Filter authors and titles

An account of a disputation at Oxford, anno dom. 1554 with A treatise of…Nicholas Ridley, 1688

Part

pp. 3–4077 passagespart 1 of 2

Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.

:100p. 3

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 inspired 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 until that day when I shall drink it new in my Father's Kingdom: and when they had said grace they went out.

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.

:101p. 3–4

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 ⟨p. 4⟩

An account of a disputation at Oxford, anno dom. 1554 with A treatise of…Nicholas Ridley, 1688

Part

pp. 3–4077 passagespart 1 of 2

Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.

:100p. 3

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.

:101p. 3–4

:107p. 5–6

But in this remembrance thus ordained, 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 whosoever receiveth this holy Sacrament thus ordained in remembrance of Christ, he receiveth therewith either Death or Life. In this I trust we do all agree, for 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 faithful and godly, is the partaking and fellowship 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 unworthily, 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 examine our selves before we eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, for else assuredly he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh 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 receipt of the Holy Sacrament of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ ⟨p. 6⟩is received of every one, good or bad, either Life or Death; it is not meant that they which are dead before God, hereby may receive Life; or the living before God can hereby receive Death. For as none is meet to receive natural food whereby the natural life is nourished except he be born, and live before, so no man can feed by the receipt of this holy Sacrament, of the food of eternal Life, except he be regenerated, and born of God before; and on the other side, no man here receiveth damnation which is not dead before.

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 whosoever 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 fellowship 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 unworthily, 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 drinketh 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 Holy Sacrament of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ ⟨p. 6⟩is received of every one, good or bad, either Life or Death; it is not meant that they which are dead before God, hereby may receive Life; or the living before God can hereby receive Death. For as none is meet to receive natural food whereby the natural life is nourished except he be born, and live before, so no man can feed by the receit of this holy Sacrament, of the food of eternal Life, except he be regenerated, and born of God before; and on the other side, no man here receiveth damnation which is not dead before.

:113p. 7–8

The controversy no doubt which at this day troubleth the Church (wherein any mean learned man either old or new, doth stand in) is not whether the holy Sacrament of the 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 nothing else or no, for all do grant that St. Pauls words do require that the Bread which we brake is the partaking of the Body of Christ, and also all do grant him that eateth of that Bread and drinketh of that ⟨p. 8⟩Cup unworthily, to be guilty of the Lords Death, and to eat and drink his own damnation, because he esteemed not the Lords Body. All do grant that these words of Paul when he saith [if we eat, it advantageth us nothing, or if we eat not, we want nothing thereby] are not spoken of the Lord's Table, but of other common meats. Thus then hitherto yet we all agree, but now let us see wherein the Dissension 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?

The controversy no doubt which at this day troubleth the Church (wherein any mean learned man either old or new, doth stand in) is not whether the holy Sacrament of the 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 nothing else or no, for all do grant that St. Pauls words do require that the Bread which we brake is the partaking of the Body of Christ, and also all do grant him that eateth of that Bread and drinketh of that ⟨p. 8⟩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 advantageth us nothing, or if we eat not, we want nothing thereby] are not spoken of the Lord's Table, but of other common meats. Thus then 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?

:114p. 8–9

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 only 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 substance of Christs own Body. The truth of this question truly tried out and agreed upon, no doubt shall cease the controversy in all the rest. For if it be Christs own natural Body, born of the Virgin, then assuredly (seeing that all learned men in England ⟨p. 9⟩both new and old grant there to be but one substance) then I say, they must needs grant Transubstantiation, that is, a change of the substance of bread into the substance of Christs body. Then also they must grant the carnal and corporal presence of Christs body. Then must the Sacrament be adored with the Honour 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.

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 only 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 substance of Christs own Body. The truth of this question 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 ⟨p. 9⟩both new and old grant there to be but one substance) then I say, they must needs grant Transubstantiation, that is, a change of the substance of bread into the substance of 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.

:115p. 9–10

Now on the other side, if after the truth shall be truly tried out, it be found that the substance of the Bread is the material substance of the Sacrament, although for the change of the use, office, and dignity of the Bread, the Bread indeed sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ, as the water 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 former 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 proposition, (confessed of all that be named to be learned, so far as I do know, in England,) which is, That there is but one material substance in the Sacrament of the Body, and one only, likewise in the Sacrament of the Blood) that there is no such thing indeed and in truth as they call Transubstantiation. For the Substance of Bread remaineth still in the Sacrament of the Body: then also the natural substance of Christs human nature which he took of the Virgin Mary is in ⟨p. 10⟩Heaven, where it reigneth now in glory, and not here enclosed 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 Idolatry, and Sacrilege, is not to be done unto the holy Sacrament. Then also the wicked, (I mean the impenitent) murderer, adulterer, or such like, do not receive the natural Substance of the blessed body and blood of Christ. Finally then doth follow, that Christs blessed Body, which was once only offered and shed upon the Cross, being available for the sins of all the World; is offered up no more in the natural substance there of neither by the Priest, nor any other thing.

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, altho for the change of the use, office, and dignity of the Bread, the Bread indeed sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ, as the water 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 former 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 proposition, (confessed of all that be named to be learned, so far as I do know, in England,) which is, That there is but one material substance in the Sacrament of the Body, and one only, likewise in the Sacrament of the Blood) that there is no such thing indeed and in truth as they call Transubstantiation. For the Substance of Bread remaineth still in the Sacrament of the Body: then also the natural substance of Christs human nature which he took of the Virgin Mary is in ⟨p. 10⟩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 Idolatry, and Sacriledge, is not to be done unto the holy Sacrament. Then also the wicked, (I mean the impenitent) murtherer, adulterer, or such like, do not receive 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 substance there of neither by the Priest, nor any otherthing.

:119p. 11–13

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 neutral, Dissembler, &c. Therefore here now I will by Gods Grace not only shortly, but also so clearly, and plainly as I can, make thee ⟨p. 12⟩now to know whether of the aforesaid two Answers to the former principal state and chief point doth like me best. Yea and also I will hold all those accursed which in this matter, which now so troubles the Church of Christ, have of God received the Key of Knowledge, and yet go about to shut up the Doors, that they themselves will not enter in, nor suffer others 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 concerning 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 everlasting life. Seeing that such charge and danger both before God and man do compass me in round about on every side, therefore God willing, I will frankly and freely utter my mind: and tho my body be Captive, yet my Tongue and my Pen, as long as I may, shall freely set forth that which undoubtedly I am persuaded 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 submission of my judgment in this my writing, and in all other 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 ⟨p. 13⟩Question and principal point I am persuaded to be the very true meaning and sense of Gods holy word:

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. Therefore here now I will by Gods Grace not only shortly, but also so clearly, and plainly as I can, make thee ⟨p. 12⟩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 accursed 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 others 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 concerning 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 everlasting 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 Captive, yet my Tongue and my Pen, as long as I may, shall freely set forth that which undoubtedly I am perswaded 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 submission of my judgment in this my writing, and in all other 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 ⟨p. 13⟩Question and principal point I am perswaded to be the very true meaning and sense of Gods holy word:

:120p. 13–14

That is, that the natural Substance of Bread and Wine is the true material substance of the holy Sacrament of the blessed Body and Blood of our 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 plainly that Christ called very Bread his Body. For that which he took was very Bread. In this all men do agree; and that which he took, after he had given thanks, he brake, and that which he took and brake, he gave 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 very Bread his Body: But very Bread cannot be his very Body in very Substance thereof, therefore it must needs have another meaning, which meaning appeareth plainly what it is by the next sentence that followeth immediately both in Luke, and in Paul, and that is this—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 institute 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 ⟨p. 14⟩them could not be in any wise his natural body, for that were confusion of substances, and therefore the very words of Christ, joined 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 body which was given for us.

That is, that the natural Substance of Bread and Wine is the true material substance of the holy Sacrament of the blessed Body and Blood of our 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 plainly that Christ called very Bread his Body. For that which he took was very Bread. In this all men do agree; and that which he took, after he had given thanks, he brake, and that which he took and brake, he gave 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 very Bread his Body: But very Bread cannot be his very Body in very Substance thereof, therefore it must needs have another meaning, which meaning appeareth plainly what it is by the next sentence that followeth immediately both in Luke, and in Paul, and that is this—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 institute 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 ⟨p. 14⟩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 body which was given for us.

:121p. 14–15

But here I remember that I have read in some writers 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, although 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 rehearse here, the other answer I will defer until 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 fantastical invention; first invented, I ween, of Pope Innocentius and after confirmed by the subtle sophist Dunse, and lately renewed now in our Days with an eloquent stile, and much fineness of wit. But what can crafty Inventions, subtlety in Sophisms, Eloquence 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 undoubtedly 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 signified ⟨p. 15⟩by breaking of Bread. They did per severe in breaking 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 writing both the doctrine and the right use of the Lord's Supper, and the Sacramental eating and drinking of Christs Body & Blood, called it 5 times Bread, Bread &c.

But here I remember that I have read in some writers 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 fantastical invention; first invented, I ween, of Pope Innocentius 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, Eloquence 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 undoubtedly 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 signified ⟨p. 15⟩by breaking of Bread. They did per severe in breaking 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 writing 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.

:127p. 17–18

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 Matthew 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 Physician, 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 virtue 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 power given unto him by virtue 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 Physic; 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 rehearse his words, That which I received of the Lord I gave unto ⟨p. 18⟩you, for the Lord Jesus &c. and so he fetcheth 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 received & given them before by word of mouth, now he rehearseth, and writeth the same in his Epistle; 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 rehearseth the same in his Epistle.

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 Matthew 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 power 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 Physick; 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 ⟨p. 18⟩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 Epistle; 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.

:128p. 18–19

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 signification 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 followeth 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 Testament &c. turn the substance of the Cup into the substance of the New Testament. And if thou wilt say that this word [Is] neither maketh, neither signifieth any such change of the Cup, and that although it be said of Christ that this Cup is the New Testament, yet Christ meant no such change as That; Marry Sr, even so say I when Christ said of the Bread ⟨p. 19⟩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 signification;

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 signification 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 followeth 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 Testament &c. turn the substance of the Cup into the substance of the New Testament. And if thou wilt say that this word [Is] neither maketh, neither signifieth any such change of the Cup, and that altho it be said of Christ that this Cup is the New Testament, yet Christ meant no such change as That; Marry Sr, even so say I when Christ said of the Bread ⟨p. 19⟩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 signification;

:130p. 19–20

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. 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 proper 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 diverse learned Lessons, of the which one is this - If (saith he) the Scripture doth seem to command a thing which ⟨p. 20⟩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 communion or fellowship with Christs passion, and devoutly and wholesomely 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 teacheth 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 figuratively, but also the very true meaning and understanding of the same. For if to command to eat the flesh of the Son of man, and to drink his blood seemeth to command an inconvenience, 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 spiritually (as St. Aug. doth learnedly and godly interpret them) then surely Christ commanding in his last Supper 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 exposition of St. Aug.

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. 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 proper 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 diverse learned Lessons, of the which one is this - If (saith he) the Scripture doth seem to command a thing which ⟨p. 20⟩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 communion 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 teacheth 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 figuratively, but also the very true meaning and understanding of the same. For if to command to eat the flesh of the Son of man, and to drink his blood seemeth to command an inconvenience, 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 spiritually (as St. Aug. doth learnedly and godly interpret them) then surely Christ commanding in his last Supper 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.

:132p. 21–22

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 Evangelists 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 added unto the words of Christ upon the Bread as upon the Cup. Surely I do not see the mystery. And when I see in the Latin Mass the sacrament of the Blood abused when it is denied unto the Lay-man, clean contrary to Gods most certain words, for why, I beseech thee, should the Sacrament of Christs Blood be denied unto the Lay-Christian, more than to the Priest? Did not Christ shed his Blood as well for the Lay Godly 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, Masters, 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 countenance upon us and be merciful unto us, that we may know ⟨p. 22⟩thy way upon earth, and among all people thy Salvation.

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 Evangelists 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 added 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 abused 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 denyed unto the Lay-Christian, more than to the Priest? Did not Christ shed his Blood as well for the Lay Godly 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, Masters, 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 countenance upon us and be merciful unto us, that we may know ⟨p. 22⟩thy way upon earth, and among all people thy Salvation.

:136p. 22–23

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 demonstrate 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 Praedicatum as the Logicians doth speak; and therefore he calleth this pronoun demonstrative Individuumvagum, that is, a wandering proper name, whereby we may point out, and show any one thing in substance, whatsoever ⟨p. 23⟩it be. That this Imagination is untruly applied 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 wandering name to appoint and show 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 wander to point one thing in substance not showing 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 demonstrating, or showing it unto his Disciples by this pronoun 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 showing 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;

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 demonstrate 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 Praedicatum 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, whatsoever ⟨p. 23⟩it be. That this Imagination is untruly apply'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 wandring 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 wander 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 demonstrating, or showing it unto his Disciples by this pronoun 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;

:137p. 23–25

as it were all one if a man lacking a knife, and going to his Oysters would say unto another whom he saw to have two ⟨p. 24⟩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 Oysters withal; and—Hold, I will lend you this Knife to eat your meat, but not to open Oysters? This Similitude serveth but for this purpose, to declare the nature of speech withal, whereas the thing that is demonstrated and showed is evidently perceived and openly known unto the Eye. But, O Good Lord? what wonderful thing it is to see how some men do labour to teach what is demonstrated, and showed 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 themselves, 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 - Benedixit - 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 gone) 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 show Bread indeed, which so remained till the Sentence was fully pronounced. But how can they make and verify Christs words to be true, demonstrating the substance 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) signifieth is made, or is changed into, and then, in Christs words upon the Cup rehearsed by Luke and Paul, the ⟨p. 25⟩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 Neutrals, or Ambidexters, which can shift on both sides; for where the one saith that this word This demonstrateth the substance of Bread, the other saith, No, not so; the Bread is gone, and it demonstrateth a substance which is Christs Body.

as it were all one if a man lacking a knife, and going to his Oysters would say unto another whom he saw to have two ⟨p. 24⟩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 Oysters 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 demonstrated 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 themselves, 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 - Benedixit - 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 verifie Christs words to be true, demonstrating the substance 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) fignifieth is made, or is changed into, and then, in Christs words upon the Cup rehersed by Luke and Paul, the ⟨p. 25⟩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 Ambidexters, which can shift on both sides; for where the one saith that this word This demonstrateth the substance of Bread, the other saith, No, not so; the Bread is gone, and it demonstrateth a substance which is Christs Body.

Reformers309

Puritans1,782

Westminster Assembly24

Evangelicals36