Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
In June of 1533, Thomas Cranmer wrote to Nicholas Hawkins, Archdeacon of Ely, and reported to him that a certain John Frith had been ordered by Henry VIII to undergo an examination for suspicion of heresy before a tribunal which included Cranmer himself and Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester. The interrogators discovered that Frith “thought it not necessary to be believed as an article of our faith, that there is the very corporal presence of Christ within the host and sacrament of the altar.” Frith must have defended his own position in a winning manner, for both Cranmer and Gardiner were reluctant to see him persist in his heretical opinion. Cranmer, in this same letter, owns to having “sent for him three or four times to persuade him to leave… his imagination;” and we have it on Frith's testimony that, after his arrest, he visited Gardiner's residence in what was probably an effort on the Bishop of Winchester's part to win the young reformer back to Catholic belief.
1 Cranmer, Thomas, Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Martyr, 1556 (ed. Cox, John Edmund; 1846; reprinted, New York: Johnson, 1968) 246.Google Scholar For accounts of John Frith's life and theology, see Foxe, John, The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe (ed. Pratt, Josiah; 4th ed. rev; 8 vols; London: The Religious Tract Society, [1877]) 5. 3–16Google Scholar and Clebsch, William A., England's Earliest Protestants (New Haven: Yale, 1964) 99–136.Google Scholar A clear, concise summary of Frith's Eucharistic thought is found in Davies, Horton, Worship and Theology in England(5 vols.; Princeton: 1961–1975) 1. 95–98.Google Scholar
2 John Frith, “A booke made by Iohn Frith, prisoner in the Tower of London, aunsweryng vnto M. Mores letter which he wrote against the first little treatise that Iohn Frith made concernyng the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ.…,” in The Whole workes of W. Tyndall, Iohn Frith, and Doct. Barnes, three worthy Martyrs, and principall teachers of the Churche of England, collected and compiled in one Tome togither. ….. (London: 1573) 108 (hereafter cited as A Book Answering More's Letter). Old spelling has been retained only in firstentry titles. In quoting texts, I have modernized the punctuation as well as the spelling.
3 Frith's initial draft of his position on the Eucharist has recently been identified as the pamphlet entitled A christen sentence and true iudgement of the moste honorable Sacrament of Christes body and bloude declared both by the auctorite of the holy Scriptures and the auncient Doctores (STC 5190). See Marc'hadour, Germain, Thomas More et la Bible (Paris: J. Vrin, 1969) 298.Google Scholar Since A christen sentence amounts to a bare summation of Frith's doctrine, this article will rely solely on the more complete disclosure of his thought found in his second treatise, A Book Answering More's Letter.
4 Foxe, Acts and Monuments, 5. 240–46.
5 Cranmer, Thomas, “An Answer unto a Crafty and Sophistical Cavillation Devised by Stephen Gardiner …,” in Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer … Relative to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper (ed. Cox, John Edmund; 1844; reprinted, New York: Johnson, 1968).Google Scholar Cranmer rejects the notion of eating the body of Christ “with tooth and mouth” (171), the possibility of multilocation (89), and the literal interpretation of Christ's words at the institution of the Eucharist (138).
6 Foxe, Acts and Monuments, 6. 456.
7 Ibid., 5. 12.
8 Ibid., 5. 9.
9 Dickens, A. G., The English Reformation (New York: Schocken Books, 1964) 253.Google Scholar
10 Cited in Dugmore, C. W., The Mass and the English Reformers (London: Macmillan, 1958) 172.Google Scholar
11 Dickens, The English Reformation, 303.
12 Jewel, John, The Works of John Jewel (ed. Ayre, John; 4 vols.; 1845–50; reprinted, New York: Johnson, 1968) 1. 480–82.Google Scholar
13 Hooker, Richard, The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine Mr. Richard Hooker with an Account of his Life and Death by Isaac Walton (ed. Keble, John; 7th ed. rev.; 3 vols.; 1888; reprinted, New York: Burt Franklin, 1970) 2. 242.Google Scholar
14 Ibid., 245.
15 Ibid., 353.
16 More was commissioned by Cuthbert Tunstall, the Bishop of London, to “show to simple and unlearned men the cunning malice of the heretics.” See Reynolds, E. E., Saint Thomas More (New York: Kenedy, P. J. and Sons, 1954)205Google Scholar and More, Thomas, The Correspondence of Sir Thomas More (ed. Rogers, Elizabeth Frances; Princeton: 1947) 387.Google Scholar
17 Previously, John Fisher had written his De veritate corporis et sanguinis Christi in eucharistia (1527) against Oecolampadius. Both Henry VIII in his Assertio septem sacramentorum (1521) and More in his Responsio ad Lutherum (1523) and his Epistola ad Pomeranum (1526) had defended in passing the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. All of these Latin works were directed against the continental reformers. Frith and More, however, inaugurated the debate between Englishmen, and this time both participants write in the vernacular in order to reach a wide domestic audience.
18 For Frith's figurative reading of Christ's words in establishing the sacrament, see A Book Answering More's Letter, 120–23. Upon this nonliteral interpretation of the text, he bases his case against the Catholic teaching. He does not seem to deny that God, in his omnipotence, could realize Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist, “but now the scripture standing as it doth,” he thinks “he can not do it” (142). In this last passage, Frith vaguely implies that the multilocation of Christ's body is intrinsically possible, but, since God has spoken otherwise (figuratively) in the account of the Last Supper, it is now impossible that he would violate his truthfulness by making Christ's body present on many altars.
19 “Then I declared that Christ had a natural body even as mine is (saving sin) and that it could no more be in two places at once than mine can” (A Book Answering More's Letter, 107).
20 William A. Clebsch in England's Earliest Protestants (126) claims that Frith made use of Oecolampadius's Dialogus quo patrum sententiam de coena Domini bonafide explanat (Basel: 1530) and his Degenuina verborum Domini, hoc est corpus meum, iuxta vetustissimos authores, expositione liber (Basel: 1525). In the latter work, Oecolampadius argues against the real presence because it is impossible for a man to be in many places at once (Kiii4v) and also cites Augustine's rejection of Christ's physical ubiquity (C5lv). Frith himself mentions Oecolampadius and a work of his which he calls Quid veteres senserint de sacramento eucharistiae (A Book Answering More's Letter, 126). Clebsch identifies this work as the 1530 Dialogus, although he does not substantiate the claim. Even in Frith's lifetime, the resemblance of his Eucharistic doctrine with that of Oecolampadius was noticed. After interrogating Frith, Cranmer judged that, in his denial of the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament, Frith's thought followed “the opinion of Oecolampadius” (Miscellaneous Writings, 246).
21 ”Una enim persona Deus et homo est, et utrumque est unus Christus Jesus; ubique per id quod Deus est, in coelo autem per id quod homo” (PL, 33. 836).
22 ”Sursum est Dominus: sed etiam hie est veritas, Dominus. Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit, uno loco esse potest: veritas ejus ubique diffusa est” (Tractaus 30 in Joannem, PL, 35. 1632).
23 ”…. unus idemque homo localis ex homine, qui est Deus immensus ex Patre; unus idemque secundum humanam substantiam, absens coelo cum esset in terra, et derelinquens terram cum ascendisset in coelum; secundum divinam vero immensamque substantiam, nec coelum dimittens cum de coelo descendit, nec terram deserens cum ad coelum ascendit” (Ad Trasimundum, 2. 17, PL, 65. 265).
24 ”Sed fortassis ad haec caeca cogitatio dicit: Et quomodo in coelum ante conspectum divinae majestatis tam subito effertur, cum hic aut panis aut caro licet dicatur, in manu sacerdotis visibiliter semper teneatur.… Disce quia Deus spiritus illocaliter ubique est. Intellige quia spiritalia haec sicut nec localiter, sic utique nec carnaliter ante conspectum divinae majestatis in sublime feruntur” (De corpore et sanguine Domini, 8, PL, 120. 1286–87).
25 ”Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus constat, duobus conficitur, visibili et invisibili, sacramento et re sacramenti; quae tamen res, id est Christi corpus, si esset prae oculis, visibilis esset; sed, elevata in coelum sedensque ad dexteram Patris usque in tempora restitutionis omnium, quod scribit apostolus Petrus, coelo devocari non potent, sicut Christi persona Deo constat et homine” (Lanfranc, De corpore et sanguine Domini, 10, PL, 150.421). Lanfranc cites this text from the now lost Scriptum contra synodum of Berengar. See: Montclos, Jean de, Lanfranc et Bérenger: La Controverse eucharistique du onzième siècle (Etudes et Documents, Fascicule 37; Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1971) 181.Google Scholar
26 ”Sed, sicut dicit Andreas apostolus, cum vere in terris carnes ejus sint comestae et vere sanguis ejus sit bibitus, ipse tamen usque in tempora restitutionis omnium in coelestibus ad dexteram Patris integer perseverat et vivus. Si quaeris modum quo id fieri possit, breviter ad praesens respondeo: Mysterium fidei credi salubriter potest, vestigari utiliter non potest” (Lanfranc, De corpore et sanguine Domini, 10, PL, 150. 421). A complete discussion of Berengar's position on Christ's bodily presence in heaven and Lanfranc's reply to it in defense of the real presence is found in Montclos, Lanfranc et Bérenger, 383–90.
27 ”Hoc est namque quod dicimus, hoc modis omnibus contra te ac sequaces tuos approbare contendimus, sacrificium scilicet Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constare, visibili elementorum specie, et invisibili Domini Jesu Christi carne et sanguine, sacramento et re sacramenti. ….” (Lanfranc, De corpore et sanguine Domini, 10, PL, 150. 421).
28 Sententiarum libri quattuor, 4. 10, PL, 192. 860
29 A Book Answering More's Letter, 139.
30 Ibid.
31 ”Dico ergo, quod Deo simpliciter est possibile idem corpus simul facere in diversis locis localiter” (Quaestiones in librum quartum sententiarum, dist. 10, qu. 2, in Opera omnia [12 vols.; 1639; reprinted, Hildesheim: GeorgOlms, 1968–1969] 8. 513).Google Scholar Scotus, however, did not maintain that Christ's body is present in the Eucharist in a localized manner: “sicut modo tenemus illud corpus [Christi] praesens in Eucharistia non localiter” {Quaestiones in librum quartum sententiarum, dist. 10, qu. 3, Opera omnia, 8. 529).
32 ”Deus potest omne illud, quod non implicat contradictionem: sed virtute divina unum corpus simul esse localiter in pluribus locis non implicat contradictionem” (Commentaria in quattuor libros sententiarum [1564; reprinted, Ridgewood, N.J.: Gregg, 1965] lib. 4, dist. 10, qu. 1, 85V).Google Scholar
33 Gark, Francis, Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967) 320.Google Scholar
34 Summa theologiae, 3a, 75, 1. This article bases an objection to the real presence on the ground that no body can exist in many places at once. The solution reads that the body of Christ is not present in the Eucharist “sicut corpus in loco, quod suis dimensionibus loco commensuratur” but in a special way which is “proprius huic sacramento.”
35 In the Summa theologiae, Thomas draws the following distinction between local and sacramental presence: “Unde dicimus quod corpus Christi est in diversis altaribus, non sicut in diversis locis, sed sicut in sacramento.” Christ is present in the sacrament “spiritualiter … invisibiliter per virtutem spiritus” (3a, 75, 1). The dimensions of Christ's body are present on the altar “ex vi realis concomitantiae” (3a, 76, 4).
36 Book Answering More's Letter, 165.
37 Summa theologiae, 3a, 77, 7. Translation by Barden, William for the Blackfriars edition of the Summa, vol. 58, The Eucharistic Presence (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965) 155.Google Scholar In this passage, Aquinas presents his own interpretation of Berengar's Professio Fidei, given at the Council of Rome in 1059. While Thomas's reading of the document reveals his own delicate and precise understanding of the real presence, it is not a completely valid representation of the contents of the Professio. Aquinas omits the phrase “sensualiter non solum sacramento” in his citation of the text and thus softens the harsh tone of this frequently disputed passage. (See Montclos, Lanfranc et Bérenger, 175–76.) The delegates at the Council of Rome, exasperated by Berengar's ambiguities and his symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist, were driven to express the sacramental presence of Christ in blatantly materialistic terms which afterwards proved an embarassment to theologians. The profession to which Berengar was forced to submit clearly states that the body of Christ “is torn by the teeth of the faithful” at communion. The doctrine of the real presence had been reaffirmed but in language that called for the refinement which only a later period gave to it. The extent to which the sensualist interpretation of the Eucharist lingered in England of the early Reformation may be worth investigation. John Frith's stand against carnal manducation of the body of Christ may be taken as conformable to Catholic teaching. Was it so understood by his examiners?
38 The complete text of the Letter against Frith is found in the Rogers edition of More's Correspondence, 439–64. See above, n. 16.
39 (London: 1534). Hereafter cited as Answer to a Poisoned Book
40 Correspondence, 456.
41 Ibid., 453–54.
42 246v.
43 Summa theologiae, la, 25, 3. Translation by Gilbey, Thomas, St. Thomas Aquinas: Philosophical Texts (London: Oxford, 1951) 120–21.Google Scholar
44 Fisher, John, De eucharistia contra Ioannem Oecolampadium, 5. 33, in Opera omnia (1597; reprinted, Farnborough, Hants.: Gregg, 1967) 1214.Google Scholar The translation is my own. The original text of Innocent III reads: “Cum ergo Christus secundum naturam divinam tribus mod is in rebus existeret, localiter in coelo, personaliter in Verbo, sacramentaliter in altari. Sicut enim secundum divinitatem totus essentialiter est in omnibus rebus, ita secundum humanitatem totus sacramentaliter est in pluribus locis” (De sacro altaris mysterio, 4. 44, PL, 217. 886).
45 Correspondence, 453.
46 Ibid., 454.
47 ”Miraris quod verbum Dei juxta sacramenti virtutem totum simul in diversis locis existit. Et non miraris quod verbum hominis juxta vocis naturam totum est simul in auribus diversorum” (De sacro altaris mysterio, 4. 27, PL, 217. 875). The analogy of a face's presence in several pieces of a broken mirror is found in the treatise De venerabili sacramento altaris, ch. 13, Aquinatis, Sancti Thomae, Opera omnia (25 vols.; Parma: 1852–73) 17.151. In the reprint of this edition (New York,: Musurgia Publishers, 1948, 1, ix)Google Scholar, Vernon J. Bourke lists the work among the dubious and nonauthentic writings of St. Thomas.
48 Answer to a Poisoned Book, 260.
49 Ibid., 207v-08. Elements of three different theories can be discerned in this passage. There is the Ockhamist view which posits a bodily presence “without any dimensions at all.” This theory, although attributed to Ockham, does not seem to have originated with him, because Scotus, who antedates Ockham by almost half a century, argues against it in his Quaestiones in librum quartum sententiarum (dist. 10, qu. 2, Opera omnia, 8. 504). There Scotus contends for the extension and shape necessary for a truly vitalized body or, as More puts it, for Christ's body “with his dimensions.” Finally, the last theory mentioned, that of a corporeal presence “without any distinction of place,” suggests, among others, the Thomistic view.
50 More, Thomas, The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vol. 5, pt. 1, Responsio ad Lutherum (New Haven: Yale, 1969) 354Google Scholar; Answer to a Poisoned Book, 48.
51 A Book Answering More's Letter, 126.
52 Joye, George, “The Supper of the Lord,” in Tyndale, William, An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue, The Supper of the Lord. … and Wm. Tracy's Testament Expounded (ed. Henry Walter; 1850; reprinted, New York: Johnson, 1968) 227, 228, 244.Google ScholarThe Supper of the Lord was tentatively assigned to Tyndale's authorship until recent scholarship claimed the work for Joye. See Clebsch, England's Earliest Protestants, 213.
53 The Supper of the Lord, 254.
54 Ibid., 235.
55 Answer to a Poisoned Book, 262v-63.
56 Schillebeeckx, Edward, The Eucharist (trans. N. D. Smith; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968) 15.Google Scholar Schillebeeckx describes two currents of the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist during the Middle Ages. The fides maiorum refers to the simple, imaginative, and sensual tendencies of the popular belief. The fides minorum indicates the more refined and philosophical understanding of the mystery among the schoolmen. The two streams did not oppose each other except, perhaps, in extreme cases: “the fides maiorum was able to exist peacefully beside this fides minorum in the Middle Ages.”
57 A Book Answering More's Letter, 141.
58 Answer to a Poisoned Book, 4–4v.
59 Ibid., 263.
60 Ibid., 19v-20. The same view of the effect of spiritual food is found in Augustine's Confessions (7. 10), though the passage does not refer explicitly to the Eucharist. The transforming power of the sacramental meal is mentioned by Durandus Troarnensis, who quotes Paschasius on the subject (PL, 149. 1389). In the Summa theologiae (3a, 73, 3), Aquinas applies this same forceful characteristic to the Eucharist.
61 A Book Answering More's Letter, 112.
