Marginalia1554. Aprill.some say that the substance of bread miraculously returneth agayne, and some deny it. MMarginaliaAll the rest that foloweth was not read, because the Prolocutour made post hast vnto the argumentes.Other some affirme þ^t the real body of Christ goeth downe into þ^e stomacke of the receiuers & both there abide so lōg only as they shal continue to bee good, but an other sort hold that the body of Christ is caryed into heauen so soone as the formes of bread bee brused with the teeth. O works of miracles, Truly and most truly I see þ^t fulfilled in these men, wherof Saint Paull prophecied. 2. Thessal. 2. Because they haue not receiued the loue of the truth that they might be saued, God shall send them strong delusions that they shoulde beleue lyes, and be all damned which haue not beleued the truth. This grosse presence hath brought foorth that fond phantasie of MarginaliaBy this deuise of concomitance, the Papistes imagine asmuch to be receaued vnder one kind as bothconcomitaunce, wherby is broken at this day and abrogated the commaundement of the Lorde for the distributyng of the Lordes cup to the laytie.

Marginalia6. It geueth occasion to heretickes.It geueth occasion to heretickes to mayntayne and defend their errours: as to Martion, which sayd that Christ had but a phantasticall body: and to Eutiches whiche wickedly confounded the two natures in Christ.

Marginalia7. It falsifieth the sayinges of the old doctors.Finally, it falsifieth the sayinges of the godly fathers and the Catholicke fayth of the church, which Vigilius a Martyr and graue wryter sayth was taught of the Apostles, cōfirmed with the bloud of Martyrs, and was continually mayntayned by the faythfull, vntyll hys tyme. By the sayinges of the fathers, I meane of Iustine, Irenee, Tertullian, Origene, Eusebius, Emisene, Athanasius, Cyrill, Epiphanius, Hierome, Chrysostom, Augustine, Vigilius, Fulgētius, Bertram, and others most auncient fathers. All those places, as I am sure I haue read makyng for my purpose, so am I well assured þ^t I could shew the same, if I might haue the vse of myne owne bookes, Whiche I will take on me to do, euen vpon the perill of my life, and the losse of all that I may lose in this world.

But now (my brethren) thinke not, because I disallowe that presence which this first proposition maynteineth (as a presence whiche I take to be forged, phantasticall, and besides the authoritie of Gods word, pernitiously brought into the Church by the Romanistes) MarginaliaThe true presence of Christes body in the supper not denyed.that I therfore go about to take away the true presence of Christes body in his Supper rightly and duely ministred, which is grounded vp on the word of God, and made more playne by the Commētaries of the faythfull fathers. They that thinke so of mee, the Lord knoweth how farre they are deceiued. And to make the same euident vnto you, I will in fewe wordes declare what true presence of Christes body in the sacramēt of the Lordes Supper I hold and affirme with the word of God, and the auncient fathers.

MarginaliaThe fayth and confession of D. Ridley, in affirming the true presence in the sacrament.I say and confesse with the Euangelist Luke and with the Apostle Paull, that the bread on the whiche thankes are geuen, is the body of Christ in the remembraūce of hym and of his death, to be set forth perpetually of the faythfull vntill his commyng.

I say and confesse the bread whiche we breake to be the Communion and partakyng of Christes body, with the aūcient and the faythfull fathers.

I say and beleue that there is not onely a signification of Christes body set foorth by the Sacrament, but also that therewith is geuen to the Godly and faythfull, MarginaliaThe grace of life and immortality geuen with the sacrament to the faythfull.the grace of Christes body, that is, the foode of lyfe and immortalitie. And this I hold with Cyprian.

I say also with MarginaliaLife eatē. August.S. Augustine, that we eate lyfe, and we drynke life: with MarginaliaThe Lord felt in grace. Emiss.Emisene, that we feele the Lord to be present in grace: with MarginaliaCelestiall foode receaued Athan.Athanasius, that wee receaue celestiall foode which commeth from aboue: the propertye of naturall communion, with MarginaliaThe Property of natural communion receiued Hilar.Hillarius: the nature of fleshe and benediction which geueth lyfe in bread and wyne, wyth Cyrill: and with the same Cyrill, MarginaliaThe vertue of christes flesh. Cyrill.the vertue of the very fleshe of Christ, lyfe and grace of his body, the propertye of the onely begotten, that is to say, life, as hee him selfe in playne wordes expoundeth it.

I confesse also with MarginaliaThe misticall aduent of Christ. Basill.Basill, that we receyue the mysticall Aduent and commyng of Christ, grace, and the vertue of his very nature: the Sacrament of his very fleshe, with MarginaliaThe sacrament of his very flesh. Ambros.Ambrose: the body by grace, with MarginaliaThe body by grace Epiphan.Epiphanius: spirituall fleshe, but not that whiche was crucified, with MarginaliaSpiritual flesh, but not that which was crucified Hierom.Hierome: Grace flowyng into a sacrifice, and the grace of the spirite, with MarginaliaGrace flowing in to a sacrifice Chrisost.Chrysostome: grace and inuisible verytye, grace and societie of the members of Christes body, with MarginaliaGrace and inuisible veritie August.Augustine.

Finally, with Bertram (which was the last of al these) I confesse that Christes body is in the Sacrament in thys respect: namely (as hee wryteth) because there is in it the spirite of Christ, that is, MarginaliaThe power of Gods word feeding the soule Bertram.the power of the worde of God, which not onely feedeth the soule, but also clenseth it. Out of these I suppose it may clearely appeare vnto all men, how farre we are from that opinion wherof some go about falsly to sclaunder vs to the world, MarginaliaThe protestants falsly belyed to teach nothing but a figure in the sacrament.saying we teach that the godly and faythfull should receyue nothyng els at the Lordes table, but a figure or the body of Christ.

After the consecration there remayneth no substance of bread and wyne, neyther any other substance, then the substance of God and man.

MarginaliaAunswere to the 2 proposition.THe second conclusion is manifestly false, directly agaynst the word of God, the nature of the sacrament, & the most euident testimonies of the godly fathers: MarginaliaThe 2. proposition of transubstantiation denyed.and it is the rotten foundation of the other two conclusions propoūded by you, both of the first, and of the thyrd. I will not therefore now tary vpon any further explication of thys aunswere, beyng contented with that which is already added afore to the aūswere of the first proposition.

MarginaliaConfirmation of his aunswere.IT is very plaine by the word of God, that Christ did geue bread vnto hys Disciples, and called it his body:

But the substāce of bread is an other maner of substāce, then is the substance of Christes body God and man:

Therfore the conclusion is false.

The second part of myne argument is playne, and the first is proued thus:

Bread is the body of Christ:

Ergo, it is bread.

*Marginalia* The rule of Logicke is this. A propositione de tertio adiacante, ad eam quæ est de secundo, cum verbo recto significante existentiam, valet consequentia affirmatiuè. &c. A tertio adiacante ad secundū adiacens cum verbi substantiui pura copula.

The second part of my argument is playne, and þ^e first is proued thus: MarginaliaThe Maior proued.As Christ who is the verity, spake of the bread: This is my body which shall be betraied for you, speakyng there of hys naturall body: euē so Paule moued with the same spirit of truth, said: Marginalia1. Cor. 10.We, though we be many, yet are all one bread, & one body, which be partakers of one bread.

MarginaliaThe Argument holdeth a destructione antecedentis, ad dostructionem consequentis.We may no more beleue bread to be transubstantiate into the body of Christ, then þ^e wine into his bloud.

But the wyne is not trāsubstantiate into his bloud:

Ergo, neyther is that bread therefore transubstantiate into hys body.

¶ The first part of this argument is manifest, & the second part is proued out of the authoritie of Gods worde in Mathew & Marke: MarginaliaMath. 26. Marke. 14.I wyll not drinke of the fruite of the vine. &c. Nowe the fruite of the vine was wyne,  

Latin/Greek Translations     Close

Second Proposition, Fourth Argument

The following information is kindly supplied by D H Frost of St David's Catholic College, Cardiff. Citations are derived from his work in progress onSacrament an Alter (SA), a Tudor Catholic eucharistic catena, drawn from Foxe's 1576 account of the Oxford Disputations, translated into Cornish and appended to the Cornish translation of Bishop Bonner's Homilies, BL Add. MS 46397.

[Back to Top]

not in SA

Nowe the fruite of the vine was wyne, which Christ dranke and gaue to hys disciples to drynke. Wyth thys sentence agreeth playnly the place of Chrysostome on the xx. chapter of Mathew.

St John Chrysostom, Homiliæ in Matthæum, 82, 2 - PL 58, 740

Migne has:

Sed cur post resurrectionem, non aquam, sed vinum bibit? Ut aliam malam hæresim radicitus evelleret. Quia enim quidam in mysteriis aqua utuntur, ut ostendat se et cum mysteria tradidit vino usum fuisse, et post resurrectionem sine mysteriis in vulgari mensa vinum abhuisse, Ex genimine vitis, inquit. Vinea autem vinum, non aquam gignit ....

[Back to Top]

And wherefore did He not drink water after he had risen again, but wine. To pluck up by the roots another wicked heresy. For since there are certain who use water in the mysteries; to show that both when He delivered the mysteries He had given wine, and that when He had risen and was setting before them a mere meal without mysteries, He used wine, 'of the fruit', He saith, 'of the vine'. But a vine produces wine, not water.

[Back to Top]

Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers (NPNF) translation of this work p. 492 col. 2 notes, however, that he is talking about Gnostic use ofonly waterin the sacrament.

Latin/Greek Translations     Close

Cyprian - Epistle LXIII

The following information is kindly supplied by D H Frost of St David's Catholic College, Cardiff. Citations are derived from his work in progress onSacrament an Alter (SA), a Tudor Catholic eucharistic catena, drawn from Foxe's 1576 account of the Oxford Disputations, translated into Cornish and appended to the Cornish translation of Bishop Bonner's Homilies, BL Add. MS 46397.

[Back to Top]

not in SA

As Cyprian doth also, affirming that there is no blood, if wine be not in the cup:

St Cyprian of Carthage, Epistolae 63, 2 - PL 4, 374-5

Migne has:

Nam cum dicat Christus, 'Ego sum vitis vera', sanguis Christi non aqua est utique, sed vinum. Nec potest videri sanguis ejus, quo redempti et vivificati sumus, esse in calice quando vinum desit calici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur, qui Scriptuarum omnium sacramento ac testimonio prædicetur.

Ante-Nicene Fathers translation (ANF), vol 5, p. 358 - The Epistles of Cyprian 62 (as in Oxford edition):

'For when Christ says,I am the true vine,the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can his blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is nowine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth,which is declared by the sacrament and the testimony of all the Scriptures'.

[Back to Top]

Ridley is perhaps straining the point by taking the passage out of context. Cyprian is asserting the importance of the elements used in celebrating the sacrament - that they be wine and water, not water. Secondly, he is failing to notice that Cyprian is talking of the wine in its capacity to 'show forth' - that is, its ability to give an outward appearance. His opponents would not quarrel with this, and could even use the passage to defend their own view of transubstantiation.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThis argument holdeth after the same rule as dyd the other before.

The second part of the argument is proued because they should then transubstantiate the cup, or that which is in the cup into the new Testament: but neyther of these thynges can be done, and very absurde it is to confesse the same.

Da-

The circumstances of the scripture,   Commentary     Close The first part of the syllogism which forms Ridley's sixth argument supporting his second proposition was rewritten in the 1570 edition to avoid repetition and circumlocution (cf. Rerum, p. 666 and 1563, p. 961 with 1570, p. 1610; 1576, p. 1373; 1583, p. 1444). the Analogie and proportion of the sacraments, and the testimony of the faithful Fathers ought to rule vs in takyng the mea- nyng of the holy scripture touchyng the sacrament.