the argument was taken up by "Master Langdale," who quoted Erasmus as saying—

"The Church of Christ hath determined, very lately, transubstantiation. It was of a long season enough to believe Christ's Body to be either under the bread consecrated, or else to be present after any other manner."

Madew (accepting, of course, Erasmus as an authority, seeing that his Paraphrase on the Gospels was then in public use in the Churches by the King's Injunctions of 1547) said in reply:

...... it is most constant and sure, that Erasmus was of that mind and opinion, that it was enough for a Christian to believe Christ's Body and Blood to be in the Sacrament, in what manner or condition soever it were."-p. 314.

Then Langdale asked

66 ...... whether that this sentence This is my Body,' be spoken of Christ figuratively or not?

6

"Madew. After the mind of the common gloss of Cyprian and Origen, it is so taken in very deed.'

Langdale. 'That cannot be, by your patience; for it is taken there substantially: ergo, not figuratively.

"Madew. I deny your argument.'

"Langdale. I prove my argument good, thus: This word substance doth plainly repugn, and is contrary to, this word figure: ergo, substantially and figuratively do also repugn. Moreover, I ask of you, whether that this be a true proposition or not: Bread is Christ's Body.'

"Madew. "Yea, forsooth it is a true proposition.'

"Langdale. "Then thus to you: Christ's Body was given for us, but you say that bread is Christ's Body: ergo, bread was given for

us.'

"Rochester. 'Not so, sir, for your former proposition is of double understanding.'

"Langdale. 'Well, yet you, master doctor, do grant that Christ is substantially in the Sacrament.'

"Madew. No: I deny that I said so ever.

"Langdale. "Yea, do you so? Well, I pass not thereupon greatly; for I will prove it by another means.-Christ did suffer His most glorious passion for us really and substantially: Ergo, He is also in the Sacrament substantially. The argument is good, because that it is the same here, that was there crucified for us: howbeit here invisibly, indeed spiritually and sacramentally; but there visibly, and after a mortal and most bloody manner.'

"Rochester. 'Master 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 natural Body, substantially and really, in very deed; but in the Sacrament he is not so, but spiritually and figuratively only.'

6

"Langdale. By your good Lordship's favour that is not so; for He is there not figuratively, but verily and indeed, by the power of His mighty word: yea, even His very own natural Body, under the Sacrament duly performed by the lawful minister.'"-p. 315.

To this statement Madew and Ridley gravely objected. In reply to an argument of "Master Segewick," another opponent, Ridley said:

"I do grant it [the Bread of the Sacrament] to be Christ's true Body and Flesh, by a property of the nature assumpted to the Godhead; yea, and we do really eat and drink his Flesh and Blood after a certain real property."-p. 316.

Then they proceeded to another point, which was thus stated by Segewick:

"Now, as touching our second conclusion, this I say: wheresoever, Christ is; there is a sacrifice propitiatory; but, in the Lord's Supper is Christ ergo, in the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice propitiatory."

Madew. "Christ is not offered in the Lord's Supper, but is received spiritually."

Segewick. "The Priesthood and the Sacrifice be correspondent together; but Christ's Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedeck, is perpetual; ergo, also so is His Sacrifice.

Rochester "Christ is a Priest for ever; that is to say, His Priesthood and Sacrifice, offered once for all, is available for ever; so that no other shall succeed Him."

Segewick. "Where there is no Oblation, there is no Sacrifice: ergo, if Christ be not perpetually offered, there is no perpetual Sacrifice. Item, the same bloody Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross was the very fine and end of all the bloody Sacrifices figured in the Law after the order of Aaron's Priesthood. Wherefore, you must needs grant that He offered Himself also, at His last Supper, after the order of Melchizedeck, under the forms of Bread and Wine, or else you must show the Scripture where He did so, which I cannot perceive to be done but at His last Supper only, after an unbloody manner. Item, He is offered for the remission of sins daily: ergo, He is a Sacrifice propitiatory still, in the new Law, as St. Augustine saith, expounding these words of the Psalm, Thou hast not willed to have Sacrifice and Oblation, but,' &c.

"Rochester. "St. Cyprian speaketh much like that sort, where he saith thus, 'It is the Lord's Passion, which we do offer,' &c."p. 317.

In "The second Disputation holden at Cambridge the 24th day of June, 1549," Dr. Glyn commenced with a Declaration

upon each of his two Conclusions argued at the former meeting; upon which "Master Perne" said to him:

...You left transubstantiation, and endeavour yourself to prove the real Presence in the Sacrament: whereas we deny nothing less than His Corporal Presence, or the absence of His substance in the Bread."-p. 320.

Grindal then followed, and argued against the change of the substance of the Bread, that

"If it be the real and substantial Body of Christ, because Christ said 'This is my Body;' ergo, because the Lord said I will not drink of the fruit of this vine,' and Paul calleth it Bread after the consecration, it is therefore Bread and Wine."—p. 322.

A little after, Grindal remarked

"Augustine upon the thirty-third psalm saith, Christ bare Himself in His own Hands, after a sort; not indeed or truly,' &c." --p. 324.

Then Gest followed, and contended against a change of substance, saying—

"If the bread be changed, it is made the [natural] Body of Christ; but that is not so; ergo, it is not changed."

66

Glyn. I deny your minor.'

"Gest.

66

It is not generate or begot:

'Ergo, it is not the Body.'

"Glyn. That followeth not; as though to be made, and to be generate or begot, were all one thing; or as though there were no other mutation than a generation: and so you impugn a thing that you know not. But what call you the generation?'

"Gest.

66

'The generation is the production of the accidents.'

Glyn. A new definition of a new philosopher.'

"Gest.

'That which he took He blessed; that which He blessed He brake, and gave it unto them: ergo,' &c.

gave

"Glyn. Christ took bread, brake bread, and His Body, that is the substance of His Body: saying, This is my Body.' "Gest. 'The Bread is not changed into the Blood of Christ : ergo, not into His Body either.'

66

Glyn.

"Gest.

I deny your antecedent.'

"The Master of the sentences saith it.'

Glyn. You understand him not; for the bread is changed into the Body of Christ by the power of God's word."

"Rochester. Ye dream of a real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, by the force of the words spoken; which the Holy Scripture doth impugn."

"Gest. If there were any transubstantiation, the accidents should not remain still; for they have no matter whereto they may lean or

D

cleave. But the accidents remain not themselves alone : ergo,' &c." -p. 325.

In "the third Disputation, holden at Cambridge, as before," Master Perne, having made his Declaration upon the two Conclusions, said in his argument against Parker (not Matthew, afterwards Archbishop)

"I grant unto you that Christ is in the Sacrament truly, wholly, and verily, after a certain property and manner: I deny not His presence, but His real and corporal presence I utterly deny; for doubtless His true and natural Body is in Heaven, and not in the Sacrament notwithstanding He dwelleth with us, and in us, after a certain unity. And also in the sixth chapter of John, He speaketh not of the Flesh of Christ crucified,' &c.

"Parker. The flesh of Christ as it is in the Sacrament, is quick and giveth life: ergo, His real and substantial flesh is in the Sacrament."

66

Rochester.

these words 'This is My Body.' are meant thus by grace it is My true Body, but not My fleshly Body, as some of you suppose."-p. 329.

In reply, to Master Vavasor, who had drawn an argument from St. Augustine, in Ps. xcviii.

"Christ of the earth received earth, and of the flesh of Mary He received flesh."

Ridley said:

"I acknowledge not His real substance to be there; but the property of His substance."-p. 331.

Supplementary to these arguments we have Ridley's "Determination concerning the Sacrament, made at Cambridge, after three Disputations held there, June 20, 1549."

The King's Commissioners.-Bishops of Rochester [Ridley] and Ely [Goodrich], Mr. (afterwards Sir John) Cheke, Dr. May, and Thomas Wendy, Physician to the King.

1st Disputation, Dr. Madew v. Dr. Glyn, Segewick, Langdale, and Young.

2nd Disputation, Dr. Glyn v. Grindal, Perne, Gest, and Pilkington.

3rd Disputation, Perne v. Parker, Pollard, Vavasor and Young.

He decides that TRANSUBSTANTIATION is disproved, as being

1. "Clean against the words of the Scripture."-viz. St. Matt.

xxvi. 29; St. Mark xiv. 25; Exod. xii. 46; 1 Cor. xi. 24; St. John vi. 27, 28, 29, 50, 54, 55, 62, 63.

2. Against The Ancient Fathers a thousand years past," viz. ;-Dionysius Pseudo Areopagita: St. Ignat. Ep. ad Philad. : St. Iren. cont. Heres. lib. iv. c. 18: Tert. adv. Marc. iii: St. Cyp. ad. Cæcil. i. 6: Theodoret: Gelasius: St. Cyril: St. August. The places either not named or the same as those in his Treatise on Transubstantiation.

3. Against "the nature of the Sacrament, which consisteth in three things, that is, Unity, Nutrition, and Conversion."

4. Because" They which say that Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist, do take from Him the verity of man's nature....

5. Contrary to the Article of the Creed, "He ascended into heaven," &c.

And from these premises, together with Heb. ix. 11, 26, 28; x. 14, and St. Aug. ad Bonif. Ep. 23: and Faust. xx. c. 18, he holds it proved

"That there is no other [real or carnal] oblation of Christ.... but that which was once made upon the Cross."-Works. Parker Society. pp. 171-9.

In the next year, 1550, Cranmer published his "Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament:" to which Bishop Gardiner having made a reply, the Archbishop printed his "Answer" in the latter part of 1551: as his original work and Bishop Gardiner's criticims are substantially comprised in Cranmer's "Answer" it is desirable to extract a few passages from it, both as serving to shew (1) The nature of the controversy with Gardiner; (2) The continuous identity of the Archbishop's statements touching the PHYSICAL Presence in the Sacrament; and (3) The occasional convergence of the two Prelates' views on points which. are involved in the terms of the Declaration on Kneeling at the Sacrament.

It is true, indeed, that, in both cases, it is often most difficult to gain a clear notion of what the respective writers maintain; and to determine how far they are consistent with themselves: yet if this is more especially the case with Cranmer, from whatever cause, he has furnished certain keys to this controversial work of his. For in his "Preface to the reader," he thinks "it good..to admonish [him] of certain words and kinds of speeches which," as he says, "I