but one materiall substance in the Sacrament of the body and one only likewise in the Sacrament of the blood that there is no such thinge indeede and in truethe as they call Transubstantiation for the substance of bread remaineth stil in the Sacrament of the body then also the naturall substance of Christes humain nature which he took of the Virgin Mary is in Heauen where it reigneth now in glory and not heer inclosed vnder the forme of bread then the godly honour which is onely due vnto God the creator may not be doon vnto the creature without idolatrye and sacrilege is not to be doon vnto the holye Sacrament Then also the wicked I mean the impenitent murtherrer aduluterer or suche like doo not receiue the naturall substance of the blessed body and blood of Christe Finally then dooth it followe that Christes blessed body and blood which was once onlye offered and shed vpon the Crosse beinge auaylable for the sinnes of all the whole world is offered vp no more in the naturall substance therof nother by the Preest nor any other thing But heer before wee go any further to search in this matter and to wade as it were to search and trye out as we may the trueth heerof in the Scripture it shall doo well by the way to know whether they that thus make answere and solucione vnto the former principall question doo take away simply and absolutely the presence of Christes bodye and blood from the Sacrament ordeined by Christe and dulye ministred according to his holy ordinance and institution of the same Vndoubtedly they doo deny that btterlye either so to saye or so to meane Heerof if any man doo or will doubt the bookes which are written already in this matter of them that thus doo answere will make the matter plaine Now then will you saye what kinde of presence doo they graunt and what doo they denye Breeflye they deny the presence of Christs body in the naturall substance of his humain and assumpt nature and graunt the presence of the same by grace that is they affirme and saye that the substance of the naturall bodye and blood of Christe is only remaining in Heaven and so shall be vnto the latter daye when he shall come againe in glorye accompanied with the Angels of Heauen to iudge both the quicke and the deade And that the same natural substance of the very body and blood of Christe because it is vnited vnto the deuine nature in Christe the second person of the Trinitle Therfore it hath not onely life in it selfe but is also able to giue and dooth giue life vnto so many as be or shal be partakers therof that is that to all that doo beleeue on his name which are not borne of blood as S. Iohn saith or of the wil of the fleshe or of the will of man but are borne of God though the self-same substance abide still in Heauen and they for the time of their pilgrimage dwel heer vpon Earth by grace I say that is by the life mencioned in Iohn and the properties of the same meete for our pilgrimage heer upon earth the same body of Christe is heere present with vs. Euen as for example wee saye the same Sunne which in substance neuer remoueth his place out of the Heauens is yet present heer by his beams light and naturall influence where it shineth vpon the earth For Gods Woord and his Sacraments be as it were the beams of Christ which is Sol iustitiae the Sunne of righteousnes Thus hast thou heard of what sort or sect soeuer thou be wherin dooth stand the principall state and cheef poynte of all the controuersies which doo properly pertain vnto the nature of this Sacrament As for the vse therof I graunt there be many other thinges wherof heer I haue spoken nothing at all And nowe leaste thou iustely mightest complain and say that I haue in openinge of this matter doon nothing els but digged a pitte and haue not shut it vp again or broken a gap and haue not made it vp again or opened the booke and haue not closed it again or els to call me what thou listest as neuterall dissembler or what soeuer els thy lust and learning shall serue thee to name me woorsse Therfore heer now I wil by Gods grace not only shortly but so cleerely and plainly as I can make thee to knowe whether of the aforesaid two answers to the former principall state and cheef poynt dooth like me best yea and also I will holde all those accursed whiche in this matter that now so troubleth the Church of Christ haue of God receiued the kepe of knowledge and yet go about to shut up the doores so that they themselues will not enter in nor suffer other that woulde And as for mine owne parte I consider but of late what charge and cure of soule hath bin committed vnto me wherof God knoweth how soon I shal be called to giue accounte and also now in this worlde what perill and danger of the lawes concerning my life I am now in at this present time What folly were it then for me now to dissemble with God of whom assuredly I looke and hope by Christe to haue euerlasting life Seing that such charge and danger bothe before God and man doo compasse mee in round about on euery side therfore God willing I will frankly and freelye vtter my minde and thoughe my bodye be captiue yet my tung and my pen as long as I may shall frely set forth that which vndubtedlye I am perswaded to be the
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
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
suffer P. 109. his most glorious passion for us really and substantially Ergo He is also in the Sacrament substantially The Argument is good because that it is the same here that was there crucified for us howbeit here invisibly indeed spiritually and sacramentally but there visibly and after a mortal and most bloody manner Rochest Mr. Langdale your Argument doth well conclude in case that his Body were here in the Sacrament after such a sort as it was when it was betrayed But that is not so for he was betrayed and crucified in his natural body substantially and really in very deed but in the Sacrament he is not so but spiritually and figuratively only Langd By your good Lordships favour that is not so for he is there not figuratively but verily and indeed by the power of his mighty Word yea even his very own natural body under the Sacrament duly performed by the lawful Minister Madew O say not so for you speak blasphemy Langd No no Mr. Doctor God forbid that either I or any man else should be noted of blasphemy saying nothing but the very plain truth as in my Conscience and Learning I do no less Rochest O Mr. Langdale I wis it becometh you not here to have such words Langd If it like your good Lordship I gave not the first occasion of them but only did refute that which I was unjustly burthened withall as reason doth require and it grieved me to hear it He saith if it please your Lordship that there is a mutation or change of the Bread after it is Consecrated which if it be so as I grant no less then I would require of him whether it be changed in the Substance or in the Accidents or else in both or in nothing No man can justly say that there is a change into nothing And all ancient Fathers do agree that the same accidents are there still after that were before nor doth any Doctor say That there is any mutation both of the Substance and Accidents also Ergo The Substance of Bread is changed into some other thing that is there really present under the forms of Bread and Wine which by Christs words must needs be his own Blessed Body Rochest Sir you are deceived greatly for there is no change either of the Substances or of the Accidents but in very deed there do come unto the Bread other Accidents insomuch that whereas the Bread and Wine were not sanctified before nor holy yet afterwards they be sanctified and so do receive then another sort or kind of vertue which they had not before Rochest Christ dwelleth in us by Faith and by Faith we receive Pag. 118. Christ both God and Man both in Spirit and flesh that is this Sacramental eating is the mean and way whereby we attain to the Spiritual eating and indeed for the strengthening of us to the eating of this Spiritual food was this Sacrament Ordained And these words This is my Body are meant thus By Grace it is my true Body but not my fleshly Body as some of you suppose Rochest I acknowledg not his real Substance to be there but Pag. 119. the property of his Substance The Determination of Dr. Nicholas Ridley Bishop of Rochester upon Pag. 120. the Conclusions above prefixed There hath been an ancient custom amongst you that after Disputations had in your common Schools there should be some determination made of the matters so disputed and debated especially touching Christian Religion Because therefore it hath seemed good unto these worshipful Assistants joyned with me in Commission from the Kings Majesty that I should perform the same at this time I will by your favourable patience declare both what I do think and believe my self and what also other ought to think of the same Which thing I would that afterward ye did with diligence weigh and ponder every man at home severally by himself The principal Grounds or rather Head-springs of this matter are specially five The first is the Authority Majesty and Verity of Holy Scripture The second is the most certain Testimonies of the Ancient Catholick Fathers who after my judgment do sufficiently declare this matter The third is the definition of a Sacrament The fourth is the abominable Heresie of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation The fifth is the most sure belief of the Article of our Faith He ascended into Heaven The First Ground This Transubstantiation is clean against the words of the Scripture and consent of the ancient Catholick Fathers The Scripture saith I will not drink hereafter of this fruit of the Vine c. Now the fruit of this Vine is Wine And it is manifest that Christ spake these words after the Supper was finished as it appeareth both in Matthew Mark and also in Luke if they be well understood There be not many places of Scripture that do confirm this thing neither is it greatly material for it is enough if there be any one plain testimony for the same Neither ought it to be measured by the number of Scriptures but by the Authority and by the verity of the same And the Majesty of this verity is as ample in one short sentence of the Scripture as in a thousand Moreover Christ took Bread he gave Bread. In the Acts Luke calleth it Bread. So Paul calleth it Bread after the Sanctification Both of them speak of breaking which belongeth to the Substance of Bread and in no wise to Christ's Body for the Scripture saith Ye shall not break a bone of him Christ saith Do ye this in my remembrance And again As often as ye shall drink of this Cup do it in rememberance of me And our Saviour Christ in the sixth of John speaking against the Capernaites saith Labour for the meat that perisheth not And when they asked What shall we do that we may work the works of God He answered them thus This is the work of God that ye believe in him whom he hath sent You see how he exhorteth them to faith For Faith is that work of God. Again This is that Bread which came down from Heaven But Christs Body came not down from Heaven Moreover He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him My flesh saith he is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed When they heard this they were offended And whil'st they were offended he said unto them What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before Whereby he went about to draw them from the gross and carnal eating This Body saith he shall ascend up into Heaven meaning altogether as St. Augustine saith It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life and must be spiritually understood These be the Reasons which perswade me to incline to this Sentence and Judgment The Second Ground Now my Second Ground against this Transubstantiation are the Ancient Fathers
to be with us in Earth Also the same Vigilius saith Which things seeing they be so the course of the Scripture must be searched of us and many Testimonies must be gathered to shew plainly what a wickedness and sacriledg it is to refer those things to the property of the Divine Nature which do only belong to the nature of the Flesh and contrariwise to apply those things to the nature of the Flesh which do properly belong to the Divine Nature Which thing the Transubstantiators do whilst they affirm Christ's Body not to be contained in any one place and ascribe that to his Humanity which properly belongeth to his Divinity as they do who will have Christ's Body to be in no one certain place limited Now in the latter Conclusion concerning the Sacrifice because it dependeth upon the first I will in few words declare what I think For if we did once agree in that the whole Controversie in the other would soon be at an end Two things there be which do perswade me that this Conclusion is true that is certain places of the Scripture and also certain Testimonies of the Fathers Saint Paul saith Hebrews the 9th Christ being become an High Priest of good things to come by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle not made with hands that is not of this building neither by the Blood of Goats and Calves but by his own Blood entred once into the Holy Place and obtained for us eternal Redemption c. And now in the end of the World he hath appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself And again Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many Moreover he saith With one offering hath he made perfect for ever those that are sanctified These Scriptures do perswade me to believe that there is no other oblation of Christ albeit I am not ignorant there are many Sacrifices but that which was once made upon the Cross The Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers which confirm the same are out of Augustine ad Bonif. Epist 23. Again in his Book of 43 Questions in the 41st Question Also in his 20th Book against Faustus the Manichee Chap. 21. And in the same Book against the said Faustus Chap. 28. thus he writeth Now the Christians keep a memorial of the Sacrifice past with a holy Oblation and participation of the Body and Blood of Christ Fulgentius in his Book De fide calleth the same Oblation a Commemoration And these things are sufficient for this time for a Scholastical Determination of these matters VOL. III. Bishop Ridley 's Answer to the Three Propositions proposed to him in the Disputation at Oxford April 12. 1554. I Received of you the other day Right Worshipful Mr. Prolocutor and ye my Reverend Masters Commissioners from the Queens Majesty and her Honourable Council Three Propositions whereunto ye commanded me to prepare against this day what I thought good to answer concerning the same Now whilst I weighed with my self how great a charge of the Lord's Flock was of late committed unto me for the which I must once render an account to my Lord God and that how soon he knoweth and that moreover by the Commandment of the Apostle Peter I ought to be ready alway to give a Reason of the Hope that is in me with Meekness and Reverence unto every one that shall demand the same Besides this considering my Duty to the Church of Christ and to your Worships being Commissioners by Publick Authority I determined with my self to obey your Commandment and so openly to declare unto you my mind touching the foresaid Propositions and albeit plainly to confess unto you the Truth in these things which ye now demand of me I have thought otherwise in times past than now I do yet God I call to record unto my Soul I lye not I have not altered my Judgment as now it is either by constraint of any Man or Laws either for the dread of any dangers of this World either for any hope of Commodity but only for the love of the Truth revealed unto me by the Grace of God as I am undoubtedly perswaded in his holy Word and in the reading of the Ancient Fathers These things I do rather recite at this present because it may happen to some of you hereafter as in times past it hath done to me I mean if ye think otherwise of the matters propounded in these Propositions than I now do God may open them unto you in time to come But howsoever it shall be I will in few words do that which I think ye all look I should do that is as plainly as I can I will declare my Judgment herein Howbeit of this I would ye were not ignorant that I will not indeed wittingly and willingly speak in any Point against Gods Word or dissent in any one jot from the same or from the Rules of Faith or Christian Religion which Rules that same most Sacred word of God prescribeth to the Church of Christ whereunto I now and for ever submit my self and all my doings And because the matter I have now taken in hand is weighty and ye all well know how unready I am to handle it accordingly as well for lack of time as also lack of Books therefore here I protest that I will publickly this day require of you that it may be lawful for me concerning all mine Answers Explications and Confirmations to add or diminish whatsoever shall seem hereafter more convenient and meet for the purpose through more sound Judgment better Deliberation and more exact Trial of every particular Thing Having now by the way of Preface and Protestation spoken these few words I will come to the Answer of the Propositions propounded unto me and so to the most brief Explication and Confirmation of mine Answers Weston Reverend Mr. Doctor concerning the lack of Books there is no cause why you should complain What Books soever you will name you shall have them and as concerning the Judgment of your Answers to be had of your self with further deliberation it shall I say be lawful for you until Sunday next to add unto them what you shall think good your self My mind is that we should use short Arguments lest we should make an infinite process of the thing Ridley There is another thing besides which I would gladly obtain at your hands I perceive that you have Writers and Notaries here present By all likelihood our Disputations shall be published I beseech you for Gods sake let me have liberty to speak my mind freely and without interruption not because I have determined to protract the time with a solemn Preface but lest it may appear that some be not satisfied God wot I am no Orator nor have I learned Rhetorick to set Colours on the matter Weston Among this whole Company it shall be permitted you to take two for your part Rid. I will chuse two if there were any here with whom I were
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.
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
and Spiritual but present by Grace full of vertue powerful in efficacy For this is very frequent that the names of things themselves be ascribed to their virtue and efficacy The Fathers therefore in Treating of the Sacraments use the words Nature and Substance not Philosophically but Theologically that is they speak not as natural Philosophers but as men disputing of Divine matters they give the name of Nature and Substance to Grace Virtue and Efficacy the nature of the Sacrament so requiring But this that the Spiritual virtue is inseparable from the Elements is to be understood to be true as long as the Sign serveth for that use and is directed to that end for which it was destined by the Word of God. For if we apply it to other uses and abuse it against the institution of Christ it either is altogether not a Sacrament or ceaseth to be a Sacrament The dignity and due honour of the Sacraments is not injured but remaineth whole and inviolate while we confess both the truth of the Body and the nature and substance of it to be received by the Faithful together with the Symbols which also the ancient Fathers testifie to be done And then this distinction which also those Fathers diligently observed being received between that proper or assumed Body of the Lord and this Symbolical Body or Sacrament of the Body the analogy of our Faith is not violated which no ways ought to be shaken since we attribute to each Body his peculiar properties For we say that the proper and assumed Body is in a place and circumscribed with a space by reason of the modus of a true Body as Augustine saith c. All men see that we also here affirm the Substance to be present and assert our Communion with Christ naturally and as I may say substantially But then these words ought to be understood after the manner not of Philosophers but of Divines Neither should we quarrel about the term of Transubstantiation although barbarous and not in the least necessary Provided they meant thereby such a Transmutation of Substances as the Ancients taught that is a Sacramental one such as is also performed in a man regenerated by Baptism who is made a new man and a new creature Such as is also performed when we are converted into the Flesh of Christ which examples the ancient Fathers used If any here require a Miracle for some Fathers call the Eucharist a great Miracle it is in truth no less wonderful that Bread and Wine which are earthly Creatures and apt only to nourish the Body should by virtue of the Mystical Benediction obtain that inward force and such powerful efficacy as to cleanse nourish sanctifie and prepare to immortality both our 〈…〉 and to make us the 〈…〉 and one Body with 〈…〉 Diallacticon Viri boni literati de veritate natura atque substantia corporis sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia Ad calcem Becae Opusculorum Vol. II. Par. 2. p. 31. Genevae 1573. f. CAusam ita partiri placuit ut summatim ad tria capita revocetur Primò ostendam veritatem corporis Christi in Eucharistia dari fidelibus nec has voces Naturam at que Substantiam fugiendas esse sed Veteres de hoc Sacramento disserentes ita locutos fuisse Deinde discrimen esse monstrabo inter corpus Domini proprium illud quod inest in Sacramento veteresque Patres ita censuisse Postremo cujusmodi sit hoc Corpus quod accipitur in Mysterio cur eo nomine censeatur indicabo secundum eorundem Patrum sententiam p. 33 34. Corpus Christi dicitur propriè impropriè propriè Corpus illud sumptum ex Virgine impropriè ut Sacramentum Ecclesia Quod Ecclesia propriè Corpus Christi non sit nemini dubium est de Sacramento restat ut nunc idem Probemus p. 38. Non difficile est animadvertere ex his quae scribit hoc loco Chrysostomus aliter esse Corpus quod Christus ipse Corpus suum appellavit cum diceret Accipite edite hoc meum est Corpus quod ipse quoque simul sumebat cum discipulis aliter ipsum Corpus proprium quod illo altero vescebatur Hoc comedebat illud comesum est utrumque Corpus sed diversa ratione dicitur p. 39. Sacramentum videlicet Corporis dedit non ipsum visibiliter sive visibile Corpus quod ad proprium Corpus refertur Hoc autem Corpus ubicunque est visibile est p. 40. Observandum est veritatem Dominici Corporis dup citer dici ac debere dupliciter accâ—â—i Alia namque veritas Corporis requiritur in Mysterio alia simpliciter absque Mysterio p. 41. Quod ad nostrum institutum attinet ipsa Cypriani verba satis indicant quam non sequenda sit litera in his quae de hoc Mysterio dicuntur quam procul arcendus est carnis Sensus ad Sensum spiritualem omnia referenda huic Pani Divinae Virtutis praesentiam adesse Vitae Aeternae effectum Divinam insundi essentiam verba Spiritum vitam esse spirituale documentum tradi hoc Corpus hunc sanguinem carnem hanc substantiam Corporis non communi more nec ut humana ratio dictat accipi oportere sed ita nominari existimari credi propter eximios quosdam Effectus Virtutes Proprietates conjunctas quae Corpori sanguini Christi natura insunt nempe quod pascat animas nostras vivificet simul Corpora ad Resurrectionem Immortalitatem praeparet p. 46. Hic cogitandum est verba spiritualia esse spiritualiter intelligenda carnem quidem sanguinem nominari sed de Spiritu Vitâ id est vivificâ Dominicae carnis Virtute debere intelligi proinde vim Vitae signis externis inditam esse Ibid. Theophylactus quum dicit panem non esse Figuram Corporis Dominici sensit non tantum Figuram esse p. 47. Ecce Chrysostomus dicit realiter ut ita loquar nos converti in carnem Christi sed spiritualem illam non carnalem Conversionem esse quis non videt Ita reipsâ convertitur transelementatur Panis in carnem Christi sed spirituali non carnali Conversione quia Panis virtutem carnis assequitur p. 48. Quanto melius locuti sunt Cyprianus Ambrosius Epiphanius Emysenus alii qui similem Commutationem in Eucharistiâ cum ea quae fit in Baptismo confirmant quâ fit ut signa maneant eadem per gratiam novam acquirant substantiam similiter p. 49. Cujus ego viri Bertrami Expositionem de Sacramento viam disputandi duas ob causas diligenter expendendam amplectendam arbitror p. 52. Quod ut magis appareat memoriâ reponatur non inutile fore putavi ex his quae supra memoravimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quandam per collationem subjungere Corpus Christi proprium habet caput pectus membra dinstincta Corpus
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