you, but for to contēt your minde in this poynt. It is most constant and sure, that Erasmus was of that mind and opinion, MarginaliaErasmus his opinion of the Sacrament.that it was enough for a christian to beleue Christes body and bloud to be in the sacrament in what manner or condition soeuer it were. MarginaliaAnno 1549.

Langdale. By your license good mayster Doctor, these be Erasmus wordes. The Church of Christ hath determined very lately transubstanciation in the sacrament. It was of a long season enough to beleue Christes body to be eyther vnder the bread consecrated, or els to be present after anye other maner.MarginaliaInough to beleeue Christ to be present in the Sacrament any maner of way. But yet (sayth he) after that the sayd Church had pōdered and weyed the thing more pithely w^t greater iudgement, then she made a more certeyne determination of the same. In the which place 1. Cor. 7. Erasmus sayth that the proceeding of the holy Ghost equally from the Father, & the sonne, was also determined of the same Church. But let this passe. And as touching the second poynt, whiche I noted in your so eloquent declaration, which was that you did wrest, and wring the saying of MarginaliaTertullian his interpretation vpon Malachie,Tertullian from the verity of his minde, for you sayde that he doth interpret the Prophette Malachye speaking of our dayly sacrifice in the new law, to meane nothing els, by that sacrifice in that place, but praier and thankesgeuing. But the sayd ancient Clerke Tertullian hath not those wordes that you doe alleadge of him, that is to saye, (nothing els.)  

Commentary     Close

Catholics and Protestants often found each other's translations of ancient texts wanting in accuracy.

Madew. After the minde of the common glose of Cyprian & Origene it is so taken in very deed.

Langdale. That cannot be by your pacience, for it is taken there substantially, ergo not figuratiuely.

Madew. I deny your argument.

Langdale. I proue my argument good thus. This worde substaunce doth playnely repugne, and is contrary to this word figure, ergo substancially, and figuratiuely do also repugne. Moreouer I aske of you whether that this be a true proposition or not, bread is Christes body?

Madew. Yea forsooth, MarginaliaA true proposition bread is Christes body.it is a true proposition.

Langdale Then thus to you. Christes body was geuen for vs, but you saye that bread is Christes body ergo bread was geuen for vs.

Rochester. Not so syr, for your former propositiō is of double vnderstanding.  

Commentary     Close

Here and for the rest of this first disputation Ridley interjects frequently to support Madew against Langdale and Sedgewick, rather than serving as a referee of the debate.

Langdale. Well, yet you M. Doctor doe graunt that Christ is substauncially in the sacrament.

Madew. No I deny that I sayd so euer.  

Commentary     Close

It is remarkable how quickly the understanding of the Eucharist had changed in England at this time. What Madew declared as blasphemy on 20 June 1549 had not been blasphemy in 1548 and before.

Langdale. Yea? do you so? Well I passe not thereupō greatly, for I will proue it by an other meanes. Christ did suffer his most glorious passion for vs really, and substauncially ergo he is also in the sacrament substauncially. MarginaliaChristes body in the Sacrament Sacramentally and on the Crosse after a mortal & bloudy sorte.The argument is good, for because that it is the same here, that was there crucified for vs, how be it here inuisibly, indeede spiritually and sacramentally, but there visiblye, and after a mortall, and most bloudy maner.

Rochester. Mayster Langdale, your argument doth well conclude, in case that his body were here in the sacrament, after such a sort as it was when he was betrayed. But that is not so, for he was betrayed, and crucified in his naturall body fubstauncially, and really in very deede: MarginaliaChrist crucyfied substancially but yet is in the Sacrament figuratiuely.but in the Sacrament he is not so, but spiritually, and figuratiuely onely.

Langdale. By your good Lordships fauor that is not so, for he is there, not figuratiuely but veryly, and indeed by the power of his mighty word, yea euen his very owne natural body vnder the sacramēt, duely performed by the lawfull minister.

Madew. Oh say not so, for you speake blasphemy.

Langdale. No, no, M. Doctor, God forbid, that either I or any mā els should be noted of blasphemy, saying nothing, but the very playne trueth, as in my conscience, & learning I do no lesse.

Rochester. O M. Langdale, I wis it becommeth you, not heare to haue such wordes.

Langdale. If it like your good Lordship I gaue not þ^e fyrste occasion of them, but onely did refute that, whiche I was vniustly burthened withall as reason doth require, and it greeued me to heare it. He sayth (if it please your Lordshippe) that there is a mutation or chaunge of the bread after it is consecrated, which if it be so (as I graunt no lesse) then I would inquyre of him,MarginaliaA question whether the bread be changed in accidence or substāce. whether it be chaunged in the substaunce, or in the accidentes, or els in both, or in nothing. No man can iustly say that there is a chaunge into nothing. And all auncient fathers do agree, that the sameaccidentes are there still after, that were before, nor no doctor sayth, that there is any mutation of both the substance, and accidentes also, ergo the substaunce of bread is chaunged into some other thing, that is there really present vnder the formes of bread and wine, which by Christes wordes, must needes be his owne blessed body.

MarginaliaNo change neither of the substance, nor yet of the accidents in the Sacrament.Rochester. Syr you are deceiued greately, for there is no chaunge of the substaunces neither of the accidentes: but in very deed there do come vnto the bread other accidents, in so much that wheras the bread and wyne were not sanctified before, and holy, yet afterwardes they be sanctified, and so do receiue then an other sort, or kind of vertue whiche they had not before.

Here is to be noted, that Peter Martyr in his aunswere at Oxford did graunt a chaunge in the substaunces of bread and wine, which in Cambridge by the Bishop Doct. Ridley was denyed.  

Commentary     Close

It is remarkable that Foxe notes the difference between the views of Ridley, whose view reflected the official doctrine of the Church of England, and Vermigli. On one level it may demonstrate that Foxe was not so determined to deny any difference of theological opinions between Protestants in Edwardine England, and hence in Mary's reign as well. On the other hand, Foxe may be informing readers and listeners what is the doctrine of the Established Church as annunciated by a soon-to-be martyr, and thus giving it a formidable pedigree.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaHow Scripture may be abused to any purpose as commōly the Papistes vse it.Langdale. By your pacience reuerend father, by such meanes a man may easely auoyde all the misteries of our christē fayth: As where it is sayde thus of God the father, this is my beloued sonne. &c. A man may also wring that to be vnderstood thus: this is þ^e image of my welbeloued sonne, or this is the vertue of my well beloued sonne: yea muche more iustly then your good Lordship doth þ^e other, because S. Paule to the Hebrues doth call the sonne the Image of the father, and in an other place he calleth him the power, or vertue of God, and Gods wisedom Now though he be so called in scripture, God forbid that we shoulde call hym onely Gods Image or Gods vertue, and not God himselfe.

MarginaliaA figuratiue speach somewhere hurtfull, somewhere not.Rochester. Oh gentle M. Langdale, you ought not to reason after such a sort as you do now, because that a trope or figuratiue speache is nocine somewhere, but not euery where, nor in this matter.

MarginaliaA fond reason wherefore this is my body should seeme no figuratiue speach.Langdale. Yet by your license (honorable father) it doth appeare to me not trope at al in these words of christ, this is my body, which is geuen for you, and that for this reason: Chryst did exhibite or geue againe the very same things at his last supper, by the which thinges he was ioyned to vs, but he was ioyned or knit vnto vs by his owne naturall flesh, & bloud, ergo he did exhibite to vs at his last supper no lesse agayne. My former proposition I proue by the testimony of S. Chrisost. whose wordes in Christes person are these: I would be your brother, I tooke vpon me common flesh & bloud for your sakes, and euen by the same things that I am ioyned to you, the very same I haue exhibited to you agayne. &c.

Rochest. We are not ioyned by natural flesh, but do receiue his flesh spiritually from aboue. &c.

MarginaliaWhether the article of the newter gender (this) be referred to the bread or to the body.RIght worshipful M Doctor, I do also aske of you first of all, whether the greeke article (this) of the neuter gēder be referred to the word (bread) or to the word (body) if it be referred to the worde (bread) then Christ woulde not haue sayd this, in the neuter gender, but rather this, in the masculine gender.

Rochester. Forsooth that article is referred to neyther of both, but may signify vnto vs any other kinde of thing.

Segewicke. No forsoothe, but it doth note vnto vs some excellēt great thing determinately, & not so cōfusedly as you say. For such a great heap of articles, in the greek doth notify vnto vs a great and weighty thing to be in the sacrament determinately, if wee may credite the auncient Fathers. MarginaliaBread taken diuersly in the Scripture.Moreouer this word (bread) is not alwayes in the scriptures taken after one sorte: wherefore I desire you to shew me how it is taken in this place of S. Paule: we are many, one bread. &c.

Madew. Forsooth of the very wheaten bread.

Segewicke. Then after your minde, we are all very wheaten bread.

MarginaliaHow we are bread, and how not.Rochest. Forsooth we are bread, not for the nature of bread, but for the felowship and vnity that is noted by the coagulation of many graynes into one bread or loafe.

Segewicke. Well let that passe, then thus. It is the body, ergo no figure, for because there is a perpetuall contarietye betweene the law of Moyses & the law of grace. Therein were figures & shadowes, and herein is the verity indeed.

MarginaliaHow the bread is Christs body.Rochester. I do graunt it to be Christes true body, & flesh by a propriety of the nature assumpted to the godhead, yea and we do really eat and drinke his flesh and bloud after a certeine reall property.

Segewicke. It is not the figurate paschall lambe, it is not the figuratiue Manna, nor yet þ^e figuratiue shewbread. &c. ergo it is no figure.