Filter authors and titles

A brief declaration of the Lords Supper, written by the singular learned man, and most constant Martyr of Jesus Christ, Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London prisoner in Oxford, a little before he suffered death for the true testimony of Christ.Roma. 8.For thy sake are we killed all day long, and are counted as sheep appointed to be slain. Nevertheless in all these things we overcome through him, that loved us.Anno. 1555.A brief declaracion of the Lordes Supper, written by the syngular learned man, and most constaunt Martir of Iesus Christ, Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London prisoner in Oxforde, a litel before he suffred deathe for the true testimonie of Christ.Roma. 8.For thy sake are we killed all daye long, and are compted as shepe appointed to be slayne. Neuertheles in all these thinges we ouercome through him, that loued vs.Anno. 1555.Title page of A brief declaration of the Lords Supper, written, Emden, 1555A brief declaration of the Lords Supper, writtenA brief declaracion of the Lordes Supper, writtenNicholas Ridley, 1555

Text

76 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.

:5img 2

Many things confound a weak memory: a few places well weighed and perceived, lighten the understanding. Truth is there to be searched, where it is certain to be had. Though God doth speak the truth by man, yet in mans word (which God hath not revealed to be his) a man may doubt, without mistrust in god. Christ is the truth of God revealed unto man from heaven by God him self, and therefore in his word the truth is to be found, which is to be embraced of all that be his. Christ biddeth us ask, & we shall have: search, and we shall find: knock, and it shall be opened unto us. Therefore our heavenly father, the author and fountain of all truth, the bottomless sea of all understanding, send down (we beseech thee) thy holy spirit in to our hearts, and lighten our understanding with the beams of thy heavenly grace. We ask thee this (O merciful father) not in respect of our deserts,¹ but for thy dear son our saviour Jesus Christs sake. Thou knowest (O heavenly father) that the controversy about ⟨image 3⟩the Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of thy dear son, our saviour Jesus 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) therefore, for we have deserved thy plague. But (O Lord) be merciful, and relieve our misery with some light of grace. Thou knowest (o Lord) how this wicked world rolleth up and down, and reeleth to & fro: and careth not what thy will is, so it may abide in wealth. If truth have wealth,² who are so stout to defend the truth, as they? But if Christs cross be laid on truths back, than they vanish away straight, 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, & blinded by the subtleties of Satan and his Ministers, the wickedness of this wretched word, and the sinful lusts and affections of the flesh. Alas Lord, thou knowest that we be of our selves ⟨image 3⟩but flesh, wherein there dwelleth nothing that is good. How than is it possible for man without the (O Lord) to understand thy truth in deed? Can the natural man perceive the will of God?

MAny thynges confounde a weake memorie: a fewe places well weighed and perceaued, lyghten the vnderstādyng. Truthe is ther to be searched, wher it is certayne to be hade. Though God dothe speake the truthe by man, yet in mannes worde (which God hath not reuealed to be his) a mā may doubt, without mystrust in god. Christ is the truthe of God reuealed vnto man from heauen by God hym selfe, and therfore in his worde the truthe is to be founde, which is to be embraced of al that be his. Christ biddeth vs aske, & we shall haue: searche, and we shall fynde: knocke, and it shal be opened vnto vs. Therfore our heauenly father, the autor and fountayne of all truthe, the botomles sea of al vnderstanding, sende downe (we beseche the) thy holy spirite in to our heartes, and lyghten our vnderstanding wyth the beames of thy heauenly grace. We aske thee this (O merciful father) not in respecte of our desartes,¹ but for thy deare sonne oure saueour Iesus Christes sake. Thou knowest (O heauenly father) that the controuersie about ⟨image 3⟩the Sacrament of the blessed bodye and blood of thy deare sonne, our saueour Iesu Christ, hathe troubled not of late only, ye churche of Englāde, Fraunce, Germanye, and Italie, but also many yeares agoo. The fault is ours (no doubt) therfore, for we haue deserued thy plague. But (O Lorde) be mercifull, and releue our myserie with som light of grace. Thow knowest (o Lorde) how this wicked world rolleth vp and downe, and releth to & fro: and careth not what thy will is, so it maye abyde in wealthe. If truthe haue wealthe,² who are so stowte to defende the truthe, as they? But if Christes crosse be layed on truthes backe, than they vanyshe awaye straight, as waxe before ye fire. But these are not they (O heauenly father) for whom I make my most moane, but for those sely ones (O Lord) which haue a zeale vnto thee: those I meane, which wold and wishe to knowe thy will, and yet are letted, holden backe, & blynded by the subtilties of Satan and his Ministers, the wickednesse of this wretched worde, and the synful lustes and affectiones of the fleshe. Alas Lorde, thow knowest that we be of our selues ⟨image 3⟩but fleshe, wherin ther dwelleth nothing that is good. How than is it possible for mā without the (O Lorde) to vnderstande thy truthe in dede? Can the natural man perceaue the will of God?

:6img 3

O Lord, to whom thou gavest a zeal of thee, give them also (we beseech thee) the knowledge of thy blessed will. Suffer not them (O Lord) blindly to be led, for to strive against thee as thou diddest those (Alas) which crucified thine own son: forgive them (O Lord) for thy dear sons sake, for they know not what they do. They do think (Alas, O Lord) for lack of knowledge, that they do unto the good service, even when against thee they do most extremely rage. Remember, O Lord (we beseech thee) for whom thy martyr Stephan did pray, and whom thine holy Apostle Paul did so truly and earnestly love: that for their salvation, he wished him self accursed for them. Remember (O heavenly father) the prayer of thy dear son, our saviour Christ, upon the cross, when he said unto thee: O father forgive them: they know not what they do. With this forgiveness, O good ⟨image 4⟩Lord, give me (I beseech thee) thy grace, so here briefly to set forth the sayings of thy son our saviour Jesus Christ, of his Evangelists, and of his apostles, that in this aforesaid controversy, the light of the truth, by the lantern of thy word may shine unto all them that love thee.

O Lorde, to whom thow gauest a zeale of thee, geue them also (we beseche thee) ye knowlage of thy blessed will. Suffre not thē (O Lorde) blyndlye to be ledde, for to stryue against thee as thow diddest those (Alas) which crucified thine owne sōne: forgeue them (O Lorde) for thy deare sonnes sake, for they knowe not what they doo. They do thinke (Alas, O Lorde) for lacke of knowlage, that they doo vnto the good seruice, euen whan agaynst thee they doo most extremely rage. Remembre, O Lorde (we beseche the) for whom thy martyr Stephan did praye, and whom thyne holy Aopstle Paule did so truly and earnestly loue: that for their saluacion, he wished hym self accursed for them. Remembre (O heauenly father) the prayer of thy deare sonne, our saueour Christe, vpon the crosse, whan he sayd vnto thee: O father forgeue them: they knowe not what they doo. With this forgeuenesse, O good ⟨image 4⟩Lorde, geue me (I beseche the) thy grace, so here briefly to set furthe the sayenges of thy sonne our saueour Iesu Christ, of his Euāgelistes, and of his apostles, that in this aforesaide cōtrouersie, the light of the truthe, by ye lanterne of thy worde maye shyne vnto al them that loue the.

:15img 5

Thus the Evangelists & S. Paul have rehearsed the words & work of Christ, whereby he did institute & ordain this holy sacrament of his body & blood, to be a perpetual remembrance unto his coming again of him self (I say) that is of his body given for us, & of his blood shed for the remission of since. But this remembrance which is 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 remembrances, that any other man is able to make either of him self or of any other thing. For who so ever receiveth this holy Sacrament thus ordained in remembrance of Christ, he receiveth there ⟨image 6⟩with either death or life. In this (I trust) we do all agree. For S. Paul sayeth of the godly receivers in the 10. chap. of his first epistle unto the Corinthians: The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the partaking or fellowship of Christs blood? And also he sayeth. The bread which we break (& meaneth at the Lords table) is it not the partaking or fellowship of Christs body? Now the partaking of Christs body and of his blood unto the faithful and godly, is the partaking or fellowship of life & immortality. And again of the bad and ungodly receivers, S. Paul as plainly sayeth thus: He that eateth of this bread, and drinketh of this cup unworthily: is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. O how necessary than it is,¹ if we love life, & would eschew death, to try and examine our selves, before we eat of this bread, and drink of this cup: for else assuredly, he that eateth and drinketh thereof unworthily, eateth & drinketh his own damnation, because he esteemeth not the Lords body: that is, he reverenceth not the Lords body with the honour that is due unto him.

Thus the Euangelistes & S. Paule haue rehearced the wordes & worke of Christ, wherby he did institute & ordayne this holy sacramēt of his body & blood, to be a perpetuall remēbraū ce vnto his cōmyng again of him self (I saye) yt is of his body geuē for vs, & of his blood shedde for ye remission of synnes. But this remēbraunce which is thus ordayned, as ye autor therof is Christ (bothe God and man) so by the almightie power of God, it farre passeth all kyndes of remembraunces, that any other man is able to make eyther of hym selfe or of any other thing. For who so euer receaueth this holy Sacramēt thus ordayned in remēbraūce of Christ, he receaueth ther ⟨image 6⟩with either deathe or life. In this (I trust) we doo all agree. For S. Paule sayeth of ye godly receauours in ye 10. chap. of his furst epistle vnto the Corinthiās: The cuppe of blessing, which we blesse, is it not the partaking or feloweship of Christes blood? And also he sayeth. The bread which we breake (& meaneth at the Lordes table) is it not the partaking or feloweship of Christes bodye? Now the partakīg of Christes body and of his blood vnto the faithfull and godly, is the partaking or feloweship of life & immortalitie. And agayn of the badde and vngodly receauours, S. Paule as playnly sayeth thus: He that eateth of this bread, eand drynketh of this cuppe vnworthily: is giltie of the body and blood of ye Lorde. O how necessary thā it is,¹ if we loue life, & wolde eschue deathe, to trye and examine our selues, before we eate of this bread, and drynke of this cuppe: for elles assuredly, he that eateth and drynketh therof vnworthily, eateth & drynketh his owne damnacion, bicause he estemeth not the Lordes body: yt is, he reuerenceth not the Lordes bodye wt ye honour that is due vnto him.

1Note.

:17img 6

Thus hitherto without all doubt, God is my witness, I say so far as I do know, there is no controversy among them that be learned, in the church of England (concerning the matter of this sacrament) but all do agree, whether they be new or old: and to speak plain, and as some of them do odiously call either other: whether they be protestants, papists, Pharisees, or gospellers. And as all do agree hitherto, in the aforesaid doctrine, so all do detest, abhor & con den the wicked heresy of the Messalonianes, ⟨image 7⟩which other wise be called Euticheres, which said, that the holy Sacrament can neither do good nor harm. Al do all so condemn those wicked Anabaptists, which put no difference between the Lords table and the lords meat, & their own. And because charity would, that we should, (if it be possible, and so far as we may with the safeguard of good conscience, & maintenance of the truth) agree with all men: therefore me thinks, it is not charitably done to burden any man (either new or old, as they call them) further, than such do declare them selves, to dissent from that we are persuaded to be truth, or pretend thereto to be controversies, where as non suche are in deed: and so to multiply the debate, the which the more it doth increase, the further it doth depart from the unity, that the true christian should desire.

Thus hitherto without all doubt, God is my witnesse, I saye so farre as I doo knowe, ther is no controuersie among them that be learned, in the churche of Englande (concerning the mater of this sacrament) but all doo agree, whether they be newe or olde: and to speake playne, and as som of them doo odiously call either other: whether they be protestauntes, papistes, Pharisees, or gospellers. And as al doo agree hitherto, in ye aforesayed doctrine, so al do deteste, abhorre & cō dēne ye wicked heresie of ye Messalonianes, ⟨image 7⟩which other wise be called Euticheres, which said, yt ye holy Sacramēt cā nother do good nor harme. Al do al so cōdēne those wicked Anabaptistes, which put no difference betwene the Lordes table and the lordes meate, & their owne. And bicause charitie wolde, that we should, (if it be possible, and so farre as we maye with the sauegarde of good cōscience, & mayntenaunce of the truthe) agree with all men: therfore me thinkes, it is not charitably done to burthen any man (either newe or olde, as they cal them) further, than such doo declare them selues, to dissent from that we are persuaded to be truthe, or pretende therto to be controuersies, wher as non suche are in dede: and so to multiplye the debate, the which the more it dothe encreace, the further it dothe departe from the vnitie, that the true christian should desyre.

:18img 7

And again, this is true, that truth neither needeth nor will be maintained with lies. It is also a true proverb, that it is even sin, to lye upon the devil:¹ for though by thy lye thou doest sin never so much to speak against the devil, yet in that thou lyest, ⟨image 7⟩in deed thou workest the devils work: thou doest him service,² and takest the devils part. Now whether than 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 & believe, do goo about to make the holy Sacrament (ordained by Christ him self) a thing no better than a piece of common bread: or that do say, that such do make the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ nothing else, but a bare sign or a figure, to represent Christ non otherwise, than the Ivy bush doth represent the wine in a tavern, or as a vile person gorgeously apparelled▪ may represent a king or a prince in a play. Alas let men leave lying, and speak the truth every one, not only to his neighbour, but also of his neighbour: for we are members one of an other, sayeth saint Paul. The controversy (no doubt) which at this day troubleth the church (wherein any mean learned man, either old or new, doth stand in) is not, whether the holy Sacrament of the body ⟨image 8⟩and blood of Christ, is no better than a piece of common bread or no: or whether the Lords table is no more to be regarded, than the table of any earthy man or no: or whether it is but a bare sign or figure of Christ and nothing else or no. For all do grant, that S. Pauls words do require, that the bread which we break, is the partaking of the body of Christ, and also do grant him that eateth of that bread, or drinketh of the cup unworthily, to be guilty of the Lords death, and to eat and drink his own damnation, because he esteemeth not the Lords body. All do grant, that these words of S. Paul (when he sayeth: If we eat, it advantageth us nothing: or if we eat not we want nothing thereby) are not spoken of the Lords table, but of other common meats.

And agayn, this is true, that truthe nother nedeth nor wilbe maynteyned with lies. It is also a true prouerbe, that it is euen synne, to lye vpō the deuil:¹ for though by thy lye thow doest synne neuer so muche to speake agaynst the deuil, yet in yt thou lyest, ⟨image 7⟩in dede thow workest the deuilles worke: thow doest him seruice,² and takest the deuilles parte. Now whether than they doo godly and charitably, which either by their pen in writing, or by their wordes in preaching, doo beare the symple people in hāde, that those which thus doo teache & beleue, doo goo about to make the holy Sacrament (ordayned by Christ him self) a thing no better than a piece of common bread: or that doo saye, that suche doo make the holy Sacrament of the blesed body and blood of Christ nothing elles, but a bare signe or a figure, to represent Christ non otherwise, than the Iuye bushe dothe represent the wyne in a tauerne, or as a vile persone gorgiouslye apparailed▪ maye represent a kyng or a prince in a playe. Alas let men leaue lyeng, and speake the truthe euery one, not only to his neighbour, but also of his neighbour: for we are membres one of an other, sayeth saint Paule. The controuersie (no doubt) which at this daye troubleth the churche (wherin any meane learned man, either olde or newe, dothe stande in) is not, whether the holy Sacrament of the body ⟨image 8⟩and blood of Christ, is no better than a piece of cōmō bread or no: or whether the Lordes table is no more to be regarded, thā the table of any earthy man or no: or whether it is but a bare signe or figure of Christ and nothing elles or no. For all doo graunt, that S. Paules wordes doo require, that the bread which we breake, is the partaking of the body of Christ, and also doo graunt hym that eateth of that bread, or drinketh of ye cuppe vnworthily, to be giltie of the Lordes death, and to eate and drinke his owne damnacion, bicause he estemeth not the Lordes body. All doo graunt, that these wordes of S. Paule (whan he sayeth: If we eate, it auantageth vs nothing: or if we eate not we want nothīg therby) are not spoken of the Lordes table, but of other common meates.

1what it is to lye.
2The slam derous lies of the papists.The slaū derous lies of the papistes.

:19img 8

¹Thus than hitherto yet, we all agree. But now let us see, wherein the dissension doth stand. The understanding of it, wherein it chiefly standeth, is a steppe 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 ⟨image 8⟩there be diverse points, wherein men (counted to be learned) can not agree. As whether there be any Transubstantiation of the bread, or no any corporal & carnal presence of Christs substance, or no: Whether adoration (due only unto God) is to be done unto the Sacrament or no: and whether Christs body be there offered in deed unto the heavenly father, by the priest or no: and whether the evil man receiveth the natural body of Christ or no. Yet nevertheless as in a man diseased in diverse parts, commonly the original cause of such diverse diseases, which is spread abroad in the body, do come from one chief member, as from the stomach, or from the head: even so all five aforesaid do chiefly 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, borne of the virgin: than assuredly (seeing that all learned men in ⟨image 9⟩England so far as I know, both new & old, grant there to be but one substance) than I say, they must needs grant Transubstantiation: that is, a change of the substance of bread, into the substance of Christs body. Than also they must needs grant the carnal and corporal presence of Christs body. Than must the Sacrament be adored with the honour due to Christ him self, for the unity of the two natures in one person. Than if the priest do offer the Sacrament, he doth offer in deed Christ him self. And finally the murderer, the adulterer, or wicked man receiving the Sacrament, must needs than receive also the natural substance of Christs own blessed body, both flesh and blood.

¹Thus thā hitherto yet, we al agree. But now let vs see, wherin the dissensiō dothe stande. The vnderstāding of it, wherin it chiefli stādeth, is a steppe to the true searching furthe of the truth. For who can seke well a remedie, if he knowe not before, ye disease? It is nother to be denyed nor dissembled, that in the mater of this Sacramēt ⟨image 8⟩ther be diuerse poyntes, wherin men (counted to be learned) can not agree. As whether ther be any Transubstanciation of the bread, or no any corporal & carnall presence of Christes substaūce, or no: Whether adoracion (due onlye vnto God) is to be done vnto the Sacrament or no: and whether Christes bodye be ther offred in dede vnto ye heauēly father, by ye priest or no: and whether ye euil man receaueth the naturall bodye of Christ or no. Yet neuerthelesse as in a man diseased in dyuerse partes, commonlye the originall cause of suche diuerse diseases, which is spredde abroade in the body, doo come from one chefe membre, as from the stomacke, or from the head: euen so all fyue aforesayed doo chiefly heng vpon this one question: which is, what is the mater of the Sacrament: whether is it the naturall substaunce of bread, or the natural substaunce of Christes owne body? The truthe of this questiō truly tryed out and agreed vpon, no doubt shal ceasse the cōtrouersie in al ye rest. For if it be Christes owne natural body, borne of the virgine: than assuredly (seing that all learned men in ⟨image 9⟩Englande so farre as I knowe, bothe newe & olde, graūt there to be but one substaunce) than I saye, they must nedes graunt Transubstanciacion: that is, a chaūge of ye substaunce of bread, into the substaunce of Christes bodye. Thā also they must nedes graunt the carnall and corporal presence of Christes bodye. Than must the Sacramēt be adored with ye honour due to Christ him selfe, for the vnitie of the two natures in one persone. Than yf ye priest do offre the Sacrament, he dothe offre in dede Christ him selfe. And finally the murtherour, the aduouterour, or wicked mā receauing the Sacramēt, must nedes than receaue also the natural substaūce of Christes owne blessed bodye, bothe fleshe and blood.

1wherein the controversy consisteth.wherin the controuersy consisteth.

:20img 9

Now on the other side, if after the truth shall be truly tried out, it shall be found, that the substance of bread is the natural substance of the Sacrament, although for the change of the use, office and dignity of the bread, the bread in deed sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ, as the water in Baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration, & yet the natural substance thereof ⟨image 9⟩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 Sacrament of Christs blessed body: than must it needs follow, of the former proposition (confessed of all that be named to be learned, so far as I do know, in England) which is, that there is but one material substance in the Sacrament of the body, and one only likewise in the Sacrament of the blood: that there is no such thing in deed and in truth, as they call Transubstantiation: for the substance of bread remaineth still in the Sacrament of the body: than also the natural substance of Christs humane nature, which he toke of the virgin Mary is in heaven, where it reigneth now in glory, and not here enclosed under the form of bread: than that godly honour, which is only due unto God the creator, may not be done unto the creature without idolatry and sacrilege, is not to be done unto the holy Sacrament.

Nowe on ye other syde, yf after the truthe shalbe truly tryed out, it shalbe founde, that the substaūce of bread is the naturall substaunce of the Sacrament, although for the chaunge of the vse, office and dignitie of ye bread, the bread in dede sacramentally is chaunged into the bodye of Christ, as the water in Baptisme is sacramētally chaū ged into the fountayne of regeneration, & yet the natural substaunce therof ⟨image 9⟩remayneth all one, as was before: yf (I say) the true solucion of that former question (whervpon al these controuersies do heng) be, that the naturall substaunce of bread, is the material substaunce in the Sacrament of Christes blessed body: than must it nedes folowe, of the former proposicion (confessed of all that be named to be learned, so farre as I do knowe, in Englande) which is, that ther is but one material substaunce in the Sacrament of the bodye, and one only lykewise in the Sacrament of the blood: that ther is no suche thing in dede and in truthe, as they call Transubstanciacion: for the substaunce of bread remayneth stil in the Sacrament of the bodye: than also the natural substaūce of Christes humane nature, which he toke of the virgine Mary is in heauē, where it reigneth nowe in glorie, and not here inclosed vnder the forme of bread: than that godly honour, which is only due vnto God ye creatour, may not be done vnto the creature without idolatrie and sacrilege, is not to be done vnto the holy Sacrament.

:21img 9

Than also the wicked, I mean the impenitent murderer, adulterer, ⟨image 10⟩or such like, do not receive the natural substance of the blessed body & blood of Christ. Finally than doth it follow, ye Christs blessed body & blood, which was once only offered & shed upon the cross, being available for the sins of all the hole world, is offered up no more, in the natural substance thereof, neither by the priest nor any other thing But here before we go any further to search in this matter, & to wade (as it were) to search & try out (as we may) the truth hereof in the scripture, it shall do well by the way, to know, whether they that thus make answer & solution unto the former principal question, do take away simply and absolutely the presence of Christs body & blood, from the Sacrament ordained by Christ, and duly ministered according to his holy ordinance and institution of the same. Undoubtedly they do deny that utterly, either so to say, or so to mean. 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.

Than also the wicked, I meane the impenitēt murtherour, aduouterour, ⟨image 10⟩or suche like, do not receaue the natural substaūce of ye blessed body & blood of Christ. Finally thā dothe it folowe, ye Christes blessed body & blood, which was once only offred & shedde vpō the crosse, being auaileable for the sinnes of al the hole worlde, is offred vp nomore, in'the natural substaūce therof, nother by ye priest nor any other thing But here before we go any further to searche in this mater, & to wade (as it were) to search & trye out (as we may) ye truthe hereof in the scripture, it shall do wel by the way, to knowe, whether they that thus make answere & solucion vnto the former principal questiō, do take awaye symplie and absolutly the presence of Christes body & blood, from the Sacrament ordayned by Christ, and duely ministred according to his holy ordinaunce and instituciō of the same. Undoubtedly they doo denye that vtterlye, either so to saye, or so to meane. Hereof yf any man do or will doubt, the bookes which are writtē already in this mater of them, that thus doo answere, will make the mater playne.

:22img 10

Now than will you say, what kind of presence do they grant, & what do ⟨image 10⟩they deny? Briefly they deny the presence of Christs body in the natural substance of his humane & assumpt nature, and grant the presence of the same by grace: that is, they affirm and say, that the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ is only remaining in heaven, and so shall be unto the later day, when he shall come again in glory (accompanied with the Angels of heaven) to judge both the quick and the dead. And that the same natural substance of the very body & blood of Christ, because it is united unto the divine nature in Christ the second person of the Trinity. Therefore it hath not only life in it self, but is also able to give & doth give life unto so many as be or shall be partakers thereof: that is, that to all that do believe on his name, which are not borne of blood (as S. Jo. sayeth) or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but are borne of God: though the self same substance abide still in heaven, and they for the time of their pilgrimage dwell here upon earth: By grace (I say) that is, by the gift of this life (mentioned in John) and the properties of the same, mete for our ⟨image 11⟩pilgrimage here upon earth, the same body of Christ is here present with us. Even as for example, we say, the same Sun which (in substance) never removeth his place out of the heavens, is yet present here by his beams, light, and natural influence, where it shineth upon the earth. For God's word and his Sacraments be (as it were) the beams of Christ, which is Sol justiciae, the Sun of righteousness.

Now than wil you say, what kynd of presence do they graunt, & what do ⟨image 10⟩they denye? Bryefly they denie the presence of Christes body in the naturall substaunce of his humane & assumpt nature, and graunt the presence of the same by grace: that is, they affirme and saye, that the substaūce of the naturall body and blood of Christ is onlye remaynyng in heauē, and so shalbe vnto the later daye, whan he shall come agayne in glorie (accompanied with the Aūgelles of heauen) to iudge bothe the quicke and the deade. And that the same natural substaūce of the very bodye & blood of Christ, bycause it is vnited vnto the diuine nature in Christ ye secōde person of the Trinitie. Therfore it hathe not onlye lyfe in it selfe, but is also hable to geue & dothe geue lyfe vnto so many as be or shalbe partakers therof: that is, yt to all yt do beleue on his name, which are not borne of blood (as S. Io. sayeth) or of ye wil of ye fleshe, or of ye wil of mā, but are borne of God: though the selfe same substaunce abyde styll in heauen, and they for the tyme of their pilgrimage dwel here vpon earthe: By grace (I saye) that is, by the gyfte of thys lyfe (mencioned in Iohn) and the propreties of the same, mete for our ⟨image 11⟩pilgrimage here vpon earth, the same bodye of Christ is here presēt with vs. Euen as for example, we saye, ye same Sunne which (in substaūce) neuer remoueth his place out of the heauens, is yet present here by his beames, light, and naturall influence, where it shyneth vpon the earthe. For Goddes worde and his Sacramentes be (as it were) the beames of Christ, which is Sol iusticiae, the Sūne of ryghteousnes.

:23img 11

Thus haste thou heard, of what sort or sect so ever thou be, wherein doth stand the principal state and chief point of all the controversies, which do properly pertain unto the nature of this Sacrament. As for the use thereof, I grant there be many other things, whereof here I have spoken nothing at all. And now least thou justly mightest complain, and say, that I have in opening of this matter done nothing else, but digged a pit, and have not shut it up again: or broken a gap, & have not made it up again: or opened the book, & have not closed it again: or else to call me what thou lustest, as neutral, dissembler, or what so ever else thy lust & learning shall serve to thee to name me worse. ⟨image 11⟩Therefore here now I will (by God's grace) not only shortly but so clearly▪ plainly as I can, make thee to know, whether or the aforesaid two answers to the former principal state & chief point doth like me best: yea and also I will hold all those accursed, which in this matter (that now so troubleth the church of Christ) have of God received the key of knowledge, & yet goo about to shut up the doors so, that they them selves will not enter in, nor suffer other that would. And as for mine own part, I consider, both of late what charge & cure of soul hath ben committed unto me, whereof God knoweth, how soon I shall be called to give account: & also now in this world, what peril & danger of the laws (concerning my life) I am now in at this present time. What folly where it than for me, now to dissemble with God, of whom assuredly I look & hope by Christ to have everlasting life? Seeing that such charge & danger (both before God & man) do compass me in round about on every side: therefore (God willing) I will frankly & freely utter my mind, & though my body be captive, yet my tongue & my pen (as long as I may) shall freely set forth, ⟨image 12⟩that which undoubtedly I am persuaded to be the truth of God's word. And yet I will do it under this protestation, call me protestant who justeth. I pass not thereof. My protestation shall be thus: that my mind is & 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, & not to decline from the same, either for fear of worldly danger, or else for hope of gain

Thus haste thou hearde, of what sorte or secte so euer thou be, wherin dothe stande the principall state and chiefe point of all the controuersies, which do ꝓprely perteyne vnto the nature of this Sacramēt. As for the vse therof, I graunt ther be many other thinges, wherof here I haue spoken nothyng at all. And now least thou iustly mightest complayne, and say, that I haue in opening of this mater done nothyng elles, but digged a pitte, and haue not shut it vp again: or broken a gap, & haue not made it vp agayne: or opened ye boke, & haue not closed it agayne: or elles to cal me what thou lustest, as neutrall, dissembler, or what so euer elles thy lust & learnyng shall serue to thee to name me worse. ⟨image 11⟩Therfore here now I wil (by Goddes grace) not only shortly but so clearely▪ playnly as I cā, make ye to know, whether or ye aforesaid two answeres to ye former principal state & chief poīt dothe lyke me best: yea and also I will holde al those accursed, which in this mater (yt now so troubleth ye churche of Christ) haue of God receaued the keye of knowlage, & yet goo about to shutte vp ye doores so, yt they thē selues wil not entre in, nor suffre other that wolde. And as for myne owne parte, I cōsydre, bothe of late what charge & cure of soule hathe ben cōmitted vnto me, wherof God knoweth, howe sone I shalbe called to geue accōpte: & also now in this worlde, what perile & daūger of ye lawes (cōcernyng my life) I am now in at this p̄sēt tyme. What folye where it thā for me, now to dissē ble wt God, of whō assuredly I loke & hope by Christ to haue euerlastīg life? Seing yt suche charge & daūger (bothe before God & mā) doo compasse me in roūde about on euery syde: therfore (God willing) I will frankely & frely vttre my mynde, & though my body be captyue, yet my tōgue & my pen (as long as I maye) shall frely set furthe, ⟨image 12⟩that which vndoubtedly I am persuaded to be ye truthe of Goddes worde. And yet I wil do it vnder this protestacion, call me protestaūt who iusteth. I passe not therof. My protestacion shalbe thus: that my mynde is & euer shalbe (God willing) to set furthe syncerely the true sense and meanyng (to the best of my vnderstanding) of Goddes most holy worde, & not to decline from the same, either for feare of worldly daunger, or elles for hope of gayne

:25img 12

First let us repeat the beginning of the institution of the Lords supper, wherein all the three evangelists, and S. Paul almost in words do agree, saying that Jesus toke bread, gave than kes, brake, and gave it to the disciples, saying. Take, eat, this is my body. Here it appeareth plainly, that Christ calleth very bread, his body. For that which he toke, was very bread. In this all men do agree. And that which he toke, after he had given thanks, he brake: and that which he toke and brake, he gave to his disciples: & that which he toke, brake, and gave to his disciples, he said him self of it: This is my body. So it appeareth plainly, that Christ called very bread his body. But very bread cannot be his body in very substance thereof:¹ therefore it must needs have an other meaning. Which meaning appeareth plainly what it is, by the next sentence that followeth immediately, both in Luke & in Paul. And it is this: Do this in remembrance of me. Whereupon it seemeth unto ⟨image 13⟩me to evident, that Christ did take bread, & called it his body, for that he would thereby institute a perpetual remembrance of his body: specially of the singular benefit of our redemption, which he would than procure and purchase unto us, by his body upon the cross. But bread retaining still his own very natural substance, may be thus by grace, (and in a sacramental signification) his body: whereas else the very bread which he toke, 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 joined with the next sentence following, both enforceth us to confess the very bread, to remain still, and also openeth unto us, how that bread may be and is thus by his divine power his body, which was given for us. But here I remember, I have red in some writers of the contrary opinion, which do deny that, that which Christ did take, he brake. For (say they) after his taking, he blessed it, as Mark doth speak. And by his blessing, he changed the natural substance of the bread in to the natural ⟨image 13⟩substance of his body: and so although he toke the bread, and blessed it, yet because in blessing he changed the substance of it, he brake not the bread, which than was not there, but only the form thereof.

Furst let vs repete the begynnyng of the instituciō of the Lordes supper, wherin al ye three euāgelistes, and S. Paule almost in wordes doo agree, sayeng that Iesus toke bread, gaue thā kes, brake, and gaue it to the disciples, sayeng. Take, eate, this is my body. Here it appeareth playnly, that Christ calleth very bread, his body. For that which he toke, was very bread. In this all mē doo agree. And that which he toke, after he hade geuen thankes, he brake: and that which he toke and brake, he gaue to his disciples: & that which he toke, brake, and gaue to his disciples, he sayed hym self of it: This is my bodye. So it appeareth playnlie, that Christ called very bread his body. But very breade cānot be his body in very substaūce therof:¹ therfore it must nedes haue an other meanīg. Which meanyng appeareth playnly what it is, by the next sentence that foloweth imediatlye, bothe in Luke & in Paule. And yt is this: Doo this in remēbraūce of me. Whervpon it semeth vnto ⟨image 13⟩me to euident, that Christ did take bread, & called it his bodye, for that he wolde therby institute a perpetual remēbraunce of his body: specially of ye singular benefite of our redempcion, which he wolde than procure and purchace vnto vs, by his body vpon the crosse. But bread reteynyng still his owne very natural substaunce, maye be thus by grace, (and in a sacramētal significaciō) his body: wheras elles the very bread which he toke, brake, and gaue them, could not be in any wise his natural body. For that were confusion of substaunces, and therfore the very wordes of Christ ioyned with the next sentence folowing, bothe enforceth vs to confesse the very bread, to remayne still, and also openeth vnto vs, how that bread may be and is thus by his diuine power his body, which was geuē for vs. But here I remembre, I haue red in some writours of the contrarie opinion, which doo denye that, yt which Christ did take, he brake. For (saye they) after his taking, he blessed it, as Marke doth speake. And by his blessing, he chaunged the natural substaunce of the breade in to the natural ⟨image 13⟩substaunce of his bodye: and so although he toke the bread, and blessed it, yet bicause in blessing he chaunged the substaunce of it, he brake not the bread, which than was not ther, but only the forme therof.

1ArgumentArgumēt

:26img 13

Unto this objection I have two plain answers, both grounded upon God's word. The one I will here rehearse: the other answer I will differ, until I speak of the Sacrament of the blood. Mine answer here is taken out of the plain words of S. Paul, which doth manifestly confound this fantastical invention, first invented (I ween) of Pope Innocentius, & after confirmed by the subtle sophister Duns, and lately renewed now in our days, with an eloquent stile & much finesse of wit.¹ But what can crafty invention, subtlety in sophisms, eloquence or finesse of wit prevail against the unfallible word of God? What need we to strive and con tend what thing we break, for Paul sayeth, speaking undoubtedly of the Lords table: The bread (sayeth he) which we break, is it not the partaking or fellowship of the Lords body? Whereupon it followeth, that after the ⟨image 14⟩thanks giving it is bread which we break. And how often in the Acts of the apostles, is the Lords supper signified by breaking of bread? They did persevere (sayeth S. Luke) in the Apostles doctrine, ²communion, & breaking of bread. And they brake bread in every house. And again in an other place, wham they were come together to break bread &c. s. Paul which setteth forth most fully in his writing both the doctrine & the right use of the Lords supper, & the sacramental eating & drinking of Christs body & blood, calleth it five times bread, bread, bread, bread, bread.

Unto this obiection I haue two playne answers, bothe grounded vpō Goddes worde. The one I will here rehearse: the other answer I will differre, vntil I speake of the Sacramēt of the blood. Myne answer here is takē out of ye plaine wordes of S. Paul, which dothe manifestlye confounde this fantastical inuencion, furst inuē ted (I wene) of Pope Innocentius, & after confirmed by the subtile sophister Duns, and lately renewed nowe in our dayes, with an eloquent stile & muche finesse of wytte.¹ But what can craftye inuencion, subtiltie in sophismes, eloquēce or fynesse of wytte preuayle against the vnfallible worde of God? What nede we to striue and cō tend what thing we breake, for Paul sayeth, speaking vndoubtedly of the Lordes table: The bread (sayeth he) which we breake, is it not the partaking or feloweship of the Lordes bodye? Whervpon it foloweth, that after the ⟨image 14⟩thākes geuyng it is bread which we breake. And how oftē in the Actes of ye apostles, is the Lordes supper signified by breaking of bread? They did perseuer (sayeth S. Luke) in the Apostles doctrin, ²cōmunion, & breakīg of bread. And they brake bread in euery house. And again ī an other place, whā they were come together to break bread &c. s. Paul which setteth furth most fully in his wryting bothe the doctrine & ye right vse of ye Lordes supper, & ye sacramētal eating & drīking of Christes body & blood, calleth it fyue times bread, bread, bread, bread, bread.

1Ma• ▪ Antho. const. Gardiner.
2Act. 2.20.

:30img 14

I know that he that is of a contrary opinion, will deny the former part of mine Argument. But I will prove it thus, by the plain words of Christ him self, both in Matthew and in Mark. Christs words are these: after the words said upon the cup. I say unto you (sayeth Christ) I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine tree, until I shall drink that new in my fathers kingdom. Here note how Christ calleth plainly his cup the fruit of the vine tree. But the fruit of the vine tree is very natural wine. Wherefore the natural substance of the wine doth remain still in the Sacrament of Christs blood. ⟨image 15⟩And here in speaking of the Lords cup, it cometh unto my remembrance the vanity of Innocentius his fantastical invention, which by Pauls words I did confute before, & here did promise somewhat more to speak, & that is this. If the transubstantiation be made by this word (Blessed) in Mark said upon the bread, as Innocentius that pope did say: Than surely seeing that word is not said of Christ, neither in any of the evangelists nor in S. Paul upon the cup: There is no transubstantiation of the wine at all. For where the cause doth fail, there can not follow the effect. But the sacramental bread & the sacramental wine do both remain in their natural substance alike, and if the one be not changed, as of the sacramental wine it appeareth evidently: than there is no such transubstantiation in neither of them both,

I know that he that is of a cōtrary opinion, wil denye the former parte of myne Argument. But I wil proue it thus, by the playne wordes of Christ him self, bothe in Mathewe and in Marke. Christes wordes are these: after the wordes said vpō the cup. I saie vnto you (saieth Christ) I wil not drīke hēcefurthe of this frute of the vyne tree, vntil I shall drinke that newe in my fathers kingdome. Here note how Christ calleth playnlie his cuppe the frute of the vyne tree. But the frute of the vyne tree is very natural wyne. Wherfore the natural substaunce of the wyne dothe remayne still in the Sacrament of Christes blood. ⟨image 15⟩And here in speaking of ye Lordes cup, it cometh vnto my remembraunce ye vanitie of Innocentius his sātastical inuencion, which by Paules wordes I did confute before, & here did promise somwhat more to speake, & that is this. If the transubstanciacion be made by this worde (Blessed) in Marke sayed vpon the bread, as Innocentius that pope did saye: Than surely seing that worde is not sayed of Christ, nother in any of the euangelistes nor in S. Paule vpon the cuppe: Ther is no transubstanciacion of the wyne at al. For wher the cause dothe faile, ther can not folowe the effecte. But the sacramental bread & the sacramental wyne doo bothe remayne in their natural substaunce alike, and if the one be not chaunged, as of the sacramental wyne it appeareth euidētly: than ther is no such transubstanciacion in nother of them bothe,

:32img 15

But as for this their doubt (concerning the sacrament of the body) I let it pass. Let us now consider the words which pertain to the cup. This is first evident, that as Matthew much agreeth with Mark, & likewise Luke with Paul, much agreeth herein in form of words: so in the same, the form of words in Matthew and Mark is diverse from that which is in Luke & Paul: the old authors do most rehearse the form of words in Matthew & Mark: because I ween they seemed to them most clear. But here I would know, whether it is credible or no, that Luke and Paul, when they ⟨image 16⟩celebrated the Lords supper with their congregations, that they did not use the same form of words (at the Lords table) which they wrote, Luke in his gospel, and Paul in his epistle. Of Luke, because he was a physician, whether some will grant, that he might be a 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 the dead. I can not tell, but if they should be so strait upon Luke, either for his craft, or else for lack of such power given him by virtue of the aforesaid words: than I ween, both Petre and Paul are in danger to be deposed of their priesthood, for the craft either of fishing, which was Peter's:¹ or making of tents which was Pauls, were more vile, than the the science of physic. And as for those sacramental words of the order of Priesthood to have authority to sacrifice both for the quick and the dead, I ween Petre & Paul (if they were both alive) were not able to prove, that ever Christ gave them such authority, or ever said any ⟨image 16⟩such words unto them. But I will let Luke goo, and because Paul speaketh more for him self, I will rehearse his words: That (sayeth Paul) which I received of the Lord I gave unto you. For the Lord Jesus. &c. And so he setteth forth the hole institution & right use of the Lords supper. Now seeing that Paul here sayeth, that which he received of the Lord, he had given them, and that which he hath received and given them before by word of mouth, now he rehearseth & writeth the same in his epistle:

But as for this their doubt (concerning the sacrament of the bodye) I let it passe. Let vs now considre the wordes which perteyne to the cuppe. This is furst euidēt, yt as Matthewe muche agreeth wt Marke, & likewise Luke with Paule, much agreeth herin in forme of wordes: so in the same, the forme of wordes in Matthewe and Marke is diuerse frō that which is in Luke & Paule: ye olde autors doo most rehearse ye forme of wordes in Matthewe & Marke: bicause I wene they semed to thē most cleare. But here I wold knowe, whether it is credible or no, that Luke and Paule, whan they ⟨image 16⟩celebrated the Lordes supper wt their congregaciones, that they did not vse the same forme of wordes (at the Lordes table) which they wrote, Luke in his gospel, and Paule in his epistle. Of Luke, bicause he was a phisicion, whether some will graunt, that he might be a priest or no, and was hable to receaue ye ordre of priesthoode, which (they saye) is geuen by vertue of these wordes sayed by the bishop: Take thou autoritie to sacrifice for the quycke and the dead. I can not tell, but if they shoulde be so strayt vpon Luke, either for his crafte, or elles for lacke of suche power geuen him by vertue of thaforesaid wordes: than I wene, bothe Petre and Paule are in daungier to be deposed of their priesthoode, for the crafte either of fyshing, which was Petres:¹ or making of tētes which was Paules, were more vile, than the the science of phisike. And as for those sacramental wordes of the ordre of Priesthoode to haue autoritie to sacrifice bothe for ye quyck and the dead, I wene Petre & Paule (yf they were bothe alyue) were not hable to proue, that euer Christ gaue them such autoritie, or euer saied any ⟨image 16⟩suche wordes vnto them. But I will let Luke goo, and bicause Paule speaketh more for hym self, I will rehearse his wordes: That (sayeth Paule) which I receaued of the Lorde I gaue vnto you. For the Lorde Iesus. &c. And so he setteth furth the hole instituciō & right vse of the Lordes supper. Now seing that Paule here sayeth, that which he receaued of the Lorde, he hade geuen them, and that which he hath receaued and geuen them before by worde of mouthe, now he rehearseth & wryteth the same in his epistle:

1Petre and Paul had no such priesthood as the papists havePetre and Paule had no such priesthode as the papistes haue

:34img 17

Here I would know, whether that Christs words spoken upon the cup, were not as mighty in work, and as effectual in signification to all intents, constructions and purposes (as our Parliament men do speak) as they were spoken upon the bread. If this be granted, which thing I think no man can deny: than 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, in to the substance of that which followeth after, that is, of the substance of bread in to the substance of Christs body, when Christ sayeth: This is my body. Now than if Christs words which are spoken upon the cup, which Paul here rehearseth be of the same might and power, both in working and signifying: Than must this word (is) when Christ sayeth: This cup is the new testament &c. turn the substance of the cup in to the substance of the new testament. And if thou wilt say, that this word (is) neither maketh nor signifieth any such change of the cup, although it be said of ⟨image 17⟩Christ, that this cup is the new testament, yet Christ meant no such change, as that. Mary Sir, even so say I, wham Christ said of the bread, which he toke, and after thanks given brake and gave them, saying: Take, eat, this is my body, he meant no more any such change of the substance of bread in to the substance of his natural body, than he meant of the change and Transubstantiation of the cup in to 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 Metonimia, for the Christs words meant, and so must needs be taken: thou sayest very well. But I pray the by the way, here note two things, First that this word (is) hath no such strength or signification in the Lords words,¹ to make or to signify any transubstantiation. Secondly, that the Lords words whereby he instituted the sacrament of his blood, he useth a figurative speech. Now vain than is it, that some so earnestly do say, as if were an infallible ⟨image 18⟩rule, that in doctrine & in the institution of the sacraments, Christ used no figures, but all his words are to be strained to their proper significations:

Here I wold knowe, whether that Christes wordes spokē vpō the cuppe, were not as mightye in worke, and as effectuall in significacion to all intentes, constructiones and purposes (as our Parliamēt men doo speake) as they were spoken vpon the bread. If this be graunted, which thing I thinke no man can denye: than further I reasō thus. But the worde (is) in the wordes spoken vpō the Lordes bread dothe mightily signifie (saye they) the chaunge of the substaunce of that which goeth before it, in to ye substaūce of yt which foloweth after, yt is, of the substaunce of bread in to the substaunce of Christes bodye, whan Christ sayeth: This is my bodye. Now than if Christes wordes which are spoken vpon the cuppe, which Paule here rehearseth be of the same might and power, bothe in working and signifieng: Than must this worde (is) whan Christ sayeth: This cuppe is the newe testament &c. turne the substaūce of the cuppe in to the substaunce of the newe testament. And if thow wilt saye, that this worde (is) nother maketh nor signifieth any suche chaunge of the cuppe, although it be saide of ⟨image 17⟩Christ, that this cuppe is the newe testament, yet Christ ment no suche chaunge, as that. Mary Sir, euen so saye I, whā Christ sayde of the bread, which he toke, and after thankes geuen brake and gaue them, sayeng: Take, eate, this is my body, he ment no more any suche chaunge of the substaūce of bread in to the substaūce of his naturall bodye, than he ment of the chaunge and Transubstanciacion of the cuppe in to the substaunce of the newe testament. And if thow wilt saye, that the worde (cuppe) here in Christes wordes dothe not signifie the cuppe it self, but the wyne, or thīg conteyned in the cuppe, by a figure called Metonimia, for ye Christes wordes ment, and so must nedes be takē: thow sayest very well. But I praye the by the waye, here note two thinges, Furst that this worde (is) hathe no suche streynght or significacion in the Lordes wordes,¹ to make or to signifie any transubstantiacion. Secōdly, that the Lordes wordes wherby he instituted the sacramēt of his blood, he vseth a figuratyne speache. Now vayne than is it, that some so earnestly doo saye, as if were an infallible ⟨image 18⟩rule, that in doctrine & in the institucion of the sacramentes, Christ vsed no figures, but all his wordes are to be strayned to their propre significaciōs:

1Note well the Papists error confuted.Note well the Papistes errour confuted.

:35img 18

wham as here what so ever thou sayest was in the cup, neither it nor the cup it self (taking every word in his proper signification) was the new testament, but in understanding that which was in the cup, by the cup it is a figurative speech: yea & also thou cannest not verify or truly say of that, whether thou sayest it was wine or Christs blood, to be the new testament without a figure also. Thus in one sentence spoken of Christ, in the institution of the sacrament of his blood, the figure must help us twice. So untrue is it, that some do write, that Christ useth no figure in the doctrine of faith, nor in the institution of his Sacraments. But some say, if we shall thus admit figures in doctrine, than shall all the articles of our faith, by figures and allegories shortly be transformed and unloosed. I say it is like fault (& even the same) to deny the figure, where the place so requireth to be understanden, as vainly to make it a figurative speech, which is to be understanden ⟨image 18⟩in his proper signification.

whā as here what so euer thou sayest was in ye cuppe, nother yt nor the cup it selfe (taking euery worde in his propre significaciō) was ye new testamēt, but in vnderstanding that which was in the cuppe, by the cuppe yt is a figuratiue speache: yea & also thou cannest not verifie or truly saye of that, whether thou sayest it was wyne or Christes blood, to be the newe testament without a figure also. Thus in one sentence spoken of Christ, in the institucion of the sacrament of his blood, the figure must helpe vs twyse. So vntrue is it, that some doo wryte, that Christ vseth no figure in the doctrine of faythe, nor in the institucion of his Sacramentes. But some saye, yf we shal thus admitte figures in doctrine, than shall all the articles of our fayth, by figures and allegories shortlye be transformed and vnlosed. I saye it is lyke fault (& euē the same) to deny ye figure, where ye place so requireth to be vnderstanden, as vaynely to make it a figuratiue speache, which is to be vnderstāden ⟨image 18⟩in his propre significacion.

:38img 19

This lesson of S. Augustine I have therefore the rather set forth, because it teacheth us to understand that place in John figuratively. Even so surely the same lesson with the example of S. Augustine's expositions thereof, teacheth us 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 and an ungodliness, and is even so in deed, if it be understandē as the words do stand in their proper signification: and therefore must be understanden figuratively & spiritually, as S. Augustine doth godly and learnedly interpret them: Than surely Christ commanding in his ⟨image 19⟩last supper to eat his body, and to drink his blood, seemed to command in sound of words, as great and even the same inconvenience and ungodliness, as did his words in the .6. chap. of S. John: and therefore must even by the same reason, be likewise understanden and expounded figuratively & spiritually, as S. Augustine did the other: Whereunto that exposition of S. Augustine may seem to be the more mere, for that Christ in his supper, to the commandment of eating and drinking of his body & blood addeth, Do this in the remembrance of me. Which words surely were the key, that opened & revealed the spiritual and godly exposition unto S. Augustine.

This lessō of S. Augustine I haue therfore the rather set furthe, bicause it teacheth vs to vnderstāde that place in Iohn̄ figuratyuely. Euen so surely the same lesson with the example of S. Augustines exposiciones therof, teacheth vs not only by the same, to vnderstande Christes wordes in the institucion of the Sacrament bothe of his body and of his blood figuratyuely, but also the very true meanyng and vnderstanding of the same. For if to commaunde to eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and to drinke his blood semeth to commaunde an inconueniēce and an vngodlynesse, and is euen so in dede, if it be vnderstandē as the wordes doo stāde in their propre significacion: and therfore must be vnderstanden figuratyuely & spiritually, as S. Augustine dothe godly and learnedly interprete them: Than surely Christ commaunding in his ⟨image 19⟩last supper to eate his body, and to drinke his blood, semed to cōmaunde in sounde of wordes, as great and euen the same inconuenience and vngodlinesse, as did his wordes in the .6. chap. of S. Iohn̄: and therfore must euen by the same reason, be lykewise vnderstanden and expounded figuratyuely & spiritually, as S. Augustine did the other: Wherunto that exposicion of S. Augustine may seme to be the more mere, for that Christ in his supper, to the commaundement of eating and drinking of his body & blood addeth, Doo this in the remēbraunce of me. Which wordes surely were the keye, that opened & reuealed the spirituall and godly exposicion vnto S. Augustine.

:39img 19

But I have tarried longer in setting forth the form of Christs words upon the Lords cup, written by Paul and Luke, than I did intend to do. And yet in speaking of the form of Christs words, spoken upon his cup,¹ cometh now 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 seeing the latin ⟨image 20⟩Mass agreeth with the evangelists and Paul, in the form of words said upon the bread: why in the words said upon the Lords cup, it differeth from them all, yea and addeth to the words of Christ spoken upon the cup, these words, Misterium fidei, that is, the mystery of faith, which are not read to be attributed unto the sacrament of Christs blood, neither in the evangelists nor in Paul, nor so far as I know, in any other place of holy scripture? yea and if it may have some good exposition, yet why it should not be aswell added unto the words of Christ upon his bread, as upon his cup, surely I do not see the mystery. And because I see in the use of the latin mass the sacrament of the blood abused, when it is denied unto the lay people, clean contrary unto God's most certain word: for why, I do 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 aswell for the lay godly man, as for the godly priest? If thou wilt say, yeas that he did so. ⟨image 20⟩But yet the sacrament of the blood is not to be received without the offering up & 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 alone (& that but in his Mass only) may receive the sacrament of the blood. And call you this (Maisters) Misterium fidei? Alas alas, I fear me this is before God Misterium iniquitatis, the mystery of iniquity, such as S. Paul speaketh of, in his epistle to the Thessalonians.² The Lord be merciful unto us, and bless us, lighten his countenance upon us, and be merciful unto us. That we may know thy way upon earth, and among all people thy salvation.

But I haue taried longer in setting furthe ye forme of Christes wordes vpon the Lordes cuppe, written by Paule and Luke, than I did intēde to do. And yet in speaking of the forme of Christes wordes, spoken vpon his cuppe,¹ cometh now to my remebraūce the forme of wordes vsed in the latine Masse, vpon the Lordes cuppe. Wherof I doo not a litell maruaile, what shoulde be the cause seing the latine ⟨image 20⟩Masse agreeth with the euangelistes and Paule, in the forme of wordes sayed vpon the bread: why in the wordes sayed vpon the Lordes cuppe, it diffreth from them all, yea and addeth to the wordes of Christ spoken vpon the cuppe, these wordes, Misterium fidei, that is, the mysterie of faith, which ar not redde to be attributed vnto the sacrament of Christes blood, nother in the euangelistes nor in Paule, nor so farre as I knowe, in any other place of holy scripture? yea and if it maye haue som good exposicion, yet why it should not be aswell added vnto the wordes of Christ vpon his breade, as vpon his cuppe, surely I doo not see ye mysterie. And bicause I see in the vse of the latine masse the sacrament of ye blood abused, whan it is denyed vnto the laye people, cleane contrary vnto Goddes most certain worde: for why, I doo beseche the, should the sacramēt of Christes blood be denyed vnto the lay christiā, more thā to ye priest? Did not Christ sheade his blood aswell for ye laye godly mā, as for ye godly priest? If thow wilt saye, yeas that he did so. ⟨image 20⟩But yet ye sacramēt of the blood is not to be receaued without the offring vp & sacrificeing therof vnto God the father, bothe for the quicke and for the dead: and no man maye make oblacion of Christes blood vnto God, but a priest, and therfore the priest alone (& that but in his Masse only) maye receaue the sacrament of the blood. And call you this (Maisters) Misterium fidei? Alas alas, I feare me this is before God Misterium iniquitatis, the misterie of iniquitie, suche as S. Paule speaketh of, in his epistle to the Thessalonians.² The Lorde be mercifull vnto vs, and blesse vs, lighten his countenaunce vpon vs, and be mercifull vnto vs. That we may knowe thy waye vpon earthe, and among all people thy saluacion.

1The Lords cup, as the priests say.The Lordes cuppe, as the priestes say.
22. Thess. 2. Prayer. Psal. 67.

:40img 20

This kind of oblation standeth upon Transubstantiation his cousin germane, and they do grow both upon one ground.¹ The lord weed it out of his vineyard shortly (if it be his blessed will & pleasure) the bitter root. To speak of this oblation, how much is it injurious unto Christs passion? ⟨image 21⟩How it can not, but with high blasphemy and heinous arrogance, & intolerable pride, be claimed of any man, other than of Christ him self? how much and how plainly it repugneth unto the manifest words, the true sense and meaning of holy scripture in many places,² especially in the epistle to the Hebrews: the matter is so long, and other have written in it at large, that my mind is now, not to entreat thereof any further. For only in this my scribbling, I intend to search out and set forth by the scriptures (according to God's gracious gift of my poor knowledge) whether the true sense and meaning of Christs words in the institution of his holy supper, do require any Transubstantiation, as they call it: or that the very substance of bread and wine do remain still in the Lords supper and be the material substance of the holy Sacrament of Christ our saviour's blessed body and blood.³ Yet there remaineth one vain Quiddity of Duns in this matter, that which because some that write now do seem to like it so well, that they have stripped him out of Dunces dusty and dark terms, ⟨image 21⟩and pricked him and painted him in fresh colours of an eloquent stile: & may therefore deceive the more, except the error be warily eschewed.

This kynde of oblacion standeth vponTransubstanciacion his cousyn germayne, and they doo growe bothe vpō one groūde.¹ The lord wede it out of his vineyard shortly (if it be his blessed wil & pleasure) ye bitter roote. To speake of this oblaciō, how muche is it iniurious vnto Christes passion? ⟨image 21⟩How it can not, but with highe blasphemye and haynous arrogauncie, & intolerable pryde, be claimed of any man, other than of Christ hym self? how much and how playnly it repugneth vnto the manifest wordes, the true sense and meaning of holy scripture in many places,² especially in the epistle to the Hebrues: the mater is so long, and other haue written in it at large, that my mynde is nowe, not to intreate therof any further. For onlye in this my scribling, I intende to search out and set furth by the scriptures (according to Goddes gracious gifte of my poore knowlage) whether the true sense and meanīg of Christes wordes in ye instituciō of his holy supper, do requyre any Trāsubstāciaciō, as they cal it: or that the very substaūce of bread and wyne doo remayne still in the Lordes supper and be the material substaunce of the holy Sacrament of Christ our saueours blessed body and blood.³ Yet ther remayneth one vayne Quidditie of Duns in this mater, yt which bicause some that write now doo seme to like it so well, that they haue strypped him out of Dunces dustye and darke termes, ⟨image 21⟩and pricked hym and paynted hym in freshe colours of an eloquent stile: & may therfore deceaue the more, except the errour be warely eschued.

1The mass sacrifice injurious to Christs passionThe masse sacrifice iniurious to Christes passiō
2Hebr. 9.10.
3Gardiner in the answer to the. 15. objection.Gardiner in the answer to the. 15. obiection.

:41img 21

Duns sayeth in these words of Christ, This is my body, this pronoun demonstrative, meaning the word (this) if ye will know, what it doth show or demonstrate, whether the bread that Christ toke 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 which followeth the word (is) that is by Praedicatum, as the logician doth speak: and therefore he calleth this pronoun demonstrative (This) Individuum Vagum, that is, a wan dring proper name, whereby we may point out and show any one thing in substance, what thing so ever it be. That this imagination is vain and untruly applied unto these words of Christ, This is my body: it may appear plainly in the words of Luke and Paul, said upon the cup, conferred with the form of words spoken upon the cup in Matthew and Mark. For as upon the bread it is said of all, ⟨image 22⟩This is my body: so of Matthew and Mark it is said of the cup, This is my blood. Than if in the words, This is my body, the word (this) be (as Duns calleth it) a wandering name, to appoint and show forth any one thing, whereof the name and nature it doth not tell: so must it be likewise in those words of Matthew and Mark upon the 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, where it is said This cup is the new testament in my blood. &c. Therefore in Matthew & Mark the pronoun demonstrative (this) doth not wander to point only 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, than is done in Luke and Paul, by putting to this word (cup) both unto the eye, and unto 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 than all one to say. This ⟨image 22⟩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:

Duns sayeth in these wordes of Christ, This is my body, this pronowne demonstratyue, meanyng the worde (this) if ye will knowe, what it dothe shewe or demonstrate, whether ye bread that Christ toke or no: he answereth no, but only one thing in substaunce it poynteth, wherof the nature or name it dothe not tell, but leaueth that to be determyned and tolde by that which foloweth ye worde (is) that is by Praedicatum, as the logician dothe speake: and therfore he calleth this pronowne demonstratiue (This) Indiuiduum Vagum, that is, a wā dring propre name, wherby we maye poynt out and shewe any one thing in substaunce, what thing so euer it be. That this ymaginacion is vayne and vntruly applyed vnto these wordes of Christ, This is my body: it may appeare plainly in ye wordes of Luke and Paule, sayed vpon the cuppe, cō ferred with ye forme of wordes spokē vpō ye cuppe in Mathewe and Marke. For as vpō the bread it is sayed of al, ⟨image 22⟩This is my body: so of Matthewe and Marke it is sayed of the cuppe, This is my blood. Than if in the wordes, This is my body, the worde (this) be (as Duns calleth it) a wādring name, to appoynt and shewe furthe any one thing, wherof the name and nature it dothe not tell: so must it be likewyse in those wordes of Matthewe and Marke vpon the Lordes cuppe, This is my blood. But in the wordes of Matthewe and Marke, it signifieth and poynteth out ye same, that it dothe in the Lordes wordes vpon the cuppe in Luke and Paule, wher it is sayd This cuppe is the newe testament in my blood. &c. Therfore in Matthewe & Marke the ꝓnowne demonstratyue (this) dothe not wandre to poynt only one thing in substaunce, not shewing what it is, but telleth it plainlie what it is, no lesse in Mathewe and Marke vnto the eie, than is done in Luke and Paule, by puttīg to this worde (cuppe) bothe vnto the eie, and vnto the eare. For taking the cuppe and demōstrating or shewing it vnto his disciples, by this ꝓnowne demonstratiue (this) and sayeng vnto them, Drinke ye all of this: it was than al one to say. This ⟨image 22⟩is my blood, as to saye: This cuppe is my blood, meanyng by the cuppe as the nature of the speche dothe require, the thing conteyned in the cuppe. So likewise without all doubt, whan Christ hade taken bread, geuen thankes, and broken it, and giuing it to his disciples sayed, Take:

:42img 22

and so demonstrating and showing that bread which he had in his hands, to say than, This is my body: & to have said, This bread is my body. As it were all one, if a man lacking a knife, & going to his oysters, would say unto an other, 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 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, where as the thing that is demonstrated and showed, is evidently perceived, and openly known to the eye. But O good Lord, what a wonderful thing is it to see, how some men do labour to teach, what is demonstrated ⟨image 23⟩and showed by the pronoun demonstrative, this, in Christs words when he sayeth: This is my body: This is my blood: how they labour (I say) to teach, what that (this) was than in deed, wham Christ spake in the beginning of the sentence the word (this) before he had pronounced the rest of the words,¹ that followed in the same sentence: so that their doctrine may agree with their Transubstantiation: which in deed is the very foundation, wherein all their erroneous doctrine doth stand.² And here the Transubstantiators do not agree among them selves, no more than they do in the words which wrought the Transubstantiation, when Christ did first institute his Sacrament: Wherein Innocentius a bishop of Rome of the later days, and Duns (as was noted before) do attribute the work unto the word (Benedixit) Blessed: but the rest for the most parte, to Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body. &c. Duns therefore with his sect, because he putteth the change before, must needs say, that (this) when Christ spake it in the beginning of the sentence, was in deed Christs body. For in the change, the substance ⟨image 23⟩of bread did depart, and the change was now done in Benedixit (sayeth he) that went before: and therefore after him and his, that (this) was than in deed Christs body, though the word did not import so much, but only one thing in substance: which substance after Duns (the bread being gone) must needs be the substance of Christs body. But they that put their Tran substantiation to be wrought by these words of Christ, This is my body:

and so demonstrating and shewing that bread which he hade in his handes, to saye than, This is my body: & to haue saied, This bread is my body. As it were all one, if a man lacking a knyfe, & goīg to his oisters, wold say vnto an other, whō he sawe to haue two kniues, Sir, I praye you lende me the one of your knyues. Were it not now all one to answer hym, Sir, holde I will lende you this to eate your meate, but not to open oysters withall: and holde, I will lende you this knyfe to eate your meat, but not to open oysters. This similitude serueth but for this purpose, to declare ye nature of speche withall, wher as the thing that is demonstrated and shewed, is euidently perceaued, and openly knowen to the eie. But O good Loord, what a wonderfull thing is it to see, how som mē doo labour to teache, what is demonstrated ⟨image 23⟩and shewed by the pronowne demonstratyue, this, in Christes wordes whan he sayeth: This is my body: This is my blood: how they labour (I saye) to teache, what that (this) was than in dede, whā Christ spake in the begynnyng of the sentence the worde (this) before he hade pronounced the rest of the wordes,¹ that folowed in the same sentence: so that their doctrine maye agree with their Transubstanciacion: which in dede is the very foū dacion, wherin al their erroneous doctrine dothe stande.² And here the Transubstanciatours doo not agree amōg them selues, no more than they doo in the wordes which wrought the Transubstanciacion, whan Christ did furst institute his Sacrament: Wherin Innocentius a bishop of Rome of the later dayes, and Duns (as was noted before) doo attribute the worke vnto the worde (Benedixit) Blessed: but the rest for the most parte, to Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body. &c. Duns therfore wt his secte, bicause he putteth the chaūge before, must nedes saye, yt (this) whan Christ spake it in the begynnyng of the sentence, was in dede Christes body. For in the chaunge, the substaunce ⟨image 23⟩of bread did departe, and the chaunge was now done in Benedixit (sayeth he) that went before: and therfore after hym and his, that (this) was than in dede Christes body, though ye worde did not importe so much, but only one thing in substaunce: which substaunce after Duns (the bread being gone) must nedes be the substaunce of Christes body. But they that put their Trā substanciacion to be wrought by these wordes of Christ, This is my body:

1Guard. to the. 13. objection.Gard. to the. 13. obiection.
2God makers agree not among them selvesGod makers agree not among them selues

:43img 23

and do say, that when the hole sentence was finished, than this change was perfected, and not before: they can not say, but yet Christs (this) in the beginning of the sentence before the other words were fully pronounced, was bread in deed. But as yet the change was not done, & so long the bread must needs remain, and so long with the universal consent of all transubstantiators, the natural substance of Christs body can not come: and therefore must their (this) of necessity demon strate & show the substance, which was as yet in the pronouncing of the first word (this) by Christ, but bread. But how can they make and verify Christs words to be true, demonstrating ⟨image 24⟩the substance which in the demonstration is but bread, and say thereof, This is my body: that is (as they say) the natural substance of Christs body: except they would say, that the verb (is) signifieth is made, or is changed in to. And so than if the same verb (is) be of the same effect in Christs words spoken upon the cup, and rehearsed by Luke & Paul: the cup or the wine in the cup must be made or turned in to the new testament, as was declared before.

and doo saye, that whan the hole sentence was finished, than this chaūge was perfected, and not before: they cā not saye, but yet Christes (this) in the begynnyng of the sentence before the other wordes were fully pronounced, was bread in dede. But as yet ye chaunge was not done, & so long the bread must nedes remayne, and so long wt the vniuersal cōsent of al transubstaū ciatours, the naturall substaunce of Christes body can not come: and therfore must their (this) of necessite demō strate & shewe the substaunce, which was as yet in the pronoūceing of the furst worde (this) byChrist, but bread. But how can they make and verifie Christes wordes to be true, demonstrating ⟨image 24⟩the substaunce which in the demonstracion is but bread, and saye therof, This is my body: yt is (as they saye) the natural substaunce of Christes body: except they wold saye, that ye verbe (is) signifieth is made, or is chaunged in to. And so thā if the same verbe (is) be of ye same effecte in Christes wordes spoken vpō the cuppe, and rehearsed by Luke & Paule: the cuppe or the wyne in the cuppe must be made or turned in to the newe testamēt, as was declared before.

Reformers309

Puritans1,782

Westminster Assembly24

Evangelicals36