The Lords Supper with Some other Determinations and Disputations, Debate
Mr. FOX 2d Volume of Acts and Monuments, Edit. London, 1684.
Lib. 9. pag. 106. The Diſputation held at Cambridge before the Kings Commiſſioners, June 20. 1549. wherein Biſhop Ridley moderated.
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 Kings Majeſty, whom the living Lord long preſerve to reign over us in Health, Wealth and Godlineſs, to the maintenance of Gods holy Word, and to the extirpation of all blind Gloſſes of Men, that go about to ſubvert the Truth. Becauſe therefore, that I am one that doth love the Truth, and have profeſſed the ſame amongſt you; therefore I ſay, becauſe of conferring my mind with yours, I will here gladly declare what I think in this point now in Controverſy. Not becauſe this worſhipful Doctor hath any need of my help in diſſolving of Arguments propoſed againſt him; for as me ſeemeth, he hath anſwered hitherto very well, and Clerkly, according to the Truth of Gods Word. But now to the purpoſe, I do grant unto you (Mr. Opponent) that the old Ancient Fathers do record and witneſs a certain Honour and Adoration to be due unto Chriſts Body, but they ſpeak not of it in the Sacrament, but of it in Heaven, at the right hand of the Father, as holy Chryſoſtome ſaith, Honour thou it, and then eat it; but that Honour may not be given to the outward ſign, but to the Body of Chriſt it ſelf in Heaven. For that Body is there only in a ſign virtually, by Grace, in the exhibition of it in Spirit, Effect and Faith, to the worthy receiver of it. For we receive virtually only Chriſts Body in the Sacrament.
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 Kings Majeſty, our Lord and Maſter, is but in one place, whereſoever that this Royal Perſon is abiding for the time, and yet his mighty Power and Authority is every where in his Realms and Dominions: So Chriſts real Perſon is only in Heaven ſubſtantially placed, but his might is in all things created effectually. For Chriſts Fleſh may be underſtood for the Power, or inward Might of his Fleſh.
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 then 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 intituled, to St. Ambroſe, but yet we do lack the ſame Book indeed.
Glin.
Well, let it then paſs to other mens Judgments. What then ſay you, to holy St. Cyprian, 1200 years paſt? Who ſaith, That the Bread which our Lord gave to his Diſciples, was not changed in form or quality, but in very nature, and by the Almighty word was made Fleſh.
Madew.
I do anſwer thus, That this word Fleſh may be taken two ways, either for the ſubſtance it ſelf, or elſe for a natural property of a fleſhly thing. So that Cyprian there did mean of a natural Property, and not of fleſhly Subſtance. And contrariwiſe in the Rod of Aaron, where both the Subſtance, and alſo the Property was changed.
Glin.
Holy St. Ambroſe ſaith, The Body there made by the mighty Power of Gods 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 Gods holy Word, then muſt it needs be more than a Sacramental, or Spiritual Body; yea, a very Body of Chriſt indeed; yea, the ſame that is ſtill in Heaven, without all moving from place to place, unſpeakably, and far paſſing our natural Reaſon, which is in this Myſtery ſo captivate, that it cannot conceive how it is there, without a lively Faith to Gods word. But let this paſs. You do grant that this Bread doth quicken or give Life, which if it do, then it is not a natural Bread, but a ſuper-ſubſtantial Bread.
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 it ſelf 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 joyned to the Divinity after the Conſecration in verity; and indeed, not ſo as the Body once aſſumpted into Heaven, and ſitting on the Fathers right Hand, doth remove from thence and cometh down at the Conſecration time; but that the ſame Bread and Wine are ſubſtantially tranſumpted into the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. If (ſaith he) thou doſt not know the manner how it is brought to paſs, let it be enough to thee to believe that it is done by the Operation of the Holy Ghoſt; and we do know no more, but that the living Word of God is working, and Almighty; but the very manner how, is inſcrutable to us; and no great marvel, ſaith he, for we cannot well expreſs how the material Bread, Wine or Water are tranſumpted naturally into the ſame Body and Blood of the Receiver, and be become another Body than they were before. So ſaith this great Ancient Clerk; alſo this Shew-bread with Wine and Water, are changed by the coming of the Holy Ghoſt, into Chriſts Body and Blood, and they be not two Bodies there, but very one (of Chriſt) and the ſame.
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 Lords Bread and Wine, by the ſanctifying of them in the Lords Word. But I deny that there is any Mutation of the Subſtances; for there is no other change there indeed, than there is in us, which when we do receive the Sacrament worthily, then are we changed into Chriſts Body, Bones and Blood, not in nature, but ſpiritually, and by Grace; much like as Iſaiah ſaw the burning Coal, even ſo we ſee not there the very ſimple Bread, as it was before the Conſecration; for an Union cannot be but of two very things. Wherefore, if we be joyned to Chriſt receiving the Sacrament, then there is no Adnihilation of Bread, which is when it is reduced to nothing, as it is in your feigned Tranſubſtantiation.
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 Chryſoſtome 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 Chryſoſtome) doth it avoid or paſs as other meats do which we receive? God forbid. Ergo, &c.
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 judgments. Becauſe therefore that Chriſt ſaid, This is my body; let us not at any hand doubt (ſaith he) but let us believe it, and well perceive it with the eyes of our underſtanding. And within a little after in that place he ſaith thus, It was not enough that he was become man, and afterwards was ſcourged for us, but alſo he did reduce and bring us to be as one body with him, not through Faith only, but in very deed alſo he maketh us his Body. And after that he ſaith, that theſe works are not of mans power. But the ſame things that he wrought in his laſt Supper, he now worketh alſo by his Precept to his right Miniſters, and we do occupy the place of the ſame Miniſters, but he it is that doth ſanctify and tranſumpt the creatures, he performeth ſtill the ſame.
Rocheſt.
Mr. Doctor, you muſt underſtand, that in that place St. Chryſoſtome ſheweth us that Chriſt delivered to us no ſenſible thing at his laſt Supper.
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 Chryſoſtome, becauſe all Authors accept him as a faithful Interpreter of him. And he hath theſe ſame plain words Tranſelemented and Transformed. Alſo Theophylactus Alexandrinus ſuper Marcum, Cyrillus, and St. Auguſtine ſaith, That before the conſecration it is bread, but afterwards it is Chriſts very Body. In like manner St. Auguſtine upon the 33d Pſalm ſaith, That in the laſt Supper Chriſt did bear himſelf in his own hands. Now every man may bear the figure of his body in his own hands, but St. Auguſtin ſaith it there for a Miracle. Irenaeus in his fifth Book is of the ſame mind. And St. Auſtin ſaith, I do remember my words, &c. The Law and Figures were by Moſes, but the verity and Body came by Chriſt.
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 Lordſhips favour that is not ſo, for he is there not figuratively, but verily and indeed by the power of his mighty Word, yea even his very own natural body under the Sacrament duly performed by the lawful Miniſter.
Madew,
O ſay not ſo, for you ſpeak blaſphemy.
Langd.
No, no Mr. Doctor, God forbid that either I or any man elſe, ſhould be noted of blaſphemy, ſaying nothing but the very plain truth, as in my Conſcience and Learning, I do no leſs.
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 burthened withall, as reaſon doth require, and it grieved me to hear it. He ſaith, if it pleaſe your Lordſhip, that there is a mutation or change of the Bread after it is Conſecrated; which if it be ſo, as I grant no leſs, then I would require of him, whether it be changed in the Subſtance or in the Accidents, or elſe in both, or in nothing? No man can juſtly ſay, that there is a change into nothing. And all ancient Fathers do agree, that the ſame accidents are there ſtill after, that were before; nor doth any Doctor ſay, That there is any mutation both of the Subſtance and Accidents alſo; Ergo, The Subſtance of Bread is changed into ſome other thing that is there really preſent under the forms of Bread and Wine, which by Chriſts words muſt needs be his own Bleſſed Body.
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 vertue 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 acknowledg not his real Subſtance to be there, but Pag. 119.the property of his Subſtance.
The Determination of Dr. Nicholas Ridley Biſhop of Rocheſter upon Pag. 120.the Concluſions above prefixed.
There hath been an ancient cuſtom amongſt you, that after Diſputations had in your common Schools, there ſhould be ſome determination made of the matters ſo diſputed and debated, eſpecially touching Chriſtian Religion. Becauſe therefore it hath ſeemed good unto theſe worſhipful Aſſiſtants joyned with me in Commiſſion from the Kings Majeſty, that I ſhould perform the ſame at this time; I will by your favourable patience declare both what I do think and believe my ſelf, and what alſo other ought to think of the ſame. Which thing I would that afterward ye did with diligence weigh and ponder every man at home ſeverally by himſelf.
The principal Grounds, or rather Head-ſprings of this matter are ſpecially five.
The firſt is the Authority, Majeſty and Verity of Holy Scripture.
The ſecond is the moſt certain Teſtimonies of the Ancient Catholick Fathers, who after my judgment do ſufficiently declare this matter.
The third is the definition of a Sacrament.
The fourth is the abominable Hereſie of Eutiches that may enſue of Tranſubſtantiation.
The fifth is the moſt ſure belief of the Article of our Faith, He aſcended into Heaven.
The Firſt Ground.
This Tranſubſtantiation is clean againſt the words of the Scripture, and conſent of the ancient Catholick Fathers. The Scripture ſaith, I will not drink hereafter of this fruit of the Vine, &c. Now the fruit of this Vine is Wine. And it is manifeſt that Chriſt ſpake theſe words after the Supper was finiſhed, as it appeareth both in Matthew, Mark, and alſo in Luke, if they be well underſtood. There be not many places of Scripture that do confirm this thing, neither is it greatly material: for it is enough if there be any one plain teſtimony for the ſame. Neither ought it to be meaſured by the number of Scriptures, but by the Authority, and by the verity of the ſame. And the Majeſty of this verity is as ample in one ſhort ſentence of the Scripture, as in a thouſand.
Moreover, Chriſt took Bread, he gave Bread. In the Acts, Luke calleth it Bread. So Paul calleth it Bread after the Sanctification. Both of them ſpeak of breaking, which belongeth to the Subſtance of Bread, and in no wiſe to Chriſt's Body, for the Scripture ſaith, Ye ſhall not break a bone of him. Chriſt ſaith, Do ye this in my remembrance. And again, As often as ye ſhall drink of this Cup, do it in rememberance of me. And our Saviour Chriſt in the ſixth of John, ſpeaking againſt the Capernaites, ſaith, Labour for the meat that periſheth not. And when they asked, What ſhall we do that we may work the works of God? He anſwered them thus, This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath ſent. You ſee how he exhorteth them to faith, For Faith is that work of God. Again, This is that Bread which came down from Heaven. But Chriſts Body came not down from Heaven. Moreover, He that eateth my fleſh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. My fleſh (ſaith he) is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. When they heard this, they were offended. And whil'ſt they were offended, he ſaid unto them, What if ye ſhall ſee the Son of Man aſcend up where he was before? Whereby he went about to draw them from the groſs and carnal eating. This Body, ſaith he, ſhall aſcend up into Heaven, meaning altogether, as St. Auguſtine ſaith. It is the Spirit that quickneth, the Fleſh profiteth nothing. The words that I ſpeak unto you, are Spirit and Life, and muſt be ſpiritually underſtood. Theſe be the Reaſons which perſwade me to incline to this Sentence and Judgment.
The Second Ground.
Now my Second Ground againſt this Tranſubſtantiation, are the Ancient Fathers a Thouſand Years paſt. And ſo far off is it, that they do confirm this Opinion of Tranſubſtantiation, that plain they ſeem to me, both to think and to ſpeak the contrary.
Dionyſius, in many places, calleth it Bread. The places are ſo manifeſt and plain, that it needeth not to recite them.
Ignatius to the Philadelphians ſaith, I beſeech you, Brethren, cleave faſt unto one Faith, and to one kind of Preaching, uſing together one manner of Thanksgiving; For the Fleſh of the Lord Jeſus is one, and his Blood is one which was ſhed for us: There is alſo one Bread broken for us, and one Cup of the whole Church.
Irenaeus writeth thus: Even as the Bread that cometh of the Earth, receiving God's Vocation, is now no more common Bread, but Sacramental Bread, conſiſting of two Natures, Earthly and Heavenly; even ſo our Bodies receiving the Euchariſt, are now no more corruptible, having hope of the Reſurrection.
Tertullian is very plain, for he calleth it a Figure of his Body, &c.
Chryſoſtome writeth to Caeſarius the Monk, albeit he be not received of diverſe, yet will I read the place, to faſten it more deeply in your minds; for it ſeemeth to ſhew plainly the ſubſtance of Bread to remain. The words are theſe:
Before the Bread is ſanctified, we name it Bread: but by the grace of God ſanctifying the ſame, through the Miniſtry of the Prieſt, it is delivered from the Name of Bread, and is counted worthy to bear the Name of the Lord's Body, although the very ſubſtance of Bread notwithſtanding do ſtill remain therein, and now is taken not to be two Bodies, but one Body of the Son, &c.
Cyprian ſaith, Bread is made of many Grains. And is that natural Bread, and made of Wheat? Yea, it is ſo indeed.
The Book of Theodoret in Greek was lately printed at Rome, which if it had not been his, it ſhould not have been ſet forth there, eſpecially ſeeing it is directly againſt Tranſubſtantiation: For he ſaith plainly, That Bread ſtill remaineth after the Sanctification.
Gelaſius alſo is very plain in this manner: The Sacrament (ſaith he) which we receive of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, is a Divine Matter: By reaſon whereof, we are made partakers by the ſame of the Divine Nature, and yet it ceaſeth not ſtill to be the ſubſtance of Bread and Wine. And certes, the repreſentation and ſimilitude of the Body and Blood of Chriſt be celebrated in the action of the Myſteries, &c. After this, he recited certain places out of Auguſtine and Cyril, which were not noted.
Iſichius alſo, confeſſeth that it is Bread.
Alſo the Judgment of Bertram in this matter is very plain and manifeſt: And thus much for the Second Ground.
The Third Ground.
The Third Ground is the Nature of the Sacrament, which conſiſteth of Three Things; that is, Ʋnity, Nutrition, and Converſion.
As touching Ʋnity, Cyprian thus writeth: Even as of many Grains is made one Bread, ſo are we one myſtical Body of Chriſt. Wherefore Bread muſt ſtill needs remain, or elſe we deſtroy the Nature of a Sacrament.
Alſo they that take away Nutrition, which cometh by Bread, do take away likewiſe the Nature of a Sacrament: For as the Body of Chriſt nouriſheth the Soul, even ſo doth Bread likewiſe nouriſh the Body of Man. Therefore they that take away the Grains, or the Union of the Grains in the Bread, and deny the Nutrition, or Subſtance thereof, in my judgment are Sacramentaries: For they take away the Similitude between the Bread, and the Body of Chriſt; for they which affirm Tranſubſtantiation, are indeed right Sacramentaries and Capernaites.
As touching Converſion, (that like as the Bread which we receive is turned into our Subſtance, ſo are we turned into Chriſt's Body) Rabanus and Chryſoſtome are Witneſſes ſufficient.
The Fourth Ground.
They who ſay, That Chriſt is carnally preſent in the Euchariſt, do take from him the Verity of Man's Nature. Eutiches granted the Divine Nature in Chriſt, but his Humane Nature he denied. So they that defend Tranſubſtantiation, aſcribe that to the Humane Nature, which onelyonly belongeth to the Divine Nature.
The Fifth Ground.
The Fifth Ground is the certain perſwaſion of this Article of Faith, He aſcended into Heaven, and ſitteth at the Right Hand, &c.
Auguſtine ſaith, The Lord is above, even to the end of the World; but yet the verity of the Lord is here alſo. For his Body wherein he roſe again muſt needs be in one place, but his verity is ſpread abroad every where. Alſo in another place he ſaith, Let the godly alſo receive that Sacrament, but let them not be careful (ſpeaking there of the preſence of his Body.) For as touching his Majeſty, his Providence, his inviſible and unſpeakable Grace, theſe words are fulfilled which he ſpake, I am with you to the end of the World. But according to the fleſh which he took upon him, according to that which was born of the Virgin, was apprehended of the Jews, was faſtned to a Tree, taken down again from the Croſs, lapped in Linnen Cloths, was buried and roſe again, and appeared after his Reſurrection, ſo ye ſhall not have me always with you; and why? becauſe, that as concerning his Fleſh, he was converſant with his Diſciples forty days, and they accompanying him, ſeeing him, but not following him, he went up into Heaven, and is not here, for he ſitteth at the right hand of his Father; and yet he is here, becauſe he is not departed hence, as concerning the preſence of his Divine Majeſty.
Mark and conſider well what St. Auguſtine ſaith, he is aſcended into Heaven, and is not here, ſaith he. Believe not them therefore which ſay that he is here ſtill in the Earth.
Moreover, Doubt not (ſaith the ſame Auguſtine, but that Jeſus Chriſt, as concerning the nature of his Manhood, is there from whence he ſhall come. And remember well and believe the Profeſſion of a Chriſtian man, that he aroſe from death, aſcended into Heaven, and ſitteth at the Right hand of his Father, and from that Place and none other (not from the Altars) ſhall he come to judge the quick and the dead, and he ſhall come, as the Angel ſaid, as he was ſeen to go into Heaven; that is to ſay, in the ſame form and ſubſtance, unto the which he gave immortality, but changed not Nature. After this form (meaning his Humane Nature) we may not think that it is every-where. And in the ſame Epiſtle he ſaith, Take away from the Bodies limitation of places, and they ſhall be no-where; and becauſe they are no-where, they ſhall not be at all.
Vigilius ſaith, If the Word and the Fleſh be both of one nature, ſeeing that the Word is every-where, why then is not the Fleſh alſo every-where? For when it was in Earth, then verily it was not in Heaven; and now when it is in Heaven, it is not ſurely in Earth. And it is ſo certain that it is not in Earth, that as concerning the ſame, we look for him from Heaven; whom as concerning the Word, we believe to be with us in Earth.
Alſo the ſame Vigilius ſaith, Which things, ſeeing they be ſo, the courſe of the Scripture muſt be ſearched of us, and many Teſtimonies muſt be gathered, to ſhew plainly what a wickedneſs and ſacriledg it is to refer thoſe things to the property of the Divine Nature, which do only belong to the nature of the Fleſh; and contrariwiſe, to apply thoſe things to the nature of the Fleſh, which do properly belong to the Divine Nature. Which thing the Tranſubſtantiators do, whilſt they affirm Chriſt's Body not to be contained in any one place, and aſcribe that to his Humanity, which properly belongeth to his Divinity, as they do who will have Chriſt's Body to be in no one certain place limited.
Now in the latter Concluſion concerning the Sacrifice, becauſe it dependeth upon the firſt, I will in few words declare what I think. For if we did once agree in that, the whole Controverſie in the other would ſoon be at an end. Two things there be which do perſwade me that this Concluſion is true; that is, certain places of the Scripture, and alſo certain Teſtimonies of the Fathers. Saint Paul ſaith Hebrews the 9th, Chriſt being become an High Prieſt of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this building, neither by the Blood of Goats and Calves, but by his own Blood, entred once into the Holy Place, and obtained for us eternal Redemption, &c. And now in the end of the World he hath appeared once to put away ſin by the ſacrifice of himſelf. And again, Chriſt was once offered to take away the ſins of many. Moreover he ſaith, With one offering hath he made perfect for ever thoſe that are ſanctified. Theſe Scriptures do perſwade me to believe that there is no other oblation of Chriſt (albeit I am not ignorant there are many Sacrifices) but that which was once made upon the Croſs.
The Teſtimonies of the Ancient Fathers, which confirm the ſame, are out of Auguſtine ad Bonif. Epiſt. 23. Again, in his Book of 43 Queſtions, in the 41ſt Queſtion. Alſo in his 20th Book againſt Fauſtus the Manichee, Chap. 21. And in the ſame Book againſt the ſaid Fauſtus, Chap. 28. thus he writeth; Now the Chriſtians keep a memorial of the Sacrifice paſt, with a holy Oblation and participation of the Body and Blood of Chriſt.
Fulgentius, in his Book De fide, calleth the ſame Oblation a Commemoration. And theſe things are ſufficient for this time for a Scholaſtical Determination of theſe matters.