An account of a disputation at Oxford, anno dom. 1554 with A treatise of the Blessed Sacrament / both written by Bishop Ridley, martyr ; to which is added a letter written by Mr. John Bradford, never before printed all taken out of an orig[i]nal manuscript.

A Brief Treatise of the most blessed SACRAMENT of the Body and Blood of Christ.

THE PREFACE.

MANY Things confound the weak me∣mory, a few places well weighed and proved lighten the understanding. Truth is there to be searched with Diligence where it is to be had. Tho God doth speak the Truth by man, yet in mans word which God hath not revealed to be his, man may doubt without mistrust in God: Christ is the Truth of God reveal d, unto man from Heaven by God himself, and therefore in his word the truth is to be found, which is to be embrac'd of all that be his. Christ biddeth us ask, and we shall have; search, and we shall find; knock, and it shall be open'd unto us. Therefore, O Heavenly Father! Author and Fountain of all Truth, the bottomless sea of all true understanding, send down, we beseech thee, thy holy Spirit into our Hearts, and ligh∣ten our understanding with the beams of thy heavenly grace. We ask thee this, O heavenly Father, not in re∣spect of our deserts, but for thy dear Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's sake. Thou knowest O heavenly Father, that the controversy about the blessed Body and Blood of thy dear Son our Saviour Christ, hath troubled not of late only the Church of England, France, Germany and Italy, but

also many years ago. The fault is ours no doubt thereof, for we have deserved thy Plague. But O Lord! be merci∣ful and relieve our misery with some light of grace. Thou knowest O Lord how the wicked World rolleth up and down, and reeleth too and fro, and careth not what thy Will is, so it may abide in wealth. If Truth have wealth then who is so stout to defend the Truth as they? but if Christ's Cross be laid on Truth's back, then they vanish straight away as wax before the fire. But these are not they, O Heavenly Father! for whom I make my most moan, but for those silly ones, O Lord, which have a zeal unto thee: those, I mean, which would and wish to know thy will, and yet are letted, holden back and blinded by the sub∣telties of Satan and his Ministers, the wickedness of this wretched world, and the sinful lusts and affections of the flesh. Alass Lord! thou knowest that we are of our selves but flesh, wherein there dwelleth nothing that is good. How then is it possible for man, without thee O Lord, to understand thy Truth indeed? Can the natural man perceive the will of God? O Lord to whom thou givest a zeal of thee, give them also we beseech thee the knowledge of thy blessed Will: suffer not them O Lord blindly to be led for to strive against thee, as thou didst those, alass! which crucified thine own dear Son. Forgive them O Lord! for thy dear Son's sake, for they know not what they do. They do think alass, O Lord, for want of know∣ledge, that they do unto thee good service, even when a∣gainst thee they do extreamly rage. Remember O Lord we beseech thee, the Prayer of thy Martyr St. Stephen, of thy holy Apostle Paul, which wisheth him accursed from thee for the salvation of his brethren the Jews. Remem∣ber O Heavenly Father! the Prayer of thy dear Son upon the Cross, when he said to thee, O Father forgive them, they know not what they do. With this forgive∣ness, O good Lord God, give me I beseech thee thy grace,

so briefly here to set forth the sayings and sentences of thy dear Son our Saviour Christ, of his Evangelists and Apo∣stles, that in this foresaid controversy the light of thy truth by the Lanthorn of thy word may shine to all them that love thee.

Amen.

OF the Lords last Supper speak expressly three of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: but none more plainly and more fully declareth the same than doth St. Paul, partly in the 10th. c. Cor. 1st As Matthew and Mark agree in form of words, so doth likewise Luke and Paul, but all four no doubt, as they were altogether in one school, and inspir'd with one spirit, so taught they all one truth. God grant us to understand it well. Matthew setteth forth Christ's supper thus, When Even was come he sate down with the Twelve; as they did eat, Jesus took Bread, and gave thanks, brake it, and gave it to the Disciples and said, take eat this is my Body: and he took the Cup, gave thanks and gave it to them saying drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood of the new Testament that is shed for many for the remission of Sins. I say unto you I will not drink of the Vine-tree untill that day when I shall drink it new in my Father's Kingdom: and when they had said grace they went out.

Now Mark speaketh it thus: And as they eat, Jesus took bread, blessed, and brake it and gave it to them and said, take, eat, this is my Body: and he took the Cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank of it, and he said unto them, this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many: Verily I say unto you I will drink

no more of the fruit of the Vine, untill that day I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.

Here Matthew and Mark do agree not only in the matter, but also almost fully in the form of words, saving that for this word in Matth. [gave thanks] Mark hath this word [blessed] which signifieth in this place all one: and whereas Mat. saith [Drink ye all of this] Mark saith [and they all drank of it] and where Mat. saith [of this fruit of the Vine] Mark leaveth out the word [this] and saith [of the fruit of the Vine.] Now let us see likewise what agreement in form of words is betwixt St. Luke and St. Paul, Luke writeth thus.

He took Bread, gave thanks, brake it and gave it to them saying, this is my Body, this do in Remembrance of me: likewise also when they had supp'd he took the Cup saying, this Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood which is shed for you.

St. Paul setteth forth Christ's Supper thus, The Lord Jesus in the same night in the which he was betrayed took bread and gave thanks and brake, and said, take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner he took the Cup when Supper was done saying, this Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood, this do as often as you drink it in Remembrance of me, for as often as you shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, you shall shew the Lords Death untill he come &c.

Here where Luke saith [which is given] Paul saith [which is broken] and as Luke addeth to the words of Paul spoken of the Cup [which is-shed for you] so like∣wise Paul addeth to the words of Luke this do as often as you shall drink it in the remembrance of me; the rest that followeth in St. Paul, both there, and in the 10th Chap. pertaineth to the right use and doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

Thus the Evangelists & St. Paul have rehearsed the words and Works of Christ, whereby he did institute and ordain this holy Sacrament of his blessed Body and Blood to be a perpetual remembrance of himself untill his coming again. Of himself, I say, that is of his Body given for us, and of his Blood shed for the remission of sins.

But in this remembrance thus ordain'd, as the Author thereof is Christ both God and Man, so by the almighty power of God it far passeth all kinds of Remembrance that any other man is able to make, either of himself, or of any other thing. For who∣soever receiveth this holy Sacrament thus ordain'd in remembrance of Christ, he receiveth therewith either Death or Life. In this I trust we do all agree, for St. Paul saith of the godly receivers 1 Cor. 10th. The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the partaking or Fellowship of Christ's Blood? and also he saith the Bread which we break (he meaneth at the Lord's Table) is it not the partaking, or fellowship of Christ's Body? now the partaking of Christ's Body and Blood unto the faithfull and godly, is the partaking and fellow∣ship of Life and immortality. And again of the bad and ungodly receivers St. Paul as plainly saith thus, He that eateth of this Bread, and drinketh of this Cup unwor∣thily, he is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. O how necessary then is it if we love Life and would eschew Death, to try and examin our selves before we eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, for else assuredly he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drink∣eth his own damnation, because he esteemed not the Lords Body; that is, he reverenceth not the Lords body with the honour which is due unto him. And yet by that which was said, that with the receit of the Ho∣ly Sacrament of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ

is received of every one, good or bad, either Life or Death; it is not meant that they which are dead be∣fore God, hereby may receive Life; or the living be∣fore God can hereby receive Death. For as none is meet to receive natural food whereby the natural life is nourished except he be born, and live before, so no man can feed by the receit of this holy Sacra∣ment, of the food of eternal Life, except he be re∣generated, and born of God before; and on the other side, no man here receiveth damnation which is not dead before.

Thus, hitherto, without all doubt, God is my witness (I say so far as I know) there is no controversy among them that be learn'd in the Church of Eng∣land, concerning the matter of this Sacrament, but all do agree, whether they be new or old: and to speak plain, as some do odiously call each other, whether they be Protestants, Papists, Pharisees, or Gospellers. And as all do agree hitherto in the aforesaid Do∣ctrine, so all do detest, abhor and condemn the wick∣ed Heresy of the Messalians, which otherwise be called Euchits, which said that the holy Sacrament can nei∣ther do good nor harm.

All do also condemn the wicked Anabaptists, which putteth no difference betwixt the Lords Table, and the Lords meat, and their own.

And forasmuch as Charity would, if it be possible, and so far as we may with the safeguard of good Con∣science, and maintenance of the Truth, to agree with all men, therefore methinks that it is not charitably done to burden any man, either new or old, farther than such do declare themselves to dissent from that we are persuaded to be the Truth, or pretend there to be controversies whereas none such are indeed, and so to multiply the debate, the which the more

it doth increase, the farther it doth depart from the unity that the true Christian should desire.

And again this is true, that Truth neither need∣eth, nor will be maintain'd with lies, and it is sin to lie against the Devil, for tho by the ly thou dost seem never so much to speak against the Devil, yet in that thou lyest indeed thou workest the Devils work; thou doest him service, and takest the Devils part.

Now then, whether they do godly and charitably, which either by their pen in writing, or by their words in preaching, do bear the simple people in hand that those which thus do teach, and believe, do go about to make the holy Sacrament ordain'd by Christ himself a thing no better than a piece of common broken bread, or that do say, that such do make this Sacrament of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ but a bare sign or figure to represent Christ, none otherwise than an Ivy-Bush doth represent the Wine in a Tavern, or as a vile person gorgeously apparrell'd may represent a King or a Prince in a Play: Alass! let us leave lying and speak the truth every man not only to his neighbour, but also of his neighbour; for we are members one of another, saith St. Paul.

The controversy no doubt which at this day trou∣bleth the Church (wherein any mean learned man ei∣ther old or new, doth stand in) is not whether the holy Sacrament of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ is no better than a piece of common bread or no, or whether the Lords Table be no more to be regarded than the table of any earthly man or no, or whether it be a bare sign or figure of Christ and no∣thing else or no, for all do grant that St. Pauls words do require that the Bread which we brake is the par∣taking of the Body of Christ, and also all do grant him that eateth of that Bread and drinketh of that

Cup unworthily, to be guilty of the Lords Death, and to eat and drink his own damnation, because he esteem'd not the Lords Body. All do grant that these words of Paul when he saith [if we eat, it advanta∣geth us nothing, or if we eat not, we want nothing there∣by] are not spoken of the Lord's Table, but of other common meats. Thus then hitherto yet we all agree, but now let us see wherein the Dissention doth stand: the understanding of it wherein it doth chiefly stand, is a step to the true searching forth of the Truth, for who can seek well a Remedy if he know not before the Disease?

It is neither to be denied nor dissembled that in the matter of this Sacrament there be divers points wherein men counted to be learned cannot agree; as whether there be any. Transubstantiation of the Bread or no? any corporal and carnal presence of Christs Substance or no? whether adoration due on∣ly unto God, is to be done to the Sacrament or no? and whether Christs body be there indeed offered unto the heavenly Father by the Priest or no? or whether the evil man receiveth the natural Body of Christ or no? yet nevertheless, as in a man diseased in divers parts, commonly the original cause of such divers diseases which are spread abroad in the body, do come from some one chief member, as from the stomach, or from the head; even so all those five aforesaid points do chiefly hang upon this one question which is, What is the matter of the Sacrament? whether is it the natural substance of Bread, or the natural sub∣stance of Christs own Body. The truth of this questi∣on truly tryed out and agreed upon, no doubt shall cease the controversy in all the rest. For if it be Christs own natural Body, born of the Virgin, then assuredly (seeing that all learned men in England

both new and old grant there to be but one substance) then I say, they must needs grant Transubstantiati∣on, that is, a change of the substance of bread in∣to the substance of Christs body. Then also they must grant the carnal and corporal presence of Christs body. Then must the Sacrament be adored with the Honor due unto Christ himself, for the unity of the two natures in one person. Then if the Priest do offer the Sacrament, he doth offer indeed Christ himself. And finally the murderer, the adulterer, and wicked man receiving the Sacrament, must needs then receive also the natural substance of Christ's own blessed Body both Flesh and Blood.

Now on the other side, if after the truth shall be truly tryed out, it be found that the substance of the Bread is the material substance of the Sacrament, al∣tho for the change of the use, office, and dignity of the Bread, the Bread indeed sacramentally is chang∣ed into the body of Christ, as the water of Baptism is changed into the fountain of regeneration, and yet the material substance thereof remaineth all one as was before, If, I say, the true solution of that for∣mer question (whereupon all these controversies do hang) be, that the natural substance of Bread is the material substance in the holy Sacrament of Christs body, then must it follow of that former propositi∣on, (confessed of all that be named to be learned, so far as I do know, in England,) which is, That there is but one material substance in the Sacrament of the Body, and one only, likewise in the Sacrament of the Blood) that there is no such thing indeed and in truth as they call Transubstantiation. For the Sub∣stance of Bread remaineth still in the Sacrament of the Body: then also the natural substance of Christs hu∣man nature which he took of the Virgin Mary is in

Heaven, where it reigneth now in glory, and not here inclosed under the form of Bread: then that godly Honour which is only due unto God the Creator, and may not be done unto the creature without Idola∣try, and Sacriledge, is not to be done unto the holy Sacrament. Then also the wicked, (I mean the impe∣nitent) murtherer, adulterer, or such like, do not re∣ceive the natural Substance of the blessed body and blood of Christ. Finally then doth follow, that Christs blessed Body, which was once only offer'd and shed upon the Cross, being available for the sins of all the World; is offer'd up no more in the natural sub∣stance there of neither by the Priest, nor any otherthing.

But here, before we go any farther to search in this matter, and to wade to search and try out, as we may, the truth thereof in the Scripture, it shall do well by the way—Whether they that thus make answer and solution unto the former principal Question, do take away simply and absolutely the presence of Christs Bo∣dy and Blood from the Sacrament, ordained by Christ, and duely ministred, according to his holy Ordinance and Institution of the same. Undoubtedly they do deny That utterly, either so to say or to mean the same: and hereof, if any man do, or will doubt, the Books which are written already in this matter of them that thus do answer will make the matter plain.

Now then, will ye say, what kind of presence will they grant, and what do they deny? Briefly they deny the presence of Christs Body in the natural substance of his human, and assumpt nature, and grant the presence of the same by Grace, that is: They affirm and say that the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ is only remaining in Heaven, and so shall be until the latter day, when he shall come again in glory accompanied with the angels of Hea∣ven

to judge both the quick and the dead. And the same natural substance of the very Body and Blood of Christ, because it is united to the divine nature in Christ the second person in the Trinity, therefore it hath not only Life in it self, but is also able, and doth give life unto so many as be, or shall be partakers thereof; that is to all that do believe in his name, which are not born of blood, (as John saith) or of the will of flesh, or of the will of man, but are born of God, tho the self same substance abide still in Hea∣ven, and they, for the time of their Pilgrimage, dwell here upon Earth. By Grace I said, that is by the gift of this life mentioned in John, and the properties for the same, meet for a Pilgrimage here upon Earth, the same body of Christ is here present with us. As for example; we say the Sun which in substance never removeth his place out of the Heavens, is yet present here by his Beams, Light, and natural Influence where it shineth upon the Earth: for Gods word, and his Sa∣craments be as it were the Beams of Christ, who is Sol Justitiae.

Thus thou hast heard wherein doth stand the prin∣cipal state and chief point of all the Controversies which do properly pertain unto the nature of this Sa∣crament. As for the use thereof, I grant there be ma∣ny other things, whereof here I have spoken of no∣thing at all.

And now, least thou justly mayest complain and say, that I have in opening this matter done nothing else but digged a Pit, and have not shut it up again, or broken a Gap and have not made it up, or opened the Book, and have not closed it again, or else to call me what they list, as neutrall, Dissembler, &c. There∣fore here now I will by Gods Grace not only shortly, but also so clearly, and plainly as I can, make thee

now to know whether of the aforesaid two Answers to the former principall state and chief point doth like me best. Yea and also I will hold all those ac∣cursed which in this matter, which now so troubles the Church of Christ, have of God receiv'd the Key of Knowledg, and yet go about to shut up the Doors, that they themselves will not enter in, nor suffer o∣thers that would. And as for my own part, I consider both of late what cure, and charge of Souls hath bin committed unto me, whereof God knoweth how soon I shall be called to give an Account, and also now in this world, what peril and danger of the Laws con∣cerning my Life I am now in at this present time: what folly were it to dissemble with God, of whom assuredly, I look and hope by Christ to have everlast∣ing life. Seing that such charge and danger both before God and man do compass me in round about on every side, therefore God willing, I will frankly and freely utter my mind: and tho my body be Cap∣tive, yet my Tongue and my Pen, as long as I may, shall freely set forth that which undoubtedly I am per∣swaded to be the Truth of Gods word. And yet will I do it under this Protestation (call me a Protestant who list, I do not pass thereof) my Protestation shall be this that my mind is, and ever shall be, God willing, to set forth sincerely the true sense and meaning, to the best of my understanding, of God's most holy word, and not to decline from the same, either by fear of worldly danger, or else for hope of gain. I do protest also due obedience and submissi∣on of my judgment in this my writing, and in all o∣ther mine affairs, unto those of Christs Church which be truly learned in Gods holy word, and guided by his Spirit. After this Protestation, I do plainly affirm, and say, that the second answer made unto the chief

Question and principal point I am perswaded to be the very true meaning and sense of Gods holy word: That is, that the natural Substance of Bread and Wine is the true material substance of the holy Sa∣crament of the blessed Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ: and the places of Scripture whereupon this my Faith is grounded be these, both concerning the Sacrament of the Body, and also of the Blood. First let us repeat the beginning of the Institution of the Lords Supper, wherein all the three Evangelists and St. Paul do agree saying—That Jesus took Bread, gave thanks, brake, and gave it to the Disciples, saying—Take, Eat, this is my Body. Here it appeareth plain∣ly that Christ called very Bread his Body. For that which he took was very Bread. In this all men do a∣gree; and that which he took, after he had given thanks, he brake, and that which he took and brake, he gave it to his Disciples, and that which he took, brake, and gave to his Disciples, he said himself of it—This is my Body. So it appeareth plainly, that Christ called ve∣ry Bread his Body: But very Bread cannot be his ve∣ry Body in very Substance thereof, therefore it must needs have another meaning, which meaning appear∣eth plainly what it is by the next sentence that follow∣eth immediately both in Luke, and in Paul, and that is this—Do this in remembrance of me; whereupon it seemeth unto me to be evident, that Christ did take Bread and called it his Body, for that he would insti∣tute thereby a perpetual Remembrance of his Body: specially of that singular benefit of our Redemption, which he would then procure & purchase unto us by his Body upon the Cross. But Bread retaining still its own very natural substance may be thus by grace, and in a sacramental signification His Body, whereas else the very Bread which he took, brake, and gave

them could not be in any wise his natural body, for that were confusion of substances, and therefore the very words of Christ, joyned to the next sentence following, both enforceth us to confess the very bread to remain still, and also openeth unto us how that Bread may be, and is thus by his divine power his bo∣dy which was given for us.

But here I remember that I have read in some wri∣ters of the contrary opinion, which do deny that That which Christ did take he brake; For, say they, after this taking [he blessed it] as Mark doth speak, and by his Blessing he changed the natural substance of the Bread into the natural substance of his Body. And so, altho he took the bread, and blessed it, yet because in blessing it he changed the substance of it, he broke not the bread which then was not there, but only the form thereof. Unto this Objection I have two plain answers, both grounded upon Gods word. The one I will reherse here, the other answer I will defer untill I speak of the Sacrament of the Blood. Mine answer here is taken out of the plain words of St. Paul, which doth manifestly confound this fanta∣stical invention; first invented, I ween, of Pope In∣nocentius and after confirmed by the subtil sophist Dunse, and lately renewed now in our Days with an eloquent stile, and much fineness of wit. But what can crafty Inventions, subtilty in Sophisms, Elo∣quence or fineness of Wit prevail against the infallible word of God? What need we to contend and strive what thing we break, for Paul saith, speaking un∣doubtedly of the Lords Table—The Bread (saith he) which we break, is it not the partaking or fellowship of the Lords Body? whereupon it followeth that after the Thanksgiving it is Bread which we break. And how often in the Acts of the Apostles is the Lords Supper sig∣nified

by breaking of Bread. They did per severe in break∣ing of Bread. And again—They brake Bread in every house. And again—When they were come together to break Bread. St. Paul who setteth forth most fully in his writ∣ing both the doctrine and the right use of the Lord's Supper, and the Sacramental eating and drinking of Christs Body & Blood, call'd it 5 times Bread, Bread &c.

The second Reason: The Sacramental Bread is the mystical body, and so is called in Scripture 1. Cor. 10. as it is called the natural Body of Christ. But Christs mystical Body is the Congregations of the Christians. Now no man was ever so fond as to say that That Sacramental Bread is Transubstantiated, and changed into the substance of the Congregation. Wherefore no man should likewise think or say that the Bread is Transubstantiated and changed into the natural substance of Christs human nature. But my mind is not here to write what may be gathered out of Scriptures for this purpose, but only to note here briefly those which seem unto me to be the most plain places. Therefore, contented to have spoken thus much of the Sacramental Bread, now I will speak a little of the Lords Cup.

And this shall be my third argument grounded up∣on Christ's own words.

The natural substance of the Sacramental Wine re∣maineth still, and is the material substance of the Sa∣crament of the Blood of Christ. Therefore it is like∣wise so in the Sacramental Bread. I know that he that is of the contrary opinion will deny the for∣mer part of my argument. But I will prove it thus by the plain words of Christ himself, both in Matth and in Mark. Christ's words be these, after the words said up∣on the Cup - I say unto you, saith Christ, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine-tree, untill I shall drink

that anew in my Fathers Kingdom. Here note how Christ calleth plainly his Cup the Fruit of the Vine∣tree: but the fruit of the Vine-tree is very natural Wine: wherefore the very natural substance of the Wine doth remain still in the Sacrament of Christ's Blood.

And here in speaking of the Lord's Cup, it cometh to my remembrance the vanity of Innocentius phanta∣stical Invention, which by Pauls words I did confute before, and here did promise somewhat more to speak; and that is thus. If the Transubstantiation be made by this word [Blessed] in Mark said upon the Bread, then surely seeing that word is not said of Christ, (nei∣ther of any of the Evangelists, nor of Paul) upon the Cup, then there is no Transubstantiation of the Wine at all: For where the cause doth fail, there cannot follow the Effect. But the Sacramental Bread, and the Sacramental Wine do both remain in their natu∣ral Substance alike, and if the one be not changed, (as of the Sacramental Wine it appeareth evidently,) then is there no such Transubstantiation in either of them both.

All that put and affirm this change of the substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood (called Transubstantiation) do also say and affirm this change to be made by a certain form of pre∣script words and none others: but what they be which make the change, either of the one or of the other, undoubtedly even they which write most sincerely in these our days, almost confess plainly that they can∣not tell. For altho' they grant to certain old Authors, as Chrysostom and Ambrose, that these words—This is my Body, are the words of Consecration of the Sacra∣ment of the Body; yet say they, these words may well be so called, because they do assure us of the conse∣cration

thereof whether it be done before these words be spoken or no. But as for this their doubt concerning the Sacrament of the Body I let it pass.

Let us now consider the words which pertain unto the Cup. This is first evident, that as Matthew much agreeth with Mark, and Luke with Paul, in form of words concerning the Sacrament of the Body; so in this Sacrament of the Cup the form of words in Mat∣thew and Mark is divers from that which is in Luke and Paul. The old Authors do most rehearse the form of words in Matthew, and Mark; because, I ween, they seemed to them more clear: But here I would know whether it is not credible or no, that Luke and Paul, when they celebrated the Lords Supper with their Congregations, that they did not use the same form of words at the Lord's Table which they wrote? Of Luke, because he was a Physitian, whether some will grant that he might be a Priest or no, and was able to receive the order of Priesthood (which they say is given by vertue of these words said by the Bishop - Take thou Authority to Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead) I cannot tell: but if they should be so straight upon Luke, either for his craft, or else for lack of such pow∣er given unto him by vertue of the aforesaid words, then I ween, both Peter and Paul are in danger to be deposed of their Priesthood; for the craft either of Fishing which was Peter's, or of making Tents, which was Paul's, were more vile than the science of Phy∣sick; and as for these Sacramental words of the order of Priesthood, to have authority to Sacrifice both for the quick and the dead, I ween Peter and Paul, if they were both alive, were not able to prove that ever Christ gave them such Authority, or ever said any such words unto them. But I will let Luke go, and because Paul speaketh more for him himself, I will reherse his words, That which I received of the Lord I gave unto

you, for the Lord Jesus &c. and so he fetteth forth the whole institution and right use of the Lords Supper; now seeing Paul here saith that he received of the Lord that which he gave them, and that which he had receiv'd & given them before by word of mouth, now he reherseth, and writeth the same in his Epi∣stle; it is credible, that Paul would never have used this form of words upon the Lords Cup, except as he saith, he had received them of the Lord; and that he had given them before, and now reherseth the same in his Epistle. I trust no man is so far from reason, but he will grant me that Paul did use the form of words which he writeth, let us then consider Pauls words which he saith Christ spake upon the Cup, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood; this do as often as you shall drink it in remembrance of me. Here I would know whether that Christ's words spoken upon the Cup were not as mighty in work, and as effectual in significati∣on as they that were spoken upon the Bread. If this be granted (which I think no man can deny) then further I reason thus. But the word [Is] in the words spoken upon the Lords bread doth mightily signify, (say they) the change of the substance of that which goeth before it, into the substance of that which fol∣loweth after; that is of the substance of bread into the substance of Christs body. Now then, when Christs words spoken upon the Cup be of the same might, and power both in working and signifying, then must this word [Is] when Christ saith this Cup [is] the New Te∣stament &c. turn the substance of the Cup into the sub∣stance of the New Testament. And if thou wilt say that this word [Is] neither maketh, neither signi∣fieth any such change of the Cup, and that altho it be said of Christ that this Cup is the New Testa∣ment, yet Christ meant no such change as That; Marry Sr, even so say I when Christ said of the Bread

which he took, and after thanksgiving brake, and gave them saying take, eat, this is my Body, he meant no more any such change of the Bread into the substance of his natural Body than he meant of the change and Transubstantiation of the Cup into the substance of the New Testament; and if thou wilt say that the word (Cup) here in Christs words doth not signify the Cup it self, but the Wine or thing contained in the Cup, by a figure called Metonymia, (for that Christs words meant, and so must needs be taken) thou sayest very well; but I pray thee by the way here note two things. First, that this word (Is) hath no such strength or signification in the Lords words to make or signify any Transubstantiation. Secondly; That in the Lords words whereby he instituted the Sacrament of his Blood he used a Figurative speech. How vain then is it that some say that Christ in Doctrine, and in the Institution of the Sacraments, used no Figures, but all his words are to be strained to their proper sig∣nification; when as here, neither That was in the Cup, nor the Cup it self, (taking every word in its proper signification) was the New Testament. Thus in one sentence spoken of Christ, the figure must help us twice.

But some say if we shall thus admit figures in Do∣ctrine, then shall all the Articles of our Faith by fi∣gures and allegories shortly be transformed. I say it is like fault, and even the same, to deny the figure when the place so requireth; as vainly to make It a figurative speech which is to be understood in its pro∣per signification. The rule whereby it is known when the speech is figurative, and when it is none St. Aug. in his Book de Doctrina Christi lib. 3. ch. 16. giveth di∣verse learned Lessons, of the which one is this - If (saith he) the Scripture doth seem to command a thing which

is wicked or ungodly, or to forbid a thing that Charity doth require, then know you that the speech is figurative. As for example, he bringeth the saying of Christ, the 6th of John Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye can have no Life in you. It seemeth to command a wicked or ungodly thing, wherefore it is a figurative speech, commanding to have commu∣nion or fellowship with Christs passion, and devoutly and wholsomly to lay up in memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. This Lesson of St. Aug. I have therefore the rather set forth, because as it teach∣eth us to understand that place in John figuratively; even so surely the same Lesson with the example of St. Aug. Exposition thereof, teacheth us not only by the same to understand Christs words in the institution of the Sacrament both of his Body and of his Blood figu∣ratively, but also the very true meaning and under∣standing of the same. For if to command to eat the flesh of the Son of man, and to drink his blood seem∣eth to command an inconvenience, or an ungodly thing, and is even so indeed if it be understood as the words do stand in their proper signification, and therefore must be understood figuratively and spiritu∣ally (as St. Aug. doth learnedly and godly interpret them) then surely Christ commanding in his last Sup∣per to eat his Body and to drink his Blood, seemeth to command in sound of words as great, and even the same inconvenience and ungodliness as did his words in the sixth Chapter of St. John; and therefore must even by the same reason be likewise understood and expounded figuratively, and spiritually, and as St. Aug did the other. Whereunto the same exposirion of St. Aug. may seem to be more meet, for that Christ in his Supper to the commandment of eating and drinking his Blood addeth - Do this in remembrance of

me: which words surely were the Key that opened and revealed this spiritual and godly exposition unto St. Aug. But I have tarried longer in setting forth the form of Christs words upon the Lords Cup written by Paul and Luke then I did intend to do.

And yet here cometh to my remembrance the form of words used in the Latin Mass upon the Lords Cup, whereof I do not a little marvel what should be the cause, that seeing the Latin Mass agreeth with the E∣vangelists and Paul in the form of words said upon the Bread, why in the form of words said upon the Cup it differeth from them all; yea and addeth these words mysterium Fidei; yea, and if they might have some good exposition, yet why it should not be as well ad∣ded unto the words of Christ upon the Bread as upon the Cup. Surely I do not see the mistery. And when I see in the Latine Mass the sacrament of the Blood a∣bused when it is denyed unto the Lay-man, clean contrary to Gods most certain words, for why, I beseech thee, should the Sacrament of Christs Blood be deny∣ed unto the Lay-Christian, more than to the Priest? Did not Christ shed his Blood as well for the Lay God∣ly man, as for the Godly Priest? If thou wilt say yes, he did so, but yet the Sacrament of the Blood is not to be received without the offering up and sacrificing thereof unto God the Father both for the quick and for the dead, and no man may make oblation of Christs Blood unto God, but a Priest, and therefore the Priest, and that but in his Mass only, may receive the Sacrament of his Blood. And call you this, Ma∣sters, Mysterium Fidei? alass alass! I fear me this is before God mysterium Iniquitatis; such as St. Paul speaketh of in his Epistle to the Thessalonians. The Lord be merciful unto us, and bless us, and lighten his counte∣nance upon us and be merciful unto us, that we may know

thy way upon earth, and among all people thy Salva∣tion.

This kind of Oblations standeth upon Transubstan∣tiation his German-cousin, and do grow both upon one ground. The Lord weed out of his vineyard short∣ly that bitter root.

To speak of this Oblation, how much it is injurious to Christs Passion, how it cannot but with highest blas∣phemy, hainous arrogancy, and intolerable pride be claimed of any man other then of Christ himself: how much and plainly it repugneth unto the mani∣fest words, the true sense and meaning of holy Scrip∣ture, in many places, and especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews; the matter is too long, and others have written in it at large, that my mind is now not to entreat thereof any further.

Yet there remaineth one vain Quiddity of Dunse in this matter, the which because some that write now do like it so well that they have stripped it out of Dun∣se's dusty, and dark Terms, and prickt and painted it in fresh colours of eloquent stile, and therefore may deceive more except the error be warily eschew∣ed.

Dunse saith in these words of Christ This is my Body, that this Pronoun Demonstrative, meaning the word (this) if you will know what it doth show or de∣monstrate whether the Bread that Christ took, or no, he answereth no, but only one thing in substance it pointeth, whereof the nature or name it doth not tell, but leaveth that to be determined and told by That that followeth the word [is] that is by the Praedica∣tum as the Logicians doth speak; and therefore he calleth this pronoun demonstrative Individuumvagum, that is, a wandring proper name, whereby we may point out, and shew any one thing in substance, what∣soever

it be. That this Imagination is untruly ap∣ply'd unto those words of Christ- this is my Body, and the vanity thereof, may appear plainly by the words of Luke and Paul, said upon the Cup in Matthew and Mark. For as upon the Bread it is said of all this is my Body, so of Matthew and Mark it is said of the Cup - this is my Blood. Then if in the words - this is my Body the word This be, as Dunse calls it, a wan∣dring name to appoint and shew forth any one thing where of the name or nature it doth not tell, so must it be likewise in those words of Matthew and Mark upon the Lords Cup-this is my Blood. But in the words of Matthew and Mark, it signifieth and pointeth out the same that it doth in the Lords words upon the Cup in Luke, and Paul, when it is said - This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood. Therefore in Matthew and Mark the pronoun Demonstrative This doth not wan∣der to point one thing in substance not shewing what it is, but telleth it plainly what it is no less in Matthew and Mark unto the Eye, then is done in Luke, and Paul by putting to this word Cup both unto the Eye and to the Ear. For taking the Cup and demon∣strating, or showing it unto his Disciples by this pro∣noun Demonstrative - This, and saying unto them Drink ye all of this, it was then all one to say - This is my Blood, as to say, This Cup is my Blood, meaning by the Cup, as the nature of the speech doth require, the thing contained in the Cup. So likewise, without all doubt, when Christ had taken bread, given thanks, and broken it, and giving it to his Disciples said - Take, Eat, and so demonstrating and shewing that Bread which he had in his Hands, to say then This is my Body, and to have said This Bread is my Body is all one thing; as it were all one if a man lacking a knife, and going to his Oy∣sters would say unto another whom he saw to have two

Knives, Sir I pray you lend me the one of your Knives; were it not now all one to answer him Sir, hold, I will lend you [this] to eat your meat, but not to open Oy∣sters withall; and—Hold, I will lend you this Knife to eat your meat, but not to open Oysters? This Similitude serveth but for this purpose, to declare the nature of speech withall, whereas the thing that is de∣monstrated and shewed is evidently perceived and openly known unto the Eye. But, O Good Lord? what wonderfull thing it is to see how some men do labour to teach what is demonstrated, and shewed by the pronoun Demonstrative - This - in Christs words, when he saith—This is my Body, This is my Blood. And here the Transubstantiators do not agree among them∣selves, no more than they do about the words which work the Transubstantiation; some attributing the work unto the word - Benedixit; and the most part to [Hoc est corpus meum.] Innocentius therefore, Duns, and that Sect, which putteth the change in the word - Bene∣dixit - say, that this word - This, was then indeed Christs Body, tho' the word did not import so much, but only one thing in substance, which (after Duns, now the Bread being gon) must needs be the substance of Christs Body. The other which do say that this change is made, when the whole Sentence - This is my Body - is fully finished, and not before, cannot but say, that Christs This did demonstrate, and shew Bread indeed, which so remain'd till the Sentence was fully pronounced. But how can they make and ve∣rifie Christs words to be true, demonstrating the sub∣stance of Bread, and saying thereof - This is my Body; that is, as they say, the Natural substance of Christs Body, except they will say, that the Verb (is) figni∣fieth is made, or is changed into, and then, in Christs words upon the Cup rehersed by Luke and Paul, the

Cup, or the Wine in the Cup, must be made, or turned into the New Testament, as was declared before. There be some amongst the Transubstantiators, which would! be Mediators, yea, rather Newtrals, or Ambi∣dexters, which can shift on both sides; for where the one saith that this word This demonstrateth the sub∣stance of Bread, the other saith, No, not so; the Bread is gone, and it demonstrateth a substance which is Christs Body. Tush, saith this third Man, Ye under∣stand nothing at all; They agree well enough in the chief point, which is the ground of all, that is this: Both do agree, and bear witness that there is Transub∣stantiation. They do agree indeed in that Conclusion, but their proof and Doctrine thereof do even as well agree together as did the false Witnesses before Annas and Caiaphas against Christ, or the wicked Judges to con∣demn Susanna; for they did all agree to speak against Christ, and the wicked Judges to condemn poor Su∣sanna, but in the Examination of their Witnesses they were found false, and clean contrary one to the other.

Thus much have I spoken in searching out a solu∣tion to this principal Question, which was, - What was the Material Substance of the Holy Sacrament in the Lords Supper?

Now lest I should seem to set by my own Conceit more than is meet, I have thought good to establish this mine Answer and Opinion by the Authority and Doctrine of the old Ecclesiastical Doctors; such, I mean, as were before the wicked Usurpations of the See of Rome, grown so immeasurably great, that not only with Tyrannical Power, but also with Corrupt Doctrine it began to subvert Christs Gospel, and to turn the state of the Church set by Christ and his A∣postles clean upside down. And I will reherse but few of them, that is three old Writers of the Greek Church and three of the Latin Church, which do seem unto

me to be in this matter so plain, that in reading of them no man can be ignorant in this matter, but he which will shut up his own eyes and blindfold himself. The Greek Authors are Origen, Chrysostome, and Theodo∣ret; the Latin are Tertullian, St. Augustin, and Ge∣lasius. And first let us hear the old Writers of the Greek Church. Origen, who lived above Twelve hun∣dred and fifty years ago, a Man for the excellency of his Learning so highly esteemed in Christs Church, that he was counted and judged the singular Teacher in his time of Christs Religion; the Confounder of Heresies, the Schoolmaster of many godly Matters, and an Opener of the high Mysteries in Scripture. He writ∣ing upon the Fifteenth Chapter of St. Matthews Gos∣pel, saith thus,—But if any thing enter into the Mouth it goeth away into the Stomach and Belly, and is voided into the Draught; yea, and that Meat which is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer, as concerning the mat∣ter thereof it goeth away into the Belly, and is avoided into the Draught, but for the Prayer which is added unto it, for the proportion of the Faith, it is made profitable, making the mind able to perceive, and see that which is pro∣fitable: for it is not the Material substance of the Bread, but the Word which is spoken upon it that is profitable to the Man that eateth it not unworthily,—And this I mean of the Typical and Symbolical, that is Sacramental Body.

Thus far goeth the words of Origen, wherein it is plain, that Origen speaking here of the Lords Supper, doth mean and teach, that the Material substance thereof is received, digested, and avoided as the Ma∣terial substance of other Bread and Meats is, which could not be, if there were no Material substance of Bread at all, as the Transubstantiators do say.

It is a World to see the Answers of the Papists to this place of Origen. They say that this part of Ori∣gen

was but set forth of late by Erasmus, and therefore it is to be suspected. But thus may all the good old Authors which lay in old Libraries, and are set forth of late, be by this reason rejected: as Clemens Alex∣andrinus, Theodoretus, Justinus, Ecclesiastica Historia Nicephori, and others such. - Another of their An∣swers is, that Origen was suspected to have erred in some points, and therefore Faith is not to be given to him in this matter. Indeed we grant that Origen in some points did err, but these Errors are gathered out and noted, both of St. Hierome and Epiphanius, so that his Works, those Errors excepted, are so much the more of Authority. And as concerning this mat∣ter of the Lords Supper, neither they, nor yet ever any other ancient Author did ever say that Origen did err.

Now because these two Answers have been of late so confuted and confounded that they will take no place, therefore some which have written since that time have forged two other Answers, even of the same mould. The former whereof is,—That Origen in this place spake not of the Sacramental Bread or Wine of the Lords Table, but of other Mystical Meat, of the which St. Augustin maketh mention to be given to them that were taught the Faith before they were Baptized. But Origens own words in two Sen∣tences before rehersed, being put together, prove this Answer untrue: For he saith, that he meaneth of that Figurative and Mystical Body which profiteth them that do receive it worthily; alluding so plainly unto St. Pauls words spoken of the Lords Supper, that it is a shame for any Learned Man to open his mouth to the contrary. And that Bread which St. Augustin speaketh of, he cannot prove that any such thing was used in Origens time; yea, and though that could be proved, yet was there never Bread in any time

call'd a Sacramental Body, saving the Sacramental Bread of the Lords Table, which is call'd of Origen the Typical and Symbolical Body of Christ.—The second of the two new found Answers is yet most monstrous of all others, which is this—Let us grant, say they, that Origen spake of the Lords Supper, and that by the matter thereof was understood the Ma∣terial Substance of Bread and Wine; What then, say they, for tho the Material substance was once gone and departed by reason of Transubstantiation whilst the form of Bread and Wine did remain, yet now it is no Inconvenience to say, that as the Mate∣rial substance did depart at the entring in of Christs Body, under the foresaid forms, so when the said forms be destroyed, and do not remain, then com∣eth again the substance of Bread and Wine: and this, say they, is very meet in this Mystery, that That which began with Miracle shall end with a Mi∣racle.—But this Fancy lacketh all ground either of Gods Word, Reason, or any Ancient Writer, and clean contrary to the common Rules of School Divi∣nity, which are, that no Miracle is to be affirmed and put without Necessity: And altho' for their former Miracle they have some ground, altho' it be but vain, yet to make this second Miracle of returning of the Material Bread again, they have no colour at all; or else, I pray thee, shew me by what words of Christ is that second Miracle wrought. Thus you may see, that the sleights and shifts which craft and wit can invent to wrest the true sense of Origen, cannot take place.—But now let us hear another place of Origen, and so let him pass. Origen in the 11th Cap. sup. Levit. saith,—That there is also, even in the four Gospels, and not only in the Old Testament, a Letter, meaning a Literal sense, which killeth; for if thou follow, saith he, the Letter in that saying—Except ye eat

the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, &c. This Letter doth kill.—If in that place the Let∣ter doth kill, wherein is commanded the eating of Christs Flesh, then surely in those words of Christ, wherein Christ commandeth us to eat his Body, the literal sense thereof doth kill; for it is no less Crime, but even the same, and all one in the literal sense, to eat Christs Body, and to eat Christs Flesh. Where∣fore if the one doth kill, unless it be understood Figu∣ratively and Spiritually, then the other also doth kill likewise.

The Papists answer is this, - That unto the Carnal man the literal sense is hurtful, but not so to the Spi∣ritual: As tho' to understand that in its proper sense which ought to be taken Figuratively, were to the Carnal dangerous, and to the Spiritual not at all.

Now to Chrysostom, whom I bring in for my second Author in the Greek Church. He speaking against the ungodly using of Mans body, which after St. Paul ought to be kept pure and holy, as the very Temple of the holy Ghost; saith thus - Cap. 5. Hom. 11. operis Imperfecti.

—If it be a fault, saith he, to translate the hallowed Vessels in the which is not contain'd the true Body of Christ, but the Mystery of his Body, to private uses; how much more amiss is it to abuse and defile the Ves∣sels of our Bodies?—These be the words of Chrysostom. But I know that here many foul shifts are found to defeat this place. The Author, saith one, is suspected: I answer, but in this place, never fault was found with him unto these our days. And whether this Author was John Chrysostom himself, the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople, or no, that is not the matter, for of all it is granted, that he was a Writer of that Age, and a Man of great Learning, so that it is manifest,

that this which he writeth was the receiv'd Opinion of Learned men in his days.

If that solution will not serve (saith another) we may say, that Chrysostom did not speak of the Vessels of the Lords Cup, or such as were then us'd at the Lords Table, but of the Vessel used in the Temple in the old Law.—But here Chrysostom speaketh of such Vessels wherein was that which is called the Body of Christ, altho' it was not the true Body, saith he, of Christ, but the Mystery of Christs Body. And Eras∣mus declareth plainly, that this saying of this Writer is none otherwise to be understood.

Yet can I, saith the third Papist, find out a fine and subtil solution for this place, and say, that Christs Body is not contained in those Vessels at the Lords Table as in a place, but as in a Mystery;—Is not this a pretty shift, and a mystical solution? But by the same Solution, then Christs Body is not in the Lords Table, nor in the Priests Hand, nor in his Pixe, and so he is no-where; for they will not say, that he is either here or there, as in a place. This answer pleaseth so well the maker, that he himself, after that he hath plaid with it a little while, and shewed the fineness of his wit and eloquence therein, he is contented to give it over, and say—That it is not to be thought that Chrysostom would speak after this fineness or subtilty, and so returneth again to the se∣cond answer for his Sheet-Anchor, which is already sufficiently answer'd.

Another short place of Chrysostom I will reherse, which (if any Indifferency may be heard) in plain terms setteth forth the truth of this matter. Writing Ad Caesarem Monachum, Before the Bread, saith he, be hallowed, we call it Bread, but the Grace of God sanctifying it by the means of the Priest, it is

delivered now from the name of Bread, and esteemed worthy to be call'd Christs Body, altho the nature of Bread abide in it still.—What can be said, or taught more plain against this Error of Transubstantiation, than to declare that the Bread abideth so still? and yet to this so plain a place, some are not ashamed thus shamefully to delude it, saying,—We grant the na∣ture of Bread remaineth still thus far, that it may be seen, felt, and tasted, and yet the Corporal sub∣stance of the Bread therefore is gone, lest two Bodies be confused together, and Christ should be thought impanate. What contrariety and falshood is in this answer, the simple man may easily perceive. Is not this a plain Contrariety, to grant that the nature of Bread remaineth so still, that it may be felt, seen, and tasted, and yet to say the Corporal substance is gone to avoid absurdity of Christs Impanation. Or what manifest falsehood is this, to say or mean, that if the Bread should remain still, then must follow the In∣convenience of Impanation; as though the very Bread could not be a Sacrament of Christs Body, as the Water is of Baptism, except Christ should unite the nature of Bread to his nature in unity of Per∣son, and make of the Bread God.

Now let us hear Theodoretus, the last of the three Greek Authors. He writeth in his Dialogue contra Eu∣tychen, thus:—He that called the Natural Body Corn and Bread, and also named himself a Vine-tree, even he, the same, hath honour'd the Symboles, that is, the Sacramental Figure, with the name of his Body and Blood, not changing indeed the Nature it self, but adding Grace unto the Nature.

What can be more plainly said than is this, that altho the Sacraments bear the name of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet is not their nature chang'd, but

abideth still: And where is then the Papists Transub∣stantiation? The same Writer in the second Dialogue of the same Work, writeth yet more plainly against this Error of Transubstantiation, if any thing can be said to be more plain: For he maketh the Heretick to speak thus against him that defendeth the true Doctrine, whom he calleth Orthodoxus.

As the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord are one thing before the Invocation, and after the Invocation they be changed and made another; so likewise the Lords Body, (saith the Heretick) is, after the Assumption or Ascension into Heaven, turn∣ed into the substance of God.—The Heretick mean∣ing thereby, that Christ after his Ascension remain∣eth no more a Man. To this Orthodoxus answereth thus, and saith to the Heretick;—Thou art taken, saith he, in thine own snare, for those Mystical Sym∣bols or Sacraments, after the Sanctification, do not go out of their own nature, but they tarry and abide still in their substance, figure, and shape, yea, and are sensibly seen, and groped to be the same they were before.—At these words the Papists do startle, and to say the truth, these words be so plain, so full, and so clear, that they cannot tell what to say, but yet will they not cease to cast their colour over them, that the Truth which is so plainly told, should not have place.

This Author wrote, say they, before the Determi∣nation of the Church; as who would say—Whatso∣ever that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome de∣termined in his Congregations with his Monks and Fryers, that must be, for so Dunse saith, holden for an Article, and for the substance of our Faith.—Some do charge this Author, that he was suspected to be a Nestorian, which thing in Calcedon Council was tryed, and proved to be false.

But the foolest shift of all, and yet the best that they can find in this matter, is,—That Theodoretus understandeth by the word Substance, Accidents, and not Substance. Indeed this gloss is like the gloss of a Lawyer upon a Decree, the Text whereof begins thus—Statuimus; that is, We Decree; The gloss of the Lawyer there after many other shifts - vel dic - Sta∣tuimus - i. e. Abrogamus; that is - We do Decree, that is, - We do abrogate or disanul. Is not this a goodly and a worthy gloss?

Hitherto you have heard three Writers of the Greek Church, not all what they do say, for that were a Labour too great for to gather, and too tedious for the Reader; but one or two places of every one the which how plain, how clear, and how full they be against the Error of Trausubstantiation, I refer here unto the Judgment of the indifferent Reader.

And now I will also reherse the saying of other three old Ancient Writers of the Latin Church, and so make an end. And first I will begin with Tertul∣lian, whom Cyprian, the holy Martyr, so highly e∣steem'd, that whensoever he would have his Book, he was wont to say, - Give us now the Master's,—This old Writer in his fourth Book against Marcion the He∣retick, saith -

Jesus made the Bread which he took and distri∣buted to his Disciples, his Body, saying, This is my Body; that is to say, (saith Tertullian) a Figure of my Body. In this place it is plain, that after Ter∣tullian his Exposition, that Christ meant not, by cal∣ling of Bread his Body, and the Wine his Blood, that either the Bread was his Natural Body, or the Wine his Natural Blood; but he call'd them his Body and Blood, because he would institute them to be unto us Sacraments; that is, holy Tokens and Signs of his Body

and Blood, that by them remembring, and firmly believing the benefits procured to us by his Body, which was torn and Crucified for us, and of his Blood which was shed for us upon the Cross; And so with thanks receiving these holy Sacraments according to Christs Institution, might by the same be spiritually nourished and fed, to the increase of all Godliness in us here in our Pilgrimage and Journey wherein we walk unto Everlasting Life. This was undoubtedly Christ our Saviours mind, and this is Tertullian's Ex∣position. The wrangling that the Papists do make to delude this saying of Tertullian's, it is too far out of all frame. Tertullian writeth here, say they, as none hath done either before him, or after him. This saying is too-too manifestly false; for Origen, Hilary, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, St. Au∣gustine, and other old Authors likewise do call the Sacrament a Figure of Christs Body. And where they say, that Tertullian wrote this when he was in a heat of Disputation with an Heretick, coveting by all means to overcome his Adversaries: as who would say he would not take heed what he did say, and spe∣cially what he would write in so high a matter, so that he might have the upper hand of his Adversary. Is this credible to be true in any Godly Wise Man? How much less then is it worthy to be thought and credited in a Man of so great a Wit, Learning, and Excellency as Tertullian is worthily esteem'd ever to have been.

Likewise this Author in his first Book against the same Heretick Marcion, writeth thus.

God did not reject Bread, which is his Creature, for by it he hath made a Representation of his Body.—Now, I pray you, what is this to say, that Christ hath made a Representation of his Body by Bread,

but that Christ hath instituted and ordained Bread to be a Sacrament for to represent unto us his Body. Now, whether the representation of one thing by another, requireth the corporal presence of the thing which is represented, or no, every man that hath understanding is able in this point (the matter is so clear of it self) to be a sufficient Judge.

The second Doctor and Writer of the Latin Church is St. Augustine, of whose Learning and Estimation I need not to speak; for all the Church of Christ both hath, and ever have had him for a Man of much sin∣gular Learning, Wit, and Diligence, both in setting forth the true Doctrine of Christs Religion, and also in the Defence of the same against Hereticks. This Author, as he hath written more plenteouslly in other matters of our Faith, so likewise in this Argu∣ment he hath written at large in many of his Works; so plainly against the Error of Transubstantiation, that the Papists love least to hear of him of all other Writers, partly for his Authority, and partly because he openeth the matter more fully than any other doth; therefore I will reherse more places of him than heretofore I have done of the other. And first, What can be more plain than that which he writeth upon the Ninety eighth Psalm, speaking of the Sa∣craments of the Lords Body and Blood, and reher∣sing, as it were, Christs words to his Disciples, after this manner:

It is not this Body which ye do see that ye shall eat, nor ye shall not drink this Blood which the Soldiers which Crucify me, shall spil or shed; I do commend unto you a Mystery or a Sacrament, which spiritually understood, shall give you Life.

Now, if Christ had no more Natural or Corporal Bodies but that one, which they there then presently

both heard and saw; and none other Natural Blood, but that which was in the same Body, and the which the Soldiers afterward did cruelly shed upon the Cross; and neither this Body, neither this Blood was by this Declaration of St. Augustin either to be eaten or drunken, but the Mystery thereof, spiritually to be understood: Then I conclude, that the Mystery which the Disciples should eat, was not the Natural Body of Christ, but a Mystery of the same, spiritually to be understood. For, as St. Augustin saith in his Twen∣tieth Book Contra Faustum, Christs Flesh and Blood was in the Old Testament promised by Similitudes and Figures of their Sacrifices, and was exhibited in∣deed and in truth upon the Cross; but the same is ce∣lebrated by a Sacrament of Remembrance upon the Altar. And in his Book De Fide, ad Petrum. Cap. 19. he saith;

That in those Sacrifices (meaning of the old Law) it is figuratively signified what then was to be given; but in this Sacrifice, it is evidently signified what is already given: Understanding in the Sacrifice upon the Altar, the Remembrance and Thanksgiving for the Flesh which he offered for us, and for the Blood which he shed for us upon the Cross.

Another evident and clear place wherein it appear∣eth, that by the Sacramental Bread, which Christ call'd his Body, he meant a figure of his Body, is up∣on the Third Psalm, where St. Augustin speaketh thus.

Christ did admit Judas unto the Feast in the which he commended unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body.

St. Augustin also in the 23 Epist. ad Bonifacium, teacheth, how Sacraments bear the name of Things whereof they be Sacraments, both in Baptism and in

the Lords Table; even as we call every Good-Friday, the Day of Christs Passion; every Easter-Day, the Day of Christs Resurrection; where in very deed there was but one day wherein he suffered, and one day wherein he rose: And why do we then call them so which are not so indeed, but because they are in like time and course of the year as those days were where∣in those things were done.

Was Christ, saith St. Augustin, offer'd any more but once; and he offered himself, and yet in a Sacra∣ment or Representation, not only every solemn Feast of Easter, but also every day, to the People, he is offered, so that he doth not lie that saith,—He is eve∣ry day offer'd. For if Sacraments had no similitudes or likeness of those Things whereof they be Sacra∣ments, they could in no wise be Sacraments; and for their similitude and likeness, commonly they have the names of the Things whereof they be Sacraments: Wherefore, as after a certain manner of speech, the Sacrament of Christs Body, is Christs Body; the Sa∣crament of Christs Flood is Christs Blood; so likewise the Sacrament of Faith is Faith, &c.

After this manner of speech, as St. Augustin teach∣eth in his Questions Super Leviticum & contra Adaman∣tium,—it is said, - That seven ears of Corn be seven years, seven Kyne be seven years, and the Rock was Christ, Blood is the Soul. The which last saying, saith St. Augustin in his Book Contra Adamantium, is understood to be spoken in a sign or figure; for the Lord himself did not stick to say, This is my Body, when he gave the sign of his Body: For we must not consider in Sacraments, (saith St. Augustin, contra Ma∣ximinum. Lib. 3. cap. 22.) what they be, but what they do signifie; for they be signs of Things, being one Thing in themselves, and yet signifying another

Thing; for the Heavenly Bread, (saith he) by some manner of speech, is call'd Christs Body, when indeed it is the Sacrament of his Body.—What can be more plain, or more clearly spoken, than are these places of St. Augustin, if Men were not obstinately bent to maintain an untruth?—Yet one place more of St. Augustin will I alledge to this purpose, That Christs Natural Body is in Heaven, and not here Cor∣porally in the Sacrament. In his 50th Treatise upon John, he speaks thus of Christ.

By his Divine Majesty, by his Providence, by his unspeakable and invisible Grace, That is fulfilled which he spake; Behold I am with you unto the end of the World: But as concerning the Flesh which he took in his Incaruation, as concerning that which was born of the Virgin, as concerning that which was appre∣hended by the Jews, and Crucified upon the Tree, and taken down from the Cross, lapped in Linnen Cloths, and buried and rose again, and appeared af∣ter his Resurrection; as concerning that Flesh, he said,—Ye shall not ever have me with you. Why so? for as concerning his Flesh, he was conversant with his Disciples forty days, and they accompanying him, seeing, and not following him, he went up into Hea∣ven, and is not here. By the presence of his Divine Majesty he did not depart. As concerning the pre∣sence of his Divine Majesty, we have Christ ever with us; but as concerning the presence of his Flesh, he said truly to his Disciples - Ye shall not ever have me with you. For as concerning the presence of his Flesh, the Church had him but a few days; now it holdeth him by Faith, tho it see him not.

Thus much St. Augustin speaketh, repeating one thing so oft, and all to declare and teach how we should understand the manner of Christs being here

with us: which is by his Grace, by his Providence, and by his Divine Nature. And how he is absent by his Natural Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, died, and rose for us, and is ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, as is in the Article of our Faith, on the right hand of God, and thence, and from none other place, saith St. Augustin, shall come on the latter day, to judge the quick and the dead; at the which day the Righteous shall then lift up their Heads, and the light of Gods Truth shall so shine, that all Falsehood and Errors shall be put to utter confusion. Righteousness shall have then the upper hand, and Truth, that day, shall bear away the Victory; all the Enemies thereof quite overthrown, to be troden under foot for evermore.

O Lord! I beseech thee, haste this day! then shalt thou be glorified with the glory due unto thy holy Name, and we shall sing unto thee in all joy and fe∣licity laud and praise for evermore.

Here now would I make an end, for methinks that St. Augustin is in this matter so full and plain, and of that Authority, that it should not need after this his Declaration, to bring you any more Authors: Yet, because I promised to alledge three Writers of the Latin Church, I will now alledge, last of all Gelasius, which was a Bishop of Rome, but before the wicked Usurpation and Tyranny thereof spread and burst out abroad unto the World. For this Man was before Bonifacius, and Gregory the first, in whose days both corruption of Doctrine and Tyrannical Usurpations did chiefly grow, and had the over-hand.

Gelasius in an Epistle of the two Natures of Christ Contra Eutychen, writeth thus; The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ are Godly things, where∣by, and by the same, we are made partakers of the

Divine Nature, and yet nevertheless the substance or nature of Bread and Wine doth not depart or go away.—Note these words, I beseech you, and con∣sider whether any thing can be more plainly spoken against the Error of Transubstantiation, which is the ground and bitter root whereupon springeth all the horrible Errors before rehersed.

Wherefore, seeing that the falsehood hereof doth appear so manifestly, and by so many ways, so plain∣ly, so clearly, and so fully, that no man needeth to be deceived but he that will not see, or will not un∣derstand; let us all that do love the Truth embrace it, and forsake the Falsehood; for he that loveth the Truth is of God, and the lack of the Love thereof is the cause why God su••••ered Men to fall into Errors, and to perish therein. Yea, and the cause, as St. Paul says, why God sendeth unto them illusions, that they believe Lies, unto their own Condemnation, because they loved not the Truth. This Truth no doubt is Gods Word, the Love and Light thereof Almighty God our Heavenly Father give us, and lighten it in our Hearts by his holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen.

Notes

• Trip. Hist. Lib. 7. cap. 11.
• Chrysost.
• Theodo∣retus.
• Tertull.
• August.
• Tom. 8. Col. Nov. B.
• Cap. 21.
• Gelasius.