prophane 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 Hereticks which erred concerning the two Natures in Christ to defend their Heresies thereby Seventhly It falsifieth the sayings of the Godly Fathers it falsifieth also the Catholick 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 my self Mat. 24. If they shall say unto you Behold here is Christ or there is Christ believe them not c. 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 judg 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 prophane and ungodly Persons and constraineth men to confess many absurdities For it affirmeth that Whoremongers and Murtherers 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 fulness 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 Anthropophagi 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 Lye and be all damned which have not believed the Truth This gross Presence hath brought forth that fond phantasie 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 Hereticks to maintain and defend their Errors as to Marcion who said that Christ had but a Phantastical Body and to Eutiches who wickedly confounded the two Natures in Christ 7. Finally It falsifieth the Sayings of the Godly Fathers and the Catholick 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 Sayings of the Fathers I mean of Justin Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Eusebius Emisenus Athanasius Cyril Epiphanius Hierome Chrysostome 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 shew 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 Phantastical 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 administred 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.
A BRIEF DECLARATION OF THE LORDS SUPPER WRITTEN BY BISHOP RIDLEY Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Brief Declaration of the Lord's Supper c. Guil. Needham RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep Cant. a Sacr. Dom. Junii 7. 1688. A BRIEF DECLARATION OF THE Lords 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 Intituled 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 Church-yard 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 falshood 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 Hereticks 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 it self that is devoid of Sense and Reason If we enquire 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 then 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 meer 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 intire 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 intirely 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 Glocester Fox's Martyrol Vol. 3. p. 425. Queen Maries Commissioner disputing against him in the publick 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
trueth of Godes Woorde And yet I will do it vnder this protestation call me Protestant who lusteth I passe not therof My protestation shall be thus that my minde is and euer shal be God willinge to set foorth sincerelye the true sence and meaninge to the beste of my vnderstanding of Godes most holy woorde and not to decline from the same either for feare of worldly danger or els for hope of gaine I doo proteste also due obedience submission of my iudgemente in this my writing and in all other mine affairs vnto those of Christs Church which be truly learned in Gods holy Woord gathered in Christs Name and guided by his Spirit After this protestation I doo plainely affirme and say that the second Answere to the cheef question question and principall poynt I am perswaded to be the very true meaning and sence of Gods holy Woord that is that the naturall substance of bread and wine is the true materiall substance of the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of our Sauiour Christe and the places of Scripture wherupon this my faith is grounded be these both concerning the Sacrament of the body and also the bloud Firste let vs repete the beginninge of the institution of the Lords Supper wherin all the three Euangelists and S. Paule almost in woords doo agree saying that Iesus took bread gaue thanks brake and gaue it to the Disciples sayinge Take eate this is my bodye Heer it appeareth plainly that Christe calleth very bread his body For that which he took was very bread In this all men doo agree And that which he took after he had giuen thankes he brake and that which he took and brake he gaue to his disciples and that which be took brake and gaue to his Disciples he saide him selfe of it This is my body So it appeareth plainelye that Christ called very bread his body But very bread canot be his bodye in very substance therof therfore it must needs haue an other meaninge Which meaninge appeareth plainelye what it is by the next sentence that followeth immediatly both in Luke and in Paule And that is this Doo this in remembrance of me Wher-vpon it seemeth vnto me to be euident that Christe did take bread and called it his bodye for that he would therby institute a perpetuall remembrance of his body speciallye of the singuler benefite of our redemtion which he would then procure and purchase vnto vs by his bodye vpon the Crosse But bread retaining still his owne very naturall substance may be thus by grace and in a sacramental signification his body wheras els the very bread which he took brake and gaue them could not be any wise his naturall bodye For that were confusion of substances and therfore the very woordes of Christe ioynes with the next sentence following both enforceth vs to confesse the verye bread to remaine still and also openeth vnto vs how that bread maye be and is thus by his deuine power his body which was giuen for vs. But heere I remember I haue red in some writers of the contrarye opinion which Christe did take be brake For say they after his taking he blessed it as Mark dooth 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 brake not the breade which then was not there but only the forme therof Vnto this obiection I haue two plain answers both grounded vpon Gods woord The one I will heer rehearse the other answer I will differ vntil I speak of the Sacrament of the blood Mine answere heer is taken out of the plaine woords of S. Paule which dooth manifestly confound this fantastical inuention first inuented I â—een of Pope Innocentius and after confirmed by the subtile sophister Duns and lately renewed now in our daies with an eloquent stile and much finenesse of wit. But what can crafty inuention subtiltye in sophismes eloquence or finenesse of wit Mar. Antho. Constan Gardenar preuaile against the vnfallible Woorde of God What neede we to striue and contend what thinge we break for Paule saieth speaking vndoubtedly of the Lords Table The bread saieth he which we break is it not the partaking or felowship of the Lords body Wherupon 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 perseuer saith S. Luke in the Apostles Doctrine Communion and Acts 2. 20. breaking of bread And they brake breade in euery house And again in an other place when they were come together to breake bread c. S. Paule which setteth foorth moste fully in his writinge both the doctrine and the right vse of the Lords Supper and the Sacramentall eating and drinkinge of Christs body and blood calleth it fiue times bread bread bread bread bread The sacramentall bread is the misticall body and so it is called The second reason in Scripture 1 Cor. 10. as it is called the naturall body of Christe But Christs misticall body is the congregation of Christians Now no man was euer so fond as to say that that sacramentall breade is transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the congregatione Wherfore no man shoulde likewise think or saye that the breade is transubstantiated and changed into the naturall substance of Christes humaine nature But my minde is not héere to write what may be gathered out of Scriptures for this purpose but onely to note heer breefly those which seem vnto me to be the most plaine places Therfore contented to haue spoken thus muche of the Sacramentall bread I will nowe speake a little of the Lords cup. And this shall be my third Argument grounded vpon Christes The third Argument owne woordes The natural substance of the sacramentall Wine remaineth still and is the material substance of the Sacrament of the blood of Christe Therfore it is likewise so in the sacramentall Bread. I know that he that is of a contrarye opinion will denye the former parte of mine Argument But I will prooue it thus by the plaine woords of Christe himselfe both in Mathewe and in Marke Christes woordes are these after the wordes saide vpon the cup I saye vnto you saith Christe I will not drinke hencefoorthe of this fruite of the vine tree vntill I shall drink that new in my fathers kingdome Heere note how Christe calleth plainly his cup the fruit of the vine tree But the fruit of the vine is very natural wine Wherfore the naturall substance of the wine doothe remaine still in the Sacrament of Christes Blood. And heer in speaking of the Lords Cup it commeth vnto my remembrance the vanitie of Innocentius his fantasticall inuention which by Paules woordes I did confute before and héer did promise somwhat more to
except they would say that the verbe Is signifieth is made or is changed into And so then if the same verbe Is be of the same effect in Christs woords spoken upon the cup and rehearsed by Luke and Paule the cup or the wine in the Cup muste bee made or turned into the newe Testamente as was declared before There be some among the Transubstantiatours which walke so wilâ—lye and so warely between these two aforesaid opinions Gardener a neutrall or lack of both sides allowing them both and bolding plainelye nother of them bothe that me thinks they may be called Neutrals Ambodexters or rather suche as can shift on both sides They play on both partes For with the later they doo allow the doctrine of the last sillable which is that Transubstantiatione is doone by miracle in an instant at the sound of the last syllable um in this sentence Hoc est corpus meum And they doo allowe also Duns his fantasticall imagination of Individium vagum that demonstrateth as he teacheth in Christes woords one thing in substance then being after his minde the substance of the body of Christe A merhailous thinge how one man can agrée with both these two they being so contrary the one to the other For the one saithe the woorde this demonstrateth the substance of bread and the other saith no not so the bread is gone and it demonstrateth a substance whiche is Christes body Gard. to the 4. obiectiou Tushe saith this third man yée vnderstand nothing at all They agree well inough in the chéef poynte whiche is the ground God makers agree against the trueth Note of all that is both doth agrée and beare witnes that there is Transubstantiation They do agrée indéed in that conclusion I graunt But their processe and doctrine therof doo euen aswell agrée togeather as did the false witnes before Annas Caiphas against Christ or the two wicked Iudges against Susanna For againste Christe the false witnesses did agrée no doubt to speak all againste him And the wicked iudges were both agréeed to condemne poore Susanna but in examination of their witnesses they dissented so far that al was found false that they went about both that wherin they agréeed and also those thinges which they brought for their proofes Thus muche haue I spoken in searchinge out a solucione for The consent of the olde authors this principall question which was what is the materiall substance of the holye Sacramente in the Lords supper Now least I should seem to set by mine owne conceite more then is méet or lesse to regard the doctrine of the old ecclestasticall writers then is conuenient for a man of my poore learning and simple wit for to doo And because also I am indéed perswaded that the olde ecclesiastical writers understood the true meaning of Christ in this matter and have both so truly and so plainly set it foorth in certain places of their writinges that no man whiche will vouchsafe to reade them and without preiudice of a corrupt iudgement will indifferently weigh them consâ—er their mindes none otherwise then they declare themselves to have mente I am perswaded I say that in reading of them thus no man can be ignorant in this matter but he that wil shut up his own eies and blindféeld himself When I speake of Ecclesiastical writers I mean of such as were before the wicked vsurpation of the see of Rome was growen so unmeasurably great that not only with tirannical power but also with corrupt doctrine it began to subuert Christes gospell and to turne the state that Christe and his Apostles set in the Church vpside down For the causes aforesaide I will rehearse certain of their sayings 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 wil not be tedious I will rehearse but fewe that is thrée olde writers of the Gréeke Church and other three of the Latin Church which do seem unto me to be in this matter most plaine The Gréek Authors are Origen Chrisostome and Theodoret. The Latin are Tertulliane S. Augustine and Gelasius I know there call be nothinge spoken so plainly but the crafty wit furnished with eloquence can darken it and weest it quite from the true meaning to a contrary sence And I know also that eloquence craft and finenes of wit hath gone about to bleare mens eies and to stop their eares in the aforenamed writers that men shoulde nother heare nor see what those Authors bothe write and teache so plainely that excepte men shoulde be made both starke blinde and or ase they can not but of necessitie if they will reade and way them indifferently both he are and see what they doo meane when eloquence crafte and finenesse of wit have 〈◊〉 all that they can Now let us he are the olde writers of the Greeke Church Origene which lived about 1250. yéeres agoe a man for the excellency of his learninge so highlye esteemed in Christes Church Origen that he was counted and iudged the singular teacher in his time of Eccle Hist Li. 6. Ca. 3. Christs religion the confounder of heresies the schoolmaister of many godly matters and an opener of highe misteries in scripture He writing upon the iv chapter of Saint Mathewes gospell saieth bus But if any thing enter into the mouth it goeth away in to the belly and is auoided into the draught Yea and that meat whiche is sanctified by the woord of God and praier concerning the matter thereof it goeth away into the belly and is auoided into the draughte But for the praier which is added vnto it for the proportion of the faith it is made profitable makinge the minde able to perceive and see that which is profitable For it is not the immateriall substance of breade but the woord which is spoken vpon it that is profitable to the man that eateth it not vnwoorthely And his I mean of the Typical and Simbolical that is Sacramentall bodye Thus far goe the woords of Origene where it is plaine firste that Origene speaking heer of the sacrament of the Lords supper as the laste woordes doo plainely signifie dooth meane and teache that the material substance therof is receiued digested and auoided as the material substance of other bread and meats is which coulde not be if there were no materiall substance of bread at all as the fantasticall opinion of Transubstantiation dooth put It is a world too see the answere of the Papistes to this place of Origen in the disputations which were in this The Papists obiection against Origene matter in the Parliamente house and in both the vniuersities of Cambridge and Oxforde they that defended Transubstantiation said that this parte of Origen was but set forth of late by Erasmus and therefore is to be suspected But how vaine this their answere is it appeareth plainly For so maye all
laste to cleere the matter he saith thus after the minde of one Lawyer Vel dic saith he Statuimus id est abrogamus that is Distine Ca. 4. Statuimus or expound we doo decree that is we abrogate or disanul Is not this a goodlye and woorthye glose who will not saye but he is woorthye in the lawe to be reteined of counsaile that can glose so well and finde in a matter of difficultie such fine shifts And yet this is the lawe or at least the glose of the lawe And therfore who can tell what perill a man may incurre to speak against it except he were a lawyer indeed whiche can keep him self out of the briers what winde soeuer blowe Hethertoo ye haue hearde thrée writers of the Gréeke Church not all what they doo saye for that were a labour too greate for to gather and too tedious for the Reader But one or two places of euery one the which how plain how ful and how cleere they be againste the errour of Transubstantiation I refer it to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader And now I wil likewise rehearse the sayings of other thrée old antient writers of the Latin Church and so make an end And first I wil begin with Tertullian whom Ciprian the holy martyr Tertullian so highly estéemed that whensoeuer he would haue his book he was wonte to saye Giue vs now the Maister This olde writer in his fourthe booke against Martian the heretike saith thus Iesus made the bread which he tooke 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 plaine that after Tertullians exposition Christe mente not by callinge the breade his bodye and the wine his blood that either the breade was the naturall bodye or the wine his natural blood but he called them his bodye and blood because he would institute them to be vnto vs Sacramentes that is holye tokens and signes of his bodye and of his blood that by them remembring and firmly belieuing the benefites procured to us by his body which was torne and crucified for vs and of his blood which was shed for vs vpon the crosse and so with thanks receiuing these holy Sacramentes according to Christes institution might by the same be spiritually nourished and fed to the increase of all godlines in vs heere in our pilgrimage and iourney wherein we walke vnto euerlasting life This was vndoubtedlye Christe our Sauiours mind and this is Tertullians exposition The wrangling that the Papists doo make to elude this sayinge Gardener to the 16. Obiection of Tertullian is so far out of frame that it euen werieth me to think on it Tertullian writeth heere say they as none hath deon hithertoo before him This saying is too too manifeste false for Origene Hilarye Ambrose Basill Grigorie Nazianzene Saint Augustine and other old authors likewise doo call the sacrament a figure of Christes bodye And where they say that Tertullian wrote this when he was in a heate of disputatione with an heretike coueting by all means to ouerthrow his aduersarye As who saye he would not take heed what he did say and specially what he would write in so high a matter so that he might haue the better hand of his aduersarye Is this credible to be true in any godly wise man How muche lesse then is it woorthye to be thought or credited in a man of so great a wit learning and excellency as Tertullian is worthily esteemed euer to haue been Likewise this author in his first booke againste the same heretike Martion writeth thus God did not reiect bread which is his creature for by it he hath made a representation of his body Now I praye you what is this to say that Christe hath made a representation by bread of his body but that Christ had instituted and ordeined bread to be a Sacrament for to represent unto vs his body Now whether the representatione of one thing by an other requireth the corporal presence of the thinge which is so represented or no euerye man that hath vnderstanding is able in this poynte the matter is so cleere of it selfe to be a sufficient iudge The second doctour and writer of the Latin Churche whose Augustine sayinges I promised to set foorth is S. Augustine of whose learning and estimation I neede not to speake For all the Church of Christe both hath and euer hath had him for a man of moste singuler learning witte and dilligence both in setting foorth the true doctrine of Christes religion and also in the defence of the same againste heretikes This author as he hath written moste plenteously in other matters of our faith so like wise in this argumente hee hath written at large in many of his woorkes so plainly against this errour of Transubstantiation that the Papists loue leaste to heare of him of all other writers partely for his authoritie and partely because he openeth the matter more fully then any other dooth Therfore I will rehearse more places of him then heertofore I haue doon of the other And first what can be more plaine then that which he writeth vpon the 89. Psalme speaking of the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood and rehearsinge as it were Christes woords to his Disciples after this manner It is not this bodye whiche ye doo see that ye shall eate nother shall ye drinke this blood which the Souldiers that crucifie me shall spill or shed I doo commend vnto you a misterye or a Sacrament which spiritually vnderstanded shall give you life Now if Christe had no more naturall and corporall bodies but that one which they then presently both heard and sawe nor other natural blood but that which was in the same body and the which the souldiers did afterward cruelly shed vpon the crosse and nother this bodye nor this bloode was by this declaration of S. Augustine either to be eaten or drunken but the misterie thereof spiritually to be vnderstanded then I conclude if this saying and exposition of S. Augustine be true that the mistery which the disciples should eate was not the naturall body of Christ but a mistery of the same spiritually to be understanded For as S. Augustine saithe in his 20. book Contra Faustum Ca. 21 Christes flesh and blood was in the olde Testament promised by similitudes and signes of their sacrifices and was exhibited indeed and in trueth vpon the crosse but the same is celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance vpon the aulter And in his book De fide ad Petrum Ca. 19. he saithe that in these sacrifices meaning of the olde law it is siguratiuely signified what was then to be giuen but in this sacrifice it is euidentlye signified what is already giuen vnderstanding in the sacrifice vpon the aulter the remembrance and thanks giuing for the fleshe which he offered for vs and for the bloode which he shed for
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 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 Queens 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 my self 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 alway 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 Publick Authority I determined with my self 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 lye not I have not altered my Judgment 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 perswaded 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 Judgment herein Howbeit of this I would ye were not ignorant that I will not indeed wittingly and willingly speak in any Point against Gods Word or dissent 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 my self and all my doings 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 publickly 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 Judgment 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 Judgment of your Answers to be had of your self with further deliberation it shall I say be lawful for you until Sunday next to add unto them what you shall think good your self 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 Gods 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 wot I am no Orator nor have I learned Rhetorick 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 chuse two if there were any here with whom I were
Augustin Ambrose Basil Gregory Nazianzen Hilary and most plainly of all in Bertram Moreover the sayings 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 Judgment and ever counted a Catholick 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 lye 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 knowledg 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 falsness 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 lye hid under the accidents and outward shews 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 dayly Massings 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 Ba 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 c. 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 ministred But where Christ suffereth not there is
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 acknowledg 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 acknowledg the same But the true Church of Christ doth acknowledg 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 shewed 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 it self 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 ministred 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 then 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 grosly 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 wist 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 judg 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 dissent in the manner of being there I being fully by God's Word thereunto perswaded 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 moveable 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 answer'd 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 seeth as the bodily eye seeth 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 spake 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 shew 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 shew 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 shew 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