Critical Apparatus for this Page
View an Image of this PageCommentary on the Text
Names and Places on this Page
None
1401 [1377]

King Edward 6. A Disputation holden at Cambridge about the Sacrament.

wicked and naughty people, 

Commentary  *  Close

Madew lists three objections to Catholic belief regarding the Eucharist, the first of which is noted here. Protestants held only those with faith received Christ in the Eucharist; sinners and infidels who received Communion only received bread. Catholics held that, according to I Corinthians 11:29-30, all received Christ corporeally in the Sacrament, but only those free from grave sin also received him sacramentally, to the benefits of their souls and even their bodies. Sinners ate to their own condemnation, and could do no harm to Christ's body.

[Back to Top]
which is cleane contrary to that place of sauiour Christ, where he sayth: Whosoeuer eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Nowe it is plaine, that euill persons dwell not in Christ, nor Christ in them, wherefore they receiue not his body therin at all. For S. Austine tract. 8. super Iohannem saith, that it is but bread which is seene after the Consecration, Ergo, the substance of bread is there still. 2. The seconde inconuenience that groweth heereof, is the fonde and superstitious reseruation of the sacrament in pixes, boxes, and such like, 
Commentary  *  Close

Madew's second objection reflected Protestant objection to the reservation of the Eucharist in tabernacles or pixes, that in English Churches in the Middle Ages usually hung above the altar in the chancel as 'fond' ('foolish'). Extra hosts consecrated at mass would be placed in such containers in order to give Communion to the sick, or for the adoration by priests and people of Christ corporeally present under the sign of bread.

[Back to Top]
with vaine tabernacles ouer the alter, where oftentimes it did putrifie for all their foolish honour, which began in Honorius daies the third Bishop of Rome of that name, which corruption declareth it to be but onely bread, say all Papists what they list. 3. The third inconuenience that must needes follow Transubstantiation, is adoration, which is too plaine Idolatry 
Commentary  *  Close

Madew's third objection concerned the adoration or worship of Christ in the Eucharist, which Protestants equated with idolatry, or the worship of created objects or beings. Catholics would answer that Christ, being almighty God present under the outward signs of bread and wine, is rightly worshipped.

[Back to Top]
, as the Papists do know themselues if they list, but they are so stiffenecked, that they will not know it, and so both haue, and yet also will keepe the world in blindnes still if they might be suffered. But to be short with you, euen as we are chaunged into Christ by receiuing the sacrament, so is the bread chaunged into the body of Christ. But our substance is not chaunged into Christes substance, Ergo, the substance of the bread is not changed into Christes body. And to be shorte and playne with you (most honourable audience) the whole vniuersall world hath bene, and yet is sore deceaued and deluded about the estimation of this Sacrament. Therefore this is most true, when we do receaue the sayd Sacrament worthely, then are we ioyned by faith spiritualy to Christ our sauiour. And thus much haue I said in this first matter.

[Back to Top]
The second matter to be disputed of is this.
That in the Lords Supper is none other oblation or sacrifice, then one onely remembraunce of Christes death, and of thankesgiuing. 
Commentary  *  Close

The second point of dispute is the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Catholics maintain that the Mass is the real but mystical or mysterious participation in Christ's one sacrifice on the Cross at Calvary by those who attend Mass, those who receive the Eucharist, and those for whom the worship of the Mass is offered or intended, whether living or the dead preparing for union with God in heaven by being purged of their sins in Purgatory. It is as if the participants become truly present, but in a mystical or sacramental way, at Mount Calvary on Good Friday. Protestants rejected this doctrine utterly. For Catholics the Mass is also an act of thanksgiving to God for the salvation through Christ's death and resurrection, but it is more than a remembrance of those events; in the Catholic understanding, they are actually at the foot of the Cross.

[Back to Top]

IN this conclusion, I will be muche shorter, and more compendious then in the first. In consideration whereof, you shall vnderstande, that the same is a very godly, and true catholique proposition. For to offer Christ, and to exhibite the same, is all one thing, for in that that he is offered, he is set foorth for to eate, there is no difference at all betweene the maker of the sacrifice, or offerer, and the thing that was offered, which both were one Christ. The Lorde did commaund saying, Do this in remembraunce of me, hee made mention of the remembrance only, wherefore it can be none other sacrifice, but only that. The Apostle doth declare the maner of the thing doing, saying thus: He tooke bread in his hands, he blessed it, he brake it, and gaue it to his disciples. What gaue he to them? forsooth bread, which was the sacrament, and not his body. No earthly creature nor heauenly, did euer offer vp Christ at any time, but he himselfe once for all, vpon the crosse, Ergo, he can not, nor ought not to be offered many times, and often, though that Pighius with all the blinde rabble of the Papists say the contrary. 

Commentary  *  Close

For Catholics, Christ's one sacrifice on the Cross is never repeated; the Mass is a mystical and real participation in his one death on the cross for the salvation of humanity. Protestant theologians emphasised the 'once-for-all' nature of Christ's sacrifice, which they felt was compromised by regarding the Mass as a 'sacrifice' of any kind.

[Back to Top]
For truely in this point especially they knowe not what they say, being so led by the old pharisaicall blindnes. But to the purpose. You shall vnderstand good auditors, that the pure and cleane oblation and sacrifice spokē of by the Prophet Malachy 
Commentary  *  Close

Malachy 1:11 has been traditionally understood among Catholics as a prophecy regarding the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass: 'For, from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles: and in every place there is sacrifice and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord of Hosts.' Maydew holds that this text refers to constant offering of prayers of thanksgiving to God for Christ's one sacrifice, not a constant participation in that one sacrifice.

[Back to Top]
, is nothing else, then deuoute, and faithfull prayer, and thankesgiuing, as Tertullian sayth in his third booke contra Marcionem expounding the Psalme, where it is sayd thus: The sacrifice of laude, and prayse shall honor mee. So doth S. Hierome, Irenæus, and S. Austen say also vppon Malachy. Where also they denie that Christ is essencially in the sacrament. Yea and S. Austen Epistola 95. ad Paulinum witnesseth, that the mortifying of our earthly members is our true sacrifice that be Christians. And all the aunciente Fathers do call praiers by the name of sacrifices 
Commentary  *  Close

Protestants and Catholics agreed that the Eucharistic liturgy is indeed an offering or 'sacrifice' of thanksgiving (Eucharistia is the Greek word for thanksgiving). Indeed, Catholics would understand the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers as all Christians becoming priests of God in the Sacrament of Baptism. All Christians are called to make 'spiritual sacrifices', such as prayer, fasting and almsgiving that Christ himself recommended.

[Back to Top]
. And for this purpose, whosoeuer list to reade that most excellente and famous Clarke Zwinglius ca. 18. de articulis, shall finde the same confirmed of him by most grounded reasons, whatsoeuer the Papists do barke against it. Thus I haue declared my mind in both matters now disputable. And if my further declaration be required through the vehemency of argumentes, I will performe the same in my aunswering thereunto.

[Back to Top]

There disputed against this defendant Doctour Glin, M. Langedale, M. Segewike, and M. Yong, Students in Diuinitie. 

Commentary  *  Close

'Students in divinity': scholars of theology.

Glin. Notwithstanding right worshipfull Maister Doctor, that you haue so exquisitely declared your mind and opinion in euery of these matters now in contention before this honorable and learned audience, and also though iust occasion be ministred to me infringe your positions in both conclusions, yet I will not inuade the same as now indirectly with contrarions and vaine wordes to occupie the small time which is appointed vs for the triall of the same, but we will go forthwith to the thing it selfe, whych conteineth in it matter ynough . It is but folly to vse many wordes where fewe will serue our purpose, as sayeth the maister of the Sentences 

Commentary  *  Close

'The Master of The Sentences: Peter Lombard.

. All words may signifie at pleasure and commonly there bee moe thinges then vocables, like as sometimes there was variance amongst learned men of the vnitie of two substances in one personage of Christ God and Man. So is there now in our dayes variance of Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ. Wherefore I do require you first to shew me heare openly what the said Transubstantiation is, that we go not from the thing it selfe, which is our first and chiefest ground.

[Back to Top]

Madew. As for that I neede not to shew you, for euery man knoweth it.

Glin. Peraduenture it is not so good Maister Doctor. And I am perfectly assured that euery man doth not knowe it indeede: for it is not so light a matter as you make it to be.

Madew. Forsooth you know it your selfe, and so do all men else.

Glin. Well, yet I pray you shew me what thing Christ did demonstrate and shew foorth by that article of the newter gender, where he said, This is my body. What did he appoint in that article this? 

Commentary  *  Close

Glyn remarks that if Christ spoke of the bread and wine as inanimate things, he would have used the neuter form of the article, 'this'. Instead he used the masculine form of 'this', signifying to Catholic minds that he was referring to himself under the signs of bread and wine at the institution of the Eucharist during the Last Supper.

[Back to Top]
for if he meant by that, the bread, then Christ in the Sacrament is not onely of two natures, but of three natures, as of the nature of bread, of the nature of man, and of the diuine nature, which to say, were blasphemie. The argument is good, and doth hold by that text. He spake the word, and it was done, he commaunded, and they were created. Moreouer, if he should meane by that article of the newter gender (this) the materiall bread, then he woulde haue sayd, This bread is my body, so making the article of the newter gender: or else he would haue sayd thus, Heere with this bread is my body, to haue auoyded euer after all heresies, errours, and schismes. But he saide not so, but spake the article of the newter gender, saying, This is my body, that is to saye, the thing or substance conteyned vnder the forme and kind of bread, which you see not with your bodely eyes is my body, according to my promise made to you before, that I woulde geue you my very fleshe to eate, Iohn. 6. In like maner when he gaue the cup of his blood, he sayd not this in the newter gender, as he woulde haue done if he had meant the materiall creature of wine to haue remained, but he saide then in the masculine gender, This is my bloud: That is to say the thing conteined vnder the forme of wine whiche you see not with your bodely eyes is my bloud. For truely the holy Ghost came downe to leade vs into all truth and veritie, and not to deceiue vs in so notable a point of our faith. But out of doubte he should haue deceaued in this matter, if so be he had geuen vs onely materiall bread and wine in stead of his bodye and bloud, and not haue fulfilled his promise made Iohn 6. where he promiseth thus. The bread whiche I will geue is my fleshe, which I will geue for the life of the world. 
Commentary  *  Close

Glyn uses the common Catholic argument that Christ promised to be with the Church always through the guidance given by the Holy Spirit in matters of life and doctrine (i.e., see Matthew 16:18 and 28:20; John 20:22-23). Glyn couples this promise with Christ's promise of giving his flesh and blood in the Eucharist in John 6.

[Back to Top]
Heere be two giuings spoken of, with two relatiues, whereof the first with his relatiue, must needes be referred to his gift in the last supper, and the second geuing of the same fleshe of his, with his relatiue, must be applied of necessitie vnto his geuing of his body vpon the Crosse. Nor we do finde in the whole Scripture, where Christ did fulfill his sayde promise made in þe 6. of Iohn, but at those said two times. Wherefore if we be deceiued in this matter of Transubstantiation, we may well say, O Lord thou hast deceaued vs. But God forbid that we should once thinke such wickednes of him. He must also be vniust of his promise if it be not performed at any season, as it is not indeede, if it were not at both the said times. Then if it were performed (as the Catholique Churche of Christe doth holde, determine, and beleeue) then must it needes be graunted, that he gaue at his last Supper his owne body and flesh indeede and verely which he gaue vpon the Crosse for the life of the world, though not in so fleshly a manner and bloudie, yet the very same flesh and hloud really after an vnbloudy sort, and spiritually. He said not This bread is my body, nor yet heere with the bread is my body, but, This is my body, which shall be geuen for you. Nor he said not, this wine is my bloud, nor with this wine is my bloud, whiche circumstance of plaine speach he would haue vsed, if the pure creatures should haue remained, but he sayde, This is my bloud, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sinnes, that is to say, the substance hidden vnder these visible formes of bread and wine, are my very proper fleshe and bloud. 
Commentary  *  Close

Catholics would describe the Eucharist as Christ's true corporeal body that was born of the Virgin Mary and died upon the Cross that has now be transfigured and glorified through the Resurrection, and is now capable of being made present without the horrors of the Crucifixion or in an 'unbloody' and 'spiritual' or mystical manner. The Eucharist was, of course, central to Reformation debates, both between Catholics and Protestants, and among Protestants.

[Back to Top]
I pray you where do you find in the whole body of the Scripture expressed, or iustly vnderstanded, that Christ gaue but only a bare and naked signe, figure, or sacrament? 
Commentary  *  Close

Glyn denies both the Edwardian Protestant notion of Eucharistic presence (non-corporeal presence only during Communion) and the Lutheran doctrine of impanation (presence united to the elements of bread and wine only during Communion) as not what Christ meant when he spoke at the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Last Supper.

[Back to Top]
Or where finde you that he gaue his body wyth

[Back to Top]
bread,
Go To Modern Page No:  
Click on this link to switch between the Modern pagination for this edition and Foxe's original pagination when searching for a page number. Note that the pagination displayed in the transcription is the modern pagination with Foxe's original pagination in square brackets.
Find:
Type a keyword and then restrict it to a particular edition using the dropdown menu. You can search for single words or phrases. When searching for single words, the search engine automatically imposes a wildcard at the end of the keyword in order to retrieve both whole and part words. For example, a search for "queen" will retrieve "queen", "queene" and "queenes" etc.
in:  
Humanities Research Institute  *  HRI Online  *  Feedback
Version 2.0 © 2011 The University of Sheffield