MarginaliaAn. 1554. Aprill.I was not the author of it.

Iudges. *Marginalia* The Iudges geue an vntrue verdite: for D. Cranmer meaning by the Coūsell, spake no worde of Ridley. The Catechisme is so set foorth, as though the whole conuocation house had agreed to it. Cranmer sayd yesterday that you made it.

Rid. I thinke surely that he would not say so.

Ward. The Catechisme hath this clause: Si visibiliter & in terra. &c. i. If visibly and on the earth. &c.

Rid. I answere that those articles were set out, I both witting and consenting to them. Myne own hand wyll testifie the same, and Maister Cranmer put his hand to them lykewise, & gaue them to other afterward. Now, as for the place which you alledge out of it, that may easely be expounded, and without any inconuenience.

Ward. Christ is the power and vertue of his Father.

MarginaliaA poßibili ad esse non valet consequentia.Ergo he was not of so lyttle strength, that hee could not bryng to passe whatsoeuer he would hym selfe.

Rydley. I graunt.

Ward. Christ was the wysdome of the Father.

Ergo, that he spake, he spake wisely, and so as euery man might vnderstand: neyther was it hys mynde to speake one thing in steede of an other.

Ryd. All thys I graunt.

MarginaliaArgument of the wysedome and truth of Christ.Ward. Christ was likewyse the very truth: Ergo, he made and perfourmed in deede, that whych hee entended to make. And likely it is, that he doth neyther deceyue, nor could be deceyued, nor yet would go about to deceyue other.

Weston. Hilarius in Psalmum. 118. hath these words. MarginaliaHillar. in Psal. 118.Vera omnia sunt, & neq; ociosè, neque inutiliter constituta dei verba, sed extra omnem ambiguitatem superfluæ inanitis, ignita, & ignita vehementer, ne quid illic esse quod nō perfectum ac proprium sit, existimetur. That is: All Gods wordes or sayinges are true, and neyther idlely placed, nor vnprofitably, but fiery, & wonderfull  

Commentary     Close

Foxe added the word 'wonderful' to Hilary's commentary on Psalm 118 (cf. 1563, p. 969 with 1570, p. 1616; 1576, p. 1378; 1583, p. 1449).

Ward. He is the truth of þ^e Father: Ergo, he can neither deceiue, nor yet be deceiued, especially, I meane, when he spake at his latter end, & made his testament.

MarginaliaAunswer to M. Wardes Argument.Rid. Christ is the very truth of the father: and I perceiue well to what scope you driue your reason. Thys is but a farre fet compasse of wordes. If that those wordes of Christ: This is my body, which you meane, be rightly vnderstood, they are most true.

Ward. He tooke, he brake, he gaue. &c. what tooke he?

Rydley. Bread, hys body.

Ward. What brake he?

Rydley. Bread.

Ward. What gaue he?

Rydley. Bread.

Ward. Gaue he bread made of wheate, and materiall bread?

Ryd. I know not whether he gaue bread of wheate: but he gaue true and materiall bread.

Ward. I wyl proue the contrary by the scriptures.

MarginaliaThys argument is not formall in the 2. figure.He deliuered to them that, which he bad them take,

But he bad not them take materiall bread, but hys owne body.

Ergo he gaue not material bread, but his own body.

MarginaliaAunswere.Ryd. I deny the Minor. For he bad them take hys body sacramentally in materiall bread: and after that sort it was both bread, which he bad thē take, because þ^e substance was bread, & it was also his body, because it was the sacrament of his body, for the sanctifying and the comming to of the holy Ghost, whych is alwayes assistent to those misteries whych were instituted of Christ, and lawfully administred.

Harps. What is he that so sayth: By the comming vnto of the holy spirite?

Ryd. I haue Theophilact for myne author for thys maner of speaking. And here I bryng hym, that ye may vnderstand that phrase not to be myne, MarginaliaTheophilact. in Math. 26.vpon Mathew. 26. Furthermore, the said Theophilact wryting vpon these wordes: This is my body, sheweth, that the body of þ^e Lord is bread, which is sanctified on þ^e altar.

Ogle. That place of Theophilact maketh openly agaynst you. For he sayth in that place, that Christ said not: this is a figure of my body, but my body. For saith he, by an vnspeakeable operation it is transfourmed, although it seeme to vs to be bread.

MarginaliaThe wordes of Theophil, [he sayd not thys is a figure of my body] aunswered.Rid. It is not a figure, that is to say, non tantum est figura. i. it is not onely a figure of hys body.

West. Where haue you that word [tantum] onely?

Rid. It is not in that place, but he hath it in an other, and Austine doth so speake many tymes, and other Doctours moe.

West. Here Weston repeating the wordes of Theophilact in English, sayd: Hee sayth it is not a figure, and you say it is a figure.

And the same Theophilact sayth moreouer: that the conuersion or turning of the bread is made into the Lordes flesh.

*Marginalia* This argument is without perfect mode and forme, hauing the Minor negatiue in the 2. figure. That whych Christ gaue, we do geue.

But that whych hee gaue was not a figure of hys body, but his body:

Ergo we geue no figure, but hys body.

☞ As concerning the autority of Theophilactus, what he thought and might haue spokē of that Author, D. Ridley did not thē speake, nor coulde conueniently (as he him selfe afterward declared, reporting and writing wyth his own hand the disputations in the prison) because of the vproares and clamours, which were so great, and he of so many called vpon, that he could not aunswere as he would, and what he thought touching the autority of Theophilactus, but aunswered simply to that, whych was brought out of that Author, on thys sort.

I graunt (quoth he) the bread to be conuerted and turned into the flesh of Christ, but not by transubstantiation, MarginaliaConuersiō after what sorte in the sacrament.but by a sacramentall conuersion or turnyng. It is transformed, sayth Theophilactus, in the same place, by a mysticall benediction, and by the accession or comming of the holy Ghost vnto the flesh of Christ. He sayth not: by expulsion or driuyng away the substaunce of bread, and by substituting or putting in hys place the corporall substaunce of Christes flesh. And where he saith: It is not a figure of the body: we should vnderstand that saying, as he him selfe doth elswhere adde onely, that is: it is no naked or bare figure onely. For Christ is present in his misteries, neyther at any tyme (as Cyprian sayth) doth the diuine Maiestye absent hym selfe from the diuine mysteries.

West. You put in onely, and that is one lye. And I tell you farther, Pet. Martyr was fayne to deny þ^e Author, because þ^t place was so playne agaynst him. But marke his wordes, how he saith: It is no figure, but his flesh.

Rid. To take his wordes, and not his mekning, is to do iniury to the Autor.

MarginaliaThys Hardyng sat at the table amōg the Notaries.Hard. No other Doctor maketh more agaynst you. For the wordes in Greeke are, μετάστοιχεῖται, whych is in Latin, transelementatur, that is, turned from one element into an other. And shewing the cause why it is in forme of bread, he sayth: MarginaliaTheophil. in 6. Cap. Iohan.Quoniam infirmi sumus, & horrem⁹ crudas carnes comedere, maximè hominis carnem: ideo panis quidem apparet, sed caro est. That is: Because we are infirme, and abhorre to eate raw flesh, specially the flesh of man: therefore it appeareth bread, but it is flesh.

Rid. That word hath not that strength which you seeme to geue it. You strayne it ouer much, and yet it maketh not so much for your purpose. For the same author hath in an other place, ἡμεῖσ μεταστοιχειούμεθα, that is, MarginaliaThe word μεταστοιχει σθαι in Theophil. expended.we are transelemented, or transformed and chaunged into the body of Christ: and so by that word, in such meaning as you speake of, I could proue as well that wee are transformed in deede into the very body of Christ.

Ward. Learned Maister Doctor, thus you expound the place, Hoc est corpus meum: This is my body. i. a figure of my body.

Rid. Although I know there be that so expounde it, yet that exposition is not full to expresse the whole.