Bishop of London

Case Study 1.3 Ridley

Nicholas Ridley c.1500 - 1555 Bishop of London

Nicholas Ridley’s writings and statements on the Eucharist are important in understanding the sacramental theology of the Reformation period. Ridley admits during the disputations at Oxford, held in September, 1555, near the end of his life, that his thinking about the Eucharist first changed when he read the work of the ninth century monk of Corbie, Ratramnus (called Betram by Ridley). Ridley says:

“This Betram 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.” (Ridley, Disputations at Oxford, in Works, edn Christmas, 1841: 206).

Stone argues that Ridley first read Ratramnus’ treatise on the Eucharist in about 1545 (Stone, 1909: I, 184) but what seems clear is that Ridley’s eucharistic theology underwent change during his life.

1 Case Study 1.3 Ridley

Early statements from Ridley concerning this changed view of the Eucharist are found in the Lord’s Debate on the Lord’s Supper which took place in1548 (Tomlinson, undated). Ridley here maintains, in opposition to transubstantiation, that the bread and wine remain in their natural substance after the consecration but at the same time he argues that that Christ’s body and blood is present in the Eucharist by grace and power. In this debate, Ridley in dealing with the question of how the body of Christ is present in the Eucharist said:

“The human nature being in heaven may be said to be here, not in unity of nature but in the unity of Person. Where the one nature is, the other may be said to be.” (Tomlinson, undated, 16).

This suggests that Ridley is distancing himself from the idea that the human nature of Christ is present in the Eucharist in a carnal manner (immoderate realism) but at the same time affirming that the nature of Christ is present in the Eucharist in another manner that is not carnal or immoderate.

Ridley in the debate affirms in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist that:

“Concerning the outward thing it is very bread. But according to the power of God is ministered the very body. The carnal substance sitteth on the right hand of the Father. After this understanding of the presence he is not in the Sacrament. His is absent for he saith he will leave the world. And in another sense (he saith) he will be with us until the end of the world. … The manhood is ever in heaven; his divinity is everywhere present. … Christ sits in heaven. And is present in the Sacrament by his working.” (Tomlinson, undated, 37-38).

For Ridley it seems that the other manner of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, apart from the carnal substance which he says is in heaven and not in the Eucharist, is a manner of divinity which nonetheless ministers the very body of Christ to the communicant. It is this manner of divinity which works in the Eucharist such that the very body of Christ is ministered to those who receive the bread.

When asked about conversion of the bread, Ridley replies that:

“It is converted into the body of Christ.” (Tomlinson, undated: 38).

Significantly Ridley also denies that the bread is but a figure. In fact he says that it is more than a figure and that a transformation is involved after the consecration, arguing that:

“ … besides the natural bread there is an operation of Divinity, for my Senses when they taste and eat, perceive but a figure. … In that bread is the communion of the body of Christ in the good. … It is transformed, for of the

common bread before, it is made a Divine influence.” (Tomlinson, undated: 49-50).

As regards the manner of this transformation Ridley says:

“It is changed in nature, that is to say in property. (Tomlinson, undated: 51).

By ‘nature’ and ‘property’ he does not mean ‘substance’. Rather he specifies that Christ’s body is present by grace (Tomlinson, undated: 51). This means for Ridley that Christ’s body is “real in his benefits” (Tomlinson, undated: 52) although it is not the carnal substance in the Eucharist. Ridley insists that the bread remains since he says:

“Carnal reason cannot believe that bread is his body. Therefore grossly he imagineth, that thinketh bread remaineth no more.” (Tomlinson, undated: 56).

Ridley is rejecting any manner of Christ in the Eucharist which involves a change in the substance of the bread (transubstantiation) or any carnal presence of the body and blood of Christ (immoderate realism) but affirming nonetheless that the ‘nature’ or ‘property’ of the bread is changed so that it possesses a divine influence which ministers the very body of Christ to the communicant. This language suggests a moderate realist understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

In June, 1549 Ridley was involved in a disputation on the Eucharist at Cambridge. During the disputation he made the following statements concerning the bread and wine of the Eucharist:

“By the word of god the thing hath a being that it had not before; and we do consecrate the body that we may receive the grace and power of the body of Christ in heaven by this sacramental body. … I grant that there is a mutation of the common bread and wine spiritually into the Lord’s bread and wine by the sanctifying of them in the Lord’s word. But I deny there is any mutation of the substances; for there is no other change there indeed than there is in us, who, when we do receive the Sacrament worthily, then we are changed in Christ’s body, bones, and blood, not in nature but spiritually and by grace. … Christ calleth it his body when it is very bread. But better than the common bread because it was sanctified by the word of Christ. … He was betrayed and crucified in His natural body substantially and really in very deed; but in the Sacrament He is not so, but spiritually and figuratively only. … There is no change of the substances or of the accidents, but in very deed there do come unto the bread other accidents, insomuch that whereas the bread and wine were not sanctified before nor holy, yet afterwards they be sanctified, and so do receive then another sort of kind of virtue which they had not before. … Grace is there communicated to us by the benefits of Christ’s body sitting in heaven. … We are joined to His mystical body through His Holy Spirit; and the communion of His flesh is communicated

to us spiritually, through the benefit of His flesh in heaven. … Ye dream of a real presence of Christ’s body in the Sacrament by the force of the words spoken, which Scripture doth impugn. Christ dwelleth in us by faith, and by faith we receive Christ, both God and Man, both in spirit and in flesh; that is, this sacramental eating is the menu whereby we attain to the spiritual eating; … And these words, ‘This is My Body,’ are meant thus, By grace it is my true Body, but not my fleshy Body, as some of you suppose. … We are joined to Christ; that is, we are made partakers of His flesh and immortality. … And so in like case there is a union between man and woman; yet there is not transubstantiation of either or both. … The flesh indeed is fed with the body and blood of the Lord when our bodies by mortification are made like His body; and our body is nourished when the virtue and power of the body of Christ doth feed us.” (Ridley, Disputation at Cambridge, in Stone, 1909: II, 185-186).

In a Determination upon the disputation issued at the end of the disputation in June, 1549 (Ridley, Determination at Cambridge, in Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 167-179) Ridley stated that:

“This transubstantiation is clean against the words of scripture, and consent of the ancient catholic fathers. (Ridley, Determination at Cambridge, in Works edn. Christmas, 1841: 171).

He cites scriptural passages and passages from the Fathers to back up his view (Ridley, Determination at Cambridge, in Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 172-175). He then argues that:

“ They which say that Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist, do take from him the verity of man’s nature. … So they that defend transubstantiation ascribe that to the human nature, which only belongeth to the divine nature.” (Ridley, Determination at Cambridge, in Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 175-176).

Ridley’s final point in his Determination is that Christ is ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. Citing both Scripture and the Father he concludes that transubstantiation cannot be true since it would have Christ’s body “in no one certain place limited [i.e. heaven]”. (Ridley, Determination at Cambridge, in Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 178). Ridley also makes the point that he is persuaded on the basis of Scripture “that there is no other oblation of Christ … but that which was once made upon the cross.” (Ridley, Determination at Cambridge, in Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 178).

Following his arrest and committal to the Tower in 1553, Ridley was sent to Oxford in September, 1555, for a disputation and examination before the Queen’s Commissioners. A lengthy account of this disputation and examination is found in The Works of Bishop Ridley (edn. Christmas, 1841: 185-286). Three propositions had been set out by

Convocation in April, 1554 for the disputation at Oxford (Stone, 1909: II, 187). These were:

“ First, Whether the natural body of Christ our Saviour conceived of the Virgin Mary, and offered for man’s redemption upon the cross, is verily and really in the sacrament by virtue of God’s word spoken by the priests, & Secondly, Whether in the sacrament, after the words of consecration, be any other substance, & Thirdly, Whether the mass be a sacrifice propitiatory.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 192).

Ridley’s responses to these propositions are extensive. He does, however, deny all three, setting out his argument by use of Scripture and the Fathers. In relation to the first proposition, Ridley argues that the idea that the natural body of Christ is present in the Sacrament “disagreeth from God’s word, from the rule of faith, and cannot draw with it many absurdities” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 197). Further he says, “If, therefore, he be now really present in the body of his flesh, then must the supper cease: for remembrance is not of a thing present, but of a thing past and absent.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 199). This seems to be a denial of immoderate realism, not of realism in general - see quotes below where Ridley speaks about the way in which Christ is really present in the Eucharist. In speaking to his examiners, Ridley also says in relation to the first proposition: “… think not, because I disallow that presence which the first proposition maintaineth, … that I therefore go about to take away the true presence of Christ’s body in his supper rightly and duly ministered, which is grounded upon the word of God, and made more plain by the commentaries of the faithful fathers.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 201). The second proposition he says “is manifestly false, directly against the word of God, the nature of the sacrament and the most evident testimonies of the godly fathers.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 202). In relation to the third proposition he says, “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.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 207). Citing Hebrews, Ridley argues that there can be only “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 … no more offering for sin.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 208). The use of the words “was, is and shall be” may suggest anamnesis. Perhaps Ridley is only condemning the immoderate realist view of the sacrifice (i.e. re-iteration) and not the moderate view of anamnesis where the effects of the sacrifice of Christ are known. The fact that Ridley specifies ‘propitiatory sacrifice’ (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 209) is worthy of mention. It is also important to consider these words: “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 administered” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 209). This is suggestive of anamnesis and a denial of immoderate realism in relation to the sacrifice of Christ. Consider also: “That the whole substance of our sacrifice, which is frequented of the church in the Lord’s supper, consisteth in prayers, praise, and giving thanks, and in remembering and shewing forth of that sacrifice once offered upon the altar of the cross;

5 Case Study 1.3 Ridley that the same might continually be had in remembrance by mystery, which once only, and no more, was offered for the price of our redemption” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 211). The idea of shewing forth and continually is suggestive of anamnesis and of moderate realism, but at the same time the quote distinguishes this firmly from any idea of re-iteration or immoderate realism.

The following quotations are set out here to show the main themes of Ridley’s argument in disputation and examination.

“Of Christ’s real presence there may be a double understanding. 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 earth also. But if you mean a real presence secundum rem aliquam quae ad corpus Christi pertinet, that is, according to something that pertaineth 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.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 213).

“For Christ to be corporally here on earth, when corporally he is resident in heaven, is clean contrary to the holy Scriptures, as Augustine saith: ‘The body of Christ is in heaven: but his truth is dispersed in every place.’ (Tractates on John’s Gospel, xxx, paragraph 1685)”. (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 215).

The distinction here been real presence as immoderate realism and real presence as moderate realism is important. Does the word ‘truth’ in the quote from Augustine equate with the notion of instantiation and identity in nature? Weston (Ridley’s examiner) goes on to argue that “Christ, in very deed, is both in earth and in heaven together, and at one time, both one and the same natural Christ, after the verity and substance of his very body.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 215). Weston’s argument is that of immoderate realism. Ridley clearly rejects this by denying the antecedent part of Weston’s statement, but does not it seems reject moderate realism. Weston however cites (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 215-216) Chrysostom (Homilies xvii, 10) where Chrysostom says that there is ‘one Christ in all places, both perfect here and perfect there, one only body’. Weston therefore argues that “We offer one thing at all times. There is one Christ in all places, both here complete and there complete. … By Chrysostom, there is one body both on heaven and on earth.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 216). Ridley denies that there is “one body in all places” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 216). Ridley says in relation to Chrysostom’s use of the words ‘one body’,

“ But not after the manner of bodily substance is he in all places, nor by circumscription of place. … One sacrifice is in all places, because of the unity of him whom the sacrifice doth signify: not that the sacrifices be all one and the same. … I say, that both Christ and the sacrifice of Christ are there: Christ by his spirit, grace and verity; the sacrifice by signification. Thus I grant with Chrysostom, that there is one host or sacrifice, and not

many. And this our host is called one, by reason of the unity of that one, which one only all our hosts do represent. That only host was never other but that which was once offered on the altar of the cross, of which all our hosts are but sacramental examples. And whereas you allege out of Chrysostom, that Christ is offered in many places at once (both here full Christ, and there full Christ), I grant it to be true; that is, that Christ is offered in many places at once, in a mystery and sacramentally, and that he is full Christ in all those places; but not after the corporal substance of our flesh which he took, but after the benediction which giveth life.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 216-217).

Again this seems to be a clear distinction between immoderate and moderate realism. Ridley summarises his position by distinguishing between two Latin terms. He says: “Your controversy is about ‘existens in terra’, that is, being on earth. If ‘existere’, ‘to be’, be referred as unto place, I deny that Christ after than sort was on earth. But if it be referred as to the verity of the body, then I grant it.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 220). This is a very significant admission since Ridley is saying that there is a manner in which Christ is present on earth in the Sacrament. This is not a corporal presence (immoderate realism) but a presence that is spiritual and by grace and nonetheless true or real (seemingly moderate realism). Ridley also says:

“ I grant that Christ did both, that is, both took up his flesh with Him ascending up, and also did leave the same behind Him with us, but after a diverse manner and respect. For He took his flesh with Him after the true and corporal substance of His body and flesh; again, He left the same in mystery to the faithful in the Supper, to be received after a spiritual communication, and by grace. Neither is the same received in the Supper only, but also at other times, by hearing the Gospel, and by faith.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 222).

“He that sitteth there [in heaven], is here present in mystery, and by grace; and is holden of the godly, such as communicate him, not only sacramentally with the hand of the body, but much more wholesomely with the hand of the heart, and by inward drinking is received: but by the sacramental signification he is holden of all men.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 223).

It seems that Ridley did not interpret the ‘sitting in heaven’ in some literal or empirical manner since he says earlier in the disputation, “I would not have you think that I do imagine or dream upon any such manner of sitting, as these men here sit in the school.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 213). It seems that Ridley’s view of the presence in heaven is not a strictly empirical one but rather a metaphysical understanding. Such a use of metaphysics lends support to the idea that Ridley adopts a moderate realist position in relation to the Eucharist. Further he says in another place, “Christ is not idle in his Sacraments. Is not the miracle great, trow you, when bread, which is wont to sustain the body, becometh food for the soul? He that understandeth not that miracle, he

7 Case Study 1.3 Ridley understandeth not the force of the mystery. God grant we may every one of us understand his truth, and obey the same.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 223). Further he argues in a manner that seems to suggest a moderate realist presence of Christ in the Eucharist by means of a conversion in the elements. He says:

“I grant, … the bread to be converted and turned into the flesh of Christ; but not by transubstantiation, but by sacramental converting or turning. ‘It is transformed,’ saith Theophylact … 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 the bread, and by substituting or putting in its place the corporal substance of Christ’s flesh. And whereas he saith, ‘It is not a figure of the body’, we should understand that saying, as he himself doth elsewhere add ‘only’, 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.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 230).

Ward in questioning Ridley suggests that he would expound the words, Hoc est corpus meum, i.e. ‘This is my body’ as ‘a figure of my body’ (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 231). Ridley in answering says:

“Although I know that there be that so expound it, yet that expression is not full to express the whole.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 231). “I never said that Christ gave only a figure of his body; for indeed he gave himself in a real communication, that is, he gave his flesh after a communication of his flesh. … I say, he gave his own body verily; but he gave it by a real, effectual, and spiritual communication.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 234).

“I also worship Christ in the Sacrament, but not because 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 acknowledge gladly the true body of Christ to be in the Lord’s Supper in such sort as the Church of Christ, … by grace and spiritually, … but not by corporal presence of the body of His flesh.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 235-236).

Glyn in questioning Ridley asks about the worshipping of Christ in the sacrament. Ridley replies:

“ We do handle the signs reverently: but we worship the sacrament as a sacrament, not as a thing signified by the sacrament.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 236).

In reply to this Glyn asks: “What is the symbol or sacrament?” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 236) to which Ridley replies: “Bread.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 236). Glyn follows this immediately by asking,: “Ergo, We worship bread.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 236) to which Ridley replies:.

“There is a deceit in this word ‘adoramus’. We worship the symbols, when reverently we handle them. We worship Christ wheresoever we perceive his benefits; but we understand his benefits to be greatest in the sacrament. … We adore and worship Christ in the eucharist. And if you mean the external sacrament; I say, that also is to be worshipped as a sacrament.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 236).

Curtop in his questioning of Ridley states that: “But true and pure blood did flow from the side of Christ: Ergo, His true and pure blood is in the cup.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 237). This seems to be an example of immoderate realism. Ridley in responding says:

“ It is his true blood which is in the chalice, I grant, and the same which sprang from the side of Christ. But how? It is blood indeed, but not after the same manner, after which it sprang from his side. For here is the blood, but by way of sacrament. Again I say, like as the bread of the sacrament and of thanksgiving is called the body of Christ given for us; so the cup of the Lord is called the blood which sprang from the side of Christ: but the sacramental bread is called the body, because it is the sacrament of the body. Even so likewise the cup is called the blood also which flowed out of Christ’s side, instituted of the Lord himself for our singular commodity, namely for our spiritual nourishment.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 227- 238).

Weston comes in and says: “Then we have blood in the chalice.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 238) to which Ridley replies: “It is true; but by grace, and in a sacrament” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 238). Seemingly Ridley is denying any form of carnal presence (immoderate realism) and affirming a different manner of presence, that is, a true sacramental presence (moderate realism) which provides spiritual nourishment.

Watson then refers Ridley to John 6: 54 where Christ speaks of those who eat his flesh and drink his blood living for ever. He asks whether he “doth signify in those words the eating of his true and natural flesh, or else of the bread and symbol?” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 238). Ridley replies:

“ I understand that place of the very flesh of Christ to be eaten, but spiritually: and further I say that the sacrament also pertaineth unto the spiritual manducation: for without the spirit to eat the sacrament is to eat it unprofitably; for whoso eateth not spiritually, he eateth his own condemnation.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 238).

Watson then questions Ridley on the nature of a sacrament. He states: “It is a thing commonly received of all, that the sacraments of the new law give grace to them that worthily receive.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 239) to which Ridley replies affirming a moderate realism where the sacrament gives the signified grace, saying:

“True it is, that grace is given by the sacrament; but as an instrument. The inward virtue and Christ give the grace through the sacrament.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 239).

Watson then observes that: “there is difference between the mystical body and natural body.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 239). Ridley readily agrees, saying: “There is, I grant you, a difference; but the head of them both is one.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 239). This seems to be a clear use of two different instantiations of the one universal. Christ is both a mystical body and a natural body, the two being different, even though the head of them both (i.e. Christ) is one. This seems to be a clear statement of moderate realism. Ridley in reference to the bread and wine then states that since they are sanctified and made the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord, “they have a promise of grace annexed to them; namely of spiritual partaking of the body and blood of Christ to be communicated and given, not to the bread and wine, but to them which worthily do receive the sacrament.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 240). Here then seems to be a distancing from moderate realism in relation to the bread and wine, following so closely on from what seems to be an affirmation of moderate realism in relation to these elements. The instantiation, Ridley says here, is in the communicant and not in the bread and wine. This is seemingly what he means when he says that grace is given by the sacrament, but as an instrument (see above in quote from page 239). The giving of grace by the sacrament does not exist as an end in itself but as an instrument of conferring that grace on those who receive the sacrament. This is suggestive of moderate realism again, but Ridley is careful to exclude any corporal or immoderate realist sense in what he is saying. He does this when he says:

“The Lamb of God is in heaven, according to the verity of the body: and here he is with us in a mystery, according to this power; not corporally.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 248).

“ That heavenly Lamb is, as I confess, on the Table, but by a spiritual presence by grace, and not after any corporal substance of His flesh taken of the Virgin Mary.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 249).

It is this ‘spiritual presence by grace’ and talk of Christ being ‘with us in a mystery’ that strongly suggests a moderate realism which at the same time is careful to deny any corporal presence.

Pie asked Ridley: “What say you to that council, where it is said, that the priest doth offer an unbloody sacrifice of the body of Christ?” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 250) to which Ridley replied:

“I say, it is well said, if it be rightly understood. … It is called unbloody, and is offered after a certain manner, and in a mystery, and as a representation of that bloody sacrifice; and he doth not lie, who saith Christ to be offered.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 250).

This reply is suggestive of a moderate realist sense of eucharistic sacrifice where the sacrifice is offered in an unbloody manner which is a mystery and representation of the once only bloody sacrifice of the cross.

Weston raises the question of worshipping the same body which the wise men worshipped in the manger. To this Ridley replies:

“We worship, I confess, the same true Lord and Saviour of 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, … not in carnal servitude, that is, we do not worship servilely the signs of the things, … But we behold with the eyes of faith Him present after grace, and spiritually set upon the Table; and we worship Him which sitteth above.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 251).

Weston continues, arguing that Mary did hold in her womb the same thing that the priest holds in his hand in the Eucharist. Ridley answers by saying:

“ I grant that the priest holdeth the same thing, but after another manner. She [Mary holding Christ in her womb] did hold the natural body; the priest holdeth the mystery of the body.” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 251).

This seems to be a crucial example of Ridley arguing for different instantiations in a moderate realist manner. The manner in which Ridley means holding in the priest’s hand is described as “spiritually” (Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 251).

Ridley’s last work on the Eucharist is entitled A Brief Declaration of The Lord’s Supper or A Treatise against the Error of Transubstantiation (edn. Christmas, 1841: 1-45). This work, written somewhere between April, 1554 and October, 1555, was completed during the time of his imprisonment at Oxford (Parker, 1966: 290). In this treatise Ridley sets out to expound the truth in regard to the controversy concerning the Eucharist (Ridley, Treatise, edn. Christmas, 1841: 5).

Ridley not only rejects transubstantiation but also any view which sees the sacrament as a bare sign. He clearly distinguishes between those who:

“ … do teach and believe, do go about to make the holy sacrament, ordained by Christ himself, a thing no better than a piece of common bread. ..[and those that] .. do make the holy sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ nothing else, but a bare sign, or a figure to represent Christ.” (Ridley, Treatise, edn. Christmas, 1841: 10).

Whilst Ridley readily acknowledges a diversity of view regarding the Eucharist he states that the whole question does:

“… chiefly hang upon this one question, which is, What is the matter of the sacrament, whether it is the natural substance of bread, or the natural substance of Christ’s own body? The truth of this question, truly tried out and agreed upon, no doubt will cease the controversy in all the rest. For if it be Christ’s own natural body, born of the Virgin; then assuredly (seeing that all learned men in England, so far as I know, both new and old, grant there to be but one substance), then, I say, they must needs grant transubstantiation, that is, a change in the substance of bread into the substance of Christ’s body: then also they must grant the carnal and corporal presence of Christ’s body: then must the sacrament be adored with the honour due unto Christ himself, for the unity of the two natures in one person: then, if the priest do offer the sacrament, he doth offer indeed Christ himself … Now, on the other side, if, after the truth shall be truly tried out, it be found that the substance of bread is the material substance of the sacrament; although, for the change of use, office, and dignity of the bread, the bread indeed sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ, as the water in baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration, and yet the material substance thereof remaineth all one, as was before; if (I say) the true solution of that former question, whereupon all those controversies do hang, be, that the natural substance of bread is the material substance in the sacrament of Christ’s blessed body; then must it follow of the former proposition (confessed of all that be named to be learned, so far as I do know in England,) which is, that there is but one material substance in the sacrament of the body, and one only likewise in the sacrament of the blood, that there is no such indeed and in truth as they call transubstantiation, for the substance of bread remaineth still in the sacrament of the body. Then also the natural substance of Christ’s human nature, which he took of the Virgin Mary, is in heaven, where it reigneth now in glory, and not here inclosed under the form of bread. Then that godly honour, which is only due unto God the Creator, may not be done unto the creature without idolatry and sacrilege, is not to be done unto the holy sacrament. … Finally, then doth it follow, that Christ’s blessed body and blood, which was once offered and shed upon the cross, being available for the sins of all the whole world, is offered up no more in the natural substance thereof, neither by the priest, nor any other thing.” (Ridley, Treatise, edn. Christmas, 1841: 11-12).

Ridley is careful to exclude from the discussion any suggestion that those who deny the truth of transubstantiation also exclude Christ’s presence from the sacrament. He affirms that the presence of Christ’s body and blood is in the sacrament (Ridley, Treatise, edn. Christmas, 1841: 13) but is careful to define what kind of presence it is. Ridley’s position is to:

“ … deny the presence of Christ’s body in the natural substance of his human and assumed nature, and grant the presence of the same by grace: that is, .. [to] .. affirm and say, that the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ is only remaining in heaven, and so shall be unto the latter day, when he shall come again in glory, … And the same natural substance of the very body and blood of Christ, because it is united in the divine nature in Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, therefore it hath not only life in itself, but is also able to give, and doth give life unto so many as be , or shall be partakers thereof: That is, that to all who do believe on his name, which are not born of blood, as St John saith, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but are born of God - though the self-same substance abide still in heaven, and they, for the time of their pilgrimage, dwell here upon earth; by grace (I say), that is, by the gift of this life (mentioned in John) and the properties of the same meet for our pilgrimage here upon earth, the same body of Christ is here present with us.” (Ridley, Treatise, edn. Christmas, 1841: 13).

Ridley’s answer to the chief question he poses is stated as follows:

“ … that the natural substance of bread and wine is the true material substance of the holy sacrament of the blessed body and blood of our Saviour Christ.” (Ridley, Treatise, edn. Christmas, 1841: 15).

In supporting this conclusion Ridley appeals to Scripture. In Scripture, he says:

“It appeareth plainly, that Christ calleth very bread his body. For that which he took was very bread … ; 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 he took, brake and gave to this disciples, he said 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 just needs have another meaning, … And that is this: ‘Do this in remembrance of me’. Whereupon it seemeth to me to be evident, that Christ did take bread, and called it his body, for that he would thereby institute a perpetual remembrance of his body, specially of that singular benefit of our redemption, which he would then procure and purchase unto us by his body upon the cross. But bread, retaining still its 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 in any wise his natural body, for that were confusion of substances.” (Ridley, Treatise, edn. Christmas, 1841: 15-16).

Ridley’s theology of the Eucharist is influenced by Reformed doctrine and denies transubstantiation and any corporal understanding of Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. At the same time, however, Ridley seemingly suggests a moderate realism in his eucharistic theology. Ridley’s writings on the Eucharist suggest an instantiation of

13 Case Study 1.3 Ridley the nature of Christ in the bread and wine and a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is spiritual and not corporal. Ridley’s words also suggest a moderate realist understanding of a continual remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, which denies that Christ’s sacrifice is re-iterated in the Eucharist but nonetheless allows that the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are to be found in the Eucharist.