A brief declaration of the Lords Supper with some other determinations and disputations concerning…
A brief declaration of the Lords Supper with some other determinations and disputations concerning the same argument by the same author / written by Dr. Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London during his imprisonment ; to which is annexed an extract of several passages to the same purpose out of a book entitled Diallacticon, written by Dr. John Poynet.A brief declaration of the Lords Supper with some other determinations and disputations concerning the same argument by the same author / written by Dr. Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London during his imprisonment ; to which is annexed an extract of several passages to the same purpose out of a book intituled Diallacticon, written by Dr. John Poynet.
Nicholas Ridley 1500?–1555London: printed for Richard Chiswell, 1688
[10], 68 p. · 33k words · Wing R1452 · ESTC R29319
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Glin. Well, yet once again to you, thus. The very true Body 1of 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.
GLin. Well, yet once again to you, thus. The very true Body 1of 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. Well-beloved 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 Chrysostom saith, Honour thou it, and then eat it; but that Honour may not be given to
⟨p. 32⟩
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.
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 ⟨p. 32⟩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.
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 Elijah did turn the nature of Water; how much more then doth the Benediction of Christ here, both God and Man?
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?
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.
