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
the Cerinthians The Cup of blessinge which we blesse is it not the pertaking or felowship of Christes bloud And also saithe the Breade which wee break and meaneth at the Lords Lable Is it not the partaking or felowship of Christs body Now the partaking of Christes body and of his blood vnto the faithfull and godly is the partaking or felowship of life and immortalitie And againe of the bad and vngodly receiuers S. Paule as plainly saith thus He that eateth of this bread and drinketh of this cup vnworthily is gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Note O how necessary then it is if we loue life and would eschue deathe to trye and examine our selues before we eate of this bread and drink of this cup for els assuredly he that eateth and drinketh thereof vnworthilye eateth and drinketh his own damnation because he estéemeth not the Lords body that is he reuerenceth not the Lordes bodye with the honour that is due vnto him And that which was saide that with the receite of the holye Sacrament of the blessed body and bloud of Christe is receiued of every one good and bad either life or death it is not ment that they whiche are dead before God may heerby receiue life or the liuinge before God can heerby receiue death For as none is meete to receiue naturall food wherby the natural life is nourished except he be borne and liue before so no man can feed by the receit of this holy Sacrament of the food of eternall life except he be regenerated and borne of God before And on the other side no man heer receiueth damnation whiche is not dead before Thus hethertoo without al doubt God is my witnesse I saye so far as I doo knowe there is no controuersie amonge them that be learned in the Churche of England concerninge the matter of this Sacrament but al doo agree whether they be new or olde and to speak plain and as some of them doo odiously cal either other whether they be Protestantes Papists Pharisies or Gospellers And as all doo agree hithertoo in the aforesaid Doctrine so all doo deteste abborre and condemne the wicked heresie of the Messalonians which otherwise be called Eutichets which saide that the holy Sacrament can neither doo no good nor harme All do also condemne those wicked Anabaptistes which put no difference between the Lords Table and the Lords meat and their owne And because charity would that we should if it be possible and so far as we may with the sauegarde of good conscience and maintenance of the trueth agree with all men therfore me thinkes it is not charitablye doon to burthen any man either newe or olde as they call them further then such doo declare themselues to dissent from that we are perswaded to be trueth or pretend thertoo to be controuersies where as none such are in deed and so to multiply the debate the which the more it doth increase the further it doth depart from the vnitie that the true Christian should desire And again this is true that trueth nother needeth nor wil be What it is to lye The slaunderous lyes of the Papists maintained with lies It is also a true prouerb That it is euen sinne to lye vpon the Deuil For though by thy lye thou doost neuer so much speak against the Deuil yet in that thou liest in deed thou woorkest the Deuils woorke thou doost him seruice and takest the Deuils part Now whether then they doo godlye and charitablye which either by their Pen in Writing or by their Woordes in Preaching doo beare the simple people in hand that those which thus doo teach and beleue doo go about to make the holye Sacrament ordeined by Christe himselfe a thing no better then a peece of common Bread or that doo saye that such doo make the holye Sacrament of the blessed bodye and blood of Christe nothing els but a bare signe or a figure to represent Christe none otherwise then the Ivye bushe doth represent the Wine in a Tauern or as a vile person gorgiouslye apparalled maye represent a King or a Prince in a playe Alas let men leaue lying and speak trueth everye one not only to his neighbour but also of his neighboure for wee are members one of an other saith Saint Paule The controuersie no doubt which at this daye troubleth the Church wherin any mean learned man either olde or newe dooth stand in is not whether the holy Sacrament of the body and blood of Christe is no better then a peece of common breade or no or whether the Lords Table is no more to be regarded then the Table of any earthly man or no or whether it is but a bare signe or figure of Christe and nothing else or no. For all do graunt that S. Paules woordes doo require that the bread which we break is the partaking of the body of Christe and also doo graunte him that eateth of that bread or drinketh of that cup vnwoorthely to be gilty of the Lords death and to eate and drinke his owne damnation because be esteemeth not the Lords body All doo graunt that these woords of S. Paule when he saith If we eate it aduantageth vs nothing or if wee eate not wee want nothing therby are not spoken of the Lords Table but of other common meats Thus then betherto yet we all agree But now let vs see Wherin the controuerfie consisteth wherin the dissention doth stand The vnderstanding of it wherin it cheeflye standeth is a step to the true searching foorthe of the trueth For who can seeke well a remedye if he knowe not before the disease It is neither to be denied nor dissembled that in the matter of this Sacrament there be diuers poyntes wherin men counted to be learned cannot agree As whether there be any Transubstantiation of the bread or no any corporall and carnall presence of Christes substance or no. Whether adoration due only vnto God is to be doon vnto the Sacrament or no and whether Christes bodye be there offered in deed vnto the heauenly Father by the Preeste or no and whether the euill man receiueth the naturall body of Christe or no. Yet neuertheles as in a man diseased in diuers partes commonly the originall cause of such diuers diseases which is spred abroad in the body doo come from one cheefe member as from the stomacke or from the head euen so all fiue aforesaid doo chiefly hange vpon this one question which is What is the matter of the Sacrament whether is it the naturall substance of bread or the naturall substance of Christs owne body The trueth of this question truelye tried out and agreed vpon no doubt shall cease the controuersie in all the rest For if it be Christes owne natural body born of the Virgin then assuredlye seeing that all learned men in England so far as I knowe bothe newe and olde graunt there to be but one substance then I say they must needs
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
acquainted Weston Here are two which Mr. Cranmer had yesterday take them if it please you Rid. I am content with them I trust they are honest men The First Proposition In the Sacrament of the Altar by the virtue of God's Word spoken of the Priest the Natural Body of Christ born of the Virgin Mary and his Natural Blood is Really Present under the Forms of Bread and Wine The Answer of N. Ridley In matters appertaining to God we may not speak according to the sense of Man nor of the World. Therefore this Proposition or Conclusion is framed after another manner of Phrase or kind of Speech than the Scripture useth Again it is very obscure and dark by means of sundry words of doubtful signification And being taken in the sense which the Schoolmen teach and at this time the Church of Rome doth defend it is false and erroneous and plain contrary to the Doctrine which is according to Godliness The Explication How far the diversity and newness of the Phrase in all this first Proposition is from the Phrase of the Holy Scripture and that in every part almost it is so plain and evident to any that is but meanly exercised in Holy Writ that I need not now especially in this Company of Learned Men to spend any time therein except the same shall be required of me hereafter First There is a double sense in these words by virtue of God's Word for it is doubtful what word of God this is whether it be that which is read in the Evangelists or in St. Paul or any other And if it be that which is in the Evangelists or in St. Paul what that is If it be in none of them then how it may be known to be God's Word and of such virtue that it should be able to work so great a matter Again There is a doubt of these words of the Priest whether no man may be called a Priest but he who hath Authority to make a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead and how it may be proved that this Authority was committed of God to any man but to Christ alone It is likewise doubted after what Order the Sacrificing Priest shall be whether after the Order of Aaron or else after the Order of Melchisedech for as far as I know the Holy Scripture doth allow no more Weston Let this be sufficient Rid. If we lack time at this present there is time enough hereafter Weston These are but evasions or starting holes you consume the time in vain Rid. I cannot start from you I am captive and bound Weston Fall to it my Masters Smith That which you have spoken may suffice at this present Rid. Let me alone I pray you for I have not much to say behind West Go forward Rid. Moreover there is ambiguity in this word Really whether it be taken as the Logicians term it transcendenter that is most generally and so it may signifie any manner of thing which belongeth to the Body of Christ by any means after which sort we also grant Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as in Disputation if occasion be given shall be declared or whether it be taken to signifie the very same thing having Body Life and Soul which was assumed and taken of the Word of God into the Unity of Person In which sense fith the Body of Christ is really in Heaven because of the true manner of his Body it may not be said to be here in the earth There is yet a further doubtfulness in these words under the forms of Bread and Wine whether the forms be there taken to signifie the only accidental and outward shews of Bread and Wine or there withal the substantial Natures thereof which are to be seen by their qualities and perceived by exterior senses Now the Error and Falseness of the Proposition after the sense of the Roman Church and Schoolmen may hereby appear in that they affirm the Bread to be Transubstantiated and changed to the Flesh assumed of the Word of God and that as they say by virtue of the Word which they have devised by a certain number of words and cannot be found in any of the Evangelists or in S Paul and so they gather that Christ's Body is really contained in the Sacrament of the Altar Which Position is grounded upon the Foundation of the Transubstantiation which Foundation is monstrous against Reason and destroyeth the Analogy or Proportion of the Sacraments and therefore this Proposition also which is built upon this rotten Foundation is false erroneous and to be counted as a detestable Heresie of the Sacramentaries Weston We lose time Ridley You shall have time enough West Fall to reasoning You shall have some other day for this matter Rid. I have no more to say concerning my Explication If you will give me leave and let me alone I will but speak a word or two for my confirmation Weston Go to say on The Confirmation of the aforesaid Answer There ought no Doctrine to be established in the Church of Tes God which dissenteth from the Word of God from the Rule of Faith and draweth with it many absurdities that cannot be avoided But this Doctrine of the first Proposition is such ti-no Ergo It ought not to be established and maintained in the Church of God. The Major or first part of my Argument is plain and the Minor or second part is proved thus The Doctrine maintaineth a real corporal and carnal presence of Christ's Flesh assumed and taken of the Word to be in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and that not by virtue and Grace only but also by the whole Essence and Substance of the Body and Flesh of Christ But such a presence disagreeth from God's Word from the Rule of Faith and cannot but draw with it many absurdities Ergo The second part is true The first part of this Argument is manifest and the second may yet futher be confirmed thus Weston Thus you consume time which might be better bestowed on other matters Mr. Opponent I pray you to your Arguments Smith I will here reason with you upon Transubstantiation which you say is contrary to the Rule and Analogy of Faith. The contrary whereof I prove by the Scriptures and the Doctors But before I enter Argumentation with you I demand first whether in the sixth Chapter of John there be any mention made of the Sacrament or of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Rid. It is against reason that I should be impeached to prosecute that which I have to speak in this Assembly being not so long but that it may be comprehended in few words West Let him read on Rid. First of all this Presence is contrary to many places of the holy Scripture Secondly It varieth from the Articles of the Faith. Thirdly It destroyeth and taketh away the Institution of the Lord's Supper Fourthly It maketh precious things common to