The reall presence in the Sacrament standeth not with the truth of Christes humanitie.They which say that Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist, do take from hym the veritye of mans nature. Eutiches graunted the diuine nature in Christ, but hys humane nature he denied: So they that defend transubstantiation ascribe that to the humane nature, whych onely belongeth to the diuine nature.
The fift grounde is the certayne perswasion of thys article of the fayth: He ascended into heauen, and sitteth on the right hand. &c.
Augustine sayth: The Lord is aboue euen to the ende of the vvorld: but yet the veritye of the Lorde is here also. For his body vvherein he rose agayne, must needes be in one place, but hys verity is spread abroade euery vvhere. MarginaliaAugust. super Ioā. tract. 30.
Also in an other place he sayth: Let the godly receiue also that Sacrament, but let them not be carefull MarginaliaTract. 50.
(speaking there of the presence of the body). For as touchyng hys maiestye, hys prouidence, his inuisible and vnspeakeable grace, these vvordes are fulfilled vvhich he spake: I am wyth you vnto the ende of the world. MarginaliaMath. 28.But according to the flesh vvhich he tooke vpon hym: according to that vvhych vvas borne of the Vyrgin: vvas apprehended of the Ievves: vvas fastned to a tree: taken dovvne agayne from the crosse: lapped in lynnen clothes: vvas buried and rose agayne, and appeared after hys resurrection, so you shall not haue me alvvaies vvyth you. And vvhy? because that as concerning hys flesh he vvas conuersant vvyth hys Disciples fortye dayes, and they accompanying hym, seing hym, but not follovvyng hym, he vvent vp into heauen, and is not here, for he sitteth at the ryght hand of hys Father: and yet he is here, because he is not departed hence as concernyng the presence of hys diuine Maiesty.[Back to Top]
Marke and consider well what saynt Augustine sayth: He is ascended into heauen, and is not here, saith he. Beleue not them therfore which say that he is yet here stil in þe earth.
Moreouer: Doubt not (sayth the same Augustine) but that Iesus Christ, as concerning the nature of his manhood is novve there from vvhence he shall come. And remember vvell and beleue the profeß of a Christian man: that he rose from death, ascended into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of hys father, and from that place, and none other (not from the aulters) shall he come to iudge the quicke and the dead, and he shall come, as the Angell sayd, as he was seene go in to heauen: that is to say, in the same forme and substance, vnto the vvhich he gaue immortality, but chaūged not nature. After this forme (meaning hys humane nature) vve may not thinke that he is euery vvhere. MarginaliaAugust. Epist. 57.[Back to Top]
And in the same epistle he sayth: Take avvay frō the bodies the limitations of places and they shall be no vvhere: and because they are no vvhere they shall not be at all. MarginaliaAugust. ibid.
Vigilius sayth: If the vvoord and the flesh be both of one nature, seyng that the vvord is euery vvhere, vvhy then is not the flesh also euery vvhere? For vvhen it vvas in earth, then verely it vvas not in heauen: and novv vvhen it is in heauē, it is not surely in earth. And it is so certayne that it is not in earth, that as concernyng the same vve looke for hym to come frō heauen, vvhom as concernyng the vvord vve beleue to be vvyth vs in earth. MarginaliaVigilius contra Eutychen Lib. 4.[Back to Top]
Also the same Vigilius sayth: VVhych thinges seyng they be so, the course of the scripture must be searched of vs, and many testimonies must be gathered to shevv playnly vvhat a vvyckednes and sacrilege it is to referre those thinges to the propertie of the diuine nature, vvhych do onely belong to the nature of the flesh: and contraryvvise, to apply those thynges vnto the nature of the flesh, vvhych do properly belong to the diuine nature. Whych thyng the transubstantiatours doo, whylest they affirme Christes body not to be conteyned in any one place, & ascribe that to hys humanity, whych properly belongeth to hys diuinitye: as they do whych wyll haue Christes body to be in no one certaine place limited. MarginaliaThe thyrd Conclusiō.[Back to Top]
Now in the latter conclusion concerning the sacrifice, because it dependeth vpon the fyrst, I wyll in few words declare what I thinke. For if we did once agree in that, the whole controuersye in the other would soone be at an ende. Two thinges there be which do perswade me that thys conclusion is true: that is, certayne places of the scripture, and also certain testimonies of the fathers. Saint Paule sayth. Heb. 9.
Sacrifice of Christes body.Christ being come an high Priest of good things to come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with handes, that is, not of this buyldyng, neyther by the bloud of Goates and Calues, but by his own bloud, entred once into the holy place, and obtayned for vs eternall redemption. &c. and now in the ende of the world he hath appeared once to put away synne by the sacrifice of hym selfe.
And agayne: Christ was once offered to take awaye the synnes of many.
Moreouer he sayth: With one offering hath hee made perfect for euer those that are sanctified. MarginaliaHeb. 10.
MarginaliaChrist neuer offered but once.These scriptures do perswade me to beleue that there is no other oblation of Christ (albeit I am not ignorant that there are many sacrifices) but that whych was once made vpon the crosse.
MarginaliaAug. ad Bonif. Epist. 23. August. Quest. 61. Aug. contra Faustū. cap. 21. cap. 28.The testimonies of the auncient Fathers whych confyrme the same, are out of Augustine ad Bonifac. Epist. 23. Againe in hys booke of 43. Questions in the 61. question. Also in his 20. booke against Faustus the Maniche cap. 21. And in the same booke against the sayd Faustus cap. 28. thus he writeth: Novv the Christians keepe a memoriall of the sacrifice paste, vvyth a holy oblation and participation of the body and bloud of Christ.[Back to Top]
MarginaliaFulgent. De Fide.Fulgentius in hys booke De Fide, calleth the same oblation a commemoration. And these thinges are sufficient for thys time for a scholasticall determination of these matters.
The disputations in which Martin Bucer, a leading Continental theologian in exile in England, took part. By the end of 1549 he was made Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge.
OVer & beside these disputations aboue mentioned, other disputations also were holdē at Cambridge shortly after by Martin Bucer vppon these conclusions folowyng.
MarginaliaConclusions disputed at Cambrige by Martyn Bucer.
1. The canonical bookes of holy Scripture alone
do sufficiētly teach the regenerated all thinges
necessarely belongyng vnto saluation.
2. There is no Church in earth which erreth not
as well in faith as in maners.
3. We are so iustified freely of God, that be-
fore our iustification it is sinne and prouo-
keth Gods wrath agaynst vs, what soeuer good
worke we seeme to do. Then beyng iustified we
do good workes.
In principle Catholics would not disagree with the first and third conclusions or points to be disputed, though they differ vehemently with Bucer and other Protestants on how these statements should be understood or interpreted. The second conclusion - that the Church could be wrong in what it teaches regarding the Faith - would be rejected as a denial of Christ's promise to remain with the Church always. That members, including leading members of the Church, could be wicked or act contrary to Christian morals ('manners') is indisputable.[Back to Top]
Dialogues were used in classical times as a means of education through a format of imagined conversation between individuals or allegorical figures, rather than that of rote memorisation. Those of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato are the most famous. This format continued to be used throughout the medieval period, such as by the twelfth-century Ailred of Rievaulx in his Spiritual Friendship. Dialogues became an important means of humanist education in the early-modern period, following the example of classical antiquity. Those teaching or writing on philosophy and theology in particular found this method sympathetic in their attempts to inculcate the many complex ideas in these fields of knowledge. It soon became employed for elucidating religious controversy in the Reformation. Thomas More's Dialogue Concerning Heresies holds pride of place among the most-noteworthy in English for what a dialogue could offer the reader: learning in the form of intelligent, witty and engaging discussion or even argument. Of course not all dialogues reached such heights. Many were pedantic or could fall into confessional diatribes. Foxe presents an anonymous dialogue between the allegorical characters of 'Verity' and 'Custom': the Protestant understanding of true religion and a caricature of the Catholic understanding of Church tradition.[Back to Top]
William Wizeman, SJCorpus Christi ChurchNew York CityUSA
The disputants with Martin Bucer, the great reforming theologian who come to Cambridge at the invitation of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and as an exile from the religious conflicts going on in the Empire, were all distinguished Cambridge fellows of Catholic belief. Thomas Sedgwick, Fellow of Trinity College, was the leader in these August 1550 disputations regarding the Eucharist. Under Mary I he became Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity until 1558, when he became Regius Professor of Divinity. He replaced John Young, another Trinity Fellow, in that post. Andrew Perne had been and would again be Vice-Chancellor of the University. Perne and Sedgwick were involved in the exhumation and burning of Bucer's remains in Cambridge as an unrepentant heretic. Sedgwick and Young became recusants under Elizabeth I. Perne embraced the Elizabethan Protestant Settlement of 1559.[Back to Top]
In order to edify his readers, Foxe chooses not to offer his transcription of the disputation at this point, but to rather offer a 'Dialogue' which was compiled from the writings (and perhaps lectures?) of Peter Martyr Vermigli, the other great reformed theologian besides Bucer who had fled to Edwardian England; he became Regius Professor of Theology at Oxford. Foxe does not name the compiler other than a 'learned and reverend' Englishman. One wonders if this person is not Foxe himself.[Back to Top]
The dialogue Foxe presents is between two allegorical figures regarding the words understood as Christ's instituting the sacrament of the Eucharist: religion according to the tradition of the Church ('custom'), and religion according to the truth as found in the word of God or scripture. For Foxe and the vast majority of Protestants, beginning with the teachings of Martin Luther, all truths that are necessary for salvation are contained in the Bible or word of God. Church tradition, being unwritten and not found in the Bible, is liable to human frailty and corruption, and is therefore not worthy of trust, and certainly cannot be a reliable source of divine truth. In the Catholic understanding, there is no division between the two modes of revelation, or God's self-manifestation to humanity. Church tradition is the unwritten word of God, handed down for centuries from the time of the Apostles. The Bible is the written word of God, which was not composed until after the Church and its tradition had come into existence. The Church as a whole possesses the responsibility, given to it by Christ with the promise that in cannot err in matters of faith since it is forever guided by the Holy Spirit, to interpret the one divine revelation as found in the complementary ways in which it is revealed: written and unwritten, which are intertwined and indivisible. For Catholics, Foxe is trying to establish a false dichotomy. Moreover, some Protestants, including such leaders as Luther and Calvin, held that the Bible needed no interpretation but was rather self-explanatory; in fact these and other reformers have been criticized for viewing their own interpretations of the Bible as the only correct ones, and indeed, as self-evidently so. For Foxe the Bible and the Protestant understanding of true religion are equated as one and the same.[Back to Top]
MarginaliaA Dialogue betwene Custome and Veritie.CVST. I maruell much what madnes is cropen into those mens hartes,which now a dayes are not ashamed so violently to tread down the liuely word of God, yea and impudently to deny God hym selfe.
VERI. God forbyd there shoulde bee any such. In deede I remember that the Romish byshop was wont to haue the Bible for his foote stoole, and so to treade downe Gods worde euermore when hee stoode at hys Masse.
Veritie uses the image of the pope treading on the Bible in order to offer the Mass, which as Veritie implies, is a nonbiblical corruption of the Eucharist. But now that the pope has been revealed as the source of false religion by the reformers, none ('no moe [more]') have the power to distort the Protestant views of religious truth.[Back to Top]
CVST. No moe say you? Yes doubtles there are an hundreth thousand mo, and your part it is Veritie, to withstand them.
VERI. As touchyng my part, you know it agreeth not with my nature to stand with falsehode. But what are they: disclose thē if you will haue thē reproued.
CVST. What are you so great a straūger in these quar-