A57277:56
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.
London: printed for Richard Chiswell, 1688
A BRIEF DECLARATION OF THE Lords Supper.A BREEFE DECLARATION OF THE Lordes Supper.
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.
Here it appeareth plainly, that Christ calleth very bread his body. For that which he took, was very bread. In this all men do agree. And that which he took, after he had given thanks, he brake: and that which he took and brake, he gave to his disciples: and that which be took, brake, and gave to his Disciples he said him self of it: This is my body. So it appeareth plainly that Christ called very bread his body. But very bread cannot be his body in very substance thereof: therefore it must needs have an other meaning. Which meaning appeareth plainly what it is, by the next sentence that followeth immediately, both in Luke and in Paul. And that is this.
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.
Do this in remembrance of me. Where-upon it seemeth unto me to be evident, that Christ did take bread, and called it his body, for that he would thereby institute a perpetual remembrance of ⟨p. 10⟩his body: specially of the singular benefit of our redemption, which he would then procure and purchase unto us by his body upon the Cross. But bread retaining still his own very natural substance, may be thus by grace, (and in a sacramental signification) his body: whereas else the very bread which he took, brake, and gave them, could not be any wise his natural body. For that were confusion of substances, and therefore the very words of Christ joins with the next sentence following, both enforceth us to confess the very bread, to remain still, and also openeth unto us, how that bread may be and is thus by his divine power his body, which was given for us. But here I remember I have red in some writers of the contrary opinion, which Christ did take, be brake. For say they, after his taking, he blessed it as Mark doth 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 bread, which then was not there, but only the form thereof.