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
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
graunt Transubstantiation that is a change of the substance of breade into the substance of Christes bodye Then also they must needs graunt the carnal and corporal presence of Christes body Then must the Sacrament be adorred with the honour due to Christe him selfe for the vnitie of the two natures in one person Then if the Preest do offer the Sacrament he dooth offer indeed Christe him self And finally the murtherer the aduouterer or wicked man receiuinge the Sacrament muste needes then receiue also the naturall substance of Christes owne blessed bodye bothe fleshe and blood Now on the other side if after the trueth shal be truely tried out it shall be found that the substance of breade is the naturall substance of the Sacrament although for the change of the vse office and dignitie of the bread the bread indeed Sacramentally is changed into the bodye of Christe as the water in Baptisme is sacramentally changed into the fountaine of regeneration and yet the natural substance therof remaineth al one as was before if I saye the true solucion of that former question wherupon all these controuersies doo hang be that the natural substance of bread is the materiall substance in the Sacrament of Christes blessed body then must it needes followe of the former proposition confessed of al that be named to be learned so far as I doo knowe in England whiche is that there is but one materiall substance in the Sacrament of the body and one only likewise in the Sacrament of the blood that there is no such thinge indeede and in truethe as they call Transubstantiation for the substance of bread remaineth stil in the Sacrament of the body then also the naturall substance of Christes humain nature which he took of the Virgin Mary is in Heauen where it reigneth now in glory and not heer inclosed vnder the forme of bread then the godly honour which is onely due vnto God the creator may not be doon vnto the creature without idolatrye and sacrilege is not to be doon vnto the holye Sacrament Then also the wicked I mean the impenitent murtherrer aduluterer or suche like doo not receiue the naturall substance of the blessed body and blood of Christe Finally then dooth it followe that Christes blessed body and blood which was once onlye offered and shed vpon the Crosse beinge auaylable for the sinnes of all the whole world is offered vp no more in the naturall substance therof nother by the Preest nor any other thing But heer before wee go any further to search in this matter and to wade as it were to search and trye out as we may the trueth heerof in the Scripture it shall doo well by the way to know whether they that thus make answere and solucione vnto the former principall question doo take away simply and absolutely the presence of Christes bodye and blood from the Sacrament ordeined by Christe and dulye ministred according to his holy ordinance and institution of the same Vndoubtedly they doo deny that btterlye either so to saye or so to meane Heerof if any man doo or will doubt the bookes which are written already in this matter of them that thus doo answere will make the matter plaine Now then will you saye what kinde of presence doo they graunt and what doo they denye Breeflye they deny the presence of Christs body in the naturall substance of his humain and assumpt nature and graunt the presence of the same by grace that is they affirme and saye that the substance of the naturall bodye and blood of Christe is only remaining in Heaven and so shall be vnto the latter daye when he shall come againe in glorye accompanied with the Angels of Heauen to iudge both the quicke and the deade And that the same natural substance of the very body and blood of Christe because it is vnited vnto the deuine nature in Christe the second person of the Trinitle Therfore it hath not onely life in it selfe but is also able to giue and dooth giue life vnto so many as be or shal be partakers therof that is that to all that doo beleeue on his name which are not borne of blood as S. Iohn saith or of the wil of the fleshe or of the will of man but are borne of God though the self-same substance abide still in Heauen and they for the time of their pilgrimage dwel heer vpon Earth by grace I say that is by the life mencioned in Iohn and the properties of the same meete for our pilgrimage heer upon earth the same body of Christe is heere present with vs. Euen as for example wee saye the same Sunne which in substance neuer remoueth his place out of the Heauens is yet present heer by his beams light and naturall influence where it shineth vpon the earth For Gods Woord and his Sacraments be as it were the beams of Christ which is Sol iustitiae the Sunne of righteousnes Thus hast thou heard of what sort or sect soeuer thou be wherin dooth stand the principall state and cheef poynte of all the controuersies which doo properly pertain vnto the nature of this Sacrament As for the vse therof I graunt there be many other thinges wherof heer I haue spoken nothing at all And nowe leaste thou iustely mightest complain and say that I haue in openinge of this matter doon nothing els but digged a pitte and haue not shut it vp again or broken a gap and haue not made it vp again or opened the booke and haue not closed it again or els to call me what thou listest as neuterall dissembler or what soeuer els thy lust and learning shall serue thee to name me woorsse Therfore heer now I wil by Gods grace not only shortly but so cleerely and plainly as I can make thee to knowe whether of the aforesaid two answers to the former principall state and cheef poynt dooth like me best yea and also I will holde all those accursed whiche in this matter that now so troubleth the Church of Christ haue of God receiued the kepe of knowledge and yet go about to shut up the doores so that they themselues will not enter in nor suffer other that woulde And as for mine owne parte I consider but of late what charge and cure of soule hath bin committed vnto me wherof God knoweth how soon I shal be called to giue accounte and also now in this worlde what perill and danger of the lawes concerning my life I am now in at this present time What folly were it then for me now to dissemble with God of whom assuredly I looke and hope by Christe to haue euerlasting life Seing that such charge and danger bothe before God and man doo compasse mee in round about on euery side therfore God willing I will frankly and freelye vtter my minde and thoughe my bodye be captiue yet my tung and my pen as long as I may shall frely set forth that which vndubtedlye I am perswaded to be the
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