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
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
how plainly it repugneth vnto the manifest woords the true sence and meaning of holy Scripture in many places especially in the Epistle to the Hebrewes the matter it is so long and other haue written in it at large that my minde is nowe not to intreate therof any further For only in this my scribling I intend to search out and set foorthe by the Scriptures according to Godes gracious gifte of my poore knowledge whether the true sence and meaninge of Christes woordes in the institution of his holye supper doo require any Transubstantiation as they cal it or that the very substance of breade and wine doo remaine still in the Lordes Supper and be the materiall substance of the holy Sacramente of Christe our Sauiours blessed bodye and bloode Yet there remaineth one vaine Quidditi of Duns in this matter the whiche because some Gardener in the answere to the 15. obiection that write now doo seeme to like it so well that they have stripped him out of Dunces dusty and darke termes and pricked him and painted him in freshe coloures of an eloquent stile and may therfore deceaue the more excepte the errour be warelye eschewed Duns saith in these woords of Christe This is my bodye this pronowne demonstratiue meaning the woorde This if ye will knowe what it dooth showe or demonstrate whether the bread that Christ took or no he answereth no but onely one thing in substance 〈◊〉 paintethe wherof the nature or name it doothe not tell but leaueth that to be determined and told by that which followeth the woord Is that is by Praedicatum as the Logician dooth speake and therfore he calleth this pronowne demonstratiue This Indiuiduum vagum that is a wandring proper name wherby we may poynte out and shewe anye one thing in substance what thinge soeuer it be That this imagination is vaine and vntruely applyed vnto these woordes of Christe This is my bodye it may appeare plainely in the woordes of Luke and Paule said vpon the cup conferred with the forme of woords spoken vpon the cup in Mathewe and Marke For as vpon the breade it is said of all This is my bodye so of Mathew and Mark it is saide vpon the cup This is my blood Then if in the woords This is my body the woorde This be as Duns calleth it a wandringe name to appoynte and shewe foorth any one thing whereof the name and nature it doothe not tell so muste it be likewise in those woordes of Mathewe and Marke vpon the Lords cup This is my bloode But in the woordes of Mathewe and Marke it signifieth and poynteth out the same that it dooth in the Lords woords vpon the cup in Luke and Paule where it is said This cup is the new testament in my blood c. Therefore in Mathewe and Marke the pronown demonstratiue this doothe not wander to poynte onelye one thing in substance not shewinge what it is but tellethe it plainelye what it is no lesse in Mathewe and Marke vnto the eye then is doon in Luke and Paule by putting too this woord cup booth vnto the eye and vnto the eare For taking the cup and demonstrating or shewing it vnto his disciples by this pronowne demonstratiue this and saying vnto them Drink ye all of this it was then all one to saye This is my blood as to saye This cup is my blood meaninge by the cup as the nature of the speach dooth require the thinge conteined in the cup. So likewise without al doubt when Christe had taken breade giuen thanks and broken it and giuing it to his disciples said Take and so demonstrating and shewing that bread which hee had in his bandes to saye then This is my body and to haue saide This bread is my body As it were all one if a man lackinge a Knife and going to his Oisters would say vnto an other whom he saw to haue two kniues Sir I praye you lend mee the one of your-kniues Were it not now all one to answere him Sir holde I will lende you this to eat your meat but not to open Oisters withall and holde I wil lend you this Knife to eate your meat but not to open Oysters This similitude serueth but for this purpose to declare the nature of speach withall where as the thinge that is demonstrated and shewed is euidently perceiued and openly knowen to the eye But O good Lord what a wonderfull thing is it to see how some men doo labour to teach what is demonstrated and shewed by the pronowne demonstratiue this in Christes woordes when he saieth This is my body This is my blood how they labour I saye to teache what that This was then indeede when Christe spake in Gard. to the 130. Obiection the beginning of the sentence the woorde This before he had pronounced the reste of the woords that folowed in the same sentence so that their doctrine maye agree with their Transubstantiation God makers agree not among them selues which indeed is the verye foundation wherein al their erronious doctrine dooth stande And heere the Transubstantiatours doo not agree amonge them selues no more then they doo in the woords which wrought the Transubstantiation when Christe did first institute his Sacrament wherin Innocentius a Bishop of Rome of the latter daies and Duns as was noted before do attribute the woorke unto the woord Benedixit Blessed but the rest for the moste parte to Hoc est corpus meum This is my body c. Duns therefore with his secte because he puttech the change before must needs say that this when Christe spake it in the beginning of the sentence was in deed Christes body For in the change the substance of bread did depart and the change was now doon in Benedixit saith he that went before and therefore after him and his that this was then indeed Christes body though the woord did not import so muche but onely one thinge in substance whiche substance after Duns the breade beinge gone must needs be the substance of Christs body But they that put their Transubstantiation to be wrought by these woordes of Christe This is my bodye and doo say that when the whole sentence was finished then this change was perfected and not before they can not say but yet Christes this in the beginning of the sentence before the other woords were fully pronounced was bread in deed But as yet the change was not doon and so long the bread must needs remain and so longe with the uniuersall consent of al transubstantiatours the naturall substance of Christes body can not come and therefore must their this of necessitye demonstrate and shewe the substance which was as yet in the pronouncing of the first woord this by Christe but bread But how can they make and verifie Christs woords to be true demonstrating the substance which in the demonstration is but bread and say thereof This is my body that is as they saye the natural substance of Christs body
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
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
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