Critical Apparatus for this Page
Commentary on the Text
Names and Places on this Page
Unavailable for this Edition
1593 [1593]

K. Edvvard. 6. Argumentes of Peter Martyr disputing of the Sacrament.

Marginalia1552.Vigilius.One creature can not receaue in it selfe ij. contrary or diuers thyngs together. But these ij. thyngs be diuers and farre vnlyke, that is to say, to be conteined in a place, and to be euery where. For the worde is euery where, but the flesh is not euery where. 

Commentary  *  Close

The risen body possesses the quality of 'subtlety': in contrast to its former finitude, the risen body has infinite capabilities such that it cannot be hindered by any created object.

MarginaliaVigilius contra Eutychen Lib. 4.

[Back to Top]
¶ Argument.

Fe-Bodies organicall without quantitie be no bodies.
ri-
The Popes doctrine maketh the body of Christ in
the Sacrament, to be without quantitie:
o.
Ergo, the Popes doctrine maketh the body of Christ
in the Sacrament to be no body.

¶ Argument.

Da-All thynges which may be diuided, haue quantitie.
ri-
The body in þe Popes Sacrament is diuided in iij.
partes:
j.
Ergo, the body in the Popes Sacrament hath quan-
titie, which is agaynst their own doctrine. 
Commentary  *  Close

'[T]he Popes doctrine' and 'the Pope's sacrament': if Foxe's record of the debate is accurate, than Martyr is attempting to associate the doctrine of transubstantiation with the papacy, which has been unremittingly vilified in England since the break with Rome in 1534, and in Edward's reign became equated with Antichrist, the servant of Satan on earth.

[Back to Top]

¶ Argument.

Fe-
No naturall body can receaue in it selfe, and at one
tyme, contrary or diuers qualities. Vigilius.
ri-
To be in one place locall, and in an other place not
locall, in one place with quantitie, in an other place
without quantitie, in one place circumscript, in an
other place incircumscript, is for a naturall body to
receaue contrary qualities:
o.
Ergo, the body of Christ can not bee in one place lo-
call, and in an other not locall, in one place with
quantitie, and in an other without quantitie, as our
aduersaries do affirme.

[Back to Top]
¶ Argument.

Fe-The wicked receaue not the body of Christ.
ri-
The wicked do receaue the body of Christ, if tran-
substantiation be graunted:
son.
Ergo, transubstantiation is not to bee graunted in
the Sacrament.

¶ Argument for probation of the Maior.

Ca-
To eate Christ, is for a mā to haue Christ dwelling
and abyding in hym. Augustine.
mes-The wicked haue not Christ dwellyng in them:
tres.Ergo, the wicked eate not the body of the Lord. 
Commentary  *  Close

Martyr argues that sinful Christians and non-Christians cannot eat the body of Christ: for Christ is only truly, spiritually present to those who receive the Eucharist with faith. Using I Corinthians 11: 27-30, Catholics argue that St Paul states that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily or without belief, cannot harm Christ's risen body but rather condemn themselves, and not only in the Last Judgment. Even in this life they suffer the consequences of their sin or lack of faith, as seen, according to Paul, by those who become ill or die after eating without repentance for their sins or without faith in Christ's presence in the Eucharist.

[Back to Top]

Cyprian.

Cyprianus de Cœna Domini. The eatyng of Christ, is our abydyng in hym. MarginaliaCyprian. De Cœna Domini.

¶ Argument.

Bo-
The holy ghost could not come if the body of Christ
were really present.
car-That the holy Ghost is come, it is most certayne:
do.
Ergo, it can not be that Christ hym selfe shoulde bee
here really present.

For proufe of the Maior. Ioh. 16. Vnles I go from you, the holy Ghost shall not come. It is expedient for you, that I go hence. 

Commentary  *  Close

John 16: 7.

MarginaliaIohn. 16.

¶ Argument of Peter Martyr.

Ba-
If the wicked and infidels do receaue the body of
Christ, they receaue him either with sense or reason,
or with fayth.
ro-
But they receaue him neither with sense, reason, nor
with fayth:
co.
Ergo, wicked men and infidels receaue in no wyse
the body of Christ.

MarginaliaDeclaration of the Maior.For declaration of the Maior: if ye say, they receaue hym with sense, that is agaynst their own lore, for the body of Christ in the blessed Sacrament (say they) is not sensible, nor to be perceaued by any sense, neither with reason can they receaue him, by their own learnyng, for somuch as this Sacrament excedeth all reason. Nec fides habet meritū, vbi ratio præbet experimentum. And if ye say, that they receaue hym with fayth, how can that be, seyng infidels haue no fayth?

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaWhat is to eate the body of Christ by the Papistes.What is to eate the body of Christ, the teachyng of the Papistes herein is straunge, and differeth from the old Doctours. 

Commentary  *  Close

As with the phrase, 'the Popes doctrine', Martyr describes belief in transubstantiation as a belief created by the papacy, an institution despised and even demonized in Edwardian England.

For where the Papistes doe teach, that wicked persons and infidels, albeit they receaue not the effect of the Sacrament, yet the matter of the Sacrament, which is the very bodye of Christ, they receaue with their mouth, and with their sense the accidences of bread, and thus imagine a certayne body of Christ, such as euill men and infidels may eate, and yetbeyng eaten, it giueth thē no nourishment, nor life, nor maketh them no partakers of his spirite & grace: both Scripture and the aūcient expositors of the Scripture do teach much otherwise. MarginaliaWhat is to eate the body of Christ by Scripture and Doctors.For the Scripture knoweth no such kynd of eatyng Christes body, but onely that which is fruitfull, wholesome, and effectual. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, abideth in me and I in hym. &c. Ioh. 6. 
Commentary  *  Close

John 6: 56. Martyr does not refer to I Corinthians: 27-30, in which St Paul describe those who receive the Eucharist without faith or repentance for their sins and so condemn themselves.

And therfore it may appeare, that the Scripture meaneth by eatyng Christes flesh, to beleue in Christes Passion, which none can doe but onely the faythfull. And to the same sense sound all the olde Doctours.

[Back to Top]
Cyprianus. 
Commentary  *  Close

De caena domini was in fact a medieval work that was erroneously attributed to St Cyprian of Carthage by both Catholics and Protestants in this period. Both Catholics and Protestants found it a useful source of proof texts for their various views of the Eucharist.

That we should knowe, that eatyng is our dwellyng in hym, and our drinking is, as it were, a certaine incorporation in hym. MarginaliaCyprian. De Cœna Domini.

MarginaliaThe wicked and infidels do not eate the body of Christ.Item, the same Cyprian: The eatyng therfore of his flesh is a certein desire to abide in him: and saith moreouer, that none eateth of thys Lambe, but such as be true Israelites, that is, true Christen men without colour or dißimulation.

And agayne hee sayth: That as meate is to the flesh, the same is fayth to the soule, the same is the worde to the spirite. &c.

Moreouer: And therefore (sayth he) doyng this we 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 bee 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 mēbers of an harlot, &c. Furthermore, whē Christ saith: He that eateth my flesh & drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me & I in him: MarginaliaIohn. 6. he sheweth what it is, not Sacramētally 

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 dede to eate his body & drinke his bloud, which is, when a man so dwelleth in Christ, that Christ dwelleth in hym. For so Christ spake those wordes, as if he should say: he that dwelleth not in me, and in whom I dwell not, let hym not say nor thynke, that hee eateth my body, or drinketh my bloud.

[Back to Top]

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

All which kindes of eating cā not be sayd of the wicked and infidels, but onely of the godly and faythfull.

And thus briefly we haue runne ouer all the Argumētes & authorities of Pet. Martyr in that disputatiō at Oxford, with Doct. Tresham, Chadsey, and Morgan, before the kynges visitors aboue named. an. 1549.

Furthermore who so listeth more fully to be satisfied and resolued in all the occurrentes touching þe matter of thys Sacrament, let hym read the bookes fyrst of Archb. Crāmer agaynst Winchester: Secondly þe tractation of Pet. Martyr made in Oxford, translated and extant in English: and thirdly the boke of Bishop Ridley made in prison, called A brief declaratiō of the Lords Supper.

[Back to Top]

The lyke disputation also about the same tyme was appoynted 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

, concernyng the same matter of the Sacrament, the kyng visitours beyng directed down 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 which visitors were these: Nic. Ridley Byshop of Rochester, Thomas Bishop of Ely, M. Ioh. Cheeke the kynges scholemaster, Doctour May Ciuilian, and Tho. Wendy the kynges Phisician. The conclusions in that disputation propoūded were these.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaConclusions propounded to be disputed at Cambrige.
1. Transubstantiation can not be proued nei-
ther by the expresse wordes of Scripture,
nor necessarely gathered or confirmed by
the consent of the auncient Catholickes be-
fore 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 only the commemo-
ration of his death, and thankes giuyng.

This
GGGg.j.