The Lords Supper with Some other Determinations and Disputations, Volume 3
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 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 prophane and ungodly perſons; for it caſteth that which is holy unto Dogs, and pearls unto Swine. Fifthly, It forceth men to maintain many Monſtrous Miracles without neceſſity and Authority of God's Word. Sixthly, It giveth occaſion to the Hereticks which erred concerning the two Natures in Chriſt, to defend their Hereſies thereby. Seventhly, It falſifieth the ſayings of the Godly Fathers; it falſifieth alſo the Catholick Faith of the Church which the Apoſtles taught, the Martyrs confirmed, and the Faithful (as one of the Fathers ſaith) do retain and keep until this day. Wherefore the 2d part of mine Argument is true. The Probation of the Antecedent or former part of this Argument, by the Parts thereof.
1. This carnal Preſence is contrary to the Word of God, as appeareth, Joh. 16. I tell you the truth. It is profitable to you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter ſhall not come unto you. Act. 3. Whom the Heavens muſt receive until the time of reſtoring of all things which God hath ſpoken. Mat. 9. The Children of the Bridegroom cannot mourn ſo long as the Bridegroom is with them. But now is the time of mourning. Joh. 16. But I will ſee you again, and your hearts ſhall rejoice. Joh. 14. I will come again and take you to my ſelf. Mat. 24. If they ſhall ſay unto you, Behold here is Chriſt, or there is Chriſt, believe them not, &c.
2. It varieth from the Articles of the Faith, He aſcended into Heaven, and ſitteth on the right hand of God the Father, from whence (and not from any other place, ſaith St. Auguſtine) he ſhall come to judg both the quick and the dead.
3. It deſtroyeth and taketh away the Inſtitution of the Lord's Supper, which was commanded only to be uſed and continued until the Lord himſelf ſhould come. If therefore he be really preſent in the body of his fleſh, then muſt the Supper ceaſe: For a remembrance is not of a thing preſent, but of a thing paſt and abſent. And there is a difference between Remembrance and Preſence, and (as one of the Fathers ſaith) A Figure is in vain where the thing figured is preſent.
It maketh precious things common to prophane and ungodly Perſons, and conſtraineth men to confeſs many abſurdities. For it affirmeth, that Whoremongers and Murtherers, yea, and (as ſome of them hold opinion) that Mice, Rats and Dogs alſo may receive the very real and corporal Body of the Lord, wherein the fulneſs of the Spirit of Light and Grace dwelleth; contrary to the manifeſt words of Chriſt in ſix Places and Sentences of the 6th Chapter of St. John.
4. It confirmeth alſo and maintaineth that beaſtly kind of Cruelty of the Anthropophagi, that is, the Devourers of Man's Fleſh: for it is a more cruel thing to devour a quick Man, that to ſlay him.
Pie.
He requireth time to ſpeak Blaſphemies. Leave your Blaſphemies.
Rid.
I had little thought to have had ſuch reproachful words at your hands.
Weſt.
All is quiet. Go to your Arguments Mr. Doctor.
Rid.
I have not many things more to ſay.
Weſt.
You utter Blaſphemies with a moſt impudent face; leave off (I ſay) and get you to the Argument.
Rid.
5. It forceth men to maintain many monſtrous Miracles, without any neceſſity and authority of God's Word. For at the coming of this preſence of the Body and Fleſh of Chriſt, they thruſt away the Subſtance of Bread, and affirm that the Accidents remain without any Subject, and inſtead thereof they place Chriſt's Body without his qualities, and the true manner of a Body. And if the Sacrament be reſerved ſo long until it mould, and Worms breed, ſome ſay that the Subſtance of Bread miraculouſly returneth again, and ſome deny it. Other ſome affirm, that the real Body of Chriſt goeth down into the Stomach of the Receivers, and doth there abide ſo long only as they ſhall continue to be good; but another ſort hold that the Body of Chriſt is carried into Heaven, ſo ſoon as the forms of Bread be bruiſed with the Teeth. O Works of Miracles! Truly, and moſt truly, I ſee that fulfilled in theſe Men, whereof St. Paul propheſied, 2 Theſſ. 2. Becauſe they have not received the love of the truth, that they might be ſaved, God ſhall ſend them ſtrong Deluſions, that they ſhould believe a Lye, and be all damned which have not believed the Truth. This groſs Preſence hath brought forth that fond phantaſie of Concomitance, whereby is broken at this day and abrogated the Commandment of the Lord for diſtributing of the Lord's Cup to the Laity.
6. It giveth occaſion to Hereticks to maintain and defend their Errors; as to Marcion, who ſaid that Chriſt had but a Phantaſtical Body; and to Eutiches, who wickedly confounded the two Natures in Chriſt.
7. Finally, It falſifieth the Sayings of the Godly Fathers, and the Catholick Faith of the Church, which Vigilius, a Martyr and grave Writer, ſaith, was taught of the Apoſtles, confirmed with the Blood of Martyrs, and was continually maintained by the Faithful until his time. By the Sayings of the Fathers, I mean of Juſtin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Euſebius, Emiſenus, Athanaſius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Hierome, Chryſoſtome, Auguſtine; Vigilius, Fulgentius, Bertram, and others moſt ancient Fathers. All thoſe places, as I am ſure I have read, making for my purpoſe; ſo am I well aſſured that I could ſhew the ſame, if I might have the uſe of mine own Books, which I will take to me to do, even upon the peril of my life, and loſs of all that I may loſe in this World.
But now (my Brethren) think not becauſe I diſallow that Preſence which the firſt Propoſition maintaineth (as a Preſence which I take to be forged, Phantaſtical, and beſides the Authority of God's Word, perniciouſly brought into the Church by the Romaniſts) that I therefore go about to take away the true Preſence of Chriſt's Body in his Supper rightly and duly adminiſtred, which is grounded upon the Word of God, and made more plain by the Commentaries of the Faithful Fathers. They that think ſo of me, the Lord knoweth how far they are deceived; and to make the ſame evident unto you, I will in few words declare what true Preſence of Chriſt's Body in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper I hold and affirm, with the Word of God and the Ancient Fathers.
I ſay and confeſs with the Evangeliſt Luke, and Apoſtle Paul, that the Bread on the which thanks are given, is the Body of Chriſt, in the remembrance of him and his Death, to be ſet forth perpetually of the Faithful until his coming.
I ſay and confeſs the Bread which we break, to be the Communion and partaking of Chriſt's Body, with the Ancient and the Faithful Fathers.
I ſay and believe that there is not only a ſignification of Chriſt's Body ſet forth by the Sacrament, but alſo that therewith is given to the Godly and Faithful the Grace of Chriſt's Body, that is, the food of Life and Immortality. And this I hold with Cyprian.
I ſay alſo with St. Auguſtine, that we eat Life, and we drink Life; with Emiſene, that we feel the Lord to be preſent in Grace; with Athanaſius, that we receive Celeſtial Food that cometh from above; the propriety of natural Communion, with Hilary; the nature of Fleſh, and Benediction which giveth life in Bread and Wine, with Cyril; and with the ſame Cyril, the virtue of the very Fleſh of Chriſt, Life and Grace of his Body, the property of the only begotten, that is to ſay Life, as he himſelf in plain words expounded it.
I confeſs alſo with Baſil, that we receive the myſtical Advent and coming of Chriſt, Grace and Virtue of his very Nature; the Sacrament of his very Fleſh, with Ambroſe; the Body by Grace, with Epiphanius; Spiritual Fleſh, but not that which was crucified, with Hierom; Grace flowing into a Sacrifice, and the Grace of the Spirit, with Chryſoſtom; Grace and inviſible Verity, Grace and Society of the Members of Chriſt's Body, with Auguſtine.
Finally, with Bertram, (who was the laſt of all theſe) I confeſs that Chriſt's Body is in the Sacrament in this reſpect; namely, as he writeth, Becauſe there is in it the Spirit of Chriſt, that is, the power of the Word of God, which not only feedeth the Soul, but alſo cleanſeth it. But of theſe I ſuppoſe it may appear unto all men how far we are from that Opinion, whereof ſome go about falſly to ſlander us to the world, ſaying, we teach that the Godly and Faithful ſhould receive nothing elſe at the Lord's Table, but a Figure of the Body of Chriſt.
The Second Propoſition.
After the Conſecration, there remaineth no Subſtance of Bread and Wine, neither any other Subſtance, than the Subſtance of God and Man.
The Anſwer.
The ſecond Concluſion is manifeſtly falſe, directly againſt the Word of God, the Nature of the Sacrament, and the moſt evident Teſtimonies of the godly Fathers; and it is the rotten Foundation of the other two Concluſions propounded by you, both of the firſt, and alſo of the third. I will not therefore now tarry upon any further Explication of this Anſwer, being contented with that which is already added afore to the Anſwer of the firſt Propoſition.
The Firſt Argument for the Confirmation of this Anſwer.
It is very plain by the Word of God, that Chriſt did give Bread unto his Diſciples, and called it his Body.
But the Subſtance of Bread is another manner of Subſtance, than is the Subſtance of Chriſt's Body, God and Man.
Therefore the Concluſion is falſe.
The ſecond part of mine Argument is plain, and the firſt is proved thus.
The Second Argument.
That which Chriſt did take, on the which he gave Thanks, Da-and the which he brake, he gave to his Diſciples, and called it his Body.
But he took Bread, gave Thanks on Bread, and brake Bread. ti-Ergo, The firſt part is true.
And it is confirmed with the Authorities of the Fathers, Irenaeus, ſi-Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Hierom, Auguſtine, Theodoret, Cyril, Rabanus and Bede; whoſe places I will take upon me to ſhew moſt manifeſt in this behalf, if I may be ſuffered to have my Books, as my requeſt is.
Bread is the Body of Chriſt. Ergo. It is Bread.
The Third Argument.
As the Bread of the Lord's Table is Chriſt's natural Body, ſo Ba-it is his myſtical Body.
But it is not Chriſt's myſtical Body by Tranſubſtantiation.
Ergo, It is not his natural Body by Tranſubſtantiation.ro- eo.
The ſecond part of my Argument is plain, and the firſt is proved thus: As Chriſt, who is the Verity, ſpake of the Bread, This is my Body which ſhall be betrayed for you; ſpeaking there of his natural Body: even ſo St. Paul, moved with the ſame Spirit of Truth, ſaid, We, though we be many, yet are we all one Bread and one Body, which be partakers of one Bread.
The Fourth Argument.
We may no more believe Bread to be Tranſubſtantiate into the Body of Chriſt, than the Wine into his Blood.
But the Wine is not Tranſubſtantiate into his Blood:
Ergo, Neither is that Bread therefore Tranſubſtantiate into his Body.
The firſt part of this Argument is manifeſt, and the ſecond part is proved out of the Authority of God's Word in Matthew and Mark, I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine, &c. Now the fruit of the Vine was Wine which Chriſt drank, and gave to his Diſciples to drink. With this Sentence agreeth plainly the place of Chryſoſtome on the 20th Chapter of Matthew, as Cyprian doth alſo, affirming, That there is no Blood, if Wine be not in the Cup.
The Fifth Argument.
The words of Chriſt ſpoken upon the Cup, and upon the Ba-Bread, have like effect and working.
But the words ſpoken upon the Cup have not virtue to Tranſubſtantiate.ro-
Ergo, It followeth that the words ſpoken upon the Bread have eo.no ſuch virtue.
The ſecond part of the Argument is proved; becauſe they would then Tranſubſtantiate the Cup, or that which is in the Cup, into the New Teſtament. But neither of theſe things can be done, and very abſurd it is to confeſs the ſame.
The Sixth Argument.
The Circumſtances of the Scripture, the Analogy and proportion of Da-the Sacraments, and the Teſtimony of the faithful Fathers, ought to rule us in taking the meaning of the Holy Scripture touching the Sacrament.
But the Words of the Lord's Supper, the Circumſtances of the ti-Scripture, the Analogy of the Sacraments, and the Sayings of the Fathers, do moſt effectually and plainly prove a figurative ſpeech in the words of the Lord's Supper.
Ergo, A figurative ſenſe and meaning is ſpecially to be received in ſi.theſe words, This is my Body.
The Circumſtances of the Scripture, Do this in remembrance of me. As oft as ye ſhall eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, ye ſhall ſhew forth the Lord's death. Let a man prove himſelf, and ſo eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. They came together to break Bread: and they continued in breaking of Bread. The Bread which we break, &c. For we being many, are all one Bread and one Body, &c.
The Analogy of the Sacraments is neceſſary; for if the Sacraments had not ſome ſimilitude, or likeneſs of the things whereof they be Sacraments, they could in no wiſe be Sacraments. And this ſimilitude in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is taken three manner of ways.
1. The firſt conſiſteth in nouriſhing, as you ſhall read in Rabanus, Cyprian, Auſtin, Irenaeus, and moſt plainly in Iſidore out of Bertram.
2. The ſecond in the uniting and joyning of many into one, as Cyprian teacheth.
3. The third is a ſimilitude of unlike things: Where, like as the Bread is turned into one Body; ſo we by the right uſe of this Sacrament, are turned through Faith into the Body of Chriſt.
The ſayings of the Fathers declare it to be a figurative ſpeech, as it appeareth in Origen, Tertullian, Chryſoſtom in opere imperfecto, Auguſtin, Ambroſe, Baſil, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, and moſt plainly of all, in Bertram. Moreover the ſayings and places of all the Fathers, whoſe names I have before recited againſt the aſſertion of the firſt Propoſition, do quite overthrow Tranſubſtantiation. But of all moſt evidently and plainly, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Chryſoſtom to Caeſarius the Monk, Auguſtine againſt Adamantus, Gelaſius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Chryſoſtom again on the 20th of Matth. Rabanus, Damaſcene and Bertram.
Here, Right Worſhipful Mr. Prolocutor, and ye the reſt of the Commiſſioners, it may pleaſe you to underſtand, that I do not lean to theſe things only, which I have written in my former Anſwers and Confirmations, but that I have alſo for the proof of that I have ſpoken, whatſoever Bertram, a man Learned, of ſound and upright Judgment, and ever counted a Catholick for theſe Seven hundred years, until this our age, hath written. His Treatiſe, whoſoever ſhall read and weigh, conſidering the time of the Writer, his Learning, Godlineſs of life, the Allegations of the Ancient Fathers, and his manifold and moſt grounded Arguments, I cannot (doubtleſs) but much marvel, if he have any fear of God at all, how he can with good Conſcience ſpeak againſt him in this matter of the Sacrament. This Bertram was the firſt that pulled me by the Ear, and that firſt brought me from the common Error of the Romiſh Church, and cauſed me to ſearch more diligently and exactly both the Scriptures and the Writings of the old Eccleſiaſtical Fathers in this matter. And this I proteſt before the face of God, who knoweth that I lye not in the things I now ſpeak.
The Third Propoſition.
In the Maſs is the lively Sacrifice of the Church, propitiable and available for the ſins as well of quick as of the dead.
The Anſwer to this Propoſition.
I anſwer to this third Propoſition as I did to the firſt. And moreover I ſay, that being taken in ſuch ſenſe as the words ſeem to import, it is not only erroneous, but withal ſo much to the derogation and defacing of the Death and Paſſion of Chriſt, that I judge it may and ought moſt worthily to be counted wicked and blaſphemous againſt the moſt precious Blood of our Saviour Chriſt.
The Explication.
Concerning the Romiſh Maſs which is uſed at this day, or the lively Sacrifice thereof propitiatory and available for the ſins of the quick and the dead, the Holy Scripture hath not ſo much as one ſyllable.
There is ambiguity alſo in the name of Maſs: what it ſignifieth, and whether at this day there be any ſuch indeed as the Ancient Fathers uſed; ſeeing that now there be neither Catecumeni nor Poenitentes to be ſent away.
Again, touching theſe words (The lively Sacrifice of the Church) There is doubt whether they are to be underſtood Figuratively and Sacramentally, for the Sacrament of the lively Sacrifice (after which ſort we deny it not to be in the Lord's Supper) or properly and without any figure; of the which manner there was but one only Sacrifice, and that once offered, namely upon the Altar of the Croſs.
Moreover, in theſe words (as well as) it may be doubted whether they be ſpoken in mockage as men are wont to ſay in ſport, of a fooliſh and ignorant perſon, that he is apt as well in conditions as in knowledg, being apt indeed in neither of them both.
There is alſo a doubt in the word Propitiable, whether it ſignify here that which taketh away ſin, or that which may be made available for the taking away of ſin; That is to ſay, whether it is to be taken in the active or in the paſſive ſignification.
Now the falſneſs of the Propoſition, after the meaning of the Schoolmen and the Romiſh Church, and Impiety in that ſenſe which the words ſeem to import, is this; that they leaning to the foundation of their fond Tranſubſtantiation, would make the quick and lively body of Chriſt's Fleſh (united and knit to the Divinity) to lye hid under the accidents, and outward ſhews of Bread and Wine. Which is very falſe, as I have ſaid before; and they building upon this foundation, do hold that the ſame Body is offered unto God, by the Prieſt in his dayly Maſſings, to put away the ſins of the quick and the dead; whereas by the Apoſtle to the Hebrews it is evident that there is but one Oblation, and one true and lively Sacrifice of the Church offered upon the Altar of the Croſs, which was, is, and ſhall be for ever the propitiation for the ſins of the whole World: and where there is Remiſſion of the ſame, there is, ſaith the Apoſtle, no more offering for ſin.
Arguments confirming his Anſwer.
No Sacrifice ought to be done, but where the Prieſt is meet to offer Ce-the ſame.
All other Prieſts be unmeet to offer Sacrifice for ſin, but Chriſt alone.la- rent.
Ergo, No other Prieſts ought to Sacrifice for ſin but Chriſt alone.
The ſecond part of my Argument is thus proved.
No honour in God's Church ought to be taken where a man is not Fe-called as Aaron.
It is a great honour in God's Church to Sacrifice for Sin:ri- ſon.
Ergo.
No man ought to Sacrifice for Sin, but only they who are called.
But only Chriſt is called to that honour.
Ergo, No other Prieſt but Chriſt ought to Sacrifice for Sin.
That no man is called to this degree of Honour but Chriſt alone, it is evident; For there are but two only Orders of Prieſthood allowed in the Word of God: Namely, the Order of Aaron, and the Order of Melchiſedech. But now the Order of Aaron is come to an end, by reaſon that it was unprofitable, and weak; and of the Order of Melchiſedech there is but one Prieſt alone, even Chriſt the Lord, who hath a Prieſthood that cannot paſs to any other.
An Argument.
That thing is in vain, and to no effect, where no neceſſity is Ba-wherefore it is done.
To offer up any more Sacrifice Propitiatory for the quick and the ro-dead, there is no neceſſity, for Chriſt our Saviour did that fully and perfectly once for all.
Ergo, To do the ſame in the Maſs, it is in vain.co.
Another Argument.
After that Eternal Redemption is found and obtained, there needeth Fe-no more daily offering for the ſame.
But Chriſt coming an high Biſhop, &c. found and obtained for us ri-Eternal Redemption.
Ergo, There needeth now no more daily Oblation for the Sins of o.the quick and the dead.
Another Argument.
All remiſſion of Sins cometh only by ſhedding of Blood.Ca- meſ- tres.
In the Maſs there is no ſhedding of Blood.
Ergo, In the Maſs there is no Remiſſion of Sins, and ſo it followeth alſo that there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice.
Another Argument.
In the Maſs the Paſſion of Chriſt is not in verity, but in a Myſtery repreſenting the ſame; yea even there where the Lord's Supper is duly miniſtred. But where Chriſt ſuffereth not, there is he not offered in verity: For the Apoſtle ſaith, Not that he might offer up himſelf oftentimes, (for then muſt he have ſuffered oftentimes ſince the beginning of the World.) Now where Chriſt is not offered, there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice.
Ergo, In the Maſs there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice. For Chriſt appeared once in the latter end of the World to put ſin to flight by the offering up of himſelf. And as it is appointed to all men that they ſhall once dye, and then cometh the Judgment: even ſo Chriſt was once offered to take away the Sins of many. And unto them that look for him, ſhall he appear again without ſin unto ſalvation.
Another Argument.
Where there is any Sacrifice that can make the comers thereunto Da-perfect, there ought men to ceaſe from offering any more Expiatory and Propitiatory Sacrifices.
But in the New Teſtament there is one only Sacrifice now already ri-long ſince offered, which is able to make the comers thereunto perfect for ever.
Ergo, In the New Teſtament they ought to ceaſe from offering i.any more Propitiatory Sacrifice.
Sentences of the Scripture tending to the ſame end and purpoſe, out of which alſo may be gathered other manifeſt Arguments for more confirmation thereof.
By the which will (ſaith the Apoſtle) we are ſanctified by the offering Heb. 10.up of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt once for all. And in the ſame place; But this man, after that he had offered one Sacrifice for ſin, ſitteth for ever at the Right hand of God, &c. For with one Offering hath he made perfect for ever them that are ſanctified, and by himſelf hath he purged our Sins. I beſeech you to mark theſe words (by himſelf:) the which well weighed, will without doubt ceaſe all controverſie. The Apoſtle plainly denieth any other Sacrifice to remain for him that treadeth under his feet the Blood of the Teſtament, by the which he was made holy. Chriſt will not be crucified again, he will not his death to be had in deriſion.
He hath reconciled us in the Body of his Fleſh. Mark, I beſeech you, he Col. 1.ſaith not in the Myſtery of his Body; but in the Body of his Fleſh.
If any man ſin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jeſus Chriſt the 1 John 2.Righteous; and he is the Propitiation for our Sins; not for ours only, but for the Sins of the whole World.
I know that all theſe places of the Scripture are avoided by two manner of ſubtil ſhifts: The one is, by the diſtinction of the bloody and unbloody Sacrifice; as tho our unbloody Sacrifice of the Church were any other than the Sacrifice of Praiſe and Thankſgiving, than a commemoration, a ſhewing forth, and a Sacramental Repreſentation of that one only bloody Sacrifice, offered up once for all.
The other is by depraving and wreſting the Sayings of the Ancient Fathers unto ſuch a ſtrange kind of ſenſe, as the Fathers themſelves indeed never meant. For what the meaning of the Fathers was, is evident by that which St. Auguſtine writeth in his Epiſtle to Boniface, and in the 83d Chapter of his Ninth Book againſt Fauſtus the Manichee, beſides many other Places; likewiſe by Euſebius Emiſſenus, Cyprian, Chryſoſtom, Fulgentius, Bertram, and others, who do wholly concord and agree together in this unity in the Lord, that the Redemption, once made in Verity for the Salvation of Man, continueth in full effect for ever, and worketh without ceaſing unto the end of the World; That the Sacrifice once offered cannot be conſumed; That the Lord's Death and Paſſion is as effectual, the vertue of that Blood once ſhed, as freſh at this day, for the waſhing away of ſins, as it was even the ſame day that it flowed out of the bleſſed Side of our Saviour: And finally, that the whole ſubſtance of our Sacrifice, which is frequented of the Church in the Lord's Supper, conſiſteth in Prayers, Praiſe, and giving of Thanks, and in remembring, and in ſhewing forth of that Sacrifice once offered upon the Altar of the Croſs; that the ſame might continually be had in reverence by Myſtery, which once only, and no more, was offered for the Price of our Redemption.
Theſe are the things (right worſhipful Mr. Prolocutor, and ye the reſt of the Commiſſioners) which I could preſently prepare to the anſwering of your three foreſaid Propheſies, being deſtitute of all help in this ſhortneſs of time, ſudden warning, and want of Books.
Wherefore I appeal to my firſt Proteſtation, moſt humbly deſiring the help of the ſame (as much as may be) to be granted unto me. And becauſe ye have lately given moſt unjuſt and cruel Sentence againſt me, I do here appeal (ſo far forth as I may) to a more indifferent and juſt cenſure and judgment of ſome other Superior, Competent and Lawful Judge, and that according to the approved ſtate of the Church of England. Howbeit, I confeſs, I am ignorant what that is at this preſent, through the trouble and alteration of the ſtate of the Realm. But if this Appeal may not be granted to me upon Earth, then do I fly (even as to my only Refuge and alone Haven of Health) to the Sentence of the Eternal Judge, that is, of the Almighty God, to whoſe moſt merciful Juſtice towards us, and moſt juſt Mercifulneſs, I do wholly commit my ſelf, and all my Cauſe, nothing at all deſpairing of the Defence of my Advocate and alone Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, to whom with the Everlaſting Father, and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier of us all, be now and for ever all Honour and Glory. Amen.
Ridley.
Of Chriſt's Real Preſence there may be a double underſtanding: P. 56.If you take the Real Preſence of Chriſt according to the Real and Corporal Subſtance which he took of the Virgin, that Preſence being in Heaven, cannot be on the Earth alſo. But if you mean a Real Preſence, ſecundum rem aliquam quae ad Corpus Chriſti pertinet: i. e. according to ſomething that appertaineth to Chriſt's Body, certes the Aſcenſion and abiding in Heaven are no let at all to that Preſence. Wherefore Chriſt's Body after that ſort is here preſent to us in the Lord's Supper, by Grace, I ſay, as Epiphanius ſpeaketh it.
I grant the Bread to be converted and turned into the Fleſh of P. 60.Chriſt, but not by Tranſubſtantiation, but by a Sacramental Converſion or turning. It is Transformed, ſaith Theophylact in the ſame place, by a Myſtical Benediction, and by the acceſſion or coming of the Holy Ghoſt unto the Fleſh of Chriſt. He ſaith not, by expulſion, or driving away the Subſtance of Bread, and by ſubſtituting or putting in its place the Corporal Subſtance of Chriſt's Fleſh. And where he ſaith, It is not a Figure of the Body, we ſhould underſtand that ſaying, as he himſelf doth elſewhere add one, that is, it is no naked or bare Figure only. For Chriſt is preſent in his Myſteries; neither at any time, as Cyprian ſaith, doth the Divine Majeſty 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.