Articles. Argument. Answer. Reverend Mr. Doctor, these three conclusions are put forth unto us at this present to dispute upon. "1. In the sacrament of the altar is the natural body "of Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and also his "blood present really, under the forms of bread and wine, by virtue of God's word pronounced by the priest. 66 "2. There remaineth no substance of bread and wine after “the consecration, nor any other substance but the sub"stance of God and man. "3. The lively sacrifice of the Church is in the mass "propitiatory as well for the quick as the dead." These be the conclusions propounded, whereupon this our present controversy doth rest. Now to the end we might not doubt how you take the same, you have already given up unto us your opinion thereof. I term it your opinion, in that it disagreeth from the catholic. Wherefore thus I argue: Your opinion differeth from the Scripture: Cran. I deny the Antecedent. Ched. Christ, when he instituted his last supper, spake to his disciples, Take, eat; this is my body which shall be given for you; But his true body was given for us: Ergo, His true body is in the sacrament f. Cran. His true body is truly present to them that truly receive him; but spiritually. And so it is taken after a "panis fractus sacramentum est passionis, et repræsentat corpus Jesu "in mortem pro nobis traditum, et ideo vocatur nomine corporis tra"diti.' "Chedsey rursus urget verba Evangelistarum, Hoc est corpus meum, "Hic est sanguis meus. Cætera desunt." Perhaps what is called Cranmer's first Explication may be the answer sent in on Saturday. (See p. 7.) Chedsey may have opened his argument by referring to it: Craniner may then have presented his second and fuller Explication: and the dispute between them, which is now placed before the delivery of this paper, may in fact have followed it. See however p. 13. note (i).] f The right form of this argument is thus to be framed. Du- The same which was given for us, is in the sacrament; ri i. Ergo, His true body is in the sacrament. Christ's the sacra spiritual sort. For when he said, This is my body, it is all How one as if he had said, This is the breaking of my body; body is this is the shedding of my blood: as oft as you shall do present in this, it shall put you in remembrance of the breaking of my ment. body, and the shedding of my blood; that as truly as you receive this sacrament, so truly shall you receive the benefit promised by receiving the same worthily. Ched. Your opinion differeth from the Church, which Argument saith, that the true body is in the sacrament: Ergo, Your opinion therein is false. of the authority of the Church. Cran. I say and agree with the Church, that the body of Auswer. Christ is in the sacrament effectually, because the passion of Christ is effectual. Ched. Christ, when he spake these words, This is my body, spake of the substance, but not of the effect. tually, not Cran. I grant he spake of the substance, and not of the effect, after a sort: and yet it is most true, that the body of Christ's Christ is effectually in the sacrament. But I deny that he body effecis there truly present in bread, or that under the bread is substantially in the his organical body. And because it should be too tedious, sacrament. he said, to make discourse of the whole, he delivered up there his opinion thereof to Doctor Weston, written at large, with answers to every one of their three propositions; which he desired Doctor Weston, sitting there on high, to read openly to the people; which he promised to do. But Papists it was not the first promise that such papists have broken. The copy of this writing, although it were not there read, yet the contents thereof we have drawn out as followeth. An Explication of Cranmer upon the aforesaid conclusions, exhibited in writing 8. false of promise. Cranmer. In the assertions of the Church and of religion, The coutrifling and new fangled novelties of words, so much as may Cranmer's 8 [The original Latin of this Explication is subjoined, from the official report in the British Museum. The first Article seems to have been subdivided. See p. 6.] "Doctor Cranmerus. "In ecclesiasticis dogmatibus immanes vocum novitates (quoad licet) tents of Explication be, are to be eschewed, whereof riseth nothing but contengiven up in tion and brawling about words; and we must follow, so much as we may, the manner of speaking of the Scripture. writing. How Christ is really present. Answer to 66 In the first conclusion, if ye understand by this word really," "re ipsa," i. e. "in very deed and effectually," so Christ, by the grace and efficacy of his passion, is in deed and truly present to all his true and holy members. But if ye understand by this word "really," "corporali"ter," i. e. "corporally," so that by the body of Christ is understanded a natural body and organical1; so the first proposition doth vary, not only from the usual speech and phrase of Scripture, but also is clean contrary to the holy word of God and Christian profession: when as both the Scripture doth testify by these words, and also the catholic Church hath professed from the beginning, Christ to have left the world, and to sit at the right hand of the Father till he come to judgment. And likewise I answer to the second question; that is, the second that it swerveth from the accustomed manner and speech of conclusion. Answer to the third conclusion. Scripture. The third conclusion, as it is intricate and wrapped in all doubtful and ambiguous words, and differing also much from "fugiendæ sunt (ex quibus oriuntur contentiones et pugnæ verborum) "et Scripturæ loquendi modus maxime imitandus est. "In prima conclusione, si per verbum 'realiter' intelligatur 'reipsa "et effectualiter,' sic Christus cum passionis suæ gratia et effectu ad"est omnibus vere piis et sanctis illius membris. Sin per realiter' in"telligatur corporaliter,' et per Christi corpus' intelligatur corpus "naturale et organicum,' prima propositio non tantum a more loquendi "sacræ Scripturæ aliena est, sed etiam sancto Dei verbo et professioni "Christianæ plane contraria, quum Christum hoc modo mundum reli"quisse ac ad dexteram Patris usque ad judicium sedere, et testantur "Scripturæ et ab initio professa est Ecclesia catholica. "Ad secundam conclusionem similiter respondeo. "Tertia quoque conclusio prorsus aliena est et a Scripturæ locutione "et veritate. "Quarta demum conclusio, ut ambiguis vocibus obvoluta est et a "Scripturæ loquendi phrasi ac veritate longe diversa, ita, ut verba ipsa "proprium sensum habent, in Servatorem nostrum unicum Jesum Chris"tuin summe contumeliosa est, et sanguinis illius pretiosissimi concul"catio: cujus effusio in sanctissima ara crucis, unicum est totius mundi "sacrificium et oblatio pro omnibus omnium hominum peccatis." Harl. MSS. 3642.] hOrganical is called that which is a perfect body, having all the members and parts complete belonging unto the same. conclusion the true speech of the Scripture, so, as the words thereof seem to import in open sense, it is most contumelious against our The third only Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, and a violating of his contumeliprecious blood, which upon the holy altar of the cross is the ous against only sacrifice and oblation for the sins of all mankind. Ched. By this your interpretation which you have made upon the first conclusion, this I understand; the body of Christ to be in the sacrament only by the way of participation; insomuch as we communicating thereof, do participate the grace of Christ; so that you mean hereby only the effect thereof. But our conclusion standeth upon the substance, and not the efficacy only, which shall appear by the testimony both of Scriptures and of all the Fathers a thousand years after Christ. Christ. And first, to begin with the Scripture, let us consider what is written in Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. and 1 Cor. xi. Matthew saith, As they sat at supper, Jesus Matt. xxvi. took bread, &c. In Mark there is the same sense, although not the same words; who also for one part of the sacra ment speaketh more plainly, Jesus taking bread, &c. After Mark xiv. the same sense also writeth Luke, xxii. And when Jesus Luke xxii. had taken bread, &c. In the mouth of two or three witnesses, saith the Scripture, standeth all truth. Here we have three witnesses together, that Christ said that to be his body, which was given for many; and that to be his blood, which should be shed for many; whereby is declared the substance, and not only the efficacy alone thereof. Ergo, it is not true that you say, there to be not the substance of his body, but the efficacy alone thereof. sacrament. Cran. Thus you gather upon mine answer, as though I Substance and efficacy did mean of the efficacy, and not of the substance of the both grantbody; but I mean of them both, as well of the efficacy as of ed in the the substance. And forsomuch as all things come not readily to memory, to a man that shall speak extempore, therefore, for the more ample and fuller answer in this matter, this writing here I do exhibit i. [i The manuscript in the Public Library at Cambridge mentions the presentation during the Disputation of one paper only. This excites a Another for answer, shop. The final cause why was or dained. kAn Explication exhibited by Cranmer. 1. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, at the time of his Explication maundy, preparing himself to die for our cause, that he exhibited might redeem us from eternal death, to forgive us all our in writing by the sins, and to cancel out the handwriting that was against us; Archbithat we through ungrateful oblivion should not forget his death, therefore at the time of his holy supper did institute a perpetual memory of this his death, to be celebrated the Supper among Christians in bread and wine; according as it is said, Do this in remembrance of me: and, So often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, you shall show forth the Lord's death till he come. And this remembrance or sacrament of his holy passion, that is, of his body slain, and blood shed, he would all Christians to frequent and celebrate in bread and wine; according as he said, Take, eat, and drink ye all of this. Therefore whosoever for suspicion, that the other was the Answer sent in on the preceding Saturday. (See p. 7, and 10, note.) And the suspicion is confirmed by the silence of the official report respecting any other written answer to the Articles, excepting the two Explications. But, on the other side it may be argued, that the notaries would transmit those papers only which were delivered publicly; and it would also appear from the same Cambridge manuscript, that the Answer of Saturday contained expressions not to be found in either of the Explications. See MSS. Cambr. Libr. Kk. 5. 14.] Harl. MSS. 3642. [The following copy of this Explication in the original Latin is taken from the official report in the British Museum. Collier has printed it, vol. ii. No. 71, apparently from the same manuscript. There is also another, but less correct manuscript copy in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 340. p. 266; where it is entitled, Præfatio et protestatio Thomæ Cranmeri scripta et tradita propria manu in schola publica. A similar title is prefixed to an English translation by Grindal in the Harl. MSS. 422. f. 44. "Responsio domini Cranmeri ad articulos supra recitatos, in scriptis " exhibita et per eum subscripta. "1. Dominus et Servator noster Jesus Christus in sancta Parasceue "nostra causa obiturus, ut nos a inorte redimeret eterna, condonaret "omnia delicta, ac chirographum quod contra nos erat deleret, ne "mortis suæ ingrati unquam oblivisceremur, perpetuam illius memo"riam apud Christianos in pane et vino celebrandam pridie passionis "in sacratissima sua instituebat cœna; juxta illud: Hoc facite in mei "memoriam: et, Quotienscunque manducabitis panem hunc et calicem bi"betis, mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat. Atque hanc passionis suæ, id est, cæsi corporis et fusi sanguinis in pane et vino memo"riam sive sacramentum omnes Christianos jussit sumere, juxta illud: "Accipite, et manducate, et bibite ex hoc omnes. Quicunque igitur prop |