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
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
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
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
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
O heauenly Father that the controuersie about the Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of thy déer Sonne our Sauiour Iesu Christe hath troubled not of late onlye the Churche of England Fraunce Germanie and Italye but also many yéere agoe The fault is ours na dout therfore for we have deserued thy plague But O Lord be mercifull and reléeue our miserie with some lighte of grace Thou knowest O Lord how this wicked world rolleth vp and down and réeleth to and fro and careth not what thy will is so it may abide in wealth If trueth haue wealthe who are so stoute to defende the trueth as they But if Christes crosse be laid on trueths back then they vanish away straight as Waxe before the fier But these are not they O Heauenly Father for whome I make my moste moane but for those silly ones O Lord which haue a zeale vnto thée those I mean which wold Note and wish to know thy wil and yet are letted holden backe and blinded by the subtilties of Sathan and his ministers the wickednes of this wretched worlde and the sinfull lusts and affections of the flesh Alas Lord thou knowest that we bée of our selues but flesh wherein there dwelleth nothing that is good How then is it possible for man without thée O Lord to vnderstand thy trueth indéed Can the naturall man perceiue the wil of God O Lord to whom thou giuest a zeale of thée giue them also we beseech thée the knowledge of thy blessed wil. Suffer not them O Lord blindely to be led for to striue against thée as thou diddest those Alas which crucified thine own Sonne forgiue them O Lord for thy déere Sonnes sake for they know not what they doo They doo think Alas O Lord for lack of knowledge that they doo vnto thée good seruice euen when against thée they doo moste extremelye rage Remember O Lord we beséech thee for whome thy Martyr Stephen did praye and whome thyne holy Apostle Paule did so truelye and earnestlye loue that for their saluation hée wished himself accursed for them Remember O heauenly Father the prayer of thy déere Sonne our Sauiour Christe vpon the crosse when be saide vnto thée O Father forgiue them they know not what they doo With this forgiuenes O good Lord giue me I beséech thée thy grace so héer bréefly to set foorth the sayings of thy Sonne our Sauiour Christe and of his Euangelistes and of his Apostles that in this aforesaid controuersie the lighte of the trueth by the lantern of thy woord may shine vnto all them that loue thée Of the Lords last supper doo speak expreslye the Euangelists Mathew Mark and Luke but none more plainelye nor more fully declareth the same then dooth S. Paule partely in the tenth Chapter but specially in the xj chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians As Mathew and Mark doo agrée much in woordes so doo likewise Luke and S. Paule But all iiij no doubte as they were all taught in one schoole and inspired with one spirit so taught they as one trueth God grant vs to vnderstande it wel Amen Mathew setteth foorth Christes Supper thus When euen was come he sat down with the xij c. As they did eat Jesus took bread and gave thankes brake it and gave it to the disciples Math. 26. and saide Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gaue thankes gaue it to them saying Drink ye al of this for this is my blood of the newe testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes I say vnto you I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine tree untill that daye when I shall drink that newe in my fathers kingdome And when they had sayed grace they went out Now Mark speaketh it thus And as they eate Jesus took bread blessed and brake and gaue to Mark 14. them and saied take eat this is my body And took the cup gaue thankes and gaue it to them and they all drank of it And he said vnto them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many Verily I saye vnto you I wil drink no more of the fruit of the vine vntill that day that I drink that newe in the kingdome of God. Héere Mathew and Mark doo agree not only in the matter but also almoste fully in the forme of woords In Mathew gaue thankes Mark hath one woorde Blessed which signifieth in this place al one And where Mathew saith Drink ye al of this Mark saith they al drank of it And where Mathew saithe of this fruit of the vine Mark leaueth out the woord this and saith of the fruit of the vine Now let us see likewise what agréement in forme of woords is betwéene S. Luke and S. Paule Luke writeth thus He took bread gaue thankes brake it and gaue it to them saying Luke 22. this is my body which is giuen for you this doo in remembrance of me Likewise also when they had supped he took the Cup saying this Cup is the newe Testament in my bloud which is shedde for you Saint Paule setteth foorth the Lords Supper thus The Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betraied took 1 Cor. 11. Bread and gaue thankes and brake and saide take eate this is my body which is broken for you This doo in remembrance of me After the same maner he took the Cup when supper was doon saying this Cup is the new testament in my bloud This doo as often as yee shall drink it in remembrance of me For as often as ye shall eate this breade and drinke this cup ye shall shewe the Lords deathe vntill he come Héere where S. Luke saith which is given Paule saith which is broken And as Luke addeth to the woordes of Paule spoken of the Cup which is shed for you so likewise Paule addeth to the woords thereof this doo as often as yee shall drinke it in remembrance of me The rest that followeth in S. Paule both there and in the tenth Chapter perteineth unto the right vse of the Lords Supper Thus the Euangelistes and S. Paule haue rehearsed the woords and woorke of Christe whereby he did institute and ordaine this holy Sacrament of his bodye and blood to be a perpetuall remembrance vnto his comming againe of him selfe I say that is of his body giuen for vs and of his blood shed for the remission of sinnes But this remembrance which to thus ordained as the author thereof is Christe bothe God and Man so by the almightye power of God if far passeth al kindes of remembrances that any other man is able to make either of him selfe or of any other thinge For whosoever receiueth this holy Sacrament thus ordeined in remembrance of Christe he receiueth therwith either death or life In this I trust we doo al agrée For S. Paule saith of the godly receiuers in the tenth Chapter of his first Epistle vnto
the Cerinthians The Cup of blessinge which we blesse is it not the pertaking or felowship of Christes bloud And also saithe the Breade which wee break and meaneth at the Lords Lable Is it not the partaking or felowship of Christs body Now the partaking of Christes body and of his blood vnto the faithfull and godly is the partaking or felowship of life and immortalitie And againe of the bad and vngodly receiuers S. Paule as plainly saith thus He that eateth of this bread and drinketh of this cup vnworthily is gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Note O how necessary then it is if we loue life and would eschue deathe to trye and examine our selues before we eate of this bread and drink of this cup for els assuredly he that eateth and drinketh thereof vnworthilye eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he estéemeth not the Lords body that is he reuerenceth not the Lordes bodye with the honour that is due vnto him And that which was saide that with the receite of the holye Sacrament of the blessed body and bloud of Christe is receiued of every one good and bad either life or death it is not ment that they whiche are dead before God may heerby receiue life or the liuinge before God can heerby receiue death For as none is meete to receiue naturall food wherby the natural life is nourished except he be borne and liue before so no man can feed by the receit of this holy Sacrament of the food of eternall life except he be regenerated and borne of God before And on the other side no man heer receiueth damnation whiche is not dead before Thus hethertoo without al doubt God is my witnesse I saye so far as I doo knowe there is no controuersie amonge them that be learned in the Churche of England concerninge the matter of this Sacrament but al doo agree whether they be new or olde and to speak plain and as some of them doo odiously cal either other whether they be Protestantes Papists Pharisies or Gospellers And as all doo agree hithertoo in the aforesaid Doctrine so all doo deteste abborre and condemne the wicked heresie of the Messalonians which otherwise be called Eutichets which saide that the holy Sacrament can neither doo no good nor harme All do also condemne those wicked Anabaptistes which put no difference between the Lords Table and the Lords meat and their owne And because charity would that we should if it be possible and so far as we may with the sauegarde of good conscience and maintenance of the trueth agree with all men therfore me thinkes it is not charitablye doon to burthen any man either newe or olde as they call them further then such doo declare themselues to dissent from that we are perswaded to be trueth or pretend thertoo to be controuersies where as none such are in deed and so to multiply the debate the which the more it doth increase the further it doth depart from the vnitie that the true Christian should desire And again this is true that trueth nother needeth nor wil be What it is to lye The slaunderous lyes of the Papists maintained with lies It is also a true prouerb That it is euen sinne to lye vpon the Deuil For though by thy lye thou doost neuer so much speak against the Deuil yet in that thou liest in deed thou woorkest the Deuils woorke thou doost him seruice and takest the Deuils part Now whether then they doo godlye and charitablye which either by their Pen in Writing or by their Woordes in Preaching doo beare the simple people in hand that those which thus doo teach and beleue doo go about to make the holye Sacrament ordeined by Christe himselfe a thing no better then a peece of common Bread or that doo saye that such doo make the holye Sacrament of the blessed bodye and blood of Christe nothing els but a bare signe or a figure to represent Christe none otherwise then the Ivye bushe doth represent the Wine in a Tauern or as a vile person gorgiouslye apparalled maye represent a King or a Prince in a playe Alas let men leaue lying and speak trueth everye one not only to his neighbour but also of his neighboure for wee are members one of an other saith Saint Paule The controuersie no doubt which at this daye troubleth the Church wherin any mean learned man either olde or newe dooth stand in is not whether the holy Sacrament of the body and blood of Christe is no better then a peece of common breade or no or whether the Lords Table is no more to be regarded then the Table of any earthly man or no or whether it is but a bare signe or figure of Christe and nothing else or no. For all do graunt that S. Paules woordes doo require that the bread which we break is the partaking of the body of Christe and also doo graunte him that eateth of that bread or drinketh of that cup vnwoorthely to be gilty of the Lords death and to eate and drinke his owne damnation because be esteemeth not the Lords body All doo graunt that these woords of S. Paule when he saith If we eate it aduantageth vs nothing or if wee eate not wee want nothing therby are not spoken of the Lords Table but of other common meats Thus then betherto yet we all agree But now let vs see Wherin the controuerfie consisteth wherin the dissention doth stand The vnderstanding of it wherin it cheeflye standeth is a step to the true searching foorthe of the trueth For who can seeke well a remedye if he knowe not before the disease It is neither to be denied nor dissembled that in the matter of this Sacrament there be diuers poyntes wherin men counted to be learned cannot agree As whether there be any Transubstantiation of the bread or no any corporall and carnall presence of Christes substance or no. Whether adoration due only vnto God is to be doon vnto the Sacrament or no and whether Christes bodye be there offered in deed vnto the heauenly Father by the Preeste or no and whether the euill man receiueth the naturall body of Christe or no. Yet neuertheles as in a man diseased in diuers partes commonly the originall cause of such diuers diseases which is spred abroad in the body doo come from one cheefe member as from the stomacke or from the head euen so all fiue aforesaid doo chiefly hange vpon this one question which is What is the matter of the Sacrament whether is it the naturall substance of bread or the naturall substance of Christs owne body The trueth of this question truelye tried out and agreed vpon no doubt shall cease the controuersie in all the rest For if it be Christes owne natural body born of the Virgin then assuredlye seeing that all learned men in England so far as I knowe bothe newe and olde graunt there to be but one substance then I say they must needs