« PoprzedniaDalej »
"......I say, that to the right celebration of the Lord's supper there is no other presence of Christ required, than a spiritual presence and this presence is sufficient foe a Christian man, as a presence by which we abide in Christ, and Christ abideth in us, to the obtaining of eternal life, if we persevere. And this same presence may be called most fitly a real presence; that is a presence not figured, but a true and a faithful presence: which thing I here rehearse, lest some sycophant or scorner should suppose me, with the Anabaptists, to make nothing else of the Sacrament, but a naked and a bare sign. As for that which is feigned of many concerning their corporal presence, I, for my part, take it but for a papistical invention; therefore think it utterly to be rejected." ~p. 501.
It was asked by Tresham
"Of what Flesh meant Christ? His true Flesh or no?" "Latimer. Of His true Flesh, spiritually to be eaten in the supper by faith, and not corporally."-p. 506.
Again Seton, quoting St. Cyprian De coena Domini, enquired, ...where doth it [the New Testament] command the drinking of Blood?"
"Latimer. In these words, 'Bibite ex hoc omnes;' i.e. 'Drink ye all of this?""
Then we taste true Blood."
"Latimer. We do taste true Blood, but spiritually; and this is enough."
Weston. Augustine upon the XLVth. Psalm, saith: 'Drink boldly the Blood which ye have poured out.'-Ergo, It is Blood." "Latimer. I never denied it nor ever will I go from it, but that we drink the very Blood of Christ indeed, but spiritually: for the same St. Augustine saith, Believe and thou hast eaten.'
Latimer. The substance of Blood is drunk, but not in one
"Pie. It doth not require the same manner of drinking." "Latimer. It is the same thing, not the same manner. I have no more to say.
"Here Weston cited the place of Crysostome, of Judas's treason: 'O the madness of Judas! He made bargain with the Jews for thirty pence to sell Christ, and Christ offered him His Blood, which he sold.'"
"Latimer. I grant He offered to Judas His Blood, which he sold, but in a Sacrament."
"Cartwright. Linus and all the rest do confess the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament; and St. Augustine also, upon Psalm xcviii. upon this place, 'Adorate scabellum pedum,' &c., granteth that It is to be worshipped."
"Latimer. We do worship Christ in the Heavens, and we do worship Him in the Sacrament: but the massing is not to be used." "Smith. Do you think that Cyril was of the ancient Church?" "Latimer. I do think so."
"Smith. He saith (in Johan I. x. c. xiii.) ' that Christ dwelleth in us corporally.' These be Cyril's words of the mystical benediction."
"Latimer. That corporally' hath another understanding than you grossly take it."-Foxe vi. pp. 508-9
Or take the two following instances:
(1) First, the case of "John Bradford, Martyr," who, in his second examination before the Lord Chancellor, Jan. 29th, 1554-5, in reply to his Lordship's question, "Well, then, how say you to the blessed Sacrament? Do you not believe there Christ to be present concerning his natural Body?" Answered
"My Lord, I do not believe that Christ is corporally present at and in the due administration of the Sacrament. By this word 'corporally' I mean that Christ is there present corporally unto faith."-Foxe, vol. vii., p. 157.
So, too, in his "Last Examination," referring to the former, the Chancellor said
"Why! didst not thou deny Christ's presence in the Sacrament?" "Bradford. No! I never denied nor taught, but that to faith, whole Christ, Body and Blood, was as present as bread and wine to the due receiver."
"L. Chancellor. Yea, but dost thou not believe that Christ's Body naturally and really is there, under the forms of bread and wine?"
"Bradford. My Lord, I believe Christ is present there to the faith of the due receiver: as for transubstantiation, I plainly and flatly tell you, I believe it not."
"Here was Bradford called diabolus, a slanderer; for we ask no question,' quoth my Lord Chancellor, 'of transubstantiation, but of Christ's Presence.""
"Bradford. I deny not His Presence to the faith of the receiver; but deny that He is included in the bread, or that the bread is transubstantiate."
"Worcester. If He be not included, how is He then present?" "Bradford. Forsooth, though my faith can tell how, yet my tongue cannot express it; nor you otherwise than by faith, hear it, or understand it.”—p. 163.
(2) Next; in the second Examination of John Rogers, Vicar of St. Sepulchre's, Jan. 29, 1554-5, he saith
"......I cannot understand 'really and substantially' to signify otherwise than corporally: but corporally Christ is only in Heaven, and so cannot Christ be corporally also in your Sacrament."-p. 598.
The like language we find in the
"Conferences between Ridley and Latimer during their imprisonment, A.D. 1555.”
"Ridley. v. They do servilely serve the holy sign, as St. Augustine speaketh, (de doct. Christ. lib. iii. c. 9.) instead of the thing signified, whilst the Sacramental Bread (by a solemn or common error) is adored and worshipped for the flesh taken of the Son of God.
"Latimer. If ye deny unto them their corporeal presence, and transubstantiation, their fantastical adoration will (by and by) vanish away. Therefore be strong in denying such a presence, and then ye have won the field.
Furthermore, in the first Supper, celebrated of Christ Himself, there is no mention made of adoration of the elements. Who said, 'Eat ye, and drink ye,' not worship ye. Therefore, against adoration may be spoken that saying of Christ concerning divorce, 'From the beginning it was not so -"p. 106.
Ridley. vi. They pluck away the honour from the only sacrifice of Christ, whilst this sacramental and mass-sacrifice is believed to be propitiatory, and such a one as purgeth the souls, both of the quick and the dead. Contrary to that is written to the Hebrews, 'With one offering hath He made perfect for ever them that are sanctified.' And again, Where remission of these things (that is, of sins) is, there is no more offering for sin."-p. 107.
"Latimer. By His own Person He hath purged our sins." These words by His own Person,' have an emphasis or vehemence, which driveth away all sacrificing priests from such office of sacrificing; seeing that, which He hath done by Himself, He hath not left to be perfected by others; so that the purging of our sins may more truly be thought past and done, than a thing to come and to be done......"—p. 107.
"Ridley. Upon the which vouchsafe to look with Thy merciful and cheerful countenance.' What meaneth this prayer for the Sacrament itself, if it be, as they say, the Body of Christ, if it be God and man? How should the Father not look with a cheerful countenance upon His only well-beloved Son ?......' —p. 109.
"Latimer. To this let them answer, that so pray; except per
adventure, this prayer was used long before it was esteemed to be the Body of Christ really and corporally. And then this prayer maketh well to destroy the popish opinion, that it is not the opinion of the Church, nor so ancient as they babble....
―p. 109. To turn now to a published Treatise of Ridley, in "A brief Declaration of the Lord's Supper," &c. A.D. 1555. Written "during his imprisonment."
Having quoted St. Matthew xxvi. 26-30; St. Luke xxii 19 & 20; 1 Cor. x. 16 & 17; xi. 23-28; and argued from these passages
"That with the receipt of the Holy Sacrament of the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ is received of every one, good or bad, either life or death; .. ;" he declares (p. 9.) 66 so far as I know, there is no controversy among them that be learned among 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 each other, whether they be Protestants, Pharisees, Papists, or Gospellers."-Works. Parker Society, p. 9.
Then he proceeds (p. 11) to show
"Wherein the dissension doth stand; and says, "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,
"[a] Whether there be any transubstantiation of the bread or no? " Any corporal and carnal presence of Christ's substance,
"[c] Whether adoration, only due unto God, is to be done unto the Sacrament, or no?
"[d] And whether Christ's Body be there offered in deed unto the Heavenly Father by the priest, or no?
"[c] Or whether the evil man receiveth the natural Body of Christ, or no?"
But he states that
".... All five aforesaid points do chiefly hang upon this one question, which is, what is the matter of the Sacrament, whether it is the natural substance of bread, or the natural substance or Christ's own Body?"
"For," he argues "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) then, I say, they must needs grant
"[a] transubstantiation, that is, a change of the substance of bread into the substance of Christ's Body :
"[b].... the carnal and corporal presence of Christ's Body :
"[c.] then must the Sacrament be adored with the honour, due unto Christ Himself, for the unity of the two natures in one Person : [d] then, if the Priest do offer the Sacrament, he doth offer in deed Christ Himself:
"[e] 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.
But (p. 12.) " if,....it be found that the [natural] substance of bread is the material substance of the Sacrament [confessed of all that be named to learned, so far as I do know in England]; 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 material substance remaineth all one, as was before;.... then
"[a] 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:
"[b]..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 inclosed under the form of bread :
"[c] that godly honour, which is only due unto God the Creator, may not be done unto the creature without idolatry and sacrilege, is not to be done unto the Holy Sacrament:
"[d]....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, neither by the priest, nor any other thing."
"[e] the wicked, I mean the impenitent, murderer, adulterer, or such like, do not receive the natural substance of the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ :
Before going on to prove from Holy Scripture "the truth" of this, he anticipates the enquiry—
"Whether they, that thus make answer and solution 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?" and replies "Undoubtedly, they do deny that utterly, either so to say or so to mean."―p. 12. And refers to their Books for proof.
Moreover, he adds (p. 13)—
"Now then you will say, what kind of presence do they grant, and what do they deny? Briefly, they deny the presence of Christ's Body in the natural substance of His human and assumed nature, and grant the presence of the same by grace...... 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 its beams, light