237. A LIKE DISPUTATION IN CAMBRIDGE
The like disputation also, about the same time, was appointed and commenced at Cambridge, concerning the same matter of the sacrament, the king's visitors being directed down for the same purpose by the king; the names of which visitors were these, Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, Thomas, bishop of Ely, Master John Cheke, the king's schoolmaster, Dr. May, civilian, and Thomas Wendy, the king's physician. The conclusions in that disputation propounded were these:
The first disputation, holden at Cambridge the twentieth day of June, A.D. 1549, before the king's Majesty's commissioners, by Dr. Madew , respondent, whose first conclusion was this:
"Transubstantiation cannot be proved by the plain and manifest words of Scripture; nor can thereof be necessarily collected, nor yet confirmed, by the consents of the ancient fathers for these thousand years past." (Dr. Glyn, Master Langdale, Master Segewick, Master Young, opponents.)
Dr. Madew's Declaration.
"First of all," quoth he, "I am very sorry, and do not a little lament the shortness of time, to declare and discuss such weighty matters of religion in, as these be. But, that notwithstanding, if I had had more plenty of time indeed, yet you shall understand how that I have ever, both in heart and mind, (if otherwise I could have avoided it,) abhorred all scholastical disputations, and subtile sophistications. In consideration whereof, I beseech those that are to dispute, not to allege or bring forth any dismembered or curtailed sentences, or wrested, (as happeneth many times,) but the whole and full sentences either of the Scriptures, or of the ancient doctors; yea, and to avouch such authors' sayings, as are not suspected, or feigned, but such as be their own very sayings indeed; which if they do, there is no doubt, but the clear light of this our disputation shall the sooner appear, and be manifest to this auditory.
"And for a further declaration of my part, you shall understand, that this my preface, in my said former most catholic and godly conclusion, shall consist in three principal points.
"First, What thing it was that Christ gave to his disciples.
"Secondly, What season or time this transubstantiation did begin.
"Thirdly, How many devilish abominations have ensued upon that horrible and pestilent invention.
"As concerning the first, that is, what thing Christ gave to his disciples, that may very well appear even by our own natural senses, as namely, by the sight, by the touching, by the tasting, which cannot be deceived of their natural judgment. For the eye seeth nothing but bread and wine; the tasting savoureth nothing else; and the hands touch nothing else. He gave, also, to their understanding, not only his holy and sacred doctrine, but also a special gift and pledge of his love. He gave the only material bread and wine sanctified, as the first rude and plain elements or principles to allure them withal; but he gave them the gift of his grace and heavenly doctrine, as the very things signified by the sensible elements; which thing plainly appeareth by the words of Christ our Saviour, I will not drink hereafter of the fruit of this vine, until I drink it new with you in the kingdom of God. Nor this fruit or juice of the vine, is nothing else but wine, as Chrysostom saith. And moreover, to prove the same true, if it be reserved after the consecration for a time, it becometh sour and tart; therefore it is but wine.
"And as touching the bread, St. Paul saith thus: Is not the bread which we break the communion, or participation, of Christ's body? He brake bread, therefore it was but bread which he gave them: for the body of Christ is not broken; as the Scripture saith of the same, You shall not break a bone of him. Also he said, This is my body; not that the bread was his body, and the wine his blood, but he spake those words to and of his own mortal body, there sitting amongst them at supper. Or he spake yet doubtfully, as thus: This signifieth my body, it is one thing which is seen, but it is another thing which is understood: for that which is seen hath a bodily form, but that which is understood thereby, hath a spiritual fruit. St. Augustine saith, 'Let the word have access to the element, so is it made a sacrament:' mark, he saith, 'Let the word have access' -- and not 'success.' Now the thing that hath access to another thing, doth not quench the thing that it cometh to, no more doth it here: ergo, it is bread and wine still, as before, howbeit sacred and holy. 'What saw you yesterday,' saith St. Augustine, 'upon the altar? Truly bread and wine, which your own eyes can witness,' said he. What plainer testimony can be had of so ancient a father as he was, and of so rare knowledge in the Scriptures of God? Seeing then that our eyes do behold nothing but bread and wine, it must needs follow that it is so indeed, or else our senses be deceived in their own proper object, which cannot be by any reason or natural philosophy. And yet, notwithstanding, some papists dream and fancy such a corporal, real, and gross presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, as they affirm it to be there, even as verily as it was upon the cross. Indeed the bread is changed after a certain manner into Christ's body; for Christ gave not his own natural body to his disciples at his last supper, but only a sign or figure thereof. Christ's body is there with the bread; our senses cannot be deceived about the substance of bread, but they do judge there to be but one body, that is of bread: ergo, so it is. Also the very definition of a sacrament doth plainly repugn unto transubstantiation. Bread nourisheth the substance of Christ's body, but the accidents do not so: ergo, the substance doth remain of the bread that nourisheth. It is also called bread in the Acts, and in divers other places of the Scriptures; wherefore it is so, but indeed after a sort more holy than before. What gave he in the supper? Bread, which is the body, that is to say, a holy sign of his body; as Augustine doth witness, saying, 'He doubted not to say, This is my body, when it was but a sign of his body.' The unleavened bread was but a bare and naked sign of Christ's body; and so is this bread the same body, even as baptism is. Now, indeed, there be two manner of signs; one that signifieth only, the other that doth exhibit, the thing itself. The first is applied to the old law chiefly, the other to the law of grace. The old, ancient, and learned fathers did never use to speak of the substantial change, for because that all the mutation is but conditional, not substantial; nor do we deem the bodily substance sacramentally, but yet we say that this proposition, This is my body, is but a figurative speech, and no proper speech, as some do deem. But it is as much as to say, 'This signifleth my body;' or else thus, 'This is a sacrament of my body:' for the bodily bread and Christ's body are not contained in place locally, but mystically.
"This portentous and monstrous transubstantiation began first to enter, when the popish prelates and priests began first to understand this said proposition, This is my body, of the carnal and real presence of Christ's body; as Hugo de Sancto Victore, Gratian, Peter Lombard, and Innocent the Third, the very pestilent poison of all Christian religion, unto whom we have, of long season, yea, alas, too long, given credit: under the which Innocent the said devilish term or vocable of 'transubstantiation' began in the year 1315. And Boniface, after him bishop of Rome, made the said mad blind transubstantiation to be the third article of the faith, full wisely, no doubt! whereas another bishop of Rome after him affirmed plainly, against Nestor the heretic, that bread remaineth still, whose name was Gelasius the Third.
"Now, as touching the most shameful and detestable inconveniences, which must needs follow this devilish term or vocable of 'transubstantiation,' you shall understand the first is, that then such papists will have Christ's body still prostituted and received, even of the wicked and naughty people; which is clean contrary to that place of our Saviour Christ, where he saith, Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Now it is plain, that evil persons dwell not in Christ, nor Christ in them; wherefore they receive not his body therein at all. For St. Augustine saith, 'It is but bread, which is seen after the consecration:' ergo, the substance of bread is there still.
"The second inconvenience that groweth hereof, is the fond and superstitious reservation of the sacrament in pixes, boxes, and such like, with vain tabernacles over the altar, where oftentimes it did putrify, for all their foolish honour; which began in Honorius's days, the third of that name, bishop of Rome; which corruption declareth it to be but only bread -- say all the papists what they list.
"The third inconvenience that must needs follow transubstantiation, is adoration, which is too plain idolatry, as the papists do know themselves, if they list: but they are so stiff-necked, that they will not know it; and so both have kept, and yet also will keep, the world in blindness still, if they might be suffered. But to be short with you, even as we are changed into Christ by receiving the sacrament, so the bread is changed into the body of Christ. But our substance is not changed into Christ's substance: ergo, the substance of the bread is not changed into Christ's body. And to be short and plain with you, most honourable audience, the whole universal world hath been, and yet is, sore deceived and deluded about the estimation of this sacrament. Therefore this is most true; when we do receive the said sacrament worthily, then are we joined by faith spiritually, to Christ our Saviour. And thus much have I said, in this first matter."
"The second matter to be disputed of is this:
"That in the Lord's supper is none other oblation or sacrifice, than one only remembrance of Christ's death, and of thanksgiving."
"In this conclusion I will be much shorter and more compendious than in the first. In consideration thereof you shall understand, that the same is a very godly and true catholic proposition; for to offer Christ, and to exhibit the same, is all one thing: for in that he is offered -- he is set forth to eat -- there is no difference at all between the maker of the sacrifice, or offerer, and the thing that was offered, which both were one Christ. The Lord did command, saying, Do this in remembrance of me; he made mention of the remembrance only, wherefore it can be none other sacrifice but only that. The apostle doth declare the manner of the thing doing, saying thus, He took bread in his hands, he blessed it, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples. What gave he to them? Forsooth bread, which was the sacrament, and not his body. No earthly creature, nor heavenly, did ever offer up Christ at any time, but he himself, once for all, upon the cross; ergo, he cannot, nor ought not, to be offered many times and often -- though that Pighius, with all the blind rabble of papists, say the contrary. For, truly, in this point especially, they know not what they say, being so led by the old Pharisaical blindness. But to the purpose: you shall understand, good auditors, that the pure and clean oblation and sacrifice, spoken of by the prophet Malachi, is nothing else than devout and faithful prayer and thanksgiving, as Tertullian saith in his third book 'contra Marcionem,' expounding the Psalm, where it is said thus, The sacrifice of laud and praise shall honour me. So do St. Jerome, Irenĉus, and St. Austin say, also, upon Malachi; where, also, they deny that Christ is essentially in the sacrament. Yea, and St. Austin witnesseth, that the mortifying of our earthly members is our true sacrifice, that be Christians. And all the ancient fathers do call prayers by the name of sacrifices. And for this purpose, whosoever list to read that most excellent and famous clerk Zuinglius, shall find the same confirmed of him by most grounded reasons, whatsoever the papists do bark against it. Thus I have declared my mind in both matters now disputable; and, if my further declaration be required through the vehemency of arguments, I will perform the same in my answer thereunto."
(There disputed against this defendant, Dr. Glyn, Master Langdale, Master Segewick, and Master Young, students in divinity.)
Glyn.--"Notwithstanding, right worshipful Master Doctor, that you have so exquisitely declared your mind and opinion in every one of these matters now in contention, before this honourable and learned audience, and also, though just occasion be ministered to me to infringe your positions in both conclusions, yet I will not invade the same as now indirectly, with contrarious and vain words to occupy the small time which is appointed us for the trial of the same, but we will go forthwith to the thing itself, which containeth in it matter enough. It is but folly to use many words, where few will serve our purpose, as saith the Master of the Sentences. All words may signify at pleasure, and commonly there be more things than vocables. Like as, sometimes, there was variance amongst learned men, of the unity of two substances in one personage of Christ, God and man; so is there now, in our days, variance of transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Wherefore I do require you, first, to show me here openly, what the said transubstantiation is, that we go not from the thing itself, which is our first and chiefest ground."
Madew.--"As for that, I need not to show you; for every man knoweth it."
Glyn.--"Peradventure it is not so, good Master Doctor. And I am perfectly assured, that every man doth not know it indeed; for it is not so light a matter as you make it to be."
Madew.--"Forsooth you know it yourself, and so do all men else."
Glyn.--"Well, yet I pray you show me, what thing Christ did demonstrate and show forth by that article of the neuter gender, where he said, This is my body? What did he point at in that article 'this?' For if he meant by that, the bread, then Christ, in the sacrament, is not only of two natures, but of three natures, as of the nature of bread, of the nature of man, and of the Divine nature; which to say, were blasphemy. The argument is good, and doth hold by that text, He spoke the word, and it was done; he commanded, and they were created. Moreover, if he should mean by that article of the neuter gender, 'this,' the material bread, then he would have said, This bread is my body, so making the article of the neuter gender; or else he would have said thus, Here, with this bread, is my body; to have avoided ever after all heresies, errors, and schisms. But he said not so, but spake the article of the neuter gender, saying, This is my body, that is to say, the thing or substance contained under the form and kind of bread, which you see not with your bodily eyes, is my body, according to my promise made to you before, that I would give you my very flesh to eat. In like manner when he gave the cup of his blood, he said not 'this' in the neuter gender, as he would have done, if he had meant the material creature of wine to have remained; but he said then in the masculine gender, This is my blood: that is to say, the thing contained under the form of wine, which you see not with your bodily eyes, is my blood. For truly the Holy Ghost came down to lead us into all truth and verity, and not to deceive us in so notable a point of our faith. But, out of doubt, he should have deceived in this matter, if so be he had given us only material bread and wine, instead of his body and blood, and not have fulfilled his promise made in John vi., where he promised thus, The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Here be two givings spoken of, with two relatives, whereof the first, with his relative, must needs be referred to his gift in the last supper, and the second giving of the same flesh of his, with his relative, must be applied of necessity unto his giving of his body upon the cross: nor do we find in the whole Scripture, where Christ did fulfil his said promise made in John vi., but at those said two times. Wherefore if we be deceived in this matter of transubstantiation, we may well say, O Lord, thou host deceived us. But God forbid that we should once think such wickedness of him. He must also be unjust of his promise, if it be not performed at any season; as it is not indeed, if it were not at both the said times. Then, if it were performed, (as the catholic church of Christ doth hold, determine, and believe,) then must it needs be granted, that he gave, at his last supper, his own body and flesh indeed and verily, which he gave upon the cross for the life of the world, though not in so fleshly a manner and bloody, yet the very same flesh and blood really, after an unbloody sort, and spiritually. He said not, This bread is my body, nor yet, Here, with the bread, is my body; but, This is my body, which shall be given for you. Neither said he, This wine is my blood, nor, With this wine is my blood; which circumstance of plain speech he would have used, if the pure creatures should have remained: but he said, This is my blood, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins; that is to say, the substance hidden under these visible forms of bread and wine, is my very proper flesh and blood. I pray you where do you find, in the whole body of the Scripture expressed, or justly understood, that Christ gave but only a bare and naked sign, figure, or sacrament? or where find you that he gave his body with bread, it remaining bread still? And if you think to find it, I pray you show me here, whether that body that he gave with material bread were his true body or not? If not, then it was fantastical; if it were his true body, (as you do grant,) then must there needs be two very true bodies in one place together. Now, that it was his very true body and blood, it is certain, by the plain words of the text, saying thus, which is betrayed or given, and, which is shed for you and for many. But I will let all this pass over, and I do require of you this one question, Whether that the sacraments of the old law and of the new law be all one?"
Madew.--"If you do consider the things themselves, they be all one; but if you respect only the signs, figures, and sacraments outwardly, then they be divers."
Glyn.--"I do perceive your answer very well. Then further to our purpose, Was Christ, then, after the same manner in the bread that came from heaven, in the paschal lamb, and in Isaac, as he is in this sacrament? which if you do grant me, then these propositions were true, for Christ to say, This manna is my body, This lamb is my body, This Isaac is my body. Moreover, if the sacraments of the old law, and of the law of grace, be all one in very deed and effect, (as you seem to grant,) then what difference is between the shewbread in Moses's law, and the bread that we do break, that St. Paul speaketh of? They then had that bread which signifieth Christ; and so doth ours, as you say: that was bread, so is ours; and so, by your reason, there is no difference between them: yea, their manna, because it came from heaven, was better than this earthly bread, that cometh from beneath -- which is contrary to the truth; for St. John saith, That the law was given by Moses, but the verity was given by Jesus Christ. Wherefore that which Christ gave, was not only a sign, but also the verity; that is to say, the living bread that came down from heaven, the true Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world, and Isaac himself, which is Christ: or else you must grant me that we Christians do receive less than the Jews did -- for they received the bread, called manna, from heaven, and we only a poor morsel of bread from the earth; theirs was called angels' food, and ours is, as you hold, little better than common bread. Me seemeth that you do distrust the doctrine of the faith of Christendom for these five hundred years, even as though Christ had forsaken his catholic church after one thousand years; but that is not so; for he promised his Holy Spirit to assist his spouse the church, and to lead her continually into all truth from time to time, as need should require. As I remember, you said that adoration did follow upon transubstantiation: but the fathers, for one thousand years past, do grant adoration of the sacrament; therefore transubstantiation also. The minor I prove by the most clear testimonies of St. Austin, St. Ambrose, St. Denis, St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom."
Madew.-- "I deny, Master Doctor, that I said any such thing; and therewith I say, that the fathers do understand by adoration, a certain reverent manner that we should receive the Lord's supper with; which may be called a certain veneration, but no adoration."
Glyn.--"No, Master? St. Austin, De Civitate Dei, witnesseth, that the ethnics and paynims do esteem the Christians to worship and adore the god of wheat and barley, called Ceres, and the god of wine, called Bacchus. And again, St. Austin saith thus, 'Lo, no man eateth of that bread, except he first adore and worship it.'"
Madew.-- "By your patience, St. Austin, in that place, speaketh of the honouring of Christ's body now sitting in heaven.'"
Glyn.--"Yea, Master Doctor, think you so? And why not also of his blessed body in the sacrament; seeing that he saith it is there? This is my body which is given for you, saith he. More plainly he needeth not to speak for the real presence of his blessed body, being both able and willing to verify his word. For if a cunning lapidary should say to you or me, This is a true right diamond, a perfect carbuncle, sapphire, emerald, or any such precious stone, we would believe him, though we were ignorant of their natures. Wherefore we ought much more to believe our Saviour Christ, God and man, in that he saith, This is my body. And why then ought we not to honour it in the sacrament? or how many bodies hath Christ, seeing you do grant his body in heaven to be honoured, but not his body here in the sacrament?"
Madew.--"Forsooth he hath but one very body and no more; but the same is sacramentally in the sacrament, and substantially in heaven; here by faith, and there in deed."
Glyn.--"Well, yet once again to you thus: The very true body of 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."
Rochester.--"Well-beloved friends, and brethren in our Saviour Christ, you must understand that this disputation, with others that shall be after this, are appointed for 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 that great antichrist and his ministers 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 king's Majesty, whom the living Lord long preserve to reign over us in health, wealth, and godliness, to the maintenance of God's 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 God's word. But now to the purpose, I do grant unto you, master opponent, that the old ancient fathers do record and witness a certain honour and adoration to be due unto Christ's body, but then 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 the outward sign, but to the body of Christ itself 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 Christ's body in the sacrament."
Glyn.--"How then, if it please your good Lordship, doth baptism differ from this sacrament . for in that, we receive Christ also by grace, and virtually."
Rochester.--"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 king's Majesty, our lord and master, is but in one place, wheresoever that his royal person is abiding for the time; and yet his mighty power and authority is every where in his realms and dominions: so Christ's real person is only in heaven substantially placed, but his might is in all things created effectually; for Christ's flesh may be understood for the power or inward might of his flesh."
Glyn.--"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 Lord's bread: and thus must St. Ambrose and St. Augustine be understood."
(Here the proctors commanded the opponent to divert to the second conclusion but he requested them that they would permit him as long, in this matter, as they would in the second; and so he still prosecuted the first matter as followeth:)
Glyn.--"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!"
Madew.--"That book of St. Ambrose is suspected to be none of his works."
Rochester.--"So say all the fathers."
Glyn.--"I do marvel at that, for St. Austin, in his book of Retractations, maketh plain, that that was his own very work."
Rochester.--"He speaketh, indeed, of such a book so entituled, to St. Ambrose, but yet we do lack the same book indeed."
Glyn.--"Well, let it then pass to other men's judgments. What then say you to holy St. Cyrian, one thousand two hundred 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 itself, 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."
Glyn.--"Holy St. Ambrose saith, 'The body there made by the mighty power of God's word, is the body of the Virgin Mary.'"
Rochester.--"That is to say, that 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."
Glyn.--"By your patience, my Lord, if it be a body of the Virgin, as St. Ambrose saith, which we do consecrate, as ministers, by God's holy word, then must it needs be more than a sacramental or spiritual body; yea, a very body of Christ indeed; yea, the same that is still in heaven without all moving from place to place, unspeakably and far passing our natural reason, which is in this mystery so captivate, that it cannot conceive how it is there, without a lively faith to God's word. But let this pass. You do grant that this bread doth quicken or give life; which, if it do, then it is not a natural bread, but a supersubstantial bread."
Rochester.--"So doth the effectual and lively word of God, which for that it nourisheth the soul, it doth give life; for the Divine essence infuseth itself unspeakably into the faithful receiver of the sacrament."
Glyn.--"How then say you to holy Damascene, a Greek author, who, as one Tritenius saith, flourished one thousand years past. He saith thus: 'The body that is of the holy Virgin Mary, is joined to the Divinity, after the consecration, in verity and indeed: not so as the body, once assumpted into heaven, and sitting on the Father's right hand, doth remove from thence and come down at the consecration-time, but that the same bread and wine are substantially transumpted into the very body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If,' saith he, thou dost not know the manner how it is brought to pass, let it be enough to thee to believe, that it is done by the operation of the Holy Ghost; and we do know no more but that the living word of God is working and almighty, but the very manner how, is inscrutable to us: and no great marvel,' smith he, 'for we cannot well express how the material bread, wine, or water, are transumpted naturally into the same body and blood of the receiver, and be become another body than they were before. So,' saith this great ancient clerk, 'also this shewbread with wine and water are changed, by the coming of the Holy Ghost, into Christ's body and blood, and they be not two bodies there, but very one (of Christ) and the same.'"
Rochester.--"First, I deny, Master Doctor, that Damascene was one thousand years past. Secondarily, that he is not to be holden as an ancient father, for that he maintaineth in his works evil and damnable doctrine, as the worshipping of images and such like. Thirdly, I say, that indeed God, by his Holy Spirit, is the worker of that which is done in the sacrament. Also 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 that there is any mutation of the substances; for there is no other change there, indeed, than there is in us, which, when we do receive the sacrament worthily, then are we changed into Christ's body, bones, and blood; not in nature, but spiritually, and by grace. Much like as Isaiah saw the burning coal, even so we see not there the very simple bread, as it was before the consecration; for a union cannot be but of two very things. Wherefore, if we be joined to Christ receiving the sacrament, then there is no annihilation of bread, (which is, when it is reduced to nothing,) as it is in your feigned transubstantiation."
Glyn.--"So, I perceive, you would have me to grant, that the sacrament is but a figure; which Theophylact doth deny."
Rochester.--"You say truth, he denieth it indeed to be a figure, but he meaneth that it is not only a figure."
Glyn.--"Whereas St. Paul saith, that we, being many, are one bread, he speaketh not, nor meaneth one material bread, as you do here: ergo, he speaketh of heavenly bread. And holy Chrysostom, upon Matthew, saith, that the paschal lamb was a figure, but the mystery is the verity. For the disciples would not have been offended to have drunk a figure of Christ's blood, being well accustomed to figures. For Christ did not institute a figure for a figure, but the clear verity instead of the figure, as St. John saith, Grace and verity was given by Christ. 'Dost thou see bread,' saith Chrysostom, 'doth it avoid or pass as other meats do which we receive? God forbid! Ergo,'" &c.
Madew.--"That ancient clerk Origen, upon Matt. xv., saith thus, As touching that which is material in the sacrament, it descendeth and issueth out as other nutriments do; but as concerning that which is celestial, it doth not so.'"
Glyn.--"Chrysostom, upon Matthew, saith, that we cannot be deceived of Christ's word, but our natural senses may be deceived in this point very soon and easily: his said words cannot he false, but our senses be many times beguiled of their judgments. Because therefore that Christ said, This is my body, let us not at any hand doubt (saith Chrysostom); but let us believe it, and well perceive it with the eyes of our understanding. And within a little after, in that place, he saith thus: It was not enough, that he was become man, and afterwards was scourged for us; but also he did reduce and bring us to be as one body with him: not through faith only, but in very deed also, he maketh us his body.' And after that he saith, that these works are not of man's power; but the same things that he wrought in his last supper, he now worketh also by his precept to his right ministers, and we do occupy the place of the same ministers: but he it is that doth sanctify and transumpt the creatures; he performeth still the same."
Rochester.--"Master Doctor, you must understand, that in that place St. Chrysostom showeth us, that Christ delivered to us no sensible thing at his last supper."
Glyn.--"Honourable sir, by your patience I grant that he gave to his disciples no sensible thing in substance, but a thing insensible, his own precious body and blood, under the only kinds of creatures. And truly, as it seemeth, Theophylact best knew the meaning of Chrysostom, because all authors accept him as a faithful interpreter of him; and he hath these same plain words, 'trans-elemented' and 'transformed.' Also Theophylact of Alexandria, upon Mark, Cyril, and St. Augustine, saith, that before the consecration it is bread, but afterwards it is Christ's very body. In like manner St. Augustine, upon Psalm xxxiii., saith, that in the last supper Christ did bear himself in his own hands. Now every man may bear the figure of his body in his own hands, but St. Augustine saith it there, for a miracle. Irenĉus, in his fifth book, is of the same mind. And St. Augustine saith, (I do remember the words,) The law and figures were by Moses; but the verity and body came by Christ.'"
Rochester.--"Well, say what you list, it is but a figurative speech, like to this: If you will receive and understand, he is Elias -- for a property: but indeed he was not Elias, but John the Baptist. And so in this place Christ calleth it his body, when is was very bread. But better than the common bread, because it was sanctified by the word of Christ."
(Here Master Langdale replied to Dr. Madew.)
Langdale.--"Right worshipful Master Doctor, by your patience I have noted two things that you affirmed in your position even now, before this honourable audience, the which, as me seemeth, are not consonant to the truth of God's word. The first is, as touching Christ's saying, I will not from henceforth drink any more of the fruit of the vine, until I drink it new with you, &c.; which place of the Scripture you did, as I think, understand, and interpret, as though nothing else remained after the consecration, but very wine still. Whereof I do not a little marvel, seeing that most famous clerk Erasmus, whose authority and sentence you refuse at this present only, yet, nevertheless, is very worthy, in this matter, of far better estimation amongst learned men. Wherefore I trust I shall not offend, to allege him before this learned and honourable auditory. He plainly affirmeth, that for all his great labour in searching the Scriptures, he could never find either in the evangelists, or yet in the apostolical doctrine, that it might be or was called wine, after the consecration. And therefore I cannot but marvel, if the thing be so open and plain as in your declaration you seem to make it, that such a profound clerk as he was could not find it out. For that said place he entreated of in his Paraphrases, in his annotations, and in other of his lucubrations; and yet he plainly denieth that same very thing to be found of him, which you here openly affirmed, that it is wine, or may be so called after the consecration duly performed by a right minister. I beseech you not to be offended, though I credit not your saying in this so weighty a matter of Christian religion, as I do his."
Madew.--"No forsooth, I will not be offended one jot with you. But, for to content your mind in this point, it is most constant and sure, that Erasmus was of that mind and opinion, that it was enough for a Christian to believe Christ's body and blood to be in the sacrament, in what manner or condition soever it were."
Langdale.--"By your licence, good Master Doctor, these be Erasmus's words: The church of Christ hath determined, very lately, transubstantiation in the sacrament. It was of a long season enough to believe Christ's body to be either under the bread consecrated, or else to be present after any other manner. But yet,' saith he, after that the said church had pondered and weighed the thing more pithily with greater judgment, then she made a more certain determination of the same.' In the which place (1 Cor. vii.) Erasmus saith, that the proceeding of the Holy Ghost equally from the Father and the Son, was also determined of the same church. But let this pass. And as touching the second point which I noted in your so eloquent declaration, which was, that you did wrest and wring the saying of Tertullian from the verity of his mind: for you said, that he doth interpret the prophet Malachi, speaking of our daily sacrifice in the new law, to mean nothing else by that sacrifice, in that place, but prayer and thanksgiving. But the said ancient clerk Tertullian hath not those words that you do allege of him, that is to say, 'nothing else.' And yet, though that colampadius doth so interpret that place, yet (as me seemeth) the judgment of the whole Christian church is to be preferred, in such a matter of religion. But I will pass over this point, and return to the matter itself: and first, I do require of your mastership, whether that this sentence, This is my body, be spoken of Christ figuratively or not."
Madew.--"After the mind of the common gloss of Cyprian and Origen, it is so taken in very deed."
Langdale.--"That cannot be, by your patience; for it is taken there substantially: ergo, not figuratively."
Madew.--"I deny your argument."
Langdale.--"I prove my argument good, thus: This word 'substance' doth plainly repugn, and is contrary to, this word 'figure:' ergo, 'substantially' and 'figuratively' do also repugn. Moreover I ask of you, whether that this be a true proposition or not: 'Bread is Christ's body.'"
Madew.--"Yea forsooth, it is a true proposition."
Langdale.--"Then thus to you: Christ's body was given for us; but you say, that bread is Christ's body: ergo, bread was given for us."
Rochester.--"Not so, sir, for your former proposition is of double understanding."
Langdale." Well, yet you, Master Doctor, do grant that Christ is substantially in the sacrament."
Madew.--"No, I deny that I said so ever."
Langdale.--"Yea, do you so? Well, I pass not thereupon greatly, for I will prove it by another means.-- Christ did suffer his most glorious passion for us, really and substantially: ergo, he is also in the sacrament substantially. The argument is good, because that it is the same here, that was there crucified for us; howbeit here invisibly, indeed spiritually and sacramentally; but there visibly, and after a mortal and most bloody manner."
Rochester.--"Master Langdale, your argument doth well conclude, in case that his body were here, in the sacrament, after such a sort as it was when he was betrayed. But that is not so, for 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."
Langdale.--"By your good Lordship's favour, that is not so; for he is there not figuratively, but verily and indeed, by the power of his mighty word; yea, even his very own natural body, under the sacrament duly performed by the lawful minister."
Madew.--"O say not so; for you speak blasphemy."
Langdale.--"No, no, Master Doctor; God forbid that either I, or any man else, should be noted of blasphemy, saying nothing but the very plain truth, as in my conscience and learning I do no less."
Rochester.--"O Master Langdale! I wis it becometh you not here to have such words."
Langdale.--"If it like your good Lordship, I gave not the first occasion of them, but only did refute that which I was unjustly burdened withal, as reason doth require; and it grieved me to hear it. He [Erasmus] saith, if it please your Lordship, that there is a mutation or change of the bread after it is consecrated; which if it be so, as I grant no less, then I would require of him, whether it be changed in the substance, or in the accidents, or else in both, or in nothing? No man can justly say, that there is a change into nothing. And all ancient fathers do agree, that the same accidents are there still after, that were before; nor doth any doctor say, that there is any mutation both of the substance and accidents also: ergo, the substance of bread is changed into some other thing that is there really present under the forms of bread and wine, which, by Christ's words, must needs be his own blessed body."
Rochester.--"Sir, you are deceived greatly, for there is no change either of the substances, or of the accidents; but in very deed there do come unto the bread other accidents, inasmuch that whereas the bread and wine were not sanctified before, nor holy, yet afterwards they be sanctified, and so do receive then another sort or kind of virtue which they had not before." [Note: Here is to be noted, that Peter Martyr, in his answer at Oxford, did grant a change in the substances of bread and wine, which, in Cambridge, by the bishop Dr. Ridley, was denied.]
Langdale.--"By your patience, reverend father, by such means a man may easily avoid all the mysteries of our Christian faith. As where it is said thus of God the Father, This is my beloved Son, &c., a man may also wring that, to be understood thus: This is the image of my well-beloved Son; or, This is the virtue of my well-beloved Son: yea, much more justly than your good Lordship doth the other; because St. Paul to the Hebrews doth call the Son the image of the Father, and in another place, he calleth him the power or virtue of God, and God's wisdom. Now, though he be so called in Scripture, God forbid that we should call him only God's image or God's virtue, and not God himself."
Rochester.--"O gentle Master Langdale! you ought not to reason after such a sort as you do now, because that a trope or figurative speech is nocive some where -- but not every where, nor in this matter."
Langdale.--"Yet by your licence, honourable father, it doth appear to me no trope at all in these words of Christ, This is my body which is given for you; and that for this reason: Christ did exhibit or give again the very same things at his last supper, by the which things he was joined to us; but he was joined or knit unto us, by his own natural flesh and blood: ergo, he did exhibit to us at his last supper no less again. My former proposition I prove by the testimony of St. Chrysostom, whose words in Christ's person are these: 'I would be your brother. I took upon me common flesh and blood for your sakes; and even the same things by which I am joined to you, the very same I have exhibited to you again,'" &c.
(Here the proctors commanded Langdale to give place to another.)
Rochester." We are not joined by natural flesh, but do receive his flesh spiritually from above." (Here Master Segewick replied.)
Segewick.--"Right worshipful Master Doctor, I do also ask of you first of all, whether the Greek article 'this,' of the neuter gender, be referred to the word 'bread,' or to the word 'body.' If it be referred to the word bread,' then Christ would not have said this,' in the neuter gender; but rather 'this,' in the masculine gender."
Rochester.--"Forsooth that article is referred to neither of both; but may signify unto us any other kind of thing."
Segewick.--"No forsooth; but it doth note unto us some excellent great thing determinately, and not so confusedly as you say. For such a great heap of articles, in the Greek, doth notify unto us a great and weighty thing to be in the sacrament determinately, if we may credit the ancient fathers. Moreover this word 'bread,' is not always in the Scriptures taken after one sort: wherefore I desire you to show me how it is taken in this place of St. Paul, 'We that are many, are one bread,'" &c.
Madew.--"Forsooth of the very wheaten bread."
Segewick.--"Then, after your mind, we are all very wheaten bread."
Rochester.--"Forsooth we are bread, not for the nature of bread, but for the fellowship and unity that is noted by the coagulation of many grains into one bread or loaf."
Segewick.--"Well, let that pass; then thus: It is the body; ergo, no figure; because there is a perpetual contrariety between the law of Moses and the law of grace. Therein were figures and shadows, and herein is the verity indeed."
Rochester.--"I do grant it to be Christ's true body and flesh, by a property of the nature assumpted to the Godhead; yea, and we do really eat and drink his flesh and blood after a certain real property."
Segewick." It is not the figurative paschal lamb; it is not the figurative manna, nor yet the figurative shew-bread, &c.: ergo, it is no figure."
Madew.--"I deny your argument."
Segewick.--"I maintain my argument thus: All the shadows are wholly past: ergo, so also be the figures; for every figure is a shadow. If then it be but a figure, all the figures are not past as yet; but that is false: ergo, so is the other."
Rochester.--"It is nothing but a figure or token of the true body of Christ; as it is said of John the Baptist, he is Elias; not that he was so in deed or person, but in property and virtue he represented Elias."
Segewick.-"So:--But, most learned father, when Christ said, I am the way, the truth, and the life, may it be understood as you do the other place thus: I am 'the virtue of' the way, verity, and the life? But now to the matter itself. It is verily meat: ergo, it is not figuratively."
Madew.--"This verb or word 'is,' in this place is taken for that which signifieth."
(Here he was commanded to reply in the second matter.)
Segewick.--"Now, as touching our second conclusion, this I say: Wheresoever Christ is, there is a sacrifice propitiatory; but, in the Lord's supper is Christ: ergo, in the Lord's supper is a sacrifice propitiatory."
Madew.--"Christ is not offered in the Lord's supper, but is received spiritually."
Segewick.--"The priesthood and the sacrifice be correspondent together; but Christ's priesthood after the order of Melchizedek is perpetual: ergo, also so is his sacrifice."
Rochester.--"Christ is a priest forever; that is to say, his priesthood and sacrifice, offered once for all, is available for ever, so that no other shall succeed him."
Segewick.--"Where there is no oblation, there is no sacrifice: ergo, if Christ be not perpetually offered, there is no perpetual sacrifice. Item, the same bloody sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, was the very fine and end of all the bloody sacrifices figured in the law after the order of Aaron's priesthood. Wherefore you must needs grant, that he offered himself also, at his last supper, after the order of Melchizedek, under the forms of bread and wine; or else you must show the Scripture where he did so, which I cannot perceive to be done but at his last supper only, after an unbloody manner. Item, He is offered for the remission of sins daily: ergo, he is a sacrifice propitiatory still, in the new law, as St. Augustine saith, expounding these words of the Psalm, 'Thou Nast not willed to have sacrifice and oblation, but,'"&c.
Rochester.--"St. Cyprian speaketh much like that sort, where he saith thus, 'It is the Lord's passion which we do offer,'"&c.
Segewick.--"In the old law there were many sacrifices propitiatory: ergo, there be also in the new law, (or else you must grant that God is not so beneficial now to us, as then he was to them, seeing that we be as frail and as needy as ever were they,) which must be, especially, the most pure daily sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, that holy Malachi speaketh of."
Madew.--"As touching the place of Malachi the prophet, I answer, that it is nothing to your purpose for the offering of Christ daily in the sacrament. For that sacrifice there spoken of, is nothing else but the sincere and most pure preaching of God's holy word, and of prayer and of thanksgiving to God the Father through Jesus Christ."
(Here Master Segewick was commanded to cease to Master Young.)
Young.--"Worshipful Master Doctor, although you have learnedly and clerkly defended these your conclusions this day; yet, seeing that I am now placed to impugn them in place of a better, I do begin thus with you: It hath pleased Christ to make us partakers of his Holy Spirit, and that in very deed, by receiving of the Christian faith, hope, and charity: ergo, much more of his own blessed body and blood, spiritually and in very deed, in the Lord's supper. Item, the angels' food was altogether holy from above, and heavenly, called 'manna:' ergo, also this celestial and heavenly food can he justly esteemed to be of no less excellency than that; but without comparison better, (and so no very wheat,) after due consecration of it. Item, the words of Holy Scripture are evermore effectual and working: ergo, they must perform the thing indeed, that they do promise. For he that might create, might also change at his pleasure the natures and substances of creatures, as appeareth that Christ did, by changing water into wine at a marriage in Galilee. But Christ in the Scripture did promise, that the bread that he would give is his flesh indeed; which promise was never fulfilled till in his last supper, when he took bread, gave thanks, blessed it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat; this is my body. Which bread, then, was his flesh indeed, as doth well appear in the said place, and next promise depending upon the same, thus: which flesh I will give for the life of the world. This last promise was fulfilled by him upon the cross: ergo, the first was likewise at his last supper. So that it was but one and the same flesh, first and last, promised and performed."
Rochester.--"Indeed the words of Holy Scripture do work their effects potentially and thoroughly, by the mighty operation of the Spirit of God."
Young.--"If it please your Lordship, man is fed and nourished with Christ's blood: ergo, then, it is his blood indeed, though it do not so appear to our outward senses, which be deceived; for Christ saith, This is my blood; and also, My blood is drink indeed. And because that we should not abhor his blessed blood in his natural kind, or his flesh, if they should be so ministered unto us; of his most excellent mercy and goodness, condescending to our weak infirmities, he hath appointed them to be given us, under the sensible kinds of his convenient creatures; that is to say, of bread and wine. Also, our body is fed with Christ's body, which is meat indeed; but it cannot be nourished with that that is not there present: ergo, Christ's body that feedeth us, must needs be present, in very deed, in the sacrament. Item, the nature of bread is changed; but the nature of the bread, and the substance of it, is all one thing: ergo, the substance also is changed. My first proposition is St. Cyprian's, De Cna Domini, saying, that the bread in figure is not changed, but in nature."
Rochester.--"Cyprian there doth take this word 'nature,' for a property of nature only, and not for the natural substance."
Young.--"That is a strange acceptation, that I have not read in any author before this time: but yet, by your leave, the communion of Christ's body cannot he there, where his body is not; but the communion of Christ's body is in the sacrament: ergo, Christ's body is there present in very deed."
Rochester.--"Grace is there communicated to us by the benefit of Christ's body sitting in heaven."
Young.--"Not so only, for we are members of his flesh, and bones of his bones."
Rochester.--"We be not consubstantial with Christ--God forbid that: but 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."
Young.--"Well, I am contented; and do most humbly beseech your good Lordship, to pardon me of my great rudeness and imbecility, which I have here showed."
(Here ended the first disputation, holden at Cambridge the twentieth of June, 1549.)
The second disputation, holden at Cambridge the twenty-fourth day of June, 1549.
The declaration of Dr. Glyn upon his first conclusion.
"The mysteries of faith, as Augustine witnesseth, may very profitably be believed, but they cannot well be searched forth, as saith the Scripture, I believed; therefore I spake: and, He that confesseth me before men, him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven. We believe every man in his art; therefore much more Christ our Saviour in his word. Marvel not, most honourable lords and worshipful doctors, that I speak thus now; for once you yourselves spake the same. But, peradventure, some will say, Believe not every spirit. I answer, Charity believeth all things, but not in all things. If those things which I shall utter be convinced as false, I shall desire you to take them as not spoken at all. But these are the words of truth: This is my body. Christ spake them; therefore I dare not say, This bread is my body; for so Christ said not. Christ said thus, This is my body; and therefore I, but dust and ashes, yea, a worm before him, dare not say, this is a figure of his body. Heaven and earth, saith he, shall pass; but my word shall not pass. Whatsoever our old father Adam called every creature, that is his name to this day: the new Adam, Christ Jesus, said, This is my body; and is it not so? He never said, This is a figure of my body, nor, Eat you this figure or sign of my body. And therefore, when the paschal lamb was set before him, he said not, This is my body. Wherefore if, at the day of judgment, Christ should say to me, Why hast thou believed that this is my body, I would answer him, Because thou hast so called it. I believed it not to be a figure, because thou saidst not that it was a figure.
"Other reasons to avouch I know not. For the word itself I contend not, but the thing itself I defend; for we must speak regularly. Thus Christ, thus the apostles, thus all the ancient fathers have spoken. Our fathers had but only figures and shadows; but the church of God hath the truth itself with the signs. Tertullian saith, 'One figure containeth not another;' but Melchizedek was a figure: ergo, this is the body. The sacraments of the Jews were signs and tokens; but ours be both the signs, and the thing signified also. Luther himself confessed, that the body was present with the bread; and could not deny it. colampadius took it for a figure only. Chrysostom demanding wherefore Christ gave his body before his passion, rather than at any other time; answered', that he might tie the truth to the figure, saying, Take, eat; this is my body; not a figure of my body. And the same Chrysostom saith again, 'If it were but bare bread, or but a figure, wherefore should his disciples have been offended in eating a figure.' Again, in his eighty-third homily upon Matthew: 'They are not any human works which he did work at his last supper: he it is that worketh; he maketh perfect: we are his ministers; but it is he that sanctifieth and changeth the elements of bread and wine into his body and blood.' Again, 'Dost thou see bread and wine? Do they pass into the draught like other meats? God forbid,' &c. Theophylact of Alexandria, upon these words of Mark the evangelist, This is my body, saith, 'This which I give, and which you receive, is not only bread, or a figure of Christ's body, but the truth itself; for if it should appear, as it is, in form of flesh and blood, we should loathe it; and therefore the Lord, condescending to our weakness, retaineth the forms of bread and wine, and yet converteth the same into the truth of his body and blood.' Theophylact saith, the bread and the wine is the very body and blood of Christ; and not a figure only. If you stand in suspense of the author, or approve him not, yet know you that he is counted and taken, amongst all the learned, for a most faithful interpreter of Chrysostom: The bread,' saith he, 'is trans-elementate, and transmuted into another substance than it was before.' Augustine saith, 'There was great heed taken in the primitive church, lest any part of the sacrament should fall down to the ground,' &c. Cyril saith, Lest we should abhor flesh and blood in the sacrament of the altar, God humbled himself to our weakness, pouring and infusing the force of life into it, and making it the very truth of his own blessed body and blood.' Damascene calleth it, a divine body, or a body deified. Origen, Irenĉus, Eusebius, Jerome, with all the rest of the ancient catholic fathers, are of the same opinion with me, all which to produce, it were too long."
The declaration of Dr. Glyn upon his second conclusion.
"The sacrifice and offering up of Christ's body in the sacrament of the altar, right honourable and worshipful, I will defend even to the effusion of blood, as a thing consonant to Scripture, whereof Paul speaketh to the Hebrews. But, perchance, some will object -- Christ offered up himself: ergo, you ought not to offer him. I answer, Yea, because he offered himself, therefore I offer him; for except he had offered himself I could not have offered him. But you will say, Christ's death is sufficient, and therefore you ought not to offer him again. I answer, So may we say, we need neither to fast nor pray, for Christ hath done both sufficiently for us. Again, you will object, if you offer him up again you crucify him anew. I answer, Not so, for many have offered him, that have not crucified him; as Abraham, Isaac, Moses, the Levites, Anna, Samuel. We offer Christ, but not to the death, but in commemoration of his death, there being not only a commemoration thereof, but also the very presence of Christ's body and blood. Irenĉus saith, 'Christ counselled his disciples to offer the first-fruits of all their goods to God -- not that he needed any of them, but for that they should not show themselves fruitless or ungrateful: and therefore Christ took the creature of bread, gave thanks, and said, This is my body; and likewise the creature of the cup, and confessed, saying, This is my blood of the new testament. Thus Christ hath taught a new kind of oblation, which the church, receiving from the apostles, offereth to God, throughout all the whole world; who only giveth unto us all kind of food, and the first-fruits of his gracious gifts in the new testament, whereof Malachi thus saith, I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts. I will not receive any sacrifices at your hands, because my name is glorified amongst the nations from the east to the west, saith the Lord, and in every place is incense and pure sacrifice offered to my name.
"But here it may be objected, Christ is the only sacrifice for sin, and without him there is no more. I answer, Notwithstanding we have this commandment, Do this in remembrance of me; and although I deny not that it is a commemoration, yet I deny that it is only a commemoration; I deny his absence, and I affirm his presence."
(Here Master Perne beginneth to dispute.)
Master Perne.--"Whereas yon say, most reverend Master Doctor, in your proposition, 'I believed, and therefore I spake;' and, 'We believe, and therefore do speak, our consciences suggesting the same unto us;' and again, that mysteries are not to be searched, and the like; it seemeth you go about to restrain the searching of Holy Scriptures -- whereas Christ saith, Search the Scriptures. Moreover, you have cited the fathers confusedly, and without order. You left transubstantiation, and endeavour yourself to prove the real presence in the sacrament: whereas we deny nothing less than his corporal presence, or the absence of his substance in the bread."
Glyn.--"You inveigh wonderfully, you know not against what; for neither do I, not yet doth Augustine, deny the searching of the Scriptures; but, I said out of Augustine, mysteries are not to be searched; it is another thing to search mysteries, than it is to search the Scriptures. Whereas you require of me a regular order of citing the doctors, I had not (as all men know) the liberty of time so to do; but if you desire me so earnestly to perform that, if time may be granted me, I will easily fulfil your request."
Perne.--"I pray you, let me ask you, what is a sacrament?"
Glyn.--"A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace."
Perne.--"Augustine, against Maximinus the Arian bishop, maketh this definition of a sacrament; 'A sacrament is a thing signifying one thing, and showing another thing.'"
Glyn.--"I refuse not his reason."
Perne.--"What is the thing figured by the sacrament?"
Glyn.--"The thing figured is twofold; to wit, the thing contained and signified, and the thing signified and yet not contained. For there be three things contained, the true body of Christ, the mystical body, and the fruit or benefit of the sacrament."
Perne.--"The forms and signs of bread nourish not: ergo, somewhat else besides the bare sign of bread doth remain, which nourisheth; that is, the substance of bread. For, in every sacrament, there is a similitude between the sign and the thing signified: but, betwixt the body of Christ, and the form or kind of bread, there is no similitude: ergo, the nature of a sacrament is taken away."
Glyn.--"I deny your minor, Master Doctor."
Perne.--"The forms nourish not; but the body nourisheth: ergo, there is no similitude betwixt them; and so is the nature of a sacrament clean destroyed."
Glyn.--"It is sufficient to similitudes, that the bread which was, doth nourish: and yet certain doctors do affirm, that the forms do nourish miraculously."
Rochester.--"Whosoever taketh away all the similitude of substances, consequently he taketh away the sacrament; for a similitude is threefold, namely, of nutrition, of unity, and of conversion. But, by a contrary similitude, he is not changed into our substance, but we into his; for in nutrition this is the similitude, that as our blood nourisheth our bodies, so the blood of Christ doth nourish us, but after a wonderful manner; to wit, by turning us into himself."
Glyn.--"I have answered your reason, most reverend father, in that I said, that the forms do nourish miraculously, as certain learned do affirm."
Perne." By what authority can you say that bread doth not remain?"
Glyn.--"By the authority of Christ, who saith, This is my body."
Perne.--"By the same reason may we say that bread still remaineth: for St. Paul calleth it bread sundry times in his Epistles."
Glyn.--"I deny not that it is bread, but that it is material bread; for Paul always addeth this article 'which,' betokening (as all men hold) some chief thing."
Perne.--"We are changed into a new creature."
Glyn.--"Not substantially, but actually."
Rochester.--"This is that bread which came down from heaven: ergo, it is not Christ's body, for his body came not from heaven."
Glyn.--"We may say that Christ, God and man, came down from heaven, for the unity of his person, or else for the mutual community of the same his two natures in one; for his human nature, I know, came not from heaven."
Rochester.--"The bread is his human nature; but that human nature of his came not from heaven: ergo, neither the bread."
Glyn.--"It is true that the bread came not from heaven as bread simply, but as celestial and heavenly bread. But I will answer to that: Whereas you hold, that the body of Christ came not from heaven, I, by the body and flesh of Christ, do understand whole Christ, neither separating his soul, nor yet his Deity; although his humanity is not turned into his Divinity by confusion of substance, but is one by unity of both. Or else thus I may reason: The God of glory is crucified, and the Son of Mary created the world," &c.
Rochester.--"So it is. But he is called a rock and a vine, and so, after your judgment, he is both a material rock and also a material vine."
Glyn.--"The circumstances there, show plainly that there is a trope or figure; for it followeth, I am the vine, you are the branches; but here is no trope. For after these words, This is my body, he addeth, which is given for you."
Rochester.--"Your judgment herein is very gross, and far discrepant from the truth."
Glyn.--"If my judgment in this be gross, most reverend father, then are all the ancient fathers as gross in judgment as I in this point, and the catholic church also."
Perne.--"Show us one place, or one doctor, who saith, that it remaineth not bread after the consecration."
Glyn.--"I wonder that you are not ashamed to ask that of me; for have you not had almost infinite places and doctors alleged to you in my former declarations, proving as much as you request at my hands?"
Perne.--"He took bread, he brake bread: ergo, it is bread."
Glyn.--"I have answered often hereunto, and I grant it is bread; but not only, or material."
Perne.--"Irenĉus affirmeth, that a sacrament consisteth of a double matter, of an earthly matter, and of a heavenly: ergo, the bread remaineth."
Glyn.--"Irenĉus, in that place, by the earthly matter meaneth the humanity of Christ, and by the heavenly matter the Deity of Christ."
Rochester.--"The humanity and the Divinity of Christ make not a sacrament, which consisteth of a visible and invisible nature; and I deny that Irenĉus can be so understood; therefore we desire the learned auditory to search Irenĉus at home, as opportunity will serve for this matter."
Glyn.--"I wish them so to do also, with all my heart."
(Here Master Grindal beginneth to dispute.)
Grindal.--"Whereas you say, worshipful Master Doctor, that we speak not now, as sometimes we thought and judged in this matter, peradventure you, also, judge not so now all things, as you have done heretofore. But what we have once been it forceth not; God respecteth no man's person. And whereas you say that you dare not, contrary to Christ, call it a sign or a figure, Augustine, notwithstanding, dareth to call it a figure, and Tertullian likewise, with many more."
Glyn.--"True it is, but they called it not a sign or a figure only; but prove you, if you can, that after the consecration remaineth any other substance than the real body of Christ."
Grindal.--"If the forms do nourish, as you contend, they nourish the natural and human body; for they be both as one, and are nourished alike."
Glyn.--"Your reason is merely physical, and therefore to be rejected in matters of faith: but I grant they nourish, but miraculously."
Grindal.--"If you grant that the forms do nourish, then you grant that bread remaineth."
Glyn.--"I said even now that it is true; but the nature of it is changed, and that miraculously."
Grindal.--"If it be the real and substantial body of Christ, because Christ said, This is my body; ergo, because the Lord said, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, and Paul calleth it bread after the consecration, it is therefore bread and wine."
Glyn.--"Truly, sir, you must bring better arguments, or else you will prove nothing for your purpose. For to your reasons thus I answer: Chrysostom saith, Christ did drink of the blood; but whether this sentence, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, be spoken of the blood, it is not certain. And truly Erasmus denieth that it is to be found in all the whole Scripture, that it is called bread after the consecration. Or else thus I may answer you: even as it is called bread, for the form, and kind, and accidents which remain; so for the form and similitude which it hath, it may be called the fruit of the vine, after the consecration. And whereas Chrysostom calleth it wine, he speaketh of the nature whereof the sacrament necessarily is made. And I deny not but it may be called wine, but yet eucharistically."
Rochester.--"The evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke call it the fruit of the vine, and Chrysostom saith that the fruit of the vine is nothing else but wine; ergo, Christ gave them wine, and drank wine himself also, and not blood."
Glyn.--"Christ said twice, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine; once at the eating of the paschal lamb, (as Luke saith,) and then was it wine indeed. And again, after the consecration of his body and blood he said the like; and then it was not wine, which methinks I can prove by the plain words of Luke, if we compare him with Matthew. For, if it were wine, as they both affirm, then the words of Christ cannot well stand, because first, as Luke showeth, he said at his legal supper, I will not drink of the fruit of this Nine, &c. And again, in Matthew, after the consecration of his body and blood, 'he drank;' it followeth therefore, that that which he drank was not wine by nature, for then must Christ needs be a liar; which were blasphemy to say."
Rochester.--"Augustine doth thus reconcile those places, saying, it is spoken by a figure which we call υστερον προτερον[Greek: ysteron proteron]."
Glyn--"I know that Augustine saith so; but methinks that which I have said, seemeth to be the true meaning of the places."
Rochester.--"Augustine seeketh no starting holes, nor yet any indirect shifts to obscure the truth."
Glyn.--"Say your fatherhood what you will of Augustine, I think not so."
Grindal.--"This cup is the new testament in my blood; but here is a trope: ergo, in these words of Christ, This is my body, is a trope also."
Glyn.--"I deny your argument; for whereasLuke saith, this cup, Matthew saith, this is my blood: and therefore, as St. Augustine saith, places that be dark are to be expounded by others that be light."
Rochester.--"All of your side deny that Christ ever used any trope in the instituting of sacraments."
Glyn.--"For my part I hold no opinion but the truth, whereof you yourself also do pretend the like."
Rochester.--"What understand you by this word 'this,' and in what words standeth the force or strength of the sacrament?-- in this pronoun 'this?' or in this verb 'is?' or else in this whole sentence, 'This is my body?'"
Glyn.--"It is not made the true body except all the words be spoken, as in baptism, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For neither doth baptism consist in this word 'I,' or in 'baptize', or in this word, 'thee;' or in these words, 'in the name,' &c. but in all the words spoken in order."
Grindal.--"If to eat the body of Christ be a figurative speech, as Augustine saith it is; ergo, then these words, This is my body, are a figurative speech also."
Glyn.--"It is a figurative speech, because we eat not the body of Christ after the same manner that we do other meats," &c.
Grindal." Cyprian understandeth this of those that come unworthily, and make no difference of the Lord's body, speaking of the dijudication of the sacraments, and not of the body of Christ."
Glyn.--"Truly he speaketh of the true body of Christ."
Rochester. --"They receive unworthily, who neither judge themselves, nor yet the sacraments, taking them as other common bread."
Grindal.--"Augustine upon the thirty-third Psalm saith, Christ bare himself in his own hands after a sort; not indeed or truly," &c.
Glyn.--"You omit many other things which Augustine saith; and I confess that he carried himself in his own hands, after a sort: but Augustine delivereth this unto us as a great miracle; and you know it was no great miracle, to carry a figure of his body in his hands. And whereas you say that Christ carried himself after a sort in his own hands, it is very true, but yet diversely; for he sat after one manner at his supper, and after another manner he carried himself in his hands. For Christ in the visible figure bore himself invisibly."
Grindal.--"Tertullian calleth it a figure: ergo, it is so."
Glyn.--"It is, as I have said, a figure; but not a figure only. But hear what Tertullian saith, he took bread and made it his body, saying, 'This is my body,'"&c.
Grindal.--"Hear what Chrysostom saith upon Matthew, (Homil. ii. super cap. 5,) If vessels sanctified to holy uses," &c.
Glyn.--"That work is received not as Chrysostom's, but some man's else, as you know. Or thus I answer, It is not the true body in proper and visible form.'"
(Here Master Gest disputed.)
Gest.--"The bread is not changed before the consecration: ergo, not after it either."
Glyn.--"I deny your argument, Master Gest." Gest.--"Christ gave earthly bread: ergo, there is no transubstantiation."
Glyn.--"I deny your antecedent."
Gest.--"That which Christ took he blessed; that which he blessed he brake; what he brake he gave: ergo, he, receiving earthly bread, gave the same bread."
Glyn.--"Your order in reasoning standeth not; for by the same reason may you gather, that God took a rib of man, and thereof built a rib, and brough it unto Adam: ergo, what he received he brought -- but he received a rib: ergo, brought a rib."
Gest.--"How is the body of Christ in heaven, and how in the sacrament? whether circumscriptively or definitively?"
Glyn.--"The body of Christ is in heaven circumscriptively, but not so in the sacrament. The angels also are contained definitively. But I have learned that the body of Christ is in the sacrament, but not locally; nor circumscriptively, but after an unspeakable manner unknown to man."
Rochester.--"Ah, know you not?"
Glyn.--"Neither in other mysteries of faith do we know the mean how, although this may partly be proved by reason. For as my soul is wholly in my head, and wholly in my foot, and wholly in my finger, and so in other parts of my body; and as there is one voice or sound which all men hearing do understand: so the body of Christ, being one and the same, is wholly in the altar, and in many places else. For if God could do this in my soul, how much more in his own body."
Rochester.--"I beseech you show us what difference is betwixt these two: to be in place circumscriptively and definitively."
Glyn.--"Your Lordship knoweth very well: but yet if any would know the difference, let him read August. ad Volusianum, et ad Dardanum," &c.
Gest.--"If the bread be changed, it is made the body of Christ; but that is not so: ergo, it is not changed."
Glyn.--"I deny your minor."
Gest.--"It is not generate or begot: ergo, it is not the body."
Glyn.--"That followeth not; as though to be made, and to be generate or begot, were all one thing; or as though there were no other mutation than a generation: and so you impugn a thing that you know not. But what call you the generation?"
Gest.--"The generation is the production of the accidents."
Glyn.--"A new definition of a new philosopher."
Gest.--"That which he took he blessed; that which he blessed, he brake, and gave it unto them: ergo," &c.
Glyn.--"Christ took bread, brake bread, and gave his body, that is, the substance of his body: saying, This is my body."
Gest.--"The bread is not changed into the blood of Christ: ergo, not into his body either."
Glyn.--"I deny your antecedent."
Gest.--"The Master of the Sentences saith it."
Glyn.--"You understand him not; for the bread is changed into the body of Christ by the power of God's word."
Rochester.--"Ye dream of a real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, by the force of the words spoken; which the Holy Scripture doth impugn."
Glyn.--"We say, that not only by the power of the word, but also by the spirit and secret virtue in the words, it is brought to pass; for there is no power in one word alone, as before in baptism, but in all the words duly prolated, according to the custom of the ancient catholic church."
Gest.--"If there were any transubstantiation, the accidents should not remain still; for they have no matter whereto they may lean or cleave. But the accidents remain not themselves alone: ergo," &c.
Glyn.--"I confess accidents cannot stand, themselves alone, by their own nature, without a subject; but by the power of God they may, not after the opinion of philosophers, but of the Scriptures: although I could show, out of the Scriptures, the accidents to have been without the subject; as in Genesis, the light was made without a subject, whereas the subject of the light was made the fourth day after, as Basil beareth me record."
(Here Master Pilkington disputed.)
Pilkington.--"This one thing I desire of you, most worshipful Master Doctor, that you will answer me with like brevity as I shall propound. And thus I reason: The body of Christ that was broken on the cross, is a full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world; but the sacrament is not the satisfaction of the whole world: ergo, the sacrament is not the body of Christ."
Glyn.--"I deny your argument."
Pilkington.--"It is a syllogism."
Glyn.--"It is not so; for there be four termines. Touching this word sacrament, it is manifold; but thus I answer: If you take the sacrament for the matter of the sacrament, that is, the body of Christ, then is your minor proposition true, and the matter of the sacrament is the satisfaction for the sins of the whole world: but, if you take the sacrament for the sign, which we call a sacrament, then is your minor proposition false."
Pilkington.--"The body of Christ hath satisfied for the sins of the whole world; but the sacrament hath not satisfied: ergo, the sacrament is not the body of Christ."
Glyn.--"I deny your minor, understanding the sacrament for the matter of the sacrament."
Pilkington.--"The sacrament only profiteth him that receiveth it; but many were saved before the institution of this sacrament was begun: ergo, the sacrament is not the body of Christ."
Glyn.--"If you mean of the bare sign only, it profiteth nothing; but if you mean the thing signified, then what is spoken of the body of Christ, is spoken also of the thing of the sacrament itself."
Pilkington.--"Transubstantiation is not a sacrament; but that which I mean is a sacrament: ergo, that which I mean is not transubstantiated."
Glyn.--"I mean not that transubstantiation is a sacrament, neither do I say that the sacrament is transubstantiate, but the bread."
Pilkington.--"The body of Christ is resident in heaven, and the body of Christ is in the sacrament: ergo, the sacrament is in heaven."
Glyn.--"A goodly reason, forsooth: but I answer, he is after one sort in heaven, and after another sort in the sacrament; for in heaven he is locally, in the sacrament not so; in heaven visibly and circumscriptively, but in the sacrament invisibly and sacramentally."
Rochester.--"St. Augustine saith, 'Take away the spaces from the bodies, and they shall be no where, and that which is no where' is not at all: so, whilst you take away the spaces and dimensions from the body of Christ in the sacrament, you bring to pass that it is not there at all."
Glyn.--"In that place Augustine speaketh of natural bodies, not of supernatural; otherwise I could deny that Christ had a true body, when he entered in to his disciples, the gates being shut."
Rochester.--"Of the gates being shut, a diverse and doubtful meaning may be gathered; for it may be, he entered in before the gates were shut, and afterwards opened them being shut," &c.
Glyn.--"Then it could be no miracle; but the evangelists, and all sound interpreters, say and affirm this to be a miracle of our Saviour Christ."
Rochester.--"Whether Christ entered in miraculously, the gates being shut, or else open, the Scripture setteth not down."
Glyn.--"As Christ (the womb of the Virgin being shut) was born into the world without violation of her pure virginity, or apertion of her womb, (for so he might have been polluted,) so entered he through the doors to his disciples miraculously."
Pilkington.--"In the body of Christ which was given for us, there are no accidents of bread; but in the sacrament there be accidents of bread: ergo, in the sacrament there is not the body of Christ."
Glyn.--"In the matter of the sacrament, that is, in the body of Christ, are no accidents of bread; but accidents are the very sacrament itself."
Pilkington.--"I beseech you, what do we eat? the substance or the accidents?"
Glyn.--"Both; as when we eat wholesome and unwholesome meats together, so we eat the substance of Christ's body, and yet not without the accidents of bread."
Pilkington.--"I prove that the accidents are eaten, for whatsoever entereth in by the mouth, goeth into the privy; but the accidents go in by the mouth: ergo, into the privy."
Glyn.--"This sentence, Whatsoever entereth in by the mouth, &c., is not meant of all kind of meats, as not of that which Christ did eat after his resurrection."
Pilkington.--"You shall not eat this body which you see."
Glyn.--"That is, not after that manner as you see it now, nor after the same visible form."
Pilkington.--"Wheresoever Christ is, there be his ministers also (for so he promised): but Christ, as you hold, is in the sacrament: ergo, his ministers are there also."
Glyn.--"To be with Christ is spoken divers ways; as in heart and mind, and in place, and sometimes both: or, to be with Christ, is to minister unto him, and to do his will," &c.
The third disputation, holden at Cambridge as before.
The declaration of Master Perne upon the first conclusion.
"Christ, at his last supper, took bread, brake bread, distributed bread: ergo, not his body, but a sacrament of his body; for the bones of Christ could no man break, as witnesseth the prophet, saying, You shall not break a bone of him.-- This cup is the cup of the new testament in my blood. In this sentence there is a trope, by their own confession; wherefore there is in the other also, This is my body; for the Holy Scripture is a perfect rule not only of doing, but also of speaking. Paul calleth it bread three times: ergo, it is bread, &c. And whereas they urge so much this pronoun 'that,' is not in the Greek canon, which hath 'bread,' not 'that bread.' There was no transubstantiation in the manna: ergo, nor in the sacrament; for there is this particle, eat, if that can prove transubstantiation, as they suppose. And if manna were a figure, say they, then this is not. This mystery or sacrament we hold to be true bread, and true meat. Manna gave life unto them, as this doth unto us; yet was it but a figure. In every sacrament there ought to be a certain analogy, both of the intern and extern thing of the sacrament, as Augustine saith, writing to Boniface; but betwixt the forms of bread and wine, and the body of Christ, there is no analogy at all: ergo, they make not a sacrament.-- As of many grains, &c.: This similitude of Paul is spoken of the substance of bread, not of the form thereof, otherwise Paul should in vain compare us to bread. As in baptism there is material water; so in the sacrament of the eucharist is material bread. Dionysius called the sacrament of Christ's body no otherwise than bread. Eusebius, in Ecclesiastica Historia, doth the same. Tertullian (lib. iv. against Marcion) saith thus: 'He gave his body; that is,' saith he, 'a figure or type of his body.' Cyprian saith, 'In his last supper he gave bread and wine, and his body upon the cross.' The same Cyprian saith, Christ drank wine at his last supper, because he would root out the heresy of certain who only used water in the ministration thereof. Chrysostom saith, 'That only bread remaineth,' &c. Theodoret saith, 'Bread remaineth still in his first nature as before.' Augustine saith, 'The bread doth not lose his first nature after the consecration, but receiveth another quality, whereby it differeth from common bread.' The same Augustine saith, 'Sacraments are figures, being one thing indeed, and showing forth another thing.' He speaketh of no transubstantiation here. Again, writing to Boniface he saith, 'The sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, and so is the sacrament of wine also,' &c. The sacraments of the old and new law are all one in substance of matter, notwithstanding they be divers in signs: which sacraments, why should they not be one, when they signify all one thing? The body of Christ, when it was on the earth, was not in heaven; so now it, being in heaven, is not on the earth. Whereby it may appear that transubstantiation is a most blasphemous, sacrilegious, and damnable error, and a most vain, unsavoury, and devilish papistical invention, defended and maintained only by the papists, the professed and sworn enemies of all truth. Those who impugn this doctrine of transubstantiation are no new upstarts; as the enemies of the truth, the papists, bear the world in hand. But, contrarily, those who maintain this devilish doctrine are new-sprung-up cockatrices, as Manicheus, Eutiches, and others. Gelasius saith, that the sacraments which we re ceive are Divine things; yet cease they not to be bread and wine in nature. Out of this puddle of transubstantiation have sprung up adoration of the sacrament, and inducing men to believe that Christ hath many bodies."
The declaration of the Master Perne upon the second conclusion.
"Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the apostle Paul, call it a commemoration or remembrance of Christ's body and blood; and Paul to the Hebrews saith, By one only oblation once offered are we made perfect to eternal salvation, &c. By him, therefore, do we offer up the sacrifice of laud and praise to God; that is, the fruit of the lips, &c. It is called the eucharist, because we offer to God praise and thanksgiving, with devout minds; and it is called the cup of thanksgiving, because we give thanks to God thereby also. You shall preach forth the Lord's death, &c.; that is, you shall give thanks and be mindful of his death, &c. Give your bodies a quick and living sacrifice, &c. The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving shall honour me, &c. Chrysostom saith, 'The wise men offered three kinds of sacrifices, gold, frankincense, and myrrh: so we do also, namely, virtue, prayer, and almsdeeds. These be the sacrifices wherewith Christ is pleased.' And Augustine saith, that there are no other sacrifices than prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, &c. Chrysostom (Homil. 46, upon John) saith, 'To be converted or turned into Christ, is to be made partaker of his body and blood.'"
(There disputed against him Master Parker, Master Pollard, Master Vavasor, and Master Young.)
Parker.--"Christ, whose words are to be believed, said, This is my body. He said not, This bread is my body, or with this bread, or under this bread, or by this bread; but said plainly, This is my body. And this he proved by these reasons: First, for that it was prefigured before. Secondly, for that it was promised. Thirdly, for that it was given. The transubstantiation of the bread was prefigured by the manna which came down from heaven: all that bread was heavenly, and without any earthly matter or substance annexed. Secondly, it was promised in those words of Christ, The bread that I will give, is my flesh, &c. Thirdly, it was given by Christ, and exhibited in his last supper, saying, Take, eat, this is my body."
(Here they were forced to break off through want of time, yet Parker replied thus against Doctor Perne.)
"We give thee thanks, most holy Father, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes; for pride is the root of all heresies whatsoever. And, on the other side, to acknowledge our own infirmity and imperfection is the first step to the right understanding of the truth. Nestorius the heretic affirmed, that there were two persons in Christ; one that was man, another that was God: therefore, he said, that in the eucharist was contained true flesh, but only of his pure manhood. Against him did the council of Ephesus conclude, saying, that there was the real flesh of the Son of God, &c. This he proved by the words of Christ, My flesh is meat indeed: and what flesh that is, he teacheth upon John vi.; 'That is,' quoth he, 'the flesh united to the Deity, and quickened by the Holy Ghost,' &c. Now that that flesh is in the sacrament, it is plain, by Hilary. He proved the same also out of Chrysostom: 'We are one body with him, members of his flesh, and bones of his bones,' &c. Again, in the same Homily, 'We are joined to his flesh, not only by faith and love, but also in very deed and truly.' And again, It pleased me to become your brother, and by the same things wherein I was joined to you, have I given myself again unto you,' &c.
Perne.--"I grant unto you that Christ is in the sacrament truly, wholly, and verily, after a certain property and manner: I deny not his presence, but his real and corporal presence I utterly deny; for doubtless his true and natural body is in heaven, and not in the sacrament: notwithstanding he dwelleth with us, and in us, after a certain unity. And also in the sixth chapter of John, he speaketh not of the flesh of Christ crucified," &c.
Parker.--"The flesh of Christ as it is in the sacrament, is quick, and giveth life: ergo, his real and substantial flesh is in the sacrament."
Perne.--"The flesh of Christ, in that it is united unto the Deity, doth vivify, and giveth life; but not otherwise."
Rochester.--"Christ dwelleth in us by faith, and by faith we receive Christ, both God and man, both in spirit and flesh; that is, this sacramental eating is the mean and way whereby we attain to the spiritual eating: and indeed, for the strengthening of us, to the eating of this spiritual food, was this sacrament ordained. And these words, This is mybody, are meant thus: By grace it is my true body, but not my fleshly body, as some of you suppose."
Parker.--"We are joined to Christ, not only by faith, but also in very deed: ergo," &c.
Rochester.--"We are joined to Christ; that is, we are made partakers of his flesh and of immortality. And so, in like case, is there a union between man and woman; yet there is no transubstantiation of either, or both," &c.
Pollard.--"The sacrament is not bare bread, and nothing else, only because it is called bread so often in the Scriptures; and that I prove by three reasons. First, it is called bread because of the similitude. Secondly, because of the mutation. Thirdly, for the matter whereof it is made and compact; as the angels are called men, the Holy Ghost a tongue, the rod of Aaron a serpent, and such like. The words of Christ do teach the same thing, as appeareth in the healing of the woman of Canaan's daughter, Jairus's son, and many others, &c.: ergo," &c.
Then he proved against Rochester, that somewhat else was in the sacrament besides power and grace, by this reason: "The evil receive the body of Christ, as is plain out of Augustine (Homil. xxi. De Verbis Domini): but the evil and wicked receive not the virtue, or grace: ergo, there is not only grace and virtue in the sacrament."
Rochester.--"The evil do not receive the Lord in the sacrament, but the sacrament of the Lord, as Judas, who indeed did not eat the true body of the Lord."
Pollard.--"In the sacrament be three things; to wit, an outward sign, the matter of the sacrament, and the fruit of the same. The evil receive the outward sign, and the subject of the sacrament, but not the fruit of the sacrament: ergo, there is somewhat else in the sacrament than only grace. Also every sacrament ought to have a certain similitude with the matter of the sacrament; but the material bread hath no such similitude with the body of Christ, which is the matter of the sacrament: ergo, material bread is not a sacrament."
Perne.--"I deny your minor: for material bread doth so nourish the body, as the flesh of Christ doth the soul."
(Here he, being requested, gave place to Master Vavasor and others.)
Master Vavasor.--"Through the shortness of time, I am so constrained, that neither I can speak without loss of my reputation, nor yet hold my peace without offence to God. For in speaking, as I do, without great premeditation before this honourable, worshipful, and learned audience, I shall but show forth my childishness herein; and if I should hold my peace, I might be thought to betray the truth of God's cause. And therefore, while I can neither speak for the brevity of time, nor yet hold my peace, God's truth being in controversy, I have determined (although with the impairing of my good name) to render a reason of my faith; which if I cannot afford probably in words, yet will I not fault in saying nothing at all. For it seemeth better that I be esteemed altogether foolish and unlearned amongst so many grave learned fathers and doctors, than to forsake the just defence of the truth, which every good Christian man throughout the world hath ever holden inviolable: for whoso forsaketh the manifest known truth, had never any true faith therein. Which thing that I may overpass in Berengarius, Zuinglius, colampadius, and many others, who are certainly known to be at no less variance amongst themselves, than uncertain of their faith what to believe, Zuinglius writeth thus of himself: 'Although this thing which I mean to entreat of, doth like me very well, yet, notwithstanding, I dare define nothing, but only show my poor judgment abroad to others, that, if it please the Lord, others may be thereby instructed by the Spirit of God, which teacheth all good things.' In vain do I spend many words: you see plainly he dare not define any thing certainly, but doubteth whether it please God or not. colampadius, writing to a certain brother of his, saith thus: 'Peace be with thee. As far as I can conjecture out of the learned fathers, the words in John vi., and, This is my body, be figurative locutions,' &c. You see hereby how uncertain they be of their opinions. They lean not to the Scriptures, to doctors, nor yet to the truth; but to supposals and conjectures: who, therefore, hereafter will cleave unto them? But now I come to your oration, whose beginning pleaseth me very well, and whose progress therein offended me not; but, in the end, you concluded in such sort, that you left the whole matter to me, as it were confirming my parts by the same. And herein you framed a syllogism after this manner: What Christ took, that he blessed; what he blessed, that he brake; what he brake, that he gave: ergo, what he received he gave, &c. Whereto I answer with a like syllogism out of Genesis: God took a rib out of Adam's side; what he took he built; what he built that he brought; what be brought that he gave to Adam to be his wife; but he took a rib: ergo, he gave a rib to Adam to wife, &c. Also, in your said oration you shoot much at those words of Paul, where he calleth it bread so often, &c. But the Scripture, in anther place, calleth it water, when indeed it was wine; a rod, when it was a plain serpent."
Rochester.--"You have pretended great zeal and words enough; but what pith or substance your reasons will afford, we shall see hereafter."
Vavasor.--"Christ gave the same flesh to us, which he received of the Virgin; but be took true and natural flesh of her: ergo, he gave us true and natural flesh. My major I prove by Augustine upon Psalm xcviii."
Rochester.--"Master Vavasor, you are in a wrong box: for the place maketh altogether for maintenance of adoration, if it make for any thing."
Vavasor.--"I know it very well, and therefore I allege it as the ground of my reason. These be Augustine's words, 'Christ of the earth received earth, and of the flesh of Mary he received flesh;' acknowledge his substance therefore."
Rochester. --"I acknowledge it."
Vavasor.--"And in the very same flesh he walked here upon the earth: acknowledge his substance."
Rochester.--"I acknowledge it."
Vavasor.--"And the very same flesh he gave us to eat: acknowledge his substance."
Rochester.--"I acknowledge not his real substance to be there; but the property of his substance."
Vavasor.--Then Vavasor recited the place, to the end he might prove that his real substance ought to be acknowledged as well in the last place, as in the first and second; affirming it out of St. Augustine, who saith thus: "The disciples of Christ, approaching the Lord's table, by faith drank the same blood which the tormentors most cruelly spilt," &c. "But the tormentors spilt no figure of blood: ergo, &c. This place will not permit the other so to be illuded."
Rochester.--"It is no illusion, good Master Vavasor; but surely you would move a saint with your impertinent reasons."
Vavasor.--"I beseech your fatherhood to pardon my rudeness; for surely I cannot otherwise speak, without breach of conscience."
Perne.--"That place of Augustine is to be understood of a spiritual kind of eating."
Vavasor.--"I demand whether the faithful may receive spiritually, so as they need not to receive sacramentally."
Vavasor.--"Then thus to you: To the spiritual eating there is no need to come to the Lord's table, for so it is the meat of the soul, not of the teeth -- but the faithful come to the Lord's table: ergo, that place is to be understood of a sacramental eating. And again, Augustine saith, that he carried himself in his hands."
Rochester.--"Augustine showeth a little after what he meaneth thereby, where he saith, he carried himself in his own hands after a certain sort or manner."
Vavasor." True it is, that after one manner he sat at the table, and after another manner was in the sacrament."
(Master Young here disputeth against Perne as followeth.)
Young.--"I understand the meaning of this word 'propriety' well enough; for, in Hilary and Eusebius, it signifieth not the virtue or power of any substance or being, but rather a natural being or substance."
Rochester.--"I commend your great diligence in searching of authors, but in divinity the matter standeth not so; for the propriety of essence in the Deity is the very essence, and whatsoever is in God is God."
Young.--"True it is, most reverend father, that this word 'propriety,' in Hilary, in his eighth book De Trinitate, entreating there of the Divinity of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is so meant and taken; but the same Hilary, almost in the same place, speaketh of our communion and unity with Christ, &c. Tertullian also, writing of the resurrection of the flesh, affirmeth that the flesh of our Saviour is that, whereof our soul is allied to God; that is, it which causeth that our souls are joined to him: but our flesh is made clean, that the soul may be purged; our flesh is anointed, that the soul may be made holy; the flesh is sealed, that the soul may be comforted; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of the hands, that our soul may be lightened with the glory of the spirit; our flesh is clothed with a body and blood, that the soul may be fed and nourished of God."
Rochester.--"The flesh indeed is fed with the body and the blood of the Lord, when our bodies, by mortification, are made like to his body; and our body is nourished, when the virtue and power of the body of Christ doth feed us. The same Tertullian is not afraid to call it flesh and blood, but he meaneth a figure of the same."
Young.--"Then, by your leave, it should follow by good consequence, that where any mortification is, there must needs be a sacramental communion; which cannot be: ergo," &c.
(Here ended the third and last disputation holden at Cambridge, 1549.)
This disputation continued three days. In the first, did answer Dr. Madew: against whom disputed Dr. Glyn, Master Langdale, Master Segewick, Master Young.
In the second disputation, did answer Dr. Glyn: against whom disputed Master Grindal, Master Verne, Master Gest, Master Pilkington.
In the third disputation answered Master Perne: against whom disputed one Master Parker, (not Dr. Matthew Parker,) Master Pollard, Master Vavasor, Master Young.
At length the disputations ended, the bishop of Rochester, (Dr. Nicholas Ridley,) after the manner of schools, made this determination upon the aforesaid conclusions, as here followeth.
"There hath been an ancient custom amongst you, that after disputations had in your common schools, there should be some determination made of the matter so disputed and debated, especially touching Christian religion. Because, therefore, it hath seemed good unto these worshipful assistants joined with me in commission from the king's Majesty, that I should perform the same at this time; I will, by your favourable patience, declare, both what I do think and believe myself, and what also others ought to think of the same. Which thing I would that afterwards ye did with diligence weigh and ponder, every man at home severally by himself.
"The principal grounds, or rather head-springs, of this matter, are specially five.
"The first is, the authority, majesty, and verity of Holy Scripture.
"The second is, the most certain testimonies of the ancient catholic fathers, who, after my judgment, do sufficiently declare this matter.
"The third is, the definition of a sacrament.
"The fourth is, the abominable heresy of Eutiches, that may ensue of transubstantiation.
"The fifth is, the most sure belief of the article of our faith, He ascended into heaven.'"
The First Ground.
"This transubstantiation is clean against the words of the Scripture, and consent of the ancient catholic fathers. The Scripture saith, I will not drink hereafter of this fruit of the vine, &c. Now the fruit of this vine is wine. And it is manifest that Christ spake these words after the supper was finished, as it appeareth both in Matthew, Mark, and also in Luke, if they be well understood. There be not many places of Scripture that do confirm this thing, neither is it greatly material: for it is enough if there be any one plain testimony for the same. Neither ought it to be measured by the number of Scriptures, but by the authority, and by the verity of the same. And the majesty of this verity is as ample in one short sentence of the Scripture, as in a thousand.
"Moreover, Christ took bread; he gave bread. In the Acts, Luke calleth it bread. So Paul calleth it bread after the sanctification. Both of them speak of breaking, which belongeth to the substance of bread, and in no wise to Christ's body; for the Scripture saith, Ye shall not break a bone of him. Christ saith, Do ye this in my remembrance. St. Paul also saith, Do ye this in my remembrance. And again, As often as ye shall drink of this cup, do it in remembrance of me. And our Saviour Christ, (in John vi.) speaking against the Capernaites, saith, Labour for the meat that perisheth not. And when they asked, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? he answered them thus: This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent. You see how he exhorteth them to faith: For faith is that work of God. Again, This is the bread which came down from heaven. But Christ's body came not down from heaven. Moreover, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. My flesh, saith he, is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. When they heard this, they were offended. And while they were offended, he said unto them, What if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? whereby he went about to draw them from the gross and carnal eating. This body, saith he, shall ascend up into heaven; meaning altogether, as St. Augustine saith, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, arc spirit and life, and must be spiritually understood.' These be the reasons which persuade me to incline to this sentence and judgment."
The Second Ground.
"Now my second ground against this transubstantiation is the ancient fathers a thousand years past. And so far off is it that they do confirm this opinion of transubstantiation, that plainly they seem unto me, both to think and to teach the contrary.
Dionysius in many places calleth it bread. The places are so manifest and plain that it needeth not to recite them.
"Ignatius saith, 'I beseech you, brethren, cleave fast unto one faith, and to one kind of preaching, using together one manner of thanksgiving; for the flesh of the Lord Jesus is one, and his blood is one which was shed for us: there is also one bread broken for us, and one cup of the whole church.'
"Irenĉus writeth thus: 'Even as the bread that cometh of the earth, receiving God's vocation, is now no more common bread, but sacramental bread, consisting of two natures, earthly and heavenly; even so our bodies, receiving the eucharist, are now no more corruptible, having hope of the resurrection.'
Tertullian is very plain, for he calleth it, 'a figure of his body,' &c.
"Chrysostom writeth to Cĉsarius the monk: albeit he be not received of divers, yet will I read the place to fasten it more deeply in your minds; for it seemeth to show plainly the substance of bread to remain. The words are these: 'Before the bread is sanctified, we name it bread; but, by the grace of God sanctifying the same through the ministry of the priest, it is delivered from the name of bread, and is counted worthy to bear the name of the Lord's body, although the very substance of bread notwithstanding do still remain therein; and now is taken, not to be two bodies, but one body of the Son,' &c.
"Cyprian saith, 'Bread is made of many grains. And is that natural bread, and made of wheat? Yea, it is so indeed.'
"The book of Theodoret in Greek was lately printed at Rome, which if it had not been his, it should not have been set forth there; especially seeing it is directly against transubstantiation: for he saith plainly, that bread still remaineth after the sanctification.
"Gelasius also is very plain in this manner: 'The sacrament,' saith he, 'which we receive of the body and blood of Christ, is a Divine matter: by reason whereof we are made partakers, by the same, of the Divine nature; and yet it ceaseth not still to be the substance of bread and wine. And certes, the representation and similitude of the body and blood of Christ be celebrated in the action of the mysteries,'"&c.
(After this he recited certain places out of Augustine and Cyril which were not noted.)
"Isichus, also, confesseth that it is bread.
"Also the judgment of Bertram in this matter is very plain and manifest.--And thus much for the second ground."
The Third Ground.
"The third ground is the nature of the sacrament, which consisteth of three things; that is, unity, nutrition, and conversion.
"As touching unity, Cyprian thus writeth: 'Even as of many grains is made one bread, so are we one mystical body of Christ.' Wherefore bread must still needs remain, or else we destroy the nature of a sacrament.
"Also, they that take away nutrition, which cometh by bread, do take away likewise the nature of a sacrament. For as the body of Christ nourisheth the soul, even so doth bread likewise nourish the body of man.
"Therefore they that take away the grains, or the union of the grains in the bread, and deny the nutrition or substance thereof, in my judgment are sacramentaries; for they take away the similitude between the bread and the body of Christ. For they which affirm transubstantiation, are indeed right sacramentaries and Capernaites.
"As touching conversion -- that, like as the bread which we receive is turned into our substance, so are we turned into Christ's body -- Rabanus and Chrysostom are witnesses sufficient."
The Fourth Ground.
"They which say that Christ is carnally present in the eucharist, do take from him the verity of man's nature. Eutiches granted the Divine nature in Christ, but his human nature he denied. So they that defend transubstantiation, ascribe that to the human nature which only belongeth to the Divine nature."
The Fifth Ground.
"The fifth ground is the certain persuasion of this article of faith, 'He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God.'
"Augustine saith, 'The Lord is above, even to the end of the world: but yet the verity of the Lord is here also; for his body, wherein he rose again, must needs be in one place; but his verity is spread abroad every where.'
"Also in another place he saith, Let the godly also receive that sacrament; but let them not be careful (speaking there of the presence of his body). For as touching his majesty, his providence, his invincible and unspeakable grace, these words are fulfilled which he spake, I am with you unto the end of the world. But, according to the flesh which he took upon him, according to that which was born of the Virgin, was apprehended of the Jews, was fastened to a tree, taken down again from the cross, lapped in linen clothes, was buried and rose again, and appeared after his resurrection -- so you shall not have me always with you; and why? Because that, as concerning his flesh, he was conversant with his disciples forty days, and they accompanying him, seeing him, but not following him, he went up into heaven, and is not here, for he sitteth at the right hand of his Father; and yet he is here, because he is not departed hence as concerning the presence of his Divine Majesty.'
"Mark and consider well what St. Augustine saith, 'He is ascended into heaven, and is not here,' saith he. Believe not them therefore which say, that he is here still in the earth.
"Moreover, 'Doubt not,' saith the same Augustine, 'but that Jesus Christ, as concerning the nature of his manhood, is there from whence he shall come. And remember well and believe the profession of a Christian man, that he arose from death, ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right handof his Father; and from that place, and none other, (not from the altars,) shall he come to judge the quick and the dead. And he shall come, as the angel said, as he was seen to go into heaven; that is to say, in the same form and substance, unto the which he gave immortality, but changed not nature. After this form (meaning his human nature) we may not think that it is every where.'
"And in the same epistle he saith, 'Take away from the bodies limitation of places, and they shall be no where; and because they are no where, they shall not be at all.'
"Vigilius saith, 'If the word and the flesh be both of one nature, seeing that the word is every where, why then is not the flesh also every where? For when it was in earth, then verily it was not in heaven; and now when it is in heaven, it is not surely in earth. And it is so certain that it is not in earth, that, as concerning the same, we look for him from heaven, whom, as concerning the word, we believe to be with us in earth.'
"Also the same Vigilius saith, 'Which things seeing they be so, the course of the Scripture must be searched of us, and many testimonies must be gathered, to show plainly what a wickedness and sacrilege it is, to refer those things to the property of the Divine nature, which do only belong to the nature of the flesh: and contrariwise, to apply those things to the nature of the flesh, which do properly belong to the Divine nature.' Which thing the transubstantiators do, whilst they affirm Christ's body not to be contained in any one place, and ascribe that to his humanity which properly belongeth to his Divinity; as they do which will have Christ's body to be in no one certain place limited.
"Now in the latter conclusion concerning the sacrifice, because it dependeth upon the first, I will in few words declare what I think; for if we did once agree in that, the whole controversy in the other would soon be at an end. Two things there be which do persuade me that this conclusion is true; that is, certain places of the Scripture, and also certain testimonies of the fathers. St. Paul saith, Christ, being become a High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this building, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the holy place, and obtained for us eternal redemption. And now, in the end of the world, he hath appeared once, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And again, Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many. Moreover he saith, With one offering hath he made perfect for ever those that are sanctified.
"These Scriptures do persuade me to believe, that there is no other oblation of Christ, (albeit I am not ignorant there are many sacrifices,) but that which was once made upon the cross.
"The testimonies of the ancient fathers, which confirm the same, are out of Augustine, Ad Bonif. epist. 23. Again, in his book of Forty-three Questions, in the forty-first question. Also in his twentieth book against Faustus the Manichean, cap. 21. And in the same book against the said Faustus, cap. 28, thus he writeth, Now the Christians keep a memorial of the sacrifice past, with a holy oblation and participation of the body and blood of Christ.'
"Fulgentius, in his book De Fide, calleth the same oblation a commemoration.-- And these things are sufficient for this time, for a scholastical determination of these matters."
Disputations of Martin Bucer at Cambridge.
(Ornamental capital £246}OVER and besides these disputations above mentioned, other disputations were also holden at Cambridge, shortly after, by Martin Bucer, upon these conclusions following:
Conclusions to be disputed.
First. "The canonical books of Holy Scripture alone, do sufficiently teach the regenerated all things necessarily belonging unto salvation."
Secondly. "There is no church in earth which erreth not in manners as well as in faith."
Thirdly. "We are so justified freely of God, that before our justification it is sin, and provoketh God's wrath against us, whatsoever good work we seem to do. Then, being justified, we do good works."
In these three propositions against Bracer disputed Master Segewick, Young, and Perne: which disputations, because they are long here to be recited, I mind (the Lord willing) to reserve them to some other convenient place. In the mean season, because great controversy hath been and is yet amongst the learned, and much effusion of Christian blood, about the words and meaning of the sacrament; to the intent that the verity thereof more openly may be explained, and all doubtful scruples discussed, it shall not be out of place to adjoin to the former discourses of Peter Martyr, and of Dr. Ridley above mentioned, another certain learned treatise in form of a dialogue, as appertaining to the same argument, compiled (as it seemeth) out of the tractations of Peter Martyr, and other authors, by a certain learned and reverend person of this realm; who, under the persons of Custom and Verity, manifestly layeth before our eyes, and teacheth all men, not to measure religion by custom, but to try custom by truth and the word of God: for else custom may soon deceive, but the word of God abideth for ever.