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
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
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
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
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
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