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

Guil. Needham RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Ar­chiep. Cant. a Sacr. Dom.


With some other Determinations and Disputations con­cerning the same Argument, by the same Author.

To which is Annexed

An Extract of several Passages to the same Purpose, out of a Book, Intituled, DIALLACTION, written by Dr. JOHN POYNET, Bishop of Winchester in the Reigns of E. 6. and Q. Mary.

LONDON: Printed for Ric. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard, M DC LXXX VIII.


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

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

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

To prove this, and vindicate the honour of the first Re­formers and modern Divines of our Church, and demon­strate the intire conformity of the belief of both; it is thought convenient to cause some one Treatise of the first Reformers concerning this Subject to be Reprinted, that so every one might judge for himself, whether the pretensions of our Adversaries be indeed true and just; or rather the Present is intirely conformable to the precedent Doctrine of the Church of England. To this end, among all the Wri­tings of the first Reformers, this Treatise of Bishop Ridley, which we here publish, will conduce most, by reason of the great and eminent Authority of the Author, which was so highly considerable beyond that of any other Reformer, that he may justly be esteemed the Standard of the Doctrine of the Church of England at that time. Not only the assu­rance of his great learning and eminent station in the Church, renders this probable; but that great part which he had in managing the Affairs of the Reformation, and the ex­traordinary deference paid to his Authority, and trust re­posed in him by all Convocations, and the whole body of the Reformers, demonstrate it. None can reasonably be put in competition with him, except Archbishop Cranmer; and he also in his disputation at Oxford professed, that he recei­ved his Opinion concerning the Eucharist from Bishop Rid­ley. This the Romish Clergy were so sensible of in the time of Queen Mary, that by a plausible calumny they endea­voured to persuade the World, that the private opinion of [Page] Ridley was the only foundation of the Doctrine of the Refor­med Church of England: For Brooks Bishop of Glocester, Fox's Marty­rol. Vol. 3. p. 425. Queen Maries Commissioner, disputing against him in the publick Schools at Oxford, used this among other Argu­ments, What a weak and feeble stay in Religion is this, I pray you? Latimer leaneth to Cranmer, Cranmer to Ridley, and Ridley to the singularity of his own Wit: So that if you can overthrow the singularity of Rid­ley's Wit, then must needs the Religion of Cranmer and Latimer fall also. To which I may add the words of Dr. Fecknam, Abbot of Westminster, in his Speech in Parliament, Primo Elizabethae, made in defence of the Church of Rome, which I have seen in Manuscript. Dr. Ridley, the notablest learned of that Opinion in this Realm, did set forth at Paul's Cross the real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, with these words, which I heard, staying then present; how that the De­vil did believe the Sacrament of God was able to make of Stones Bread: And we English people, we do con­fess that Christ was the very Son of God, and yet will not believe that of Bread he made his very Body Flesh and Blood; wherefore we are worse than the Devil: since that our Saviour by express words did more plain­ly affirm the same, when at his last Supper he took Bread, and said unto his Disciples; Take ye, eat, this is my Body, which shall be given for you. And shortly after, the said Mr. Doctor Ridley notwithstanding this most plain and open Speech at Paul's Cross, did deny the same.

Whether Fecknam hath truly represented the words of Ridley, is uncertain. But from the last words of this pas­sage it is manifest, that some, even in that time, taking oc­casion from this Sermon, had charged Bishop Ridley with as­serting a Material Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacra­ment: [Page] and that he constantly denied himself to have meant or intended any such presence. In this therefore, and such like expressions, he intended only (as himself assures us) to oppose those, who so lightly esteemed the Sacrament, Ibid. vol. 3. p. 35. as to make of it but a figure. For that but maketh it a bare sign, without any more profit. But to clear his in­tention in this matter from all remaining suspicion of any kind of Material Presence, I will annex a larger explica­tion of it in his own words, in his last examination before the Queens Commissioners, September 30. 1555.

In like sort, as touching the Sermon, which I made at Pauls Cross, you shall understand, that there were at Pauls, and divers other places, fixed railing Bills against the Sacrament, terming it Jack of the Box, the Sacra­ment of the Halter, Round Robbin, with suchlike un­seemly terms. For which causes, I, to rebuke the unreve­rend behaviour of certain evil disposed persons, Preach­ed as reverendly of that Matter, as I might, declaring what estimation and reverence ought to be given to it; what danger ensued the mis-handling thereof; affirming in that Sacrament to be truly and verily the Body and Blood of Christ, effectually by Grace and Spirit. Which words the unlearned understanding not, supposed that I had meant of the gross and carnal being, which the Ro­mish Decrees set forth, That a Body having life and mo­tion, should be indeed under the shapes of Bread and Wine.

This Treatise was written by Bishop Ridley during his imprisonment, a little before his death, and several Copies of it dispersed abroad; of which, some being carried be­yond Sea, Dr. Grindall, and other English Exiles, concei­ved a great desire of causing it to be translated into Latin, Ibid. p. 374. and Printing it. The Bishop hearing of this, desired that by all means they would lay aside their resolution, till they [Page] should see how God would dispose of him. Accordingly it was omitted till his death. Immediately after his Martyr­dom it was Translated into elegant Latin, but in a Para­phrastical way, and Printed at Geneva 1556. in 12s. The English Copy was Printed at London 1586. 12s. which we have now caused to be faithfully Reprinted; adding to it out of Mr. Fox's Martyrology, divers Speeches, Dispu­tations and Determinations upon the same subject, which might farther illustrate and confirm his Opinion.

Lastly, Because the late Bishop of Oxford, in his last Treatise, disputing of the ancient Opinion of the Reformed Church of England concerning the Eucharist, and as his Cause required it, maintaining the same assertion with our Adversaries, That some material sort of Presence was then believed; doth mightily urge the Authority of the Learn­ed Dr. Poynet, Bishop of Winchester, at that time propo­sed in his Diallection; and because that Book is not in English, I have selected and annexed several passages out of it, which may demonstrate what was indeed his notion of the Real Presence; That he denied all manner of Materi­al Presence, and perfectly agreeth with Ridley in explain­ing the nature of it: And consequently, that he is fouly either Misrepresented or Mistaken by the Bishop of Ox­ford.

A BREEF DECLARATION OF THE Lordes Supper. WRITTEN By the singuler Learned Man, and moste constant Martyr of Christe, NICHOLAS RIDLEY, Bishop of LONDON,

Prisoner in Oxford, a little before he suffered Death for the true testimonye of JESUS CHRISTE.


For thy sake are we killed all day long, and are counted as sheep apoynted to be slain.

Neuerthelesse, in all these thinges we ouercome through him that loue vs.

Printed at LONDON, 1586. And Reprinted for Ric. Chiswell, 1688.


VNderstand good (Reader) that this great Clark and blessed Martyr, Bishop Nicholas Ridley, sought not by settinge foorth any no­table peece of learned woork, the vaine glo­ry of the World, nor temporall freendship of men, for his present aduancement, much lesse he hunted heer­by for Bishopricks and Benefices, as al his aduersaries, the enemies of Christs Trueth and Ordinance com­monly doo: but hauing consideration of the great charge of Soules committed vnto him, and of the ac­count thereof, which the Iustice of God would require at his handes, intending therwithal to be found blam­les in the great daye of the Lord, seeing he was put a parte to defende the Gospell: He not only forsook Landes, Goodes, World, Freends, and himselfe with all, and testified the Trueth specified in this Book by his learned mouth, in the open presence of the World: but also to leaue a sure Monument and Loue Token vnto his Flocke, hee hath registred it by his owne Pen in this forme ensuinge, and sealed it vp with his Blood. Forasmuch then as he hath proued himselfe no vain disputer, no wethercocke, nor hipocrite, seeing hee [Page] hath willinglye giuen his life for the Trueth, and in as much also as his loue and moste constant christen Conscience speaketh vnto thee (gentle Reader) I be­seech thee for Christs sake and thine owne, lend him thine indifferent hart and pacient hearing.


MANY things confounde a weake memory: A few places wel weighed and perceiued, lighten the vn­derstanding. Trueth is there to be searched, where it is certain to be had, though God dooth speake the trueth by man, yet in mans woord, which God hath not reuealed to be his, a man may doubt without mistrust in God. Christe is the trueth of God reuealed vnto man from Hea­uen by God him self, and therefore in his woord the trueth is to be founde, which is to be embraced of al that be his. Christ biddeth vs aske, and we shall haue: search and we shall finde: knocke, and it shall be opened unto vs. Therefore our Heauen­ly The blessed Martirs praier. Father, the Author and fountain of al trueth, the bottomles Sea of al vnderstanding, send down we beseech thée, thy holy spirit into our harts, and lighten our vnderstanding with the beames of thy heauenly grace. We ask thée this, O mercifull Father, not in respect of our deserts, but for thy déere Sonne our Sauiour Iesus Christs sake. Thou knowest, O heauenly Father, that the controuersie about the Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of thy déer Sonne our Sauiour Iesu Christe, hath troubled not of late onlye the Churche of England, Fraunce, Germanie, and Italye, but also many yéere agoe. The fault is ours (na dout) therfore, for we have deserued thy plague. But (O Lord) be mercifull, and reléeue our miserie with some lighte of grace. Thou knowest (O Lord) how this wicked world rolleth vp and down, and réeleth to and fro, and careth not what thy will is, so it may abide in wealth. If trueth haue wealthe, who are so [Page 2] stoute to defende the trueth, as they? But if Christes crosse be laid on trueths back, then they vanish away straight, as Waxe before the fier. But these are not they, O Heauenly Father, for whome I make my moste moane, but for those silly ones, O Lord, which haue a zeale vnto thée: those I mean, which wold Note. and wish to know thy wil, and yet are letted, holden backe, and blinded by the subtilties of Sathan and his ministers, the wick­ednes of this wretched worlde, and the sinfull lusts and affections of the flesh. Alas Lord, thou knowest that we bée of our selues but flesh, wherein there dwelleth nothing that is good. How then is it possible for man without thée (O Lord) to vnderstand thy trueth indéed? Can the naturall man perceiue the wil of God? (O Lord) to whom thou giuest a zeale of thée, giue them also (we beseech thée) the knowledge of thy blessed wil. Suffer not them (O Lord) blindely to be led for to striue against thée: as thou diddest those (Alas) which crucified thine own Sonne, for­giue them (O Lord) for thy déere Sonnes sake, for they know not what they doo. They doo think (Alas, O Lord) for lack of knowledge, that they doo vnto thée good seruice euen when against thée they doo moste extremelye rage. Remember, O Lord, (we beséech thee) for whome thy Martyr Stephen did praye, and whome thyne holy Apostle Paule did so truelye and earnestlye loue: that for their saluation, hée wished himself accursed for them. Re­member (O heauenly Father) the prayer of thy déere Sonne, our Sauiour Christe vpon the crosse, when be saide vnto thée, O Fa­ther forgiue them, they know not what they doo. With this for­giuenes, O good Lord, giue me, I beséech thée, thy grace, so héer bréefly to set foorth the sayings of thy Sonne our Sauiour Christe, and of his Euangelistes, and of his Apostles, that in this aforesaid controuersie, the lighte of the trueth, by the lan­tern of thy woord, may shine vnto all them that loue thée.

Of the Lords last supper doo speak expreslye the Euangelists, Mathew, Mark, and Luke: but none more plainelye nor more fully declareth the same, then dooth S. Paule, partely in the tenth Chapter, but specially in the xj. chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians. As Mathew and Mark doo agrée much in woordes, so doo likewise Luke and S. Paule. But all iiij. no doubte, as they were all taught in one schoole, and inspired with one spirit, so taught they as one trueth. God grant vs to vnderstande it wel. Amen.

Mathew setteth foorth Christes Supper thus,

When euen was come, he sat down with the xij. &c. As they did eat, Jesus took bread and gave thankes, brake it, and gave it to the disci­ples, Math. 26. and saide: Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup [Page 3] and gaue thankes, gaue it to them, saying, Drink ye al of this: for this is my blood of the newe testament that is shed for many for the re­mission of sinnes, I say vnto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine tree, untill that daye, when I shall drink that newe in my fathers kingdome. And when they had sayed grace they went out.

Now Mark speaketh it thus.

And as they eate, Jesus took bread, blessed, and brake, and gaue to Mark 14. them and saied, take, eat, this is my body. And took the cup gaue thankes, and gaue it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said vnto them: This is my bloud of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I saye vnto you, I wil drink no more of the fruit of the vine, vntill that day, that I drink that newe, in the kingdome of God.

Héere Mathew and Mark doo agree not only in the matter, but also almoste fully in the forme of woords. In Mathew, gaue thankes. Mark hath one woorde, Blessed: which signifieth in this place al one. And where Mathew saith, Drink ye al of this, Mark saith, they al drank of it. And where Mathew saithe, of this fruit of the vine; Mark leaueth out the woord this, and saith, of the fruit of the vine.

Now let us see likewise, what agréement (in forme of woords) is betwéene S. Luke and S. Paule.

Luke writeth thus,

He took bread, gaue thankes, brake it and gaue it to them, saying; Luke 22. this is my body which is giuen for you, this doo in remembrance of me. Likewise also when they had supped, he took the Cup, saying, this Cup is the newe Testament in my bloud, which is shedde for you.

Saint Paule setteth foorth the Lords Supper thus,

The Lord Iesus, the same night, in the which he was betraied, took 1 Cor. 11. Bread, and gaue thankes and brake, and saide, take, eate, this is my body which is broken for you. This doo in remembrance of me. After the same maner he took the Cup, when supper was doon, saying, this Cup is the new testament in my bloud. This doo as often as yee shall drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as ye shall eate this breade, and drinke this cup, ye shall shewe the Lords deathe, vntill he come.

Héere where S. Luke saith, which is given; Paule saith, which is broken. And as Luke addeth to the woordes of Paule spoken of the Cup which is shed for you, so likewise Paule addeth to the woords thereof, this doo, as often as yee shall drinke it, in remem­brance of me. The rest that followeth in S. Paule, both there and in the tenth Chapter, perteineth unto the right vse of the Lords Supper.

Thus the Euangelistes and S. Paule haue rehearsed the woords and woorke of Christe, whereby he did institute and ordaine this [Page 4] holy Sacrament of his bodye and blood to be a perpetuall remem­brance vnto his comming againe of him selfe, I say that is of his body giuen for vs, and of his blood shed for the remission of sinnes. But this remembrance which to thus ordained, as the au­thor thereof is Christe, bothe God and Man, so by the almightye power of God, if far passeth al kindes of remembrances, that any other man is able to make either of him selfe, or of any other thinge. For whosoever receiueth this holy Sacrament thus or­deined in remembrance of Christe, he receiueth therwith either death or life. In this (I trust) we doo al agrée, For S. Paule saith of the godly receiuers in the tenth Chapter of his first Epi­stle vnto the Cerinthians, The Cup of blessinge, which we blesse, is it not the pertaking or felowship of Christes bloud? And also saithe, the Breade which wee break (and meaneth at the Lords Lable) Is it not the partaking or felowship of Christs body? Now the partaking of Christes body and of his blood vnto the faithfull and godly, is the partaking or felowship of life and immortalitie. And againe of the bad and vngodly receiuers, S. Paule as plainly saith thus. He that eateth of this bread, and drinketh of this cup vnworthily, is gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Note.

O how necessary then it is, if we loue life, and would eschue deathe, to trye and examine our selues, before we eate of this bread, and drink of this cup, for els assuredly, he that eateth and drinketh thereof vnworthilye, eateth and drinketh his own damna­tion, because he estéemeth not the Lords body, that is, he reuer­enceth not the Lordes bodye with the honour that is due vnto him.

And that which was saide, that with the receite of the holye Sacrament of the blessed body and bloud of Christe is receiued of every one, good and bad, either life or death: it is not ment, that they whiche are dead before God, may heerby receiue life: or the liuinge before God, can heerby receiue death.

For as none is meete to receiue naturall food, wherby the natu­ral life is nourished, except he be borne and liue before: so no man can feed (by the receit of this holy Sacrament) of the food of eter­nall life, except he be regenerated and borne of God before. And on the other side, no man heer receiueth damnation whiche is not dead before. Thus hethertoo without al doubt, God is my witnesse I saye so far as I doo knowe, there is no controuersie amonge them that be learned, in the Churche of England (concerninge the matter of this Sacrament) but al doo agree, whether they be new or olde, and to speak plain, and as some of them doo odiously cal either other, whether they be Protestantes, Papists, Pharisies or Gospellers. And as all doo agree hithertoo, in the aforesaid Do­ctrine: [Page 5] so all doo deteste, abborre and condemne the wicked he­resie of the Messalonians which otherwise be called Eutichets, which saide that the holy Sacrament can neither doo no good nor harme. All do also condemne those wicked Anabaptistes, which put no difference between the Lords Table and the Lords meat, and their owne. And because charity would, that we should, (if it be possible, and so far as we may with the sauegarde of good con­science, and maintenance of the trueth) agree with all men: therfore me thinkes it is not charitablye doon to burthen any man (either newe or olde, as they call them) further, then such doo declare themselues, to dissent from that we are perswaded to be trueth, or pretend thertoo to be controuersies, where as none such are in deed: and so to multiply the debate, the which the more it doth increase, the further it doth depart from the vnitie, that the true Christian should desire.

And again this is true, that trueth nother needeth nor wil be What it is to lye. The slaunde­rous lyes of the Papists. maintained with lies. It is also a true prouerb, That it is euen sinne to lye vpon the Deuil. For though by thy lye thou doost neuer so much speak against the Deuil, yet in that thou liest in deed thou woorkest the Deuils woorke, thou doost him seruice, and takest the Deuils part. Now whether then they doo godlye and chari­tablye, which either by their Pen in Writing, or by their Woordes in Preaching, doo beare the simple people in hand, that those which thus doo teach and beleue, doo go about to make the holye Sacrament (ordeined by Christe himselfe) a thing no better then a peece of common Bread: or that doo saye, that such doo make the holye Sacrament of the blessed bodye and blood of Christe, nothing els but a bare signe or a figure, to represent Christe none otherwise, then the Ivye bushe doth represent the Wine in a Tauern, or as a vile person gorgiouslye apparalled, maye represent a King or a Prince in a playe. Alas let men leaue lying, and speak trueth everye one, not only to his neigh­bour: but also of his neighboure, for wee are members one of an other saith Saint Paule. The controuersie (no doubt) which at this daye troubleth the Church (wherin any mean learned man, either olde or newe, dooth stand in) is not, whether the holy Sacrament of the body and blood of Christe, is no better then a peece of common breade or no: or whether the Lords Ta­ble is no more to be regarded, then the Table of any earthly man or no: or whether it is but a bare signe or figure of Christe and nothing else or no. For all do graunt, that S. Paules woordes doo require, that the bread which we break, is the partaking of the body of Christe, and also doo graunte him that eateth of that bread, or drinketh of that cup vnwoorthely, to be gilty of the [Page 6] Lords death, and to eate and drinke his owne damnation, be­cause be esteemeth not the Lords body. All doo graunt, that these woords of S. Paule, (when he saith: If we eate. it aduanta­geth vs nothing: or if wee eate not, wee want nothing therby) are not spoken of the Lords Table, but of other common meats.

Thus then betherto yet, we all agree. But now let vs see, Wherin the controuerfie consisteth. wherin the dissention doth stand. The vnderstanding of it, wherin it cheeflye standeth, is a step to the true searching foorthe of the trueth. For who can seeke well a remedye, if he knowe not before the disease? It is neither to be denied nor dis­sembled, that in the matter of this Sacrament there be diuers poyntes, wherin men (counted to be learned) cannot agree. As, whether there be any Transubstantiation of the bread, or no: any corporall and carnall presence of Christes substance, or no. Whe­ther adoration (due only vnto God) is to be doon vnto the Sacra­ment or no? and whether Christes bodye be there offered in deed vnto the heauenly Father, by the Preeste or no? and whether the euill man receiueth the naturall body of Christe or no. Yet neuertheles as in a man diseased in diuers partes, commonly the originall cause of such diuers diseases which is spred abroad in the body, doo come from one cheefe member, as from the stomacke, or from the head, euen so all fiue aforesaid doo chiefly hange vpon this one question, which is, What is the matter of the Sacrament? whether is it the naturall substance of bread, or the naturall sub­stance of Christs owne body? The trueth of this question truelye tried out and agreed vpon, no doubt shall cease the controuersie in all the rest. For if it be Christes owne natural body, born of the Virgin: then assuredlye (seeing that all learned men in England so far as I knowe, bothe newe and olde, graunt there to be but one substance, then I say, they must needs graunt Transubstan­tiation: that is, a change of the substance of breade, into the substance of Christes bodye. Then also they must needs graunt the carnal and corporal presence of Christes body. Then must the Sacrament be adorred with the honour due to Christe him selfe, for the vnitie of the two natures in one person. Then if the Preest do offer the Sacrament, he dooth offer indeed Christe him self. And finally the murtherer, the aduouterer, or wicked man receiuinge the Sacrament, muste needes then receiue also the naturall substance of Christes owne blessed bodye, bothe fleshe and blood.

Now on the other side, if after the trueth shal be truely tried out, it shall be found, that the substance of breade is the naturall substance of the Sacrament, although for the change of the vse, office and dignitie of the bread, the bread indeed Sacramentally [Page 7] is changed into the bodye of Christe, as the water in Baptisme is sacramentally changed into the fountaine of regeneration, and yet the natural substance therof remaineth al one, as was before: if I saye the true solucion of that former question (wherupon all these controuersies doo hang) be, that the natural substance of bread, is the materiall substance in the Sacrament of Christes blessed body: then must it needes followe of the former proposition (confessed of al that be named to be learned, so far as I doo knowe, in England) whiche is that there is but one materiall substance in the Sacrament of the body, and one only likewise in the Sacra­ment of the blood, that there is no such thinge indeede and in truethe, as they call Transubstantiation: for the substance of bread remaineth stil in the Sacrament of the body, then also the naturall substance of Christes humain nature, which he took of the Virgin Mary is in Heauen, where it reigneth now in glory, and not heer inclosed vnder the forme of bread, then the godly honour, which is onely due vnto God the creator, may not be doon vnto the creature without idolatrye and sacrilege, is not to be doon vn­to the holye Sacrament.

Then also the wicked, I mean the impenitent murtherrer, ad­uluterer, or suche like, doo not receiue the naturall substance of the blessed body and blood of Christe. Finally, then dooth it fol­lowe, that Christes blessed body and blood, which was once onlye offered and shed vpon the Crosse, beinge auaylable for the sinnes of all the whole world, is offered vp no more, in the naturall sub­stance therof, nother by the Preest, nor any other thing. But heer before wee go any further to search in this matter, and to wade (as it were) to search and trye out (as we may) the trueth heerof in the Scripture, it shall doo well by the way to know whe­ther they that thus make answere and solucione vnto the former principall question, doo take away simply and absolutely the pre­sence of Christes bodye and blood, from the Sacrament ordeined by Christe, and dulye ministred according to his holy ordinance and institution of the same. Vndoubtedly they doo deny that btterlye, either so to saye, or so to meane. Heerof if any man doo or will doubt, the bookes which are written already in this matter of them, that thus doo answere, will make the matter plaine.

Now then will you saye, what kinde of presence doo they graunt, and what doo they denye? Breeflye they deny the presence of Christs body in the naturall substance of his humain and assumpt nature, and graunt the presence of the same by grace: that is, they affirme and saye, that the substance of the naturall bodye and blood of Christe is only remaining in Heaven, and so shall [Page 8] be vnto the latter daye, when he shall come againe in glorye, (accompanied with the Angels of Heauen) to iudge both the quicke and the deade. And that the same natural substance of the very body and blood of Christe, because it is vnited vnto the deuine nature in Christe the second person of the Trinitle. Ther­fore it hath not onely life in it selfe, but is also able to giue and dooth giue life vnto so many as be or shal be partakers therof, that is, that to all that doo beleeue on his name, which are not borne of blood (as S. Iohn saith) or of the wil of the fleshe, or of the will of man, but are borne of God: though the self-same sub­stance abide still in Heauen, and they for the time of their pil­grimage dwel heer vpon Earth: by grace I say, that is, by the life mencioned in Iohn and the properties of the same, meete for our pilgrimage heer upon earth, the same body of Christe is heere present with vs. Euen as for example, wee saye, the same Sunne (which in substance) neuer remoueth his place out of the Heauens, is yet present heer by his beams, light and naturall influence, where it shineth vpon the earth. For Gods Woord and his Sa­craments be (as it were the beams of Christ) which is Sol iusti­tiae, the Sunne of righteousnes.

Thus hast thou heard, of what sort or sect soeuer thou be, wherin dooth stand the principall state and cheef poynte of all the controuersies, which doo properly pertain vnto the nature of this Sacrament. As for the vse therof I graunt there be many other thinges, wherof heer I haue spoken nothing at all. And nowe leaste thou iustely mightest complain, and say, that I haue in openinge of this matter doon nothing els, but digged a pitte, and haue not shut it vp again: or broken a gap, and haue not made it vp again: or opened the booke, and haue not clo­sed it again: or els to call me what thou listest, as neuterall dis­sembler, or what soeuer els thy lust and learning shall serue thee to name me woorsse: Therfore heer now I wil (by Gods grace) not only shortly, but so cleerely and plainly as I can make thee to knowe, whether of the aforesaid two answers to the former prin­cipall state and cheef poynt dooth like me best: yea and also I will holde all those accursed, whiche in this matter that now so troubleth the Church of Christ haue of God receiued the kepe of knowledge, and yet go about to shut up the doores so that they themselues will not enter in nor suffer other that woulde. And as for mine owne parte, I consider but of late what charge and cure of soule hath bin committed vnto me, wherof God knoweth, how soon I shal be called to giue accounte: and also now in this worlde what perill and danger of the lawes concerning my life I am now in at this present time. What folly were it then for me, [Page 9] now to dissemble with God, of whom assuredly I looke and hope by Christe to haue euerlasting life? Seing that such charge and danger bothe before God and man, doo compasse mee in round about on euery side: therfore God willing I will frankly and freelye vtter my minde, and thoughe my bodye be captiue, yet my tung and my pen as long as I may shall frely set forth, that which vndubtedlye I am perswaded to be the trueth of Godes Woorde. And yet I will do it vnder this protestation, call me Protestant who lusteth, I passe not therof. My protestation shall be thus: that my minde is and euer shal be (God willinge) to set foorth sincerelye the true sence and meaninge (to the beste of my vnderstanding) of Godes most holy woorde, and not to decline from the same, either for feare of worldly danger, or els for hope of gaine.

I doo proteste also due obedience & submission of my iudgemente in this my writing, and in all other mine affairs vnto those of Christs Church, which be truly learned in Gods holy Woord, ga­thered in Christs Name and guided by his Spirit. After this protestation, I doo plainely affirme and say, that the second Answere to the cheef que­stion. question and principall poynt, I am perswaded to be the very true meaning and sence of Gods holy Woord: that is, that the natu­rall substance of bread and wine is the true materiall substance of the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of our Sauiour Christe: and the places of Scripture wherupon this my faith is grounded, be these, both concerning the Sacrament of the bo­dy and also the bloud.

Firste let vs repete the beginninge of the institution of the Lords Supper wherin all the three Euangelists, and S. Paule al­most in woords doo agree, saying that Iesus took bread, gaue thanks, brake, and gaue it to the Disciples sayinge: Take, eate, this is my bodye.

Heer it appeareth plainly, that Christe calleth very bread his body. For that which he took, was very bread. In this all men doo agree. And that which he took, after he had giuen thankes, he brake: and that which he took and brake, he gaue to his disci­ples: and that which be took, brake, and gaue to his Disciples he saide him selfe of it: This is my body. So it appeareth plaine­lye that Christ called very bread his body. But very bread canot be his bodye in very substance therof: therfore it must needs haue an other meaninge. Which meaninge appeareth plainelye what it is, by the next sentence that followeth immediatly, both in Luke and in Paule. And that is this.

Doo this in remembrance of me. Wher-vpon it seemeth vnto me to be euident, that Christe did take bread, and called it his bodye, for that he would therby institute a perpetuall remembrance of [Page 10] his body: speciallye of the singuler benefite of our redemtion, which he would then procure and purchase vnto vs by his bodye vp­on the Crosse. But bread retaining still his owne very naturall substance, may be thus by grace, (and in a sacramental significa­tion) his body: wheras els the very bread which he took, brake, and gaue them, could not be any wise his naturall bodye. For that were confusion of substances, and therfore the very woordes of Christe ioynes with the next sentence following, both enforceth vs to confesse the verye bread, to remaine still, and also openeth vnto vs, how that bread maye be and is thus by his deuine power his body, which was giuen for vs. But heere I remember I haue red in some writers of the contrarye opinion, which Christe did take, be brake. For say they, after his taking, he blessed it as Mark dooth speak. And by his blessing, be changed the natural substance of the bread into the natural substance of his body: and so although he took the bread, and blessed it, yet because in blessing he changed the substance of it, he brake not the breade, which then was not there, but only the forme therof.

Vnto this obiection I haue two plain answers, both grounded vpon Gods woord. The one I will heer rehearse, the other an­swer I will differ, vntil I speak of the Sacrament of the blood. Mine answere heer is taken out of the plaine woords of S. Paule which dooth manifestly confound this fantastical inuention, first inuented (I [...]een) of Pope Innocentius, and after confirmed by the subtile sophister Duns, and lately renewed now in our daies, with an eloquent stile and much finenesse of wit. But what can crafty inuention, subtiltye in sophismes, eloquence or finenesse of wit Mar. Antho. Constan. Gardenar. preuaile against the vnfallible Woorde of God? What neede we to striue and contend what thinge we break, for Paule saieth, speaking vndoubtedly of the Lords Table: The bread (saieth he) which we break, is it not the partaking or felowship of the Lords body?

Wherupon it followeth, that after the thanks giving it is bread which we break. And how often in the Acts of the Apostles is the Lords Supper signified by breaking of bread? They did per­seuer (saith S. Luke) in the Apostles Doctrine, Communion, and Acts 2. 20. breaking of bread. And they brake breade in euery house.

And again in an other place when they were come together to breake bread, &c. S. Paule which setteth foorth moste fully in his writinge both the doctrine and the right vse of the Lords Supper, and the Sacramentall eating and drinkinge of Christs body and blood, calleth it fiue times bread, bread, bread, bread, bread.

The sacramentall bread is the misticall body, and so it is called The second reason. in Scripture, 1 Cor. 10. as it is called the naturall body of Christe. [Page 11] But Christs misticall body is the congregation of Christians. Now no man was euer so fond, as to say, that that sacramentall breade is transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the congregatione. Wherfore no man shoulde likewise think, or saye, that the breade is transubstantiated and changed into the naturall substance of Christes humaine nature.

But my minde is not héere to write what may be gathered out of Scriptures for this purpose, but onely to note heer breefly, those which seem vnto me, to be the most plaine places. Therfore contented to haue spoken thus muche of the Sacramentall bread: I will nowe speake a little of the Lords cup.

And this shall be my third Argument grounded vpon Christes The third Argument. owne woordes. The natural substance of the sacramentall Wine remaineth still, and is the material substance of the Sacrament of the blood of Christe: Therfore it is likewise so in the sacra­mentall Bread.

I know that he that is of a contrarye opinion, will denye the former parte of mine Argument. But I will prooue it thus by the plaine woords of Christe himselfe, both in Mathewe and in Marke. Christes woordes are these: after the wordes saide vpon the cup: I saye vnto you, saith Christe, I will not drinke hence­foorthe of this fruite of the vine tree, vntill I shall drink that new in my fathers kingdome. Heere note how Christe calleth plainly his cup the fruit of the vine tree. But the fruit of the vine is very natu­ral wine. Wherfore the naturall substance of the wine doothe remaine still in the Sacrament of Christes Blood.

And heer in speaking of the Lords Cup: it commeth vnto my remembrance the vanitie of Innocentius his fantasticall inuention, which by Paules woordes I did confute before, and héer did promise somwhat more to speake, and that is this: if this Transubstan­tiatione be made by this woorde, Blessed, in Mark said vpon the breade, as Innocentius that Pope did saye: then surely seeing that woord is not saide of Christe neither in any of the Euangelistes nor in S. Paule vpon the cup: There is no Transubstantiatione of the Wine at all. For where the cause dooth falle, there can­not follow the effect. But the sacramental Bread and the sacra­mental Wine doo both remain in their naturall substance a like, and if the one be not changed, as of the sacramental Wine it appeareth euidently: then there is no such Transubstantiatione in nother of them both.

All that trust and affirme this change of the substance of breade The Papists, affirme they wot not what. and mine into the substance of Christes Bodye and Blood called Transubstantiation: doo also say this change to be made by a cer­taine forme of prescripte woordes, and none other. But what [Page 12] they be that make the change, either of the one, or of the other: vndoubtedlye euen they that doo write moste finelye in these our daies, almost confesse plainely, that they can not tel. For al­thoughe they graunt to certaine of the olde authors, as Chrisostom, and Ambrose: that these woords This is my body, are the woords of con­secration Gardener to the 48. Ob­jection. of the Sacrament of the bodye: yet say they, these woords may wel be so called, because they doo assure vs of the cousecration therof, whether it be doon before these woords be spoken or no.

But as for this their doubte, concerning the Sacrament of the bodye, I let it passe. Let vs now consider the woords which per­tain to the Cup. This is first euident, that as Mathewe much a­gréeeth with Mark, and likewise Luke with Paule muche agréeeth béerein in forme of woordes, so in the same forme of woordes in Ma­thew and Mark is diuers from that which is in Luke and Paule: the olde authors doo moste rehearse the forme of woordes in Mathewe and Marke: because I wéene they séemed to them moste cléere. But béer I woulde knowe, whether it is credibly or no, that Luke and Paule, when they celebrated the Lordes Supper with their congre­gations, that they did not not vse the same forme of woords (at the Lords Table) which they wrote, Luke in his Gospell, and Paule in his Epistle. Of Luke, because he was a Phisition, whether some will graunt, that he might be a Préesse or no, and was able to re­ceiue the order of préesthood, which (they say) is giuen by the ver­tue of these woordes saide by the Bishop: Take thou authoritye to Sa­crifice for the quick and the deade. I can not tell, but if they shoulde be so straight vpon Luke either for his crafte, or eis for lack of suche Peter and Paule had no such preest­hood as the Papists haue. power giuen him by vertue of the aforesaid woords: then I wéene, both Peter and Paule are in danger to be deposed of their préesthood, for the craft either of Fishinge, which was Peters: or making of Tentes, which was Paules, were more vile, then the science of Phisicke.

And as for those sacramentall woords of the order of Préesthood, to haue authoritie to sacrifice both for the quicke and the deade, I wéene Peter and Paule (if they were both a liue) were not able to prooue, that euer Christe gaue them such authoritie, or euer said any such woordes vnto them. But I will let Luke goe, and because Paule speaketh more for him selfe: I will rehearse his woords: That (saith Paule) whiche I receiued of the Lord, I gaue vnto you. For the Lorde Jesus, &c. And so he setteth foorth the whole institution and right vse of the Lordes Supper. Now séeing that S. Paule heer saith, that whiche he receiued of the Lord, he had giuen them, and that whiche he hath receiued and giuen them before by woord of mouth: now he rehearseth and writeth the same in his Epistle, is it crediblye that Paule woulde neuer vse this forme of woords, vpon [Page 13] the Lords cop, which (as he saith) he receaued of the Lord, that he had giuen them before, and now rehearseth in his Epistle? I trust no man is far from al reason, but he wil graunt me, that this is not likely so to be.

Now then, if you graunt mee, that Paule did vse the forme of woords, which he writeth: Let vs then rehearse and consider Paules woorde, which he saith, Christ spake thus vpon the Cuppe.

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

Héer I woulde knowe, whether that Christs woords spoken vpon the cup were not as mighty in woork, and as effectuall in significa­tion to all intentes, constrictions, and purposes, (as all our Par­liament men doo speak) as they were spoken vpon the breade. If this be graunted, which thinge I think no man can deny: then fur­ther I reason thus. But the woorde (Is) in the woords spoken vp­on the Lords breade dooth mightely signifie (say they) the change of the substance of that which goeth before it into the substance of that which followeth after, that is, of the substance of bread into the substance of Christes bodye, when Christe saith: This is my bo­dy. Now then if Christs woords which are spoken vpon the cup, which Paule heere rehearseth be of the same might and power, both in woorking and signifying: then must this woord (Is) when Christe saithe: This Cup is the new Testament, &c. turne the substance of the cup into the substance of the new testament. And if thou wilt saye, that this woorde (Is) nother maketh nor signifieth any such change of the cup, Although it be said of Christe, that this cup is the new testament, yet Christ ment no such change as that. Marry sir, euen so saye I, when Christe said of the bread, which hée took, and after thanks giuen, brake, and gaue them, saying: Take, eat, this is my body, he ment no more any such change of the substance of breade into the substance of his naturall body, then he ment of the change and transub­stamiation of the cup into the substance of the newe Tellament. And if thou wilt saye that the woord (Cup) héer in Christs woords dooth not signifie the Cup it self, but the Wine or thing centeined in the cup, by a figure called Metonymia, for that Christs Note well the Papists errour consuted. woordes so ment, and muste néeds be taken: thou saist very wel. But I pray thée by the way, héer note two things, First that this woorde, Is, hath no suche strength or signification in the Lordes woords, to make or to signifie any transubstanciation. Secondly, that the Lords woords wherby he instituted the Sa­crament of his blood: he vseth a figuratiue speach. How vaine then is it, that some so earnestly doo say, as it were an in­fallible rule, that in doctrine and in the institution of the Sacra­ments, Christe vsed no figurs, but all his woordes are to be [Page 14] strained to their proper significations: when as héer what soeuer thou saiest was in the cup, nother that nor the cup it self, taking eue­rye woorde in his proper signification, was the new testament, but in vnderstanding that which was in the cup by the cup that is a fi­guratiue speache: yea and also thou canst not verifie or truly say of that whether thou saiest it was wine or Christs bloud, to be the new testament without a figure also. Thus in one sentence spoken of Christe, in the institution of the Sacrament of his bloud, the figure must help vs twise. So vntrue it is, that some doo write, that Christe vseth no figure in the doctrine of faith, nor in the institution of his sacraments. But some say, if we shall thus admit figures in doctrine: then shall all the articles of our faith, by figures and allegories shortly be transformed and vn­losed. I say it is like fault, and euen the same, to denye the figure, where the place so reguirethe to be understanded, as bainly to Aug. de doc. Christiana. li. 3. ca. 16. make it a figuratiue speach, which is to be vnderstanded in his proper signification.

The rules wherby the speech is knowen, when it is figuratiue, & wherby it is none. S. Augustine in his booke. De doctrina Christiana, giueth diuers learned lessons, very necessary to be knowen of the students in Gods woorde. Of the which, oue I wil rehearse, which is this: If (saith he) the scripture dooth seeme to commaund a thing, which is wicked or vngodly, or to forbid a thing that charitie doth re­quire: then know, saith he, that the speach is figuratiue. And for ex­ample, he bringethe the saying of Christe, in the vj. chapter of S. Iohn. Except ye eate of the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke his blood: Gardiner in his answers to the 161. & 226. obiecti­on. Note. ye can not haue life in you. It seemeth to commaund a wicked or anvngod­ly thing, wherfore it is a figuratiue speech, commaunding to haue Commu­nion and felowship with Christs passion, and deuoutly and holsomly to lay vp in memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs.

And héer I can not but maruail at some men, surely of much ex­cellent finenesse of wit, and of great eloquence, that are not a­shamed to write and saye, that this aforesaide saying of Christe is after S. Augustine a figuratiue speache indéede: howbeit not vnto the learned, but to the vnlearned. Héere let any man that but in­differently vnderstandeth the Latin tongue, reade the place in S. Austine: and if ye perceiue not cléerly S. Augustins woords, and mine to be contrarye, let me abide therof the rebuke.

This lesson of S. Augustine I haue therfore the rather set foorthe, because it teacheth vs to vnderstand that place in Iohn figuratiue­ly. Euen so surely the same lesson with the example of S. Augustins expositions therof, teacheth vs nor onlye by the same, to vnder­stand Christes woordes in the Institution of the Sacrament both of his body and of his blood figuratiuely, but also the very trewe meaning and vnderstandinge of the same. For if to commaunde to [Page 15] eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and to drinke his bloode, séem­eth to commaund an inconuenience and an vngodlines, & is euen so indéed, if it be vnderstanded as the woords doo stande in their pro­per signification: and therfore must be vnderstanded figuratiuelye and spiritually, as S. Augustine dooth godly and learnedly inter­prete them: then surely Christe commaunding in his last Supper to eat his body and drinke his bloode, séemed to commaund in sound of woordes as grate and euen the same inconuenience and vngod­lynesse, as did his woordes in the vj. of S. Iohn: and therfore must euen by the same reason, be likewise vnderstanded and ex­pounded figuratiuely and spiritually, as S. Augustine did the other: Wherunto that exposition of S. Augustine may seeme to be the more meete, for that Christe in his supper, to the commaunde­ment of eating and drinkinge of his body and blood, addeth: Doe this in remembrance of me. Which woords surelye were the keye that opened and reuealed the spirituall and godlye exposition vnto Saint Augustine.

But I haue taried longer in settinge foorth the forme of The Lords Cup as the Preests say. Christes woords vpon the Lordes cup, written by Paule and Luke then I did intend to doe. And yet in speaking of the forme of Christs woords, spoken vpon his cup, commeth now to my remem­brance the forme of woords vsed in the Latin Masse, vpon the Lords cup. Wherof I do not a little meruaile, what should be the cause, seeing the Latin Masse agréeeth with the Euangelists and Paule, in the forme of woords said vpon the bread why in the woordes saide vpon the Lordes cup, it differeth from them all, yea and addeth to the woordes of Christe spoken vpon the cup these woords, Misterium fidei, that is, the misterie of faithe, whiche are not red to be attributed vnto the Sacrament of Christes blood, no­ther in the Euangelists, nor in Paule, nor so far as I know in any other place of holye Scripture, yea and if it may haue some good expositione, yet why it should not be as wel added vnto the woordes of Christ vpon his Bread, as vpon his Cup, surelye I doo not sée the misterie. And because I sée in the vse of the Latin Masse, the Sacramente of the blood abused, when it is denyed vnto the laye people, cleane contrarye vnto Gods moste certain woorde: for why, I doo beséech thée, should the Sacrament of Christs blood he denied vnto the lay Christian more then to the Preeste? Did not Christe shed his blood aswel for the lay godlye man, as for the god­lye Preeste? If thou wilt saye, yes that he did so. But the Sacra­ment of the blood is not to be receiued without the offeringe vp and sacrificinge therof vnto God the Father, bothe for the quicke and for the dead: and no man may make oblation of Christs blood vnto God but a Preest, and therfore the Preest alone, and that but in his Masse only, may receiue the Sacrament of the blood. And call you this, Maisters, Mysterium fidei?

[Page 16] Alas, alas, I feare me, this is before God, Misterium iniquitatis, the misterye of iniquitie, such as S. Paule speaketh of, in his E­pistle to the Thessalonians. The Lord be mercifull vnto vs, and 2 Thes 2. Praier Psal. 67. blesse vs, lighten his countenance vpon vs, and be mercifull vnto vs. That we may know thy waye vpon earthe, and amonge all people thy saluation.

This kinde of oblation standeth vpon Transubstantiation his The Masse sa­crifice iniuri­ous to Christs passion. [...] germaine, and they doo grow both vpon one ground. The Lord weede it out of his Vin [...]arde shortlye, if it be his blessed wil and pleasure, that bitter root. To speake of this oblatione, howe muche is it iniurious vnto Christes passion?

How? it can not, but with highe blasphemy and hainous arro­gancy, and intollerable pride, be claimed of any man, other then of Christe himselfe: how muche and how plainly it repugneth vn­to the manifest woords, the true sence and meaning of holy Scrip­ture in many places, especially in the Epistle to the Hebrewes: the matter it is so long, and other haue written in it at large, that my minde is nowe, not to intreate therof any further.

For only in this my scribling, I intend to search out and set foorthe by the Scriptures (according to Godes gracious gifte of my poore knowledge) whether the true sence and meaninge of Christes woordes in the institution of his holye supper, doo re­quire any Transubstantiation, as they cal it: or that the very sub­stance of breade and wine doo remaine still in the Lordes Supper and be the materiall substance of the holy Sacramente of Christe our Sauiours blessed bodye and bloode. Yet there remaineth one vaine Quidditi of Duns in this matter, the whiche because some Gardener in the answere to the 15. ob­iection. that write now doo seeme to like it so well that they have stripped him out of Dunces dusty and darke termes, and pricked him and painted him in freshe coloures of an eloquent stile: and may ther­fore deceaue the more, excepte the errour be warelye eschewed.

Duns saith in these woords of Christe, This is my bodye, this pro­nowne demonstratiue, meaning the woorde (This) if ye will knowe what it dooth showe or demonstrate, whether the bread that Christ took or no: he answereth no, but onely one thing in substance [...] paintethe, wherof the nature or name it doothe not tell, but lea­ueth that to be determined and told by that which followeth the woord Is, that is by Praedicatum, as the Logician dooth speake: and therfore he calleth this pronowne demonstratiue. (This) Indiuiduum vagum, that is, a wandring proper name, wherby we may poynte out and shewe anye one thing in substance, what thinge soeuer it be. That this imagination is vaine and vntruely applyed vnto these woordes of Christe, This is my bodye: it may appeare plainely in the woordes of Luke and Paule said vpon the cup, conferred with the forme of woords spoken vpon the cup in Mathewe and Marke. [Page 17] For as vpon the breade it is said of all. This is my bodye: so of Ma­thew and Mark, it is saide vpon the cup: This is my blood. Then if in the woords, This is my body, the woorde (This) be as Duns calleth it, a wandringe name to appoynte and shewe foorth any one thing, whereof the name and nature it doothe not tell: so muste it be likewise in those woordes of Mathewe and Marke vpon the Lords cup This is my bloode. But in the woordes of Mathewe and Marke, it signifieth and poynteth out the same that it dooth in the Lords woords vpon the cup in Luke and Paule, where it is said: This cup is the new testament in my blood, &c. Therefore in Mathewe and Marke the pronown demonstratiue (this) doothe not wander to poynte onelye one thing in substance, not shewinge what it is, but tellethe it plainelye what it is, no lesse in Mathewe and Marke vnto the eye then is doon in Luke and Paule, by putting too this woord (cup) booth vnto the eye, and vnto the eare. For taking the cup and demonstrating or shewing it vnto his disciples, by this pronowne demonstratiue, (this) and saying vnto them, Drink ye all of this: it was then all one to saye. This is my blood; as to saye: This cup is my blood, meaninge by the cup as the nature of the speach dooth require: the thinge conteined in the cup. So likewise without al doubt, when Christe had taken breade, giuen thanks, and broken it, and giuing it to his disciples, said, Take: and so de­monstrating and shewing that bread which hee had in his bandes, to saye then, This is my body: and to haue saide, This bread is my body.

As it were all one, if a man lackinge a Knife, and going to his Oisters, would say vnto an other, whom he saw to haue two kniues. Sir I praye you lend mee the one of your-kniues. Were it not now all one to answere him, Sir, holde I will lende you this to eat your meat, but not to open Oisters withall: and holde, I wil lend you this Knife to eate your meat but not to open Oysters. This similitude serueth but for this purpose, to declare the nature of speach withall, where as the thinge that is demonstrated and shewed, is euidently perceiued, and openly knowen to the eye.

But O good Lord, what a wonderfull thing is it to see, how some men doo labour to teach, what is demonstrated and shewed by the pronowne demonstratiue (this) in Christes woordes when he saieth: This is my body: This is my blood: how they labour (I saye) to teache, what that (This) was then indeede, when Christe spake in Gard. to the 130. Obiecti­on. the beginning of the sentence the woorde (This) before he had pro­nounced the reste of the woords, that folowed in the same sen­tence: so that their doctrine maye agree with their Transubstan­tiation: God makers agree not a­mong them selues. which indeed is the verye foundation, wherein al their erronious doctrine dooth stande. And heere the Transubstantia­tours doo not agree amonge them selues, no more then they doo in [Page 18] the woords which wrought the Transubstantiation, when Christe did first institute his Sacrament: wherin Innocentius a Bishop of Rome of the latter daies, and Duns (as was noted before) do attri­bute the woorke unto the woord (Benedixit) Blessed: but the rest for the moste parte, to Hoc est corpus meum. This is my body, &c. Duns therefore with his secte, because he puttech the change before must needs say, that this, when Christe spake it in the beginning of the sentence, was in deed Christes body. For in the change, the substance of bread did depart, and the change was now doon in Benedixit (saith he) that went before: and therefore after him and his that (this) was then indeed Christes body, though the woord did not import so muche but onely one thinge in substance: whiche substance after Duns (the breade beinge gone) must needs be the substance of Christs body. But they that put their Transubstantiation to be wrought by these woordes of Christe. This is my bodye: and doo say, that when the whole sen­tence was finished then this change was perfected and not before: they can not say, but yet Christes (this) in the beginning of the sentence before the other woords were fully pronounced, was bread in deed. But as yet the change was not doon, and so long the bread must needs remain, and so longe with the uniuersall consent of al transubstantiatours, the naturall substance of Christes bo­dy can not come: and therefore must their (this) of necessitye de­monstrate and shewe the substance, which was as yet in the pro­nouncing of the first woord this by Christe, but bread. But how can they make and verifie Christs woords to be true, demonstra­ting the substance which in the demonstration is but bread, and say thereof, This is my body, that is, as they saye the natural sub­stance of Christs body: except they would say, that the verbe, Is, signifieth, is made, or, is changed into. And so then if the same verbe, Is, be of the same effect in Christs woords spoken upon the cup, and rehearsed by Luke and Paule: the cup or the wine in the Cup muste bee made or turned into the newe Testamente, as was declared before.

There be some among the Transubstantiatours, which walke so wil [...]lye and so warely between these two aforesaid opinions, Gardener a neutrall or lack of both sides. allowing them both, and bolding plainelye nother of them bothe, that me thinks they may be called Neutrals, Ambodexters, or rather suche as can shift on both sides. They play on both partes. For with the later, they doo allow the doctrine of the last sillable, which is that Transubstantiatione is doone by miracle in an in­stant, at the sound of the last syllable (um) in this sentence, Hoc est corpus meum. And they doo allowe also Duns his fantasticall ima­gination of Individium vagum, that demonstrateth as he teacheth in Christes woords, one thing in substance, then being (after his minde) the substance of the body of Christe.

[Page 19] A merhailous thinge, how one man can agrée with both these two, they being so contrary the one to the other. For the one saithe, the woorde this, demonstrateth the substance of bread: and the other saith no not so, the bread is gone, and it demonstrateth a substance whiche is Christes body. Gard. to the 4. obiectiou.

Tushe saith this third man, yée vnderstand nothing at all. They agree well inough in the chéef poynte, whiche is the ground God makers agree against the trueth. Note. of all: that is, both doth agrée and beare witnes, that there is Transubstantiation. They do agrée indéed in that conclusion: I graunt. But their processe and doctrine therof doo euen aswell agrée togeather: as did the false witnes before Annas & Caiphas a­gainst Christ: or the two wicked Iudges against Susanna. For againste Christe the false witnesses did agrée no doubt to speak all againste him. And the wicked iudges were both agréeed to con­demne poore Susanna: but in examination of their witnesses, they dissented so far that al was found false that they went about, both that wherin they agréeed, and also those thinges, which they brought for their proofes.

Thus muche haue I spoken, in searchinge out a solucione for The consent of the olde authors. this principall question, which was, what is the materiall sub­stance of the holye Sacramente in the Lords supper? Now least I should seem to set by mine owne conceite, more then is méet: or lesse to regard the doctrine of the old ecclestasticall writers, then is conuenient for a man of my poore learning and simple wit for to doo. And because, also I am indéed perswaded, that the olde ecclesiastical writers understood the true meaning of Christ in this matter: and have both so truly and so plainly set it foorth in certain places of their writinges, that no man whiche will vouch­safe to reade them, and without preiudice of a corrupt iudgement will indifferently weigh them, & cons [...]er their mindes none other­wise then they declare themselves to have mente: I am perswa­ded (I say) that in reading of them thus no man can be ignorant in this matter, but he that wil shut up his own eies, and blind­féeld himself. When I speake of Ecclesiastical writers, I mean of such as were before the wicked vsurpation of the see of Rome was growen so unmeasurably great, that not only with tiranni­cal power, but also with corrupt doctrine, it began to subuert Christes gospell, and to turne the state, that Christe and his Apo­stles set in the Church, vpside down. For the causes aforesaide, I will rehearse certain of their sayings: and yet because I take them but for witnesses and expounders of this doctrine and not as the authors of the same, and also for that now I wil not be tedi­ous I will rehearse but fewe, that is thrée olde writers of the Gréeke Church, and other three of the Latin Church, which do seem unto me to be in this matter most plaine.

[Page 20] The Gréek Authors are Origen, Chrisostome and Theodoret. The Latin, are Tertulliane, S. Augustine and Gelasius. I know there call be nothinge spoken so plainly, but the crafty wit furnished with eloquence can darken it, and weest it quite from the true mean­ing to a contrary sence. And I know also that eloquence, craft, and finenes of wit hath gone about to bleare mens eies, and to stop their eares in the aforenamed writers, that men shoulde no­ther heare nor see, what those Authors bothe write and teache so plainely, that excepte men shoulde be made both starke blinde and or ase: they can not but of necessitie, if they will reade and way them indifferently, both he are and see what they doo meane when eloquence, crafte, and finenesse, of wit have [...] all that they can. Now let us he are the olde writers of the Greeke Church.

Origene, which lived about 1250. yéeres agoe: a man for the ex­cellency of his learninge so highlye esteemed in Christes Church, Origen. that he was counted and iudged the singular teacher in his time of Eccle Hist. Li. 6. Ca. 3. Christs religion, the confounder of heresies, the schoolmaister of many godly matters, and an opener of highe misteries in scrip­ture. He writing upon the iv chapter of Saint Mathewes gospell, saieth▪ bus: But if any thing enter into the mouth it goeth away in to the belly, and is auoided into the draught: Yea and that meat whiche is sanctified by the woord of God and praier, concerning the matter thereof, it goeth away into the belly, and is auoided into the draughte. But for the praier which is added vnto it, for the proportion of the faith, it is made profitable, makinge the minde able to perceive and see that which is pro­fitable. For it is not the immateriall substance of breade, but the woord which is spoken vpon it, that is profitable to the man that eateth it not vnwoorthely. And his I mean of the Typical and Simbolical, that is, Sacramentall bodye. Thus far goe the woords of Origene, where it is plaine, firste that Origene speaking heer of the sacrament of the Lords supper as the laste woordes doo plainely signifie, dooth meane and teache, that the material substance therof is receiued, digested, and auoided, as the material substance of other bread and meats is, which coulde not be, if there were no materiall sub­stance of bread at all, as the fantasticall opinion of Transubstan­tiation dooth put. It is a world too see the answere of the Papistes to this place of Origen, in the disputations which were in this The Papists obiection a­gainst Ori­gene. matter in the Parliamente house, and in both the vniuersities of Cambridge and Oxforde, they that defended Transubstantiation said, that this parte of Origen was but set forth of late by Erasmus, and therefore is to be suspected. But how vaine this their answere is, it appeareth plainly. For so maye all the good olde authors, which lay in olde libraries, and are set foorth of late, be by this reason re [...]cted, as Clement Alexandrinus, Theodoretus, Iustinus, Ec­clesiastica An other ob­iection. historia, Nicephori, and other such. An other answere they [Page 21] had, saying that Origen is noted to haue erred in some poyntes, and therfore faithe is not to be giuen in this matter vnto him. But this answer well waighed dooth minister good matter to the cleere confutation of it selfe. For indeed we graunte, that in some poynts Origen did erre. But those errours are gathered out and noted both of S. Ierome and Epiphanius, so that his woorkes (those errours excepted) are now so much the more of authoritie, that suche great learned men took pains to take out of him, what­soever they thoughte in him to be written amis. But as concern­inge this matter of the Lords Supper, nother they nor yet euer any other anciente Author did euer say, that Origen did erre.

Now because these two answers have beene of late so confuted Gardener to the 166. and confounded, that it is well perceiued, that they will take no place: therfore some whiche haue written since that time, haue forged two other answers, euen of the same moulde. The for­mer whereof is, that Origen in this place spake not of the Sacra­mente of bread or wine of the Lords table, but of an other misti­call meat: of the which S. Augustine maketh mencion to be gi­uen vnto them, that were taught the faithe, before they were baptised. But Origens owne woordes in two sentences before re­hearsed being put togither, prooue this answere vntrue. For he saith, that he meaneth of that figuratiue and misticall bodye, which profiteth them, that doo receiue it woorthilye, alludinge so plainelye vnto S. Paules woords spoken of the Lords Supper: that it is a shame for any learned man once to open his mouth to the contrarye. And that breade which S. Augustin speaketh of, he can not proue that any suche thing was vsed in Origens time. Yea and though that coulde bee proued, yet was there neuer breade in any time called a sacramentall body, sauing the sacramentall bread of the Lords table, which is called of Origen the typicall and symbo­ticall body of Christe.

The second of the two new found answers, is yet moste mon­strous Gardener in the same place. of al other, which is this. But let vs graunt (say they) that Origen spake of the Lordes Supper, and by the matter therof was vn­derstanded the materiall substance of bread and wine: what then say they? For thoughe the materiall substance was once gone and departed by reason of Transubstantiation, whils the formes of the bread and the wine did remaine, yet now it is no inconuenience to saye, that as the material substance did departe at the entring in of Christes body vnder th' aforesaid formes, so whan the said formes be destroyed and doo not remaine, then commeth again the substance of bread and wine.

And this, say they, is very meet in this misterye, that that which began with the miracle, shall ende in a miracle.

If I had not red this fantasie I would scarcelye haue beleued, that any learned man euer would haue set foorth such a foolishe [Page 22] fantasie: which not onelye lacketh al ground, either of Gods woord, reason, or of any ancient writer, but also is clean contrary to the common rules of schoole diuinitie: which is, that no mira­cle is to be affirmed and put without necessitie. And although for their former miracle, which is their Transubstantiation, they haue some colour, though it be but vaine, saying it is doone by the power and vertue of these woords of Christe, This is my body: yet to make this seconde miracle of returninge the materiall substance againe they haue no colour at al. Or els I pray them shew me, by what woords of Christe is the second miracle wrought.

Thus ye may sée, that the sleights and shifts which crafte and witte can inuente to wreste the true sence of Origen cannot take place. But now let vs heare an other place of Origen, and so we wil let him go.

Origen in the eleuen Homile Super Leuiticum saith: that there is also euen in the foure Gospells, and not onelye in the olde Testament, a letter (meaninge a litterall sence) whiche killethe. For if thou followe (saith he) the letter in that sayinge: Excepte ye eate the fleshe of the Sonne of Man, and drink his blood, &c.

This letter dooth kill. If in that place the letter dooth kil, wher­in is commaunded the eating of Christes flesh? then surelye in those woordes of Christe, wherein Christe commaundeth vs to eate his body, the literall sence therof likewise dooth kil. For it is no lesse crime but euen the same and all one in the literall sence, to eate Christes bodye, and to eate Christes fleshe. Wherefore if the one doo kill, excepte it be vnderstanded figuratiuelye and spi­rituallye: then the other surelye doothe kill likewise. But that to eate Christes fleshe dooth kill so vnderstanded, Origen affirmeth plainly in his woordes aboue rebearsed: Wherefore it cannot be iustly denied, but to eate Christes bodye literally vnderstanded, must néeds after him kill likewise.

The answere that is made to this place of Origen of the Papists, is so foolish, that it be wraieth it self, without any further confuta­tion. It is the same, that they make to a piace of S. Augustin in Lib. 3. ca. 16. his book De doctrinae Christiana: Whereas S. Augustine speaketh in effecte the same thinge that Origen dooth héer. The Papists an­swer is this: To the carnal man the literal sence is hurtfull, but not so to the spirituall. As though to vnderstande that in his pro­per sence, which ought to be taken figuratiuely, were to the car­nall man a dangerous perill: but to the spirituall man none at all.

Now to Chrisostome, whom I bringe for the second writer in the Chrisostome. Gréek Church, He speaking against the unholy vsinge of mans body, which after S. Paule ought to be kept pure and holy, as the very temple of the Holy Ghost, saith thus: If it be a fault (saith he) In opere im­perfect. ho. 9. in Matthe. to translate the holy vessels, in the which is conteined not the trewe bodye [Page 23] of Christe, but the mistery of the body, to private vses, how much more offence is it to a buse and defile the vessels of our body?

These be the woordes of Chrisostome, But I trowe that héer many fowle shifts are deuised, to defeat this place. The Author saith: one is suspected. I answere: but in this place neuer fault was found with him, vnto these our daies. And whether this au­thor was Iohn Chrisostome him selfe the Archbishop of Constantinople or no, that is not the matter. For of all it is graunted, that he was a writer of that age, and a man of great learninge: so that it is manifest, that this which he writeth was the receiued opini­on of learned men in his daies.

Or els vndoubtedly in such a matter his sayinge shoulde haue Gardener to the 198. ob­iection: bin impugned of some that wrote in his time, or neere vnto the same. Nay (saith an other) if this solucion wil not serue: we maye saye that Chrisostome did not speak of the vessels of the Lordes cup, or suche as were then vsed at the Lordes table, but of the vessels vsed in the Temple in the olde lawe.

This answer wil serue no more then the other. For héere Chri­sostom speaketh of such vessells, wherin was that whiche was cal­led the body of Christe, althoughe it was not the true body (saith he) of Christe, but the misterye of Christes bodye. Now of the vessels of the olde lawe the writers doo vse no such manner of phrase: for their sacrifices were not called Christes body. For then Christ was not but in shadows and figures, and not by the Sacrament of his body reuealed. Erasmus, which was a man that coulde vnder­stande the woordes and sence of the writers, although hee would not be séene to speak against this errour of Transubstantiatione, because he durste not: yet in this time declareth plainly that this sayinge of the writer is none otherwise to be understanded.

Yet can I (saithe the third Papist) finde out a fine and subtil soluci­on Gardener in the same place. for this place, and graunt all that yet is saide, both allowinge heere the writer, and also that he ment of the vessels of the Lordes Table. For (saith he) the body of Christe is not conteined in them, at the Lordes Table, as in a place, but as in a misterye. Is not this a pritty shifte, and a misticall solution? But by the same solution then Christs bodye is not in the Lordes Table, nor in the Preestes handes, nor in the pixe, and so is hee heere no where. For they will not saye, that he is either heere or there, as in a place.

This answere pleaseth so well the maker, that he him self (af­ter he had plaid with it a little while and shewed the finenesse of his wit and eloquence therein) is content to giue it ouer and saye: but it is not to be thought that Chrisostome would speak after this fine­nesse or subtiltie: and therfore he returneth againe vnto the second answere for his shoote anker, which is sufficiently confuted before. An other shorte place of Chrisostome I wil reherse, which (if any [Page 24] indifferency may be heard) in-plaine termes setteth foorth the trueth of this matter.

Before the bread (saith Chrisostome ad Cesarium monachum) be ha­lowed, we call it bread, but the grace of God sanctifying it by the meanes of the preeste it is deliuered now from the name of bread, and esteemed woorthy to be called Christs body, although the nature of bread tarry in it still.

These be Chrisostoms woords: wherin I praye you, what can be Gardener to the 202. Ob­iection. said or thoughte more plaine against this errour of Transubstan­tiation, then to declare, that the breade abideth so still: And yet to this so plaine a place, some are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it, saying: we graunt that nature of bread remaineth stil thus, for that it may be seene, felte, and tasted, and yet the corporal substance of the bread therfore is gone, leaste two bodies shoulde be confused to­gether, and Christe shoulde be thought impanate.

What contrarietie and falsehood is in this answere, the simple man may easily perceiue. Is not this a plain contrarietye to graunt that the nature of bread remaineth so still, that it may be séene, felte, and tasted: and yet to saye▪ the corporall substance is gon, to auoid absurdity of Christs impanation? And what mani­fest falshood is this, to saye or mean, that if the breade should re­main still, then must followe the inconuenience of impanation?

As though the very breade coulde not be a Sacrament of Christs body (as water is of baptisme) excepte Christe shoulde vnite the nature of breade to his nature in vnitie of persone, and make of the bread, God.

Now let vs heare Theodoretus, which is the last of the thrée Gréek Theodoret: Authors. He writeth in his dialogue Contra Eutichen, thus. He that calleth his naturall body, corn and breade: and also named himself a Vine tree: euen he the same hath honoured the Symboles (that is the Dial. 1. sacramental signes) with the names of his body and blood, not chan­ging indeed the nature it selfe, but adding grace vnto the nature.

What can be more plainly saide, then this, that this olde writer saieth? That although the Sacraments beare the name of the body and blood of Christe, yet is not their nature changed, but abideth still. And where is then the Papists Transubstantiation?

The same writer to the second dialogue of the same woorke a­gainste th' aforesaide heretique Eutyches, writeth yet more plainly against this errour of Transubstantiation, if any thing can be saide to be more plaine. For hee maketh the heretike to speake thus againste him that defendeth the true doctrine, whom he cal­leth Orthodoxus.

As the Sacramentes of the bodye and bloode of our Lorde are one thinge before the inuocation, and after the inuocation they be changed, and are made an other: so likewise the Lordes body (saithe the here­tike) [Page 25] is after the assumption or assention into heauen, turned into the substance of God: the heretike meaninge thereby, that Christe after his ascention, remaineth no more a man.

To this Orthodoxus answereth thus and saith in the heretike: Thou art taken (saith he) in thine owne snare. For those misticall Sym­bols or Sacraments after the sanctification doo not goe out of theire owne nature, but they tarrye and abide stil in their substance, figure, and shape, yea and are sensibly seene and groped to be the same they were be­fore, &c.

At these words the papistes doo startle: and to saye the trueth, these woordes be so plaine, so full, and so cléere, that they can not tell what to say, but yet they will not cease to go about to play the cuttles, and to caste their colours ouer them, that the trueth which is so plainly told, should not haue place.

This Author wrote (say they) before the determination of the Churche. As who would say, whatsoever that wicked man Inno­centius the Pope of Rome determined in his congregationes with his monks and friers, that must be (for so Duns saith) holden for an article, and of the substance of our faith. Some doo charge this D. Moreman in the Conu [...] ­cation house. author that he was suspected to be a Nestorian, which thing in Cal­cedon Counsaile was tryed and prooued to be false. But the foulest shift of al, and yet the best that they can finde in this matter, when none other will serue: is to say, that Theodoret vnderstandeth by the woord (substance) accidents, and not substance indéed.

This glose is like a glose of a lawyer, vpon a decrée, the text whereof beginning thus: Statuimus, that is, We decree. The glose of the Lawyer there (after many other pritty shifts there set foorth) which he thinketh will not well serue to his purpose, and therfore at the laste to cleere the matter, he saith thus: after the minde of one Lawyer. Vel dic (saith he) Statuimus id est, abrogamus, that is: Distine. Ca. 4. Statuimus. or expound we doo decree, that is, we abrogate or disanul. Is not this a goodlye, and woorthye glose? who will not saye, but he is woor­thye in the lawe, to be reteined of counsaile, that can glose so well, and finde in a matter of difficultie, such fine shifts? And yet this is the lawe, or at least the glose of the lawe. And therfore who can tell, what perill a man may incurre to speak against it except he were a lawyer indeed, whiche can keep him self out of the briers what winde soeuer blowe.

Hethertoo ye haue hearde thrée writers of the Gréeke Church, not all what they doo saye: for that were a labour too greate for to gather, and too tedious for the Reader: But one or two places of euery one, the which how plain, how ful, and how cleere they be againste the errour of Transubstantiation, I refer it to the iudge­ment of the indifferent Reader.

[Page 26] And now I wil likewise rehearse the sayings of other thrée old antient writers of the Latin Church, and so make an end.

And first I wil begin with Tertullian, whom Ciprian the holy mar­tyr Tertullian. so highly estéemed, that whensoeuer he would haue his book, he was wonte to saye: Giue vs now the Maister.

This olde writer in his fourthe booke against Martian the here­tike, saith thus: Iesus made the bread, which he tooke, and distributed to his disciples, his body, saying: This is my body. That is to say (saith Tertullian) a figure of my body.

In this place it is plaine, that after Tertullians exposition, Christe mente not by callinge the breade his bodye, and the wine his blood, that either the breade was the naturall bodye, or the wine his natural blood, but he called them his bodye and blood, because he would institute them to be vnto vs Sacramentes: that is holye tokens and signes of his bodye and of his blood: that by them re­membring and firmly belieuing the benefites procured to us by his body, which was torne and crucified for vs, and of his blood, which was shed for vs vpon the crosse: and so with thanks receiuing these holy Sacramentes, according to Christes institution, might by the same be spiritually nourished and fed to the increase of all god­lines in vs heere in our pilgrimage and iourney wherein we walke vnto euerlasting life.

This was vndoubtedlye Christe our Sauiours mind, and this is Tertullians exposition.

The wrangling that the Papists doo make to elude this sayinge Gardener to the 16. Obie­ction. of Tertullian, is so far out of frame, that it euen werieth me to think on it.

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

This saying is too too manifeste false: for Origene, Hilarye, Ambrose, Basill, Grigorie, Nazianzene, Saint Augustine, and other old authors, likewise doo call the sacrament, a figure of Christes bo­dye. And where they say, that Tertullian wrote this, when he was in a heate of disputatione with an heretike, coueting by all means to ouerthrow his aduersarye. As who saye, he would not take heed, what he did say, and specially what he would write in so high a matter so that he might haue the better hand of his aduersarye.

Is this credible to be true in any godly wise man? How muche lesse then is it woorthye to be thought or credited in a man of so great a wit, learning, and excellency as Tertullian is worthily esteemed euer to haue been?

Likewise this author in his first booke againste the same here­tike Martion, writeth thus: God did not reiect bread, which is his creature: for by it he hath made a representation of his body.

[Page 27] Now I praye you, what is this to say that Christe hath made a representation (by bread) of his body, but that Christ had institu­ted and ordeined bread to be a Sacrament, for to represent unto vs his body? Now whether the representatione of one thing by an other, requireth the corporal presence of the thinge which is so re­presented or no: euerye man that hath vnderstanding, is able in this poynte (the matter is so cleere of it selfe) to be a sufficient iudge.

The second doctour and writer of the Latin Churche, whose Augustine. sayinges I promised to set foorth, is S. Augustine. of whose learning and estimation, I neede not to speake. For all the Church of Christe both hath and euer hath had him for a man of moste singu­ler learning, witte, and dilligence, both in setting foorth the true doctrine of Christes religion, and also in the defence of the same againste heretikes.

This author as he hath written moste plenteously in other mat­ters of our faith: so like wise in this argumente hee hath written at large in many of his woorkes, so plainly against this errour of Transubstantiation, that the Papists loue leaste to heare of him of all other writers, partely for his authoritie, and partely because he openeth the matter more fully, then any other dooth.

Therfore I will rehearse more places of him then heertofore I haue doon of the other. And first, what can be more plaine then that which he writeth vpon the 89. Psalme, speaking of the Sacra­ment of the Lords body and blood: and rehearsinge (as it were) Christes woords to his Disciples after this manner.

It is not this bodye, whiche ye doo see, that ye shall eate, nother shall ye drinke this blood, which the Souldiers that crucifie me, shall spill or shed.

I doo commend vnto you a misterye or a Sacrament, which spiritually vnderstanded, shall give you life.

Now if Christe had no more naturall and corporall bodies, but that one which they then presently both heard and sawe, nor other natural blood, but that which was in the same body, and the which the souldiers did afterward cruelly shed vpon the crosse: and no­ther this bodye nor this bloode was (by this declaration of S. Au­gustine) either to be eaten or drunken, but the misterie thereof spi­ritually to be vnderstanded: then I conclude (if this saying and exposition of S. Augustine be true, that the mistery which the di­sciples should eate, was not the naturall body of Christ, but a mi­stery of the same spiritually to be understanded.

For as S. Augustine saithe in his 20. book Contra Faustum. Ca. 21: Christes flesh and blood was in the olde Testament promised by simili­tudes and signes of their sacrifices, and was exhibited indeed and in trueth vpon the crosse, but the same is celebrated by a Sacrament of remem­brance vpon the aulter.

[Page 28] And in his book, De fide ad Petrum. Ca. 19. he saithe, that in these sacrifices, meaning of the olde law, it is siguratiuely signified▪ what was then to be giuen: but in this sacrifice it is euidentlye signified what is alrea­dy giuen (vnderstanding in the sacrifice vpon the aulter) the remem­brance and thanks giuing for the fleshe, which he offered for vs, and for the bloode which he shed for vs vpon the crosse: as in the same place and euidently there it may appeare.

An other euident and cleer place wher in it appeareth, that by the Sacramental bread, which Christe called his bodye, he ment a figure of his body. As vpon the 3 Psalme, where S. Augustine speaketh this in plain termes.

Christe did admit Iudas vnto the feaste, in the which he commended vnto his disciples the figure of his body.

This was Christes laste Supper before his passion, wherin he did ordeine the sacrament of his body, as all learned men do agree.

S. Augustine also in his 23. Epistle to Bonifacius teacheth, how Sacraments doo beare the names of the thinges whereof they be Sacraments, both in Baptisme, and in the Lords table, euen as we call euery good friday, the day of Christes passion: and euery Easter daye, the daye of Christes resurrection: when in very deed there was but one day wherin he suffred, and but one day wherin he rose. And why doo we then call them so, which are not so indeede, but because they are in like time and course of the yeere, as those days were, wherin those thinges were doone?

Was Christe, saithe sainte Augustine, offered any more but once? And he offered himself. And yet in a Sacramente or representation not onelye euerye solemne feast of Easter, but also every daye to the People he is offered: so that he dooth not lye that saith: he is euery day offered.

For if Sacraments had not some similitude or likenes of those things, whereof they be Sacraments, they coulde in no wise be Sacraments: and for their similitudes or likenes: commonly they have the names of the things, whereof they be Sacraments. Therefore as after a certaine manner of speech, the Sacrament of Christs body, is Christs body; the Sacramente of Christes blood, is Christs bloode, so likewise the Sacrament of faith is faith.

After this maner of speach, as S. Augustine teacheth in his que­stiones Question 57. Super Leuiticum and Contra Adimantum, it is said in scrip­ture, that vij. eares of corne be vij. yeeres, seuen Kine be seaven yeeres, and the rock was Christe: and blood is the soule, the which last saying (saith Saint Augustine) in his booke Contra Adimantum is vnder­standed Cap 13. to bee spoken by a signe or figure.

For the Lord himselfe did not sticke to saye. This is my body, when Contra Maxi­minum. Li. Ca. 22. hee gaue the signe of his body. For we must not consider in Sacramentes, saithe S. Augustine in an other [...], what they be; but what they doo signifie, or they be signs of things, beinge one thing in themselves, and yet signifying an nother thing.

[Page 29] For the heauenly bread (saith he) speakinge of the Sacramentall breade by some maner of speach is called Christes body, when in very deed it is the sacramente of his body, &c.

What can be more plaine, or more cleerly spoken, then are these places of S. Augustine before rehearsed, if men were not ob­stinately bent to maintaine an vntrueth, and to receiue nothinge whatsoeuer dooth set it foorthe. Yet one place more of S. Augu­stine wil I alleage, which is very cleare to this purpose, that Christes naturall body is in heauen, and not heer corporally in the Sacrament, and so let him departe.

In his 50. treatice, whiche he writeth vpon Iohn. he teacheth plainly and cleerly how Christe being both God and man, is both heer, after a certaine maner, and yet in heauen, and not heere in his naturall body and substance, which he took of the blessed hirgin Mary: speaking thus of Christe and sayinge: By his deuine Maiestie, by his prouidence and by his vnspeakeable and inuincible grace that is fulfilled which he spake: Beholde, I am with you vnto the ende of the Worlde. But as concerning his flesh which hee took in his incar­natione, as touchinge that whiche was borne of the Virgine as concern­inge that whiche was apprehended by the Iewes and crucified vpon a tree, and taken down from the crosse, lapped in linnen clothes, and buried, and rose againe, and appeared after his resurrection, as concerninge the fleshe, he said; ye shall not ever haue me with you. Why so? For as concerning his fleshe, he was conuersant with his Disciples xl. daies, and they accompanying, seeing and not following him, he wentvp into heaven, and is not heere. By the presence of his deuine maiestie he did not departe; as concerninge the presence of his deuine maiestie, we have Christe ever with us; but as concerninge the presence of his flesh, he said truely to his disciples; ye shall not ever have me with you. For as concerninge the presence of his fleshe, the Church had him but a few daies; nowe it holdeth him by Faith, though it se him not.

Thus much S. Augustine speaketh repeating one thing so often: and all to declare and teach, how we should vnderstand the maner of Christes beinge heere with vs: whiche is by his grace, by his providence, and by his deuine nature, and how he is absent by his naturall bodye whiche was born of the virgin Mary, died, & rose for us, and is assended into heauen, & there sitteth, as in the articles of our faith on the right hand of God, and thence (and from none other place saith S. Augustine) he shall come on the latter daye, to iudge the quick and the dead. At the which daye the righteous shall then lift up their heads, and the light of Gods trueth shal so shine: that falshood and errours shall be put into perpetuall confusion: righteousnes shall haue the vpper hand, and trueth that daye shall beare awaye the victorye, all th' enemies therof quite ouer­throwen, to be troden vnder foot for euermore.

[Page 30] O Lord, Lord, I beseech thee hasten this day, then shalt thou be glorified with the glory due unto thy holy name, and unto thy deuine maiesty: and we shal sing unto thee, in all ioy, and felici­tie, laude and praise for euer mere. Amen.

Héer now would I make an end. For me thinks, S. Augustine is in this matter so full and plaine, and of that authoritye, that it should not néed after this his declaration, being so firmelye grounded vpon Gods woorde, and so well agréeinge with the other ancient Authors, to bring in for the confirmation of this matter any moe: and yet I saide, I would alleage thrée of the Latin Church, to testifie the truethe in this cause. Nowe therefore the laste of all shal be Gelasius, whiche was a Bishop of Rome, but one that was Bishop of that See before the wicked vsurpation and ti­ranny therof spred and burst out abroade into al the world. For this man was before Bonifacius, yea and Grigorye the firste: in whose daies bothe corruption of doctrine and tirannicall vsurpa­tion did chée flye growe, and had the vpper hand.

Gelasius in an Epistle of the two natures of Christe, Contra Eu­tichen, Gelasius. writeth thus: The Sacraments of the body and blood of Christe, which we receiue, are godly things wherby and by the same wee are made partakers of the deuine nature, and yet neuerthelesse the sub­stance or nature of the bread and wine dooth not departe nor goe away.

Note these woords I beséeche you, and consider, whether any thing can be more plainely spoken, then these woordes be against the errour of Transubstantiatione, which is the ground and bit­ter root, wherupon springe all the horrible errours before re­hearsed.

Wherfore seing that the falshood dooth appeare so manifestlye, and by so many waies so plainly, so cléerly and so fullye, that no man needeth to be deceiued, but he that will not sée, or will not vn­derstande: let vs al that doo loue the trueth, embrace it, and forsake the falshood. For he that loueth the trueth, is of God: and the lack of the loue therof is the cause why God suffereth men to fall into errours, and to perish therin: yea and as S. Paule saieth, why he sendeth vnto them illusions, that they beleue lyes, vnto their own condemnation: because (saithe he) they loued not the trueth. This trueth no doubte is Gods woord. For Christe him self saith vnto his father: Thy woord is trueth. The loue and Ioh. 17. light wherof almighty God our heauenly father giue vs, and light­en it in our harts by his holy spirit through Iesus Christe out Lorde, Amen.

Vincit Veritas.

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

Lib. 9. pag. 106. The Disputation held at Cambridge be­fore the Kings Commissioners, June 20. 1549. wherein Bishop Ridley moderated.

Well, yet once again to you, thus. The very true Bo­dy P. 106. of Christ is to be honoured, but the same very true Bo­dy is in the Sacrament: Ergo, the Body of Christ in the Sacra­ment, is to be honoured.


Wellbeloved Friends and Brethren in our Saviour Christ, you must understand that this Disputation, with other that shall be after this, are appointed to search for the plain truth of the Holy Scriptures in these matters of Religion, which of a long Season have been hidden from us by the false Glosses of the Church of Rome, and now in our days must be revealed to us Englishmen through the great Mercy of God principally; and secondarily, through the most gentle Clemency of our natu­ral Sovereign Lord the Kings Majesty, whom the living Lord long preserve to reign over us in Health, Wealth and Godliness, to the maintenance of Gods holy Word, and to the extirpation of all blind Glosses of Men, that go about to subvert the Truth. Be­cause therefore, that I am one that doth love the Truth, and have professed the same amongst you; therefore I say, because of con­ferring my mind with yours, I will here gladly declare what I think in this point now in Controversy. Not because this wor­shipful Doctor hath any need of my help in dissolving of Argu­ments proposed against him; for as me seemeth, he hath answered hitherto very well, and Clerkly, according to the Truth of Gods Word. But now to the purpose, I do grant unto you (Mr. Op­ponent) that the old Ancient Fathers do record and witness a cer­tain Honour and Adoration to be due unto Christs Body, but they speak not of it in the Sacrament, but of it in Heaven, at the right hand of the Father, as holy Chrysostome saith, Honour thou it, and then eat it; but that Honour may not be given to [Page 32] the outward sign, but to the Body of Christ it self in Heaven. For that Body is there only in a sign virtually, by Grace, in the exhibition of it in Spirit, Effect and Faith, to the worthy receiver of it. For we receive virtually only Christs Body in the Sacrament.


How then (if it please your good Lordship) doth Baptism differ from this Sacrament? For in that we receive Christ also by Grace, and virtually.


Christ is present after another sort in Baptism, than in this Sacrament; for in that he purgeth and washeth the Infant from all kind of Sin, but here he doth feed spiritually the receiver in Faith with all the merits of his blessed Death and Passion; and yet he is in Heaven still really and substantially. As for Example, The Kings Majesty, our Lord and Master, is but in one place, wheresoever that this Royal Person is abiding for the time, and yet his mighty Power and Authority is every where in his Realms and Dominions: So Christs real Person is only in Heaven substantially placed, but his might is in all things created effectually. For Christs Flesh may be understood for the Power, or inward Might of his Flesh.


If it please your Fatherhood, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine do say, That before the Consecration, it is but very Bread, and after the Consecration, it is called the very Body of Christ.


Indeed it is the very Body of Christ Sacramentally af­ter the Consecration, whereas before it is nothing but common Bread; and yet, after that, it is the Lords Bread; and thus must St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine be understood.


The Bread after Consecration doth feed the Soul, Ergo, The substance of common Bread doth not remain. The Argu­ment is good, for St. Ambrose, De Sacramentis, saith thus, After the Consecration there is not the thing that Nature did form, but that which the blessing doth consecrate. And if the Bene­diction of the Prophet Elias did turn the nature of Water; how much more then doth the Benediction of Christ here, both God and Man?


That Book of St. Ambrose is suspected to be none of his Works.


So all the Fathers say.


I do marvel at that, for St. Augustin in his Book of Re­tractations maketh plain, that that was his own very Work.

[Page 33]

He speaketh indeed of such a Book so intituled, to St. Ambrose, but yet we do lack the same Book indeed.


Well, let it then pass to other mens Judgments. What then say you, to holy St. Cyprian, 1200 years past? Who saith, That the Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples, was not changed in form or quality, but in very nature, and by the Al­mighty word was made Flesh.


I do answer thus, That this word Flesh may be taken two ways, either for the substance it self, or else for a natural property of a fleshly thing. So that Cyprian there did mean of a natural Property, and not of fleshly Substance. And contrariwise in the Rod of Aaron, where both the Substance, and also the Property was changed.


Holy St. Ambrose saith, The Body there made by the mighty Power of Gods word, is the Body of the Virgin Mary.


That is to say, That by the Word of God, the thing hath a Being, that it had not before, and we do consecrate the Body, that we may receive the Grace and Power of the Body of Christ in Heaven, by this Sacramental Body.


By your Patience (my Lord) if it be a Body of the Vir­gin (as St. Ambrose saith) which we do consecrate as Ministers by Gods holy Word, then must it needs be more than a Sacramental, or Spiritual Body; yea, a very Body of Christ indeed; yea, the same that is still in Heaven, without all moving from place to place, un­speakably, and far passing our natural Reason, which is in this Mystery so captivate, that it cannot conceive how it is there, without a lively Faith to Gods word. But let this pass. You do grant that this Bread doth quicken or give Life, which if it do, then it is not a natural Bread, but a super-substantial Bread.


So doth the effectual and lively Word of God, which for that it nourisheth the Soul, it doth give Life; for the Di­vine Essence infuseth it self unspeakably into the faithful Receiver of the Sacrament.


How then say you to holy Damascene, a Greek Author, who as one Tritenius saith, flourished one thousand years past; he saith thus, The Body that is of the holy Virgin Mary is joyned to the Divinity after the Consecration in verity; and indeed, not so as the Body once assumpted into Heaven, and sitting on the Fa­thers right Hand, doth remove from thence and cometh down at the Consecration time; but that the same Bread and Wine [Page 34] are substantially transumpted into the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If (saith he) thou dost not know the man­ner how it is brought to pass, let it be enough to thee to believe that it is done by the Operation of the Holy Ghost; and we do know no more, but that the living Word of God is working, and Almighty; but the very manner how, is inscrutable to us; and no great marvel, saith he, for we cannot well express how the ma­terial Bread, Wine or Water are transumpted naturally into the same Body and Blood of the Receiver, and be become another Body than they were before. So saith this great Ancient Clerk; also this Shew-bread with Wine and Water, are changed by the coming of the Holy Ghost, into Christs Body and Blood, and they be not two Bodies there, but very one (of Christ) and the same.


First, I deny (Master Doctor) that Damascene was one thousand years past: Secondarily, I say, That he is not to be hol­den as an Ancient Father, for that he maintaineth in his Works, evil and damnable Doctrine, as the worshipping of Images and such like. Thirdly, I say, That indeed God by his holy Spirit, is the worker of that which is done in the Sacrament. Also I grant, that there is a Mutation of the common Bread and Wine spiritu­ally into the Lords Bread and Wine, by the sanctifying of them in the Lords Word. But I deny that there is any Mutation of the Sub­stances; for there is no other change there indeed, than there is in us, which when we do receive the Sacrament worthily, then are we changed into Christs Body, Bones and Blood, not in na­ture, but spiritually, and by Grace; much like as Isaiah saw the burning Coal, even so we see not there the very simple Bread, as it was before the Consecration; for an Union cannot be but of two very things. Wherefore, if we be joyned to Christ receiving the Sacrament, then there is no Adnihilation of Bread, which is when it is reduced to nothing, as it is in your feigned Transubstan­tiation.


So I perceive you would have me to grant that the Sa­crament is but a Figure, which Theophylactus doth deny.


You say Truth, he denieth it indeed to be a Figure; but he meaneth, that it is not only a Figure.


Whereas St. Paul saith, That we being many, are one Bread, he speaketh not, nor meaneth one material Bread, as you do here, Ergo, he speaketh of heavenly Bread. And holy Chrysostome upon Matthew saith, That the Paschal Lamb was a Figure, but [Page 35] the Mystery is the verity. For the Disciples would not have been offended to have drunk a figure of Christ's Blood, being well ac­customed to figures. For Christ did not institute a figure for a figure, but the clear verity instead of the figure, as St. John saith, Grace and Verity was given by Christ. Dost thou see Bread? (saith Chrysostome) doth it avoid or pass as other meats do which we receive? God forbid. Ergo, &c.


That ancient Clerk Origen, upon the 15th of St. Matth. saith thus, As touching that which is material in the Sacrament, it descendeth and issueth out as other nutriments do; but as con­cerning that which is celestial, it doth not so.

Glin. Chrysost.

Homily 83. upon Matthew saith, That we can­not be deceived of Christ's Word, but our natural Senses may be deceived in this point, very soon and easily; his said words can­not be false, but our senses be many times beguiled of their judgments. Because therefore that Christ said, This is my body; let us not at any hand doubt (saith he) but let us believe it, and well perceive it with the eyes of our understanding. And with­in a little after in that place he saith thus, It was not enough that he was become man, and afterwards was scourged for us, but also he did reduce and bring us to be as one body with him, not through Faith only, but in very deed also he maketh us his Body. And after that he saith, that these works are not of mans power. But the same things that he wrought in his last Supper, he now worketh also by his Precept to his right Ministers, and we do oc­cupy the place of the same Ministers, but he it is that doth sanctify and transumpt the creatures, he performeth still the same.


Mr. Doctor, you must understand, that in that place St. Chrysostome sheweth us that Christ delivered to us no sensible thing at his last Supper.


Honourable Sir, by your patience I grant that he gave to his Disciples no sensible thing in substance, but a thing insensible, his own precious Body and Blood, under the only kinds of Crea­tures. And truly, as it seemeth, Theophylactus best knew the meaning of Chrysostome, because all Authors accept him as a faith­ful Interpreter of him. And he hath these same plain words Transelemented and Transformed. Also Theophylactus Alexandri­nus super Marcum, Cyrillus, and St. Augustine saith, That before the consecration it is bread, but afterwards it is Christs very Bo­dy. In like manner St. Augustine upon the 33d Psalm saith, That [Page 36] in the last Supper Christ did bear himself in his own hands. Now every man may bear the figure of his body in his own hands, but St. Augustin saith it there for a Miracle. Irenaeus in his fifth Book is of the same mind. And St. Austin saith, I do remember my words, &c. The Law and Figures were by Moses, but the verity and Body came by Christ.


Well, say what you list, it is but a figurative speech, like to this, If you will receive and understand, he is Elias, for a property, but indeed he was not Elias, but John the Baptist. And so in this place Christ calleth it his Body, when it was very Bread. But better than the common Bread, because it was sanctified by the Word of Christ.


I will prove it by another means. Christ did suffer P. 109. his most glorious passion for us really and substantially; Ergo, He is also in the Sacrament substantially. The Argument is good, because that it is the same here that was there crucified for us; howbeit here invisibly, indeed spiritually and sacramentally, but there visibly, and after a mortal and most bloody manner.


Mr. Langdale, your Argument doth well conclude, in case that his Body were here in the Sacrament after such a sort as it was when it was betrayed: But that is not so; for he was betrayed and crucified in his natural body substantially and really in very deed; but in the Sacrament he is not so, but spiritually and figuratively only.


By your good Lordships favour that is not so, for he is there not figuratively, but verily and indeed by the power of his mighty Word, yea even his very own natural body under the Sacrament duly performed by the lawful Minister.


O say not so, for you speak blasphemy.


No, no Mr. Doctor, God forbid that either I or any man else, should be noted of blasphemy, saying nothing but the very plain truth, as in my Conscience and Learning, I do no less.


O Mr. Langdale, I wis it becometh you not here to have such words.


If it like your good Lordship, I gave not the first occa­sion of them, but only did refute that which I was unjustly bur­thened withall, as reason doth require, and it grieved me to hear it. He saith, if it please your Lordship, that there is a mutation or change of the Bread after it is Consecrated; which if it be so, as I grant no less, then I would require of him, whether it be [Page 37] changed in the Substance or in the Accidents, or else in both, or in nothing? No man can justly say, that there is a change into nothing. And all ancient Fathers do agree, that the same acci­dents are there still after, that were before; nor doth any Do­ctor say, That there is any mutation both of the Substance and Accidents also; Ergo, The Substance of Bread is changed into some other thing that is there really present under the forms of Bread and Wine, which by Christs words must needs be his own Blessed Body.


Sir, you are deceived greatly, for there is no change either of the Substances, or of the Accidents; but in very deed there do come unto the Bread other Accidents, insomuch that whereas the Bread and Wine were not sanctified before, nor holy, yet afterwards they be sanctified, and so do receive then another sort or kind of vertue which they had not before.


Christ dwelleth in us by Faith, and by Faith we re­ceive Pag. 118. Christ both God and Man, both in Spirit and flesh; that is, this Sacramental eating is the mean and way whereby we attain to the Spiritual eating, and indeed for the strengthening of us to the eating of this Spiritual food was this Sacrament Ordained. And these words, This is my Body, are meant thus, By Grace it is my true Body, but not my fleshly Body, as some of you sup­pose.


I acknowledg not his real Substance to be there, but Pag. 119. the property of his Substance.

The Determination of Dr. Nicholas Ridley Bishop of Rochester upon Pag. 120. the Conclusions above prefixed.

There hath been an ancient custom amongst you, that after Disputations had in your common Schools, there should be some determination made of the matters so disputed and debated, espe­cially touching Christian Religion. Because therefore it hath see­med good unto these worshipful Assistants joyned with me in Commission from the Kings Majesty, that I should perform the same at this time; I will by your favourable patience declare both what I do think and believe my self, and what also other ought to think of the same. Which thing I would that afterward ye did with diligence weigh and ponder every man at home se­verally by himself.

[Page 38] The principal Grounds, or rather Head-springs of this matter are specially five.

The first is the Authority, Majesty and Verity of Holy Scripture.

The second is the most certain Testimonies of the Ancient Catholick Fa­thers, who after my judgment do sufficiently declare this matter.

The third is the definition of a Sacrament.

The fourth is the abominable Heresie of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation.

The fifth is the most sure belief of the Article of our Faith, He ascen­ded into Heaven.

The First Ground.

This Transubstantiation is clean against the words of the Scri­pture, and consent of the ancient Catholick Fathers. The Scri­pture saith, I will not drink hereafter of this fruit of the Vine, &c. Now the fruit of this Vine is Wine. And it is manifest that Christ spake these words after the Supper was finished, as it ap­peareth both in Matthew, Mark, and also in Luke, if they be well understood. There be not many places of Scripture that do con­firm this thing, neither is it greatly material: for it is enough if there be any one plain testimony for the same. Neither ought it to be measured by the number of Scriptures, but by the Au­thority, and by the verity of the same. And the Majesty of this verity is as ample in one short sentence of the Scripture, as in a thousand.

Moreover, Christ took Bread, he gave Bread. In the Acts, Luke calleth it Bread. So Paul calleth it Bread after the Sanctifi­cation. Both of them speak of breaking, which belongeth to the Substance of Bread, and in no wise to Christ's Body, for the Scripture saith, Ye shall not break a bone of him. Christ saith, Do ye this in my remembrance. And again, As often as ye shall drink of this Cup, do it in rememberance of me. And our Saviour Christ in the sixth of John, speaking against the Capernaites, saith, Labour for the meat that perisheth not. And when they asked, What shall we do that we may work the works of God? He answered them thus, This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent. You see how he exhorteth them to faith, For Faith is that work of God. Again, This is that Bread which came down from Heaven. But Christs Body came not down from Heaven. Moreover, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. My flesh (saith he) is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. When they [Page 39] heard this, they were offended. And whil'st they were offended, he said unto them, What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before? Whereby he went about to draw them from the gross and carnal eating. This Body, saith he, shall ascend up into Heaven, meaning altogether, as St. Augustine saith. It is the Spirit that quickneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, are Spirit and Life, and must be spiritually understood. These be the Reasons which perswade me to incline to this Sen­tence and Judgment.

The Second Ground.

Now my Second Ground against this Transubstantiation, are the Ancient Fathers a Thousand Years past. And so far off is it, that they do confirm this Opinion of Transubstantiation, that plain they seem to me, both to think and to speak the contrary.

Dionysius, in many places, calleth it Bread. The places are so manifest and plain, that it needeth not to recite them.

Ignatius to the Philadelphians saith, I beseech you, Brethren, cleave fast unto one Faith, and to one kind of Preaching, using together one manner of Thanksgiving; For the Flesh of the Lord Jesus is one, and his Blood is one which was shed for us: There is also one Bread broken for us, and one Cup of the whole Church.

Irenaeus writeth thus: Even as the Bread that cometh of the Earth, receiving God's Vocation, is now no more common Bread, but Sa­cramental Bread, consisting of two Natures, Earthly and Heavenly; even so our Bodies receiving the Eucharist, are now no more corruptible, having hope of the Resurrection.

Tertullian is very plain, for he calleth it a Figure of his Body, &c.

Chrysostome writeth to Caesarius the Monk, albeit he be not re­ceived of diverse, yet will I read the place, to fasten it more deeply in your minds; for it seemeth to shew plainly the sub­stance of Bread to remain. The words are these:

Before the Bread is sanctified, we name it Bread: but by the grace of God sanctifying the same, through the Ministry of the Priest, it is delivered from the Name of Bread, and is counted worthy to bear the Name of the Lord's Body, although the very substance of Bread not­withstanding do still remain therein, and now is taken not to be two Bo­dies, but one Body of the Son, &c.

Cyprian saith, Bread is made of many Grains. And is that na­tural Bread, and made of Wheat? Yea, it is so indeed.

The Book of Theodoret in Greek was lately printed at Rome, [Page 40] which if it had not been his, it should not have been set forth there, especially seeing it is directly against Transubstantiation: For he saith plainly, That Bread still remaineth after the Sanctification.

Gelasius also is very plain in this manner: The Sacrament (saith he) which we receive of the Body and Blood of Christ, is a Divine Matter: By reason whereof, we are made partakers by the same of the Divine Nature, and yet it ceaseth not still to be the substance of Bread and Wine. And certes, the representation and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ be celebrated in the action of the Mysteries, &c. Af­ter this, he recited certain places out of Augustine and Cyril, which were not noted.

Isichius also, confesseth that it is Bread.

Also the Judgment of Bertram in this matter is very plain and manifest: And thus much for the Second Ground.

The Third Ground.

The Third Ground is the Nature of the Sacrament, which con­sisteth of Three Things; that is, Ʋnity, Nutrition, and Conversion.

As touching Ʋnity, Cyprian thus writeth: Even as of many Grains is made one Bread, so are we one mystical Body of Christ. Wherefore Bread must still needs remain, or else we destroy the Nature of a Sacrament.

Also they that take away Nutrition, which cometh by Bread, do take away likewise the Nature of a Sacrament: For as the Body of Christ nourisheth the Soul, even so doth Bread likewise nourish the Body of Man. Therefore they that take away the Grains, or the Union of the Grains in the Bread, and deny the Nutrition, or Substance thereof, in my judgment are Sacramen­taries: For they take away the Similitude between the Bread, and the Body of Christ; for they which affirm Transubstantiation, are indeed right Sacramentaries and Capernaites.

As touching Conversion, (that like as the Bread which we receive is turned into our Substance, so are we turned into Christ's Body) Rabanus and Chrysostome are Witnesses sufficient.

The Fourth Ground.

They who say, That Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist, do take from him the Verity of Man's Nature. Eutiches granted the Divine Nature in Christ, but his Humane Nature he denied. So they that defend Transubstantiation, ascribe that to the Humane Nature, which onely belongeth to the Divine Nature.

The Fifth Ground.

The Fifth Ground is the certain perswasion of this Article of Faith, He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the Right Hand, &c.

Augustine saith, The Lord is above, even to the end of the World; but yet the verity of the Lord is here also. For his Body wherein he rose again must needs be in one place, but his verity is spread abroad every where. Also in another place he saith, Let the godly also receive that Sacrament, but let them not be careful (speaking there of the pre­sence of his Body.) For as touching his Majesty, his Providence, his in­visible and unspeakable Grace, these words are fulfilled which he spake, I am with you to the end of the World. But according to the flesh which he took upon him, according to that which was born of the Virgin, was apprehended of the Jews, was fastned to a Tree, taken down again from the Cross, lapped in Linnen Cloths, was buried and rose again, and ap­peared after his Resurrection, so ye shall not have me always with you; and why? because, that as concerning his Flesh, he was conversant with his Disciples forty days, and they accompanying him, seeing him, but not following him, he went up into Heaven, and is not here, for he sitteth at the right hand of his Father; and yet he is here, because he is not de­parted hence, as concerning the presence of his Divine Majesty.

Mark and consider well what St. Augustine saith, he is ascended into Heaven, and is not here, saith he. Believe not them therefore which say that he is here still in the Earth.

Moreover, Doubt not (saith the same Augustine, but that Jesus Christ, as concerning the nature of his Manhood, is there from whence he shall come. And remember well and believe the Profession of a Christian man, that he arose from death, ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the Right hand of his Father, and from that Place and none other (not from the Altars) shall he come to judge the quick and the dead, and he shall come, as the Angel said, as he was seen to go into Heaven; that is to say, in the same form and substance, unto the which he gave immortality, but changed not Nature. After this form (meaning his Humane Nature) we may not think that it is every-where. And in the same Epistle he saith, Take away from the Bodies limitation of places, and they shall be no-where; and because they are no-where, they shall not be at all.

Vigilius saith, If the Word and the Flesh be both of one nature, seeing that the Word is every-where, why then is not the Flesh also every-where? For when it was in Earth, then verily it was not in Heaven; and now when it is in Heaven, it is not surely in Earth. And it is so certain that it is [Page 42] not in Earth, that as concerning the same, we look for him from Heaven; whom as concerning the Word, we believe to be with us in Earth.

Also the same Vigilius saith, Which things, seeing they be so, the course of the Scripture must be searched of us, and many Testimonies must be gathered, to shew plainly what a wickedness and sacriledg it is to re­fer those things to the property of the Divine Nature, which do only be­long to the nature of the Flesh; and contrariwise, to apply those things to the nature of the Flesh, which do properly belong to the Divine Nature. Which thing the Transubstantiators do, whilst they affirm Christ's Body not to be contained in any one place, and ascribe that to his Humanity, which properly belongeth to his Divinity, as they do who will have Christ's Body to be in no one certain place limited.

Now in the latter Conclusion concerning the Sacrifice, because it dependeth upon the first, I will in few words declare what I think. For if we did once agree in that, the whole Controversie in the other would soon be at an end. Two things there be which do perswade me that this Conclusion is true; that is, certain places of the Scripture, and also certain Testimonies of the Fathers. Saint Paul saith Hebrews the 9th, Christ being become an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this building, neither by the Blood of Goats and Calves, but by his own Blood, entred once into the Holy Place, and obtained for us eternal Redemption, &c. And now in the end of the World he hath appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And again, Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many. Moreover he saith, With one offering hath he made perfect for ever those that are sanctified. These Scriptures do perswade me to believe that there is no other oblation of Christ (albeit I am not igno­rant there are many Sacrifices) but that which was once made up­on the Cross.

The Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers, which confirm the same, are out of Augustine ad Bonif. Epist. 23. Again, in his Book of 43 Questions, in the 41st Question. Also in his 20th Book against Faustus the Manichee, Chap. 21. And in the same Book a­gainst the said Faustus, Chap. 28. thus he writeth; Now the Chri­stians keep a memorial of the Sacrifice past, with a holy Oblation and par­ticipation of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Fulgentius, in his Book De fide, calleth the same Oblation a Commemoration. And these things are sufficient for this time for a Scholastical Determination of these matters.


Bishop Ridley's Answer to the Three Propositions proposed to him in the Disputation at Oxford, April 12. 1554.

I Received of you the other day, Right Worshipful Mr. Prolo­cutor, and ye my Reverend Masters, Commissioners from the Queens Majesty and her Honourable Council, Three Propositi­ons; whereunto ye commanded me to prepare against this day, what I thought good to answer concerning the same.

Now whilst I weighed with my self, how great a charge of the Lord's Flock was of late committed unto me, for the which I must once render an account to my Lord God, (and that how soon, he knoweth) and that moreover, by the Commandment of the Apostle Peter, I ought to be ready alway to give a Rea­son of the Hope that is in me, with Meekness and Reverence unto every one that shall demand the same. Besides this, con­sidering my Duty to the Church of Christ, and to your Wor­ships, being Commissioners by Publick Authority, I determined with my self to obey your Commandment, and so openly to declare unto you my mind touching the foresaid Propositions; and albeit plainly to confess unto you the Truth in these things which ye now demand of me. I have thought otherwise in times past, than now I do, yet (God I call to record unto my Soul, I lye not) I have not altered my Judgment, as now it is, either by constraint of any Man or Laws; either for the dread of any dangers of this World; either for any hope of Commo­dity; but only for the love of the Truth revealed unto me by the Grace of God (as I am undoubtedly perswaded) in his holy Word, and in the reading of the Ancient Fathers.

These things I do rather recite at this present, because it may happen to some of you hereafter, as in times past it hath done to me: I mean, if ye think otherwise of the matters propound­ed in these Propositions than I now do, God may open them un­to you in time to come.

But howsoever it shall be, I will in few words do that which I think ye all look I should do; that is, as plainly as I can, I will declare my Judgment herein. Howbeit of this I would ye were not ignorant, that I will not indeed wittingly and wil­lingly [Page 44] speak in any Point against Gods Word, or dissent in any one jot from the same, or from the Rules of Faith, or Christian Religion; which Rules that same most Sacred word of God prescribeth to the Church of Christ, whereunto I now, and for ever submit my self and all my doings. And because the mat­ter I have now taken in hand is weighty, and ye all well know how unready I am to handle it accordingly, as well for lack of time, as also lack of Books; therefore here I protest, that I will publickly this day require of you, that it may be lawful for me concerning all mine Answers, Explications, and Confirmations, to add or diminish whatsoever shall seem hereafter more conve­nient and meet for the purpose, through more sound Judgment, better Deliberation, and more exact Trial of every particular Thing. Having now by the way of Preface and Protestation spoken these few words, I will come to the Answer of the Propositions propounded unto me, and so to the most brief Ex­plication and Confirmation of mine Answers.


Reverend Mr. Doctor, concerning the lack of Books, there is no cause why you should complain: What Books soever you will name, you shall have them; and as concerning the Judgment of your Answers to be had of your self with further deliberation, it shall, I say, be lawful for you until Sunday next to add unto them what you shall think good your self. My mind is, that we should use short Arguments, lest we should make an in­finite process of the thing.


There is another thing besides, which I would gladly obtain at your hands; I perceive that you have Writers and Notaries here present. By all likelihood our Disputations shall be published; I beseech you for Gods sake let me have liberty to speak my mind freely, and without interruption, not because I have determined to protract the time with a solemn Preface, but lest it may appear that some be not satisfied. God wot I am no Ora­tor, nor have I learned Rhetorick to set Colours on the matter.


Among this whole Company, it shall be permitted you to take two for your part.


I will chuse two, if there were any here with whom I were acquainted.


Here are two which Mr. Cranmer had yesterday; take them if it please you.


I am content with them, I trust they are honest men.

The First Proposition.

In the Sacrament of the Altar, by the virtue of God's Word spoken of the Priest, the Natural Body of Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, and his Natural Blood is Really Present under the Forms of Bread and Wine.

The Answer of N. Ridley.

In matters appertaining to God we may not speak according to the sense of Man, nor of the World. Therefore this Proposi­tion or Conclusion is framed after another manner of Phrase or kind of Speech than the Scripture useth. Again it is very obscure and dark by means of sundry words of doubtful signification. And being taken in the sense which the Schoolmen teach, and at this time the Church of Rome doth defend, it is false and er­roneous, and plain contrary to the Doctrine which is according to Godliness.

The Explication.

How far the diversity and newness of the Phrase in all this first Proposition, is from the Phrase of the Holy Scripture, and that in every part almost, it is so plain and evident to any that is but meanly exercised in Holy Writ, that I need not now (especially in this Company of Learned Men) to spend any time therein, except the same shall be required of me hereafter.

First, There is a double sense in these words (by virtue of God's Word) for it is doubtful what word of God this is; whether it be that which is read in the Evangelists, or in St. Paul, or any other. And if it be that which is in the Evangelists, or in St. Paul, what that is. If it be in none of them, then how it may be known to be God's Word, and of such virtue that it should be able to work so great a matter.

Again, There is a doubt of these words (of the Priest) whe­ther no man may be called a Priest, but he who hath Authority to make a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead; and how it may be proved that this Authority was committed of God to any man, but to Christ alone.

It is likewise doubted after what Order the Sacrificing Priest shall be, whether after the Order of Aaron, or else after the Order of Melchisedech; for as far as I know, the Holy Scripture doth al­low no more.


Let this be sufficient.


If we lack time at this present, there is time enough hereafter.


These are but evasions or starting holes; you consume the time in vain.

[Page 46]

I cannot start from you, I am captive and bound.


Fall to it, my Masters.


That which you have spoken may suffice at this present.


Let me alone, I pray you, for I have not much to say behind.


Go forward.


Moreover, there is ambiguity in this word Really, whe­ther it be taken as the Logicians term it transcendenter, that is, most generally, and so it may signifie any manner of thing, which be­longeth to the Body of Christ by any means; after which sort we also grant Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, (as in Disputation, if occasion be given, shall be declared) or whether it be taken to signifie the very same thing, having Body, Life, and Soul, which was assumed and taken of the Word of God, into the Unity of Person. In which sense, fith the Body of Christ is really in Heaven, because of the true manner of his Body, it may not be said to be here in the earth. There is yet a further doubtfulness in these words under the forms of Bread and Wine, whether the forms be there taken to signifie the only accidental and outward shews of Bread and Wine; or there withal the substantial Natures thereof, which are to be seen by their qualities, and perceived by exterior senses.

Now the Error and Falseness of the Proposition after the sense of the Roman Church and Schoolmen, may hereby appear, in that they affirm the Bread to be Transubstantiated, and changed to the Flesh assumed of the Word of God; and that, as they say, by virtue of the Word, which they have devised by a certain number of words, and cannot be found in any of the Evangelists, or in S Paul; and so they gather that Christ's Body is really con­tained in the Sacrament of the Altar: Which Position is ground­ed upon the Foundation of the Transubstantiation; which Foundation is monstrous, against Reason, and destroyeth the Analogy or Proportion of the Sacraments; and therefore this Proposition also, which is built upon this rotten Foundation, is false, erroneous, and to be counted as a detestable Heresie of the Sacramentaries.


We lose time. Ridley. You shall have time enough.


Fall to reasoning. You shall have some other day for this matter. Rid. I have no more to say concerning my Expli­cation. If you will give me leave, and let me alone, I will but speak a word or two for my confirmation.

[Page 47]

Go to, say on.

The Confirmation of the aforesaid Answer.

There ought no Doctrine to be established in the Church of Tes- God, which dissenteth from the Word of God, from the Rule of Faith, and draweth with it many absurdities that cannot be avoided.

But this Doctrine of the first Proposition is such. ti-no.

Ergo, It ought not to be established and maintained in the Church of God.

The Major or first part of my Argument is plain, and the Mi­nor or second part is proved thus.

The Doctrine maintaineth a real, corporal, and carnal pre­sence of Christ's Flesh, assumed and taken of the Word, to be in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and that not by virtue and Grace only, but also by the whole Essence and Substance of the Body and Flesh of Christ.

But such a presence disagreeth from God's Word, from the Rule of Faith, and cannot but draw with it many absurdities.

Ergo, The second part is true.

The first part of this Argument is manifest, and the second may yet futher be confirmed thus.—


Thus you consume time, which might be better be­stowed on other matters. Mr. Opponent, I pray you, to your Ar­guments.


I will here reason with you upon Transubstantiation, which you say is contrary to the Rule and Analogy of Faith. The con­trary whereof I prove by the Scriptures and the Doctors. But before I enter Argumentation with you, I demand first, whether in the sixth Chapter of John there be any mention made of the Sacrament, or of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament?


It is against reason that I should be impeached to prose­cute that which I have to speak in this Assembly, being not so long, but that it may be comprehended in few words.


Let him read on.


First of all, this Presence is contrary to many places of the holy Scripture. Secondly, It varieth from the Articles of the Faith. Thirdly, It destroyeth and taketh away the Institu­tion of the Lord's Supper. Fourthly, It maketh precious things common to prophane and ungodly persons; for it casteth that which is holy unto Dogs, and pearls unto Swine. Fifthly, It forceth men to maintain many Monstrous Miracles without ne­cessity [Page 48] and Authority of God's Word. Sixthly, It giveth occasion to the Hereticks which erred concerning the two Natures in Christ, to defend their Heresies thereby. Seventhly, It falsifieth the sayings of the Godly Fathers; it falsifieth also the Catholick Faith of the Church which the Apostles taught, the Martyrs confirmed, and the Faithful (as one of the Fathers saith) do retain and keep until this day. Wherefore the 2d part of mine Argument is true. The Probation of the Antecedent or former part of this Argument, by the Parts thereof.

1. This carnal Presence is contrary to the Word of God, as appeareth, Joh. 16. I tell you the truth. It is profitable to you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter shall not come unto you. Act. 3. Whom the Heavens must receive until the time of restoring of all things which God hath spoken. Mat. 9. The Children of the Bride­groom cannot mourn so long as the Bridegroom is with them. But now is the time of mourning. Joh. 16. But I will see you again, and your hearts shall rejoice. Joh. 14. I will come again and take you to my self. Mat. 24. If they shall say unto you, Behold here is Christ, or there is Christ, believe them not, &c.

2. It varieth from the Articles of the Faith, He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, from whence (and not from any other place, saith St. Augustine) he shall come to judg both the quick and the dead.

3. It destroyeth and taketh away the Institution of the Lord's Sup­per, which was commanded only to be used and continued until the Lord himself should come. If therefore he be really present in the body of his flesh, then must the Supper cease: For a re­membrance is not of a thing present, but of a thing past and ab­sent. And there is a difference between Remembrance and Pre­sence, and (as one of the Fathers saith) A Figure is in vain where the thing figured is present.

It maketh precious things common to prophane and ungodly Persons, and constraineth men to confess many absurdities. For it affirmeth, that Whoremongers and Murtherers, yea, and (as some of them hold opinion) that Mice, Rats and Dogs also may receive the very real and corporal Body of the Lord, wherein the fulness of the Spirit of Light and Grace dwelleth; contrary to the mani­fest words of Christ in six Places and Sentences of the 6th Chap­ter of St. John.

4. It confirmeth also and maintaineth that beastly kind of Cru­elty of the Anthropophagi, that is, the Devourers of Man's Flesh: for [Page 49] it is a more cruel thing to devour a quick Man, that to slay him.


He requireth time to speak Blasphemies. Leave your Blas­phemies.


I had little thought to have had such reproachful words at your hands.


All is quiet. Go to your Arguments Mr. Doctor.


I have not many things more to say.


You utter Blasphemies with a most impudent face; leave off (I say) and get you to the Argument.


5. It forceth men to maintain many monstrous Miracles, without any necessity and authority of God's Word. For at the coming of this presence of the Body and Flesh of Christ, they thrust away the Substance of Bread, and affirm that the Accidents remain without any Subject, and instead thereof they place Christ's Body without his qualities, and the true manner of a Body. And if the Sacrament be reserved so long until it mould, and Worms breed, some say that the Substance of Bread miraculously re­turneth again, and some deny it. Other some affirm, that the real Body of Christ goeth down into the Stomach of the Receivers, and doth there abide so long only as they shall continue to be good; but another sort hold that the Body of Christ is carried into Hea­ven, so soon as the forms of Bread be bruised with the Teeth. O Works of Miracles! Truly, and most truly, I see that fulfilled in these Men, whereof St. Paul prophesied, 2 Thess. 2. Because they have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved, God shall send them strong Delusions, that they should believe a Lye, and be all damned which have not believed the Truth. This gross Presence hath brought forth that fond phantasie of Concomitance, whereby is broken at this day and abrogated the Commandment of the Lord for distributing of the Lord's Cup to the Laity.

6. It giveth occasion to Hereticks to maintain and defend their Errors; as to Marcion, who said that Christ had but a Phantasti­cal Body; and to Eutiches, who wickedly confounded the two Natures in Christ.

7. Finally, It falsifieth the Sayings of the Godly Fathers, and the Catholick Faith of the Church, which Vigilius, a Martyr and grave Writer, saith, was taught of the Apostles, confirmed with the Blood of Martyrs, and was continually maintained by the Faith­ful until his time. By the Sayings of the Fathers, I mean of Ju­stin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Emisenus, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine; Vigilius, Fulgentius, Ber­tram, [Page 50] and others most ancient Fathers. All those places, as I am sure I have read, making for my purpose; so am I well assured that I could shew the same, if I might have the use of mine own Books, which I will take to me to do, even upon the peril of my life, and loss of all that I may lose in this World.

But now (my Brethren) think not because I disallow that Pre­sence which the first Proposition maintaineth (as a Presence which I take to be forged, Phantastical, and besides the Authority of God's Word, perniciously brought into the Church by the Roma­nists) that I therefore go about to take away the true Presence of Christ's Body in his Supper rightly and duly administred, which is grounded upon the Word of God, and made more plain by the Commentaries of the Faithful Fathers. They that think so of me, the Lord knoweth how far they are deceived; and to make the same evident unto you, I will in few words declare what true Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper I hold and affirm, with the Word of God and the Ancient Fathers.

I say and confess with the Evangelist Luke, and Apostle Paul, that the Bread on the which thanks are given, is the Body of Christ, in the remembrance of him and his Death, to be set forth perpe­tually of the Faithful until his coming.

I say and confess the Bread which we break, to be the Commu­nion and partaking of Christ's Body, with the Ancient and the Faithful Fathers.

I say and believe that there is not only a signification of Christ's Body set forth by the Sacrament, but also that therewith is given to the Godly and Faithful the Grace of Christ's Body, that is, the food of Life and Immortality. And this I hold with Cyprian.

I say also with St. Augustine, that we eat Life, and we drink Life; with Emisene, that we feel the Lord to be present in Grace; with Athanasius, that we receive Celestial Food that cometh from above; the propriety of natural Communion, with Hilary; the na­ture of Flesh, and Benediction which giveth life in Bread and Wine, with Cyril; and with the same Cyril, the virtue of the very Flesh of Christ, Life and Grace of his Body, the property of the only begotten, that is to say Life, as he himself in plain words ex­pounded it.

I confess also with Basil, that we receive the mystical Advent and coming of Christ, Grace and Virtue of his very Nature; the Sacrament of his very Flesh, with Ambrose; the Body by Grace, with Epiphanius; Spiritual Flesh, but not that which was [Page 51] crucified, with Hierom; Grace flowing into a Sacrifice, and the Grace of the Spirit, with Chrysostom; Grace and invisible Veri­ty, Grace and Society of the Members of Christ's Body, with Augustine.

Finally, with Bertram, (who was the last of all these) I confess that Christ's Body is in the Sacrament in this respect; namely, as he writeth, Because there is in it the Spirit of Christ, that is, the power of the Word of God, which not only feedeth the Soul, but also cleanseth it. But of these I suppose it may appear unto all men how far we are from that Opinion, whereof some go about falsly to slander us to the world, saying, we teach that the Godly and Faithful should receive nothing else at the Lord's Table, but a Figure of the Body of Christ.

The Second Proposition.

After the Consecration, there remaineth no Substance of Bread and Wine, neither any other Substance, than the Substance of God and Man.

The Answer.

The second Conclusion is manifestly false, directly against the Word of God, the Nature of the Sacrament, and the most evi­dent Testimonies of the godly Fathers; and it is the rotten Foundation of the other two Conclusions propounded by you, both of the first, and also of the third. I will not therefore now tarry upon any further Explication of this Answer, being con­tented with that which is already added afore to the Answer of the first Proposition.

The First Argument for the Confirmation of this Answer.

It is very plain by the Word of God, that Christ did give Bread unto his Disciples, and called it his Body.

But the Substance of Bread is another manner of Substance, than is the Substance of Christ's Body, God and Man.

Therefore the Conclusion is false.

The second part of mine Argument is plain, and the first is proved thus.

The Second Argument.

That which Christ did take, on the which he gave Thanks, Da- and the which he brake, he gave to his Disciples, and called it his Body.

But he took Bread, gave Thanks on Bread, and brake Bread. ti- Ergo, The first part is true.

And it is confirmed with the Authorities of the Fathers, Ire­naeus, si- Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Hierom, Augustine, Theo­doret, [Page 52] Cyril, Rabanus and Bede; whose places I will take upon me to shew most manifest in this behalf, if I may be suffered to have my Books, as my request is.

Bread is the Body of Christ. Ergo. It is Bread.

The Third Argument.

As the Bread of the Lord's Table is Christ's natural Body, so Ba- it is his mystical Body.

But it is not Christ's mystical Body by Transubstantiation.

Ergo, It is not his natural Body by Transubstantiation. ro- eo.

The second part of my Argument is plain, and the first is pro­ved thus: As Christ, who is the Verity, spake of the Bread, This is my Body which shall be betrayed for you; speaking there of his natural Body: even so St. Paul, moved with the same Spirit of Truth, said, We, though we be many, yet are we all one Bread and one Body, which be partakers of one Bread.

The Fourth Argument.

We may no more believe Bread to be Transubstantiate into the Body of Christ, than the Wine into his Blood.

But the Wine is not Transubstantiate into his Blood:

Ergo, Neither is that Bread therefore Transubstantiate into his Body.

The first part of this Argument is manifest, and the second part is proved out of the Authority of God's Word in Matthew and Mark, I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine, &c. Now the fruit of the Vine was Wine which Christ drank, and gave to his Disciples to drink. With this Sentence agreeth plainly the place of Chrysostome on the 20th Chapter of Matthew, as Cyprian doth also, affirming, That there is no Blood, if Wine be not in the Cup.

The Fifth Argument.

The words of Christ spoken upon the Cup, and upon the Ba- Bread, have like effect and working.

But the words spoken upon the Cup have not virtue to Tran­substantiate. ro-

Ergo, It followeth that the words spoken upon the Bread have eo. no such virtue.

The second part of the Argument is proved; because they would then Transubstantiate the Cup, or that which is in the Cup, into the New Testament. But neither of these things can be done, and very absurd it is to confess the same.

The Sixth Argument.

The Circumstances of the Scripture, the Analogy and proportion of Da- the Sacraments, and the Testimony of the faithful Fathers, ought to rule us in taking the meaning of the Holy Scripture touching the Sa­crament.

But the Words of the Lord's Supper, the Circumstances of the ti- Scripture, the Analogy of the Sacraments, and the Sayings of the Fathers, do most effectually and plainly prove a figurative speech in the words of the Lord's Supper.

Ergo, A figurative sense and meaning is specially to be received in si. these words, This is my Body.

The Circumstances of the Scripture, Do this in remembrance of me. As oft as ye shall eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, ye shall shew forth the Lord's death. Let a man prove himself, and so eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. They came together to break Bread: and they continued in breaking of Bread. The Bread which we break, &c. For we being many, are all one Bread and one Body, &c.

The Analogy of the Sacraments is necessary; for if the Sacraments had not some similitude, or likeness of the things whereof they be Sa­craments, they could in no wise be Sacraments. And this similitude in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is taken three manner of ways.

  • 1. The first consisteth in nourishing, as you shall read in Rabanus, Cyprian, Austin, Irenaeus, and most plainly in Isidore out of Bertram.
  • 2. The second in the uniting and joyning of many into one, as Cy­prian teacheth.
  • 3. The third is a similitude of unlike things: Where, like as the Bread is turned into one Body; so we by the right use of this Sacra­ment, are turned through Faith into the Body of Christ.

The sayings of the Fathers declare it to be a figurative speech, as it appeareth in Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom in opere imperfecto, Augustin, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, and most plainly of all, in Bertram. Moreover the sayings and places of all the Fathers, whose names I have before recited against the assertion of the first Proposi­tion, do quite overthrow Transubstantiation. But of all most evidently and plainly, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom to Caesarius the Monk, Augustine against Adamantus, Gelasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Chrysostom a­gain on the 20th of Matth. Rabanus, Damascene and Bertram.

Here, Right Worshipful Mr. Prolocutor, and ye the rest of the Com­missioners, it may please you to understand, that I do not lean to these things only, which I have written in my former Answers and Con­firmations, but that I have also for the proof of that I have spoken, [Page 54] whatsoever Bertram, a man Learned, of sound and upright Judgment, and ever counted a Catholick for these Seven hundred years, until this our age, hath written. His Treatise, whosoever shall read and weigh, considering the time of the Writer, his Learning, Godliness of life, the Allegations of the Ancient Fathers, and his manifold and most grounded Arguments, I cannot (doubtless) but much marvel, if he have any fear of God at all, how he can with good Conscience speak against him in this matter of the Sacrament. This Bertram was the first that pulled me by the Ear, and that first brought me from the common Error of the Romish Church, and caused me to search more diligently and exactly both the Scriptures and the Writings of the old Ecclesiastical Fathers in this matter. And this I protest before the face of God, who knoweth that I lye not in the things I now speak.

The Third Proposition.

In the Mass is the lively Sacrifice of the Church, propitiable and available for the sins as well of quick as of the dead.

The Answer to this Proposition.

I answer to this third Proposition as I did to the first. And more­over I say, that being taken in such sense as the words seem to im­port, it is not only erroneous, but withal so much to the deroga­tion and defacing of the Death and Passion of Christ, that I judge it may and ought most worthily to be counted wicked and blasphe­mous against the most precious Blood of our Saviour Christ.

The Explication.

Concerning the Romish Mass which is used at this day, or the lively Sacrifice thereof propitiatory and available for the sins of the quick and the dead, the Holy Scripture hath not so much as one syllable.

There is ambiguity also in the name of Mass: what it signifieth, and whether at this day there be any such indeed as the Ancient Fa­thers used; seeing that now there be neither Catecumeni nor Poenitentes to be sent away.

Again, touching these words (The lively Sacrifice of the Church) There is doubt whether they are to be understood Figuratively and Sacra­mentally, for the Sacrament of the lively Sacrifice (after which sort we deny it not to be in the Lord's Supper) or properly and without any figure; of the which manner there was but one only Sacrifice, and that once offered, namely upon the Altar of the Cross.

Moreover, in these words (as well as) it may be doubted whether they be spoken in mockage as men are wont to say in sport, of a fool­ish and ignorant person, that he is apt as well in conditions as in knowledg, being apt indeed in neither of them both.

[Page 55] There is also a doubt in the word Propitiable, whether it signify here that which taketh away sin, or that which may be made available for the taking away of sin; That is to say, whether it is to be taken in the active or in the passive signification.

Now the falsness of the Proposition, after the meaning of the Schoolmen and the Romish Church, and Impiety in that sense which the words seem to import, is this; that they leaning to the founda­tion of their fond Transubstantiation, would make the quick and lively body of Christ's Flesh (united and knit to the Divinity) to lye hid under the accidents, and outward shews of Bread and Wine. Which is very false, as I have said before; and they building upon this foundation, do hold that the same Body is offered unto God, by the Priest in his dayly Massings, to put away the sins of the quick and the dead; whereas by the Apostle to the Hebrews it is evident that there is but one Oblation, and one true and lively Sacrifice of the Church offered upon the Altar of the Cross, which was, is, and shall be for ever the propitiation for the sins of the whole World: and where there is Remission of the same, there is, saith the Apostle, no more offering for sin.

Arguments confirming his Answer.

No Sacrifice ought to be done, but where the Priest is meet to offer Ce- the same.

All other Priests be unmeet to offer Sacrifice for sin, but Christ alone. la- rent.

Ergo, No other Priests ought to Sacrifice for sin but Christ alone.

The second part of my Argument is thus proved.

No honour in God's Church ought to be taken where a man is not Fe- called as Aaron.

It is a great honour in God's Church to Sacrifice for Sin: ri- son.


No man ought to Sacrifice for Sin, but only they who are called.

But only Christ is called to that honour.

Ergo, No other Priest but Christ ought to Sacrifice for Sin.

That no man is called to this degree of Honour but Christ alone, it is evident; For there are but two only Orders of Priesthood allowed in the Word of God: Namely, the Order of Aaron, and the Order of Mel­chisedech. But now the Order of Aaron is come to an end, by reason that it was unprofitable, and weak; and of the Order of Melchise­dech there is but one Priest alone, even Christ the Lord, who hath a Priesthood that cannot pass to any other.

An Argument.

That thing is in vain, and to no effect, where no necessity is Ba- wherefore it is done.

[Page 56] To offer up any more Sacrifice Propitiatory for the quick and the ro- dead, there is no necessity, for Christ our Saviour did that fully and perfectly once for all.

Ergo, To do the same in the Mass, it is in vain. co.

Another Argument.

After that Eternal Redemption is found and obtained, there need­eth Fe- no more daily offering for the same.

But Christ coming an high Bishop, &c. found and obtained for us ri- Eternal Redemption.

Ergo, There needeth now no more daily Oblation for the Sins of o. the quick and the dead.

Another Argument.

All remission of Sins cometh only by shedding of Blood. Ca- mes- tres.

In the Mass there is no shedding of Blood.

Ergo, In the Mass there is no Remission of Sins, and so it follow­eth also that there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice.

Another Argument.

In the Mass the Passion of Christ is not in verity, but in a Mystery representing the same; yea even there where the Lord's Supper is duly ministred. But where Christ suffereth not, there is he not of­fered in verity: For the Apostle saith, Not that he might offer up him­self oftentimes, (for then must he have suffered oftentimes since the beginning of the World.) Now where Christ is not offered, there is no Propitia­tory Sacrifice.

Ergo, In the Mass there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice. For Christ ap­peared once in the latter end of the World to put sin to flight by the offering up of himself. And as it is appointed to all men that they shall once dye, and then cometh the Judgment: even so Christ was once offered to take away the Sins of many. And unto them that look for him, shall he appear again without sin unto salvation.

Another Argument.

Where there is any Sacrifice that can make the comers thereunto Da- perfect, there ought men to cease from offering any more Ex­piatory and Propitiatory Sacrifices.

But in the New Testament there is one only Sacrifice now already ri- long since offered, which is able to make the comers thereunto perfect for ever.

Ergo, In the New Testament they ought to cease from offering i. any more Propitiatory Sacrifice.

Sentences of the Scripture tending to the same end and purpose, out of which also may be gathered other manifest Arguments for more confirmation thereof.

[Page 57] By the which will (saith the Apostle) we are sanctified by the offe­ring Heb. 10. up of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all. And in the same place; But this man, after that he had offered one Sacrifice for sin, sitteth for ever at the Right hand of God, &c. For with one Offering hath he made perfect for ever them that are sanctified, and by himself hath he purged our Sins. I beseech you to mark these words (by himself:) the which well weigh­ed, will without doubt cease all controversie. The Apostle plainly denieth any other Sacrifice to remain for him that treadeth under his feet the Blood of the Testament, by the which he was made holy. Christ will not be crucified again, he will not his death to be had in derision.

He hath reconciled us in the Body of his Flesh. Mark, I beseech you, he Col. 1. saith not in the Mystery of his Body; but in the Body of his Flesh.

If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the 1 John 2. Righteous; and he is the Propitiation for our Sins; not for ours only, but for the Sins of the whole World.

I know that all these places of the Scripture are avoided by two manner of subtil shifts: The one is, by the distinction of the bloody and unbloody Sacrifice; as tho our unbloody Sacrifice of the Church were any other than the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving, than a commemoration, a shewing forth, and a Sacramental Representation of that one only bloody Sacrifice, offered up once for all.

The other is by depraving and wresting the Sayings of the An­cient Fathers unto such a strange kind of sense, as the Fathers them­selves indeed never meant. For what the meaning of the Fathers was, is evident by that which St. Augustine writeth in his Epistle to Boniface, and in the 83d Chapter of his Ninth Book against Faustus the Manichee, besides many other Places; likewise by Eusebius Emissenus, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Fulgentius, Bertram, and others, who do wholly concord and agree together in this unity in the Lord, that the Redemption, once made in Verity for the Salvation of Man, continueth in full ef­fect for ever, and worketh without ceasing unto the end of the World; That the Sacrifice once offered cannot be consumed; That the Lord's Death and Passion is as effectual, the vertue of that Blood once shed, as fresh at this day, for the washing away of sins, as it was even the same day that it flowed out of the blessed Side of our Sa­viour: And finally, that the whole substance of our Sacrifice, which is frequented of the Church in the Lord's Supper, consisteth in Prayers, Praise, and giving of Thanks, and in remembring, and in shewing forth of that Sacrifice once offered upon the Altar of the Cross; that the same might continually be had in reverence by Mystery, which [Page 58] once only, and no more, was offered for the Price of our Re­demption.

These are the things (right worshipful Mr. Prolocutor, and ye the rest of the Commissioners) which I could presently prepare to the answering of your three foresaid Prophesies, being destitute of all help in this shortness of time, sudden warning, and want of Books.

Wherefore I appeal to my first Protestation, most humbly desiring the help of the same (as much as may be) to be granted unto me. And because ye have lately given most unjust and cruel Sentence a­gainst me, I do here appeal (so far forth as I may) to a more indif­ferent and just censure and judgment of some other Superior, Com­petent and Lawful Judge, and that according to the approved state of the Church of England. Howbeit, I confess, I am ignorant what that is at this present, through the trouble and alteration of the state of the Realm. But if this Appeal may not be granted to me upon Earth, then do I fly (even as to my only Refuge and alone Haven of Health) to the Sentence of the Eternal Judge, that is, of the Almighty God, to whose most merciful Justice towards us, and most just Mer­cifulness, I do wholly commit my self, and all my Cause, nothing at all despairing of the Defence of my Advocate and alone Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom with the Everlasting Father, and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier of us all, be now and for ever all Honour and Glory. Amen.


Of Christ's Real Presence there may be a double under­standing: P. 56. If you take the Real Presence of Christ according to the Real and Corporal Substance which he took of the Virgin, that Pre­sence being in Heaven, cannot be on the Earth also. But if you mean a Real Presence, secundum rem aliquam quae ad Corpus Christi pertinet: i. e. according to something that appertaineth to Christ's Body, certes the Ascension and abiding in Heaven are no let at all to that Presence. Wherefore Christ's Body after that sort is here present to us in the Lord's Supper, by Grace, I say, as Epiphanius speaketh it.

I grant the Bread to be converted and turned into the Flesh of P. 60. Christ, but not by Transubstantiation, but by a Sacramental Con­version or turning. It is Transformed, saith Theophylact in the same place, by a Mystical Benediction, and by the accession or coming of the Holy Ghost unto the Flesh of Christ. He saith not, by expulsion, or driving away the Substance of Bread, and by substituting or put­ting in its place the Corporal Substance of Christ's Flesh. And where he saith, It is not a Figure of the Body, we should understand that saying, as he himself doth elsewhere add one, that is, it is no [Page 59] naked or bare Figure only. For Christ is present in his Mysteries; nei­ther at any time, as Cyprian saith, doth the Divine Majesty absent him­self from the Divine Mysteries.

And I also worship Christ in the Sacrament, but not because P. 61. he is included in the Sacrament: Like as I worship Christ also in the Scriptures, not because he is really included in them. Notwith­standing, I say, that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, but yet Sacramentally and Spiritually, according to his Grace giving Life, and in that respect really, that is according to his Benediction, giving Life.

Furthermore, I acknowledg gladly the true Body of Christ to be in the Lord's Supper in such sort as the Church of Christ (which is the Spouse of Christ, and is taught of the Holy Ghost, and guided by God's Word) doth acknowledg the same. But the true Church of Christ doth acknowledg a Presence of Christ's Body in the Lord's Supper, to be communicated to the Godly by Grace, and spiritual­ly, as I have often shewed, and by a Sacramental Signification, but not by the Corporal Presence of the Body of his Flesh.

We worship, I confess, the same true Lord and Saviour of P. 65. the world, which the Wise men worshipped in the Manger; how­beit we do it in a Mystery, and in the Sacrament of the Lord's Sup­per, and that in Spiritual Liberty, as saith S. Aug. lib. 3. de Doct. Chri­stiana, Not in carnal servitude; that is, we do not worship servilely the signs for the things; for that should be, as he also saith, a part of a servile Infirmity; but we behold with the eyes of Faith him pre­sent after Grace, and spiritually set upon the Table; and we wor­ship him who sitteth above, and is worshipped of the Angels; for Christ is always assistant to his Mysteries, as the said Augustine saith. And the Divine Majesty, as saith Cyprian, doth never absent it self from the Divine Mysteries; but this Assistance and Presence of Christ, as in Baptism, it is wholly Spiritual, and by Grace, and not by any Cor­poral Substance of the Flesh: Even so it is here in the Lord's Sup­per, being rightly, and according to the Word of God duly mi­nistred.


My Protestation always saved, that by this mine P. 420. Answer I do not condescend to your Authority, in that you are Le­gate to the Pope; I answer thus,

In a sense, the first Article is true, and in a sense it is false; for if you take really for vere, for spiritually by Grace and Efficacy, then it is true that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ is in the Sacrament vere & realiter, indeed and really; but if you take these terms so grosly, [Page 60] that you would conclude thereby a Natural Body, having Motion, to be contained under the Forms of Bread and Wine, vere & realiter, then really is not Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, no more than the Holy Ghost is in the Element of Water in our Baptism.

Because this Answer was not understood, the Notaries wist not how to note it; wherefore the Bishop of Lincoln willed him to answer either Affirmatively or Negatively, either to grant the Article, or to deny it.


My Lord, you know that where any Equivocation (which is a word having two significations) is, except distinction be given, no direct Answer can be made; for it is one of Aristotle's Fallacies, containing two Questions under one, the which cannot be satisfied with one Answer. For both you and I agree herein, that in the Sa­crament is the very true and Natural Body and Blood of Christ, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascended into Hea­ven, which sitteth on the Right Hand of God the Father, which shall come from thence to judg the quick and the dead; only we differ in modo, in the way and manner of being; we confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament, and dissent in the manner of being there. I being fully by God's Word thereunto perswaded, confess Christ's Natural Body to be in the Sacrament indeed by Spirit and Grace, be­cause that whosoever receiveth worthily that Bread and Wine, re­ceiveth effectually Christ's Body, and drinketh his Blood; that is, he is made effectually Partaker of his Passion; and you make a grosser kind of being, enclosing a Natural, a Lively, and a Moving Body, under the shape or form of Bread and Wine. Now this difference considered, to the Question thus I answer, That in the Sacrament of the Altar is the Natural Body and Blood of Christ, vere & realiter, indeed and really for spiritually by Grace and Efficacy; for so every worthy Receiver receiveth the very true Body of Christ; but if you mean really and indeed, so that thereby you would include a lively and a moveable Body under the forms of Bread and Wine, then in that sense is not Christ's Body in the Sacrament really and indeed.

This Answer taken and penned of the Notaries, the Bishop of Lin­coln proposed the second Question or Article. To whom he answer'd.


Always my Protestation reserved, I answer thus, That in the Sacrament is a certain Change, in that that Bread, which was before common Bread, is now made a lively presentation of Christ's Body, and not only a Figure, but effectually representeth his Body; that even as the Mortal Body was nourished by that visible Bread, so is the In­ternal [Page 61] Soul fed with the Heavenly food of Christ's Body, which the eye of Faith seeth as the bodily eye seeth only Bread. Such a Sacramental mutation I grant to be in the Bread and Wine, which truly is no small change, but such a change as no mortal man can make, but only that Omnipotency of Christ's Word.

Then the Bishop of Lincoln willed him to answer directly either Affirma­tively or Negatively, without further Declaration of the Matter.

Then he Answered:


That notwithstanding the Sacramental Mutation of the which he spake, and all the Doctors confessed, the true Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine remaineth; with the which the Body is in like sort nou­rished, as the Soul is by Grace and Spirit with the Body of Christ. Even so in Baptism the Body is washed with the visible Water, and the Soul is cleansed from all filth by the Invisible Holy Ghost, and yet the Water cea­seth not to be Water, but keepeth the nature of Water still. In like sort in the Sacrament of the Lords-Supper the Bread ceaseth not to be Bread.

Extracts from Bishop Poynets Diallaction.

I Will so divide the question, that it may be briefly reduced to three heads. First, I will shew that the true Body of Christ is given to the Faithful in the Sa­crament; and that the words Nature and Substance, are not to be rejected, but that the Ancients treating of this Sacra­ment did use them. In the next place, I will shew that there is a difference be­tween the proper Body of Christ, and that which is present in the Sacrament, and that the Ancient Fathers thought so. Last­ly, I will shew, what manner of Body this is, which is received in this Mystery, [Page 62] and why it is called by that Name, ac­cording to the Doctrine of the sante Fa­thers.

The Body of Christ is so called proper­ly and improperly; properly, that Body which was taken of the Virgin. Improperly, as the Sacrament and the Church. That the Church is not properly the Body of Christ, cannot be doubted by any. It remains, that we now prove the same of the Sacra­ment.

It may easily be observed from what Chrysostom writeth in this place, that that which Christ called his Body when he said, Take, eat, this is my Body; and which be received together with his Apo­stles, is in another manner his Body, than is his very proper Body, which was fed with that other. This did eat, that was eaten, and each is called his Body, but in a different manner.

He gave the Sacrament of his Body, and not the Body it self visibly conceived, that is, his visible Body; which is refer­red to his proper Body. But this Body, wherever it is, is visible.

It is to be observed, That the truth of the Lords Body may be spoken two ways, and ought to be understood two ways. For one verity of his Body is required in the Sacrament, another simply and out of the Sacrament.

As for what concerns our purpose, the very words of Cyprian sufficiently de­monstrate, how the Letter is not to be fol­lowed in those things, which relate to this Mystery; how far all carnal Sense is to be removed, and all things to be referred to a spiritual Sense; that with this Bread is present, the Divine Virtue, the [Page 63] effect of Eternal Life; that the Divine Essence is infused; that the Words are Spirit and Life; that a spiritual Precept is delivered; that this Body, this Flesh and Blood, this Substance of the Body ought not to be understood after a common manner, nor according to the Dictates of human Reason; but is so named, thought and believed, because of certain eminent Effects, Virtues and Properties, which are joyned to it, which are naturally found in the Body and Blood of Christ, to wit, that it feed and quicken our Souls, and prepare our Bodies to Resurrection and Immorta­lity.

Here it is to be remembred, that the words are spiritual, and spiritually to be understood; that it is indeed named Flesh and Blood, but that this ought to be un­derstood of the Spirit and Life, that is, of the lively Virtue of the Flesh of our Lord, so that the Efficacy of Life is con­ferred on the external Signs.

When Theophylact said, That the Bread is not the Figure of our Lords Body, he means that it is not only (or a bare) Figure of it.

See how Chrysostom saith, That we are really, as I may so say, turned into the Flesh of Christ. Yet who doth not see that this is a spiritual, not a carnal Conversion: So the Bread is really turned and transelementated into the Flesh of Christ, but by a spiritual, not a carnal Conver­sion, inasmuch as as the Bread obtains the Virtue of the Flesh.

How much better did Cyprian, Am­brose, Epiphanius, Emysenus, and o­thers speak, who teach a like change to be performed in the Eucharist, as is per­formed in Baptism, by which the external [Page 64] Signs remain the same, and by Grace acquire a new substance in the same man­ner.

The Exposition and Doctrine of Ber­tram, concerning the Sacrament, ought in my Opinion to be diligently examined and embraced for two Reasons.

That this may appear more manifestly, and be remembred the better, I thought it not unfit to subjoyn from what I have already taught, a certain Comparison be­tween the two Bodies of Christ.

The proper Body of Christ hath Head, Breast, and distinct Members; the mysti­cal Body hath not. The proper Body hath Bones, Veins and Nerves; the mystical Body hath not.

That is organical; this is not.

That is not a Figure; this is a Figure of the proper Body. That is human and cor­poreal by its Nature; this is Heavenly, Divine, and Spiritual.

The matter of that is not subject to Cor­ruption; the material part of this is Bread, and is corrupted.

That is contained in one place; this is present, wheresoever the Sacrament is cele­brated, but not, as in a place.

That is not the Sacrament of another Body; this the Sacrament of another.

That was taken of the Body of the Vir­gin Mary, and was once created; this is not taken of the Virgin, but is created daily by the mystical Benediction potentially.

That is a natural Body, this supernatu­ral. Lastly, That is simply, properly and absolutely his Body; this in a certain re­spect only and improperly.

[Page 65] Nor is it enough here, if we flee one way of carnally understanding it, and fall upon another. For he who literally un­derstands the eating of the Flesh of Christ, and as altho it were a proper Speech, he is a carnal Capernaite; whether he ima­gine it to be properly done this way, or that way. For it is probable that all the Capernaites understood Christ carnally, but not all the same way.

For it is not therefore to be accounted a Spiritual sense, because they say the Flesh of Christ is there invisibly present. For if they mean his proper Flesh, we do not there­fore not eat it carnally, because we do not see it.

Now in this Sacrament the ancient Fa­thers observed two things, for each of which it might deservedly be called and esteemed the Body of Christ; but more especially when it comprehends both. For the Bread is justly called his Body, as well because it is the figure of his true Body, as because it hath the lively vertue of it con­joyned to it, much more; but most especi­ally, because it comprehendeth both.

It is therefore to be admired, what they mean, who will not suffer it to be called a figure, nor acknowledg any figure in the words of Institution, but contumeliously call those who own it, Figurative men, whereas it is manifest that all the Ancients did so call it. And indeed if there be no figure in it, it will be neither a sign nor Sacrament. So that those who traduce the maintainers of the other opinion as Sacra­mentaries, do indeed take away all Sacra­ment from it.

There is yet another thing, which the Ancient Fathers acknowledging to [Page 66] be in this Sacrament, taught it to be truly the Body of our Lord; And that is the efficacious and lively vertue of the Bo­dy it self, which is joyned with the Bread and Wine by Grace and Mystical Benediction, and is called by divers names, although it be the same thing: by Augu­stine, the Intelligible, Invisible and Spiri­tual Body: by Jerome the Divine and Spiritual Flesh: by Irenaeus an Heaven­ly Thing: by Ambrose the Spiritual Food and Body of the Divine Spirit: by others some other like thing. And this doth chiefly cause this Sacrament to be worthy of the appellation of his true Body and Blood, since it doth not only exter­nally bear the Image and Figure of it, but also carrieth along with it the inward and hidden natural propriety of the same Body; so that it cannot be esteemed an empty Figure, or the sign of a thing whol­ly absent, but the very Body of our Lord: Divine indeed and Spiritual, but present by Grace, full of vertue, powerful in effi­cacy. For this is very frequent, that the names of things themselves be ascribed to their virtue and efficacy.

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

But this (that the Spiritual virtue is inseparable from the Elements) is to be understood to be true, as long as the Sign serveth for that use, and is directed to that end, for which it was destined by [Page 67] the Word of God. For if we apply it to other uses, and abuse it against the insti­tution of Christ, it either is altogether not a Sacrament, or ceaseth to be a Sacra­ment.

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

All men see, that we also here affirm the Substance to be present, and assert our Communion with Christ naturally, and as I may say, substantially. But then these words ought to be understood after the manner not of Philosophers but of Divines. Neither should we quarrel about the term of Transubstantiation, although barba­rous and not in the least necessary: Pro­vided they meant thereby such a Trans­mutation of Substances, as the Ancients taught: that is, a Sacramental one: such as is also performed in a man regenerated by Baptism, who is made a new man, and a new creature. Such as is also performed when we are converted into the Flesh of [Page 68] Christ, which examples the ancient Fa­thers used.

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

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

CAusam ita partiri placuit, ut sum­matim ad tria capita revocetur. Primò ostendam veritatem corporis Christi in Eucharistia dari fidelibus; nec has voces Naturam at que Sub­stantiam fugiendas esse, sed Veteres de hoc Sacramento disserentes ita lo­cutos fuisse Deinde discrimen esse monstrabo inter corpus Domini pro­prium, & illud quod inest in Sacra­mento; veteresque Patres ita censu­isse. Postremo cujusmodi sit hoc Cor­pus, quod accipitur in Mysterio, & cur eo nomine censeatur, indicabo, [Page 62] secundum eorundem Patrum senten­tiam, p. 33, 34.

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

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

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

Observandum est veritatem Domi­nici Corporis, dup citer dici ac debe­re dupliciter 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 [Page 63] effectum, Divinam insundi essentiam verba Spiritum & vitam esse, spirituale documentum tradi, hoc Corpus, hunc sanguinem, & carnem hanc substanti­am Corporis, non communi more, nec ut humana ratio dictat accipi oportere, sed ita nominari, existimari, credi, propter eximios quosdam Effectus, Virtutes, & Proprietates conjunctas, quae Corpori & sanguini Christi na­tura insunt; nempe quod pascat ani­mas nostras, & vivificet simul, & Corpora ad Resurrectionem & Im­mortalitatem praeparet, p. 46.

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

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

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

Quanto melius locuti sunt Cypri­anus, Ambrosius, Epiphanius, Emy­senus, & alii, qui similem Commu­tationem in Eucharistiâ cum ea quae fit in Baptismo confirmant quâ fit ut [Page 64] signa maneant eadem, & per grati­am novam acquirant substantiam si­militer, p. 49.

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

Quod ut magis appareat, & me­moriâ reponatur, non inutile fore pu­tavi, ex his quae supra memoravi­mus, [...] quandam per collatio­nem subjungere.

Corpus Christi proprium habet caput, pectus, membra dinstincta, Corpus 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 Virgine non sumitur sed quotidie per Benedictionem mysticam potentiali­ter creatur.

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

[Page 65] 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, maximè verò cùm utramque comprehendat, Nam & quia figura veri corporis pa­nis est, jure corpus appellatur; & quia virtutem ejusdem vitalem conjun­ctam habet, multò magis; tum verò maximè quòd utrumque complecti­tur. Ibid.

Quò 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. Quòd 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 [Page 66] verè 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 intel­ligibile, invisibile, spirituale; 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 & spirituale, 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 [...] sed [...], 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 [Page 67] 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 modò 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 [Page 68] in Christi carnem convertimur: qui­bus Patres antiqui utebantur exem­plis, p. 65.

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


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.