of the deuine nature and yet neuerthelesse the substance or nature of the bread and wine dooth not departe nor goe away Note these woords I beséeche you and consider whether any thing can be more plainely spoken then these woordes be against the errour of Transubstantiatione which is the ground and bitter root wherupon springe all the horrible errours before rehearsed Wherfore seing that the falshood dooth appeare so manifestlye and by so many waies so plainly so cléerly and so fullye that no man needeth to be deceiued but he that will not sée or will not vnderstande let vs al that doo loue the trueth embrace it and forsake the falshood For he that loueth the trueth is of God and the lack of the loue therof is the cause why God suffereth men to fall into errours and to perish therin yea and as S. Paule saieth why he sendeth vnto them illusions that they beleue lyes vnto their own condemnation because saithe he they loued not the trueth This trueth no doubte is Gods woord For Christe him self saith vnto his father Thy woord is trueth The loue and Ioh. 17. light wherof almighty God our heauenly father giue vs and lighten it in our harts by his holy spirit through Iesus Christe out Lorde Amen Vincit Veritas Mr. FOX 2 d Volume of Acts and Monuments Edit London 1684. Lib. 9. pag. 106. The Disputation held at Cambridge before the Kings Commissioners June 20. 1549. wherein Bishop Ridley moderated GLin Well yet once again to you thus The very true Body P. 106. of Christ is to be honoured but the same very true Body is in the Sacrament Ergo the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is to be honoured Rochest Wellbeloved Friends and Brethren in our Saviour Christ you must understand that this Disputation with other that shall be after this are appointed to search for the plain truth of the Holy Scriptures in these matters of Religion which of a long Season have been hidden from us by the false Glosses of the Church of Rome and now in our days must be revealed to us Englishmen through the great Mercy of God principally and secondarily through the most gentle Clemency of our natural Sovereign Lord the Kings Majesty whom the living Lord long preserve to reign over us in Health Wealth and Godliness to the maintenance of Gods holy Word and to the extirpation of all blind Glosses of Men that go about to subvert the Truth Because therefore that I am one that doth love the Truth and have professed the same amongst you therefore I say because of conferring my mind with yours I will here gladly declare what I think in this point now in Controversy Not because this worshipful Doctor hath any need of my help in dissolving of Arguments proposed against him for as me seemeth he hath answered hitherto very well and Clerkly according to the Truth of Gods Word But now to the purpose I do grant unto you Mr. Opponent that the old Ancient Fathers do record and witness a certain Honour and Adoration to be due unto Christs Body but they speak not of it in the Sacrament but of it in Heaven at the right hand of the Father as holy Chrysostome saith Honour thou it and then eat it but that Honour may not be given to the outward sign but to the Body of Christ it self in Heaven For that Body is there only in a sign virtually by Grace in the exhibition of it in Spirit Effect and Faith to the worthy receiver of it For we receive virtually only Christs Body in the Sacrament Glin. How then if it please your good Lordship doth Baptism differ from this Sacrament For in that we receive Christ also by Grace and virtually Rochest Christ is present after another sort in Baptism than in this Sacrament for in that he purgeth and washeth the Infant from all kind of Sin but here he doth feed spiritually the receiver in Faith with all the merits of his blessed Death and Passion and yet he is in Heaven still really and substantially As for Example The Kings Majesty our Lord and Master is but in one place wheresoever that this Royal Person is abiding for the time and yet his mighty Power and Authority is every where in his Realms and Dominions So Christs real Person is only in Heaven substantially placed but his might is in all things created effectually For Christs Flesh may be understood for the Power or inward Might of his Flesh Glin. If it please your Fatherhood St. Ambrose and St. Augustine do say That before the Consecration it is but very Bread and after the Consecration it is called the very Body of Christ Madew Indeed it is the very Body of Christ Sacramentally after the Consecration whereas before it is nothing but common Bread and yet after that it is the Lords Bread and thus must St. Ambrose and St. Augustine be understood Glin. The Bread after Consecration doth feed the Soul Ergo The substance of common Bread doth not remain The Argument is good for St. Ambrose De Sacramentis saith thus After the Consecration there is not the thing that Nature did form but that which the blessing doth consecrate And if the Benediction of the Prophet Elias did turn the nature of Water how much more then doth the Benediction of Christ here both God and Man Madew That Book of St. Ambrose is suspected to be none of his Works Rochest So all the Fathers say Glin. I do marvel at that for St. Augustin in his Book of Retractations maketh plain that that was his own very Work. Rochest He speaketh indeed of such a Book so intituled to St. Ambrose but yet we do lack the same Book indeed Glin. Well let it then pass to other mens Judgments What then say you to holy St. Cyprian 1200 years past Who saith That the Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples was not changed in form or quality but in very nature and by the Almighty word was made Flesh Madew I do answer thus That this word Flesh may be taken two ways either for the substance it self or else for a natural property of a fleshly thing So that Cyprian there did mean of a natural Property and not of fleshly Substance And contrariwise in the Rod of Aaron where both the Substance and also the Property was changed Glin. Holy St. Ambrose saith The Body there made by the mighty Power of Gods word is the Body of the Virgin Mary Rochest That is to say That by the Word of God the thing hath a Being that it had not before and we do consecrate the Body that we may receive the Grace and Power of the Body of Christ in Heaven by this Sacramental Body Glin. By your Patience my Lord if it be a Body of the Virgin as St. Ambrose saith which we do consecrate as Ministers by Gods holy Word then must it needs be more than a Sacramental or Spiritual Body yea a very Body of
I heard staying then present how that the Devil did believe the Sacrament of God was able to make of Stones Bread And we English people we do confess that Christ was the very Son of God and yet will not believe that of Bread he made his very Body Flesh and Blood wherefore we are worse than the Devil since that our Saviour by express words did more plainly affirm the same when at his last Supper he took Bread and said unto his Disciples Take ye eat this is my Body which shall be given for you And shortly after the said Mr. Doctor Ridley notwithstanding this most plain and open Speech at Paul's Cross did deny the same Whether Fecknam hath truly represented the words of Ridley is uncertain But from the last words of this passage it is manifest that some even in that time taking occasion from this Sermon had charged Bishop Ridley with asserting a Material Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament and that he constantly denied himself to have meant or intended any such presence In this therefore and such like expressions he intended only as himself assures us to oppose those who so lightly esteemed the Sacrament Ibid. vol. 3. p. 35. as to make of it but a figure For that but maketh it a bare sign without any more profit But to clear his intention in this matter from all remaining suspicion of any kind of Material Presence I will annex a larger explication of it in his own words in his last examination before the Queens Commissioners September 30. 1555. In like sort as touching the Sermon which I made at Pauls Cross you shall understand that there were at Pauls and divers other places fixed railing Bills against the Sacrament terming it Jack of the Box the Sacrament of the Halter Round Robbin with suchlike unseemly terms For which causes I to rebuke the unreverend behaviour of certain evil disposed persons Preached as reverendly of that Matter as I might declaring what estimation and reverence ought to be given to it what danger ensued the mis-handling thereof affirming in that Sacrament to be truly and verily the Body and Blood of Christ effectually by Grace and Spirit Which words the unlearned understanding not supposed that I had meant of the gross and carnal being which the Romish Decrees set forth That a Body having life and motion should be indeed under the shapes of Bread and Wine This Treatise was written by Bishop Ridley during his imprisonment a little before his death and several Copies of it dispersed abroad of which some being carried beyond Sea Dr. Grindall and other English Exiles conceived a great desire of causing it to be translated into Latin Ibid. p. 374. and Printing it The Bishop hearing of this desired that by all means they would lay aside their resolution till they should see how God would dispose of him Accordingly it was omitted till his death Immediately after his Martyrdom it was Translated into elegant Latin but in a Paraphrastical way and Printed at Geneva 1556. in 12s The English Copy was Printed at London 1586. 12s which we have now caused to be faithfully Reprinted adding to it out of Mr. Fox's Martyrology divers Speeches Disputations and Determinations upon the same subject which might farther illustrate and confirm his Opinion Lastly Because the late Bishop of Oxford in his last Treatise disputing of the ancient Opinion of the Reformed Church of England concerning the Eucharist and as his Cause required it maintaining the same assertion with our Adversaries That some material sort of Presence was then believed doth mightily urge the Authority of the Learned Dr. Poynet Bishop of Winchester at that time proposed in his Diallection and because that Book is not in English I have selected and annexed several passages out of it which may demonstrate what was indeed his notion of the Real Presence That he denied all manner of Material Presence and perfectly agreeth with Ridley in explaining the nature of it And consequently that he is fouly either Misrepresented or Mistaken by the Bishop of Oxford A BREEF DECLARATION OF THE Lordes Supper WRITTEN By the singuler Learned Man and moste constant Martyr of Christe NICHOLAS RIDLEY Bishop of LONDON Prisoner in Oxford a little before he suffered Death for the true testimonye of JESUS CHRISTE ROM VIII For thy sake are we killed all day long and are counted as sheep apoynted to be slain Neuerthelesse in all these thinges we ouercome through him that loue vs. Printed at LONDON 1586. And Reprinted for Ric. Chiswell 1688. TO THE READER VNderstand good Reader that this great Clark and blessed Martyr Bishop Nicholas Ridley sought not by settinge foorth any notable peece of learned woork the vaine glory of the World nor temporall freendship of men for his present aduancement much lesse he hunted heerby for Bishopricks and Benefices as al his aduersaries the enemies of Christs Trueth and Ordinance commonly doo but hauing consideration of the great charge of Soules committed vnto him and of the account thereof which the Iustice of God would require at his handes intending therwithal to be found blamles in the great daye of the Lord seeing he was put a parte to defende the Gospell He not only forsook Landes Goodes World Freends and himselfe with all and testified the Trueth specified in this Book by his learned mouth in the open presence of the World but also to leaue a sure Monument and Loue Token vnto his Flocke hee hath registred it by his owne Pen in this forme ensuinge and sealed it vp with his Blood. Forasmuch then as he hath proued himselfe no vain disputer no wethercocke nor hipocrite seeing hee hath willinglye giuen his life for the Trueth and in as much also as his loue and moste constant christen Conscience speaketh vnto thee gentle Reader I beseech thee for Christs sake and thine owne lend him thine indifferent hart and pacient hearing A BREEFE DECLARATION OF THE Lordes Supper MANY things confounde a weake memory A few places wel weighed and perceiued lighten the vnderstanding Trueth is there to be searched where it is certain to be had though God dooth speake the trueth by man yet in mans woord which God hath not reuealed to be his a man may doubt without mistrust in God. Christe is the trueth of God reuealed vnto man from Heauen by God him self and therefore in his woord the trueth is to be founde which is to be embraced of al that be his Christ biddeth vs aske and we shall haue search and we shall finde knocke and it shall be opened unto vs. Therefore our Heauenly The blessed Martirs praier Father the Author and fountain of al trueth the bottomles Sea of al vnderstanding send down we beseech thée thy holy spirit into our harts and lighten our vnderstanding with the beames of thy heauenly grace We ask thée this O mercifull Father not in respect of our deserts but for thy déere Sonne our Sauiour Iesus Christs sake Thou knowest
O heauenly Father that the controuersie about the Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of thy déer Sonne our Sauiour Iesu Christe hath troubled not of late onlye the Churche of England Fraunce Germanie and Italye but also many yéere agoe The fault is ours na dout therfore for we have deserued thy plague But O Lord be mercifull and reléeue our miserie with some lighte of grace Thou knowest O Lord how this wicked world rolleth vp and down and réeleth to and fro and careth not what thy will is so it may abide in wealth If trueth haue wealthe who are so stoute to defende the trueth as they But if Christes crosse be laid on trueths back then they vanish away straight as Waxe before the fier But these are not they O Heauenly Father for whome I make my moste moane but for those silly ones O Lord which haue a zeale vnto thée those I mean which wold Note and wish to know thy wil and yet are letted holden backe and blinded by the subtilties of Sathan and his ministers the wickednes of this wretched worlde and the sinfull lusts and affections of the flesh Alas Lord thou knowest that we bée of our selues but flesh wherein there dwelleth nothing that is good How then is it possible for man without thée O Lord to vnderstand thy trueth indéed Can the naturall man perceiue the wil of God O Lord to whom thou giuest a zeale of thée giue them also we beseech thée the knowledge of thy blessed wil. Suffer not them O Lord blindely to be led for to striue against thée as thou diddest those Alas which crucified thine own Sonne forgiue them O Lord for thy déere Sonnes sake for they know not what they doo They doo think Alas O Lord for lack of knowledge that they doo vnto thée good seruice euen when against thée they doo moste extremelye rage Remember O Lord we beséech thee for whome thy Martyr Stephen did praye and whome thyne holy Apostle Paule did so truelye and earnestlye loue that for their saluation hée wished himself accursed for them Remember O heauenly Father the prayer of thy déere Sonne our Sauiour Christe vpon the crosse when be saide vnto thée O Father forgiue them they know not what they doo With this forgiuenes O good Lord giue me I beséech thée thy grace so héer bréefly to set foorth the sayings of thy Sonne our Sauiour Christe and of his Euangelistes and of his Apostles that in this aforesaid controuersie the lighte of the trueth by the lantern of thy woord may shine vnto all them that loue thée Of the Lords last supper doo speak expreslye the Euangelists Mathew Mark and Luke but none more plainelye nor more fully declareth the same then dooth S. Paule partely in the tenth Chapter but specially in the xj chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians As Mathew and Mark doo agrée much in woordes so doo likewise Luke and S. Paule But all iiij no doubte as they were all taught in one schoole and inspired with one spirit so taught they as one trueth God grant vs to vnderstande it wel Amen Mathew setteth foorth Christes Supper thus When euen was come he sat down with the xij c. As they did eat Jesus took bread and gave thankes brake it and gave it to the disciples Math. 26. and saide Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gaue thankes gaue it to them saying Drink ye al of this for this is my blood of the newe testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes I say vnto you I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine tree untill that daye when I shall drink that newe in my fathers kingdome And when they had sayed grace they went out Now Mark speaketh it thus And as they eate Jesus took bread blessed and brake and gaue to Mark 14. them and saied take eat this is my body And took the cup gaue thankes and gaue it to them and they all drank of it And he said vnto them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many Verily I saye vnto you I wil drink no more of the fruit of the vine vntill that day that I drink that newe in the kingdome of God. Héere Mathew and Mark doo agree not only in the matter but also almoste fully in the forme of woords In Mathew gaue thankes Mark hath one woorde Blessed which signifieth in this place al one And where Mathew saith Drink ye al of this Mark saith they al drank of it And where Mathew saithe of this fruit of the vine Mark leaueth out the woord this and saith of the fruit of the vine Now let us see likewise what agréement in forme of woords is betwéene S. Luke and S. Paule Luke writeth thus He took bread gaue thankes brake it and gaue it to them saying Luke 22. this is my body which is giuen for you this doo in remembrance of me Likewise also when they had supped he took the Cup saying this Cup is the newe Testament in my bloud which is shedde for you Saint Paule setteth foorth the Lords Supper thus The Lord Iesus the same night in the which he was betraied took 1 Cor. 11. Bread and gaue thankes and brake and saide take eate this is my body which is broken for you This doo in remembrance of me After the same maner he took the Cup when supper was doon saying this Cup is the new testament in my bloud This doo as often as yee shall drink it in remembrance of me For as often as ye shall eate this breade and drinke this cup ye shall shewe the Lords deathe vntill he come Héere where S. Luke saith which is given Paule saith which is broken And as Luke addeth to the woordes of Paule spoken of the Cup which is shed for you so likewise Paule addeth to the woords thereof this doo as often as yee shall drinke it in remembrance of me The rest that followeth in S. Paule both there and in the tenth Chapter perteineth unto the right vse of the Lords Supper Thus the Euangelistes and S. Paule haue rehearsed the woords and woorke of Christe whereby he did institute and ordaine this holy Sacrament of his bodye and blood to be a perpetuall remembrance vnto his comming againe of him selfe I say that is of his body giuen for vs and of his blood shed for the remission of sinnes But this remembrance which to thus ordained as the author thereof is Christe bothe God and Man so by the almightye power of God if far passeth al kindes of remembrances that any other man is able to make either of him selfe or of any other thinge For whosoever receiueth this holy Sacrament thus ordeined in remembrance of Christe he receiueth therwith either death or life In this I trust we doo al agrée For S. Paule saith of the godly receiuers in the tenth Chapter of his first Epistle vnto
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
Gardener to the 198. obiection bin impugned of some that wrote in his time or neere vnto the same Nay saith an other if this solucion wil not serue we maye saye that Chrisostome did not speak of the vessels of the Lordes cup or suche as were then vsed at the Lordes table but of the vessels vsed in the Temple in the olde lawe This answer wil serue no more then the other For héere Chrisostom speaketh of such vessells wherin was that whiche was called the body of Christe althoughe it was not the true body saith he of Christe but the misterye of Christes bodye Now of the vessels of the olde lawe the writers doo vse no such manner of phrase for their sacrifices were not called Christes body For then Christ was not but in shadows and figures and not by the Sacrament of his body reuealed Erasmus which was a man that coulde vnderstande the woordes and sence of the writers although hee would not be séene to speak against this errour of Transubstantiatione because he durste not yet in this time declareth plainly that this sayinge of the writer is none otherwise to be understanded Yet can I saithe the third Papist finde out a fine and subtil solucion Gardener in the same place for this place and graunt all that yet is saide both allowinge heere the writer and also that he ment of the vessels of the Lordes Table For saith he the body of Christe is not conteined in them at the Lordes Table as in a place but as in a misterye Is not this a pritty shifte and a misticall solution But by the same solution then Christs bodye is not in the Lordes Table nor in the Preestes handes nor in the pixe and so is hee heere no where For they will not saye that he is either heere or there as in a place This answere pleaseth so well the maker that he him self after he had plaid with it a little while and shewed the finenesse of his wit and eloquence therein is content to giue it ouer and saye but it is not to be thought that Chrisostome would speak after this finenesse or subtiltie and therfore he returneth againe vnto the second answere for his shoote anker which is sufficiently confuted before An other shorte place of Chrisostome I wil reherse which if any indifferency may be heard in-plaine termes setteth foorth the trueth of this matter Before the bread saith Chrisostome ad Cesarium monachum be halowed we call it bread but the grace of God sanctifying it by the meanes of the preeste it is deliuered now from the name of bread and esteemed woorthy to be called Christs body although the nature of bread tarry in it still These be Chrisostoms woords wherin I praye you what can be Gardener to the 202. Obiection said or thoughte more plaine against this errour of Transubstantiation then to declare that the breade abideth so still And yet to this so plaine a place some are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it saying we graunt that nature of bread remaineth stil thus for that it may be seene felte and tasted and yet the corporal substance of the bread therfore is gone leaste two bodies shoulde be confused together and Christe shoulde be thought impanate What contrarietie and falsehood is in this answere the simple man may easily perceiue Is not this a plain contrarietye to graunt that the nature of bread remaineth so still that it may be séene felte and tasted and yet to saye the corporall substance is gon to auoid absurdity of Christs impanation And what manifest falshood is this to saye or mean that if the breade should remain still then must followe the inconuenience of impanation As though the very breade coulde not be a Sacrament of Christs body as water is of baptisme excepte Christe shoulde vnite the nature of breade to his nature in vnitie of persone and make of the bread God. Now let vs heare Theodoretus which is the last of the thrée Gréek Theodoret Authors He writeth in his dialogue Contra Eutichen thus He that calleth his naturall body corn and breade and also named himself a Vine tree euen he the same hath honoured the Symboles that is the Dial. 1. sacramental signes with the names of his body and blood not changing indeed the nature it selfe but adding grace vnto the nature What can be more plainly saide then this that this olde writer saieth That although the Sacraments beare the name of the body and blood of Christe yet is not their nature changed but abideth still And where is then the Papists Transubstantiation The same writer to the second dialogue of the same woorke againste th' aforesaide heretique Eutyches writeth yet more plainly against this errour of Transubstantiation if any thing can be saide to be more plaine For hee maketh the heretike to speake thus againste him that defendeth the true doctrine whom he calleth Orthodoxus As the Sacramentes of the bodye and bloode of our Lorde are one thinge before the inuocation and after the inuocation they be changed and are made an other so likewise the Lordes body saithe the heretike is after the assumption or assention into heauen turned into the substance of God the heretike meaninge thereby that Christe after his ascention remaineth no more a man. To this Orthodoxus answereth thus and saith in the heretike Thou art taken saith he in thine owne snare For those misticall Symbols or Sacraments after the sanctification doo not goe out of theire owne nature but they tarrye and abide stil in their substance figure and shape yea and are sensibly seene and groped to be the same they were before c. At these words the papistes doo startle and to saye the trueth these woordes be so plaine so full and so cléere that they can not tell what to say but yet they will not cease to go about to play the cuttles and to caste their colours ouer them that the trueth which is so plainly told should not haue place This Author wrote say they before the determination of the Churche As who would say whatsoever that wicked man Innocentius the Pope of Rome determined in his congregationes with his monks and friers that must be for so Duns saith holden for an article and of the substance of our faith Some doo charge this D. Moreman in the Conuâ—cation house author that he was suspected to be a Nestorian which thing in Calcedon Counsaile was tryed and prooued to be false But the foulest shift of al and yet the best that they can finde in this matter when none other will serue is to say that Theodoret vnderstandeth by the woord substance accidents and not substance indéed This glose is like a glose of a lawyer vpon a decrée the text whereof beginning thus Statuimus that is We decree The glose of the Lawyer there after many other pritty shifts there set foorth which he thinketh will not well serue to his purpose and therfore at the
suffer P. 109. his most glorious passion for us really and substantially Ergo He is also in the Sacrament substantially The Argument is good because that it is the same here that was there crucified for us howbeit here invisibly indeed spiritually and sacramentally but there visibly and after a mortal and most bloody manner Rochest Mr. Langdale your Argument doth well conclude in case that his Body were here in the Sacrament after such a sort as it was when it was betrayed But that is not so for he was betrayed and crucified in his natural body substantially and really in very deed but in the Sacrament he is not so but spiritually and figuratively only Langd By your good Lordships favour that is not so for he is there not figuratively but verily and indeed by the power of his mighty Word yea even his very own natural body under the Sacrament duly performed by the lawful Minister Madew O say not so for you speak blasphemy Langd No no Mr. Doctor God forbid that either I or any man else should be noted of blasphemy saying nothing but the very plain truth as in my Conscience and Learning I do no less Rochest O Mr. Langdale I wis it becometh you not here to have such words Langd If it like your good Lordship I gave not the first occasion of them but only did refute that which I was unjustly burthened withall as reason doth require and it grieved me to hear it He saith if it please your Lordship that there is a mutation or change of the Bread after it is Consecrated which if it be so as I grant no less then I would require of him whether it be changed in the Substance or in the Accidents or else in both or in nothing No man can justly say that there is a change into nothing And all ancient Fathers do agree that the same accidents are there still after that were before nor doth any Doctor say That there is any mutation both of the Substance and Accidents also Ergo The Substance of Bread is changed into some other thing that is there really present under the forms of Bread and Wine which by Christs words must needs be his own Blessed Body Rochest Sir you are deceived greatly for there is no change either of the Substances or of the Accidents but in very deed there do come unto the Bread other Accidents insomuch that whereas the Bread and Wine were not sanctified before nor holy yet afterwards they be sanctified and so do receive then another sort or kind of vertue which they had not before Rochest Christ dwelleth in us by Faith and by Faith we receive Pag. 118. Christ both God and Man both in Spirit and flesh that is this Sacramental eating is the mean and way whereby we attain to the Spiritual eating and indeed for the strengthening of us to the eating of this Spiritual food was this Sacrament Ordained And these words This is my Body are meant thus By Grace it is my true Body but not my fleshly Body as some of you suppose Rochest I acknowledg not his real Substance to be there but Pag. 119. the property of his Substance The Determination of Dr. Nicholas Ridley Bishop of Rochester upon Pag. 120. the Conclusions above prefixed There hath been an ancient custom amongst you that after Disputations had in your common Schools there should be some determination made of the matters so disputed and debated especially touching Christian Religion Because therefore it hath seemed good unto these worshipful Assistants joyned with me in Commission from the Kings Majesty that I should perform the same at this time I will by your favourable patience declare both what I do think and believe my self and what also other ought to think of the same Which thing I would that afterward ye did with diligence weigh and ponder every man at home severally by himself The principal Grounds or rather Head-springs of this matter are specially five The first is the Authority Majesty and Verity of Holy Scripture The second is the most certain Testimonies of the Ancient Catholick Fathers who after my judgment do sufficiently declare this matter The third is the definition of a Sacrament The fourth is the abominable Heresie of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation The fifth is the most sure belief of the Article of our Faith He ascended into Heaven The First Ground This Transubstantiation is clean against the words of the Scripture and consent of the ancient Catholick Fathers The Scripture saith I will not drink hereafter of this fruit of the Vine c. Now the fruit of this Vine is Wine And it is manifest that Christ spake these words after the Supper was finished as it appeareth both in Matthew Mark and also in Luke if they be well understood There be not many places of Scripture that do confirm this thing neither is it greatly material for it is enough if there be any one plain testimony for the same Neither ought it to be measured by the number of Scriptures but by the Authority and by the verity of the same And the Majesty of this verity is as ample in one short sentence of the Scripture as in a thousand Moreover Christ took Bread he gave Bread. In the Acts Luke calleth it Bread. So Paul calleth it Bread after the Sanctification Both of them speak of breaking which belongeth to the Substance of Bread and in no wise to Christ's Body for the Scripture saith Ye shall not break a bone of him Christ saith Do ye this in my remembrance And again As often as ye shall drink of this Cup do it in rememberance of me And our Saviour Christ in the sixth of John speaking against the Capernaites saith Labour for the meat that perisheth not And when they asked What shall we do that we may work the works of God He answered them thus This is the work of God that ye believe in him whom he hath sent You see how he exhorteth them to faith For Faith is that work of God. Again This is that Bread which came down from Heaven But Christs Body came not down from Heaven Moreover He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him My flesh saith he is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed When they heard this they were offended And whil'st they were offended he said unto them What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before Whereby he went about to draw them from the gross and carnal eating This Body saith he shall ascend up into Heaven meaning altogether as St. Augustine saith It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life and must be spiritually understood These be the Reasons which perswade me to incline to this Sentence and Judgment The Second Ground Now my Second Ground against this Transubstantiation are the Ancient Fathers
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
the sante Fathers The Body of Christ is so called properly and improperly properly that Body which was taken of the Virgin. Improperly as the Sacrament and the Church That the Church is not properly the Body of Christ cannot be doubted by any It remains that we now prove the same of the Sacrament It may easily be observed from what Chrysostom writeth in this place that that which Christ called his Body when he said Take eat this is my Body and which be received together with his Apostles is in another manner his Body than is his very proper Body which was fed with that other This did eat that was eaten and each is called his Body but in a different manner He gave the Sacrament of his Body and not the Body it self visibly conceived that is his visible Body which is referred to his proper Body But this Body wherever it is is visible It is to be observed That the truth of the Lords Body may be spoken two ways and ought to be understood two ways For one verity of his Body is required in the Sacrament another simply and out of the Sacrament As for what concerns our purpose the very words of Cyprian sufficiently demonstrate how the Letter is not to be followed in those things which relate to this Mystery how far all carnal Sense is to be removed and all things to be referred to a spiritual Sense that with this Bread is present the Divine Virtue the effect of Eternal Life that the Divine Essence is infused that the Words are Spirit and Life that a spiritual Precept is delivered that this Body this Flesh and Blood this Substance of the Body ought not to be understood after a common manner nor according to the Dictates of human Reason but is so named thought and believed because of certain eminent Effects Virtues and Properties which are joyned to it which are naturally found in the Body and Blood of Christ to wit that it feed and quicken our Souls and prepare our Bodies to Resurrection and Immortality Here it is to be remembred that the words are spiritual and spiritually to be understood that it is indeed named Flesh and Blood but that this ought to be understood of the Spirit and Life that is of the lively Virtue of the Flesh of our Lord so that the Efficacy of Life is conferred on the external Signs When Theophylact said That the Bread is not the Figure of our Lords Body he means that it is not only or a bare Figure of it See how Chrysostom saith That we are really as I may so say turned into the Flesh of Christ Yet who doth not see that this is a spiritual not a carnal Conversion So the Bread is really turned and transelementated into the Flesh of Christ but by a spiritual not a carnal Conversion inasmuch as as the Bread obtains the Virtue of the Flesh How much better did Cyprian Ambrose Epiphanius Emysenus and others speak who teach a like change to be performed in the Eucharist as is performed in Baptism by which the external Signs remain the same and by Grace acquire a new substance in the same manner The Exposition and Doctrine of Bertram concerning the Sacrament ought in my Opinion to be diligently examined and embraced for two Reasons That this may appear more manifestly and be remembred the better I thought it not unfit to subjoyn from what I have already taught a certain Comparison between the two Bodies of Christ The proper Body of Christ hath Head Breast and distinct Members the mystical Body hath not The proper Body hath Bones Veins and Nerves the mystical Body hath not That is organical this is not That is not a Figure this is a Figure of the proper Body That is human and corporeal by its Nature this is Heavenly Divine and Spiritual The matter of that is not subject to Corruption the material part of this is Bread and is corrupted That is contained in one place this is present wheresoever the Sacrament is celebrated but not as in a place That is not the Sacrament of another Body this the Sacrament of another That was taken of the Body of the Virgin Mary and was once created this is not taken of the Virgin but is created daily by the mystical Benediction potentially That is a natural Body this supernatural Lastly That is simply properly and absolutely his Body this in a certain respect only and improperly Nor is it enough here if we flee one way of carnally understanding it and fall upon another For he who literally understands the eating of the Flesh of Christ and as altho it were a proper Speech he is a carnal Capernaite whether he imagine it to be properly done this way or that way For it is probable that all the Capernaites understood Christ carnally but not all the same way For it is not therefore to be accounted a Spiritual sense because they say the Flesh of Christ is there invisibly present For if they mean his proper Flesh we do not therefore not eat it carnally because we do not see it Now in this Sacrament the ancient Fathers observed two things for each of which it might deservedly be called and esteemed the Body of Christ but more especially when it comprehends both For the Bread is justly called his Body as well because it is the figure of his true Body as because it hath the lively vertue of it conjoyned to it much more but most especially because it comprehendeth both It is therefore to be admired what they mean who will not suffer it to be called a figure nor acknowledg any figure in the words of Institution but contumeliously call those who own it Figurative men whereas it is manifest that all the Ancients did so call it And indeed if there be no figure in it it will be neither a sign nor Sacrament So that those who traduce the maintainers of the other opinion as Sacramentaries do indeed take away all Sacrament from it There is yet another thing which the Ancient Fathers acknowledging to be in this Sacrament taught it to be truly the Body of our Lord And that is the efficacious and lively vertue of the Body it self which is joyned with the Bread and Wine by Grace and Mystical Benediction and is called by divers names although it be the same thing by Augustine the Intelligible Invisible and Spiritual Body by Jerome the Divine and Spiritual Flesh by Irenaeus an Heavenly Thing by Ambrose the Spiritual Food and Body of the Divine Spirit by others some other like thing And this doth chiefly cause this Sacrament to be worthy of the appellation of his true Body and Blood since it doth not only externally bear the Image and Figure of it but also carrieth along with it the inward and hidden natural propriety of the same Body so that it cannot be esteemed an empty Figure or the sign of a thing wholly absent but the very Body of our Lord Divine indeed