A BRIEF DECLARATION OF THE LORDS SUPPER WRITTEN BY BISHOP RIDLEY.   

Imprimatur,  
Liber cui Titulus, [A Brief Declaration of the Lord's Supper, etc.]  
Guil. Needham RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. a Sacr. Dom. Junii 7. 1688.   

A BRIEF DECLARATION OF THE Lord's Supper, WRITTEN By Dr. NICHOLAS RIDLEY, Bishop of LONDON, During his IMPRISONMENT.  
With some other Determinations and Disputations concerning the same Argument, by the same Author.  
To which is Annexed  
An Extract of several Passages to the same Purpose, out of a Book, Entitled, DIALLACTION, written by Dr. JOHN POYNET, Bishop of Winchester in the Reigns of E. 6. and Q. Mary.  
LONDON: Printed for Ric. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard, M DC LXXX VIII.   

THE PREFACE.  
THE Doctrine of Transubstantiation maintained by our Adversaries of the Church of Rome, is so gross, and highly repugnant to the first principles of reason, and universal sense of mankind, that directly to defend it would be no less impossible than unsuccessful. Artifices therefore were necessarily to be invented, which might palliate the deformity of so monstrous an Opinion; and divert inquisitive persons from a direct examination of it, by amusing them with confident assertions and extraneous Controversies. Among these, the difference of Opinion between the first Reformers and present Divines of the Church of England hath of late been proposed and urged with the greatest vehemency; as if the first Reformers had believed somewhat equivalent to Transubstantiation; and our present Divines, by asserting no other than a figurative Presence of the material Body of Christ, had degenerated from the belief of their Forefathers.  
We might justly admire the unreasonable confidence of those men, who are not ashamed to propose so manifest and gross a falsehood, and esteem it the highest folly; if we did not remember that it is taken up to defend a desperate Cause, which admits no better Remedies. Can any Man in his right wits believe that so many hundred Martyrs should suffer death, and spend their blood for so inconsiderable a nicety, as was the difference between them and their Persecutors in the Doctrine of the Eucharist, if these late Representers may be believed? That both Parties should dispute so earnestly and vehemently against each other, and yet after all agree in the main? That the Romish Bishops should treat the Reformers as Heretics for denying Transubstantiation; and the Reformers lay down their lives rather than acknowledge it; and yet neither the first to have defined it to be true, nor the last believed it to be false? Such crude Positions can find no entertainment, but in a mind already fitted to receive Transubstantiation itself, that is, devoid of Sense and Reason.  
If we inquire the Reasons and Arguments, wherewith our Adversaries maintain such incredible and extravagant assertions, we shall find them to be no other than these, That the first Reformers taught and asserted a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament; That they maintained the Body and Blood to be verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful Communicants; That they frequently affirmed the natural and substantial Body of Christ, that very Body which was taken by him of the Virgin Mary, to be present in the Sacrament. These very expressions are at this day used by the Divines of the Church of England; whom yet our Adversaries pretend to have departed from the belief of their Forefathers in this matter: So that if they prove the first Reformers to have believed a material presence of Christ's Body, they will prove our Present Divines to believe the same. For the whole Controversy will come to this issue, Whether they believed any material Presence of Christ's Body, or any part of it, either by conversion, substitution, or union? If they positively disowned this, as most certainly they did; than whatsoever expressions they might use, they could believe no other than a figurative Presence of Christ's Body properly so called; which our Adversaries now traduce under the name of Zuinglianism. And, indeed, if we give them leave to explain themselves, they tell us, That in such expressions they use the terms of Real Presence, Nature and Substance, not as Philosophers, but as Divines; and that by denying the Eucharist to be a figure only, or a naked figure, they mean no more, than that it is a true and real communication of the virtues and benefits of his Body, not only a mere figurative commemoration of them, which is the true notion of Zuinglianism.  
To prove this, and vindicate the honour of the first Reformers and modern Divines of our Church, and demonstrate the entire conformity of the belief of both; it is thought convenient to cause some one Treatise of the first Reformers concerning this Subject to be Reprinted, that so every one might judge for himself, whether the pretensions of our Adversaries be indeed true and just; or rather the Present is entirely conformable to the precedent Doctrine of the Church of England. To this end, among all the Writings of the first Reformers, this Treatise of Bishop Ridley, which we here publish, will conduce most, by reason of the great and eminent Authority of the Author, which was so highly considerable beyond that of any other Reformer, that he may justly be esteemed the Standard of the Doctrine of the Church of England at that time. Not only the assurance of his great learning and eminent station in the Church, renders this probable; but that great part which he had in managing the Affairs of the Reformation, and the extraordinary deference paid to his Authority, and trust reposed in him by all Convocations, and the whole body of the Reformers, demonstrate it. None can reasonably be put in competition with him, except Archbishop Cranmer; and he also in his disputation at Oxford professed, that he received his Opinion concerning the Eucharist from Bishop Ridley. This the Romish Clergy were so sensible of in the time of Queen Mary, that by a plausible calumny they endeavoured to persuade the World, that the private opinion of Ridley was the only foundation of the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England: For Brooks Bishop of Gloucester, 
Fox's Martyrol. Vol. 3. p. 425.  Queen Mary's Commissioner, disputing against him in the public Schools at Oxford, used this among other Arguments, What a weak and feeble stay in Religion is this, I pray you? Latimer leaneth to Cranmer, Cranmer to Ridley, and Ridley to the singularity of his own Wit: So that if you can overthrow the singularity of Ridley 's Wit, then must needs the Religion of Cranmer and Latimer fall also. To which I may add the words of Dr. Fecknam, Abbot of Westminster, in his Speech in Parliament, Primo Elizabethae, made in defence of the Church of Rome, which I have seen in Manuscript. Dr. Ridley, the notablest learned of that Opinion in this Realm, did set forth at Paul 's Cross the real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, with these words, which I heard, staying then present; how that the Devil did believe the Sacrament of God was able to make of Stones Bread: And we English people, we do confess that Christ was the very Son of God, and yet will not believe that of Bread he made his very Body Flesh and Blood; wherefore we are worse than the Devil: since that our Saviour by express words did more plainly affirm the same, when at his last Supper he took Bread, and said unto his Disciples; Take ye, eat, this is my Body, which shall be given for you. And shortly after, the said Mr. Doctor Ridley notwithstanding this most plain and open Speech at Paul's Cross, did deny the same.  
Whether Fecknam hath truly represented the words of Ridley, is uncertain. But from the last words of this passage it is manifest, that some, even in that time, taking occasion from this Sermon, had charged Bishop Ridley with asserting a Material Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament: and that he constantly denied himself to have meant or intended any such presence. In this therefore, and such like expressions, he intended only (as himself assures us) to oppose those, who so lightly esteemed the Sacrament, 
Ibid. vol. 3. p. 35.  as to make of it but a figure. For that but maketh it a bare sign, without any more profit. But to clear his intention in this matter from all remaining suspicion of any kind of Material Presence, I will annex a larger explication of it in his own words, in his last examination before the Queen's Commissioners, September 30. 1555.  
In like sort, as touching the Sermon, which I made at Paul's Cross, you shall understand, that there were at Paul's, and divers other places, fixed railing Bills against the Sacrament, terming it Jack of the Box, the Sacrament of the Halter, Round Robin, with suchlike unseemly terms. For which causes, I, to rebuke the unreverend behaviour of certain evil disposed persons, Preached as reverendly of that Matter, as I might, declaring what estimation and reverence ought to be given to it; what danger ensued the mis-handling thereof; affirming in that Sacrament to be truly and verily the Body and Blood of Christ, effectually by Grace and Spirit. Which words the unlearned understanding not, supposed that I had meant of the gross and carnal being, which the Romish Decrees set forth, That a Body having life and motion, should be indeed under the shapes of Bread and Wine.  
This Treatise was written by Bishop Ridley during his imprisonment, a little before his death, and several Copies of it dispersed abroad; of which, some being carried beyond Sea, Dr. Grindall, and other English Exiles, conceived a great desire of causing it to be translated into Latin, 
Ibid. p. 374.  and Printing it. The Bishop hearing of this, desired that by all means they would lay aside their resolution, till they should see how God would dispose of him. Accordingly it was omitted till his death. Immediately after his Martyrdom it was Translated into elegant Latin, but in a Paraphrastical way, and Printed at Geneva 1556. in 12s. The English Copy was Printed at London 1586. 12s. which we have now caused to be faithfully Reprinted; adding to it out of Mr. Fox's Martyrology, divers Speeches, Disputations and Determinations upon the same subject, which might farther illustrate and confirm his Opinion.  
Lastly, Because the late Bishop of Oxford, in his last Treatise, disputing of the ancient Opinion of the Reformed Church of England concerning the Eucharist, and as his Cause required it, maintaining the same assertion with our Adversaries, That some material sort of Presence was then believed; doth mightily urge the Authority of the Learned Dr. Poynet, Bishop of Winchester, at that time proposed in his Diallection; and because that Book is not in English, I have selected and annexed several passages out of it, which may demonstrate what was indeed his notion of the Real Presence; That he denied all manner of Material Presence, and perfectly agreeth with Ridley in explaining the nature of it: And consequently, that he is foully either Misrepresented or Mistaken by the Bishop of Oxford.   

A BRIEF DECLARATION OF THE Lord's Supper. WRITTEN By the singular Learned Man, and most constant Martyr of Christ, NICHOLAS RIDLEY, Bishop of LONDON,  
Prisoner in Oxford, a little before he suffered Death for the true testimony of JESUS CHRIST.  ROM. VIII. 
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 love us.  
Printed at LONDON, 1586. And Reprinted for Ric. Chiswell, 1688.   

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

A BRIEF DECLARATION OF THE Lord's Supper.  
MANY things confounded a weak memory: A few places well weighed and perceived, lighten the understanding. Truth is there to be searched, where it is certain to be had, though God doth speak the truth by man, yet in man's word, which God hath not revealed to be his, a man may doubt without mistrust in God. Christ is the truth of God revealed unto man from Heaven by God himself, and therefore in his word the truth is to be found, which is to be embraced of all that be his. Christ biddeth us ask, and we shall have: search and we shall find: knock, and it shall be opened unto us. Therefore our Heavenly 
The blessed Martyr's prayer.  Father, the Author and fountain of all truth, the bottomless Sea of all understanding, send down we beseech thee, thy holy spirit into 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, but for thy dear Son our Saviour jesus Christ's sake. Thou knowest, O heavenly Father, that the controversy about 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 year ago. The fault is ours (na 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 réeleth to and fro, and careth not what thy will is, so it may abide in wealth. If truth have wealth, who are so stout to defend the truth, as they? But if Christ's cross be laid on truths back, than they vanish away strait, 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 
Note.  and wish to know thy will, and yet are letted, holden bacl, and blinded by the subtleties of Satan and his ministers, the wickedness of this wretched world, and the sinful lusts and affections of the flesh. Alas Lord, thou knowest that we been of ourselves but flesh, wherein there dwelleth nothing that is good. How then is it possible for man without thee (O Lord) to understand thy truth indeed? Can the natural man perceive the will of God? (O Lord) to whom thou givest a zeal of thee, give them also (we beseech thee) the knowledge of thy blessed wil Suffer not them (O Lord) blindly to be led for to strive against thee: as thou didst those (Alas) which crucified thine own Son, forgive them (O Lord) for thy dear Son's sake, for they know not what they do. They do think (Alas, O Lord) for lack of knowledge, that they do unto thee good service even when against thee they do most extremelye rage. Remember, O Lord, (we beseech thee) for whom thy Martyr Stephen did pray, and whom thine holy Apostle Paul did so truly and earnestly love: that for their salvation, he wished himself accursed for them. Remember (O heavenly Father) the prayer of thy dear Son, our Saviour Christ upon the cross, when be said unto thee, O Father forgive them, they know not what they do. With this forgiveness, O good Lord, give me, I beseech thee, thy grace, so here briefly to set forth the say of thy Son our Saviour Christ, and of his Evangelists, and of his Apostles, that in this aforesaid controversy, the light of the truth, by the lantern of thy word, may shine unto all them that love thee.  
Of the Lords last supper do speak expressly the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: but none more plainly nor more fully declareth the same, then doth S. Paul, partly in the tenth Chapter, but specially in the xj. chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians. As Matthew and Mark do agree much in words, so do likewise Luke and S. Paul. But all iiij. no doubt, as they were all taught in one school, and inspired with one spirit, so taught they as one truth. God grant us to understand it well. Amen.  
Matthew setteth forth Christ's Supper thus,  
When even was come, he sat down with the xij. etc. As they did eat, Jesus took bread and gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to the disciples, 
Math. 26.  and said: Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this: for this is my blood of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of sins, I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine tree, until that day, when I shall drink that new in my father's kingdom. And when they had said grace they went out.  
Now Mark speaketh it thus.  
And as they eat, Jesus took bread, blessed, and broke, and gave to 
Mark 14.  them and said, take, eat, this is my body. And took the cup gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said unto them: This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day, that I drink that new, in the kingdom of God.  
Here Matthew and Mark do agree not only in the matter, but also almost fully in the form of words. In Matthew, gave thanks. Mark hath one word, Blessed: which signifieth in this place all one. And where Matthew saith, Drink ye all of this, Mark saith, they all drank of it. And where Matthew saith, of this fruit of the vine; Mark leaveth out the word this, and saith, of the fruit of the vine.  
Now let us see likewise, what agreement (in form of words) is between S. Luke and S. Paul.  
Luke writeth thus,  
He took bread, gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them, saying; 
Luke 22.  this is my body which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also when they had supped, he took the Cup, saying, this Cup is the new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.  
Saint Paul setteth forth the Lords Supper thus,  
The Lord jesus, the same night, in the which he was betrayed, took 
1 Cor. 11.  Bread, and gave thanks and brake, and said, take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me. After the same manner he took the Cup, when supper was done, saying, this Cup is the new testament in my blood. This do as often as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall show the Lords death, until he come.  
Here where S. Luke saith, which is given; Paul saith, which is broken. And as Luke addeth to the words of Paul spoken of the Cup which is shed for you, so likewise Paul addeth to the words thereof, this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me. The rest that followeth in S. Paul, both there and in the tenth Chapter, pertaineth unto the right use of the Lords Supper.  
Thus the Evangelists and S. Paul have rehearsed the words and work of Christ, whereby he did institute and ordain this holy Sacrament of his body and blood to be a perpetual remembrance unto his coming again of himself, I say that is of his body given for us, and of his blood shed for the remission of sins. But this remembrance which to thus ordained, as the author thereof is Christ, both God and Man, so by the almighty power of God, if far passeth all kinds of remembrances, that any other man is able to make either of 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 S. Paul saith of the godly receivers in the tenth Chapter of his first Epistle unto the Cerinthians, The Cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the partaking or fellowship of Christ's blood? And also saith, the Bread which we break (and meaneth at the Lords Lable) Is it not the partaking or fellowship of Christ's body? Now the partaking of Christ's body and of his blood unto the faithful and godly, is the partaking or fellowship of life and immortality. And again of the bad and  receivers, S. Paul as plainly saith thus. He that eateth of this bread, and drinketh of this cup unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 
Note.   
O how necessary then it is, if we love life, and would eschew death, to try and examine ourselves, before we eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, for else assuredly, he that eateth and drinketh thereof unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he esteemeth not the Lords body, that is, he reverenceth not the Lord's body with the honour that is due unto him.  
And that which was said, that with the receit of the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ is received of every one, good and bad, either life or death: it is not meant, that they which are dead before God, may hereby receive life: or the living before God, can hereby receive death.  
For as none is meet to receive natural food, whereby the natural life is nourished, except he be borne and live before: so no man can feed (by the receipt of this holy Sacrament) of the food of eternal life, except he be regenerated and borne of God before. And on the other side, no man here receiveth damnation which is not dead before. Thus hethertoo without all doubt, God is my witness I say so far as I do know, there is no controversy among them that be learned, in the Church of England (concerning the matter of this Sacrament) but all do agree, whether they be new or old, and to speak plain, and as some of them do odiously call either other, whether they be Protestants, Papists, pharisees or Gospelers. And as all do agree hitherto, in the aforesaid Doctrine: so all do detest, abborre and condemn the wicked heresy of the Messalonians which otherwise be called Eutichets, which said that the holy Sacrament can neither do no good nor harm. All do also condemn those wicked Anabaptistes, which put no difference between the Lord's Table and the Lords meat, and their own. And because charity would, that we should, (if it be possible, and so far as we may with the safeguard of good conscience, and maintenance of the truth) agree with all men: therefore me thinks it is not charitably done to burden any man (either new or old, as they call them) further, than such do declare themselves, to descent from that we are persuaded to be truth, or pretend thereunto to be controversies, where as none such are in deed: and so to multiply the debate, the which the more it doth increase, the further it doth departed from the unity, that the true Christian should desire.  
And again this is true, that truth nother needeth nor will be 
What it is to lie. The slanderous lies of the Papists.  maintained with lies. It is also a true proverb, That it is even sin to lie upon the Devil. For though by thy lie thou dost never so much speak against the Devil, yet in that thou liest in deed thou woorkest the Devil's work, thou dost him service, and takest the Devil's part. Now whether then they do godly and charitably, which either by their Pen in Writing, or by their Words in Preaching, do bear the simple people in hand, that those which thus do teach and believe, do go about to make the holy Sacrament (ordained by Christ himself) 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 none otherwise, than the Ivye bush doth represent the Wine in a Tavern, or as a vile person gorgiouslye apparelled, may represent a King or a Prince in a play. Alas let men leave lying, and speak truth every one, not only to his neighbour: but also of his neighbour, for we are members one of an other saith Saint Paul. The controversy (no doubt) which at this day troubleth the Church (wherein any mean learned man, either old or new, doth stand in) is not, whether the holy Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, is no better than a piece of common bread or no: or whether the Lords Table is no more to be regarded, than the Table of any earthly man or no: or whether it is but a bare sign or figure of Christ and nothing else or no. For all do grant, that S. Paul's words do require, that the bread which we break, is the partaking of the body of Christ, and also do grant him that eateth of that bread, or drinketh of that cup unworthily, to be guilty of the Lords death, and to eat and drink his own damnation, because be esteemeth not the Lords body. All do grant, that these words of S. 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 Lords Table, but of other common meats.  
Thus then betherto yet, we all agree. But now let us see, 
Wherein the controverfie consisteth.  wherein the dissension doth stand. The understanding of it, wherein it cheeflye standeth, is a step to the true searching forth of the truth. For who can seek well a remedy, if he know not before the disease? It is neither to be denied nor dissembled, that in the matter of this Sacrament there be 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 Christ's substance, or no. Whether adoration (due only unto God) is to be done unto the Sacrament or no? and whether Christ's 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 divers parts, commonly the original cause of such divers 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 chief 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 Christ's own body? The truth of this question truly tried out and agreed upon, no doubt shall cease the controversy in all the rest. For if it be Christ's own natural body, born of the Virgin: then assuredly (seeing that all learned men in England so far as I know, both new and old, grant there to be but one substance, than I say, they must needs grant Transubstantiation: that is, a change of the substance of bread, into the substance of Christ's body. Then also they must needs grant the carnal and corporal presence of Christ's body. Then must the Sacrament be adorred with the honour due to 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, or wicked man receiving the Sacrament, must needs then receive also the natural substance of Christ's own blessed body, both flesh and blood.  
Now on the other side, if after the truth shall be truly tried out, it shall be found, that the substance of bread is the natural substance of the Sacrament, although for the change of the use, office and dignity of the bread, the bread indeed Sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ, as the water in Baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration, and yet the natural substance thereof remaineth all one, as was before: if I say the true solution of that former question (wherupon all these controversies do hang) be, that the natural substance of bread, is the material substance in the Sacrament of Christ's blessed body: then must it needs follow of the former proposition (confessed of all that be named to be learned, so far as I do know, in England) which is that there is but one material substance in the Sacrament of the body, and one only likewise in the Sacrament of the blood, that there is no such thing indeed and in truth, as they call Transubstantiation: for the substance of bread remaineth still in the Sacrament of the body, than also the natural substance of Christ's human nature, which he took of the Virgin Mary is in Heaven, where it reigneth now in glory, and not here enclosed under the form of bread, than the 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.  
Then also the wicked, I mean the impenitent murtherrer, aduluterer, or such like, do not receive the natural substance of the blessed body and blood of Christ. Finally, then doth it follow, that Christ's blessed body and blood, which was once only offered and shed upon the Cross, being available for the sins of all the whole world, is offered up no more, in the natural substance thereof, nother by the Priest, nor any other thing. But here before we go any further to search in this matter, and to wade (as it were) to search and try out (as we may) the truth hereof in the Scripture, it shall do well by the way to know whether they that thus make answer and solucione unto the former principal question, do take away simply and absolutely the presence of Christ's body and blood, from the Sacrament ordained by Christ, and duly ministered according to his holy ordinance and institution of the same. Undoubtedly they do deny that btterlye, 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.  
Now then will you say, what kind of presence do they grant, and what do they deny? Breeflye they deny the presence of Christ's body in the natural substance of his human and assumpt nature, and grant the presence of the same by grace: that is, they affirm and say, that the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ is only remaining in Heaven, and so shall be unto the latter day, when he shall come again in glory, (accompanied with the Angels of Heaven) to judge both the quick and the dead. And that the same natural substance of the very body and blood of Christ, because it is united unto the divine nature in Christ the second person of the Trinitle. Therefore it hath not only life in itself, but is also able to give and doth give life unto so many as be or shall be partakers thereof, that is, that to all that do believe on his name, which are not borne of blood (as S. john saith) or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but are borne of God: though the selfsame substance abide still in Heaven, and they for the time of their pilgrimage dwell here upon Earth: by grace I say, that is, by the life mentioned in john and the properties of the same, meet for our pilgrimage here upon earth, the same body of Christ is here present with us. Even as for example, we say, the same Sun (which in substance) never removeth his place out of the Heavens, is yet present here by his beams, light and natural influence, where it shineth upon the earth. For God's Word and his Sacraments be (as it were the beams of Christ) which is Sol iustitiae, the Sun of righteousness.  
Thus hast thou heard, of what sort or sect soever thou be, wherein doth stand the principal state and chief point of all the controversies, which do properly pertain unto the nature of this Sacrament. As for the use thereof I grant there be many other things, whereof here I have spoken nothing at all. And now jest thou justly mightest complain, and say, that I have in openinge of 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 again: or opened the book, and have not closed it again: or else to call me what thou listest, as neuterall dissembler, or what soever else thy lust and learning shall serve thee to name me woorsse: Therefore here now I will (by God's grace) not only shortly, but so clearly and plainly as I can make thee to know, whether of the aforesaid two answers to the former principal state and chief point doth like me best: yea and also I will hold all those accursed, which in this matter that now so troubleth the Church of Christ have of God received the keep of knowledge, and yet go about to shut up the doors so that they themselves will not enter in nor suffer other that would. And as for mine own part, I consider but of late what charge and cure of soul hath been committed unto me, whereof God knoweth, how soon I shall be called to give account: and also now in this world what peril and danger of the laws concerning my life I am now in at this present time. What folly were it then for me, now to dissemble with God, of whom assuredly I look and hope by Christ to have everlasting life? Seeing that such charge and danger both before God and man, do compass me in round about on every side: therefore God willing I will frankly and freely utter my mind, and though my body be captive, yet my tongue and my pen as long as I may shall freely set forth, that which undubtedlye I am persuaded to be the truth of Gods Word. And yet I will do it under this protestation, call me Protestant who lusteth, I pass not thereof. My protestation shall be thus: that my mind is and ever shall be (God willing) to set forth sincerely the true sense and meaning (to the beast of my understanding) of Gods most holy word, and not to decline from the same, either for fear of worldly danger, or else for hope of gain.  
I do protest also due obedience & submission of my judgement in this my writing, and in all other mine affairs unto those of Christ's Church, which be truly learned in God's holy Word, gathered in Christ's Name and guided by his Spirit. After this protestation, I do plainly affirm and say, that the second 
Answer to the chief question.  question and principal point, I am persuaded to be the very true meaning and sense of God's holy Word: 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 the blood.  
Firste let us repete 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 took bread, gave thanks, 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 took, was very bread. In this all men do agree. And that which he took, after he had given thanks, he broke: and that which he took and broke, he gave to his disciples: and that which be took, broke, 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 body in very substance thereof: 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 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 thereby institute a perpetual remembrance of his body: specially of the singular benefit of our redemption, which he would then procure and purchase unto us by his body upon the Cross. But bread retaining still his own very natural substance, may be thus by grace, (and in a sacramental signification) his body: whereas else the very bread which he took, broke, and gave them, could not be any wise his natural body. For that were confusion of substances, and therefore the very words of Christ joins with the next sentence following, both enforceth us to confess the very bread, to remain still, and also openeth unto us, how that bread may be and is thus by his divine power his body, which was given for us. But here I remember I have red in some writers of the contrary opinion, which Christ did take, be brake. For say they, after his taking, he blessed it as Mark doth speak. And by his blessing, be changed the natural substance of the bread into the natural substance of his body: and so although he took the bread, and blessed it, yet because in blessing he changed the substance of it, he 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 God's word. The one I will here rehearse, the other answer I will differ, until I speak of the Sacrament of the blood. Mine answer here is taken out of the plain words of S. Paul which doth manifestly confound this fantastical invention, first invented (I ●een) of Pope Innocentius, and after confirmed by the subtle sophister Duns, and lately renewed now in our days, with an eloquent stile and much fineness of wit. But what can crafty invention, subtlety in sophisms, eloquence or fineness of wit 
Mar. Antho. Constan. Gardenar.  prevail against the unfallible Word of God? What need we to strive and contend 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 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 persever (saith S. Luke) in the Apostles Doctrine, Communion, and 
Acts 2. 20.  breaking of bread. And they broke bread in every house.  
And again in an other place when they were come together to break bread, etc. S. Paul which setteth forth most fully in his writing both the doctrine and the right use of the Lords Supper, and the Sacramental eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood, calleth it five times bread, bread, bread, bread, bread.  
The sacramental bread is the mystical body, and so it is called 
The second reason.  in Scripture, 1 Cor. 10. as it is called the natural body of Christ. But Christ's mystical body is the congregation of Christians. Now no man was ever so fond, as to say, that that sacramental bread is transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the congregation. Wherefore no man should likewise think, or say, that the bread is transubstantiated and changed into the natural substance of Christ's human nature.  
But my mind is not here to write what may be gathered out of Scriptures for this purpose, but only to note here briefly, those which seem unto me, to be the most plain places. Therefore contented to have spoken thus much of the Sacramental bread: I will now speak a little of the Lords cup.  
And this shall be my third Argument grounded upon Christ's 
The third Argument.  own words. The natural substance of the sacramental Wine remaineth still, and is the material substance of the Sacrament of the blood of Christ: Therefore it is likewise so in the sacramental Bread.  
I know that he that is of a contrary opinion, will deny the former part of mine Argument. But I will prove it thus by the plain words of Christ himself, both in Mathewe and in Mark. Christ's words are these: after the words said upon the cup: I say unto you, saith Christ, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine tree, until I shall drink that new in my father's kingdom. Hear note how Christ calleth plainly his cup the fruit of the vine tree. But the fruit of the vine is very natural wine. Wherefore the natural substance of the wine doth remain still in the Sacrament of Christ's Blood.  
And here in speaking of the Lords Cup: it cometh unto my remembrance the vanity of Innocentius his fantastical invention, which by Paul's words I did confute before, and here did promise somewhat more to speak, and that is this: if this Transubstantiatione be made by this word, Blessed, in Mark said upon the bread, as Innocentius that Pope did say: then surely seeing that word is not said of Christ neither in any of the Evangelists nor in S. Paul upon the cup: There is no Transubstantiatione of the Wine at all. For where the cause doth fall, there cannot follow the effect. But the sacramental Bread and the sacramental Wine do both remain in their natural substance a like, and if the one be not changed, as of the sacramental Wine it appeareth evidently: then there is no such Transubstantiatione in nother of them both.  
All that trust and affirm this change of the substance of bread 
The Papists, affirm they wots not what.  and mine into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood called Transubstantiation: do also say this change to be made by a certain form of prescript words, and none other. But what they be that make the change, either of the one, or of the other: undoubtedly even they that do write most finely in these our days, almost confess plainly, that they can not tell. For although they grant to certain of the old authors, as Chrisostom, and Ambrose: that these words This is my body, are the words of consecration 
Gardener to the 48. Objection.  of the Sacrament of the body: yet say they, these words may well be so called, because they do assure us of the cousecration thereof, whether it be done before these words be spoken or no.  
But as for this their doubt, concerning the Sacrament of the body, I let it pass. Let us now consider the words which pertain to the Cup. This is first evident, that as Mathewe much agréeeths with Mark, and likewise Luke with Paul much agréeeths béerein in form of words, so in the same 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 Mathewe and Mark: because I ween they seemed to them most clear. But béer I would know, whether it is credibly or no, that Luke and Paul, when they celebrated the Lord's Supper with their congregations, that they did not not use the same form of words (at the Lord's Table) which they wrote, Luke in his Gospel, and Paul in his Epistle. Of Luke, because he was a Physician, whether some will grant, that he might be a Préesse or no, and was able to receive the order of préesthood, which (they say) is given by the virtue of these words said by the Bishop: Take thou authority to Sacrifice for the quick and the dead. I can not tell, but if they should be so strait upon Luke either for his craft, or eye for lack of such 
Peter and Paul had no such preesthood as the Papists have.  power given him by virtue of the aforesaid words: then I ween, both Peter and Paul are in danger to be deposed of their préesthood, for the craft either of fishing, which was Peter's: or making of Tents, which was Paul's, were more vile, than the science of Physic.  
And as for those sacramental words of the order of Préesthood, to have authority to sacrifice both for the quick and the dead, I ween Peter and Paul (if they were both a live) were not able to prove, that ever Christ gave them such authority, or ever said any such words unto them. But I will let Luke go, and because Paul speaketh more for himself: I will rehearse his words: That (saith Paul) which I received of the Lord, I gave unto you. For the Lord Jesus, etc. And so he setteth forth the whole institution and right use of the Lord's Supper. Now seeing that S. Paul here saith, that which he received of the Lord, he had given them, and that which he hath received and given them before by word of mouth: now he rehearseth and writeth the same in his Epistle, is it credibly that Paul would never use this form of words, upon the Lords cop, which (as he saith) he received of the Lord, that he had given them before, and now rehearseth in his Epistle? I trust no man is far from all reason, but he will grant me, that this is not likely so to be.  
Now then, if you grant me, that Paul did use the form of words, which he writeth: Let us then rehearse and consider Paul's word, which he saith, Christ spoke thus upon the Cup.  
This Cup is the New Testament in my blood, this do: as often as ye shall drink it in the remembrance of me.  
Here I would know, whether that Christ's words spoken upon the cup were not as mighty in work, and as effectual in signification to all intentes, constrictions, and purposes, (as all our Parliament men do speak) as they were spoken upon the bread. If this be granted, which thing I think no man can deny: then further I reason thus. But the word (Is) in the words spoken upon the Lord's bread doth mightily signify (say they) the change of the substance of that which goeth before it into the substance of that which followeth after, that is, of the substance of bread into the substance of Christ's body, when Christ saith: This is my body. Now than if Christ's words which are spoken upon the cup, which Paul here rehearseth be of the same might and power, both in working and signifying: then must this word (Is) when Christ saith: This Cup is the new Testament, etc. turn the substance of the cup into the substance of the new testament. And if thou wilt say, that this word (Is) nother maketh nor signifieth any such change of the cup, Although it be said of Christ, that this cup is the new testament, yet Christ meant no such change as that. Marry sir, even so say I, when Christ said of the bread, which he took, and after thanks given, brake, and gave them, saying: Take, eat, this is my body, he meant no more any such change of the substance of bread into the substance of his natural body, than he meant of the change and transubstamiation of the cup into the substance of the new Tellament. And if thou wilt say that the word (Cup) here in Christ's words doth not signify the Cup itself, but the Wine or thing centeined in the cup, by a figure called Metonymia, for that Christ's 
Note well the Papists error confuted.  words so meant, and must needs be taken: thou sayest very well. But I pray thee by the way, here note two things, First that this word, Is, hath no such strength or signification in the Lord's words, to make or to signify any transubstantiation. Secondly, that the Lords words whereby he instituted the Sacrament of his blood: he useth a figurative speech. How vain then is it, that some so earnestly do say, as it were an infallible rule, that in doctrine and in the institution of the Sacraments, Christ used no figurs, but all his words are to be strained to their proper significations: when as here what soever thou sayest was in the cup, nother that nor the cup itself, taking every word in his proper signification, was the new testament, but in understanding that which was in the cup by the cup that is a figurative speech: yea and also thou canst not verify or truly say of that whether thou sayest it was wine or Christ's blood, to be the new testament without a figure also. Thus in one sentence spoken of Christ, in the institution of the Sacrament of his blood, the figure must help us twice. So untrue it is, that some do write, that Christ useth no figure in the doctrine of faith, nor in the institution of his sacraments. But some say, if we shall thus admit figures in doctrine: then shall all the articles of our faith, by figures and allegories shortly be transformed and unlosed. I say it is like fault, and even the same, to deny the figure, where the place so reguirethe to be understanded, as bainly to 
Aug. de doc. Christiana. li. 3. ca 16.  make it a figurative speech, which is to be understanded in his proper signification.  
The rules whereby the speech is known, when it is figurative, & whereby it is none. S. Augustine in his book. De doctrina Christiana, giveth divers learned lessons, very necessary to be known of the students in God's word. Of the which, oue I will rehearse, which is this: If (saith he) the scripture doth seem to command a thing, which is wicked or , or to forbid a thing that charity doth require: then know, saith he, that the speech is figurative. And for example, he bringeth the saying of Christ, in the vj. chapter of S. john. Except ye eat of the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood: 
Gardiner in his answers to the 161. & 226. objection. Note.  ye can not have life in you. It seemeth to command a wicked or anungodly thing, wherefore it is a figurative speech, commanding to have Communion and fellowship with Christ's passion, and devoutly and handsomely to lay up in memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.  
And here I can not but marvel at some men, surely of much excellent fineness of wit, and of great eloquence, that are not ashamed to write and say, that this aforesaid saying of Christ is after S. Augustine a figurative speech indeed: howbeit not unto the learned, but to the unlearned. Here let any man that but indifferently understandeth the Latin tongue, read the place in S. Austin: and if ye perceive not clearly S. Augustins' words, and mine to be contrary, let me abide thereof the rebuke.  
This lesson of S. Augustine I have therefore the rather set forth, because it teacheth us to understand that place in john figuratively. Even so surely the same lesson with the example of S. Augustins' expositions thereof, teacheth us nor only by the same, to understand Christ's words in the Institution of the Sacrament both of his body and of his blood figuratively, but also the very true meaning and understanding of the same. For if to command to eat the flesh of the son of man, and to drink his blood, seemeth to command an inconvenience and an ungodliness, & is even so indeed, if it be understanded as the words do stand in their proper signification: and therefore must be understanded figuratively and spiritually, as S. Augustine doth godly and learnedly interpret them: then surely Christ commanding in his last Supper to eat his body and drink his blood, seemed to command in sound of words as grate and even the same inconvenience and ungodliness, as did his words in the vj. of S. john: and therefore must even by the same reason, be likewise understanded and expounded figuratively and spiritually, as S. Augustine did the other: Whereunto that exposition of S. Augustine may seem to be the more meet, for that Christ in his supper, to the commandment of eating and drinking of his body and blood, addeth: Do this in remembrance of me. Which words surely were the key that opened and revealed the spiritual and godly exposition unto Saint Augustine.  
But I have tarried longer in setting forth the form of 
The Lord's Cup as the Priests say.  Christ's words upon the Lord's cup, written by Paul and Luke then I did intent to do. And yet in speaking of the form of Christ's words, spoken upon his cup, cometh now to my remembrance the form of words used in the Latin Mass, upon the Lords cup. Whereof I do not a little marvel, what should be the cause, seeing the Latin Mass agreeth with the Evangelists and Paul, in the form of words said upon the bread why in the words said upon the Lord's cup, it differeth from them all, yea and addeth to the words of Christ spoken upon the cup these words, Misterium fidei, that is, the mystery of faith, which are not red to be attributed unto the Sacrament of Christ's blood, nother in the Evangelists, nor in Paul, nor so far as I know in any other place of holy Scripture, yea and if it may have some good expositione, yet why it should not be as well added unto the words of Christ upon his Bread, as upon his Cup, surely I do not see the mystery. And because I see in the use of the Latin Mass, the Sacrament of the blood abused, when it is denied unto the lay people, clean contrary unto Gods most certain word: for why, I do beseech thee, should the Sacrament of Christ's blood he denied unto the lay Christian more than to the Priest? Did not Christ shed his blood aswel for the lay godly man, as for the godly Priest? If thou wilt say, yes that he did so. But the Sacrament of the blood is not to be received without the offering up and sacrificing thereof unto God the Father, both for the quick and for the dead: and no man may make oblation of Christ's blood unto God but a Priest, and therefore the Priest alone, and that but in his Mass only, may receive the Sacrament of the blood. And call you this, Masters, Mysterium fidei?  
Alas, alas, I fear me, this is before God, Misterium iniquitatis, the mystery of iniquity, such as S. Paul speaketh of, in his Epistle to the Thessalonians. The Lord be merciful unto us, and 
2 Thes 2. Prayer Psal. 67.  bless us, lighten his countenance upon us, and be merciful unto us. That we may know thy way upon earth, and among all people thy salvation.  
This kind of oblation standeth upon Transubstantiation his 
The Mass sacrifice injurious to Christ's passion.  〈◊〉 german, and they do grow both upon one ground. The Lord weed it out of his Vin●arde shortly, if it be his blessed will and pleasure, that bitter root. To speak of this oblation, how much is it injurious unto Christ's passion?  
How? it can not, but with high blasphemy and heinous arrogancy, and intolerable pride, be claimed of any man, other then of Christ himself: how much and how plainly it repugneth unto the manifest words, the true sense and meaning of holy Scripture in many places, especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews: the matter it is so long, and other have written in it at large, that my mind is now, not to entreat thereof any further.  
For only in this my scribbling, I intent to search out and set forth by the Scriptures (according to Gods gracious gift of my poor knowledge) whether the true sense and meaning of Christ's words in the institution of his holy supper, do require any Transubstantiation, as they call it: or that the very substance of bread and wine do remain still in the Lord's Supper and be the material substance of the holy Sacrament of Christ our Saviour's blessed body and blood. Yet there remaineth one vain Quidditi of Duns in this matter, the which because some 
Gardener in the answer to the 15. objection.  that writ now do seem to like it so well that they have stripped him out of Dunces dusty and dark terms, and pricked him and painted him in fresh colours of an eloquent stile: and may therefore deceive the more, except the error be warily eschewed.  
Duns saith 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 took or no: he answereth not, but only one thing in substance 〈◊〉 paintethe, whereof the nature or name it doth not tell, but leaveth that to be determined and told by that which followeth the word Is, that is by Praedicatum, as the Logician doth speak: and therefore he calleth this pronoun demonstrative. (This) Individuum vagum, that is, a wand'ring proper name, whereby we may point out and show any one thing in substance, what thing soever it be. That this imagination is vain and untruely 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 Mathewe and Mark. For as upon the bread it is said of all. This is my body: so of Matthew and Mark, it is said upon the cup: This is my blood. Then if in the words, This is my body, the word (This) be as Duns calleth it, a wandringe name to appoint and show forth any one thing, whereof the name and nature it doth not tell: so must it be likewise in those words of Mathewe and Mark upon the Lord's cup This is my blood. But in the words of Mathewe 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, etc. Therefore in Mathewe and Mark the pronown 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 Mathewe and Mark unto the eye than is done in Luke and Paul, by putting too this word (cup) booth unto the eye, and unto the ear. For taking the cup and demonstrating or showing it unto his disciples, by this 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: and so demonstrating and showing that bread which he had in his bands, to say then, This is my body: and to have said, This bread is my body.  
As it were all one, if a man lacking a Knife, and 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 and showed by the pronoun demonstrative (this) in Christ's words when he sayeth: This is my body: This is my blood: how they labour (I say) to teach, what that (This) was then indeed, when Christ spoke in 
Gard. to the 130. Objection.  the beginning of the sentence the word (This) before he had pronounced the rest of the words, that followed in the same sentence: so that their doctrine may agree with their Transubstantiation: 
God makers agree not among themselves.  which indeed is the very foundation, wherein all their erroneous doctrine doth stand. And here the Transubstantiatours do not agree among themselves, 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 latter days, and Duns (as was noted before) do attribute the work unto the word (Benedixit) Blessed: but the rest for the most part, to Hoc est corpus meum. This is my body, etc. Duns therefore with his sect, because he puttech the change before must needs say, that this, when Christ spoke it in the beginning of the sentence, was in deed Christ's body. For in the change, the substance of bread did departed, and the change was now done in Benedixit (saith he) that went before: and therefore after him and his that (this) was then indeed Christ's body, though the word did not import so much but only one thing in substance: which substance after Duns (the bread being gone) must needs be the substance of Christ's body. But they that put their Transubstantiation to be wrought by these words of Christ. This is my body: and do say, that when the whole sentence was finished then this change was perfected and not before: they can not say, but yet Christ's (this) in the beginning of the sentence before the other words were fully pronounced, was bread in deed. But as yet the change was not done, and so long the bread must needs remain, and so long with the universal consent of all transubstantiatours, the natural substance of Christ's body can not come: and therefore must their (this) of necessity demonstrate and show the substance, which was as yet in the pronouncing of the first word this by Christ, but bread. But how can they make and verify Christ's words to be true, demonstrating the substance which in the demonstration is but bread, and say thereof, This is my body, that is, as they say the natural substance of Christ's body: except they would say, that the verb, Is, signifieth, is made, or, is changed into. And so then if the same verb, Is, be of the same effect in Christ's words spoken upon the cup, and rehearsed by Luke and Paul: the cup or the wine in the Cup must be made or turned into the new Testament, as was declared before.  
There be some among the Transubstantiatours, which walk so wil●lye and so warily between these two aforesaid opinions, 
Gardener a neutral or lack of both sides.  allowing them both, and holding plainly nother of them both, that me thinks they may be called Neutrals, Ambodexters, or rather such as can shift on both sides. They play on both parts. For with the later, they do allow the doctrine of the last syllable, which is that Transubstantiatione is done by miracle in an instant, at the sound of the last syllable ('em) in this sentence, Hoc est corpus meum. And they do allow also Duns his fantastical imagination of Individium vagum, that demonstrateth as he teacheth in Christ's words, one thing in substance, then being (after his mind) the substance of the body of Christ.  
A merhailous thing, how one man can agree with both these two, they being so contrary the one to the other. For the one saith, the word this, demonstrateth the substance of bread: and the other saith not not so, the bread is gone, and it demonstrateth a substance which is Christ's body. 
Gard. to the 4. obiectiou.   
Tush saith this third man, ye understand nothing at all. They agree well enough in the chief point, which is the ground 
God makers agree against the truth. Note.  of all: that is, both doth agree and bear witness, that there is Transubstantiation. They do agree indeed in that conclusion: I grant. But their process and doctrine thereof do even aswell agree together: as did the false witness before Annas & Caiphas against Christ: or the two wicked judges against Susanna. For against Christ the false witnesses did agree no doubt to speak all against him. And the wicked judges were both agréeed to condemn poor Susanna: but in examination of their witnesses, they dissented so far that all was found false that they went about, both that wherein they agréeed, and also those things, which they brought for their proofs.  
Thus much have I spoken, in searching out a solucione for 
The consent of the old authors.  this principal question, which was, what is the material substance of the holy Sacrament in the Lord's supper? Now lest I should seem to set by mine own conceit, more than is meet: or less to regard the doctrine of the old ecclesiastical writers, then is convenient for a man of my poor learning and simple wit for to do. And because, also I am indeed persuaded, that the old ecclesiastical writers understood the true meaning of Christ in this matter: and have both so truly and so plainly set it forth in certain places of their write, that no man which will vouchsafe to read them, and without prejudice of a corrupt judgement will indifferently weigh them, & construe their minds none otherwise than they declare themselves to have ment: I am persuaded (I say) that in reading of them thus no man can be ignorant in this matter, but he that will shut up his own eyes, and blindféeld himself. When I speak of Ecclesiastical writers, I mean of such as were before the wicked usurpation of the see of Rome was grown so unmeasurably great, that not only with tirannical power, but also with corrupt doctrine, it began to subvert Christ's gospel, and to turn the state, that Christ and his Apostles set in the Church, upside down. For the causes aforesaid, I will rehearse certain of their say: and yet because I take them but for witnesses and expounders of this doctrine and not as the authors of the same, and also for that now I will not be tedious I will rehearse but few, that is three old writers of the Greek Church, and other three of the Latin Church, which do seem unto me to be in this matter most plain.  
The Greek Authors are Origen, Chrisostome and Theodoret. The Latin, are tertullian, S. Augustine and Gelasius. I know there call be nothing spoken so plainly, but the crafty wit furnished with eloquence can darken it, and weest it quite from the true meaning to a contrary sense. And I know also that eloquence, craft, and fineness of wit hath gone about to blear men's eyes, and to stop their ears in the aforenamed writers, that men should nother hear nor see, what those Authors both write and teach so plainly, that except men should be made both stark blind and or ace: they can not but of necessity, if they will read and way them indifferently, both he are and see what they do mean when eloquence, craft, and fineness, of wit have 〈◊〉 all that they can. Now let us he are the old writers of the Greek Church.  
Origene, which lived about 1250. years ago: a man for the excellency of his learning so highly esteemed in Christ's Church, 
Origen.  that he was counted and judged the singular teacher in his time of 
Eccle Hist. Li. 6. Ca 3.  Christ's religion, the confounder of heresies, the schoolmaster of many godly matters, and an opener of high mysteries in scripture. He writing upon the iv chapter of Saint Mathewes gospel, sayeth▪ bus: But if any thing enter into the mouth it goeth away in to the belly, and is avoided into the draught: Yea and that meat which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, concerning the matter thereof, it goeth away into the belly, and is avoided into the draught. But for the prayer which is added unto it, for the proportion of the faith, it is made profitable, making the mind able to perceive and see that which is profitable. For it is not the immaterial substance of bread, but the word which is spoken upon it, that is profitable to the man that eateth it not unworthily. And his I mean of the Typical and Simbolical, that is, Sacramental body. Thus far go the words of Origene, where it is plain, firste that Origene speaking here of the sacrament of the Lords supper as the laste words do plainly signify, doth mean and teach, that the material substance thereof is received, digested, and avoided, as the material substance of other bread and meats is, which could not be, if there were no material substance of bread at all, as the fantastical opinion of Transubstantiation doth put. It is a world too see the answer of the Papists to this place of Origen, in the disputations which were in this 
The Papists objection against Origene.  matter in the Parliament house, and in both the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, they that defended Transubstantiation said, that this part of Origen was but set forth of late by Erasmus, and therefore is to be suspected. But how vain this their answer is, it appeareth plainly. For so may all the good old authors, which lay in old libraries, and are set forth of late, be by this reason re●●cted, as Clement Alexandrinus, Theodoretus, justinus, Ecclesiastica 
An other objection.  historia, Nicephori, and other such. An other answer they had, saying that Origen is noted to have erred in some points, and therefore faith is not to be given in this matter unto him. But this answer well weighed doth minister good matter to the clear confutation of itself. For indeed we grant, that in some points Origen did err. But those errors are gathered out and noted both of S. Jerome and Epiphanius, so that his works (those errors excepted) are now so much the more of authority, that such great learned men took pains to take out of him, whatsoever they thought in him to be written amiss. But as concerning this matter of the Lords Supper, nother they nor yet ever any other ancient Author did ever say, that Origen did err.  
Now because these two answers have been of late so confuted 
Gardener to the 166.  and confounded, that it is well perceived, that they will take no place: therefore some which have written since that time, have forged two other answers, even of the same mould. The former whereof is, that Origen in this place spoke not of the Sacrament of bread or wine of the Lords table, but of an other mystical meat: of the which S. Augustine maketh mention to be given unto them, that were taught the faith, before they were baptised. But origen's own words in two sentences before rehearsed being put together, prove this answer untrue. For he saith, that he meaneth of that figurative and mystical body, which profiteth them, that do receive it worthily, alluding so plainly unto S. Paul's words spoken of the Lords Supper: that it is a shame for any learned man once to open his mouth to the contrary. And that bread which S. Augustin speaketh of, he can not prove that any such thing was used in origen's time. Yea and though that could be proved, yet was there never bread in any time called a sacramental body, saving the sacramental bread of the Lords table, which is called of Origen the typical and symboticall body of Christ.  
The second of the two new found answers, is yet most monstrous 
Gardener in the same place.  of all other, which is this. But let us grant (say they) that Origen spoke of the Lord's Supper, and by the matter thereof was understanded the material substance of bread and wine: what then say they? For though the material substance was once gone and departed by reason of Transubstantiation, lest the forms of the bread and the wine did remain, yet now it is no inconvenience to say, that as the material substance did depart at the entering in of Christ's body under th' aforesaid forms, so when the said forms be destroyed and do not remain, then cometh again the substance of bread and wine.  
And this, say they, is very meet in this mystery, that that which began with the miracle, shall end in a miracle.  
If I had not red this fantasy I would scarce have believed, that any learned man ever would have set forth such a foolish fantasy: which not only lacketh all ground, either of God's word, reason, or of any ancient writer, but also is clean contrary to the common rules of school divinity: which is, that no miracle is to be affirmed and put without necessity. And although for their former miracle, which is their Transubstantiation, they have some colour, though it be but vain, saying it is done by the power and virtue of these words of Christ, This is my body: yet to make this seconde miracle of returning the material substance again they have no colour at al. Or else I pray them show me, by what words of Christ is the second miracle wrought.  
Thus ye may see, that the sleights and shifts which craft and wit can invent to wreste the true sense of Origen cannot take place. But now let us hear an other place of Origen, and so we will let him go.  
Origen in the eleven Homile Super Leviticum saith: that there is also even in the four Gospels, and not only in the old Testament, a letter (meaning a literal sense) which killethe. For if thou follow (saith he) the letter in that saying: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, etc.  
This letter doth kill. If in that place the letter doth kill, wherein is commanded the eating of Christ's flesh? then surely in those words of Christ, wherein Christ commandeth us to eat his body, the literal sense thereof likewise doth kill. For it is no less crime but even the same and all one in the literal sense, to eat Christ's body, and to eat Christ's flesh. Wherefore if the one do kill, except it be understanded figuratively and spiritually: then the other surely doth kill likewise. But that to eat Christ's flesh doth kill so understanded, Origen affirmeth plainly in his words above rebearsed: Wherefore it cannot be justly denied, but to eat Christ's body literally understanded, must needs after him kill likewise.  
The answer that is made to this place of Origen of the Papists, is so foolish, that it be wraieth itself, without any further confutation. It is the same, that they make to a piace of S. Augustin in 
Lib. 3. ca 16.  his book De doctrinae Christiana: Whereas S. Augustine speaketh in effect the same thing that Origen doth here. The Papists answer is this: To the carnal man the literal sense is hurtful, but not so to the spiritual. As though to understand that in his proper sense, which ought to be taken figuratively, were to the carnal man a dangerous peril: but to the spiritual man none at all.  
Now to Chrisostome, whom I bring for the second writer in the 
Chrisostome.  Greek Church, He speaking against the unholy using of man's body, which after S. Paul ought to be kept pure and holy, as the very temple of the Holy Ghost, saith thus: If it be a fault (saith he) 
In opere imperfect. ho. 9 in Matthe.  to translate the holy vessels, in the which is contained not the true body of Christ, but the mystery of the body, to private uses, how much more offence is it to a buse and defile the vessels of our body?  
These be the words of Chrisostome, But I trow that here many fowl shifts are devised, to defeat this place. The Author saith: one is suspected. I answer: but in this place never fault was found with him, unto these our days. And whether this author was john Chrisostome himself the Archbishop of Constantinople or no, that is not the matter. For of all it is granted, that he was a writer of that age, and a man of great learning: so that it is manifest, that this which he writeth was the received opinion of learned men in his days.  
Or else undoubtedly in such a matter his saying should have 
Gardener to the 198. objection:  been impugned of some that wrote in his time, or near unto the same. Nay (saith an other) if this solution will not serve: we may say that Chrisostome did not speak of the vessels of the Lord's cup, or such as were then used at the Lord's table, but of the vessels used in the Temple in the old law.  
This answer will serve no more than the other. For here Chrisostom speaketh of such vessels, wherein was that which was called the body of Christ, although it was not the true body (saith he) of Christ, but the mystery of Christ's body. Now of the vessels of the old law the writers do use no such manner of phrase: for their sacrifices were not called Christ's body. For then Christ was not but in shadows and figures, and not by the Sacrament of his body revealed. Erasmus, which was a man that could understand the words and sense of the writers, although he would not be seen to speak against this error of Transubstantiatione, because he durst not: yet in this time declareth plainly that this saying of the writer is none otherwise to be understanded.  
Yet can I (saith the third Papist) find out a fine and subtle solution 
Gardener in the same place.  for this place, and grant all that yet is said, both allowing here the writer, and also that he meant of the vessels of the Lord's Table. For (saith he) the body of Christ is not contained in them, at the Lord's Table, as in a place, but as in a mystery. Is not this a pretty shift, and a mystical solution? But by the same solution than Christ's body is not in the Lord's Table, nor in the priests hands, nor in the pixe, and so is he here not where. For they will not say, that he is either here or there, as in a place.  
This answer pleaseth so well the maker, that he himself (after he had played with it a little while and shown the fineness of his wit and eloquence therein) is content to give it over and say: but it is not to be thought that Chrisostome would speak after this fineness or subtlety: and therefore he returneth again unto the second answer for his shoot anchor, which is sufficiently confuted before. An other short place of Chrisostome I will rehearse, which (if any indifferency may be heard) in-plaine terms setteth forth the truth of this matter.  
Before the bread (saith Chrisostome ad Cesarium monachum) be hallowed, we call it bread, but the grace of God sanctifying it by the means of the priest it is delivered now from the name of bread, and esteemed worthy to be called Christ's body, although the nature of bread tarry in it still.  
These be Chrisostoms words: wherein I pray you, what can be 
Gardener to the 202. Objection.  said or thought more plain against this error of Transubstantiation, then to declare, that the bread abideth so still: And yet to this so plain a place, some are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it, saying: we grant that nature of bread remaineth still thus, for that it may be seen, felt, and tasted, and yet the corporal substance of the bread therefore is gone, jest two bodies should be confused together, and Christ should be thought impanate.  
What contrariety and falsehood is in this answer, the simple man may easily perceive. Is not this a plain contrariety to grant that the nature of bread remaineth so still, that it may be seen, felt, and tasted: and yet to say▪ the corporal substance is gone, to avoid absurdity of Christ's impanation? And what manifest falsehood is this, to say or mean, that if the bread should remain still, then must follow the inconvenience of impanation?  
As though the very bread could not be a Sacrament of Christ's body (as water is of baptism) except Christ should unite the nature of bread to his nature in unity of person, and make of the bread, God.  
Now let us hear Theodoretus, which is the last of the three Greek 
Theodoret:  Authors. He writeth in his dialogue Contra Eutichen, thus. He that calleth his natural body, corn and bread: and also named himself a Vine tree: even he the same hath honoured the Symbols (that is the 
Dial. 1.  sacramental signs) with the names of his body and blood, not changing indeed the nature itself, but adding grace unto the nature.  
What can be more plainly said, than this, that this old writer sayeth? That although the Sacraments bear the name of the body and blood of Christ, yet is not their nature changed, but abideth still. And where is then the Papists Transubstantiation?  
The same writer to the second dialogue of the same work against th' aforesaid heretic Eutyches, writeth yet more plainly against this error of Transubstantiation, if any thing can be said to be more plain. For he maketh the heretic to speak thus against him that defendeth the true doctrine, whom he calleth Orthodoxus.  
As the Sacraments of the body and blood of our Lord are one thing before the invocation, and after the invocation they be changed, and are made an other: so likewise the Lord's body (saith the heretic) is after the assumption or ascension into heaven, turned into the substance of God: the heretic meaning thereby, that Christ after his ascension, remaineth no more a man.  
To this Orthodoxus answereth thus and saith in the heretic: Thou art taken (saith he) in thine own snare. For those mystical Symbols or Sacraments after the sanctification do not go out of their own nature, but they tarry and abide still in their substance, figure, and shape, yea and are sensibly seen and groped to be the same they were before, etc.  
At these words the papists do startle: and to say the truth, these words be so plain, so full, and so clear, that they can not tell what to say, but yet they will not cease to go about to play the cuttles, and to cast their colours over them, that the truth which is so plainly told, should not have place.  
This Author wrote (say they) before the determination of the Church. As who would say, whatsoever that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome determined in his congregationes with his monks and friars, that must be (for so Duns saith) holden for an article, and of the substance of our faith. Some do charge this 
D. Moreman in the Convocation house.  author that he was suspected to be a Nestorian, which thing in Chalcedon Counsel was tried and proved to be false. But the foulest shift of all, and yet the best that they can find in this matter, when none other will serve: is to say, that Theodoret understandeth by the word (substance) accidents, and not substance indeed.  
This gloze is like a gloze of a lawyer, upon a decree, the text whereof beginning thus: Statuimus, that is, We decree. The gloze of the Lawyer there (after many other pretty shifts there set forth) which he thinketh will not well serve to his purpose, and therefore at the laste to clear the matter, he saith thus: after the mind of one Lawyer. Vel dic (saith he) Statuimus id est, abrogamus, that is: 
Distine. Ca 4. Statuimus.  or expound we do decree, that is, we abrogate or disannul. Is not this a goodly, and worthy gloze? who will not say, but he is worthy in the law, to be retained of counsel, that can gloze so well, and find in a matter of difficulty, such fine shifts? And yet this is the law, or at least the gloze of the law. And therefore who can tell, what peril a man may incur to speak against it except he were a lawyer indeed, which can keep himself out of the briers what wind soever blow.  
Hethertoo ye have heard three writers of the Greek Church, not all what they do say: for that were a labour too great for to gather, and too tedious for the Reader: But one or two places of every one, the which how plain, how full, and how clear they be against the error of Transubstantiation, I refer it to the judgement of the indifferent Reader.  
And now I will likewise rehearse the say of other three old ancient writers of the Latin Church, and so make an end.  
And first I will begin with Tertullian, whom Cyprian the holy martyr 
Tertullian.  so highly esteemed, that whensoever he would have his book, he was wont to say: Give us now the Master.  
This old writer in his fourth book against Martian the heretic, saith thus: jesus made the bread, which he took, and distributed to his disciples, his body, saying: This is my body. That is to say (saith Tertullian) a figure of my body.  
In this place it is plain, that after Tertullia's exposition, Christ ment not by calling the bread his body, and the wine his blood, that either the bread was the natural body, or the wine his natural blood, but he called them his body and blood, because he would institute them to be unto us Sacraments: that is holy tokens and signs of his body and of his blood: that by them remembering and firmly believing the benefits procured to us by his body, which was torn and crucified for us, and of his blood, which was shed for us upon the cross: and so with thanks receiving these holy Sacraments, according to Christ's institution, might by the same be spiritually nourished and fed to the increase of all godliness in us here in our pilgrimage and journey wherein we walk unto everlasting life.  
This was undoubtedly Christ our Saviour's mind, and this is Tertullia's exposition.  
The wrangling that the Papists do make to elude this saying 
Gardener to the 16. Objection.  of Tertullian, is so far out of frame, that it even wearieth me to think on it.  
Tertullian writeth here (say they) as none hath deon hitherto before him.  
This saying is too too  false: for Origene, Hilarye, Ambrose, Basill, Grigorie, Nazianzene, Saint Augustine, and other old authors, likewise do call the sacrament, a figure of Christ's body. And where they say, that Tertullian wrote this, when he was in a heat of disputatione with an heretic, coveting by all means to overthrew his adversary. As who say, he would not take heed, what he did say, and specially what he would write in so high a matter so that he might have the better hand of his adversary.  
Is this credible to be true in any godly wise man? How much less than is it worthy to be thought or credited in a man of so great a wit, learning, and excellency as Tertullian is worthily esteemed ever to have been?  
Likewise this author in his first book against the same heretic Martion, writeth thus: God did not reject bread, which is his creature: for by it he hath made a representation of his body.  
Now I pray you, what is this to say that Christ hath made a representation (by bread) of his body, but that Christ had instituted and ordained bread to be a Sacrament, for to represent unto us his body? Now whether the representatione of one thing by an other, requireth the corporal presence of the thing which is so represented or no: every man that hath understanding, is able in this point (the matter is so clear of itself) to be a sufficient judge.  
The second doctor and writer of the Latin Church, whose 
Augustine.  say I promised to set forth, is S. Augustine. of whose learning and estimation, I need not to speak. For all the Church of Christ both hath and ever hath had him for a man of most singular learning, wit, and diligence, both in setting forth the true doctrine of Christ's religion, and also in the defence of the same against heretics.  
This author as he hath written most plenteously in other matters of our faith: so like wise in this argument he hath written at large in many of his works, so plainly against this error of Transubstantiation, that the Papists love jest to hear of him of all other writers, partly for his authority, and partly because he openeth the matter more fully, than any other doth.  
Therefore I will rehearse more places of him then heretofore I have done of the other. And first, what can be more plain than that which he writeth upon the 89. Psalm, speaking of the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood: and rehearsing (as it were) Christ's words to his Disciples after this manner.  
It is not this body, which ye do see, that ye shall eat, nother shall ye drink this blood, which the Soldiers that crucify me, shall spill or shed.  
I do commend unto you a mystery or a Sacrament, which spiritually understanded, shall give you life.  
Now if Christ had no more natural and corporal bodies, but that one which they then presently both heard and saw, nor other natural blood, but that which was in the same body, and the which the soldiers did afterward cruelly shed upon the cross: and nother this body nor this blood was (by this declaration of S. Augustine) either to be eaten or drunken, but the mystery thereof spiritually to be understanded: then I conclude (if this saying and exposition of S. Augustine be true, that the mystery which the disciples should eat, was not the natural body of Christ, but a mystery of the same spiritually to be understanded.  
For as S. Augustine saith in his 20. book Contra Faustum. Ca 21: Christ's flesh and blood was in the old Testament promised by similitudes and signs of their sacrifices, and was exhibited indeed and in truth upon the cross, but the same is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance upon the altar.  
And in his book, De fide ad Petrum. Ca 19 he saith, that in these sacrifices, meaning of the old law, it is siguratively signified▪ what was then to be given: but in this sacrifice it is evidently signified what is already given (understanding in the sacrifice upon the altar) the remembrance and thanks giving for the flesh, which he offered for us, and for the blood which he shed for us upon the cross: as in the same place and evidently there it may appear.  
An other evident and clear place where in it appeareth, that by the Sacramental bread, which Christ called his body, he meant a figure of his body. As upon the 3 Psalm, where S. Augustine speaketh this in plain terms.  
Christ did admit judas unto the feast, in the which he commended unto his disciples the figure of his body.  
This was Christ's laste Supper before his passion, wherein he did ordain the sacrament of his body, as all learned men do agree.  
S. Augustine also in his 23. Epistle to Bonifacius teacheth, how Sacraments do bear the names of the things whereof they be Sacraments, both in Baptism, and in the Lord's table, even as we call every good friday, the day of Christ's passion: and every Easter day, the day of Christ's resurrection: when in very deed there was but one day wherein he suffered, and but one day wherein he risen. And why do we then call them so, which are not so indeed, but because they are in like time and course of the year, as those days were, wherein those things were done?  
Was Christ, saith sainte Augustine, offered any more but once? And he offered himself. And yet in a Sacrament or representation not only every solemn feast of Easter, but also every day to the People he is offered: so that he doth not lie that saith: he is every day offered.  
For if Sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of those things, whereof they be Sacraments, they could in no wise be Sacraments: and for their similitudes or likeness: commonly they have the names of the things, whereof they be Sacraments. Therefore as after a certain manner of speech, the Sacrament of Christ's body, is Christ's body; the Sacrament of Christ's blood, is Christ's blood, so likewise the Sacrament of faith is faith.  
After this manner of speech, as S. Augustine teacheth in his questiones 
Question 57  Super Leviticum and Contra Adimantum, it is said in scripture, that seven. ears of corn be seven. years, seven Kine be seven years, and the rock was Christ: and blood is the soul, the which last saying (saith Saint Augustine) in his book Contra Adimantum is understanded 
Cap 13.  to be spoken by a sign or figure.  
For the Lord himself did not stick to say. This is my body, when 
Contra Maximinum. Li. Ca 22.  he gave the sign of his body. For we must not consider in Sacraments, saith S. Augustine in an other 〈◊〉, what they be; but what they do signify, or they be signs of things, being one thing in themselves, and yet signifying an nother thing.  
For the heavenly bread (saith he) speaking of the Sacramental bread by some manner of speech is called Christ's body, when in very deed it is the sacrament of his body, etc.  
What can be more plain, or more clearly spoken, then are these places of S. Augustine before rehearsed, if men were not obstinately bend to maintain an untruth, and to receive nothing whatsoever doth set it forth. Yet one place more of S. Augustine will I allege, which is very clear to this purpose, that Christ's natural body is in heaven, and not here corporally in the Sacrament, and so let him depart.  
In his 50. treatise, which he writeth upon john. he teacheth plainly and clearly how Christ being both God and man, is both here, after a certain manner, and yet in heaven, and not here in his natural body and substance, which he took of the blessed hirgin Mary: speaking thus of Christ and saying: By his divine Majesty, by his providence and by his unspeakable and invincible grace that is fulfilled which he spoke: Behold, I am with you unto the end of the World. But as concerning his flesh which he took in his incarnatione, as touching that which was borne of the Virgin as concerning that which was apprehended by the jews and crucified upon a tree, and taken down from the cross, lapped in linen clothes, and buried, and risen again, and appeared after his resurrection, as concerning the flesh, he said; ye shall not ever have me with you. Why so? For as concerning his flesh, he was conversant with his Disciples xl. days, and they accompanying, seeing and not following him, he wentup into heaven, and is not here. By the presence of his divine majesty he did not depart; as concerning the presence of his divine majesty, we have Christ ever with us; but as concerning the presence of his flesh, he said truly to his disciples; ye shall not ever have me with you. For as concerning the presence of his flesh, the Church had him but a few days; now it holdeth him by Faith, though it see him not.  
Thus much S. Augustine speaketh repeating one thing so often: and all to declare and teach, how we should understand the manner of Christ's being here with us: which is by his grace, by his providence, and by his divine nature, and how he is absent by his natural body which was born of the virgin Mary, died, & risen for us, and is ascended into heaven, & there sitteth, as in the articles of our faith on the right hand of God, and thence (and from none other place saith S. Augustine) he shall come on the latter day, to judge the quick and the dead. At the which day the righteous shall then lift up their heads, and the light of God's truth shall so shine: that falsehood and errors shall be put into perpetual confusion: righteousness shall have the upper hand, and truth that day shall bear away the victory, all th' enemies thereof quite overthrown, to be trodden under foot for evermore.  
O Lord, Lord, I beseech thee hasten this day, then shalt thou be glorified with the glory due unto thy holy name, and unto thy divine majesty: and we shall sing unto thee, in all joy, and felicity, laud and praise for ever mere. Amen.  
Here now would I make an end. For me thinks, S. Augustine is in this matter so full and plain, and of that authority, that it should not need after this his declaration, being so firmly grounded upon God's word, and so well agreeing with the other ancient Authors, to bring in for the confirmation of this matter any moe: and yet I said, I would allege three of the Latin Church, to testify the truth in this cause. Now therefore the laste of all shall be Gelasius, which was a Bishop of Rome, but one that was Bishop of that See before the wicked usurpation and tyranny thereof spread and burst out abroad into all the world. For this man was before Bonifacius, yea and Grigorye the firste: in whose days both corruption of doctrine and tyrannical usurpation did chée fly grow, and had the upper hand.  
Gelasius in an Epistle of the two natures of Christ, Contra Eutichen, 
Gelasius.  writeth thus: The Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, are godly things whereby and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet nevertheless the substance or nature of the bread and wine doth not depart nor go away.  
Note these words I beseech you, and consider, whether any thing can be more plainly spoken, than these words be against the error of Transubstantiatione, which is the ground and bitter root, whereupon springe all the horrible errors before rehearsed.  
Wherefore seeing that the falsehood doth appear so manifestly, and by so many ways so plainly, so clearly and so fullye, that no man needeth to be deceived, but he that will not see, or will not understand: let us all that do love the truth, embrace it, and forsake the falsehood. For he that loveth the truth, is of God: and the lack of the love thereof is the cause why God suffereth men to fall into errors, and to perish therein: yea and as S. Paul sayeth, why he sendeth unto them illusions, that they believe lies, unto their own condemnation: because (saith he) they loved not the truth. This truth no doubt is God's word. For Christ himself saith unto his father: Thy word is truth. The love and 
joh. 17.  light whereof almighty God our heavenly father give us, and lighten it in our hearts by his holy spirit through jesus Christ out Lord, Amen.  
Vincit Veritas.   

Mr. FOX 2 d Volume of Acts and Monuments, Edit. London, 1684.  Lib. 9 pag. 106. The Disputation held at Cambridge before the King's Commissioners, June 20. 1549. wherein Bishop Ridley moderated. GLin. 
Well, yet once again to you, thus. The very true Body 
P. 106.  of Christ is to be honoured, but the same very true Body is in the Sacrament: Ergo, the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, is to be honoured.  Rochest. 
Wellbeloved Friends and Brethren in our Saviour Christ, you must understand that this Disputation, with other that shall be after this, are appointed to search for the plain truth of the Holy Scriptures in these matters of Religion, which of a long Season have been hidden from us by the false Glosses of the Church of Rome, and now in our days must be revealed to us Englishmen through the great Mercy of God principally; and secondarily, through the most gentle Clemency of our natural Sovereign Lord the King's Majesty, whom the living Lord long preserve to reign over us in Health, Wealth and Godliness, to the maintenance of God's holy Word, and to the extirpation of all blind Glosses of Men, that go about to subvert the Truth. Because therefore, that I am one that doth love the Truth, and have professed the same amongst you; therefore I say, because of conferring my mind with yours, I will here gladly declare what I think in this point now in Controversy. Not because this worshipful Doctor hath any need of my help in dissolving of Arguments proposed against him; for as me seemeth, he hath answered hitherto very well, and Clerkly, according to the Truth of God's Word. But now to the purpose, I do grant unto you (Mr. Opponent) that the old Ancient Fathers do record and witness a certain Honour and Adoration to be due unto Christ's Body, but they speak not of it in the Sacrament, but of it in Heaven, at the right hand of the Father, as holy chrysostom saith, Honour thou it, and then eat it; but that Honour may not be given to the outward sign, but to the Body of Christ itself in Heaven. For that Body is there only in a sign virtually, by Grace, in the exhibition of it in Spirit, Effect and Faith, to the worthy receiver of it. For we receive virtually only Christ's Body in the Sacrament.  Glin. 
How then (if it please your good Lordship) doth Baptism differ from this Sacrament? For in that we receive Christ also by Grace, and virtually.  Rochest. 
Christ is present after another sort in Baptism, than in this Sacrament; for in that he purgeth and washeth the Infant from all kind of Sin, but here he doth feed spiritually the receiver in Faith with all the merits of his blessed Death and Passion; and yet he is in Heaven still really and substantially. As for Example, The King's Majesty, our Lord and Master, is but in one place, wheresoever that this Royal Person is abiding for the time, and yet his mighty Power and Authority is every where in his Realms and Dominions: So Christ's real Person is only in Heaven substantially placed, but his might is in all things created effectually. For Christ's Flesh may be understood for the Power, or inward Might of his Flesh.  Glin. 
If it please your Fatherhood, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine do say, That before the Consecration, it is but very Bread, and after the Consecration, it is called the very Body of Christ.  Madew. 
Indeed it is the very Body of Christ Sacramentally after the Consecration, whereas before it is nothing but common Bread; and yet, after that, it is the Lords Bread; and thus must St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine be understood.  Glin. 
The Bread after Consecration doth feed the Soul, Ergo, The substance of common Bread doth not remain. The Argument is good, for St. Ambrose, De Sacramentis, saith thus, After the Consecration there is not the thing that Nature did form, but that which the blessing doth consecrate. And if the Benediction of the Prophet Elias did turn the nature of Water; how much more than doth the Benediction of Christ here, both God and Man?  Madew. 
That Book of St. Ambrose is suspected to be none of his Works.  Rochest. 
So all the Fathers say.  Glin. 
I do marvel at that, for St. Augustin in his Book of Retractations maketh plain, that that was his own very Work.  Rochest. 
He speaketh indeed of such a Book so entitled, to St. Ambrose, but yet we do lack the same Book indeed.  Glin. 
Well, let it then pass to other men's Judgements. What then say you, to holy St. Cyprian, 1200 years past? Who saith, That the Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples, was not changed in form or quality, but in very nature, and by the Almighty word was made Flesh.  Madew. 
I do answer thus, That this word Flesh may be taken two ways, either for the substance itself, or else for a natural property of a fleshly thing. So that Cyprian there did mean of a natural Property, and not of fleshly Substance. And contrariwise in the Rod of Aaron, where both the Substance, and also the Property was changed.  Glin. 
Holy St. Ambrose saith, The Body there made by the mighty Power of God's word, is the Body of the Virgin Mary.  Rochest. 
That is to say, That by the Word of God, the thing hath a Being, that it had not before, and we do consecrate the Body, that we may receive the Grace and Power of the Body of Christ in Heaven, by this Sacramental Body.  Glin. 
By your Patience (my Lord) if it be a Body of the Virgin (as St. Ambrose saith) which we do consecrate as Ministers by God's holy Word, then must it needs be more than a Sacramental, or Spiritual Body; yea, a very Body of Christ indeed; yea, the same that is still in Heaven, without all moving from place to place, unspeakably, and far passing our natural Reason, which is in this Mystery so captivate, that it cannot conceive how it is there, without a lively Faith to God's word. But let this pass. You do grant that this Bread doth quicken or give Life, which if it do, than it is not a natural Bread, but a super-substantial Bread.  Rochest. 
So doth the effectual and lively Word of God, which for that it nourisheth the Soul, it doth give Life; for the Divine Essence infuseth itself unspeakably into the faithful Receiver of the Sacrament.  Glin. 
How then say you to holy Damascene, a Greek Author, who as one Tritenius saith, flourished one thousand years past; he saith thus, The Body that is of the holy Virgin Mary is joined to the Divinity after the Consecration in verity; and indeed, not so as the Body once assumpted into Heaven, and sitting on the Father's right Hand, doth remove from thence and cometh down at the Consecration time; but that the same Bread and Wine are substantially transumpted into the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If (saith he) thou dost not know the manner how it is brought to pass, let it be enough to thee to believe that it is done by the Operation of the Holy Ghost; and we do know no more, but that the living Word of God is working, and Almighty; but the very manner how, is inscrutable to us; and no great marvel, saith he, for we cannot well express how the material Bread, Wine or Water are transumpted naturally into the same Body and Blood of the Receiver, and be become another Body than they were before. So saith this great Ancient Clerk; also this Shewbread with Wine and Water, are changed by the coming of the Holy Ghost, into Christ's Body and Blood, and they be not two Bodies there, but very one (of Christ) and the same.  Rochest 
First, I deny (Master Doctor) that Damascene was one thousand years past: Secondarily, I say, That he is not to be holden as an Ancient Father, for that he maintaineth in his Works, evil and damnable Doctrine, as the worshipping of Images and such like. Thirdly, I say, That indeed God by his holy Spirit, is the worker of that which is done in the Sacrament. Also I grant, that there is a Mutation of the common Bread and Wine spiritually into the Lord's Bread and Wine, by the sanctifying of them in the Lord's Word. But I deny that there is any Mutation of the Substances; for there is no other change there indeed, than there is in us, which when we do receive the Sacrament worthily, then are we changed into Christ's Body, Bones and Blood, not in nature, but spiritually, and by Grace; much like as Isaiah saw the burning Coal, even so we see not there the very simple Bread, as it was before the Consecration; for an Union cannot be but of two very things. Wherefore, if we be joined to Christ receiving the Sacrament, than there is no Adnihilation of Bread, which is when it is reduced to nothing, as it is in your feigned Transubstantiation.  Glin. 
So I perceive you would have me to grant that the Sacrament is but a Figure, which Theophylactus doth deny.  Rochest. 
You say Truth, he denieth it indeed to be a Figure; but he meaneth, that it is not only a Figure.  Glin. 
Whereas St. Paul saith, That we being many, are one Bread, he speaketh not, nor meaneth one material Bread, as you do here, Ergo, he speaketh of heavenly Bread. And holy chrysostom upon Matthew saith, That the Paschal Lamb was a Figure, but the Mystery is the verity. For the Disciples would not have been offended to have drunk a figure of Christ's Blood, being well accustomed to figures. For Christ did not institute a figure for a figure, but the clear verity instead of the figure, as St. John saith, Grace and Verity was given by Christ. Dost thou see Bread? (saith chrysostom) doth it avoid or pass as other meats do which we receive? God forbidden. Ergo, etc.  Madew. 
That ancient Clerk Origen, upon the 15th of St. Matth. saith thus, As touching that which is material in the Sacrament, it descendeth and issueth out as other nutriments do; but as concerning that which is celestial, it doth not so.  Glin. Chrysost. 
Homily 83. upon Matthew saith, That we cannot be deceived of Christ's Word, but our natural Senses may be deceived in this point, very soon and easily; his said words cannot be false, but our senses be many times beguiled of their judgements. Because therefore that Christ said, This is my body; let us not at any hand doubt (saith he) but let us believe it, and well perceive it with the eyes of our understanding. And within a little after in that place he saith thus, It was not enough that he was become man, and afterwards was scourged for us, but also he did reduce and bring us to be as one body with him, not through Faith only, but in very deed also he maketh us his Body. And after that he saith, that these works are not of man's power. But the same things that he wrought in his last Supper, he now worketh also by his Precept to his right Ministers, and we do occupy the place of the same Ministers, but he it is that doth sanctify and transumpt the creatures, he performeth still the same.  Rochest. 
Mr. Doctor, you must understand, that in that place St. chrysostom showeth us that Christ delivered to us no sensible thing at his last Supper.  Glin. 
Honourable Sir, by your patience I grant that he gave to his Disciples no sensible thing in substance, but a thing insensible, his own precious Body and Blood, under the only kinds of Creatures. And truly, as it seemeth, Theophylactus best knew the meaning of chrysostom, because all Authors accept him as a faithful Interpreter of him. And he hath these same plain words Transelemented and Transformed. Also Theophylactus Alexandrinus super Marcum, Cyrillus, and St. Augustine saith, That before the consecration it is bread, but afterwards it is Christ's very Body. In like manner St. Augustine upon the 33d Psalm saith, That in the last Supper Christ did bear himself in his own hands. Now every man may bear the figure of his body in his own hands, but St. Augustin saith it there for a Miracle. Irenaeus in his fifth Book is of the same mind. And St. Austin saith, I do remember my words, etc. The Law and Figures were by Moses, but the verity and Body came by Christ.  Rochest. 
Well, say what you list, it is but a figurative speech, like to this, If you will receive and understand, he is Elias, for a property, but indeed he was not Elias, but John the Baptist. And so in this place Christ calleth it his Body, when it was very Bread. But better than the common Bread, because it was sanctified by the Word of Christ.  Langdale. 
I will prove it by another means. Christ did suffer 
P. 109.  his most glorious passion for us really and substantially; Ergo, He is also in the Sacrament substantially. The Argument is good, because that it is the same here that was there crucified for us; howbeit here invisibly, indeed spiritually and sacramentally, but there visibly, and after a mortal and most bloody manner.  Rochest. 
Mr. Langdale, your Argument doth well conclude, in case that his Body were here in the Sacrament after such a sort as it was when it was betrayed: But that is not so; for he was betrayed and crucified in his natural body substantially and really in very deed; but in the Sacrament he is not so, but spiritually and figuratively only.  Langd. 
By your good Lordship's favour that is not so, for he is there not figuratively, but verily and indeed by the power of his mighty Word, yea even his very own natural body under the Sacrament duly performed by the lawful Minister.  Madew, 
O say not so, for you speak blasphemy.  Langd. 
No, no Mr. Doctor, God forbidden that either I or any man else, should be noted of blasphemy, saying nothing but the very plain truth, as in my Conscience and Learning, I do no less.  Rochest. 
O Mr. Langdale, I wis it becometh you not here to have such words.  Langd. 
If it like your good Lordship, I gave not the first occasion of them, but only did refute that which I was unjustly burdened withal, as reason doth require, and it grieved me to hear it. He saith, if it please your Lordship, that there is a mutation or change of the Bread after it is Consecrated; which if it be so, as I grant no less, than I would require of him, whether it be changed in the Substance or in the Accidents, or else in both, or in nothing? No man can justly say, that there is a change into nothing. And all ancient Fathers do agree, that the same accidents are there still after, that were before; nor doth any Doctor say, That there is any mutation both of the Substance and Accidents also; Ergo, The Substance of Bread is changed into some other thing that is there really present under the forms of Bread and Wine, which by Christ's words must needs be his own Blessed Body.  Rochest. 
Sir, you are deceived greatly, for there is no change either of the Substances, or of the Accidents; but in very deed there do come unto the Bread other Accidents, insomuch that whereas the Bread and Wine were not sanctified before, nor holy, yet afterwards they be sanctified, and so do receive then another sort or kind of virtue which they had not before.  Rochest. 
Christ dwelleth in us by Faith, and by Faith we receive 
Pag. 118.  Christ both God and Man, both in Spirit and flesh; that is, this Sacramental eating is the mean and way whereby we attain to the Spiritual eating, and indeed for the strengthening of us to the eating of this Spiritual food was this Sacrament Ordained. And these words, This is my Body, are meant thus, By Grace it is my true Body, but not my fleshly Body, as some of you suppose.  Rochest. 
I acknowledge not his real Substance to be there, but 
Pag. 119.  the property of his Substance.  

The Determination of Dr. Nicholas Ridley Bishop of Rochester upon 
Pag. 120.  the Conclusions above prefixed.  
There hath been an ancient custom amongst you, that after Disputations had in your common Schools, there should be some determination made of the matters so disputed and debated, especially touching Christian Religion. Because therefore it hath seemed good unto these worshipful Assistants joined with me in Commission from the King's Majesty, that I should perform the same at this time; I will by your favourable patience declare both what I do think and believe myself, and what also other aught to think of the same. Which thing I would that afterward ye did with diligence weigh and ponder every man at home severally by himself.  
The principal Grounds, or rather Head-springs of this matter are specially five.  
The first is the Authority, Majesty and Verity of Holy Scripture.  
The second is the most certain Testimonies of the Ancient Catholic Fathers, who after my judgement do sufficiently declare this matter.  
The third is the definition of a Sacrament.  
The fourth is the abominable Heresy of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation.  
The fifth is the most sure belief of the Article of our Faith, He ascended into Heaven.  

The First Ground.  
This Transubstantiation is clean against the words of the Scripture, and consent of the ancient Catholic Fathers. The Scripture saith, I will not drink hereafter of this fruit of the Vine, etc. Now the fruit of this Vine is Wine. And it is manifest that Christ spoke these words after the Supper was finished, as it appeareth both in Matthew, Mark, and also in Luke, if they be well understood. There be not many places of Scripture that do confirm this thing, neither is it greatly material: for it is enough if there be any one plain testimony for the same. Neither ought it to be measured by the number of Scriptures, but by the Authority, and by the verity of the same. And the Majesty of this verity is as ample in one short sentence of the Scripture, as in a thousand.  
Moreover, Christ took Bread, he gave Bread. In the Acts, Luke calleth it Bread. So Paul calleth it Bread after the Sanctification. Both of them speak of breaking, which belongeth to the Substance of Bread, and in no wise to Christ's Body, for the Scripture saith, Ye shall not break a bone of him. Christ saith, Do ye this in my remembrance. And again, As often as ye shall drink of this Cup, do it in remembrance of me. And our Saviour Christ in the sixth of John, speaking against the Capernaites, saith, Labour for the meat that perisheth not. And when they asked, What shall we do that we may work the works of God? He answered them thus, This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent. You see how he exhorteth them to faith, For Faith is that work of God. Again, This is that Bread which came down from Heaven. But Christ's Body came not down from Heaven. Moreover, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. My flesh (saith he) is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. When they heard this, they were offended. And whilst they were offended, he said unto them, What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before? Whereby he went about to draw them from the gross and carnal eating. This Body, saith he, shall ascend up into Heaven, meaning altogether, as St. Augustine saith. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, are Spirit and Life, and must be spiritually understood. These be the Reasons which persuade me to incline to this Sentence and Judgement.   

The Second Ground.  
Now my Second Ground against this Transubstantiation, are the Ancient Fathers a Thousand Years past. And so far off is it, that they do confirm this Opinion of Transubstantiation, that plain they seem to me, both to think and to speak the contrary.  
Dionysius, in many places, calleth it Bread. The places are so manifest and plain, that it needeth not to recite them.  
Ignatius to the Philadelphians saith, I beseech you, Brethren, cleave fast unto one Faith, and to one kind of Preaching, using together one manner of Thanksgiving; For the Flesh of the Lord Jesus is one, and his Blood is one which was shed for us: There is also one Bread broken for us, and one Cup of the whole Church.  
Irenaeus writeth thus: Even as the Bread that cometh of the Earth, receiving God's Vocation, is now no more common Bread, but Sacramental Bread, consisting of two Natures, Earthly and Heavenly; even so our Bodies receiving the Eucharist, are now no more corruptible, having hope of the Resurrection.  
Tertullian is very plain, for he calleth it a Figure of his Body, etc.  
chrysostom writeth to Caesarius the Monk, albeit he be not received of divers, yet will I read the place, to fasten it more deeply in your minds; for it seemeth to show plainly the substance of Bread to remain. The words are these:  
Before the Bread is sanctified, we name it Bread: but by the grace of God sanctifying the same, through the Ministry of the Priest, it is delivered from the Name of Bread, and is counted worthy to bear the Name of the Lord's Body, although the very substance of Bread notwithstanding do still remain therein, and now is taken not to be two Bodies, but one Body of the Son, etc.  
Cyprian saith, Bread is made of many Grains. And is that natural Bread, and made of Wheat? Yea, it is so indeed.  
The Book of Theodoret in Greek was lately printed at Rome, which if it had not been his, it should not have been set forth there, especially seeing it is directly against Transubstantiation: For he saith plainly, That Bread still remaineth after the Sanctification.  
Gelasius also is very plain in this manner: The Sacrament (saith he) which we receive of the Body and Blood of Christ, is a Divine Matter: By reason whereof, we are made partakers by the same of the Divine Nature, and yet it ceaseth not still to be the substance of Bread and Wine. And certes, the representation and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ be celebrated in the action of the Mysteries, etc. After this, he recited certain places out of Augustine and Cyril, which were not noted.  
Isichius also, confesseth that it is Bread.  
Also the Judgement of Bertram in this matter is very plain and manifest: And thus much for the Second Ground.   

The Third Ground.  
The Third Ground is the Nature of the Sacrament, which consisteth of Three Things; that is, Unity, Nutrition, and Conversion.  
As touching Unity, Cyprian thus writeth: Even as of many Grains is made one Bread, so are we one mystical Body of Christ. Wherefore Bread must still needs remain, or else we destroy the Nature of a Sacrament.  
Also they that take away Nutrition, which cometh by Bread, do take away likewise the Nature of a Sacrament: For as the Body of Christ nourisheth the Soul, even so doth Bread likewise nourish the Body of Man. Therefore they that take away the Grains, or the Union of the Grains in the Bread, and deny the Nutrition, or Substance thereof, in my judgement are Sacramentaries: For they take away the Similitude between the Bread, and the Body of Christ; for they which affirm Transubstantiation, are indeed right Sacramentaries and Capernaites.  
As touching Conversion, (that like as the Bread which we receive is turned into our Substance, so are we turned into Christ's Body) Rabanus and chrysostom are Witnesses sufficient.   

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

The Fifth Ground.  
The Fifth Ground is the certain persuasion of this Article of Faith, He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the Right Hand, etc.  
Augustine saith, The Lord is above, even to the end of the World; but yet the verity of the Lord is here also. For his Body wherein he risen again must needs be in one place, but his verity is spread abroad every where. Also in another place he saith, Let the godly also receive that Sacrament, but let them not be careful (speaking there of the presence of his Body.) For as touching his Majesty, his Providence, his invisible and unspeakable Grace, these words are fulfilled which he spoke, I am with you to the end of the World. But according to the flesh which he took upon him, according to that which was born of the Virgin, was apprehended of the Jews, was fastened to a Tree, taken down again from the Cross, lapped in Linen , was buried and risen again, and appeared after his Resurrection, so ye shall not have me always with you; and why? because, that as concerning his Flesh, he was conversant with his Disciples forty days, and they accompanying him, seeing him, but not following him, he went up into Heaven, and is not here, for he sitteth at the right hand of his Father; and yet he is here, because he is not departed hence, as concerning the presence of his Divine Majesty.  
Mark and consider well what St. Augustine saith, he is ascended into Heaven, and is not here, saith he. Believe not them therefore which say that he is here still in the Earth.  
Moreover, Doubt not (saith the same Augustine, but that Jesus Christ, as concerning the nature of his Manhood, is there from whence he shall come. And remember well and believe the Profession of a Christian man, that he arose from death, ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the Right hand of his Father, and from that Place and none other (not from the Altars) shall he come to judge the quick and the dead, and he shall come, as the Angel said, as he was seen to go into Heaven; that is to say, in the same form and substance, unto the which he gave immortality, but changed not Nature. After this form (meaning his Humane Nature) we may not think that it is . And in the same Epistle he saith, Take away from the Body's limitation of places, and they shall be nowhere; and because they are nowhere, they shall not be at all.  
Vigilius saith, If the Word and the Flesh be both of one nature, seeing that the Word is , why then is not the Flesh also ? For when it was in Earth, then verily it was not in Heaven; and now when it is in Heaven, it is not surely in Earth. And it is so certain that it is not in Earth, that as concerning the same, we look for him from Heaven; whom as concerning the Word, we believe to be with us in Earth.  
Also the same Vigilius saith, Which things, seeing they be so, the course of the Scripture must be searched of us, and many Testimonies must be gathered, to show plainly what a wickedness and sacrilege it is to refer those things to the property of the Divine Nature, which do only belong to the nature of the Flesh; and contrariwise, to apply those things to the nature of the Flesh, which do properly belong to the Divine Nature. Which thing the Transubstantiators do, whilst they affirm Christ's Body not to be contained in any one place, and ascribe that to his Humanity, which properly belongeth to his Divinity, as they do who will have Christ's Body to be in no one certain place limited.  
Now in the latter Conclusion concerning the Sacrifice, because it dependeth upon the first, I will in few words declare what I think. For if we did once agree in that, the whole Controversy in the other would soon be at an end. Two things there be which do persuade me that this Conclusion is true; that is, certain places of the Scripture, and also certain Testimonies of the Fathers. Saint Paul saith Hebrews the 9th, Christ being become an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this building, neither by the Blood of Goats and Calves, but by his own Blood, entered once into the Holy Place, and obtained for us eternal Redemption, etc. And now in the end of the World he hath appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And again, Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many. Moreover he saith, With one offering hath he made perfect for ever those that are sanctified. These Scriptures do persuade me to believe that there is no other oblation of Christ (albeit I am not ignorant there are many Sacrifices) but that which was once made upon the Cross.  
The Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers, which confirm the same, are out of Augustine ad Bonif. Epist. 23. Again, in his Book of 43 Questions, in the 41st Question. Also in his 20th Book against Faustus the Manichee, Chap. 21. And in the same Book against the said Faustus, Chap. 28. thus he writeth; Now the Christians keep a memorial of the Sacrifice past, with a holy Oblation and participation of the Body and Blood of Christ.  
Fulgentius, in his Book De fide, calleth the same Oblation a Commemoration. And these things are sufficient for this time for a Scholastical Determination of these matters.     

VOL. III.  

Bishop Ridley 's Answer to the Three Propositions proposed to him in the Disputation at Oxford, April 12. 1554.  
I Received of you the other day, Right Worshipful Mr. Prolocutor, and ye my Reverend Masters, Commissioners from the Queen's Majesty and her Honourable Council, Three Propositions; whereunto ye commanded me to prepare against this day, what I thought good to answer concerning the same.  
Now whilst I weighed with myself, how great a charge of the Lord's Flock was of late committed unto me, for the which I must once render an account to my Lord God, (and that how soon, he knoweth) and that moreover, by the Commandment of the Apostle Peter, I ought to be ready always to give a Reason of the Hope that is in me, with Meekness and Reverence unto every one that shall demand the same. Besides this, considering my Duty to the Church of Christ, and to your Worships, being Commissioners by Public Authority, I determined with myself to obey your Commandment, and so openly to declare unto you my mind touching the foresaid Propositions; and albeit plainly to confess unto you the Truth in these things which ye now demand of me. I have thought otherwise in times past, than now I do, yet (God I call to record unto my Soul, I lie not) I have not altered my Judgement, as now it is, either by constraint of any Man or Laws; either for the dread of any dangers of this World; either for any hope of Commodity; but only for the love of the Truth revealed unto me by the Grace of God (as I am undoubtedly persuaded) in his holy Word, and in the reading of the Ancient Fathers.  
These things I do rather recite at this present, because it may happen to some of you hereafter, as in times past it hath done to me: I mean, if ye think otherwise of the matters propounded in these Propositions than I now do, God may open them unto you in time to come.  
But howsoever it shall be, I will in few words do that which I think ye all look I should do; that is, as plainly as I can, I will declare my Judgement herein. Howbeit of this I would ye were not ignorant, that I will not indeed wittingly and willingly speak in any Point against God's Word, or descent in any one jot from the same, or from the Rules of Faith, or Christian Religion; which Rules that same most Sacred word of God prescribeth to the Church of Christ, whereunto I now, and for ever submit myself and all my do. And because the matter I have now taken in hand is weighty, and ye all well know how unready I am to handle it accordingly, as well for lack of time, as also lack of Books; therefore here I protest, that I will publicly this day require of you, that it may be lawful for me concerning all mine Answers, Explications, and Confirmations, to add or diminish whatsoever shall seem hereafter more convenient and meet for the purpose, through more sound Judgement, better Deliberation, and more exact Trial of every particular Thing. Having now by the way of Preface and Protestation spoken these few words, I will come to the Answer of the Propositions propounded unto me, and so to the most brief Explication and Confirmation of mine Answers.  Weston. 
Reverend Mr. Doctor, concerning the lack of Books, there is no cause why you should complain: What Books soever you will name, you shall have them; and as concerning the Judgement of your Answers to be had of yourself with further deliberation, it shall, I say, be lawful for you until Sunday next to add unto them what you shall think good yourself. My mind is, that we should use short Arguments, lest we should make an infinite process of the thing.  Ridley. 
There is another thing besides, which I would gladly obtain at your hands; I perceive that you have Writers and Notaries here present. By all likelihood our Disputations shall be published; I beseech you for God's sake let me have liberty to speak my mind freely, and without interruption, not because I have determined to protract the time with a solemn Preface, but lest it may appear that some be not satisfied. God wots I am no Orator, nor have I learned Rhetoric to set Colours on the matter.  Weston. 
Among this whole Company, it shall be permitted you to take two for your part.  Rid. 
I will choose two, if there were any here with whom I were acquainted.  Weston. 
Here are two which Mr. Cranmer had yesterday; take them if it please you.  Rid. 
I am content with them, I trust they are honest men.   

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

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

The Explication.  
How far the diversity and newness of the Phrase in all this first Proposition, is from the Phrase of the Holy Scripture, and that in every part almost, it is so plain and evident to any that is but meanly exercised in Holy Writ, that I need not now (especially in this Company of Learned Men) to spend any time therein, except the same shall be required of me hereafter.  
First, There is a double sense in these words (by virtue of God's Word) for it is doubtful what word of God this is; whether it be that which is read in the Evangelists, or in St. Paul, or any other. And if it be that which is in the Evangelists, or in St. Paul, what that is. If it be in none of them, than how it may be known to be God's Word, and of such virtue that it should be able to work so great a matter.  
Again, There is a doubt of these words (of the Priest) whether no man may be called a Priest, but he who hath Authority to make a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead; and how it may be proved that this Authority was committed of God to any man, but to Christ alone.  
It is likewise doubted after what Order the Sacrificing Priest shall be, whether after the Order of Aaron, or else after the Order of Melchisedech; for as far as I know, the Holy Scripture doth allow no more.  Weston. 
Let this be sufficient.  Rid. 
If we lack time at this present, there is time enough hereafter.  Weston. 
These are but evasions or starting holes; you consume the time in vain.  Rid. 
I cannot start from you, I am captive and bound.  Weston. 
Fall to it, my Masters.  Smith. 
That which you have spoken may suffice at this present.  Rid. 
Let me alone, I pray you, for I have not much to say behind.  West. 
Go forward.  Rid. 
Moreover, there is ambiguity in this word Really, whether it be taken as the Logicians term it transcendenter, that is, most generally, and so it may signify any manner of thing, which belongeth to the Body of Christ by any means; after which sort we also grant Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, (as in Disputation, if occasion be given, shall be declared) or whether it be taken to signify the very same thing, having Body, Life, and Soul, which was assumed and taken of the Word of God, into the Unity of Person. In which sense, sith the Body of Christ is really in Heaven, because of the true manner of his Body, it may not be said to be here in the earth. There is yet a further doubtfulness in these words under the forms of Bread and Wine, whether the forms be there taken to signify the only accidental and outward shows of Bread and Wine; or there withal the substantial Natures thereof, which are to be seen by their qualities, and perceived by exterior senses.  
Now the Error and Falseness of the Proposition after the sense of the Roman Church and Schoolmen, may hereby appear, in that they affirm the Bread to be Transubstantiated, and changed to the Flesh assumed of the Word of God; and that, as they say, by virtue of the Word, which they have devised by a certain number of words, and cannot be found in any of the Evangelists, or in S Paul; and so they gather that Christ's Body is really contained in the Sacrament of the Altar: Which Position is grounded upon the Foundation of the Transubstantiation; which Foundation is monstrous, against Reason, and destroyeth the Analogy or Proportion of the Sacraments; and therefore this Proposition also, which is built upon this rotten Foundation, is false, erroneous, and to be counted as a detestable Heresy of the Sacramentaries.  Weston. 
We lose time. Ridley. You shall have time enough.  West. 
Fall to reasoning. You shall have some other day for this matter. Rid. I have no more to say concerning my Explication. If you will give me leave, and let me alone, I will but speak a word or two for my confirmation.  Weston. 
Go to, say on.   

The Confirmation of the aforesaid Answer.  
There ought no Doctrine to be established in the Church of 
Tes-  God, which dissenteth from the Word of God, from the Rule of Faith, and draweth with it many absurdities that cannot be avoided.  
But this Doctrine of the first Proposition is such. 
ti-no.   
Ergo, It ought not to be established and maintained in the Church of God.  
The Major or first part of my Argument is plain, and the Minor or second part is proved thus.  
The Doctrine maintaineth a real, corporal, and carnal presence of Christ's Flesh, assumed and taken of the Word, to be in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and that not by virtue and Grace only, but also by the whole Essence and Substance of the Body and Flesh of Christ.  
But such a presence disagreeth from God's Word, from the Rule of Faith, and cannot but draw with it many absurdities.  
Ergo, The second part is true.  
The first part of this Argument is manifest, and the second may yet further be confirmed thus.—  Weston. 
Thus you consume time, which might be better bestowed on other matters. Mr. Opponent, I pray you, to your Arguments.  Smith. 
I will here reason with you upon Transubstantiation, which you say is contrary to the Rule and Analogy of Faith. The contrary whereof I prove by the Scriptures and the Doctors. But before I enter Argumentation with you, I demand first, whether in the sixth Chapter of John there be any mention made of the Sacrament, or of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament?  Rid. 
It is against reason that I should be impeached to prosecute that which I have to speak in this Assembly, being not so long, but that it may be comprehended in few words.  West. 
Let him read on.  Rid. 
First of all, this Presence is contrary to many places of the holy Scripture. Secondly, It varieth from the Articles of the Faith. Thirdly, It destroyeth and taketh away the Institution of the Lord's Supper. Fourthly, It maketh precious things common to profane and ungodly persons; for it casteth that which is holy unto Dogs, and pearls unto Swine. Fifthly, It forceth men to maintain many Monstrous Miracles without necessity and Authority of God's Word. Sixthly, It giveth occasion to the Heretics which erred concerning the two Natures in Christ, to defend their Heresies thereby. Seventhly, It falsifieth the say of the Godly Fathers; it falsifieth also the Catholic Faith of the Church which the Apostles taught, the Martyrs confirmed, and the Faithful (as one of the Fathers saith) do retain and keep until this day. Wherefore the 2 d part of mine Argument is true. The Probation of the Antecedent or former part of this Argument, by the Parts thereof.  
1. This carnal Presence is contrary to the Word of God, as appeareth, Joh. 16. I tell you the truth. It is profitable to you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter shall not come unto you. Act. 3. Whom the Heavens must receive until the time of restoring of all things which God hath spoken. Mat. 9 The Children of the Bridegroom cannot mourn so long as the Bridegroom is with them. But now is the time of mourning. Joh. 16. But I will see you again, and your hearts shall rejoice. Joh. 14. I will come again and take you to myself. Mat. 24. If they shall say unto you, Behold here is Christ, or there is Christ, believe them not, etc.  
2. It varieth from the Articles of the Faith, He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, from whence (and not from any other place, saith St. Augustine) he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead.  
3. It destroyeth and taketh away the Institution of the Lord's Supper, which was commanded only to be used and continued until the Lord himself should come. If therefore he be really present in the body of his flesh, then must the Supper cease: For a remembrance is not of a thing present, but of a thing past and absent. And there is a difference between Remembrance and Presence, and (as one of the Fathers saith) A Figure is in vain where the thing figured is present.  
It maketh precious things common to profane and ungodly Persons, and constraineth men to confess many absurdities. For it affirmeth, that Whoremongers and Murderers, yea, and (as some of them hold opinion) that Mice, Rats and Dogs also may receive the very real and corporal Body of the Lord, wherein the fullness of the Spirit of Light and Grace dwelleth; contrary to the manifest words of Christ in six Places and Sentences of the 6th Chapter of St. John.  
4. It confirmeth also and maintaineth that beastly kind of Cruelty of the Anthropophagis, that is, the Devourers of Man's Flesh: for it is a more cruel thing to devour a quick Man, that to slay him.  Pie. 
He requireth time to speak Blasphemies. Leave your Blasphemies.  Rid. 
I had little thought to have had such reproachful words at your hands.  West. 
All is quiet. Go to your Arguments Mr. Doctor.  Rid. 
I have not many things more to say.  West. 
You utter Blasphemies with a most impudent face; leave off (I say) and get you to the Argument.  Rid. 
5. It forceth men to maintain many monstrous Miracles, without any necessity and authority of God's Word. For at the coming of this presence of the Body and Flesh of Christ, they thrust away the Substance of Bread, and affirm that the Accidents remain without any Subject, and instead thereof they place Christ's Body without his qualities, and the true manner of a Body. And if the Sacrament be reserved so long until it mould, and Worms breed, some say that the Substance of Bread miraculously returneth again, and some deny it. Other some affirm, that the real Body of Christ goeth down into the Stomach of the Receivers, and doth there abide so long only as they shall continue to be good; but another sort hold that the Body of Christ is carried into Heaven, so soon as the forms of Bread be bruised with the Teeth. O Works of Miracles! Truly, and most truly, I see that fulfilled in these Men, whereof St. Paul prophesied, 2 Thess. 2. Because they have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved, God shall send them strong Delusions, that they should believe a Lie, and be all damned which have not believed the Truth. This gross Presence hath brought forth that fond fantasy of Concomitance, whereby is broken at this day and abrogated the Commandment of the Lord for distributing of the Lord's Cup to the Laity.  
6. It giveth occasion to Heretics to maintain and defend their Errors; as to Martion, who said that Christ had but a Fantastical Body; and to Eutiches, who wickedly confounded the two Natures in Christ.  
7. Finally, It falsifieth the Say of the Godly Fathers, and the Catholic Faith of the Church, which Vigilius, a Martyr and grave Writer, saith, was taught of the Apostles, confirmed with the Blood of Martyrs, and was continually maintained by the Faithful until his time. By the Say of the Fathers, I mean of Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Emisenus, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Hierome, chrysostom, Augustine; Vigilius, Fulgentius, Bertram, and others most ancient Fathers. All those places, as I am sure I have read, making for my purpose; so am I well assured that I could show the same, if I might have the use of mine own Books, which I will take to me to do, even upon the peril of my life, and loss of all that I may lose in this World.  
But now (my Brethren) think not because I disallow that Presence which the first Proposition maintaineth (as a Presence which I take to be forged, Fantastical, and besides the Authority of God's Word, perniciously brought into the Church by the Romanists) that I therefore go about to take away the true Presence of Christ's Body in his Supper rightly and duly administered, which is grounded upon the Word of God, and made more plain by the Commentaries of the Faithful Fathers. They that think so of me, the Lord knoweth how far they are deceived; and to make the same evident unto you, I will in few words declare what true Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper I hold and affirm, with the Word of God and the Ancient Fathers.  
I say and confess with the Evangelist Luke, and Apostle Paul, that the Bread on the which thanks are given, is the Body of Christ, in the remembrance of him and his Death, to be set forth perpetually of the Faithful until his coming.  
I say and confess the Bread which we break, to be the Communion and partaking of Christ's Body, with the Ancient and the Faithful Fathers.  
I say and believe that there is not only a signification of Christ's Body set forth by the Sacrament, but also that therewith is given to the Godly and Faithful the Grace of Christ's Body, that is, the food of Life and Immortality. And this I hold with Cyprian.  
I say also with St. Augustine, that we eat Life, and we drink Life; with Emisene, that we feel the Lord to be present in Grace; with Athanasius, that we receive Celestial Food that cometh from above; the propriety of natural Communion, with Hilary; the nature of Flesh, and Benediction which giveth life in Bread and Wine, with Cyril; and with the same Cyril, the virtue of the very Flesh of Christ, Life and Grace of his Body, the property of the only begotten, that is to say Life, as he himself in plain words expounded it.  
I confess also with Basil, that we receive the mystical Advent and coming of Christ, Grace and Virtue of his very Nature; the Sacrament of his very Flesh, with Ambrose; the Body by Grace, with Epiphanius; Spiritual Flesh, but not that which was crucified, with Hierom; Grace flowing into a Sacrifice, and the Grace of the Spirit, with Chrysostom; Grace and invisible Verity, Grace and Society of the Members of Christ's Body, with Augustine.  
Finally, with Bertram, (who was the last of all these) I confess that Christ's Body is in the Sacrament in this respect; namely, as he writeth, Because there is in it the Spirit of Christ, that is, the power of the Word of God, which not only feedeth the Soul, but also cleanseth it. But of these I suppose it may appear unto all men how far we are from that Opinion, whereof some go about falsely to slander us to the world, saying, we teach that the Godly and Faithful should receive nothing else at the Lord's Table, but a Figure of the Body of Christ.    

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

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

The First Argument for the Confirmation of this Answer.  
It is very plain by the Word of God, that Christ did give Bread unto his Disciples, and called it his Body.  
But the Substance of Bread is another manner of Substance, than is the Substance of Christ's Body, God and Man.  
Therefore the Conclusion is false.  
The second part of mine Argument is plain, and the first is proved thus.   

The Second Argument.  
That which Christ did take, on the which he gave Thanks, 
Da-  and the which he broke, he gave to his Disciples, and called it his Body.  
But he took Bread, gave Thanks on Bread, and broke Bread. 
ti-  Ergo, The first part is true.  
And it is confirmed with the Authorities of the Fathers, Irenaeus, 
si-  Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Hierom, Augustine, Theodoret, Cyril, Rabanus and Bede; whose places I will take upon me to show most manifest in this behalf, if I may be suffered to have my Books, as my request is.  
Bread is the Body of Christ. Ergo. It is Bread.   

The Third Argument.  
As the Bread of the Lord's Table is Christ's natural Body, so 
Basilius-  it is his mystical Body.  
But it is not Christ's mystical Body by Transubstantiation.  
Ergo, It is not his natural Body by Transubstantiation. 
ro- eo.   
The second part of my Argument is plain, and the first is proved thus: As Christ, who is the Verity, spoke of the Bread, This is my Body which shall be betrayed for you; speaking there of his natural Body: even so St. Paul, moved with the same Spirit of Truth, said, We, though we be many, yet are we all one Bread and one Body, which be partakers of one Bread.   

The Fourth Argument.  
We may no more believe Bread to be Transubstantiate into the Body of Christ, than the Wine into his Blood.  
But the Wine is not Transubstantiate into his Blood:  
Ergo, Neither is that Bread therefore Transubstantiate into his Body.  
The first part of this Argument is manifest, and the second part is proved out of the Authority of God's Word in Matthew and Mark, I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine, etc. Now the fruit of the Vine was Wine which Christ drank, and gave to his Disciples to drink. With this Sentence agreeth plainly the place of chrysostom on the 20th Chapter of Matthew, as Cyprian doth also, affirming, That there is no Blood, if Wine be not in the Cup.   

The Fifth Argument.  
The words of Christ spoken upon the Cup, and upon the 
Basilius-  Bread, have like effect and working.  
But the words spoken upon the Cup have not virtue to Transubstantiate. 
ro-   
Ergo, It followeth that the words spoken upon the Bread have 
eo.  no such virtue.  
The second part of the Argument is proved; because they would then Transubstantiate the Cup, or that which is in the Cup, into the New Testament. But neither of these things can be done, and very absurd it is to confess the same.   

The Sixth Argument.  
The Circumstances of the Scripture, the Analogy and proportion of 
Da-  the Sacraments, and the Testimony of the faithful Fathers, aught to rule us in taking the meaning of the Holy Scripture touching the Sacrament.  
But the Words of the Lord's Supper, the Circumstances of the 
ti-  Scripture, the Analogy of the Sacraments, and the Say of the Fathers, do most effectually and plainly prove a figurative speech in the words of the Lord's Supper.  
Ergo, A figurative sense and meaning is specially to be received in 
si.  these words, This is my Body.  
The Circumstances of the Scripture, Do this in remembrance of me. As oft as ye shall eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, ye shall show forth the Lord's death. Let a man prove himself, and so eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. They came together to break Bread: and they continued in breaking of Bread. The Bread which we break, etc. For we being many, are all one Bread and one Body, etc.  
The Analogy of the Sacraments is necessary; for if the Sacraments had not some similitude, or likeness of the things whereof they be Sacraments, they could in no wise be Sacraments. And this similitude in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is taken three manner of ways.  

1. The first consisteth in nourishing, as you shall read in Rabanus, Cyprian, Austin, Irenaeus, and most plainly in Isidore out of Bertram.  
2. The second in the uniting and joining of many into one, as Cyprian teacheth.  
3. The third is a similitude of unlike things: Where, like as the Bread is turned into one Body; so we by the right use of this Sacrament, are turned through Faith into the Body of Christ.   
The say of the Fathers declare it to be a figurative speech, as it appeareth in Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom in opere imperfecto, Augustin, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, and most plainly of all, in Bertram. Moreover the say and places of all the Fathers, whose names I have before recited against the assertion of the first Proposition, do quite overthrow Transubstantiation. But of all most evidently and plainly, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom to Caesarius the Monk, Augustine against Adamantus, Gelasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Chrysostom again on the 20th of Matth. Rabanus, Damascene and Bertram.  
Here, Right Worshipful Mr. Prolocutor, and ye the rest of the Commissioners, it may please you to understand, that I do not lean to these things only, which I have written in my former Answers and Confirmations, but that I have also for the proof of that I have spoken, whatsoever Bertram, a man Learned, of sound and upright Judgement, and ever counted a Catholic for these Seven hundred years, until this our age, hath written. His Treatise, whosoever shall read and weigh, considering the time of the Writer, his Learning, Godliness of life, the Allegations of the Ancient Fathers, and his manifold and most grounded Arguments, I cannot (doubtless) but much marvel, if he have any fear of God at all, how he can with good Conscience speak against him in this matter of the Sacrament. This Bertram was the first that pulled me by the Ear, and that first brought me from the common Error of the Romish Church, and caused me to search more diligently and exactly both the Scriptures and the Writings of the old Ecclesiastical Fathers in this matter. And this I protest before the face of God, who knoweth that I lie not in the things I now speak.    

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

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

The Explication.  
Concerning the Romish Mass which is used at this day, or the lively Sacrifice thereof propitiatory and available for the sins of the quick and the dead, the Holy Scripture hath not so much as one syllable.  
There is ambiguity also in the name of Mass: what it signifieth, and whether at this day there be any such indeed as the Ancient Fathers used; seeing that now there be neither Catecumeni nor Poenitentes to be sent away.  
Again, touching these words (The lively Sacrifice of the Church) There is doubt whether they are to be understood Figuratively and Sacramentally, for the Sacrament of the lively Sacrifice (after which sort we deny it not to be in the Lord's Supper) or properly and without any figure; of the which manner there was but one only Sacrifice, and that once offered, namely upon the Altar of the Cross.  
Moreover, in these words (as well as) it may be doubted whether they be spoken in mockage as men are wont to say in sport, of a foolish and ignorant person, that he is apt as well in conditions as in knowledge, being apt indeed in neither of them both.  
There is also a doubt in the word Propitiable, whether it signify here that which taketh away sin, or that which may be made available for the taking away of sin; That is to say, whether it is to be taken in the active or in the passive signification.  
Now the falseness of the Proposition, after the meaning of the Schoolmen and the Romish Church, and Impiety in that sense which the words seem to import, is this; that they leaning to the foundation of their fond Transubstantiation, would make the quick and lively body of Christ's Flesh (united and knit to the Divinity) to lie hid under the accidents, and outward shows of Bread and Wine. Which is very false, as I have said before; and they building upon this foundation, do hold that the same Body is offered unto God, by the Priest in his daily Massing, to put away the sins of the quick and the dead; whereas by the Apostle to the Hebrews it is evident that there is but one Oblation, and one true and lively Sacrifice of the Church offered upon the Altar of the Cross, which was, is, and shall be for ever the propitiation for the sins of the whole World: and where there is Remission of the same, there is, saith the Apostle, no more offering for sin.   

Arguments confirming his Answer.  
No Sacrifice ought to be done, but where the Priest is meet to offer 
Ce-  the same.  
All other Priests be unmeet to offer Sacrifice for sin, but Christ alone. 
la- rent.   
Ergo, No other Priests ought to Sacrifice for sin but Christ alone.   

The second part of my Argument is thus proved.  
No honour in God's Church ought to be taken where a man is not 
Fe-  called as Aaron.  
It is a great honour in God's Church to Sacrifice for Sin: 
ri- son.   
Ergo.  
No man ought to Sacrifice for Sin, but only they who are called.  
But only Christ is called to that honour.  
Ergo, No other Priest but Christ ought to Sacrifice for Sin.  
That no man is called to this degree of Honour but Christ alone, it is evident; For there are but two only Orders of Priesthood allowed in the Word of God: Namely, the Order of Aaron, and the Order of Melchisedech. But now the Order of Aaron is come to an end, by reason that it was unprofitable, and weak; and of the Order of Melchisedech there is but one Priest alone, even Christ the Lord, who hath a Priesthood that cannot pass to any other.   

An Argument.  
That thing is in vain, and to no effect, where no necessity is 
Basilius-  wherefore it is done.  
To offer up any more Sacrifice Propitiatory for the quick and the 
ro-  dead, there is no necessity, for Christ our Saviour did that fully and perfectly once for all.  
Ergo, To do the same in the Mass, it is in vain. 
co.    

Another Argument.  
After that Eternal Redemption is found and obtained, there needeth 
Fe-  no more daily offering for the same.  
But Christ coming an high Bishop, etc. found and obtained for us 
ri-  Eternal Redemption.  
Ergo, There needeth now no more daily Oblation for the Sins of 
o.  the quick and the dead.   

Another Argument.  
All remission of Sins cometh only by shedding of Blood. 
Ca- mes- tres.   
In the Mass there is no shedding of Blood.  
Ergo, In the Mass there is no Remission of Sins, and so it followeth also that there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice.   

Another Argument.  
In the Mass the Passion of Christ is not in verity, but in a Mystery representing the same; yea even there where the Lord's Supper is duly ministered. But where Christ suffereth not, there is he not offered in verity: For the Apostle saith, Not that he might offer up himself oftentimes, (for then must he have suffered oftentimes since the beginning of the World.) Now where Christ is not offered, there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice.  
Ergo, In the Mass there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice. For Christ appeared once in the latter end of the World to put sin to flight by the offering up of himself. And as it is appointed to all men that they shall once die, and then cometh the Judgement: even so Christ was once offered to take away the Sins of many. And unto them that look for him, shall he appear again without sin unto salvation.   

Another Argument.  
Where there is any Sacrifice that can make the comers thereunto 
Da-  perfect, there ought men to cease from offering any more Expiatory and Propitiatory Sacrifices.  
But in the New Testament there is one only Sacrifice now already 
ri-  long since offered, which is able to make the comers thereunto perfect for ever.  
Ergo, In the New Testament they ought to cease from offering 
i.  any more Propitiatory Sacrifice.  
Sentences of the Scripture tending to the same end and purpose, out of which also may be gathered other manifest Arguments for more confirmation thereof.  
By the which will (saith the Apostle) we are sanctified by the offering 
Heb. 10.  up of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all. And in the same place; But this man, after that he had offered one Sacrifice for sin, sitteth for ever at the Right hand of God, etc. For with one Offering hath he made perfect for ever them that are sanctified, and by himself hath he purged our Sins. I beseech you to mark these words (by himself:) the which well weighed, will without doubt cease all controversy. The Apostle plainly denieth any other Sacrifice to remain for him that treadeth under his feet the Blood of the Testament, by the which he was made holy. Christ will not be crucified again, he will not his death to be had in derision.  
He hath reconciled us in the Body of his Flesh. Mark, I beseech you, he 
Col. 1.  saith not in the Mystery of his Body; but in the Body of his Flesh.  
If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the 
1 John 2.  Righteous; and he is the Propitiation for our Sins; not for ours only, but for the Sins of the whole World.  
I know that all these places of the Scripture are avoided by two manner of subtle shifts: The one is, by the distinction of the bloody and unbloody Sacrifice; as though our unbloody Sacrifice of the Church were any other than the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving, than a commemoration, a showing forth, and a Sacramental Representation of that one only bloody Sacrifice, offered up once for all.  
The other is by depraving and wresting the Say of the Ancient Fathers unto such a strange kind of sense, as the Fathers themselves indeed never meant. For what the meaning of the Fathers was, is evident by that which St. Augustine writeth in his Epistle to Boniface, and in the 83d Chapter of his Ninth Book against Faustus the Manichee, besides many other Places; likewise by Eusebius Emissenus, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Fulgentius, Bertram, and others, who do wholly concord and agree together in this unity in the Lord, that the Redemption, once made in Verity for the Salvation of Man, continueth in full effect for ever, and worketh without ceasing unto the end of the World; That the Sacrifice once offered cannot be consumed; That the Lord's Death and Passion is as effectual, the virtue of that Blood once shed, as fresh at this day, for the washing away of sins, as it was even the same day that it flowed out of the blessed Side of our Saviour: And finally, that the whole substance of our Sacrifice, which is frequented of the Church in the Lord's Supper, consisteth in Prayers, Praise, and giving of Thanks, and in remembering, and in showing forth of that Sacrifice once offered upon the Altar of the Cross; that the same might continually be had in reverence by Mystery, which once only, and no more, was offered for the Price of our Redemption.  
These are the things (right worshipful Mr. Prolocutor, and ye the rest of the Commissioners) which I could presently prepare to the answering of your three foresaid Prophecies, being destitute of all help in this shortness of time, sudden warning, and want of Books.  
Wherefore I appeal to my first Protestation, most humbly desiring the help of the same (as much as may be) to be granted unto me. And because ye have lately given most unjust and cruel Sentence against me, I do here appeal (so far forth as I may) to a more indifferent and just censure and judgement of some other Superior, Competent and Lawful Judge, and that according to the approved state of the Church of England. Howbeit, I confess, I am ignorant what that is at this present, through the trouble and alteration of the state of the Realm. But if this Appeal may not be granted to me upon Earth, then do I fly (even as to my only Refuge and alone Haven of Health) to the Sentence of the Eternal Judge, that is, of the Almighty God, to whose most merciful Justice towards us, and most just Mercifulness, I do wholly commit myself, and all my Cause, nothing at all despairing of the Defence of my Advocate and alone Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom with the Everlasting Father, and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier of us all, be now and for ever all Honour and Glory. Amen.  Ridley. 
Of Christ's Real Presence there may be a double understanding: 
P. 56.  If you take the Real Presence of Christ according to the Real and Corporal Substance which he took of the Virgin, that Presence being in Heaven, cannot be on the Earth also. But if you mean a Real Presence, secundum rem aliquam quae ad Corpus Christi pertinet: i. e. according to something that appertaineth to Christ's Body, certes the Ascension and abiding in Heaven are not let at all to that Presence. Wherefore Christ's Body after that sort is here present to us in the Lord's Supper, by Grace, I say, as Epiphanius speaketh it.  
I grant the Bread to be converted and turned into the Flesh of 
P. 60.  Christ, but not by Transubstantiation, but by a Sacramental Conversion or turning. It is Transformed, saith Theophylact in the same place, by a Mystical Benediction, and by the accession or coming of the Holy Ghost unto the Flesh of Christ. He saith not, by expulsion, or driving away the Substance of Bread, and by substituting or putting in its place the Corporal Substance of Christ's Flesh. And where he saith, It is not a Figure of the Body, we should understand that saying, as he himself doth elsewhere add one, that is, it is no naked or bare Figure only. For Christ is present in his Mysteries; neither at any time, as Cyprian saith, doth the Divine Majesty absent himself from the Divine Mysteries.  
And I also worship Christ in the Sacrament, but not because 
P. 61.  he is included in the Sacrament: Like as I worship Christ also in the Scriptures, not because he is really included in them. Notwithstanding, I say, that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, but yet Sacramentally and Spiritually, according to his Grace giving Life, and in that respect really, that is according to his Benediction, giving Life.  
Furthermore, I acknowledge gladly the true Body of Christ to be in the Lord's Supper in such sort as the Church of Christ (which is the Spouse of Christ, and is taught of the Holy Ghost, and guided by God's Word) doth acknowledge the same. But the true Church of Christ doth acknowledge a Presence of Christ's Body in the Lord's Supper, to be communicated to the Godly by Grace, and spiritually, as I have often showed, and by a Sacramental Signification, but not by the Corporal Presence of the Body of his Flesh.  
We worship, I confess, the same true Lord and Saviour of 
P. 65.  the world, which the Wise men worshipped in the Manger; howbeit we do it in a Mystery, and in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and that in Spiritual Liberty, as saith S. Aug. lib. 3. de Doct. Christiana, Not in carnal servitude; that is, we do not worship servilely the signs for the things; for that should be, as he also saith, a part of a servile Infirmity; but we behold with the eyes of Faith him present after Grace, and spiritually set upon the Table; and we worship him who sitteth above, and is worshipped of the Angels; for Christ is always assistant to his Mysteries, as the said Augustine saith. And the Divine Majesty, as saith Cyprian, doth never absent itself from the Divine Mysteries; but this Assistance and Presence of Christ, as in Baptism, it is wholly Spiritual, and by Grace, and not by any Corporal Substance of the Flesh: Even so it is here in the Lord's Supper, being rightly, and according to the Word of God duly ministered.  Ridley. 
My Protestation always saved, that by this mine 
P. 420.  Answer I do not condescend to your Authority, in that you are Legate to the Pope; I answer thus,  
In a sense, the first Article is true, and in a sense it is false; for if you take really for vere, for spiritually by Grace and Efficacy, than it is true that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ is in the Sacrament vere & realiter, indeed and really; but if you take these terms so grossly, that you would conclude thereby a Natural Body, having Motion, to be contained under the Forms of Bread and Wine, vere & realiter, then really is not Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, no more than the Holy Ghost is in the Element of Water in our Baptism.  
Because this Answer was not understood, the Notaries witted not how to note it; wherefore the Bishop of Lincoln willed him to answer either Affirmatively or Negatively, either to grant the Article, or to deny it.  Rid. 
My Lord, you know that where any Equivocation (which is a word having two significations) is, except distinction be given, no direct Answer can be made; for it is one of Aristotle's Fallacies, containing two Questions under one, the which cannot be satisfied with one Answer. For both you and I agree herein, that in the Sacrament is the very true and Natural Body and Blood of Christ, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascended into Heaven, which sitteth on the Right Hand of God the Father, which shall come from thence to judge the quick and the dead; only we differ in modo, in the way and manner of being; we confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament, and descent in the manner of being there. I being fully by God's Word thereunto persuaded, confess Christ's Natural Body to be in the Sacrament indeed by Spirit and Grace, because that whosoever receiveth worthily that Bread and Wine, receiveth effectually Christ's Body, and drinketh his Blood; that is, he is made effectually Partaker of his Passion; and you make a grosser kind of being, enclosing a Natural, a Lively, and a Moving Body, under the shape or form of Bread and Wine. Now this difference considered, to the Question thus I answer, That in the Sacrament of the Altar is the Natural Body and Blood of Christ, vere & realiter, indeed and really for spiritually by Grace and Efficacy; for so every worthy Receiver receiveth the very true Body of Christ; but if you mean really and indeed, so that thereby you would include a lively and a movable Body under the forms of Bread and Wine, then in that sense is not Christ's Body in the Sacrament really and indeed.  
This Answer taken and penned of the Notaries, the Bishop of Lincoln proposed the second Question or Article. To whom he answered.  Rid. 
Always my Protestation reserved, I answer thus, That in the Sacrament is a certain Change, in that that Bread, which was before common Bread, is now made a lively presentation of Christ's Body, and not only a Figure, but effectually representeth his Body; that even as the Mortal Body was nourished by that visible Bread, so is the Internal Soul fed with the Heavenly food of Christ's Body, which the eye of Faith seethe as the bodily eye seethe only Bread. Such a Sacramental mutation I grant to be in the Bread and Wine, which truly is no small change, but such a change as no mortal man can make, but only that Omnipotency of Christ's Word.  
Then the Bishop of Lincoln willed him to answer directly either Affirmatively or Negatively, without further Declaration of the Matter.  
Then he Answered:  Ridley. 
That notwithstanding the Sacramental Mutation of the which he spoke, and all the Doctors confessed, the true Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine remaineth; with the which the Body is in like sort nourished, as the Soul is by Grace and Spirit with the Body of Christ. Even so in Baptism the Body is washed with the visible Water, and the Soul is cleansed from all filth by the Invisible Holy Ghost, and yet the Water ceaseth not to be Water, but keepeth the nature of Water still. In like sort in the Sacrament of the Lords-Supper the Bread ceaseth not to be Bread.     

Extracts from Bishop Poynets Diallaction.  
I Will so divide the question, that it may be briefly reduced to three heads. First, I will show that the true Body of Christ is given to the Faithful in the Sacrament; and that the words Nature and Substance, are not to be rejected, but that the Ancients treating of this Sacrament did use them. In the next place, I will show that there is a difference between the proper Body of Christ, and that which is present in the Sacrament, and that the Ancient Fathers thought so. Lastly, I will show, what manner of Body this is, which is received in this Mystery, and why it is called by that Name, according to the Doctrine of the sante Fathers.  
The Body of Christ is so called properly and improperly; properly, that Body which was taken of the Virgin. Improperly, as the Sacrament and the Church. That the Church is not properly the Body of Christ, cannot be doubted by any. It remains, that we now prove the same of the Sacrament.  
It may easily be observed from what Chrysostom writeth in this place, that that which Christ called his Body when he said, Take, eat, this is my Body; and which be received together with his Apostles, is in another manner his Body, than is his very proper Body, which was fed with that other. This did eat, that was eaten, and each is called his Body, but in a different manner.  
He gave the Sacrament of his Body, and not the Body itself visibly conceived, that is, his visible Body; which is referred to his proper Body. But this Body, wherever it is, is visible.  
It is to be observed, That the truth of the Lords Body may be spoken two ways, and aught to be understood two ways. For one verity of his Body is required in the Sacrament, another simply and out of the Sacrament.  
As for what concerns our purpose, the very words of Cyprian sufficiently demonstrate, how the Letter is not to be followed in those things, which relate to this Mystery; how far all carnal Sense is to be removed, and all things to be referred to a spiritual Sense; that with this Bread is present, the Divine Virtue, the effect of Eternal Life; that the Divine Essence is infused; that the Words are Spirit and Life; that a spiritual Precept is delivered; that this Body, this Flesh and Blood, this Substance of the Body ought not to be understood after a common manner, nor according to the Dictates of human Reason; but is so named, thought and believed, because of certain eminent Effects, Virtues and Properties, which are joined to it, which are naturally found in the Body and Blood of Christ, to wit, that it feed and quicken our Souls, and prepare our Bodies to Resurrection and Immortality.  
Here it is to be remembered, that the words are spiritual, and spiritually to be understood; that it is indeed named Flesh and Blood, but that this aught to be understood of the Spirit and Life, that is, of the lively Virtue of the Flesh of our Lord, so that the Efficacy of Life is conferred on the external Signs.  
When Theophylact said, That the Bread is not the Figure of our Lord's Body, he means that it is not only (or a bare) Figure of it.  
See how Chrysostom saith, That we are really, as I may so say, turned into the Flesh of Christ. Yet who doth not see that this is a spiritual, not a carnal Conversion: So the Bread is really turned and transelementated into the Flesh of Christ, but by a spiritual, not a carnal Conversion, inasmuch as as the Bread obtains the Virtue of the Flesh.  
How much better did Cyprian, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Emysenus, and others speak, who teach a like change to be performed in the Eucharist, as is performed in Baptism, by which the external Signs remain the same, and by Grace acquire a new substance in the same manner.  
The Exposition and Doctrine of Bertram, concerning the Sacrament, aught in my Opinion to be diligently examined and embraced for two Reasons.  
That this may appear more manifestly, and be remembered the better, I thought it not unfit to subjoin from what I have already taught, a certain Comparison between the two Bodies of Christ.  
The proper Body of Christ hath Head, Breast, and distinct Members; the mystical Body hath not. The proper Body hath Bones, Veins and Nerves; the mystical Body hath not.  
That is organical; this is not.  
That is not a Figure; this is a Figure of the proper Body. That is human and corporeal by its Nature; this is Heavenly, Divine, and Spiritual.  
The matter of that is not subject to Corruption; the material part of this is Bread, and is corrupted.  
That is contained in one place; this is present, wheresoever the Sacrament is celebrated, but not, as in a place.  
That is not the Sacrament of another Body; this the Sacrament of another.  
That was taken of the Body of the Virgin Mary, and was once created; this is not taken of the Virgin, but is created daily by the mystical Benediction potentially.  
That is a natural Body, this supernatural. Lastly, That is simply, properly and absolutely his Body; this in a certain respect only and improperly.  
Nor is it enough here, if we flee one way of carnally understanding it, and fall upon another. For he who literally understands the eating of the Flesh of Christ, and as although it were a proper Speech, he is a carnal Capernaite; whether he imagine it to be properly done this way, or that way. For it is probable that all the Capernaites understood Christ carnally, but not all the same way.  
For it is not therefore to be accounted a Spiritual sense, because they say the Flesh of Christ is there invisibly present. For if they mean his proper Flesh, we do not therefore not eat it carnally, because we do not see it.  
Now in this Sacrament the ancient Fathers observed two things, for each of which it might deservedly be called and esteemed the Body of Christ; but more especially when it comprehends both. For the Bread is justly called his Body, as well because it is the figure of his true Body, as because it hath the lively virtue of it conjoined to it, much more; but most especially, because it comprehendeth both.  
It is therefore to be admired, what they mean, who will not suffer it to be called a figure, nor acknowledge any figure in the words of Institution, but contumeliously call those who own it, Figurative men, whereas it is manifest that all the Ancients did so call it. And indeed if there be no figure in it, it will be neither a sign nor Sacrament. So that those who traduce the maintainers of the other opinion as Sacramentaries, do indeed take away all Sacrament from it.  
There is yet another thing, which the Ancient Fathers acknowledging to be in this Sacrament, taught it to be truly the Body of our Lord; And that is the efficacious and lively virtue of the Body itself, which is joined with the Bread and Wine by Grace and Mystical Benediction, and is called by divers names, although it be the same thing: by Augustine, the Intelligible, Invisible and Spiritual Body: by Jerome the Divine and Spiritual Flesh: by Irenaeus an Heavenly Thing: by Ambrose the Spiritual Food and Body of the Divine Spirit: by others some other like thing. And this doth chief cause this Sacrament to be worthy of the appellation of his true Body and Blood, since it doth not only externally bear the Image and Figure of it, but also carrieth along with it the inward and hidden natural propriety of the same Body; so that it cannot be esteemed an empty Figure, or the sign of a thing wholly absent, but the very Body of our Lord: Divine indeed and Spiritual, but present by Grace, full of virtue, powerful in efficacy. For this is very frequent, that the names of things themselves be ascribed to their virtue and efficacy.  
The Fathers therefore in Treating of the Sacraments, use the words Nature and Substance not Philosophically but Theologically: that is, they speak not as natural Philosophers, but as men disputing of Divine matters; they give the name of Nature and Substance to Grace, Virtue and Efficacy: the nature of the Sacrament so requiring.  
But this (that the Spiritual virtue is inseparable from the Elements) is to be understood to be true, as long as the Sign serveth for that use, and is directed to that end, for which it was destined by the Word of God. For if we apply it to other uses, and abuse it against the institution of Christ, it either is altogether not a Sacrament, or ceaseth to be a Sacrament.  
The dignity and due honour of the Sacraments is not injured, but remaineth whole and inviolate, while we confess both the truth of the Body, and the nature and substance of it, to be received by the Faithful, together with the Symbols: which also the ancient Fathers testify to be done. And then this distinction which also those Fathers diligently observed, being received between that proper or assumed Body of the Lord, and this Symbolical Body, or Sacrament of the Body, the analogy of our Faith is not violated, which no ways ought to be shaken: since we attribute to each Body his peculiar properties. For we say that the proper and assumed Body is in a place, and circumscribed with a space, by reason of the modus of a true Body, as Augustine saith, etc.  
All men see, that we also here affirm the Substance to be present, and assert our Communion with Christ naturally, and as I may say, substantially. But then these words ought to be understood after the manner not of Philosophers but of Divines. Neither should we quarrel about the term of Transubstantiation, although barbarous and not in the least necessary: Provided they meant thereby such a Transmutation of Substances, as the Ancients taught: that is, a Sacramental one: such as is also performed in a man regenerated by Baptism, who is made a new man, and a new creature. Such as is also performed when we are converted into the Flesh of Christ, which examples the ancient Fathers used.  
If any here require a Miracle (for some Fathers call the Eucharist a great Miracle) it is in truth no less wonderful, that Bread and Wine, which are earthly Creatures, and apt only to nourish the Body, should by virtue of the Mystical Benediction obtain that inward force, and such powerful efficacy, as to cleanse, nourish, sanctify, and prepare to immortality both our 〈…〉, and to make us the 〈…〉 and one Body with 〈…〉   

Diallacticon Viri boni & literati de veritate, natura atque substantia corporis & sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia. Ad calcem Becae Opusculorum, Vol. II. Par. 2. p. 31. Genevae, 1573. f.  
CAusam ita partiri placuit, ut summatim ad tria capita revocetur. Primò ostendam veritatem corporis Christi in Eucharistia dari fidelibus; nec has voces Naturam at que Substantiam fugiendas esse, sed Veteres de hoc Sacramento disserentes ita locutos fuisse Deinde discrimen esse monstrabo inter corpus Domini proprium, & illud quod inest in Sacramento; veteresque Patres ita censuisse. Postremo cujusmodi sit hoc Corpus, quod accipitur in Mysterio, & cur eo nomine censeatur, indicabo, secundum eorundem Patrum sententiam, p. 33, 34.  
Corpus Christi dicitur propriè & impropriè; propriè, Corpus illud sumptum ex Virgine; impropriè, ut Sacramentum & Ecclesia. Quod Ecclesia propriè Corpus Christi non sit, nemini dubium est; de Sacramento restat, ut nunc idem Probemus, p. 38.  
Non difficile est animadvertere ex his quae scribit hoc loco Chrysostomus, aliter esse Corpus, quod Christus ipse Corpus suum appellavit, cum diceret, Accipite, edite; hoc meum est Corpus, quod ipse quoque simul sumebat cum discipulis; aliter ipsum Corpus proprium, quod illo altero vescebatur. Hoc comedebat, illud comesum est; & utrumque Corpus, sed diversa ratione, dicitur, p. 39  
Sacramentum videlicet Corporis (dedit) & non ipsum visibiliter, sive visibile Corpus, quod ad proprium Corpus refertur. Hoc autem Corpus ubicunque est, visibile est, p. 40.  
Observandum est veritatem Dominici Corporis, dup citer dici ac debere dupliciter acc●●i. Alia namque veritas Corporis requiritur in Mysterio, alia simpliciter & absque Mysterio, p. 41.  
Quod ad nostrum institutum attinet, ipsa Cypriani verba satis indicant, quam non sequenda sit litera in his quae de hoc Mysterio dicuntur, quam procul arcendus est carnis Sensus, & ad Sensum spiritualem omnia referenda; huic Pani Divinae Virtutis praesentiam adesse, Vitae Aeternae effectum, Divinam insundi essentiam verba Spiritum & vitam esse, spirituale documentum tradi, hoc Corpus, hunc sanguinem, & carnem hanc substantiam Corporis, non communi more, nec ut humana ratio dictat accipi oportere, sed ita nominari, existimari, credi, propter eximios quosdam Effectus, Virtutes, & Proprietates conjunctas, quae Corpori & sanguini Christi natura insunt; nempe quod pascat animas nostras, & vivificet simul, & Corpora ad Resurrectionem & Immortalitatem praeparet, p. 46.  
Hic cogitandum est verba spiritualia esse, & spiritualiter intelligenda; carnem quidem & sanguinem nominari, sed de Spiritu & Vitâ, id est, vivificâ Dominicae carnis Virtute debere intelligi, & proinde vim Vitae signis externis inditam esse, Ibid.  
Theophylactus quum dicit (panem) non esse Figuram (Corporis Dominici) sensit non tantum Figuram esse, p. 47.  
Ecce Chrysostomus dicit, realiter ut ita loquar, nos converti in carnem Christi, sed spiritualem illam non carnalem Conversionem esse quis non videt? Ita reipsâ convertitur & transelementatur Panis in carnem Christi, sed spirituali non carnali Conversione, quia Panis virtutem carnis assequitur, p. 48.  
Quanto melius locuti sunt Cyprianus, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Emysenus, & alii, qui similem Commutationem in Eucharistiâ cum ea quae fit in Baptismo confirmant quâ fit ut signa maneant eadem, & per gratiam novam acquirant substantiam similiter, p. 49.  
Cujus ego viri (Bertrami) Expositionem & de Sacramento viam disputandi duas ob causas diligenter expendendam & amplectendam arbitror, p. 52.  
Quod ut magis appareat, & memoriâ reponatur, non inutile fore putavi, ex his quae supra memoravimus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quandam per collationem subjungere.  
Corpus Christi proprium habet caput, pectus, membra dinstincta, Corpus mysticum non habet. Corpus proprium habet Ossa, Venas, Nervos, mysticum non habet.  
Illud organicum est; hoc non est.  
Illud Figura non est; hoc est Figura proprii Corporis. Illud naturâ suâ humanum & corporeum est; hec Coeleste, Divinum, Spirituale.  
Illius materia Corruptioni non est obnoxia; hujus pars materialis Panis est, & corrumpitur.  
Illud uno loco continetur; hoc, ubicunque Sacramentum celebratur, adest, at non ut in loco.  
Illud non est Sacramentum alterius Corporis; hoc Sacramentum est alterius.  
Illud de Virginis Mariae corpore sumptum, semel creatum est; hoc de Virgine non sumitur sed quotidie per Benedictionem mysticam potentialiter creatur.  
Illud naturale Corpus est; hoc supernaturale. Denique illud simpliciter, hoc secundum quid; illud propriè & absolute, hoc improprie Corpus est, p. 52, 53.  
Neque hic satis est, si modum unum carnaliter intelligendi fugiamus, & in alium impingamus. Nam qui Christi carnem edere secundum literam accipit, & quasi locutio propria sit; is Capernaita carnalis est; sive id hoc sive illo modo proprie fieri putat.— Nam verisimile est, Carpernaitas omnes quidem carnaliter intellexisse, sed non omnes eodem modo, p. 53.  
Non enim ideo spiritualis sensus existimandus est, quia dicunt carnem Christi invisibiliter adesse; nam si de propria carne intelligant, non ideo carnaliter non edimus, quia non videmus, p. 54.  
Jam in hoc Sacramento veteres Patres duas res animadverterunt; propter quas singulas merito corpus Christi diceretur & haberetur, maximè verò cùm utramque comprehendat, Nam & quia figura veri corporis panis est, jure corpus appellatur; & quia virtutem ejusdem vitalem conjunctam habet, multò magis; tum verò maximè quòd utrumque complectitur. Ibid.  
Quò magis mirandum est, quid illis in mentem veniat, qui figuram non patiantur appellari, nec figuram in Coenae verbis agnoscant; sed ●●s qui agnoscunt, per contumeliam figuratores appelant cùm tamen manifestum sit Veteres omnes sic appellásse. Quòd si figura non erit, nec Signum, nec Sacramentum erit. Itaque. qui in illos tanquam Sacramentarios dicere parati sunt, ipsi omnino Sacramenta tollunt. p. 55.  
Alterum esse diximus, quod veteres Patres agnoscentes in hoc Sacramento verè Dominicum corpus esse voluerunt. Est autem virtus ipsius corporis efficax & vivifica, quae per gratiam & mysticam benedictionem cum pane & vino conjungitur, & variis nominibus appellatur, cùm res eadem sit; ab Augustino corpus intelligibile, invisibile, spirituale; ab Hieronymo caro divina & spiritualis; ab Irenaeo res coelestis; ab Ambrosio esca spiritualis, & corpus divini spiritus; ab aliis aliud simile quippiam. Et hoc multo etiam magis efficit, ut hoc Sacramentum dignissimum sit veri corporis & sanguinis nomenclaturâ: quum non solum extrinsecus imaginem & figuram ejus prae se ferat verùm; etiam intus abditam & latentem naturalem ejusdem corporis proprietatem, hoc est, vivificam virtutem secum trahat; ut jam non inanis figura, aut absentis omnino rei signum existimari possit, sed ipsum corpus Domini, divinum quidem & spirituale, sed praesens gratiâ, plenum virtute, potens efficacitate. Saepe autem fit, ut nomina rerum ipsarum tribuantur earum virtuti & efficacitati. Ibid.  
Cum agitur de Sacramentis, mentionem faciunt Patres Naturae & Substantiae, non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc est, non ut Philosophi naturales loquuntur, sed homines de divinis rebus disserentes, gratiae, virtuti, & efficacitati naturae substantiaeque nomen impertientes, nimirum Sacramenti naturâ id postulante, p. 57  
Hoc autem (inseparabilitas virtutis spiritualis ab Elementis) ita intelligendum est, quamdiu signum ei servit usui & fini accommodatur, cui juxta verbum Dei destinatum fuerit. Nam si ad alios usus applicamus, & abutimur contra Christi institutum: aut Sacramentum prorsus non est, aut Sacramentum esse desinit, p. 64.  
Sacramentorum dignitas & debitus honos non laeditur, sed integer & inviolatus manet; dum & veritatem corporis & naturam ac substantiam illius unâ cum symbolis accipi fateamur à fidelibus, quod & veteres Patres fieri testantur. Deinde hâc receptâ, quam iidem Patres diligenter observarunt, distinctione inter proprium sive assumptum illud corpus Domini, & hoc symbolicum corpus sive Sacramentum corporis, non peccatur in analogiam fidei nostrae, quae nullo pacto convellenda est: quandoquidem utrique corpori quae sua sunt attribuimus. Proprium enim & assumptum corpus in loco esse & loci spatio circumscribi dicimus, propter veri corporis modum ut ait Augustinus, etc. Ibid.  
Vident substantiam quoque à nobis (in hoc libro) praesentem affirmari, & communionem nostram cum Christo naturaliter, & ut ita dicam, substantialiter praedicari: sed has voces, non ut Philosophi, sed ut Theologi loquuntur, intelligi oportere. Nec de Transubstantiationis vocabulo, quamvis barbaro minimeque necessario, litigaremus, si modò talem substantiarum transmutationem interpretentur, qualem Veteres agnoscebant, Sacramentalem videlicet, qualis etiam in homine fit per Baptismum regenerato, qui novus homo factus est, & nova creatura: qualis etiam fit, quum nos in Christi carnem convertimur: quibus Patres antiqui utebantur exemplis, p. 65.  
Quòd si nonnulli miraculum requirunt (nam Patres aliquot Eucharistiam ingens miraculum nominant) non minus profectò mirandum est panem & vinum creaturas terrenas, & corpori tantùm pascendo natas, eam virtute benedictionis mysticae vim insitam, adeòque potentem efficacitatem obtinere, ut & animos & corpora mundent, alant, sanctificent, atque ad immortalitatem praeparent, ut nos membra Christi & unum cum illo corpus conficiant. Ibid.  
FINIS.