The Lords Supper with Some other Determinations and Disputations

A BRIEF DECLARATION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER WRITTEN BY BISHOP RIDLEY.

Imprimatur,

Liber cui Titulus, [A Brief Declaration of the Lord's Supper, &c.]

THE PREFACE.

THE Doctrine of Transubstantiation maintained by our Adversaries of the Church of Rome, is so gross, and highly repugnant to the first principles of reason, and universal sense of mankind, that directly to defend it would be no less impossible than unsuccessful. Artifices therefore were necessarily to be invented, which might palliate the deformity of so monstrous an Opinion; and divert inquisitive persons from a direct examination of it, by amusing them with confident assertions and extraneous Controversies. Among these, the difference of Opinion between the first Reformers and present Divines of the Church of England hath of late been proposed and urged with the greatest vehemency; as if the first Reformers had believed somewhat equivalent to Transubstantiation; and our present Divines, by asserting no other than a figurative Presence of the material Body of Christ, had degenerated from the belief of their Forefathers.

We might justly admire the unreasonable confidence of those men, who are not ashamed to propose so manifest and gross a falsehood, and esteem it the highest folly; if we did not remember that it is taken up to defend a desperate Cause, which admits no better Remedies. Can any Man in his right wits believe that so many hundred Martyrs should suffer death, and spend their blood for so inconsiderable a nicety, as was the difference between them and their Persecutors in the Doctrine of the Eucharist, if these late Representers may be believed? That both Parties should dispute so earnestly and vehemently against each other, and yet after all agree in the main? That the Romish Bishops should treat the Reformers as Heretics for denying Transubstantiation; and the Reformers lay down their lives rather than acknowledge it; and yet neither the first to have defined it to be true, nor the last believed it to be false? Such crude Positions can find no entertainment, but in a mind already fitted to receive Transubstantiation itself, that is, devoid of Sense and Reason.

If we inquire the Reasons and Arguments, wherewith our Adversaries maintain such incredible and extravagant assertions, we shall find them to be no other than these, That the first Reformers taught and asserted a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament; That they maintained the Body and Blood to be verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful Communicants; That they frequently affirmed the natural and substantial Body of Christ, that very Body which was taken by him of the Virgin Mary, to be present in the Sacrament. These very expressions are at this day used by the Divines of the Church of England; whom yet our Adversaries pretend to have departed from the belief of their Forefathers in this matter: So that if they prove the first Reformers to have believed a material presence of Christ's Body, they will prove our Present Divines to believe the same. For the whole Controversy will come to this issue, Whether they believed any material Presence of Christ's Body, or any part of it, either by conversion, substitution, or union? If they positively disowned this, as most certainly they did; then whatsoever expressions they might use, they could believe no other than a figurative Presence of Christ's Body properly so called; which our Adversaries now traduce under the name of Zuinglianism. And, indeed, if we give them leave to explain themselves, they tell us, That in such expressions they use the terms of Real Presence, Nature and Substance, not as Philosophers, but as Divines; and that by denying the Eucharist to be a figure only, or a naked figure, they mean no more, than that it is a true and real communication of the virtues and benefits of his Body, not only a mere figurative commemoration of them, which is the true notion of Zuinglianism.

To prove this, and vindicate the honor of the first Reformers and modern Divines of our Church, and demonstrate the entire conformity of the belief of both; it is thought convenient to cause someone Treatise of the first Reformers concerning this Subject to be Reprinted, that so everyone might judge for himself, whether the pretensions of our Adversaries be indeed true and just; or rather the Present is entirely conformable to the precedent Doctrine of the Church of England. To this end, among all the Writings of the first Reformers, this Treatise of Bishop Ridley, which we here publish, will conduce most, by reason of the great and eminent Authority of the Author, which was so highly considerable beyond that of any other Reformer, that he may justly be esteemed the Standard of the Doctrine of the Church of England at that time. Not only the assurance of his great learning and eminent station in the Church, renders this probable; but that great part which he had in managing the Affairs of the Reformation, and the extraordinary deference paid to his Authority, and trust reposed in him by all Convocations, and the whole body of the Reformers, demonstrate it. None can reasonably be put in competition with him, except Archbishop Cranmer; and he also in his disputation at Oxford professed, that he received his Opinion concerning the Eucharist from Bishop Ridley. This the Romish Clergy were so sensible of in the time of Queen Mary, that by a plausible calumny they endeavored to persuade the World, that the private opinion of Ridley was the only foundation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England: For Brooks Bishop of Gloucester, Queen Mary's Commissioner, disputing against him in the public Schools at Oxford, used this among other Arguments, What a weak and feeble stay in Religion is this, I pray you? Latimer leaneth to Cranmer, Cranmer to Ridley, and Ridley to the singularity of his own Wit: So that if you can overthrow the singularity of Ridley 's Wit, then must needs the Religion of Cranmer and Latimer fall also. To which I may add the words of Dr. Fecknam, Abbot of Westminster, in his Speech in Parliament, Primo Elizabethae, made in defense of the Church of Rome, which I have seen in Manuscript. Dr. Ridley, the notablest learned of that Opinion in this Realm, did set forth at Paul 's Cross the real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, with these words, which 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 Savior 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, as to make of it but a figure. For that but maketh it a bare sign, without anymore 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 Paul's Cross, you shall understand, that there were at Paul's, 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 behavior 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, 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 foully either Misrepresented or Mistaken by the Bishop of Oxford.

TO THE READER.

VNderstand good (Reader) that this great Clark and blessed Martyr, Bishop Nicholas Ridley, sought not by setting forth any notable piece of learned work, the vain glory of the World, nor temporal freendship of men, for his present advancement, much less he hunted hereby for Bishoprics and Benefices, as all his adversaries, the enemies of Christ's Truth and Ordinance commonly do: but having consideration of the great charge of Souls committed unto him, and of the account thereof, which the Justice of God would require at his hands, intending therwithal to be found blamles in the great day of the Lord, seeing he was put a parte to defend the Gospel: He not only forsook Lands, Goodes, World, Freends, and himself with all, and testified the Truth specified in this Book by his learned mouth, in the open presence of the World: but also to leave a sure Monument and Love Token unto his Flock, he hath registered it by his own Pen in this form ensuinge, and sealed it up with his Blood. Forasmuch then as he hath proved himself no vain disputer, no wethercocke, nor hypocrite, seeing he hath willingly given his life for the Truth, and in as much also as his love and moste constant christen Conscience speaketh unto thee (gentle Reader) I beseech thee for Christ's sake and thine own, lend him thine indifferent heart and patient hearing.

A BREEFE DECLARATION OF THE Lord's Supper.

MANY things confound a weak memory: A few places well weighed and perceived, lighten the understanding. Truth is there to be searched, where it is certain to be had, though God doth speak the truth by man, yet in man's word, which God hath not revealed to be his, a man may doubt without mistrust in God. Christ is the truth of God revealed unto man from Heaven by God himself, and therefore in his word the truth is to be found, which is to be embraced of all that be his. Christ biddeth us ask, and we shall have: search and we shall find: knock, and it shall be opened unto us. Therefore our Heavenly Father, the Author and fountain of all truth, the bottomless Sea of all understanding, send down we beseech thee, thy holy spirit into our harts, and lighten our understanding with the beams of thy heavenly grace. We ask thee this, O merciful Father, not in respect of our deserts, but for thy deer Son our Savior Jesus Christ's sake. Thou knowest, O heavenly Father, that the controversy about the Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of thy deer Son our Savior Jesus Christ, hath troubled not of late only the Church of England, France, Germany, and Italy, but also many year ago. The fault is ours (na dout) therefore, for we have deserved thy plague. But (O Lord) be merciful, and relieve our misery with some light of grace. Thou knowest (O Lord) how this wicked world rolleth up and down, and reeleth to and fro, and careth not what thy will is, so it may abide in wealth. If truth have wealth, who are so stout to defend the truth, as they? But if Christ's cross be laid on truths back, then they vanish away straight, as Wax before the fire. But these are not they, O Heavenly Father, for whom I make my moste moan, but for those silly ones, O Lord, which have a zeal unto thee: those I mean, which would and wish to know thy will, and yet are letted, holden back, and blinded by the subtleties of Satan and his ministers, the wickedness of this wretched world, and the sinful lusts and affections of the flesh. Alas Lord, thou knowest that we be of our selves but flesh, wherein there dwelleth nothing that is good. How then is it possible for man without thee (O Lord) to understand thy truth indeed? Can the natural man perceive the will of God? (O Lord) to whom thou givest a zeal of thee, give them also (we beseech thee) the knowledge of thy blessed will. Suffer not them (O Lord) blindly to be led for to strive against thee: as thou diddest those (Alas) which crucified thine own Son, forgive them (O Lord) for thy deer Sons sake, for they know not what they do. They do think (Alas, O Lord) for lack of knowledge, that they do unto thee good service even when against thee they do moste extremelye rage. Remember, O Lord, (we beseech thee) for whom thy Martyr Stephen did pray, and whom thine holy Apostle Paul did so truly and earnestly love: that for their salvation, he wished himself accursed for them. Remember (O heavenly Father) the prayer of thy deer Son, our Savior Christ upon the cross, when be said unto thee, O Father forgive them, they know not what they do. With this forgiveness, O good Lord, give me, I beseech thee, thy grace, so here briefly to set forth the sayings of thy Son our Savior Christ, and of his Evangelists, and of his Apostles, that in this aforesaid controversy, the light of the truth, by the lantern of thy word, may shine unto all them that love thee.

Of the Lord's last supper do speak expreslye the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: but none more plainly nor more fully declareth the same, then doth S. Paul, partly in the tenth Chapter, but specially in the xi. chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians. As Matthew and Mark do agree much in words, so do likewise Luke and S. Paul. But all iv. no doubt, as they were all taught in one school, and inspired with one spirit, so taught they as one truth. God grant us to understand it well. Amen.

Matthew setteth forth Christ's Supper thus,

When even was come, he sat down with the xii. &c. As they did eat, Jesus took bread and gave thanks, brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said: Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this: for this is my blood of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of sins, I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine tree, until that day, when I shall drink that new in my fathers kingdom. And when they had said grace they went out.

Now Mark speaketh it thus.

And as they eat, Jesus took bread, blessed, and brake, and gave to them and said, take, eat, this is my body. And took the cup gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said unto them: This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day, that I drink that new, in the kingdom of God.

Here Matthew and Mark do agree not only in the matter, but also almost fully in the form of words. In Matthew, gave thanks. Mark hath one word, Blessed: which signifieth in this place all one. And where Matthew saith, Drink ye all of this, Mark saith, they all drank of it. And where Matthew saithe, of this fruit of the vine; Mark leaveth out the word this, and saith, of the fruit of the vine.

Now let us see likewise, what agreement (in form of words) is between S. Luke and S. Paul.

Luke writeth thus,

He took bread, gave thanks, brake it and gave it to them, saying; this is my body which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also when they had supped, he took the Cup, saying, this Cup is the new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Saint Paul setteth forth the Lord's Supper thus,

The Lord Jesus, the same night, in the which he was betrayed, took Bread, and gave thanks and brake, and said, take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me. After the same manner he took the Cup, when supper was doon, saying, this Cup is the new testament in my blood. This do as often as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall show the Lord's death, until he come.

Here where S. Luke saith, which is given; Paul saith, which is broken. And as Luke addeth to the words of Paul spoken of the Cup which is shed for you, so likewise Paul addeth to the words thereof, this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me. The rest that followeth in S. Paul, both there and in the tenth Chapter, pertaineth unto the right use of the Lord's Supper.

Thus the Evangelists and S. Paul have rehearsed the words and work of Christ, whereby he did institute and ordain this holy Sacrament of his body and blood to be a perpetual remembrance unto his coming again of him self, I say that is of his body given for us, and of his blood shed for the remission of sins. But this remembrance which to thus ordained, as the author thereof is Christ, both God and Man, so by the almighty power of God, if far passeth all kinds of remembrances, that any other man is able to make either of him self, or of any other thing. For whosoever receiveth this holy Sacrament thus ordained in remembrance of Christ, he receiveth therewith either death or life. In this (I trust) we do all agree, For S. Paul saith of the godly receivers in the tenth Chapter of his first Epistle unto the Cerinthians, The Cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the partaking or fellowship of Christ's blood? And also saithe, the Bread which we break (and meaneth at the Lord's Lable) Is it not the partaking or fellowship of Christ's body? Now the partaking of Christ's body and of his blood unto the faithful and godly, is the partaking or fellowship of life and immortality. And again of the bad and ungodly receivers, S. Paul as plainly saith thus. He that eateth of this bread, and drinketh of this cup unworthily, is gilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

O how necessary then it is, if we love life, and would eschew death, to try and examine our selves, before we eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, for else assuredly, he that eateth and drinketh thereof unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he esteemeth not the Lord's body, that is, he reverenceth not the Lord's body with the honor that is due unto him.

And that which was said, that with the receipt of the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ is received of everyone, good and bad, either life or death: it is not meant, that they which are dead before God, may hereby receive life: or the living before God, can hereby receive death.

For as none is meet to receive natural food, whereby the natural life is nourished, except he be borne and live before: so no man can feed (by the receipt of this holy Sacrament) of the food of eternal life, except he be regenerated and borne of God before. And on the other side, no man here receiveth damnation which is not dead before. Thus hethertoo without all doubt, God is my witness I say so far as I do know, there is no controversy among them that be learned, in the Church of England (concerning the matter of this Sacrament) but all do agree, whether they be new or old, and to speak plain, and as some of them do odiously cal either other, whether they be Protestants, Papists, Pharisees or Gospellers. And as all do agree hithertoo, in the aforesaid Doctrine: so all do deteste, abhor and condemn the wicked heresy of the Messalonians which otherwise be called Eutichets, which said that the holy Sacrament can neither do no good nor harm. All do also condemn those wicked Anabaptists, which put no difference between the Lord's Table and the Lord's meat, and their own. And because charity would, that we should, (if it be possible, and so far as we may with the safeguard of good conscience, and maintenance of the truth) agree with all men: therefore me thinks it is not charitablye doon to burden any man (either new or old, as they call them) further, then such do declare themselves, to dissent from that we are persuaded to be truth, or pretend thertoo to be controversies, 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 unity, that the true Christian should desire.

And again this is true, that truth nother needeth nor will be maintained with lies. It is also a true proverb, That it is even sin to lie upon the Devil. For though by thy lie thou dost never so much speak against the Devil, yet in that thou liest in deed thou woorkest the Devils work, thou dost him service, and takest the Devils part. Now whether then they do godly and charitablye, which either by their Pen in Writing, or by their Woordes in Preaching, do bear the simple people in hand, that those which thus do teach and believe, do go about to make the holy Sacrament (ordained by Christ himself) a thing no better then a piece of common Bread: or that do say, that such do make the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ, nothing else but a bare sign or a figure, to represent Christ none otherwise, then the Ivye bushe doth represent the Wine in a Tavern, or as a vile person gorgiouslye apparalled, may represent a King or a Prince in a play. Alas let men leave lying, and speak truth everye one, not only to his neighbor: but also of his neighboure, for we are members one of another saith Saint Paul. The controversy (no doubt) which at this day troubleth the Church (wherein any mean learned man, either old or new, doth stand in) is not, whether the holy Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, is no better then a piece of common bread or no: or whether the Lord's Table is no more to be regarded, then the Table of any earthly man or no: or whether it is but a bare sign or figure of Christ and nothing else or no. For all do grant, that S. Paul's words do require, that the bread which we break, is the partaking of the body of Christ, and also do grant him that eateth of that bread, or drinketh of that cup vnwoorthely, to be gilty of the Lord's death, and to eat and drink his own damnation, because be esteemeth not the Lord's body. All do grant, that these words of S. Paul, (when he saith: If we eat. it aduantageth us nothing: or if we eat not, we want nothing thereby) are not spoken of the Lord's Table, but of other common meats.

Thus then betherto yet, we all agree. But now let us see, wherein the dissention doth stand. The understanding of it, wherein it cheeflye standeth, is a step to the true searching forth of the truth. For who can seek well a remedy, if he know not before the disease? It is neither to be denied nor dissembled, that in the matter of this Sacrament there be diverse points, wherein men (counted to be learned) cannot agree. As, whether there be any Transubstantiation of the bread, or no: any corporal and carnal presence of Christ's substance, or no. Whether adoration (due only unto God) is to be doon unto the Sacrament or no? and whether Christ's body be there offered in deed unto the heavenly Father, by the Preeste or no? and whether the evil man receiveth the natural body of Christ or no. Yet nevertheless as in a man diseased in diverse partes, commonly the original cause of such diverse diseases which is spread abroad in the body, do come from one chief member, as from the stomach, or from the head, even so all five aforesaid do chiefly hange upon this one question, which is, What is the matter of the Sacrament? whether is it the natural substance of bread, or the natural substance of Christ's own body? The truth of this question truly tried out and agreed upon, no doubt shall cease the controversy in all the rest. For if it be Christ's own natural body, born of the Virgin: then assuredly (seeing that all learned men in England so far as I know, both new and old, grant there to be but one substance, then I say, they must needs grant Transubstantiation: that is, a change of the substance of bread, into the substance of Christ's body. Then also they must needs grant the carnal and corporal presence of Christ's body. Then must the Sacrament be adorred with the honor due to Christ him self, for the unity of the two natures in one person. Then if the Preest do offer the Sacrament, he doth offer indeed Christ himself. And finally the murderer, the aduouterer, or wicked man receiuinge the Sacrament, must needs then receive also the natural substance of Christ's own blessed body, both flesh and blood.

Now on the other side, if after the truth shall be truly tried out, it shall be found, that the substance of bread is the natural substance of the Sacrament, although for the change of the use, office and dignity of the bread, the bread indeed Sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ, as the water in Baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration, and yet the natural substance thereof remaineth all one, as was before: if I say the true solucion of that former question (whereupon all these controversies do hang) be, that the natural substance of bread, is the material substance in the Sacrament of Christ's blessed body: then must it needs follow of the former proposition (confessed of all that be named to be learned, so far as I do know, in England) which is that there is but one material substance in the Sacrament of the body, and one only likewise in the Sacrament of the blood, that there is no such thing indeed and in truth, as they call Transubstantiation: for the substance of bread remaineth still in the Sacrament of the body, then also the natural substance of Christ's human nature, which he took of the Virgin Mary is in Heaven, where it reigneth now in glory, and not here enclosed under the form of bread, then the godly honor, which is only due unto God the creator, may not be doon unto the creature without idolatrye and sacrilege, is not to be doon unto the holy Sacrament.

Then also the wicked, I mean the impenitent murtherrer, aduluterer, or such like, do not receive the natural substance of the blessed body and blood of Christ. Finally, then doth it follow, that Christ's blessed body and blood, which was once only offered and shed upon the Cross, being auaylable for the sins of all the whole world, is offered up no more, in the natural substance thereof, nother by the Preest, nor any other thing. But here before we go any further to search in this matter, and to wade (as it were) to search and try out (as we may) the truth heerof in the Scripture, it shall do well by the way to know whether they that thus make answer and solucione unto the former principal question, do take away simply and absolutely the presence of Christ's body and blood, from the Sacrament ordained by Christ, and dulye ministered according to his holy ordinance and institution of the same. Vndoubtedly they do deny that btterlye, either so to say, or so to mean. Heerof if any man do or will doubt, the books which are written already in this matter of them, that thus do answer, will make the matter plain.

Now then will you say, what kind of presence do they grant, and what do they deny? Breeflye they deny the presence of Christ's body in the natural substance of his human and assumpt nature, and grant the presence of the same by grace: that is, they affirm and say, that the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ is only remaining in Heaven, and so shall be unto the latter day, when he shall come again in glory, (accompanied with the Angels of Heaven) to judge both the quick and the dead. And that the same natural substance of the very body and blood of Christ, because it is united unto the divine nature in Christ the second person of the Trinitle. Therefore it hath not only life in it self, but is also able to give and doth give life unto so many as be or shall be partakers thereof, that is, that to all that do believe on his name, which are not borne of blood (as S. John saith) or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but are borne of God: though the self-same substance abide still in Heaven, and they for the time of their pilgrimage dwell here upon Earth: by grace I say, that is, by the life mentioned in John and the properties of the same, meet for our pilgrimage here upon earth, the same body of Christ is here present with us. Even as for example, we say, the same Sun (which in substance) never removeth his place out of the Heavens, is yet present here by his beams, light and natural influence, where it shineth upon the earth. For God's Woord and his Sacraments be (as it were the beams of Christ) which is Sol iustitiae, the Sun of righteousness.

Thus hast thou heard, of what sort or sect soever thou be, wherein doth stand the principal state and chief point of all the controversies, which do properly pertain unto the nature of this Sacrament. As for the use thereof I grant there be many other things, whereof here I have spoken nothing at all. And now lease thou iustely mightest complain, and say, that I have in opening of this matter doon nothing else, but digged a pit, and have not shut it up again: or broken a gap, and have not made it up again: or opened the book, and have not closed it again: or else to call me what thou listest, as neuterall dissembler, or whatsoever else thy lust and learning shall serve thee to name me woorsse: Therefore here now I will (by God's grace) not only shortly, but so clearly and plainly as I can make thee to know, whether of the aforesaid two answers to the former principal state and chief point doth like me best: yea and also I will hold all those accursed, which in this matter that now so troubleth the Church of Christ have of God received the keep of knowledge, and yet go about to shut up the doors so that they themselves will not enter in nor suffer other that would. And as for mine own parte, I consider but of late what charge and cure of soul hath been committed unto me, whereof God knoweth, how soon I shall be called to give account: and also now in this world what peril and danger of the laws 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 look and hope by Christ to have everlasting life? Seeing that such charge and danger both before God and man, do compass me in round about on every side: therefore God willing I will frankly and freelye utter my mind, and though my body be captive, yet my tung and my pen as long as I may shall freely set forth, that which vndubtedlye I am persuaded to be the truth of God's Woorde. And yet I will do it under this protestation, call me Protestant who lusteth, I pass not thereof. My protestation shall be thus: that my mind is and ever shall be (God willing) to set forth sincerelye the true sense and meaning (to the best of my understanding) of God's most holy word, and not to decline from the same, either for fear of worldly danger, or else for hope of gain.

I do proteste also due obedience & submission of my judgment in this my writing, and in all other mine affairs unto those of Christ's Church, which be truly learned in God's holy Woord, gathered in Christ's Name and guided by his Spirit. After this protestation, I do plainly affirm and say, that the second question and principal point, I am persuaded to be the very true meaning and sense of God's holy Woord: that is, that the natural substance of bread and wine is the true material substance of the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of our Savior Christ: and the places of Scripture whereupon this my faith is grounded, be these, both concerning the Sacrament of the body and also the blood.

Firste let us repeat the beginning of the institution of the Lord's Supper wherein all the three Evangelists, and S. Paul almost in words do agree, saying that Jesus took bread, gave thanks, brake, and gave it to the Disciples saying: Take, eat, this is my body.

Heer it appeareth plainly, that Christ calleth very bread his body. For that which he took, was very bread. In this all men do agree. And that which he took, after he had given thanks, he brake: and that which he took and brake, he gave to his disciples: and that which be took, brake, and gave to his Disciples he said him self of it: This is my body. So it appeareth plainly that Christ called very bread his body. But very bread cannot be his body in very substance thereof: therefore it must needs have another meaning. Which meaning appeareth plainly what it is, by the next sentence that followeth immediately, both in Luke and in Paul. And that is this.

Doo this in remembrance of me. Wher-upon it seemeth unto me to be evident, that Christ did take bread, and called it his body, for that he would thereby institute a perpetual remembrance of his body: specially of the singular benefit of our redemption, which he would then procure and purchase unto us by his body upon the Cross. But bread retaining still his own very natural substance, may be thus by grace, (and in a sacramental signification) his body: whereas else the very bread which he took, brake, and gave them, could not be any wise his natural body. For that were confusion of substances, and therefore the very words of Christ joins with the next sentence following, both enforceth us to confess the very bread, to remain still, and also openeth unto us, how that bread may be and is thus by his divine power his body, which was given for us. But here I remember I have red in some writers of the contrary opinion, which Christ did take, be brake. For say they, after his taking, he blessed it as Mark doth 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 bread, which then was not there, but only the form thereof.

Unto this objection I have two plain answers, both grounded upon God's word. The one I will here rehearse, the other answer I will differ, until I speak of the Sacrament of the blood. Mine answer here is taken out of the plain words of S. Paul which doth manifestly confound this fantastical invention, first invented (I • een) of Pope Innocentius, and after confirmed by the subtle sophister Duns, and lately renewed now in our days, with an eloquent style and much fineness of wit. But what can crafty invention, subtiltye in sophisms, eloquence or fineness of wit prevail against the infallible Woorde of God? What need we to strive and contend what thing we break, for Paul saith, speaking undoubtedly of the Lord's Table: The bread (saith he) which we break, is it not the partaking or fellowship of the Lord's 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 Lord's Supper signified by breaking of bread? They did persevere (saith S. Luke) in the Apostles Doctrine, Communion, and breaking of bread. And they brake bread in every house.

And again in another place when they were come together to break bread, &c. S. Paul which setteth forth moste fully in his writing both the doctrine and the right use of the Lord's Supper, and the Sacramental eating and drinkinge of Christ's body and blood, calleth it five times bread, bread, bread, bread, bread.

The sacramental bread is the mystical body, and so it is called in Scripture, 1 Cor. 10. as it is called the natural body of Christ. But Christ's mystical body is the congregation of Christians. Now no man was ever so fond, as to say, that that sacramental bread is transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the congregatione. Wherefore no man should likewise think, or say, that the bread is transubstantiated and changed into the natural substance of Christ's human nature.

But my mind is not here to write what may be gathered out of Scriptures for this purpose, but only to note here briefly, those which seem unto me, to be the most plain places. Therefore contented to have spoken thus much of the Sacramental bread: I will now speak a little of the Lord's cup.

And this shall be my third Argument grounded upon Christ's own words. The natural substance of the sacramental Wine remaineth still, and is the material substance of the Sacrament of the blood of Christ: Therefore it is likewise so in the sacramental Bread.

I know that he that is of a contrary opinion, will deny the former parte of mine Argument. But I will prove it thus by the plain words of Christ himself, both in Matthew and in Mark. Christ's words are these: after the words said upon the cup: I say unto you, saith Christ, I will not drink hencefoorthe of this fruit of the vine tree, until I shall drink that new in my fathers kingdom. Here note how Christ calleth plainly his cup the fruit of the vine tree. But the fruit of the vine is very natural wine. Wherefore the natural substance of the wine doth remain still in the Sacrament of Christ's Blood.

And here in speaking of the Lord's Cup: it cometh unto my remembrance the vanity of Innocentius his fantastical invention, which by Paul's words I did confute before, and here did promise somewhat more to speak, and that is this: if this Transubstantiatione be made by this word, Blessed, in Mark said upon the bread, as Innocentius that Pope did say: then surely seeing that word is not said of Christ neither in any of the Evangelists nor in S. Paul upon the cup: There is no Transubstantiatione of the Wine at all. For where the cause doth fall, there cannot follow the effect. But the sacramental Bread and the sacramental Wine do both remain in their natural substance a like, and if the one be not changed, as of the sacramental Wine it appeareth evidently: then there is no such Transubstantiatione in nother of them both.

All that trust and affirm this change of the substance of bread and mine into the substance of Christ's Bodye and Blood called Transubstantiation: do also say this change to be made by a certain form of prescripte words, and none other. But what they be that make the change, either of the one, or of the other: undoubtedly even they that do write moste finelye in these our days, almost confess plainly, that they cannot tell. For although they grant to certain of the old authors, as Chrysostom, and Ambrose: that these words This is my body, are the words of consecration of the Sacrament of the body: yet say they, these words may well be so called, because they do assure us of the cousecration thereof, whether it be doon before these words be spoken or no.

But as for this their doubt, concerning the Sacrament of the body, I let it pass. Let us now consider the words which pertain to the Cup. This is first evident, that as Matthew much agreeth with Mark, and likewise Luke with Paul much agreeth beerein in form of words, so in the same form of words in Matthew and Mark is diverse from that which is in Luke and Paul: the old authors do moste rehearse the form of words in Matthew and Mark: because I ween they seemed to them moste clear. But beer I would know, whether it is credibly or no, that Luke and Paul, when they celebrated the Lord's Supper with their congregations, that they did not not use the same form of words (at the Lord's Table) which they wrote, Luke in his Gospel, and Paul in his Epistle. Of Luke, because he was a Physician, whether some will grant, that he might be a Preesse or no, and was able to receive the order of preesthood, which (they say) is given by the virtue of these words said by the Bishop: Take thou authority to Sacrifice for the quick and the dead. I cannot tell, but if they should be so straight upon Luke either for his craft, or eis for lack of such power given him by virtue of the aforesaid words: then I ween, both Peter and Paul are in danger to be deposed of their preesthood, for the craft either of Fishinge, which was Peters: or making of Tentes, which was Paul's, were more vile, then the science of Physic.

And as for those sacramental words of the order of Preesthood, to have authority to sacrifice both for the quick and the dead, I ween Peter and Paul (if they were both a live) were not able to prove, that ever Christ gave them such authority, or ever said any such words unto them. But I will let Luke go, and because Paul speaketh more for him self: I will rehearse his words: That (saith Paul) which I received of the Lord, I gave unto you. For the Lord Jesus, &c. And so he setteth forth the whole institution and right use of the Lord's Supper. Now seeing that S. Paul here saith, that which he received of the Lord, he had given them, and that which he hath received and given them before by word of mouth: now he rehearseth and writeth the same in his Epistle, is it crediblye that Paul would never use this form of words, upon the Lord's cop, which (as he saith) he received of the Lord, that he had given them before, and now rehearseth in his Epistle? I trust no man is far from all reason, but he will grant me, that this is not likely so to be.

Now then, if you grant me, that Paul did use the form of words, which he writeth: Let us then rehearse and consider Paul's word, which he saith, Christ spake thus upon the Cup.

This Cup is the New Testament in my blood, this do: as often as ye shall drink it in the remembrance of me.

Heer I would know, whether that Christ's words spoken upon the cup were not as mighty in work, and as effectual in signification to all intents, constrictions, and purposes, (as all our Parliament men do speak) as they were spoken upon the bread. If this be granted, which thing I think no man can deny: then further I reason thus. But the word (Is) in the words spoken upon the Lord's bread doth mightily signify (say they) the change of the substance of that which goeth before it into the substance of that which followeth after, that is, of the substance of bread into the substance of Christ's body, when Christ saith: This is my body. Now then if Christ's words which are spoken upon the cup, which Paul here rehearseth be of the same might and power, both in working and signifying: then must this word (Is) when Christ saithe: This Cup is the New Testament, &c. turn the substance of the cup into the substance of the new testament. And if thou wilt say, that this word (Is) nother maketh nor signifieth any such change of the cup, Although it be said of Christ, that this cup is the new testament, yet Christ meant no such change as that. Marry sir, even so say I, when Christ said of the bread, which he took, and after thanks given, brake, and gave them, saying: Take, eat, this is my body, he meant no more any such change of the substance of bread into the substance of his natural body, then he meant of the change and transubstamiation of the cup into the substance of the new Tellament. And if thou wilt say that the word (Cup) here in Christ's words doth not signify the Cup itself, but the Wine or thing centeined in the cup, by a figure called Metonymia, for that Christ's words so meant, and must needs be taken: thou sayest very well. But I pray thee by the way, here note two things, First that this word, Is, hath no such strength or signification in the Lord's words, to make or to signify any transubstanciation. Secondly, that the Lord's words whereby he instituted the Sacrament of his blood: he useth a figurative speech. How vain then is it, that some so earnestly do say, as it were an infallible rule, that in doctrine and in the institution of the Sacraments, Christ used no figurs, but all his words are to be strained to their proper significations: when as here whatsoever thou sayest was in the cup, nother that nor the cup itself, taking every word in his proper signification, was the new testament, but in understanding that which was in the cup by the cup that is a figurative speech: yea and also thou canst not verify or truly say of that whether thou sayest it was wine or Christ's blood, to be the new testament without a figure also. Thus in one sentence spoken of Christ, in the institution of the Sacrament of his blood, the figure must help us twice. So untrue it is, that some do write, that Christ useth 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 even the same, to deny the figure, where the place so reguirethe to be understanded, as bainly to make it a figurative speech, which is to be understanded in his proper signification.

The rules whereby the speech is known, when it is figurative, & whereby it is none. S. Augustine in his book. De doctrina Christiana, giveth diverse learned lessons, very necessary to be known of the students in God's word. Of the which, oue I will rehearse, which is this: If (saith he) the scripture doth seem to command a thing, which is wicked or ungodly, or to forbid a thing that charity doth require: then know, saith he, that the speech is figurative. And for example, he bringethe the saying of Christ, in the vi. chapter of S. John. Except ye eat of the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood: ye cannot have life in you. It seemeth to command a wicked or anvngodly thing, wherefor it is a figurative speech, commanding to have Communion and fellowship with Christ's passion, and devoutly and holsomly to lay up in memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.

And here I cannot but maruail at some men, surely of much excellent fineness of wit, and of great eloquence, that are not ashamed to write and say, that this aforesaid saying of Christ is after S. Augustine a figurative speech indeed: howbeit not unto the learned, but to the unlearned. Here let any man that but indifferently understandeth the Latin tongue, read the place in S. Augustine: and if ye perceive not clearly S. Augustine's words, and mine to be contrary, let me abide thereof the rebuke.

This lesson of S. Augustine I have therefore the rather set forth, because it teacheth us to understand that place in John figuratively. Even so surely the same lesson with the example of S. Augustine's expositions thereof, teacheth us nor only by the same, to understand Christ's words in the Institution of the Sacrament both of his body and of his blood figuratively, but also the very true meaning and understanding of the same. For if to command to eat the flesh of the son of man, and to drink his blood, seemeth to command an inconvenience and an ungodliness, & is even so indeed, if it be understanded as the words do stand in their proper signification: and therefore must be understanded figuratiuelye and spiritually, as S. Augustine doth godly and learnedly interpret them: then surely Christ commanding in his last Supper to eat his body and drink his blood, seemed to command in sound of words as grate and even the same inconvenience and ungodliness, as did his words in the vi. of S. John: and therefore must even by the same reason, be likewise understanded and expounded figuratively and spiritually, as S. Augustine did the other: Wherunto that exposition of S. Augustine may seem to be the more meet, for that Christ in his supper, to the commandment of eating and drinkinge of his body and blood, addeth: Do this in remembrance of me. Which words surely were the key that opened and revealed the spiritual and godly exposition unto Saint Augustine.

But I have tarried longer in setting forth the form of Christ's words upon the Lord's cup, written by Paul and Luke then I did intend to do. And yet in speaking of the form of Christ's words, spoken upon his cup, cometh now to my remembrance the form of words used in the Latin Mass, upon the Lord's cup. Wherof I do not a little marvel, what should be the cause, seeing the Latin Mass agreeth with the Evangelists and Paul, in the form of words said upon the bread why in the words said upon the Lord's cup, it differeth from them all, yea and addeth to the words of Christ spoken upon the cup these words, Misterium fidei, that is, the mystery of faith, which are not red to be attributed unto the Sacrament of Christ's blood, nother in the Evangelists, nor in Paul, nor so far as I know in any other place of holy Scripture, yea and if it may have some good expositione, yet why it should not be as well added unto the words of Christ upon his Bread, as upon his Cup, surely I do not see the mystery. And because I see in the use of the Latin Mass, the Sacrament of the blood abused, when it is denied unto the lay people, clean contrary unto God's moste certain word: for why, I do beseech thee, should the Sacrament of Christ's blood he denied unto the lay Christian more then to the Preeste? Did not Christ shed his blood as well for the lay godly man, as for the godly Preeste? If thou wilt say, yes that he did so. But the Sacrament of the blood is not to be received without the offering up and sacrificinge thereof unto God the Father, both for the quick and for the dead: and no man may make oblation of Christ's blood unto God but a Preest, and therefore the Preest alone, and that but in his Mass only, may receive the Sacrament of the blood. And call you this, Masters, Mysterium fidei?

Alas, alas, I fear me, this is before God, Misterium iniquitatis, the misterye of iniquity, such as S. Paul speaketh of, in his Epistle to the Thessalonians. The Lord be merciful unto us, and bless us, lighten his countenance upon us, and be merciful unto us. That we may know thy way upon earth, and among all people thy salvation.

This kind of oblation standeth upon Transubstantiation his 〈◊〉 germaine, and they do grow both upon one ground. The Lord weed it out of his Vin • arde shortly, if it be his blessed will and pleasure, that bitter root. To speak of this oblation, howe much is it injurious unto Christ's passion?

How? it cannot, but with high blasphemy and heinous arrogancy, and intolerable pride, be claimed of any man, other then of Christ himself: how much and how plainly it repugneth unto the manifest words, the true sense and meaning of holy Scripture in many places, especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews: the matter it is so long, and other have written in it at large, that my mind is now, not to entreat thereof any further.

For only in this my scribbling, I intend to search out and set forth by the Scriptures (according to God's gracious gift of my poor knowledge) whether the true sense and meaning of Christ's words in the institution of his holy supper, do require any Transubstantiation, as they cal it: or that the very substance of bread and wine do remain still in the Lord's Supper and be the material substance of the holy Sacrament of Christ our Saviors blessed body and blood. Yet there remaineth one vain Quidditi of Duns in this matter, the which because some that write now do seem to like it so well that they have stripped him out of Dunces dusty and dark terms, and pricked him and painted him in fresh colors of an eloquent style: and may therefore deceive the more, except the error be warelye eschewed.

Duns saith in these words of Christ, This is my body, this pronowne demonstrative, meaning the word (This) if ye will know what it doth show or demonstrate, whether the bread that Christ took or no: he answereth no, but only one thing in substance 〈◊〉 paintethe, whereof the nature or name it doth not tell, but leaveth that to be determined and told by that which followeth the word Is, that is by Praedicatum, as the Logician doth speak: and therefore he calleth this pronowne demonstrative. (This) Indiuiduum vagum, that is, a wandering proper name, whereby we may point out and show any one thing in substance, what thing soever it be. That this imagination is vain and untruly applied unto these words of Christ, This is my body: it may appear plainly in the words of Luke and Paul said upon the cup, conferred with the form of words spoken upon the cup in Matthew and Mark. For as upon the bread it is said of all. This is my body: so of Matthew and Mark, it is said upon the cup: This is my blood. Then if in the words, This is my body, the word (This) be as Duns calleth it, a wandringe name to appoint and show forth any one thing, whereof the name and nature it doth not tell: so must it be likewise in those words of Matthew and Mark upon the Lord's cup This is my blood. But in the words of Matthew and Mark, it signifieth and poynteth out the same that it doth in the Lord's words upon the cup in Luke and Paul, where it is said: This cup is the new testament in my blood, &c. Therefore in Matthew and Mark the pronown demonstrative (this) doth not wander to point only one thing in substance, not showing what it is, but tellethe it plainly what it is, no less in Matthew and Mark unto the eye then is doon in Luke and Paul, by putting too this word (cup) booth unto the eye, and unto the ear. For taking the cup and demonstrating or showing it unto his disciples, by this pronowne demonstrative, (this) and saying unto them, Drink ye all of this: it was then all one to say. This is my blood; as to say: This cup is my blood, meaning by the cup as the nature of the speech doth require: the thing contained in the cup. So likewise without all doubt, when Christ had taken bread, given thanks, and broken it, and giving it to his disciples, said, Take: and so demonstrating and showing that bread which he had in his bands, to say then, This is my body: and to have said, This bread is my body.

As it were all one, if a man lackinge a Knife, and going to his Oisters, would say unto another, whom he saw to have two knives. Sir I pray you lend me the one of your-knives. Were it not now all one to answer him, Sir, hold I will lend you this to eat your meat, but not to open Oisters withal: and hold, I will lend you this Knife to eat your meat but not to open Oysters. This similitude serveth but for this purpose, to declare the nature of speech withal, where as the thing that is demonstrated and shown, is evidently perceived, and openly known to the eye.

But O good Lord, what a wonderful thing is it to see, how some men do labor to teach, what is demonstrated and shown by the pronowne demonstrative (this) in Christ's words when he saith: This is my body: This is my blood: how they labor (I say) to teache, what that (This) was then indeed, when Christ spake in the beginning of the sentence the word (This) before he had pronounced the rest of the words, that followed in the same sentence: so that their doctrine may agree with their Transubstantiation: which indeed is the very foundation, wherein all their erroneous doctrine doth stand. And here the Transubstantiatours do not agree among them selves, no more then they do in the words which wrought the Transubstantiation, when Christ did first institute his Sacrament: wherein Innocentius a Bishop of Rome of the latter days, and Duns (as was noted before) do attribute the work unto the word (Benedixit) Blessed: but the rest for the moste parte, to Hoc est corpus meum. This is my body, &c. Duns therefore with his sect, because he puttech the change before must needs say, that this, when Christ spake it in the beginning of the sentence, was in deed Christ's 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 Christ's body, though the word did not import so much but only one thing in substance: which substance after Duns (the bread being gone) must needs be the substance of Christ's body. But they that put their Transubstantiation to be wrought by these words of Christ. This is my body: and do say, that when the whole sentence was finished then this change was perfected and not before: they cannot say, but yet Christ's (this) in the beginning of the sentence before the other words 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 universal consent of all transubstantiatours, the natural substance of Christ's body cannot come: and therefore must their (this) of necessity demonstrate and show the substance, which was as yet in the pronouncing of the first word this by Christ, but bread. But how can they make and verify Christ's words to be true, demonstrating the substance which in the demonstration is but bread, and say thereof, This is my body, that is, as they say the natural substance of Christ's body: except they would say, that the verb, Is, signifieth, is made, or, is changed into. And so then if the same verb, Is, be of the same effect in Christ's words spoken upon the cup, and rehearsed by Luke and Paul: the cup or the wine in the Cup must be made or turned into the new Testament, as was declared before.

There be some among the Transubstantiatours, which walk so will • lie and so warely between these two aforesaid opinions, allowing them both, and bolding plainly nother of them both, that me thinks they may be called Neutrals, Ambodexters, or rather such as can shift on both sides. They play on both partes. For with the later, they do allow the doctrine of the last syllable, which is that Transubstantiatione is done by miracle in an instant, at the sound of the last syllable (um) in this sentence, Hoc est corpus meum. And they do allow also Duns his fantastical imagination of Individium vagum, that demonstrateth as he teacheth in Christ's words, one thing in substance, then being (after his mind) the substance of the body of Christ.

A merhailous thing, how one man can agree with both these two, they being so contrary the one to the other. For the one saithe, the word this, demonstrateth the substance of bread: and the other saith no not so, the bread is gone, and it demonstrateth a substance which is Christ's body.

Tushe saith this third man, ye understand nothing at all. They agree well enough in the chief point, which is the ground of all: that is, both doth agree and bear witness, that there is Transubstantiation. They do agree indeed in that conclusion: I grant. But their process and doctrine thereof do even as well agree together: as did the false witness before Annas & Caiaphas against Christ: or the two wicked Judges against Susanna. For against Christ the false witnesses did agree no doubt to speak all against him. And the wicked judges were both agreeed to condemn poor Susanna: but in examination of their witnesses, they dissented so far that all was found false that they went about, both that wherein they agreeed, and also those things, which they brought for their proofs.

Thus much have I spoken, in searchinge out a solucione for this principal question, which was, what is the material substance of the holy Sacrament in the Lord's supper? Now least I should seem to set by mine own conceit, more then is meet: or less to regard the doctrine of the old ecclestasticall writers, then is convenient for a man of my poor learning and simple wit for to do. And because, also I am indeed persuaded, that the old ecclesiastical writers understood the true meaning of Christ in this matter: and have both so truly and so plainly set it forth in certain places of their writings, that no man which will vouchsafe to read them, and without prejudice of a corrupt judgment will indifferently weigh them, & cons • er their minds none otherwise then they declare themselves to have mente: I am persuaded (I say) that in reading of them thus no man can be ignorant in this matter, but he that will shut up his own eyes, and blindfeeld himself. When I speak of Ecclesiastical writers, I mean of such as were before the wicked usurpation of the see of Rome was grown so immeasurably great, that not only with tirannical power, but also with corrupt doctrine, it began to subvert Christ's gospel, and to turn the state, that Christ and his Apostles set in the Church, upside down. For the causes aforesaid, I will rehearse certain of their sayings: and yet because I take them but for witnesses and expounders of this doctrine and not as the authors of the same, and also for that now I will not be tedious I will rehearse but few, that is three old writers of the Greek Church, and other three of the Latin Church, which do seem unto me to be in this matter most plain.

The Greek Authors are Origen, Chrysostom and Theodoret. The Latin, are Tertulliane, S. Augustine and Gelasius. I know there call be nothing spoken so plainly, but the crafty wit furnished with eloquence can darken it, and weest it quite from the true meaning to a contrary sense. And I know also that eloquence, craft, and finenes of wit hath gone about to blear men's eyes, and to stop their ears in the aforenamed writers, that men should nother hear nor see, what those Authors both write and teache so plainly, that except men should be made both stark blind and or ase: they cannot but of necessity, if they will read and way them indifferently, both he are and see what they do mean when eloquence, craft, and fineness, of wit have 〈◊〉 all that they can. Now let us he are the old writers of the Greek Church.

Origen, which lived about 1250. years ago: a man for the excellency of his learning so highlye esteemed in Christ's Church, that he was counted and judged the singular teacher in his time of Christ's religion, the confounder of heresies, the schoolmaister of many godly matters, and an opener of high mysteries in scripture. He writing upon the iv chapter of Saint Matthews gospel, saith▪ bus: But if anything enter into the mouth it goeth away in to the belly, and is avoided into the draught: Yea and that meat which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, concerning the matter thereof, it goeth away into the belly, and is avoided into the draughte. But for the prayer which is added unto it, for the proportion of the faith, it is made profitable, making the mind able to perceive and see that which is profitable. For it is not the immaterial substance of bread, but the word which is spoken upon it, that is profitable to the man that eateth it not vnwoorthely. And his I mean of the Typical and Simbolical, that is, Sacramental body. Thus far go the words of Origen, where it is plain, first that Origen speaking here of the sacrament of the Lord's supper as the last words do plainly signify, doth mean and teache, that the material substance thereof is received, digested, and avoided, as the material substance of other bread and meats is, which could not be, if there were no material substance of bread at all, as the fantastical opinion of Transubstantiation doth put. It is a world too see the answer of the Papists to this place of Origen, in the disputations which were in this matter in the Parliamente house, and in both the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, they that defended Transubstantiation said, that this parte of Origen was but set forth of late by Erasmus, and therefore is to be suspected. But how vain this their answer is, it appeareth plainly. For so may all the good old authors, which lay in old libraries, and are set forth of late, be by this reason re •• cted, as Clement Alexandrinus, Theodoretus, Justinus, Ecclesiastica historia, Nicephori, and other such. An other answer they had, saying that Origen is noted to have erred in some points, and therefore faith is not to be given in this matter unto him. But this answer well weighed doth minister good matter to the clear confutation of it self. For indeed we grant, that in some points Origen did err. But those errors are gathered out and noted both of S. Jerome and Epiphanius, so that his works (those errors excepted) are now so much the more of authority, that such great learned men took pains to take out of him, whatsoever they thought in him to be written amis. But as concerning this matter of the Lord's Supper, nother they nor yet ever any other anciente Author did ever say, that Origen did err.

Now because these two answers have been of late so confuted and confounded, that it is well perceived, that they will take no place: therefore some which have written since that time, have forged two other answers, even of the same moulde. The former whereof is, that Origen in this place spake not of the Sacrament of bread or wine of the Lord's table, but of another mystical meat: of the which S. Augustine maketh mention to be given unto them, that were taught the faith, before they were baptized. But Origen's own words in two sentences before rehearsed being put together, prove this answer untrue. For he saith, that he meaneth of that figurative and mystical body, which profiteth them, that do receive it woorthilye, alludinge so plainly unto S. Paul's words spoken of the Lord's Supper: that it is a shame for any learned man once to open his mouth to the contrary. And that bread which S. Augustine speaketh of, he cannot prove that any such thing was used in Origen's time. Yea and though that could be proved, yet was there never bread in any time called a sacramental body, saving the sacramental bread of the Lord's table, which is called of Origen the typical and symboticall body of Christ.

The second of the two new found answers, is yet moste monstrous of all other, which is this. But let us grant (say they) that Origen spake of the Lord's Supper, and by the matter thereof was understanded the material substance of bread and wine: what then say they? For though the material substance was once gone and departed by reason of Transubstantiation, whils the forms of the bread and the wine did remain, yet now it is no inconvenience to say, that as the material substance did depart at the entering in of Christ's body under th' aforesaid forms, so whan the said forms be destroyed and do not remain, then cometh 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 have believed, that any learned man ever would have set forth such a foolish fantasie: which not only lacketh all ground, either of God's word, reason, or of any ancient writer, but also is clean contrary to the common rules of school divinity: which is, that no miracle is to be affirmed and put without necessity. And although for their former miracle, which is their Transubstantiation, they have some color, though it be but vain, saying it is done by the power and virtue of these words of Christ, This is my body: yet to make this seconde miracle of returninge the material substance again they have no color at all. Or else I pray them show me, by what words of Christ is the second miracle wrought.

Thus ye may see, that the sleights and shifts which craft and wit can inuente to wreste the true sense of Origen cannot take place. But now let us hear another place of Origen, and so we will let him go.

Origen in the eleven Homile Super Leuiticum saith: that there is also even in the four Gospel's, and not only in the old Testament, a letter (meaning a literal sense) which killethe. For if thou follow (saith he) the letter in that saying: Excepte ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, &c.

This letter doth kill. If in that place the letter doth kill, wherein is commanded the eating of Christ's flesh? then surely in those words of Christ, wherein Christ commandeth us to eat his body, the literal sense thereof likewise doth kill. For it is no less crime but even the same and all one in the literal sense, to eat Christ's body, and to eat Christ's flesh. Wherefore if the one do kill, except it be understanded figuratiuelye and spirituallye: then the other surely doth kill likewise. But that to eat Christ's flesh doth kill so understanded, Origen affirmeth plainly in his words above rebearsed: Wherefore it cannot be justly denied, but to eat Christ's body literally understanded, must needs after him kill likewise.

The answer that is made to this place of Origen of the Papists, is so foolish, that it be wraieth itself, without any further confutation. It is the same, that they make to a piace of S. Augustine in his book De doctrinae Christiana: Whereas S. Augustine speaketh in effect the same thing that Origen doth here. The Papists answer is this: To the carnal man the literal sense is hurtful, but not so to the spiritual. As though to understand that in his proper sense, which ought to be taken figuratively, were to the carnal man a dangerous peril: but to the spiritual man none at all.

Now to Chrysostom, whom I bring for the second writer in the Greek Church, He speaking against the unholy vsinge of man's body, which after S. Paul ought to be kept pure and holy, as the very temple of the Holy Ghost, saith thus: If it be a fault (saith he) to translate the holy vessels, in the which is contained not the true body of Christ, but the mistery of the body, to private uses, how much more offense is it to a buse and defile the vessels of our body?

These be the words of Chrysostom, But I trow that here many fowl shifts are devised, to defeat this place. The Author saith: one is suspected. I answer: but in this place never fault was found with him, unto these our days. And whether this author was John Chrysostom him self the Archbishop of Constantinople or no, that is not the matter. For of all it is granted, that he was a writer of that age, and a man of great learning: so that it is manifest, that this which he writeth was the received opinion of learned men in his days.

Or else undoubtedly in such a matter his saying should have been impugned of some that wrote in his time, or near unto the same. Nay (saith another) if this solucion will not serve: we may say that Chrysostom did not speak of the vessels of the Lord's cup, or such as were then used at the Lord's table, but of the vessels used in the Temple in the old law.

This answer will serve no more then the other. For here Chrysostom speaketh of such vessels, wherein was that which was called the body of Christ, although it was not the true body (saith he) of Christ, but the misterye of Christ's body. Now of the vessels of the old law the writers do use no such manner of phrase: for their sacrifices were not called Christ's body. For then Christ was not but in shadows and figures, and not by the Sacrament of his body revealed. Erasmus, which was a man that could understand the words and sense of the writers, although he would not be seen to speak against this error of Transubstantiatione, because he durst not: yet in this time declareth plainly that this saying of the writer is none otherwise to be understanded.

Yet can I (saithe the third Papist) find out a fine and subtle solucion for this place, and grant all that yet is said, both allowinge here the writer, and also that he meant of the vessels of the Lord's Table. For (saith he) the body of Christ is not contained in them, at the Lord's Table, as in a place, but as in a misterye. Is not this a pritty shift, and a mystical solution? But by the same solution then Christ's body is not in the Lord's Table, nor in the Priests hands, nor in the pyx, and so is he here nowhere. For they will not say, that he is either here or there, as in a place.

This answer pleaseth so well the maker, that he himself (after he had plaid with it a little while and shown the fineness of his wit and eloquence therein) is content to give it over and say: but it is not to be thought that Chrysostom would speak after this fineness or subtlety: and therefore he returneth again unto the second answer for his shoot anker, which is sufficiently confuted before. An other short place of Chrysostom I will rehearse, which (if any indifferency may be heard) in-plain terms setteth forth the truth of this matter.

Before the bread (saith Chrysostom ad Cesarium monachum) be hallowed, we call it bread, but the grace of God sanctifying it by the means of the preeste it is delivered now from the name of bread, and esteemed worthy to be called Christ's body, although the nature of bread tarry in it still.

These be Chrisostoms words: wherein I pray you, what can be said or thought more plain against this error of Transubstantiation, then to declare, that the bread abideth so still: And yet to this so plain a place, some are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it, saying: we grant that nature of bread remaineth still thus, for that it may be seen, felt, and tasted, and yet the corporal substance of the bread therefore is gone, lease two bodies should be confused together, and Christ should be thought impanate.

What contrariety and falsehood is in this answer, the simple man may easily perceive. Is not this a plain contrarietye to grant that the nature of bread remaineth so still, that it may be seen, felt, and tasted: and yet to say▪ the corporal substance is gone, to avoid absurdity of Christ's impanation? And what manifest falsehood is this, to say or mean, that if the bread should remain still, then must follow the inconvenience of impanation?

As though the very bread could not be a Sacrament of Christ's body (as water is of baptism) except Christ should unite the nature of bread to his nature in unity of person, and make of the bread, God.

Now let us hear Theodoretus, which is the last of the three Greek Authors. He writeth in his dialogue Contra Eutichen, thus. He that calleth his natural body, corn and bread: and also named himself a Vine tree: even he the same hath honored the Symboles (that is the sacramental signs) with the names of his body and blood, not changing indeed the nature it self, but adding grace unto the nature.

What can be more plainly said, then this, that this old writer saith? That although the Sacraments bear the name of the body and blood of Christ, 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 work against th' aforesaid heretic Eutyches, writeth yet more plainly against this error of Transubstantiation, if anything can be said to be more plain. For he maketh the heretic to speak thus against him that defendeth the true doctrine, whom he calleth Orthodoxus.

As the Sacraments of the body and blood of our Lord are one thing before the invocation, and after the invocation they be changed, and are made another: so likewise the Lord's body (saithe the heretic) is after the assumption or assention into heaven, turned into the substance of God: the heretic meaning thereby, that Christ after his ascension, remaineth no more a man.

To this Orthodoxus answereth thus and saith in the heretic: Thou art taken (saith he) in thine own snare. For those mystical Symbols or Sacraments after the sanctification do not go out of their own nature, but they tarrye and abide still in their substance, figure, and shape, yea and are sensibly seen and groped to be the same they were before, &c.

At these words the papists do startle: and to say the truth, these words be so plain, so full, and so clear, that they cannot tell what to say, but yet they will not cease to go about to play the cuttles, and to caste their colors over them, that the truth which is so plainly told, should not have place.

This Author wrote (say they) before the determination of the Church. 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 do charge this author that he was suspected to be a Nestorian, which thing in Calcedon Counsaile was tried and proved to be false. But the foulest shift of all, and yet the best that they can find in this matter, when none other will serve: is to say, that Theodoret understandeth by the word (substance) accidents, and not substance indeed.

This gloss is like a gloss of a lawyer, upon a decree, the text whereof beginning thus: Statuimus, that is, We decree. The gloss of the Lawyer there (after many other pritty shifts there set forth) which he thinketh will not well serve to his purpose, and therefore at the last to clear the matter, he saith thus: after the mind of one Lawyer. Vel dic (saith he) Statuimus id est, abrogamus, that is: or expound we do decree, that is, we abrogate or disannul. Is not this a goodlye, and worthy gloss? who will not say, but he is worthy in the law, to be retained of counsel, that can gloss so well, and find in a matter of difficulty, such fine shifts? And yet this is the law, or at least the gloss of the law. And therefore who can tell, what peril a man may incur to speak against it except he were a lawyer indeed, which can keep himself out of the briers what wind soever blow.

Hethertoo ye have heard three writers of the Greek Church, not all what they do say: for that were a labor too great for to gather, and too tedious for the Reader: But one or two places of everyone, the which how plain, how full, and how clear they be against the error of Transubstantiation, I refer it to the judgment of the indifferent Reader.

And now I will likewise rehearse the sayings of other three old ancient writers of the Latin Church, and so make an end.

And first I will begin with Tertullian, whom Cyprian the holy martyr so highly esteemed, that whensoever he would have his book, he was wont to say: Give us now the Master.

This old writer in his fourth book against Martian the heretic, saith thus: Jesus made the bread, which he took, 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 plain, that after Tertullian's exposition, Christ mente not by calling the bread his body, and the wine his blood, that either the bread was the natural body, or the wine his natural blood, but he called them his body and blood, because he would institute them to be unto us Sacraments: that is holy tokens and signs of his body and of his blood: that by them remembering and firmly believing the benefits procured to us by his body, which was torn and crucified for us, and of his blood, which was shed for us upon the cross: and so with thanks receiving these holy Sacraments, according to Christ's institution, might by the same be spiritually nourished and fed to the increase of all godliness in us here in our pilgrimage and journey wherein we walk unto everlasting life.

This was undoubtedly Christ our Saviors mind, and this is Tertullian's exposition.

The wrangling that the Papists do make to elude this saying of Tertullian, is so far out of frame, that it even werieth me to think on it.

Tertullian writeth here (say they) as none hath deon hithertoo before him.

This saying is too too manifest false: for Origen, Hilarye, Ambrose, Basel, Grigorie, Nazianzen, Saint Augustine, and other old authors, likewise do call the sacrament, a figure of Christ's body. And where they say, that Tertullian wrote this, when he was in a heat of disputatione with an heretic, coveting by all means to overthrow his adversary. As who say, he would not take heed, what he did say, and specially what he would write in so high a matter so that he might have the better hand of his adversary.

Is this credible to be true in any godly wise man? How much less then is it worthy to be thought or credited in a man of so great a wit, learning, and excellency as Tertullian is worthily esteemed ever to have been?

Likewise this author in his first book against the same heretic Martion, writeth thus: God did not reject bread, which is his creature : for by it he hath made a representation of his body.

Now I pray you, what is this to say that Christ hath made a representation (by bread) of his body, but that Christ had instituted and ordained bread to be a Sacrament, for to represent unto us his body? Now whether the representatione of one thing by another, requireth the corporal presence of the thing which is so represented or no: every man that hath understanding, is able in this point (the matter is so clear of it self) to be a sufficient judge.

The second doctor and writer of the Latin Church, whose sayings I promised to set forth, is S. Augustine. of whose learning and estimation, I need not to speak. For all the Church of Christ both hath and ever hath had him for a man of moste singular learning, wit, and diligence, both in setting forth the true doctrine of Christ's religion, and also in the defense of the same against heretics.

This author as he hath written moste plenteously in other matters of our faith: so like wise in this argument he hath written at large in many of his works, so plainly against this error of Transubstantiation, that the Papists love lease to hear of him of all other writers, partly for his authority, and partly because he openeth the matter more fully, then any other doth.

Therefore I will rehearse more places of him then heertofore I have doon of the other. And first, what can be more plain then that which he writeth upon the 89. Psalm, speaking of the Sacrament of the Lord's body and blood: and rehearsinge (as it were) Christ's words to his Disciples after this manner.

It is not this body, which ye do see, that ye shall eat, nother shall ye drink this blood, which the Soldiers that crucify me, shall spill or shed.

I do commend unto you a misterye or a Sacrament, which spiritually understanded, shall give you life.

Now if Christ had no more natural and corporal bodies, but that one which they then presently both heard and saw, nor other natural blood, but that which was in the same body, and the which the soldiers did afterward cruelly shed upon the cross: and nother this body nor this blood was (by this declaration of S. Augustine) either to be eaten or drunken, but the mystery thereof spiritually to be understanded: then I conclude (if this saying and exposition of S. Augustine be true, that the mistery which the disciples should eat, was not the natural 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: Christ's flesh and blood was in the old Testament promised by similitudes and signs of their sacrifices, and was exhibited indeed and in truth upon the cross, but the same is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance upon the altar.

And in his book, De fide ad Petrum. Ca. 19. he saithe, that in these sacrifices, meaning of the old law, it is siguratiuely signified▪ what was then to be given: but in this sacrifice it is evidently signified what is already given (understanding in the sacrifice upon the altar) the remembrance and thanks giving for the flesh, which he offered for us, and for the blood which he shed for us upon the cross: as in the same place and evidently there it may appear.

An other evident and clear place where in it appeareth, that by the Sacramental bread, which Christ called his body, he meant a figure of his body. As upon the 3 Psalm, where S. Augustine speaketh this in plain terms.

Christ did admit Judas unto the feast, in the which he commended unto his disciples the figure of his body.

This was Christ's last Supper before his passion, wherein he did ordain the sacrament of his body, as all learned men do agree.

S. Augustine also in his 23. Epistle to Boniface teacheth, how Sacraments do bear the names of the things whereof they be Sacraments, both in Baptism, and in the Lord's table, even as we call every good friday, the day of Christ's passion: and every Easter day, the day of Christ's resurrection: when in very deed there was but one day wherein he suffered, and but one day wherein he rose. And why do we then call them so, which are not so indeed, but because they are in like time and course of the year, as those days were, wherein those things were done?

Was Christ, saithe sainte Augustine, offered anymore but once? And he offered himself. And yet in a Sacrament or representation not only every solemn feast of Easter, but also every day to the People he is offered: so that he doth not lie that saith: he is every day offered.

For if Sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of those things, whereof they be Sacraments, they could in no wise be Sacraments: and for their similitudes or likeness: commonly they have the names of the things, whereof they be Sacraments. Therefore as after a certain manner of speech, the Sacrament of Christ's body, is Christ's body; the Sacrament of Christ's blood, is Christ's blood, so likewise the Sacrament of faith is faith.

After this manner of speech, as S. Augustine teacheth in his questiones Super Leuiticum and Contra Adimantum, it is said in scripture, that vii. ears of corn be vii. years, seven Kine be seven years, and the rock was Christ: and blood is the soul, the which last saying (saith Saint Augustine) in his book Contra Adimantum is understanded to be spoken by a sign or figure.

For the Lord himself did not stick to say. This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. For we must not consider in Sacraments, saithe S. Augustine in another 〈◊〉 , what they be; but what they do signify, or they be signs of things, being one thing in themselves, and yet signifying an nother thing.

For the heavenly bread (saith he) speaking of the Sacramental bread by some manner of speech is called Christ's body, when in very deed it is the sacrament of his body, &c.

What can be more plain, or more clearly spoken, then are these places of S. Augustine before rehearsed, if men were not obstinately bent to maintain an untruth, and to receive nothing whatsoever doth set it forth. Yet one place more of S. Augustine will I allege, which is very clear to this purpose, that Christ's natural body is in heaven, and not here corporally in the Sacrament, and so let him depart.

In his 50. treatice, which he writeth upon John. he teacheth plainly and clearly how Christ being both God and man, is both here, after a certain manner, and yet in heaven, and not here in his natural body and substance, which he took of the blessed hirgin Mary: speaking thus of Christ and saying: By his divine Majesty, by his providence and by his unspeakable and invincible grace that is fulfilled which he spake: Behold, I am with you unto the ende of the Worlde. But as concerning his flesh which he took in his incarnatione, as touching that which was borne of the Virgin as concerning that which was apprehended by the Jews and crucified upon a tree, and taken down from the cross, lapped in linen clothes, and buried, and rose again, and appeared after his resurrection, as concerning the flesh, he said; ye shall not ever have me with you. Why so? For as concerning his flesh, he was conversant with his Disciples xl. days, and they accompanying, seeing and not following him, he wentvp into heaven, and is not here. By the presence of his divine majesty he did not depart; as concerning the presence of his divine majesty, we have Christ ever with us; but as concerning the presence of his flesh, he said truly to his disciples; ye shall not ever have me with you. For as concerning the presence of his flesh, the Church had him but a few days; now it holdeth him by Faith, though it se him not.

Thus much S. Augustine speaketh repeating one thing so often: and all to declare and teach, how we should understand the manner of Christ's being here with us: which is by his grace, by his providence, and by his divine nature, and how he is absent by his natural body which was born of the virgin Mary, died, & rose for us, and is assended into heaven, & there sitteth, as in the articles of our faith on the right hand of God, and thence (and from none other place saith S. Augustine) he shall come on the latter day, to judge the quick and the dead. At the which day the righteous shall then lift up their heads, and the light of God's truth shall so shine: that falsehood and errors shall be put into perpetual confusion: righteousness shall have the upper hand, and truth that day shall bear away the victory, all th' enemies thereof quite overthrown, to be trodden under foot for evermore.

O Lord, Lord, I beseech thee hasten this day, then shalt thou be glorified with the glory due unto thy holy name, and unto thy divine majesty: and we shall sing unto thee, in all joy, and felicity, laude and praise forever mere. Amen.

Heer now would I make an end. For me thinks, S. Augustine is in this matter so full and plain, and of that authority, that it should not need after this his declaration, being so firmelye grounded upon God's word, and so well agreeinge with the other ancient Authors, to bring in for the confirmation of this matter any moe: and yet I said, I would allege three of the Latin Church, to testify the truth in this cause. Now therefore the last of all shall be Gelasius, which was a Bishop of Rome, but one that was Bishop of that See before the wicked usurpation and tyranny thereof spread and burst out abroad into all the world. For this man was before Boniface, yea and Grigorye the first: in whose days both corruption of doctrine and tirannicall usurpation did chee fly grow, and had the upper hand.

Gelasius in an Epistle of the two natures of Christ, Contra Eutichen, writeth thus: The Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, are godly things whereby and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet nevertheless the substance or nature of the bread and wine doth not depart nor go away.

Note these words I beseech you, and consider, whether anything can be more plainly spoken, then these words be against the error of Transubstantiatione, which is the ground and bitter root, whereupon springe all the horrible errors before rehearsed.

Wherefore seeing that the falsehood doth appear so manifestly, and by so many ways so plainly, so clearly and so fully, that no man needeth to be deceived, but he that will not see, or will not understand: let us all that do love the truth, embrace it, and forsake the falsehood. For he that loveth the truth, is of God: and the lack of the love thereof is the cause why God suffereth men to fall into errors, and to perish therein: yea and as S. Paul saith, why he sendeth unto them illusions, that they believe lies, unto their own condemnation: because (saithe he) they loved not the truth. This truth no doubt is God's word. For Christ himself saith unto his father: Thy word is truth. The love and light whereof almighty God our heavenly father give us, and lighten it in our harts by his holy spirit through Jesus Christ out Lord, Amen.

Mr. FOX 2 d Volume of Acts and Monuments, Edit. London, 1684.

VOL. III.

Extracts from Bishop Poynets Diallaction.

I Will so divide the question, that it may be briefly reduced to three heads. First, I will show 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 show 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 show, 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 itself 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 Lord's 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 joined 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 remembered, 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 Lord's 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 remembered the better, I thought it not unfit to subjoin 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 virtue of it conjoined 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 acknowledge 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 virtue of the Body itself, which is joined with the Bread and Wine by Grace and Mystical Benediction, and is called by divers names, although it be the same thing: by Augustine, the Intelligible, Invisible and Spiritual Body: by Jerome the Divine and Spiritual Flesh: by Irenaeus an Heavenly Thing: by Ambrose the Spiritual Food and Body of the Divine Spirit: by others some other like thing. And this doth chiefly cause this Sacrament to be worthy of the appellation of his true Body and Blood, since it doth not only externally bear the Image and Figure of it, but also carrieth along with it the inward and hidden natural propriety of the same Body; so that it cannot be esteemed an empty Figure, or the sign of a thing wholly absent, but the very Body of our Lord: Divine indeed and Spiritual, but present by Grace, full of virtue, powerful in efficacy. For this is very frequent, that the names of things themselves be ascribed to their virtue and efficacy.

The Fathers therefore in Treating of the Sacraments, use the words Nature and Substance not Philosophically but Theologically: that is, they speak not as natural Philosophers, but as men disputing of Divine matters; they give the name of Nature and Substance to Grace, Virtue and Efficacy: the nature of the Sacrament so requiring.

But this (that the Spiritual virtue is inseparable from the Elements) is to be understood to be true, as long as the Sign serveth for that use, and is directed to that end, for which it was destined by the Word of God. For if we apply it to other uses, and abuse it against the institution of Christ, it either is altogether not a Sacrament, or ceaseth to be a Sacrament.

The dignity and due honor of the Sacraments is not injured, but remaineth whole and inviolate, while we confess both the truth of the Body, and the nature and substance of it, to be received by the Faithful, together with the Symbols: which also the ancient Fathers testify to be done. And then this distinction which also those Fathers diligently observed, being received between that proper or assumed Body of the Lord, and this Symbolical Body, or Sacrament of the Body, the analogy of our Faith is not violated, which no ways ought to be shaken: since we attribute to each Body his peculiar properties. For we say that the proper and assumed Body is in a place, and circumscribed with a space, by reason of the modus of a true Body, as Augustine saith, &c.

All men see, that we also here affirm the Substance to be present, and assert our Communion with Christ naturally, and as I may say, substantially. But then these words ought to be understood after the manner not of Philosophers but of Divines. Neither should we quarrel about the term of Transubstantiation, although barbarous and not in the least necessary: Provided they meant thereby such a Transmutation of Substances, as the Ancients taught: that is, a Sacramental one: such as is also performed in a man regenerated by Baptism, who is made a new man, and a new creature. Such as is also performed when we are converted into the Flesh of Christ, which examples the ancient Fathers used.

If any here require a Miracle (for some Fathers call the Eucharist a great Miracle) it is in truth no less wonderful, that Bread and Wine, which are earthly Creatures, and apt only to nourish the Body, should by virtue of the Mystical Benediction obtain that inward force, and such powerful efficacy, as to cleanse, nourish, sanctify, and prepare to immortality both our 〈…〉 , and to make us the 〈…〉 and one Body with 〈…〉

Diallacticon Viri boni & literati de veritate, natura atque substantia corporis & sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia. Ad calcem Becae Opusculorum, Vol. II. Par. 2. p. 31. Genevae, 1573. f.

CAusam ita partiri placuit, ut summatim ad tria capita revocetur. Primo ostendam veritatem corporis Christi in Eucharistia dari fidelibus; nec has voces Naturam at que Substantiam fugiendas esse, sed Veteres de hoc Sacramento disserentes ita locutos fuisse Deinde discrimen esse monstrabo inter corpus Domini proprium, & illud quod inest in Sacramento; veteresque Patres ita censuisse. Postremo cujusmodi sit hoc Corpus, quod accipitur in Mysterio, & cur eo nomine censeatur, indicabo, secundum eorundem Patrum sententiam, p. 33, 34.

Corpus Christi dicitur proprie & improprie; proprie, Corpus illud sumptum ex Virgin; improprie, ut Sacramentum & Ecclesia. Quod Ecclesia proprie Corpus Christi non sit, nemini dubium est; de Sacramento restat, ut nunc idem Probemus, p. 38.

Non difficile est animadvertere ex his quae scribit hoc loco Chrysostomus, aliter esse Corpus, quod Christus ipse Corpus suum appellavit, cum diceret, Accipite, edite; hoc meum est Corpus, quod ipse quoque simul sumebat cum discipulis; aliter ipsum Corpus proprium, quod illo altero vescebatur. Hoc comedebat, illud comesum est; & utrumque Corpus, sed diversa ration, dicitur, p. 39.

Sacramentum videlicet Corporis (dedit) & non ipsum visibiliter, sive visible Corpus, quod ad proprium Corpus refertur. Hoc autem Corpus ubicunque est, visible est, p. 40.

Observandum est veritatem Dominici Corporis, dup citer dici ac debere dupliciter acc •• i. Alia namque veritas Corporis requiritur in Mysterio, alia simpliciter & absque Mysterio, p. 41.

Quod ad nostrum institutum attinet, ipsa Cypriani verba satis indicant, quam non sequenda sit litera in his quae de hoc Mysterio dicuntur, quam procul arcendus est carnis Sensus, & ad Sensum spiritualem omnia referenda; huic Pani Divinae Virtutis praesentiam adesse, Vitae Aeternae effectum, Divinam insundi essentiam verba Spiritum & vitam esse, spiritual documentum tradi, hoc Corpus, hunc sanguinem, & carnem hanc substantiam Corporis, non communi more, nec ut humana ratio dictat accipi oportere, sed ita nominari, existimari, credi, propter eximios quosdam Effectus, Virtutes, & Proprietates conjunctas, quae Corpori & sanguini Christi natura insunt; nempe quod pascat animas nostras, & vivificet simul, & Corpora ad Resurrectionem & Immortalitatem praeparet, p. 46.

Hic cogitandum est verba spiritualia esse, & spiritualiter intelligenda; carnem quidem & sanguinem nominari, sed de Spiritu & Vitâ, id est, vivificâ Dominicae carnis Virtute debere intelligi, & proinde vim Vitae signis externis inditam esse, Ibid.

Theophylactus quum dicit (panem) non esse Figuram (Corporis Dominici) sensit non tantum Figuram esse, p. 47.

Ecce Chrysostomus dicit, realiter ut ita loquar, nos converti in carnem Christi, sed spiritualem illam non carnalem Conversionem esse quis non videt? Ita reipsâ convertitur & transelementatur Panis in carnem Christi, sed spirituali non carnali Conversione, quia Panis virtutem carnis assequitur, p. 48.

Quanto melius locuti sunt Cyprianus, Ambrosius, Epiphanius, Emysenus, & alii, qui similem Commutationem in Eucharistiâ cum ea quae fit in Baptismo confirmant quâ fit ut signa maneant eadem, & per gratiam novam acquirant substantiam similiter, p. 49.

Cujus ego viri (Bertrami) Expositionem & de Sacramento viam disputandi duas ob causas diligenter expendendam & amplectendam arbitror, p. 52.

Quod ut magis appareat, & memoriâ reponatur, non inutile fore putavi, ex his quae supra memoravimus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quandam per collationem subjungere.

Corpus Christi proprium habet caput, pectus, membra dinstincta, Corpus mysticum non habet. Corpus proprium habet Ossa, Venas, Nervos, mysticum non habet.

Illud organicum est; hoc non est.

Illud Figura non est; hoc est Figura proprii Corporis. Illud naturâ suâ humanum & corporeum est; hec Coeleste, Divinum, Spirituale.

Illius materia Corruptioni non est obnoxia; hujus pars materialis Panis est, & corrumpitur.

Illud uno loco continetur; hoc, ubicunque Sacramentum celebratur, adest, at non ut in loco.

Illud non est Sacramentum alterius Corporis; hoc Sacramentum est alterius.

Illud de Virginis Mariae corpore sumptum, semel creatum est; hoc de Virgin non sumitur sed quotidie per Benedictionem mysticam potentialiter creature.

Illud natural Corpus est; hoc supernaturale. Denique illud simpliciter, hoc secundum quid; illud proprie & absolute, hoc improprie Corpus est, p. 52, 53.

Neque hic satis est, si modum unum carnaliter intelligendi fugiamus, & in alium impingamus. Nam qui Christi carnem edere secundum literam accipit, & quasi locutio propria sit; is Capernaita carnalis est; sive id hoc sive illo modo proprie fieri putat.—Nam verisimile est, Carpernaitas omnes quidem carnaliter intellexisse, sed non omnes eodem modo, p. 53.

Non enim ideo spiritualis sensus existimandus est, quia dicunt carnem Christi invisibiliter adesse; nam si de propria carne intelligant, non ideo carnaliter non edimus, quia non videmus, p. 54.

Jam in hoc Sacramento veteres Patres duas res animadverterunt; propter quas singulas merito corpus Christi diceretur & haberetur, maxim vero cùm utramque comprehendat, Nam & quia figura veri corporis panis est, jure corpus appellatur; & quia virtutem ejusdem vitalem conjunctam habet, multo magis; tum vero maxim quod utrumque complectitur. Ibid.

Quo magis mirandum est, quid illis in mentem veniat, qui figuram non patiantur appellari, nec figuram in Coenae verbis agnoscant; sed •• s qui agnoscunt, per contumeliam figuratores appelant cùm tamen manifestum sit Veteres omnes sic appellásse. Quod si figura non erit, nec Signum, nec Sacramentum erit. Itaque. qui in illos tanquam Sacramentarios dicere parati sunt, ipsi omnino Sacramenta tollunt. p. 55.

Alterum esse diximus, quod veteres Patres agnoscentes in hoc Sacramento vere Dominicum corpus esse voluerunt. Est autem virtus ipsius corporis efficax & vivifica, quae per gratiam & mysticam benedictionem cum pane & vino conjungitur, & variis nominibus appellatur, cùm res eadem sit; ab Augustino corpus intelligible, invisibile, spiritual; ab Hieronymo caro divina & spiritualis; ab Irenaeo res coelestis; ab Ambrosio esca spiritualis, & corpus divini spiritus; ab aliis aliud simile quippiam. Et hoc multo etiam magis efficit, ut hoc Sacramentum dignissimum sit veri corporis & sanguinis nomenclaturâ: quum non solum extrinsecus imaginem & figuram ejus prae se ferat verùm; etiam intus abditam & latentem naturalem ejusdem corporis proprietatem, hoc est, vivificam virtutem secum trahat; ut jam non inanis figura, aut absentis omnino rei signum existimari possit, sed ipsum corpus Domini, divinum quidem & spiritual, sed praesens gratiâ, plenum virtute, potens efficacitate. Saepe autem fit, ut nomina rerum ipsarum tribuantur earum virtuti & efficacitati. Ibid.

Cum agitur de Sacramentis, mentionem faciunt Patres Naturae & Substantiae, non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hoc est, non ut Philosophi naturales loquuntur, sed homines de divinis rebus disserentes, gratiae, virtuti, & efficacitati naturae substantiaeque nomen impertientes, nimirum Sacramenti naturâ id postulante, p. 57.

Hoc autem (inseparabilitas virtutis spiritualis ab Elementis) ita intelligendum est, quamdiu signum ei servit usui & fini accommodatur, cui juxta verbum Dei destinatum fuerit. Nam si ad alios usus applicamus, & abutimur contra Christi institutum: aut Sacramentum prorsus non est, aut Sacramentum esse desinit, p. 64.

Sacramentorum dignitas & debitus honos non laeditur, sed integer & inviolatus manet; dum & veritatem corporis & naturam ac substantiam illius unâ cum symbolis accipi fateamur à fidelibus, quod & veteres Patres fieri testantur. Deinde hâc receptâ, quam iidem Patres diligenter observarunt, distinctione inter proprium sive assumptum illud corpus Domini, & hoc symbolicum corpus sive Sacramentum corporis, non peccatur in analogiam fidei nostrae, quae nullo pacto convellenda est: quandoquidem utrique corpori quae sua sunt attribuimus. Proprium enim & assumptum corpus in loco esse & loci spatio circumscribi dicimus, propter veri corporis modum ut ait Augustinus, &c. Ibid.

Vident substantiam quoque à nobis (in hoc libro) praesentem affirmari, & communionem nostram cum Christo naturaliter, & ut ita dicam, substantialiter praedicari: sed has voces, non ut Philosophi, sed ut Theologi loquuntur, intelligi oportere. Nec de Transubstantiationis vocabulo, quamvis barbaro minimeque necessario, litigaremus, si modo talem substantiarum transmutationem interpretentur, qualem Veteres agnoscebant, Sacramentalem videlicet, qualis etiam in homine fit per Baptismum regenerato, qui novus homo factus est, & nova creatura: qualis etiam fit, quum nos in Christi carnem convertimur: quibus Patres antiqui utebantur exemplis, p. 65.

Quod si nonnulli miraculum requirunt (nam Patres aliquot Eucharistiam ingens miraculum nominant) non minus profecto mirandum est panem & vinum creaturas terrenas, & corpori tantùm pascendo natas, eam virtute benedictionis mysticae vim insitam, adeoque potentem efficacitatem obtinere, ut & animos & corpora mundent, alant, sanctificent, atque ad immortalitatem praeparent, ut nos membra Christi & unum cum illo corpus conficiant. Ibid.