Critical Apparatus for this Page
Commentary on the Text
Names and Places on this Page
Unavailable for this Edition
1350 [1349]

K. Edw. 6. Determination of B. Ridley at Cambridge agaynst Transubstantiation.

Marginalia1552. whet not our teeth to byte, but with pure fayth we breake the holy bread, and distribute it. &c.

Augustinus.

MarginaliaAugust. De Ciuit. Lib. 28. cap. 25. It may not be sayd, that any such doe eate the body of Christ, because they are accompted amongest the members of Christ. Neither can they be both members of Christ, and members of an harlot, &c. Furthermore, when Christ saith: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him: MarginaliaIohn. 6. he sheweth what it is, not Sacramentally 

Commentary  *  Close

'[N]ot sacramentally': the point at issue continues to be whether grave sinners and non-believers receive the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist if given the opportunity to consume as food. Martyr states that only believers receive the sacrament; Catholics theologians say all receive it, but grave sinners and nonbelievers receive no benefit from it - in fact they receive only condemnation from God and the Church. Their reception does no harm to Christ in his glorified, risen body.

[Back to Top]
, but in deede to eate his body and drinke his bloud, whiche is, when a man so dwelleth in Christ, that Christ dwelleth in him. For so Christ spake those wordes, as if he should say: he that dwelleth not in me, and in whom I dwel not, let him not say nor thinke, that he eateth my body, or drinketh my bloud.

[Back to Top]

Also in other places the sayd Austen affirmeth, that, to drinke is to liue: And sayth moreouer: why preparest thou thy bely and thy teeth? beleue and thou hast eaten. &c.

All which kyndes of eatyng can not be sayd of the wicked and infidels, but onely of the godly and faythfull.

And thus briefly we haue runne ouer all the Argumēts and authorities of Peter Martyr in that disputatiō at Oxford, with Doctour Tresham, Chadsey, and Morgan, before the kynges visitours aboue named. an. 1549.

Furthermore who so listeth more fully to be satisfied and resolued in all the occurrentes touchyng the matter of this Sacrament, let hym read the bookes first of Archbyshop Cranmer agaynst Winchester: Secondly the tractation of Peter Martyr made in Oxford, translated and extant in English: and thyrdly the booke of Byshop Ridley made in prison, called A brief declaration of the Lords Supper.

[Back to Top]

The lyke disputation also about the same tyme was appointed and commensed at Cambridge 

Commentary  *  Close
Disputation at Cambridge

Another disputation regarding the Eucharist was held under royal auspices at Cambridge University in June 1549, the same month in which the first Book of Common Prayer became the official form of worship for the Church of England, and the Mass became proscribed. Bishop Nicholas Ridley was the leading Protestant speaker in these meetings, and he gives several lucid expositions of his, Thomas Cranmer's and the other English Reformers' understanding of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. William Glyn, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity in the early years of Edward's reign, was the leading advocate of Catholic doctrine in Cambridge, and according to Foxe's account he seems to have given the Catholic position with clarity and vigour. In fact Glyn, along with the other Catholic theologians, seem to have been so capable that Ridley, who should have served as one of the arbitrators for the debate as a Royal Commissioner, kept entering into the arguments, rather than letting the appointed advocate for the Protestant doctrine, Dr Madew, speak.

[Back to Top]

William Wizeman, SJCorpus Christi Church,New York CityUSA

, concerning the same matter of the Sacrament, the kyngs visitours beyng directed downe for the same purpose by the kyng 
Commentary  *  Close

The leading Royal commissioners were Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, who would be burned alive for his Protestant faith at Oxford under Mary I in 1555; Thomas Thirlby, bishop of Ely, was largely a diplomat under Edward and Mary, but seemed convinced by the renewal of Catholicism under the latter, and died incarcerated for rejecting the 1559 Elizabethan Religious Settlement; John Cheke, a layman and one of the great English humanists of the period, who recanted his Protestantism under Mary.

[Back to Top]
. The names of whiche visitors were these: Nicolas Ridley Byshop of Rochester, Thomas Byshop of Ely, M. Iohn Cheeke the kyngs Scholemaster, Doctour May Ciuilian, & Thomas Wendy the kynges Phisician. The conclusions in that disputation propounded were these.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaConclusions propounded to be disputed at Cambrige.
1. Transubstantiation can not be proued neither by the
expresse wordes of Scripture, nor necassarely gathered
or confirmed by the consent of the auncient Catho-
lickes before a thousand yeares after Christ. 

Commentary  *  Close

The first issue under dispute was whether the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, that is the bread and wine consecrated at Mass are transformed completely into Christ's true, corporeal, risen and glorified body and blood, so that only the outward signs of bread and wine appear, have any warrant in scripture and in the writings of the ancient teachers or doctors (the 'Fathers') of The Church, in the first 1000 years of the history of Christianity. The chief Protestant speaker, John Madew, begins with a long disquisition on the perceived evils of the Catholic Eucharistic doctrine of Transubstantiation, to which his Catholic opponents for some reason do not respond.

[Back to Top]


2. In the Supper of the Lord there is no other oblation
of Christ, but onely the commemoration of his death,
and thankes giuyng.

MarginaliaAunswerers and disputers in those disputations at Cambridge. This disputation continued 3. dayes. 

Commentary  *  Close

The leading Catholic theologians in this disputation were William Glyn, a distinguished humanist, one of the first fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge and Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity there until after the disputation, when he lost his professorship, but under Mary he became Bishop of Bangor, Wales; Alban Langdale was a fellow of St John's College, Cambridge and would die in prison for his Catholic faith under Elizabeth; Thomas Sedgewick was also Lady Margaret Professor, but during Mary's reign, and when Elizabeth came to the throne he became a recusant; John Young was another of the first fellows of Trinity, and under Mary became first Vice-Chancellor of the Cambridge and then Regius Professor of Divinity, but would die in prison for his Catholic faith under Elizabeth.

[Back to Top]
In the first dyd aunswered Doctour Madew. Agaynst whō disputed Doctour Glynne, M. Langdale, M. Segewicke, M. Yong.

In the second disputation dyd aunswere Doctour Glynne. Agaynst whom disputed M. Grindale, Maister Pearne, M. Geste, M. Pylgyngton.

In the thyrd disputation aunswered M. Pearne. Agaynst whom disputed one M. Parkar (not Doct. Math. Parkar) M. Pollard, M. Vauisour, M. Yong.

At length the disputations ended, the Byshop of Rochester Doct. Nicolas Ridley after the maner of Scholes, made this determination vpon the foresayd conclusions, as here foloweth.

¶ The determination of Doctour Niolas Ridley Byshop of Rochester, vpon the conclusions aboue prefixed.

MarginaliaThe determination of Doct. Nic. Ridley vpon the disputations. T Here hath bene an auncient custome amongest you, that after disputations had in your common Scholes, there should be some determination made of the matters so disputed and debated, especially touchyng Christian Religion. Because therfore it is sene good vnto these worshypfull assistentes ioyned with me in Cōmission from þe kyngs Maiestie, that I should performe the same at this tyme: I will by your fauourable, patience declare, both what I do thinke and beleue my selfe, and what also other ought to thinke of the same. Whiche thyng I would that afterwardes ye dyd with diligence way and ponder, euery man at home seuerally by hymselfe.

[Back to Top]

The principall groundes or rather headsprynges of this matter are specially fiue. 

Commentary  *  Close

Catholics would agree with Ridley's 'grounds' or foundations of determining how Christ is present in the Eucharist, except the fourth. They would differ on how the first, second and fifth are defined and interpreted.

MarginaliaV. principall groundes to take away transubstātiation. The first is the authoritie, maiestie, and veritie of holy Scripture.

The second is the most certaine testimonies of the auncient Catholike Fathers, who, after my iudgement, do sufficiently declare this matter.

The third is the definition of a Sacrament.

The fourth is the abominable heresie of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation.

The fift is the most sure beliefe of the Article of our faith: He ascended into heauen.

¶ The first grounde.

MarginaliaTransubstantiation agaynst the scripture. This Transubstantiation is cleane agaynst the wordes of the Scripture, and consent of the auncient Catholike Fathers. The Scripture sayth: I wil not drinke hereafter of this fruite of the vine. &c. Now the fruite of the vyne is wyne. And it is manifest þt Christ spake these wordes after the Supper was finished, as it appeareth both in Mathew, Marke,and also in Luke, if they be well vnderstanded. There be not many places of the Scripture that do cōfirme this thyng neither is it greatly materiall: For it is enough if there bee any one playne testimonie for the same. MarginaliaScripture to be measured not by number but by authoritye. Neither ought it to be measured by the number of Scriptures, but by the authoritie, and by the veritie of the same. And the maiestie of this veritie is as ample in one short sentence of the Scripture, as in a thousand.

[Back to Top]

Moreouer, Christ tooke bread, he brake bread, he gaue bread. In the Actes Luke calleth it bread. S. Paule calleth it bread after the sanctification. Both of them speaketh of breakyng, which belongeth to the substaūce of bread, and in no wise to Christes body: for the scripture sayth: Ye shall not breake a bone of him. MarginaliaExod. 12. Christ sayth: Do ye this in my remembraunce. S. Paule also sayth: Do ye this in my remembraunce. And agayne: As often as ye shall drinke of this cup, do it in the remembrance of me. Marginalia1 Cor. 11. And our Sauiour Christ in þe. 6. of Iohn, speakyng against þe Capernaites sayth: Labour for the meate that perisheth not. And whē they asked: what shall we do that we may worke the workes of God? He aunswered them thus: This is the worke of God, that ye beleue in him whō hee hath sent. MarginaliaIohn 6. You see how he exhorteth them to fayth, for fayth is that worke of God. Agayne: This is the bread whiche came downe from heauen. But Christes body came not down from heauen. Moreouer: He that eateth my fleshe, & drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him. My flesh (sayth he) is meate in deede, and my bloude is drinke in deede. MarginaliaIohn 6. When they heard this, they were offended. And whilest they were offēded, he sayd vnto them: What if ye shal see the Sonne of mā ascende vp where he was before? Wherby he went about to draw them from the grosse and carnall eatyng. This body sayth he, shall ascende vp into heauen, meanyng altogether as S. Augustine sayth: It is the spirite that quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothyng. The wordes that I speake vnto you are spirite and lyfe, and must be spiritually vnderstād. These be the reasons which perswade me to incline to this sentēce and iudgement.

[Back to Top]
¶ The second ground.

MarginaliaThe second ground agaynst transubstantiation. Now my second ground agaynst this transubstantiation are the auncient Fathers a thousand yeares past. And so farre of is it that they do confirme this opinion of transubstantiation, that pleynly they seeme vnto me, both to thinke and to teach the contrary.

[Back to Top]

Dionysius in many places calleth it bread. MarginaliaDionys. in Eccle. Hierar. The places are so manifest and playne, that it needeth not to recite them.

Ignatius to the Philadelphians sayth: I besech you brethren cleaue fast vnto one fayth, and to one kynde of preachyng, vsing together one maner of thankesgeuyng: for the flesh of the Lorde Iesu is one, and his bloud is one whiche was shed for vs: There is also one bread broken for vs, and one cuppe of the whole church. MarginaliaIgnatius ad Philadelph.

[Back to Top]

Irenæus writeth thus: Euen as the bread that commeth of the earth receauyng Gods vocation is now no more cōmon bread, but Sacramentall bread, consistyng of two natures, earthly and heauēly: euen so our bodies receauyng the Eucharist, are now no more corruptible, hauyng hope of the resurrection. MarginaliaIrenæus lib. 4. cap. 34.

[Back to Top]

Tertullian is very playne, for he calleth it a figure of the body. &c. MarginaliaTertullianus.

Chrisostome writing to Cæsarius the Monke, albeit he be not receiued of diuers, yet wil I read the place to fastē it more deepely in your mindes: for it semeth to shew playnly the substaūce of bread to remayne. The wordes are these.

Before the bread is sanctified, we name it bread: but by the grace of God sanctifying the same through the ministery of the Priest, it is deliuered from the name of bread, and is coūted worthy to beare the name of the Lordes body, although the very substaunce of bread notwithstandyng doe still remayne therein, and now is takē not to be two bodies, but one body of the Sonne. &c. MarginaliaChrysostomus ad Cesarium.

[Back to Top]

Cypriā sayth: Bread is made of many graynes. And is that naturall bread, and made of wheate? Yea it is so in deede. MarginaliaCyprian Lib. 1. Epist. 6

The