MarginaliaAn. 1554. April.For what had he to referre this sentence to the sacramente? He neuer dyd so much as dreame of the Sacrament.

West. MarginaliaCyrillus.Cyril saith: Although he be absent from vs in body, yet are we gouerned by his spirit.

Harps. By these woordes he gaue vs a chearefulnesse, to aspire vpwardes, seeking therehence our helpe. For as touching his conuersation, he is not so in the sacrament, as one meete to be liued withal.MarginaliaThe body of Christe is heer to fede our bellyes, but not to be liued withal. But let hym teach vs that he is not there to feede vs: for after that sort he is there.

[Back to Top]

West. You haue satisfied me wyth your answeres, in doing the same learnedly, and catholikely. But nowe to an other argument.

*Marginalia* The argument holdeth a proportione.Christ is now so absent from the earth by his body, as he was absent from heauen when he liued here.

But when he did liue bodily on earth, the same natural body was out of heauen.

Ergo, now whilest his naturall body is in heauen, it is not in earth.

Harps. I deny the Maior.

West. Fulgentius ad Trāsmundum Regem Libro secundo saith: Secundum humanam substantiam absens erat cœlo, cum descendit de cœlo. These are Fulgentius wordes touching his humane substaunce. He was absent from heauen, when he descended from heauen: and touchyng the same substaunce nowe he is in heauen, he is not on the earth: but concerning the diuine nature, he neuer forsooke, neyther heauen nor earth.

[Back to Top]

☞ After these wordes not waityng Harpsfields answeare, he offered master Cranmer to dispute: who began in this wise.

Cran. I haue hearde you right learnedly and eloquetly entreate of the dignitie of the scriptures, which I do both commend, and haue marueiled therat within my selfe. But where as you referre the true sense & iudgement of the scriptures to the Catholike Church as iudge thereof, you are much deceiued specially for that vnder the name of þ^e church you appoynt suche Iudges as haue corruptly iudged, and contrary to the sense of the scriptures. I wonder likewise why you attribute so litle to the diligent reading of the scriptures, and conferryng of places, seeyng the scriptures do so much commend the same,MarginaliaThe opinion of Maister Harpsfield reproued, referring the sence of the Scripture rather to the iudgement of the Church, then to the diligent reading and conferring of places. as well in diuers other places, as also in those which you your selfe haue already alleged. And as touching your opinion of these questions, it seemeth to me, neither to haue any ground of the word of God, nor of the Primitiue Churche. And to saye the truth, the schoolemen haue spoken diuersly of them, and doo not agree therin among them selues. Wherfore mynding here briefly to shewe my iudgement also, I must desire you first to answeare me to a fewe questions which I shall demaunde of you. Which being done, we shall the better proceede in our disputation. Moreouer, I must desire you to beare also with my rudenes in the Latin tongue: which through long disuse is not nowe so prompt & ready with me, as it hath bene. And now al other thinges set apart, I mynd chiefly to haue regard to the truth. My first question is this: Howe Christes body is in the sacrament, according to your mynd or determination?

[Back to Top]

Then answered a Doctor: MarginaliaChrist present in the sacrament in substāce, but not after the maner of substance.he is there as touching his substance, but not after the maner of his substance.

Harps. He is there in such sort and maner, as he may be eaten.

Cran. My next question is: Whether hee hath hys quantitie and qualities, fourme, figure, and suche like properties.

Harps. Are these your questions, sayde Maister Harpsfielde? I may likewise aske you, when Christ passed through the virgines wombe, an ruperit necne? When they had thus a while contended, there were diuers opinions in this matter.

MarginaliaThe Rabines could not agree among them selues.All the Doctors fell in a buszing, incertaine what to answere: some thought one way, some an other, and thus maister Doctours could not agree.

Then Maister Cranmer saide thus: you put of questions wyth questions, and not wyth answeares. I aske one thing of you, and you answeare an other. Once againe I aske: Whether he haue those properties which he had on the earth?

MarginaliaChristes body without hys properties in the sacrament.Tresh. No, he hath not al the quantities and qualities belonging to a body.

Smith. Stay you M. Tresham. I wyl answeare to you Mayster Doctour, with the woordes of Damascene: Transformatur panis. &c. The bread is transformed. &c.  

But if thou wylt enquire how, Modus impossibilis, the maner is impossible.

MarginaliaThe Doctors in a dout.Then two or three other added their aunsweares to this question, somwhat doubtfully. A great hurley burley was among them: some affirming one thing, and some

an other.

Cran. Doo you appoynt me a body, and can not tell what manner of bodye? Eyther he hath not his quantitie, or els you are ignorant how to aunswere it.

Harps. These are vaine questions, and it is not meete to spend the tyme on them.

West. Heare me a while. MarginaliaLanfrancus contra Berengarium.Lanfrancus, sometyme Bishop of Canterbury doth answere in thys wise vnto Berengarius vpon such like questions: Salubriter credi possunt, fideliter queri non possunt: They may be wel beleeued, but neuer faythfully asked.

Cran. If ye thinke good to answeare it, some of you declare it.

Harps. He is there as pleaseth hym to be there.

Cran. I would be best contented wyth that answeare, if that your appoynting of a carnall presence had not driuen me of necessitie to haue enquired for disputations sake, how you place hym there, sithens you wyll haue a naturall body.

MarginaliaThe papists would haue Christes body in the Sacrament, but they cannot tel how.When agayne he was answered of diuers at one time, some denying it to be quantum, some saying it to be quantitatiuum, some affirmyng it to haue modum quanti, some denying it, some one thyng, some an other: vp start Doctor Weston, and doughtily decided (as he thought) all the matter, saying: it is Corpus quantum, sed non per modum quanti. i. It is a body (saith he) hauing quantitie, but not according to the maner of quantitie.

[Back to Top]

Whereunto master Warde, a great Sophister  

, thinkyng the matter not fully answeared, did largely declare and discourse his sentence: Howe learnedly and truly I can not tel, nor I thinke he hym self neither, ne yet the best learned there. For it was said since, that farre better learned then he, layd as good eare to hym as they could, and yet could by no meanes perceiue to what ende all hys talke tended. In deede hee told a formall tale   to clout vp the matter. MarginaliaM. Warde in the mistie cloudes of dunses quiddites.He was full of quantum & quantitatiuū. This that foloweth, was as it is thought, the effect: yet others thinke no. Howbeit we wyl rehearse the summe of his wordes, as it is thought he spake them.

[Back to Top]

Warde. We muste consider (saith he) that there are duæ positiones, Two positions. The one standeth by þ^e order of partes, with respect of the whole. The other in respecte of that which contayneth. Christe is in the Sacrament in respect of the whole. This proposition is in one of MarginaliaAristotle must helpe to tel vs how Christe is in the sacrament.Aristotles predicaments called Situs. I remember I dyd entreate these matters verye largely, when I dyd rule and moderate the Philosophicall disputations in the publique Scholes. This position is sine modo quantitatiuo, as by an ensample: you can neuer bring heauen to a quantitie. MarginaliaChriste sine modo quantitatiuo in the sacramēt.So I conclude that he is in the sacrament, quantum sine modo quantitatiuo.

[Back to Top]

These words he amplified very largely, and so high he clymed into the heauens with Duns his ladder, and not with the scriptures, that it is to bee marueiled how he could come down againe without falling? To whom M. Cranmer said: Then thus do I make myne argument.

Cran. MarginaliaD. Cranmers Argument.In heauen his body hath quantitie, in earth it hath none, by your saying.

Ergo, he hath two bodyes, the one in heauen, the other in earth.

Here some would haue answered hym, that he had quātitie in both, and so put of the antecedent: but thus said M. Harpsfield.

Harps. I deny your argument: though some would not haue had him say so.

Cran. The argument is good. It standeth vpon contradictories, which is the most surest hold.

Harps. I deny that there are contradictions.

Cran. I thus proue it. Habere modum quantitatiuum & non habere, sunt contradictoria.

Sed Christus in cœlis vt dicitis, habet modum quantitatiuum in terra non habet:

Ergo, duo sunt corpora eius in quæ cadunt hæc contradictoria: Nam in idem cadere non possunt.

West. I deny the Minor.

arps. I answeare that the Maior is not true. For HaHre quantum, et non habere, non sunt contradictoria nisi si beonsiderantur eiusdem ad idem, eodem modo & simplisic citer.

West. I confirme the same: for one body may haue modum quantatiuum, and not haue: and MarginaliaArist. 4. Metaph. Impossibile est idem simul esse & non esse.
Passible and impassible cannot stand together in one subiecte. simul & eiusdem respectu, & eodem tempore, propter rerum pugnantiam.
Christes body to be passible and not impassible at the Supper it appeareth by these wordes That shall be geuen for you.idem corpus was passible and impassible, one body may haue woundes, and not woundes.

[Back to Top]

Cran. This can not be at one tyme.

West. The ensample of the Potter doeth proue that I say: who of that, that is clay nowe, maketh a pot or cuppe forthwith.

Cran. But I say againe, that it is so but a diuers times: