trueth of Godes Woorde And yet I will do it vnder this protestation call me Protestant who lusteth I passe not therof My protestation shall be thus that my minde is and euer shal be God willinge to set foorth sincerelye the true sence and meaninge to the beste of my vnderstanding of Godes most holy woorde and not to decline from the same either for feare of worldly danger or els for hope of gaine I doo proteste also due obedience submission of my iudgemente in this my writing and in all other mine affairs vnto those of Christs Church which be truly learned in Gods holy Woord gathered in Christs Name and guided by his Spirit After this protestation I doo plainely affirme and say that the second Answere to the cheef question question and principall poynt I am perswaded to be the very true meaning and sence of Gods holy Woord that is that the naturall substance of bread and wine is the true materiall substance of the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of our Sauiour Christe and the places of Scripture wherupon this my faith is grounded be these both concerning the Sacrament of the body and also the bloud Firste let vs repete the beginninge of the institution of the Lords Supper wherin all the three Euangelists and S. Paule almost in woords doo agree saying that Iesus took bread gaue thanks brake and gaue it to the Disciples sayinge Take eate this is my bodye Heer it appeareth plainly that Christe calleth very bread his body For that which he took was very bread In this all men doo agree And that which he took after he had giuen thankes he brake and that which he took and brake he gaue to his disciples and that which be took brake and gaue to his Disciples he saide him selfe of it This is my body So it appeareth plainelye that Christ called very bread his body But very bread canot be his bodye in very substance therof therfore it must needs haue an other meaninge Which meaninge appeareth plainelye what it is by the next sentence that followeth immediatly both in Luke and in Paule And that is this Doo this in remembrance of me Wher-vpon it seemeth vnto me to be euident that Christe did take bread and called it his bodye for that he would therby institute a perpetuall remembrance of his body speciallye of the singuler benefite of our redemtion which he would then procure and purchase vnto vs by his bodye vpon the Crosse But bread retaining still his owne very naturall substance may be thus by grace and in a sacramental signification his body wheras els the very bread which he took brake and gaue them could not be any wise his naturall bodye For that were confusion of substances and therfore the very woordes of Christe ioynes with the next sentence following both enforceth vs to confesse the verye bread to remaine still and also openeth vnto vs how that bread maye be and is thus by his deuine power his body which was giuen for vs. But heere I remember I haue red in some writers of the contrarye opinion which Christe did take be brake For say they after his taking he blessed it as Mark dooth speak And by his blessing be changed the natural substance of the bread into the natural substance of his body and so although he took the bread and blessed it yet because in blessing he changed the substance of it he brake not the breade which then was not there but only the forme therof Vnto this obiection I haue two plain answers both grounded vpon Gods woord The one I will heer rehearse the other answer I will differ vntil I speak of the Sacrament of the blood Mine answere heer is taken out of the plaine woords of S. Paule which dooth manifestly confound this fantastical inuention first inuented I â—een of Pope Innocentius and after confirmed by the subtile sophister Duns and lately renewed now in our daies with an eloquent stile and much finenesse of wit. But what can crafty inuention subtiltye in sophismes eloquence or finenesse of wit Mar. Antho. Constan Gardenar preuaile against the vnfallible Woorde of God What neede we to striue and contend what thinge we break for Paule saieth speaking vndoubtedly of the Lords Table The bread saieth he which we break is it not the partaking or felowship of the Lords body Wherupon it followeth that after the thanks giving it is bread which we break And how often in the Acts of the Apostles is the Lords Supper signified by breaking of bread They did perseuer saith S. Luke in the Apostles Doctrine Communion and Acts 2. 20. breaking of bread And they brake breade in euery house And again in an other place when they were come together to breake bread c. S. Paule which setteth foorth moste fully in his writinge both the doctrine and the right vse of the Lords Supper and the Sacramentall eating and drinkinge of Christs body and blood calleth it fiue times bread bread bread bread bread The sacramentall bread is the misticall body and so it is called The second reason in Scripture 1 Cor. 10. as it is called the naturall body of Christe But Christs misticall body is the congregation of Christians Now no man was euer so fond as to say that that sacramentall breade is transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the congregatione Wherfore no man shoulde likewise think or saye that the breade is transubstantiated and changed into the naturall substance of Christes humaine nature But my minde is not héere to write what may be gathered out of Scriptures for this purpose but onely to note heer breefly those which seem vnto me to be the most plaine places Therfore contented to haue spoken thus muche of the Sacramentall bread I will nowe speake a little of the Lords cup. And this shall be my third Argument grounded vpon Christes The third Argument owne woordes The natural substance of the sacramentall Wine remaineth still and is the material substance of the Sacrament of the blood of Christe Therfore it is likewise so in the sacramentall Bread. I know that he that is of a contrarye opinion will denye the former parte of mine Argument But I will prooue it thus by the plaine woords of Christe himselfe both in Mathewe and in Marke Christes woordes are these after the wordes saide vpon the cup I saye vnto you saith Christe I will not drinke hencefoorthe of this fruite of the vine tree vntill I shall drink that new in my fathers kingdome Heere note how Christe calleth plainly his cup the fruit of the vine tree But the fruit of the vine is very natural wine Wherfore the naturall substance of the wine doothe remaine still in the Sacrament of Christes Blood. And heer in speaking of the Lords Cup it commeth vnto my remembrance the vanitie of Innocentius his fantasticall inuention which by Paules woordes I did confute before and héer did promise somwhat more to
acquainted Weston Here are two which Mr. Cranmer had yesterday take them if it please you Rid. I am content with them I trust they are honest men The First Proposition In the Sacrament of the Altar by the virtue of God's Word spoken of the Priest the Natural Body of Christ born of the Virgin Mary and his Natural Blood is Really Present under the Forms of Bread and Wine The Answer of N. Ridley In matters appertaining to God we may not speak according to the sense of Man nor of the World. Therefore this Proposition or Conclusion is framed after another manner of Phrase or kind of Speech than the Scripture useth Again it is very obscure and dark by means of sundry words of doubtful signification And being taken in the sense which the Schoolmen teach and at this time the Church of Rome doth defend it is false and erroneous and plain contrary to the Doctrine which is according to Godliness The Explication How far the diversity and newness of the Phrase in all this first Proposition is from the Phrase of the Holy Scripture and that in every part almost it is so plain and evident to any that is but meanly exercised in Holy Writ that I need not now especially in this Company of Learned Men to spend any time therein except the same shall be required of me hereafter First There is a double sense in these words by virtue of God's Word for it is doubtful what word of God this is whether it be that which is read in the Evangelists or in St. Paul or any other And if it be that which is in the Evangelists or in St. Paul what that is If it be in none of them then how it may be known to be God's Word and of such virtue that it should be able to work so great a matter Again There is a doubt of these words of the Priest whether no man may be called a Priest but he who hath Authority to make a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead and how it may be proved that this Authority was committed of God to any man but to Christ alone It is likewise doubted after what Order the Sacrificing Priest shall be whether after the Order of Aaron or else after the Order of Melchisedech for as far as I know the Holy Scripture doth allow no more Weston Let this be sufficient Rid. If we lack time at this present there is time enough hereafter Weston These are but evasions or starting holes you consume the time in vain Rid. I cannot start from you I am captive and bound Weston Fall to it my Masters Smith That which you have spoken may suffice at this present Rid. Let me alone I pray you for I have not much to say behind West Go forward Rid. Moreover there is ambiguity in this word Really whether it be taken as the Logicians term it transcendenter that is most generally and so it may signifie any manner of thing which belongeth to the Body of Christ by any means after which sort we also grant Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as in Disputation if occasion be given shall be declared or whether it be taken to signifie the very same thing having Body Life and Soul which was assumed and taken of the Word of God into the Unity of Person In which sense fith the Body of Christ is really in Heaven because of the true manner of his Body it may not be said to be here in the earth There is yet a further doubtfulness in these words under the forms of Bread and Wine whether the forms be there taken to signifie the only accidental and outward shews of Bread and Wine or there withal the substantial Natures thereof which are to be seen by their qualities and perceived by exterior senses Now the Error and Falseness of the Proposition after the sense of the Roman Church and Schoolmen may hereby appear in that they affirm the Bread to be Transubstantiated and changed to the Flesh assumed of the Word of God and that as they say by virtue of the Word which they have devised by a certain number of words and cannot be found in any of the Evangelists or in S Paul and so they gather that Christ's Body is really contained in the Sacrament of the Altar Which Position is grounded upon the Foundation of the Transubstantiation which Foundation is monstrous against Reason and destroyeth the Analogy or Proportion of the Sacraments and therefore this Proposition also which is built upon this rotten Foundation is false erroneous and to be counted as a detestable Heresie of the Sacramentaries Weston We lose time Ridley You shall have time enough West Fall to reasoning You shall have some other day for this matter Rid. I have no more to say concerning my Explication If you will give me leave and let me alone I will but speak a word or two for my confirmation Weston Go to say on The Confirmation of the aforesaid Answer There ought no Doctrine to be established in the Church of Tes God which dissenteth from the Word of God from the Rule of Faith and draweth with it many absurdities that cannot be avoided But this Doctrine of the first Proposition is such ti-no Ergo It ought not to be established and maintained in the Church of God. The Major or first part of my Argument is plain and the Minor or second part is proved thus The Doctrine maintaineth a real corporal and carnal presence of Christ's Flesh assumed and taken of the Word to be in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and that not by virtue and Grace only but also by the whole Essence and Substance of the Body and Flesh of Christ But such a presence disagreeth from God's Word from the Rule of Faith and cannot but draw with it many absurdities Ergo The second part is true The first part of this Argument is manifest and the second may yet futher be confirmed thus Weston Thus you consume time which might be better bestowed on other matters Mr. Opponent I pray you to your Arguments Smith I will here reason with you upon Transubstantiation which you say is contrary to the Rule and Analogy of Faith. The contrary whereof I prove by the Scriptures and the Doctors But before I enter Argumentation with you I demand first whether in the sixth Chapter of John there be any mention made of the Sacrament or of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Rid. It is against reason that I should be impeached to prosecute that which I have to speak in this Assembly being not so long but that it may be comprehended in few words West Let him read on Rid. First of all this Presence is contrary to many places of the holy Scripture Secondly It varieth from the Articles of the Faith. Thirdly It destroyeth and taketh away the Institution of the Lord's Supper Fourthly It maketh precious things common to
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
absent himself from the Divine Mysteries And I also worship Christ in the Sacrament but not because P. 61. he is included in the Sacrament Like as I worship Christ also in the Scriptures not because he is really included in them Notwithstanding I say that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament but yet Sacramentally and Spiritually according to his Grace giving Life and in that respect really that is according to his Benediction giving Life Furthermore I acknowledg gladly the true Body of Christ to be in the Lord's Supper in such sort as the Church of Christ which is the Spouse of Christ and is taught of the Holy Ghost and guided by God's Word doth acknowledg the same But the true Church of Christ doth acknowledg a Presence of Christ's Body in the Lord's Supper to be communicated to the Godly by Grace and spiritually as I have often shewed and by a Sacramental Signification but not by the Corporal Presence of the Body of his Flesh We worship I confess the same true Lord and Saviour of P. 65. the world which the Wise men worshipped in the Manger howbeit we do it in a Mystery and in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and that in Spiritual Liberty as saith S. Aug. lib. 3. de Doct. Christiana Not in carnal servitude that is we do not worship servilely the signs for the things for that should be as he also saith a part of a servile Infirmity but we behold with the eyes of Faith him present after Grace and spiritually set upon the Table and we worship him who sitteth above and is worshipped of the Angels for Christ is always assistant to his Mysteries as the said Augustine saith And the Divine Majesty as saith Cyprian doth never absent it self from the Divine Mysteries but this Assistance and Presence of Christ as in Baptism it is wholly Spiritual and by Grace and not by any Corporal Substance of the Flesh Even so it is here in the Lord's Supper being rightly and according to the Word of God duly ministred Ridley My Protestation always saved that by this mine P. 420. Answer I do not condescend to your Authority in that you are Legate to the Pope I answer thus In a sense the first Article is true and in a sense it is false for if you take really for vere for spiritually by Grace and Efficacy then it is true that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ is in the Sacrament vere realiter indeed and really but if you take these terms so grosly that you would conclude thereby a Natural Body having Motion to be contained under the Forms of Bread and Wine vere realiter then really is not Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament no more than the Holy Ghost is in the Element of Water in our Baptism Because this Answer was not understood the Notaries wist not how to note it wherefore the Bishop of Lincoln willed him to answer either Affirmatively or Negatively either to grant the Article or to deny it Rid. My Lord you know that where any Equivocation which is a word having two significations is except distinction be given no direct Answer can be made for it is one of Aristotle's Fallacies containing two Questions under one the which cannot be satisfied with one Answer For both you and I agree herein that in the Sacrament is the very true and Natural Body and Blood of Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into Heaven which sitteth on the Right Hand of God the Father which shall come from thence to judg the quick and the dead only we differ in modo in the way and manner of being we confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament and dissent in the manner of being there I being fully by God's Word thereunto perswaded confess Christ's Natural Body to be in the Sacrament indeed by Spirit and Grace because that whosoever receiveth worthily that Bread and Wine receiveth effectually Christ's Body and drinketh his Blood that is he is made effectually Partaker of his Passion and you make a grosser kind of being enclosing a Natural a Lively and a Moving Body under the shape or form of Bread and Wine Now this difference considered to the Question thus I answer That in the Sacrament of the Altar is the Natural Body and Blood of Christ vere realiter indeed and really for spiritually by Grace and Efficacy for so every worthy Receiver receiveth the very true Body of Christ but if you mean really and indeed so that thereby you would include a lively and a moveable Body under the forms of Bread and Wine then in that sense is not Christ's Body in the Sacrament really and indeed This Answer taken and penned of the Notaries the Bishop of Lincoln proposed the second Question or Article To whom he answer'd Rid. Always my Protestation reserved I answer thus That in the Sacrament is a certain Change in that that Bread which was before common Bread is now made a lively presentation of Christ's Body and not only a Figure but effectually representeth his Body that even as the Mortal Body was nourished by that visible Bread so is the Internal Soul fed with the Heavenly food of Christ's Body which the eye of Faith seeth as the bodily eye seeth only Bread. Such a Sacramental mutation I grant to be in the Bread and Wine which truly is no small change but such a change as no mortal man can make but only that Omnipotency of Christ's Word Then the Bishop of Lincoln willed him to answer directly either Affirmatively or Negatively without further Declaration of the Matter Then he Answered Ridley That notwithstanding the Sacramental Mutation of the which he spake and all the Doctors confessed the true Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine remaineth with the which the Body is in like sort nourished as the Soul is by Grace and Spirit with the Body of Christ Even so in Baptism the Body is washed with the visible Water and the Soul is cleansed from all filth by the Invisible Holy Ghost and yet the Water ceaseth not to be Water but keepeth the nature of Water still In like sort in the Sacrament of the Lords-Supper the Bread ceaseth not to be Bread. Extracts from Bishop Poynets Diallaction I Will so divide the question that it may be briefly reduced to three heads First I will shew that the true Body of Christ is given to the Faithful in the Sacrament and that the words Nature and Substance are not to be rejected but that the Ancients treating of this Sacrament did use them In the next place I will shew that there is a difference between the proper Body of Christ and that which is present in the Sacrament and that the Ancient Fathers thought so Lastly I will shew what manner of Body this is which is received in this Mystery and why it is called by that Name according to the Doctrine of
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
how plainly it repugneth vnto the manifest woords the true sence and meaning of holy Scripture in many places especially in the Epistle to the Hebrewes the matter it is so long and other haue written in it at large that my minde is nowe not to intreate therof any further For only in this my scribling I intend to search out and set foorthe by the Scriptures according to Godes gracious gifte of my poore knowledge whether the true sence and meaninge of Christes woordes in the institution of his holye supper doo require any Transubstantiation as they cal it or that the very substance of breade and wine doo remaine still in the Lordes Supper and be the materiall substance of the holy Sacramente of Christe our Sauiours blessed bodye and bloode Yet there remaineth one vaine Quidditi of Duns in this matter the whiche because some Gardener in the answere to the 15. obiection that write now doo seeme to like it so well that they have stripped him out of Dunces dusty and darke termes and pricked him and painted him in freshe coloures of an eloquent stile and may therfore deceaue the more excepte the errour be warelye eschewed Duns saith in these woords of Christe This is my bodye this pronowne demonstratiue meaning the woorde This if ye will knowe what it dooth showe or demonstrate whether the bread that Christ took or no he answereth no but onely one thing in substance 〈◊〉 paintethe wherof the nature or name it doothe not tell but leaueth that to be determined and told by that which followeth the woord Is that is by Praedicatum as the Logician dooth speake and therfore he calleth this pronowne demonstratiue This Indiuiduum vagum that is a wandring proper name wherby we may poynte out and shewe anye one thing in substance what thinge soeuer it be That this imagination is vaine and vntruely applyed vnto these woordes of Christe This is my bodye it may appeare plainely in the woordes of Luke and Paule said vpon the cup conferred with the forme of woords spoken vpon the cup in Mathewe and Marke For as vpon the breade it is said of all This is my bodye so of Mathew and Mark it is saide vpon the cup This is my blood Then if in the woords This is my body the woorde This be as Duns calleth it a wandringe name to appoynte and shewe foorth any one thing whereof the name and nature it doothe not tell so muste it be likewise in those woordes of Mathewe and Marke vpon the Lords cup This is my bloode But in the woordes of Mathewe and Marke it signifieth and poynteth out the same that it dooth in the Lords woords vpon the cup in Luke and Paule where it is said This cup is the new testament in my blood c. Therefore in Mathewe and Marke the pronown demonstratiue this doothe not wander to poynte onelye one thing in substance not shewinge what it is but tellethe it plainelye what it is no lesse in Mathewe and Marke vnto the eye then is doon in Luke and Paule by putting too this woord cup booth vnto the eye and vnto the eare For taking the cup and demonstrating or shewing it vnto his disciples by this pronowne demonstratiue this and saying vnto them Drink ye all of this it was then all one to saye This is my blood as to saye This cup is my blood meaninge by the cup as the nature of the speach dooth require the thinge conteined in the cup. So likewise without al doubt when Christe had taken breade giuen thanks and broken it and giuing it to his disciples said Take and so demonstrating and shewing that bread which hee had in his bandes to saye then This is my body and to haue saide This bread is my body As it were all one if a man lackinge a Knife and going to his Oisters would say vnto an other whom he saw to haue two kniues Sir I praye you lend mee the one of your-kniues Were it not now all one to answere him Sir holde I will lende you this to eat your meat but not to open Oisters withall and holde I wil lend you this Knife to eate your meat but not to open Oysters This similitude serueth but for this purpose to declare the nature of speach withall where as the thinge that is demonstrated and shewed is euidently perceiued and openly knowen to the eye But O good Lord what a wonderfull thing is it to see how some men doo labour to teach what is demonstrated and shewed by the pronowne demonstratiue this in Christes woordes when he saieth This is my body This is my blood how they labour I saye to teache what that This was then indeede when Christe spake in Gard. to the 130. Obiection the beginning of the sentence the woorde This before he had pronounced the reste of the woords that folowed in the same sentence so that their doctrine maye agree with their Transubstantiation God makers agree not among them selues which indeed is the verye foundation wherein al their erronious doctrine dooth stande And heere the Transubstantiatours doo not agree amonge them selues no more then they doo in the woords which wrought the Transubstantiation when Christe did first institute his Sacrament wherin Innocentius a Bishop of Rome of the latter daies and Duns as was noted before do attribute the woorke unto the woord Benedixit Blessed but the rest for the moste parte to Hoc est corpus meum This is my body c. Duns therefore with his secte because he puttech the change before must needs say that this when Christe spake it in the beginning of the sentence was in deed Christes body For in the change the substance of bread did depart and the change was now doon in Benedixit saith he that went before and therefore after him and his that this was then indeed Christes body though the woord did not import so muche but onely one thinge in substance whiche substance after Duns the breade beinge gone must needs be the substance of Christs body But they that put their Transubstantiation to be wrought by these woordes of Christe This is my bodye and doo say that when the whole sentence was finished then this change was perfected and not before they can not say but yet Christes this in the beginning of the sentence before the other woords were fully pronounced was bread in deed But as yet the change was not doon and so long the bread must needs remain and so longe with the uniuersall consent of al transubstantiatours the naturall substance of Christes body can not come and therefore must their this of necessitye demonstrate and shewe the substance which was as yet in the pronouncing of the first woord this by Christe but bread But how can they make and verifie Christs woords to be true demonstrating the substance which in the demonstration is but bread and say thereof This is my body that is as they saye the natural substance of Christs body
Gardener to the 198. obiection bin impugned of some that wrote in his time or neere vnto the same Nay saith an other if this solucion wil not serue we maye saye that Chrisostome did not speak of the vessels of the Lordes cup or suche as were then vsed at the Lordes table but of the vessels vsed in the Temple in the olde lawe This answer wil serue no more then the other For héere Chrisostom speaketh of such vessells wherin was that whiche was called the body of Christe althoughe it was not the true body saith he of Christe but the misterye of Christes bodye Now of the vessels of the olde lawe the writers doo vse no such manner of phrase for their sacrifices were not called Christes body For then Christ was not but in shadows and figures and not by the Sacrament of his body reuealed Erasmus which was a man that coulde vnderstande the woordes and sence of the writers although hee would not be séene to speak against this errour of Transubstantiatione because he durste not yet in this time declareth plainly that this sayinge of the writer is none otherwise to be understanded Yet can I saithe the third Papist finde out a fine and subtil solucion Gardener in the same place for this place and graunt all that yet is saide both allowinge heere the writer and also that he ment of the vessels of the Lordes Table For saith he the body of Christe is not conteined in them at the Lordes Table as in a place but as in a misterye Is not this a pritty shifte and a misticall solution But by the same solution then Christs bodye is not in the Lordes Table nor in the Preestes handes nor in the pixe and so is hee heere no where For they will not saye that he is either heere or there as in a place This answere pleaseth so well the maker that he him self after he had plaid with it a little while and shewed the finenesse of his wit and eloquence therein is content to giue it ouer and saye but it is not to be thought that Chrisostome would speak after this finenesse or subtiltie and therfore he returneth againe vnto the second answere for his shoote anker which is sufficiently confuted before An other shorte place of Chrisostome I wil reherse which if any indifferency may be heard in-plaine termes setteth foorth the trueth of this matter Before the bread saith Chrisostome ad Cesarium monachum be halowed we call it bread but the grace of God sanctifying it by the meanes of the preeste it is deliuered now from the name of bread and esteemed woorthy to be called Christs body although the nature of bread tarry in it still These be Chrisostoms woords wherin I praye you what can be Gardener to the 202. Obiection said or thoughte more plaine against this errour of Transubstantiation then to declare that the breade abideth so still And yet to this so plaine a place some are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it saying we graunt that nature of bread remaineth stil thus for that it may be seene felte and tasted and yet the corporal substance of the bread therfore is gone leaste two bodies shoulde be confused together and Christe shoulde be thought impanate What contrarietie and falsehood is in this answere the simple man may easily perceiue Is not this a plain contrarietye to graunt that the nature of bread remaineth so still that it may be séene felte and tasted and yet to saye the corporall substance is gon to auoid absurdity of Christs impanation And what manifest falshood is this to saye or mean that if the breade should remain still then must followe the inconuenience of impanation As though the very breade coulde not be a Sacrament of Christs body as water is of baptisme excepte Christe shoulde vnite the nature of breade to his nature in vnitie of persone and make of the bread God. Now let vs heare Theodoretus which is the last of the thrée Gréek Theodoret Authors He writeth in his dialogue Contra Eutichen thus He that calleth his naturall body corn and breade and also named himself a Vine tree euen he the same hath honoured the Symboles that is the Dial. 1. sacramental signes with the names of his body and blood not changing indeed the nature it selfe but adding grace vnto the nature What can be more plainly saide then this that this olde writer saieth That although the Sacraments beare the name of the body and blood of Christe yet is not their nature changed but abideth still And where is then the Papists Transubstantiation The same writer to the second dialogue of the same woorke againste th' aforesaide heretique Eutyches writeth yet more plainly against this errour of Transubstantiation if any thing can be saide to be more plaine For hee maketh the heretike to speake thus againste him that defendeth the true doctrine whom he calleth Orthodoxus As the Sacramentes of the bodye and bloode of our Lorde are one thinge before the inuocation and after the inuocation they be changed and are made an other so likewise the Lordes body saithe the heretike is after the assumption or assention into heauen turned into the substance of God the heretike meaninge thereby that Christe after his ascention remaineth no more a man. To this Orthodoxus answereth thus and saith in the heretike Thou art taken saith he in thine owne snare For those misticall Symbols or Sacraments after the sanctification doo not goe out of theire owne nature but they tarrye and abide stil in their substance figure and shape yea and are sensibly seene and groped to be the same they were before c. At these words the papistes doo startle and to saye the trueth these woordes be so plaine so full and so cléere that they can not tell what to say but yet they will not cease to go about to play the cuttles and to caste their colours ouer them that the trueth which is so plainly told should not haue place This Author wrote say they before the determination of the Churche As who would say whatsoever that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome determined in his congregationes with his monks and friers that must be for so Duns saith holden for an article and of the substance of our faith Some doo charge this D. Moreman in the Conuâ—cation house author that he was suspected to be a Nestorian which thing in Calcedon Counsaile was tryed and prooued to be false But the foulest shift of al and yet the best that they can finde in this matter when none other will serue is to say that Theodoret vnderstandeth by the woord substance accidents and not substance indéed This glose is like a glose of a lawyer vpon a decrée the text whereof beginning thus Statuimus that is We decree The glose of the Lawyer there after many other pritty shifts there set foorth which he thinketh will not well serue to his purpose and therfore at the
Christ indeed yea the same that is still in Heaven without all moving from place to place unspeakably and far passing our natural Reason which is in this Mystery so captivate that it cannot conceive how it is there without a lively Faith to Gods word But let this pass You do grant that this Bread doth quicken or give Life which if it do then it is not a natural Bread but a super-substantial Bread. Rochest So doth the effectual and lively Word of God which for that it nourisheth the Soul it doth give Life for the Divine Essence infuseth it self unspeakably into the faithful Receiver of the Sacrament Glin. How then say you to holy Damascene a Greek Author who as one Tritenius saith flourished one thousand years past he saith thus The Body that is of the holy Virgin Mary is joyned to the Divinity after the Consecration in verity and indeed not so as the Body once assumpted into Heaven and sitting on the Fathers right Hand doth remove from thence and cometh down at the Consecration time but that the same Bread and Wine are substantially transumpted into the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ If saith he thou dost not know the manner how it is brought to pass let it be enough to thee to believe that it is done by the Operation of the Holy Ghost and we do know no more but that the living Word of God is working and Almighty but the very manner how is inscrutable to us and no great marvel saith he for we cannot well express how the material Bread Wine or Water are transumpted naturally into the same Body and Blood of the Receiver and be become another Body than they were before So saith this great Ancient Clerk also this Shew-bread with Wine and Water are changed by the coming of the Holy Ghost into Christs Body and Blood and they be not two Bodies there but very one of Christ and the same Rochest First I deny Master Doctor that Damascene was one thousand years past Secondarily I say That he is not to be holden as an Ancient Father for that he maintaineth in his Works evil and damnable Doctrine as the worshipping of Images and such like Thirdly I say That indeed God by his holy Spirit is the worker of that which is done in the Sacrament Also I grant that there is a Mutation of the common Bread and Wine spiritually into the Lords Bread and Wine by the sanctifying of them in the Lords Word But I deny that there is any Mutation of the Substances for there is no other change there indeed than there is in us which when we do receive the Sacrament worthily then are we changed into Christs Body Bones and Blood not in nature but spiritually and by Grace much like as Isaiah saw the burning Coal even so we see not there the very simple Bread as it was before the Consecration for an Union cannot be but of two very things Wherefore if we be joyned to Christ receiving the Sacrament then there is no Adnihilation of Bread which is when it is reduced to nothing as it is in your feigned Transubstantiation Glin. So I perceive you would have me to grant that the Sacrament is but a Figure which Theophylactus doth deny Rochest You say Truth he denieth it indeed to be a Figure but he meaneth that it is not only a Figure Glin. Whereas St. Paul saith That we being many are one Bread he speaketh not nor meaneth one material Bread as you do here Ergo he speaketh of heavenly Bread. And holy Chrysostome upon Matthew saith That the Paschal Lamb was a Figure but the Mystery is the verity For the Disciples would not have been offended to have drunk a figure of Christ's Blood being well accustomed to figures For Christ did not institute a figure for a figure but the clear verity instead of the figure as St. John saith Grace and Verity was given by Christ Dost thou see Bread saith Chrysostome doth it avoid or pass as other meats do which we receive God forbid Ergo c. Madew That ancient Clerk Origen upon the 15th of St. Matth. saith thus As touching that which is material in the Sacrament it descendeth and issueth out as other nutriments do but as concerning that which is celestial it doth not so Glin. Chrysost Homily 83. upon Matthew saith That we cannot be deceived of Christ's Word but our natural Senses may be deceived in this point very soon and easily his said words cannot be false but our senses be many times beguiled of their judgments Because therefore that Christ said This is my body let us not at any hand doubt saith he but let us believe it and well perceive it with the eyes of our understanding And within a little after in that place he saith thus It was not enough that he was become man and afterwards was scourged for us but also he did reduce and bring us to be as one body with him not through Faith only but in very deed also he maketh us his Body And after that he saith that these works are not of mans power But the same things that he wrought in his last Supper he now worketh also by his Precept to his right Ministers and we do occupy the place of the same Ministers but he it is that doth sanctify and transumpt the creatures he performeth still the same Rochest Mr. Doctor you must understand that in that place St. Chrysostome sheweth us that Christ delivered to us no sensible thing at his last Supper Glin. Honourable Sir by your patience I grant that he gave to his Disciples no sensible thing in substance but a thing insensible his own precious Body and Blood under the only kinds of Creatures And truly as it seemeth Theophylactus best knew the meaning of Chrysostome because all Authors accept him as a faithful Interpreter of him And he hath these same plain words Transelemented and Transformed Also Theophylactus Alexandrinus super Marcum Cyrillus and St. Augustine saith That before the consecration it is bread but afterwards it is Christs very Body In like manner St. Augustine upon the 33d Psalm saith That in the last Supper Christ did bear himself in his own hands Now every man may bear the figure of his body in his own hands but St. Augustin saith it there for a Miracle Irenaeus in his fifth Book is of the same mind And St. Austin saith I do remember my words c. The Law and Figures were by Moses but the verity and Body came by Christ Rochest Well say what you list it is but a figurative speech like to this If you will receive and understand he is Elias for a property but indeed he was not Elias but John the Baptist And so in this place Christ calleth it his Body when it was very Bread. But better than the common Bread because it was sanctified by the Word of Christ Langdale I will prove it by another means Christ did
Augustine that we eat Life and we drink Life with Emisene that we feel the Lord to be present in Grace with Athanasius that we receive Celestial Food that cometh from above the propriety of natural Communion with Hilary the nature of Flesh and Benediction which giveth life in Bread and Wine with Cyril and with the same Cyril the virtue of the very Flesh of Christ Life and Grace of his Body the property of the only begotten that is to say Life as he himself in plain words expounded it I confess also with Basil that we receive the mystical Advent and coming of Christ Grace and Virtue of his very Nature the Sacrament of his very Flesh with Ambrose the Body by Grace with Epiphanius Spiritual Flesh but not that which was crucified with Hierom Grace flowing into a Sacrifice and the Grace of the Spirit with Chrysostom Grace and invisible Verity Grace and Society of the Members of Christ's Body with Augustine Finally with Bertram who was the last of all these I confess that Christ's Body is in the Sacrament in this respect namely as he writeth Because there is in it the Spirit of Christ that is the power of the Word of God which not only feedeth the Soul but also cleanseth it But of these I suppose it may appear unto all men how far we are from that Opinion whereof some go about falsly to slander us to the world saying we teach that the Godly and Faithful should receive nothing else at the Lord's Table but a Figure of the Body of Christ The Second Proposition After the Consecration there remaineth no Substance of Bread and Wine neither any other Substance than the Substance of God and Man. The Answer The second Conclusion is manifestly false directly against the Word of God the Nature of the Sacrament and the most evident Testimonies of the godly Fathers and it is the rotten Foundation of the other two Conclusions propounded by you both of the first and also of the third I will not therefore now tarry upon any further Explication of this Answer being contented with that which is already added afore to the Answer of the first Proposition The First Argument for the Confirmation of this Answer It is very plain by the Word of God that Christ did give Bread unto his Disciples and called it his Body But the Substance of Bread is another manner of Substance than is the Substance of Christ's Body God and Man. Therefore the Conclusion is false The second part of mine Argument is plain and the first is proved thus The Second Argument That which Christ did take on the which he gave Thanks Da and the which he brake he gave to his Disciples and called it his Body But he took Bread gave Thanks on Bread and brake Bread. ti Ergo The first part is true And it is confirmed with the Authorities of the Fathers Irenaeus si Tertullian Origen Cyprian Epiphanius Hierom Augustine Theodoret Cyril Rabanus and Bede whose places I will take upon me to shew most manifest in this behalf if I may be suffered to have my Books as my request is Bread is the Body of Christ Ergo. It is Bread. The Third Argument As the Bread of the Lord's Table is Christ's natural Body so Ba it is his mystical Body But it is not Christ's mystical Body by Transubstantiation Ergo It is not his natural Body by Transubstantiation ro eo The second part of my Argument is plain and the first is proved thus As Christ who is the Verity spake of the Bread This is my Body which shall be betrayed for you speaking there of his natural Body even so St. Paul moved with the same Spirit of Truth said We though we be many yet are we all one Bread and one Body which be partakers of one Bread. The Fourth Argument We may no more believe Bread to be Transubstantiate into the Body of Christ than the Wine into his Blood. But the Wine is not Transubstantiate into his Blood Ergo Neither is that Bread therefore Transubstantiate into his Body The first part of this Argument is manifest and the second part is proved out of the Authority of God's Word in Matthew and Mark I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine c. Now the fruit of the Vine was Wine which Christ drank and gave to his Disciples to drink With this Sentence agreeth plainly the place of Chrysostome on the 20th Chapter of Matthew as Cyprian doth also affirming That there is no Blood if Wine be not in the Cup. The Fifth Argument The words of Christ spoken upon the Cup and upon the Ba Bread have like effect and working But the words spoken upon the Cup have not virtue to Transubstantiate ro Ergo It followeth that the words spoken upon the Bread have eo no such virtue The second part of the Argument is proved because they would then Transubstantiate the Cup or that which is in the Cup into the New Testament But neither of these things can be done and very absurd it is to confess the same The Sixth Argument The Circumstances of the Scripture the Analogy and proportion of Da the Sacraments and the Testimony of the faithful Fathers ought to rule us in taking the meaning of the Holy Scripture touching the Sacrament But the Words of the Lord's Supper the Circumstances of the ti Scripture the Analogy of the Sacraments and the Sayings of the Fathers do most effectually and plainly prove a figurative speech in the words of the Lord's Supper Ergo A figurative sense and meaning is specially to be received in si these words This is my Body The Circumstances of the Scripture Do this in remembrance of me As oft as ye shall eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shall shew forth the Lord's death Let a man prove himself and so eat of this bread and drink of this cup. They came together to break Bread and they continued in breaking of Bread. The Bread which we break c. For we being many are all one Bread and one Body c. The Analogy of the Sacraments is necessary for if the Sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of the things whereof they be Sacraments they could in no wise be Sacraments And this similitude in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is taken three manner of ways 1. The first consisteth in nourishing as you shall read in Rabanus Cyprian Austin Irenaeus and most plainly in Isidore out of Bertram 2. The second in the uniting and joyning of many into one as Cyprian teacheth 3. The third is a similitude of unlike things Where like as the Bread is turned into one Body so we by the right use of this Sacrament are turned through Faith into the Body of Christ The sayings of the Fathers declare it to be a figurative speech as it appeareth in Origen Tertullian Chrysostom in opere imperfecto
Augustin Ambrose Basil Gregory Nazianzen Hilary and most plainly of all in Bertram Moreover the sayings and places of all the Fathers whose names I have before recited against the assertion of the first Proposition do quite overthrow Transubstantiation But of all most evidently and plainly Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostom to Caesarius the Monk Augustine against Adamantus Gelasius Cyril Epiphanius Chrysostom again on the 20th of Matth. Rabanus Damascene and Bertram Here Right Worshipful Mr. Prolocutor and ye the rest of the Commissioners it may please you to understand that I do not lean to these things only which I have written in my former Answers and Confirmations but that I have also for the proof of that I have spoken whatsoever Bertram a man Learned of sound and upright Judgment and ever counted a Catholick for these Seven hundred years until this our age hath written His Treatise whosoever shall read and weigh considering the time of the Writer his Learning Godliness of life the Allegations of the Ancient Fathers and his manifold and most grounded Arguments I cannot doubtless but much marvel if he have any fear of God at all how he can with good Conscience speak against him in this matter of the Sacrament This Bertram was the first that pulled me by the Ear and that first brought me from the common Error of the Romish Church and caused me to search more diligently and exactly both the Scriptures and the Writings of the old Ecclesiastical Fathers in this matter And this I protest before the face of God who knoweth that I lye not in the things I now speak The Third Proposition In the Mass is the lively Sacrifice of the Church propitiable and available for the sins as well of quick as of the dead The Answer to this Proposition I answer to this third Proposition as I did to the first And moreover I say that being taken in such sense as the words seem to import it is not only erroneous but withal so much to the derogation and defacing of the Death and Passion of Christ that I judge it may and ought most worthily to be counted wicked and blasphemous against the most precious Blood of our Saviour Christ The Explication Concerning the Romish Mass which is used at this day or the lively Sacrifice thereof propitiatory and available for the sins of the quick and the dead the Holy Scripture hath not so much as one syllable There is ambiguity also in the name of Mass what it signifieth and whether at this day there be any such indeed as the Ancient Fathers used seeing that now there be neither Catecumeni nor Poenitentes to be sent away Again touching these words The lively Sacrifice of the Church There is doubt whether they are to be understood Figuratively and Sacramentally for the Sacrament of the lively Sacrifice after which sort we deny it not to be in the Lord's Supper or properly and without any figure of the which manner there was but one only Sacrifice and that once offered namely upon the Altar of the Cross Moreover in these words as well as it may be doubted whether they be spoken in mockage as men are wont to say in sport of a foolish and ignorant person that he is apt as well in conditions as in knowledg being apt indeed in neither of them both There is also a doubt in the word Propitiable whether it signify here that which taketh away sin or that which may be made available for the taking away of sin That is to say whether it is to be taken in the active or in the passive signification Now the falsness of the Proposition after the meaning of the Schoolmen and the Romish Church and Impiety in that sense which the words seem to import is this that they leaning to the foundation of their fond Transubstantiation would make the quick and lively body of Christ's Flesh united and knit to the Divinity to lye hid under the accidents and outward shews of Bread and Wine Which is very false as I have said before and they building upon this foundation do hold that the same Body is offered unto God by the Priest in his dayly Massings to put away the sins of the quick and the dead whereas by the Apostle to the Hebrews it is evident that there is but one Oblation and one true and lively Sacrifice of the Church offered upon the Altar of the Cross which was is and shall be for ever the propitiation for the sins of the whole World and where there is Remission of the same there is saith the Apostle no more offering for sin Arguments confirming his Answer No Sacrifice ought to be done but where the Priest is meet to offer Ce the same All other Priests be unmeet to offer Sacrifice for sin but Christ alone la rent Ergo No other Priests ought to Sacrifice for sin but Christ alone The second part of my Argument is thus proved No honour in God's Church ought to be taken where a man is not Fe called as Aaron It is a great honour in God's Church to Sacrifice for Sin ri son Ergo. No man ought to Sacrifice for Sin but only they who are called But only Christ is called to that honour Ergo No other Priest but Christ ought to Sacrifice for Sin. That no man is called to this degree of Honour but Christ alone it is evident For there are but two only Orders of Priesthood allowed in the Word of God Namely the Order of Aaron and the Order of Melchisedech But now the Order of Aaron is come to an end by reason that it was unprofitable and weak and of the Order of Melchisedech there is but one Priest alone even Christ the Lord who hath a Priesthood that cannot pass to any other An Argument That thing is in vain and to no effect where no necessity is Ba wherefore it is done To offer up any more Sacrifice Propitiatory for the quick and the ro dead there is no necessity for Christ our Saviour did that fully and perfectly once for all Ergo To do the same in the Mass it is in vain co Another Argument After that Eternal Redemption is found and obtained there needeth Fe no more daily offering for the same But Christ coming an high Bishop c. found and obtained for us ri Eternal Redemption Ergo There needeth now no more daily Oblation for the Sins of o. the quick and the dead Another Argument All remission of Sins cometh only by shedding of Blood. Ca mes tres In the Mass there is no shedding of Blood. Ergo In the Mass there is no Remission of Sins and so it followeth also that there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice Another Argument In the Mass the Passion of Christ is not in verity but in a Mystery representing the same yea even there where the Lord's Supper is duly ministred But where Christ suffereth not there is