MarginaliaAn. 1552.
Aunswerers and disputers in these 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 second disputation did aunswere Doctour Glynne. Agaynst whom disputed M. Grindale, M. Pearne, M. Geste, M. Pylkyngton.

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

At length the disputations ended, the Byshop of Rochester Doct, Nic. Ridley after the maner of scholes, made this determination vppon the foresayd conclusions, as here foloweth.

MarginaliaThe determinatiō of Doct. Nic. Ridley vpō the disputations.THere 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 touching christian religion. Because therfore it is seene good vnto these worshipfull assistentes ioyned with me in commission from the kinges Maiestie, that I should performe the same at this time: I wyll by your fauourable patience declare, both what I do thinke and beleue my selfe, and what also other ought to thinke of þ^e same. Which thing I would that afterwardes ye did with diligence way and ponder, euery man at home seuerally by him selfe.

The principall groundes or rather headspringes of this matter are specially fyue.  

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 trāsubstantiation.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 fyft is the most sure beliefe of the Article of our faith: He ascended into heauen.

MarginaliaTransubstantiation agaynst the scripture.This Transubstantiation is cleane agaynst þ^e words of the scripture, and consent of the auncient catholike fathers. The scripture sayth: I vvil not drinke hereafter of this fruit of the vine. &c. Now the fruite of the vyne is wyne. And it is manifest that Christ spake these woordes 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 doo confyrme this thing, neyther 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 authoritie.Neyther ought it to bee measured by the number of scriptures, but by the authority, and by the veritye of the same. And the maiesty of this verity is as ample in one short sentence of the scripture, as in a thousand.

Moreouer, Christ tooke bread, he brake bread, he gaue bread. In the Actes Luke calleth it bread, Saint Paule calleth it bread after the sanctification. Both of them speaketh of breaking, which belongeth to the substaunce of bread, & in no wyse to Christes body: for the scripture sayth: Ye shall not breake a bone of hym.MarginaliaExod. 12. Christ sayth: Doe ye this in my remembraunce. Saint Paule also sayth: Do ye this in my remembrance. And againe: As often as ye shall drinke of this cup, do it in the remembrance of me. Marginalia1 Cor. 11.And our Sauiour Christ in the. 6. of Iohn, speaking against the Capernaites, sayth: Labour for the meate that perisheth not. And whē they asked: VVhat shall vve do that vve may vvorke the vvorkes of God? he aunswered them thus: This is the vvorke of God, that ye beleue in hym vvhom he hath sent. MarginaliaIohn. 6.You see how he exhorteth them to faith, for faith is that worke of God. Again: This is the bread vvhich came dovvne from heauen. But Christes body came not downe from heauen. Moreouer: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, dvvelleth in me, and I in hym. My flesh (sayth he) is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede. MarginaliaIohn. 6.When they heard this, they were offended. And whilest they were offended, he said vnto them: VVhatif ye shall see the Sonne of man ascende vp vvhere he vvas before? Whereby he went about to drawe them from the grosse and carnall eating. This body sayth he, shall ascend vp into heauen, meaning altogether as S. Augustine sayth: It is the spirite that quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The vvordes that I speake vnto you are spirite and lyfe, and must bee spiritually vnderstand. These be the reasons which perswade me to incline to thys sentence and iudgement.

MarginaliaThe 2. ground agaynst trāsubstantiation.Now my second ground against this transubstantiation are the auncient Fathers a thousand yeares paste. And so farre of is it that they doo confirme this opinion of transubstantiation, that plainly they seeme vnto me, both to thinke and to teach the contrary.

Dionysius in many places calleth it bread. MarginaliaDionys, in Eccle. Hierar.The places are so manifest & plaine, that it needeth not to recite thē.

Ignatius to the Philadelphians sayth: I beseech you brethren cleaue fast vnto one fayth, and to one kinde of preaching, vsing together one maner of thankesgeuyng: for the flesh of the lord Iesu is one, and hys bloud is one vvhich vvas shed for vs. There is also one bread broken for vs, and one cup of the vvhole church.MarginaliaIgnatius ad Philadelph.

Irenæus writeth thus: Euen as the bread that commeth of the earth receauyng Gods vocation is novv no more common bread, but sacramentall bread, consisting of tvvo natures, earthly and heauenly: euen so our bodies receauyng the Eucharist, are novve no more corruptible, hauyng hope of the resurrection.MarginaliaIrenæus lib. 4. cap. 34.

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

Chrisostome writing to Cæsarius the Monke, albeit hee be not receyued of diuers, yet wyll I read the place to fasten it more deepely in your myndes: for it semeth to shew playnly the substance of bread to remayne. The wordes are these.

Before the bread is sanctified, vve name it bread: but by the grace of God sanctifying the same through the ministerye of the Priest, it is deliuered from the name of bread, and is coūted vvorthy to beare the name of the Lordes body, although the very substance of bread notvvithstanding doo still remayne therein, and novv is taken not to be tvvo bodies, but one body of the Sonne. &c.MarginaliaChrysostomus ad Cæsarius.

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

The booke of Theodoret in Greeke was now lately printed at Rome, which if it had not bene his, it shoulde not haue bene set forth there, specially seing it is directly against transubstantiation: MarginaliaTheodoretus.For hee sayth playnely that bread styll remayneth after the sanctification.

Gelasius also is very plaine in this matter. The Sacrament (sayth hee) vvhich vve receyue of the body and bloude of Christ, is a diuine matter: by reason vvhereof vve are made partakers by the same of the diuine nature, and yet it ceasseth not styll to be the substance of bread and vvyne. And certes, the representation and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ bee celebrated in the action of the misteries. &c.MarginaliaGelasius.

After this he recited certayne places out of Augustine and Cirill, whych were not noted.

Isichius also confesseth that it is bread.MarginaliaIsych. Lib. cap. 8.

Also the iudgement of Bertram in this matter is very playne & manifest. And thus much for the second groūd.MarginaliaBertram.

MarginaliaThe thyrd ground.The thyrd grounde is the nature of the Sacrament, whych consisteth in three thynges, that is, vnitye, nutrition, and conuersion.

MarginaliaCyprian.
3. thinges in a Sacrament.
1. Vnitie.
2. Nutrition.
3. Conuersion.As touching vnitye, Cyprian thus wryteth: Euen as of many graines is made one bread, so are vve one misticall bodye in Christ. Wherefore bread must needes styll remayn, or els we destroy the nature of a Sacrament.

Also they that take away nutrition, which commeth by bread, do take away likewyse the nature of the sacrament. For as the body of Christ nourisheth the soule, euen so doth bread likewyse nourishe the body of man. Therefore, they that take away the graines or the vnion of the graines in the bread, and denye the nutrition or substance thereof, in my iudgement are sacramentaries: for they take away the similitude betwene the bread and the body of Christ. For they whych affirme transubstantiation are in deede right sacramentaries & Capernaites.

MarginaliaConuersion.As touching conuersion (that like as the bread which we receiue, is turned into our substance, so are wee turned into Christes body) Rabanus and Chrysostome are wytnesses sufficient.