therefore Chrisostome a little before the woordes whiche they alleadged sayth Lifte vp your mynds and hartes Wherby he admonysheth vs to look vpon and consider those heauenly thynges whiche are represented and signified by the bread and wyne and not to marke the bread and wyne it selfe Here they sayde that was not Chrisostomes minde but that by this example hee declareth that there remayned no bread nor wine Al misteries to be seene with inward eyes I aunswered that was false for the example that he taketh tendeth to no other purpose but to call away our spirituall eyes from the beholdyng of visible thynges and to transport them an other waye as if the thynges that are seene were of no force Therefore he draweth awaye our mynde from the consideration of these thinges and fixeth it vppon him whiche is signified vnto vs by the same The very woordes whiche followe sufficiently declare thys to be the true meaning of the authour where as he commaundeth vs to consider all thynges with our inward eyes that is to say spiritually But whether Chrisostomes woordes doe tend eyther to to this or that sense Chrisostom agaynst the popish doctrine of the Sacrament yet do they indifferētly make on our part agaynst our aduersaryes which way so euer we doe vnderstand them For if he thought that the bread and wyne doe remayne we haue no further to trauayle but if he meant contrariwyse that they doe not remayne but that the natures of the bread and wyne are altered then are the bread and wyne falsely named Sacramentes and mysteryes The obiection of Chrisostom auoided by a-Dilemma whiche can be sayd in no place to be in the nature of thynges For that whiche is in no place howe can it be a Sacrament or supplye the roume of a mysterye Finally if hee speake onely of the outwarde fourmes and shapes as we call them it is most certayne that they doe continually remayne and that they by the substaunce of the bodye are not consumed in anye place wherefore it must necessarily followe the woordes of Chrisostome to be vnderstanded in suche sense as I haue declared Here peraduenture many would maruaile that for somuch as the matter touching the substaunce of the Sacrament A question asked with the cause declared why that seeing the matter of the sacramēt it selfe importeth neither saluation nor damnatyon why then Frythe offereth himselfe to death for the same beyng seperate from the articles of fayth and binding no man of necessitie eyther vnto saluation or damnation whether hee beleeue it or not but rather may be left indifferently vnto all men freely to iudge eyther on the one part or on the other accordyng to hys owne mynde so that neyther part do contemne or despise the other but that all loue and charitie be still holden and kept in this dissension of opinions what then the cause is why I would therfore so willingly suffer death The cause why I dye is this for that I can not agree with the diuines other head Prelates that it shuld be necessarily determined to be an article of fayth and that we should beleeue vnder payne of damnation the substaunce of the bread and wyne to be chaunged into the body and bloud of our sauioure Iesus Christe the fourme and shape onely not being chaunged Whiche thing if it were most true as they shall neuer be able to proue it by any authority of the Scripture or Doctours yet shall they not so bring to passe that that doctrine were it neuer so true shoulde be holden for a necessarye article of fayth For there are many thinges both in the Scriptures and other places whiche we are not bounde of necessitye to beleeue as an article of fayth So it is true that I was a prisoner and in bondes when I wrote these thinges and yet for all that I will not holde it as an article of fayth * * This is to be weyed with tyme when Frythe wrote but that you may without daunger or damnation eyther beleeue it or thinke the contrarie But as touchinge the cause why I cannot affirme the doctrine of Transubstantiation diuers reasons doe leade me thereunto First for that I do playnelye see it to be false and vaine and not to be grounded vpon anye reason either of the Scriptures Three causes why transubstātiation is not to be be beleued or of approued Doctours Secondly for that by my exāple I woulde not be an author vnto Christians to admit any thing as a matter of fayth more then the necessary points of ther Creed wherein the whole summe of oure saluation doth consist specially such thinges The 2. cause the beliefe whereof haue no certaine argument of authoritie or reason I added moreouer that their Church as they call it hath no such power and authoritie that it eyther ought or maye binde vs vnder the peril of our soules to the beleuing of any such articles Thirdlye because I will not for the fauour of our Diuynes or Priestes be preiudiciall in this poynt The third cause vnto so manye nations of Germaines Heluetians and other whiche altogether reiecting the transubstantiation of the bread and wyne into the bolye and bloud of Christ are all of the same opinion that I am as wel those that take Luthers part as those which holde with Oecolampadius Which thinges standing in this case I suppose there is no mā of any vpright conscience which will not allow the reason of my death which I am put vnto for this only cause that I do not think transubstantiation although it were true in deede to be establyshed for an article of faith And thus muche hytherto as touching the articles and whole disputation of Iohn Frith whiche was done wyth all moderation and vprightnesse But when as no reason woulde preuaile against the force and crueltie of these furious foes the xx day of Iune in the yeare of oure Lorde 1533. hee was brought before the Byshoppes of London Winchester and Lincolne who sitting in Paules vpō Friday the xx day of Iune ministred certaine interrogatories vpon the Sacrament of the Supper and Purgatorie vnto the sayde Frith as is aboue declared To the whiche when he had answeared shewed his minde in forme and effect as by his owne wordes aboue doth appeare hee afterward subscribed to his answears with his owne hand in these wordes Ego Frithus ita sentio quemadmodum sentio ita dixi scripsi asserui affirmaui That is to say The subscriptiō of Iohn Fryth ¶ I Frith thus doe thinke and as I thinke so haue I sayde written taught and affirmed and in my bookes haue published But when as by no meanes he coulde bee perswaded to recant these articles aforesaid neither be brought to beleue that the sacrament is an article of faith but said Fiat Iudicium iustitia Iohn Fryth condemned he was condemned by the Bishop of London to be burned and sentence geuen agaynst
lately inueÌ„ted The doctrine of transubstaÌ„tiatioÌ„ is but a late opinion and standeth with no antiquity Lanâ—rancus was an ItaliaÌ„ Bish. of Canterbury about the yeare of our Lord 1063. reaching not much aboue y e age of 3. or 4. hundred yeares or at most aboue the the time of Lancfrancus an 1070. it remayneth now to be proued Wherin first may be ioyned this issue that this monstrous paradoxe of transubstantiation was neuer induced or receiued publickely in the church before the time of the Laterane Councell vnder Pope Innocentius the 3. ann 1216. or at most before the time of Lanfrancus the Italian Archbishop of Cant. 1070. In which time of Lanfrancus I denye not but that this question of transubstantiation began to come in controuersy and was reasoned vpon amongest certaine learned of the clergy But that this Article of transubstantiation was publickely determined or prescribed in the church for a general law or Catholick doctrine of all men necessaryly to be beleued Innocent â— was Bishop of Rome an 1215. before the time of the forsayd Innocentius the 3. it may be doubted and also by histories of tyme proued to be false And though our aduersaryes seeme to alledge out of the olde Doctours certayne speeches and phrases which they wrast and wring to theyr purposes wherin they say that the bread is called is beleued is the body of Christ that of bread is made the body of Christ that the bread is chaunged Phrases of the doctors speaking of the sacramâ—â— altered or conuerted to the body of Christ or is made to be his body that the creatures be conuerted into the substance of the body and bloud of Christ that the bread and wine doe passe into the diuine substaunce with such other like sentences and beare themselues bragge vpon the same as thought thys doctrine of transubstantiation stood vpon y e consent of the whole vniuersall Church The Papistes falsely pretende antiquity for their transubstantiation of all ages and times of nations and people and that the iudgement of the Church was neuer other then this and yet if the olde Doctors sayings be well weyed and the discourse of times by this historye well examined it will be found that this prodigious opinion of transubstantiation hath no such ground of consent and antiquity as they imagine nor yet that any heresy or treason was made of denying of transubstantiatioÌ„ before y e time of Innocentius the 5. or at the furthest of Lanfrancus as is aforesayd about the which time Sathan the old Dragon was prophesied by the Apocalips to be let lose to seduce the world For probation whereof first I will beginne with the time of Tertullian and of Augustine Doctors agaynst transubstaÌ„tiatioÌ„ which both doe teach the Sacrament to be a figure a signe a memoriall representation of the Lordes body and knewe no suche transubstantiation yet were no traytors nor heretickes Tertullian August Neyther was S. Ambrose any hereticke or traytour where he writeth these wordes Vt sint quae erant in aliud conuertantur c. Ambrose ¶ Anno 408. Which wordes Lanfrancus coulde not aunswere vnto any otherwise but by denying them to be the wordes of Ambrose Gelasius was byshop yf Rome and liued about 500. yeares after Christ Gelatius lib. contra EuticheÌ„ Anno 500. and speakth of a transmutation of the bread and wine into the diuine nature but there expounding himselfe he declareth what he meaneth by that mutation so that he expressely sheweth the elementes of bread wine notwithstanding to remayne still in their proper nature with other wordes moe very playne to the same effect vnto the which words Contarenus in the assemble of Ratesbone could not well aunswere but stood astonied Theodoretus likewise speaking of the visible simboles hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoretus secund 〈◊〉 contra EuticheÌ„ i. after the sanctification they remayne in theyr former substaunce figure and forme c. Ireneus where he sayth that the bread broken and the cuppe mixt after the vocation of God Ireneus cease to be coÌ„mon bread any more but are the Eucharist of the body and bloud of Christ and explicating his wordes more playnely addeth moreouer that the Eucharist consisteth in 2. things one being earthly which is bread wine the other heauenly which is the bodye and bloud of Christ. c. declareth in these woordes both his owne opinion playnely also teacheth vs what was then the doctrine of his time Hesichius lib. 20. in Leuit. cap. 8. Hesichius also who was 500. yeares after Christ where he speaketh of the sayd mistery quòd simul panis caro est i. which he sayth to be both flesh and bread declareth therby two substances to be in the Sacrament By the whiche we haue to vnderstande that transubstantiation in hys age was not crept into the Church and yet neyther heresy nor treason therefore was euer layd to his charge for so saying ¶ Anno. 500. Emissenus de coÌ„secra Distinct. 2. Quia corpus Emissenus comparing a man conuerted to Christ by regeneration vnto the holy misteryes conuerted into the body and bloud of our Lord expresseth playnly quod in exteriori nihil additum est totum in interiori mutatum est That is that outwardly nothing is chaunged and that all the chaunge is inward c. wherin no doubt he spake playne agaynst this Article and yet no man in all that age did accuse him therfore either to be hereticke or traytor Here might be added the wordes of Fulgentius Hic calix est nouum Testamentum id est Hic calix quem vobis trado nouum Testamentum significat i. This cup is the new Testament that is this cup which I deliuer vnto you signifieth the new Testament Bede also who liued about the yeare 730. writing vpoÌ„ the psalme 21. hath these wordes Edent pauperes c. Pauperes id est mundi contemptores edent quidem realiter si ad sacramenta referantur saturabuntur aeternaliter qui intelligent in pane vino visibiliter sibi proposito inuisibile scilicet corpus verum sanguineÌ„ verum domini quae verus cibus verus potus sunt quo non venter distenditur sed mens saginatur c. that is Poore men to wit despisers of the world shall eat in deed really if it be referred vnto the Sacramentes and shal be filled eternally because they shall vnderstand in bread and in wine beyng visibly set before them a thing inuisible to wit the true body and true bloud of the Lord which are true meat true drinke wherwith not the belly is filled but the mind is nourished And thus in these words of Bede likewise is to be vnderstand that no transubstantiation as yet in his time was receiued in the Church of England Long it were to stand vpon all particulars Briefely to conclude the farther the church hath
almost to shewe their faces In so much that then both Doctour Smith Chadsey Standishe Yong Oglethorpe with many moe recanted their former ignoraunce whose recantations I haue to shew Boner then with his owne hand subscribed to the Kings supremacie and promoted his Iniunctions The same also did Steuen Gardiner subscribing wyth his owne hand to the first booke of the Kings proceedings The Gospell how it florished so long as peace continued and no doubt had done no lesse to the second booke also set foorth by the King had not the vnfortunate discorde fallen amongst the nobles in time so vnfortunate as then it did Brieflye during all that time of peace and concorde what Papist was found in all the Realme which for the Popes deuotion would or did once put his necke in the halter to die a Martyr for his sake I shewed before how in these peaceable dayes of Kyng Edward Peter Martyr Martin Bucer Paulus Phagius Peter Martyr Martyn Bucer Paulus Phagius placed in the vniuersityes with other learned men moe were enterteined placed and prouided for in the two Uniuersities of this Realme Oxford and Cambridge who there with their diligent industrie did much good The learned and fruitefull disputations of whome I haue likewise present in my handes heere to insert but that the bignes of this Uolume driueth me to make short especially seeing their disputations be so long and prolixe as they be and also in Latin and require of themselues a whole Uolume to comprehend theÌ„ First Peter Martyr beeing called by the King to the publicke reading of the Diuinitie Lecture in Oxforde The kinges Visitors at the disputation in Oxford The conclusions to be disputed in Oxford amoÌ„gst his other learned exercises did set vp in the publicke scholes iij. conclusions of Diuinitie to be disputed tryed by Argument At whiche disputations were present the Kings visitours to witte Henry Byshop of Lincolne Doctour Coxe Chauncellour of that Uniuersitie Doctour Haynes Deane of Exeter M. Richard Morison Esquier Christopher Neuynson Doctour of Ciuill law The conclusions propounded were these 1. In the Sacrament of thankes geuing there is no transubstantiation of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ. 2. The body and bloud of Christ is not carnally or corporally in bread and wine nor as other vse to say vnder the kindes of bread and wine 3. The body and bloud of Christ be vnited to bread and wyne Sacramentally They which were the chiefe disputers against hym on the contrary side were Doct. Tresham D. Chadsey Disputers on the coâ—â—trary part agaynst Peter Maâ—â—tyr and Morgan The reasons and principall Arguments of Peter Martyr heereunder follow ¶ The Arguments of Peter Martyr vpon the first conclusion The Scriptures most plainely do name and acknowledge bread and wyne The first argument of Peter Martyr aâ—gaynst traâ—â—substantiaâ—tion In the Euangelistes we reade that the Lord Iesus tooke bread blessed it brake it and gaue it to his Disciples S. Paule likewise doth ofttimes make mention of bread Ergo we also with the scriptures ought not to exclude bread from the nature of the sacrament Cyprianus As in the person of Christ his humanitie was seene outwardlye and his Diuinitie was secret within Cyprian sermon De caena Domini so in the visible Sacrament the diuinitie inserteth it selfe in such sort as can not be vttered that our deuotion about the Sacraments might be the more religious Ergo as in the person of Christ so in the Sacramente both the natures ought still to remaine Gelasius The Sacramentes which we receaue of the body and bloud of Christ are a Diuine matter by reason whereof Gelasius contra Eâ—â—tithen we are made partakers by the same of his Diuine nature and yet it ceaseth not still to be the substance of bread and wine And certes the representation and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ be celebrated in the action of the mysteries c. Augustinus As the person of Christ consisteth of God and man when as he is true God and true man August 〈◊〉 consecratâ— dist 2. ex Sententi Presperiâ— For euery thing conteyneth in it selfe the nature and veritie of those things whereof it is made Now the Sacrament of the Church is made of two things that is of the Sacrament that signifieth and of the matter of the Sacrament that is signified c. Theodoretus These visible mysteries which are seene he hath honored with the name of his body and bloud not chaunging the nature Theodorâ—â—tus Dial. 〈◊〉 contra Eâ—â—tichen Theodorâ—â—tus Dial. 2. contra Eutichen but adding grace vnto nature c. And the same Theodoretus againe sayeth Those mysticall sacraments after sanctification do not passe out of theyr owne proper nature but remayne still in their former substance figure and shape c. Ergo lyke as the body of Christ remained in him and was not chaunged into his diuinitie so in the sacrament the bread is not chaunged into the body but both the substances remaine whole Origine If whatsoeuer entreth into the mouth goeth downe into the belly and so passeth through a man Origen 〈◊〉 Matth. caâ— 15. euen that meate also which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer as touching that part which it hath materiall within it passeth into the belly and so voydeth through a man But thorough prayer which is adioined to it according to the measure of faith it is profitable and effectuall c. And he addeth moreouer For it is not the outward matter of the bread but the word that is spoken vpon it that profiteth him which eateth him worthely c. Irenaeus Iesus taking bread of the same condition which is after vs Irenaeus 〈◊〉 4. contra heres that is taking bread of the same nature and kinde as we vse commonly to eate did confesse it to be his body And taking likewise the cup which is of the same creature which is after vs that is which we commonly vse to drinke confessed it to be his bloud c. Item lib. 4. Like as bread which is of the earth Irenaeus 〈◊〉 eodem receauing the word and calling of God is now not common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the one earthly the other heauenly so our bodies receauing the sacred Eucharist be now not corruptible hauing hope of resurrection c. ¶ Argument Ba The bread in the Sacrament is so chaunged into the body as our bodies are changed when they are made vncorruptible by hope ro But our bodies are not made incorruptible by chaunging their substance co Ergo no more is the bread changed into the substance of the body Gregory Notwithstanding whether we take leauened or vnleauened bread we are all one body of our Lord and Sauiour c. ¶ Argument Da Where bread leauened or vnleauened is taken there is substance of bread and not accidences only 〈◊〉 â—egistro ri
body of Christ in the sacrament is to bee honored Rochester Welbeloued frendes and brethren in our sauior Christ you must vnderstand that this disputatioÌ„ Byshop Ridley replyeth with the other that shal be after this are appointed for to search forth the playne trueth of the holy scriptures in these matters of religion which of a long season haue bene hidden from vs by the false gloses of that greate Antichrist and his Ministers of Rome and now in our dayes must be reueyled to vs Englishe men thorow the great mercy of God principally and secondarily thorow the most gentle clemencye of our naturall soueraigne Lord the kings maiesty whom the liuing Lord long preserue to raigne ouer vs in health wealth godlines to mayntenaunce of Gods holy word and to the exterpation of all blinde gloses of men that goe about to subuert the truth For because therfore that I am one that doth loue the truth and haue professed the same amongst you thâ—â—â—ore I say because of conferring my mind with yours I will here gladlye declare what I thinke in this poynt now in controuersy Not because this worshipfull Doctor hath any need of my healpe in dissoluing of argumentes proposed agaynst him for as me semeth he hath aunswered hitherto very well and clarkly according to the truth of Gods word But now to the purpose I do grauÌ„t vnto you mayster oponent that the old auncient fathers do record and witnesse a certeine honour and adoration to be done vnto Christes body but then they speake not of it in the sacrament but of it in heauen at the right hand of the father as holy Chrisostome sayth honor thou it Christ to be honoured in heauen not in the Sacrament and then eat it but that honor may not be geueÌ„ to the outward signe but to the body of Christ it self in heauen For that body is there onely in a signe vertually by grace in the exhibition of it in spirite effect and fayth to the worthy receiuer of it For we receiue vertually onely Christes body in the sacrament Glin. How theÌ„ if it please your good Lordship doth baptisme differ from this Sacrament For in that we receiue Christ also by grace and vertually Rochester Christ is present after an other sort in baptism then in this sacrament Christ worketh otherwise in Baptisme then the Sacramental bread for in that he purgeth and washeth the infant from all kinde of sinne but here he doth feed spirituallye the receiuer in fayth with all the merites of hys blessed death and passion And yet he is in heauen still really and substancially As for example The kinges Maiesty our Lord and maister is but in one place wheresoeuer that his royall person is abiding for the time and yet hys mighty power and authoritye is euery where in his realmes and dominions So Christes reall person is onely in heauen subauncially placed but his migh is in all thinges created effectually For Christes flesh may be vnderstanded for the power or inward might of his flesh Glin. If it please your fatherhood S. Ambrose and S. Austen do say that before the consecratioÌ„ it is but very bread Obiect and after the consecration it is called the verye bodye of Christ. Madew Indeed it is the very body of Christ sacramentally after the consecration whereas before it is nothing but common bread and yet after that it is the Lordes bread thus must S. Ambrose and S. Austen be vnderstanded ¶ Here the proctours coÌ„manded the Opponent to diuert to the secoÌ„d conclusion but he requested them that they would permit hym as long in this matter as they would in the second and so he still prosecuted the fyrst matter as followeth Glin. THe bread after the consecration doth feed the soule Aunswere Well cauilled lyke a Papiste ergo the substaunce of common breade doth not remayne The argument is good for S Ambrose de sacramentis saith thus After the consecration there is not the thing that nature did forme but that which the blessing doth consecrate And if the benediction of the Prophet Elias did turne the nature of water how much more then doth the benedictioÌ„ of Christ here both God and man Madew That book of S. Ambrose is suspected to be none of his workes Rochester So say all the fathers Glin. I doe maruaile at that for S. Austen in his book of retractions maketh playne that that was his own very worke Rochester He speaketh indeede of such a booke so intituled to S. Ambrose but yet we do lacke the same book indeed Glin. Well let it then passe to other mens iudgementes What then say you to holy S. Ciprian 1200. yeares past Cyprian Who saith that the bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples was not chaunged in forme or quallitie but in very nature and by the almighty word was made fleshe Madew I do aunswere thus that this word fleshe may be taken two wayes either for the substaunce it selfe or els for a natural propertie of a fleshly thing So that Ciprian there did meane of a naturall property and not of fleshlye substance And coÌ„trariwise in the rod of AaroÌ„ where both the substance and also the property was changed Glin. Holy S. Ambrose sayth the body there made by the mighty power of Gods worde Ambrose· is a bodye of the Uyrgyne Mary Rochest That is to say that by the word of God the thing hath a being that it had not before and we doe consecrate the body that we may receiue the grace and power of y e body of Christ in heauen by this sacramentall body Glin. By your pacience my Lorde if it bee a bodye of the Uyrgyne as Saynt Ambrose sayth which we do consecrate as ministers by Gods holy word then must it needes be more then a sacramentall or spirituall bodye yea a very body of Christ in deed yea the same that is still in heauen without all mouing from place to place vnspeakably and farre passing our naturall reason which is in this mistery so captiuate that it cannot conceiue how it is there without a liuely fayth to Gods word But let this passe You do graunt that this breade doth quicken or geue lyfe which if it doe then it is not a naturall bread but a super-substanciall bread Rochester So doth the effectuall and liuely word of god which for that it nourisheth the soule it doth geue life for the diuine essence infudeth it selfe vnspeakably into y e faithfull receiuer of the sacrament Glin. How then say you to holy Damascene a Greeke authour Damascene who as one Tritenius sayth florished one thowsand yeares past he sayth thus The bodye that is of the holye Uirgine Mary is ioyned to the Diuinitye after the consecration in veritye and in deede not so as the body once assumpted into heauen and sitteth on the Fathers ryghte hand doth remoue from thence and commeth downe at the consecration time but that the same
I pray you let me aske you what is a sacrament Glin. A sacrament is a visible signe of an inuisible grace Perne Augustine agaynst Maximinus the Arian Bishop maketh this diffinition of a sacrament A sacrament is a thing signifiyng one thing and shewing an other thing Glin. I refuse not his reason Perne What is the thing figured by the sacrament Glin. The thing figured is twofolde to witte the thynge conteined and the thing signified the thing signified and not conteined For there be three thinges conteyned the true body of Christ the mistical body and the fruit or benefite of the sacrament Perne The formes and signes of bread nourishe not ergo somewhat els besides the bare signe of bread doth remain which nourisheth y t is the substaunce of bread For in euery sacrament there is a similitude betwixte the signe and the thing signed but betwixt the body of Christ and the forme or kinde of bread there is no similitude ergo the nature of a sacrament is taken away Glin. I deny your minor mayster Doctor Perne The formes nourish not but the bodye nourisheth ergo there is no similitude betwixt them and so is the nature of a sacrament cleane destroyd Glin. It is sufficient to similitudes that the bread whyche was doth nourishe and yet certayne Doctors do affirme that the formes do nourish miraculously Rochester Whosoeuer taketh awaye all the similitude of substaunces consequently he taketh away the sacrament for a similitude is three folde namely of nutrition of vnity and conuersion But by a contrary similitude he is not charged into our substaunce but we into his for in nutrition this is the similitude that our bloud nourisheth our bodyes so the bloud of Christ doth nourish vs but after a wonderfull maner to wit by turning vs into himselfe Glin. I haue aunswered your reason most reuerend Father in that I sayd that the formes do nourish miraculously as certeine learned do affirme Perne By what authority can you say that bread doth not remayne Glin. By the authority of Christ who sayth this is my body Perne By the same reason may we say that bread still remayneth for S. Paule calleth it bread sundry times in hys epistles Glin. I denye not that it is breade but that it is materiall bread for Paule alwayes addeth this article which betokening as all men hold some chiefe thing Perne We are chaunged into a new creature Glin. Not substancially but actually Rochest This is that bread which came downe from heauē ergo it is not Christs body Christes body came not from heauen for his body came not from heauen Glin. We may say that Christ God man came down frō heauen for the vnity of his person or els for the mutuall cōmunity of the same his 2. natures in one for his humain nature I know came not from heauen Anno 1550. Rochester The bread is his humaine nature but y e humain nature of his came not from heauē ergo neither the bread Glin. It is true that the bread came not frō heauē as bread simply but as celestiall heauenly bread But I will aunswere to that wheras you hold that y e body of Christ came not from heauen I by the body and flesh of Christ do vnderstand whole Christ neyther separating his soule nor yet his Deity although hys humanity is not turned into his diuinity by confusion of substaunce but is one by vnity of both Or els thus I may reason the God of glory is crucified and the sonne of Mary created the world c. Rochester So it is But he is called a rocke and a vine and so after your iudgement he is both a materiall rocke Christ is called a rocke a vyne but in figure also a materiall vine Glin. The circumstances there shew playnely that there is a trope or figure for it foloweth I am the vine you are the braunches but here is no trope For after these words this is my body he addeth which is geuen for you Rochester The iudgement of the Papistes very grosse Your iudgement herein is very grosse and farre discrepant from the truth Glin. If my iudgement in this he grosse most reuerend father thē are all the auncient fathers as grosse in iudgemēt as I in this poynt and the catholicke church also Perne Shew vs one place or one Doctor who sayth that it remayneth not bread after the consecration Glin. I wōder that you are not ashamed to aske that of me for haue you not had almost infinite places and doctors alledged vnto you in my former declarations prouing as much as you request at my handes Perne He tooke bread he brake bread ergo it is bread Glin. Christ tooke brake and gaue bread I haue answered often hereunto and I graunt it is bread but not onely or materiall Perne Ireneus affirmeth that a sacramēt consisteth of a double matter of a earthly matter and of a heauenly ergo the bread remayneth Glin. Ireneus in that place by the earthly matter A Sacrament consisteth in a double matter meaneth the humanity of Christ and by the heauenly matter the deity of Christ. Rochester The humanity and the diuinity of Christ make not a sacrament which consisteth of a visible and an inuisible nature I deny that Ireneus can be so vnderstanded Therefore we desire the learned auditory to search Ireneus at home as oportunity will serue for this matter Glin. I wish them so to do also with all my hart Here Maister Grindall beginneth to dispute Grindall WHeras you say worshipful M. Doct. that we speak not now as sometimes we thought Grindall replyeth and iudged in this matter peraduenture you also iudge not so now of all thinges as you haue done tofore But what we haue once bene it forceth not God respecteth no mans person And wheras you say that you dare not contrary to Christ cal it a signe August Tertull. with many moe call it a figure or a figure August notwithstanding dareth to call it a figure and Tertullian likewise with many mo Glin. True it is but they called it not a signe or a figure onely but proue you if you can that after the consecration remayneth any other substaunce then the reall body of Christ Grindall If the formes do nourish as you contend they nourish the naturall and humayne body for they be both as one What the forme of bread wine doe nourishe and are nourished a like Glin. Your reason is meere phisicall and therfore to be reiected in matters of fayth but I graunt they nourish but miraculously Grindall If you graūt that the formes do nourish thē you graunt that bread remayneth Glin. I sayd euen now that that is true but the nature of it is chaunged and that miraculously Grindall If it be the reall and substaunciall body of Christ because Christ sayde this is my body ergo because the Lord sayd I will not drinke of the fruit of this vine It remayneth bread
M. Perne M. Gest M. Pilkington Aunswerers and disputers in those disputatioÌ„s at Cambridge In the third disputation answered M. Perne Against whome disputed one M. Parkar not Doct. Math. Parkar M. Pollard M. Uauisour M. Yong. At length the disputations ended the Bishop of Rochester Doct. Nicolas Ridley after the maner of Scholes Anno 1552. made this determination vpon the foresayde conclusions as here followeth ¶ The determination of Doctor Nicolas Ridley Bishop of Rochester vpon the conclusions aboue prefixed THere hath bene an ancient custome amongst you that after disputations had in your common scholes The determination of D. Nic. Ridley vpon the disputations there should be some determination made of the matters so disputed and debated especially touching Christian religion Because therefore it is seene good vnto these worshipfull assistentes ioyned with me in commission from the kings Maiestie that I should performe the same at this tyme I will by your fauourable pacience declare both what I do thinke and beleue my selfe and what also other ought to think of the same Which thing I would that afterwardes ye did with diligence way and ponder euery man at home seuerally by himselfe The principal groundes or rather headsprings of this matter are specially fiue The first is the authoritie maiestie and veritie of holy Scripture 5. Princypall groundes to take away transubstantiation The second is the most certayne testimonies of the auncient Catholicke Fathers who after my iudgement do sufficiently declare this matter The third is the definition of a Sacrament The fourth is the abhominable heresie of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation The fift is the most sure beliefe of the article of our fayth He ascended into heauen ¶ The first grounde This Transubstantiation is cleane agaynst y e wordes of the scripture Transubstantiation agaynst the Scripture and consent of the auncient Catholick Fathers The scripture sayth I will not drinke hereafter of thys fruite of the vine c. Now the fruite of this Uyne is wyne And it is manifest that Christ spake these wordes after the Supper was finished as it appeareth both in Mathewe Marke and also in Luke if they be well vnderstanded There be not many places of the scripture that do confirm this thing neither is it greatly materiall For it is enough if there be any one playne testimonie for the same Neither ought it to be measured by the number of Scriptures but by the authority Scripture to be measured not by number but by authoritye and by the veritie of the same And the maiestie of this veritie is as ample in one short sentence of the Scripture as in a thousand Moreouer Christ tooke bread he brake bread he gaue bread In the Actes Luke calleth it bread So Paule calleth it bread after the sanctification Both of them speaketh of breakyng which belongeth to the substaunce of bread and in no wyse to Christes body for the Scripture sayth Ye shall not breake a bone of hym Exod. 12. 1. Cor. 11. Christ sayth Doe ye this in my remembraunce Saint Paule also sayeth Doe ye this in my remembraunce And agayne As often as ye shall drinke of this cup Iohn 6. do it in the remembraunce of me And our Sauiour Christ in the 6. of Iohn speakyng against the Capernaits sayth Labour for the meat that perisheth not And when they asked What shall we do that we may worke the workes of God He aunswered them thus This is the worke of God that ye beleeue in hym whom he hath sent Iohn 6. You see how he exhorteth them to fayth for fayth is that worke of God Agayne This is the bread which came downe from heauen But Christes body came not downe from heauen Moreouer Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in hym My flesh sayth he is meat in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede When they heard this they were offended And whilest they were offended he sayd vnto them What if ye shall see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was before Wherby he went about to draw them from the grosse and carnal eatyng This body sayth he shall ascend vp into heauen meanyng altogether as S. Augustine sayth It is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothyng The wordes that I speake vnto you are spirit and lyfe and must be spiritually vnderstood These bee the reasons which perswade me to incline to this sentence and iudgement The second ground agaynst transubstantiation ¶ The second ground Now my second ground agaynst this transubstantiation are the auncient Fathers a thousand yeares past And so farre of is it that they do confirme this opinion of transubstantiation that playne they seeme vnto me both to thinke and to teach the contrary Dionysius in many places calleth it breade Dionysiâ—â— Eccle. 〈◊〉 The places are so manifest and playne that it needeth not to recite them Ignatius to the Philadelphians sayth Ignaâ—ius 〈◊〉 Philadelph I beseech you brethren cleaue fast vnto one fayth and to one kynde of preachyng vsing together one manner of thankesgeuyng for the fleshe of the Lord Iesu is one and hys bloud is one which was shedde for vs There is also one bread broken for vs and one cuppe of the whole Church Irenaeus writeth thus Irennaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. Euen as the bread that commeth of the earth receauyng Gods vocation is nowe no more common breade but Sacramentall breade consistyng of two natures earthly and heauenly euen so our bodyes receauyng the Eucharist are now no more corruptible hauyng hope of the resurrection Tertullian is very playne Tertullianus for he calleth it a figure of the body c. Chrysostome writyng to Caesarius the Monke albeit he be not receyued of dyuers Chrisost. Cesariuâ— yet wyll I read the place to fasten it more deepely in your myndes for it seemeth to shewe playnely the substaunce of bread to remayne The wordes are these Before the bread is sanctified we name it bread but by the grace of God sanctifiyng the same thorough the ministery of the Priest it is deliuered from the name of breade and is counted worthy to beare the name of the Lordes body although the very substaunce of bread notwithstandyng doe still remayne therin and now is taken not to be two bodies but one body of the Sonne c. Cyprian sayth Bread is made of many graynes And is that naturall bread and made of wheate Yea it is so in deede Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist 6. Theodorâ—â—â—us The booke of Theodoret in Greeke was lately printed at Rome which if it had not bene his it should not haue bene set forth there especially seeyng it is directly against transubstantiation For he sayth plainely that bread styll remayneth after the sanctification Gelasius also is very playne in this manner The Sacrament sayth he which we receyue of the body and bloude of Christ is a diuine
matter Gelatius Epist. de duabus nâ—â—turis in Christo. by reason whereof we are made partakers by the same of the deuine nature and yet it ceaseth not sâ—il to be the substaunce of bread and wyne And certes the representation and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ be celebrated in the action of the mysteries c. After this he recited certayne places out of Augustine and Cyrill which were not noted Isichius also confesseth that it is bread â—sych Lib cap. 8. â—ertrame Also the iudgement of Bertram in this matter is verye playne and manifest And thus much for the second grouÌ„d The third ground The third grounde is the nature of the Sacrament which consisteth in three things that is Unitie The third ground Nutrition and Conuersion As touching vnitie Cyprian thus writeth Cyprian Three thinges in Sacramenâ— Euen as of many graynes is made one bread so are we one mysticall bodye of Christ. Wherfore bread must needes still remaine or els we destroy the nature of a Sacrament Also they that take away nutrition which commeth by bread do take away likewise the nature of the sacrament 1. Vnity 〈◊〉 2. Nutritiâ—â— 3. Conuâ—â—â—sion For as the body of Christ nourisheth the soule eueÌ„ so doth bread likewyse nourish the body of man Therfore they that take away y e graynes or the vnion of the graynes in the bread and deny the nutrition or substaunce thereof in my iudgement are Sacramentaries for they take away the similitude betwene the bread the body of Christ. For they which affirme transubstantiation are in deed right Sacramentaries and Capernites As touchyng conuersion that lyke as the bread which we receyue is turned into our substance Conuersâ—â—â— so are we turned into Christes body Rabanus and Chrysostome are witnesses sufficient The fourth ground 4. Grouâ—â— The realâ— presence the Sacrâ—â—ment staâ—â—deth not with the truth of Christeâ— humanitâ— They which say that Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist do take from him the veritie of mans nature Eutiches granted the diuine nature in Christ but his humane nature he denied So they that defend transubstantiation ascribe that to the humane nature which onely belongeth to the deuine nature The fift ground The fift ground is the certaine perswasion of this Article of fayth He ascended into heauen and sitteth on the right hand c. Augustine sayth The Lord is aboue euen to the end of the world but yet the veritie of the Lord is here also For his body wherein he rose agayne must needes be in one place but his veritie is spread abroad euery where Also in another place he sayth Let the godly receyue also that Sacrament but let them not be carefull speaking there of the presence of his body For as touchyng hys maiesty his prouidence his inuisible and vnspeakeable grace these woordes are fulfilled which he spake I am with you vnto the ende of the world But accordyng to the flesh which he took vpoÌ„ hym accordyng to that which was borne of the Virgin was appreheÌ„ded of the Iewes was fastened to a tree taken downe agayne from the crosse lapped in lynnen clothes was buried and rose agayne and appeared after hys resurrection so you shall not haue me always with you And why because that as concernyng his flesh he was conuersant with hys Disciples fourty dayes and they accompanying hym seyng hym but not followyng hym he went vp into heauen and is not here for he sitteth at the right hand of hys Father and yet he is here because he is not departed hence as concernyng the presence of hys diuine Maiestie Marke and consider well what Saint Augustine sayeth He is ascended into heauen and is not here sayth he Beleeue not them therefore which say that he is yet here still in the earth Moreouer Doubt not sayeth the same Augustine but that Iesus Christ as concernyng the nature of hys manhoode is there from whence he shall come And remember well and beleeue the profession of a Christian man that he rose from death ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father and from that place and none other not from the aultares shall he come to iudge the quicke and the dead and he shal come as the Angell sayd as he was seene go into heauen that is to say in the same fourme and substaunce vnto the which he gaue immortality but chaunged not nature After this fourme meanyng hys humaine nature we may not thynke that it is euery where And in the same Epistle he saith Take away from the bodies the limitation of places and they shall be no where and because they are no where they shall not be at all Vigilius 〈…〉 lib. 4. Vigilius sayth If the word and the flesh be both of one nature seeyng that the word is euery where why then is not the flesh also euery where For when it was in earth then verely it was not in heauen and now when it is in heauen it is not surely in earth And it is so certayne that it is not in earth that as coÌ„cernyng the same we looke for hym from heauen whom as concernyng the word we beleeue to be with vs in earth Also the same Vigilius sayth Which thyngs seeyng they be so the course of the scripture must be searched of vs and many testimonies must be gathered to shew plainly what a wickednes and sacriledge it is to referre those thyngs to the property of the diuine nature which do onely belong to the nature of the flesh and contrarywyse to apply those thinges vnto the nature of the fleshe which doe properly belong to the diuine nature Which thyng the transubstantiatours doe whilest they affirme Christes body not to be conteyned in any one place and ascribe that to hys humanity which properly belongeth to hys diuinitie as they do which will haue Christes body to be in no one certayne place limited Now in the latter conclusion concerning the sacrifice because it dependeth vpon the first 〈◊〉 thyrd â—onclusioÌ„ I will in fewe wordes declare what I thinke For if we did once agree in that the whole controuersie in the other would soone be at an end Two things there be which do persuade me that this conclusion is true that is certayne places of the scripture also certayne testimonies of the fathers Saint Paul saith Heb. 9. â—eb 9. Christ beyng come an high Priest of good thinges to come by a greater and more perfecter tabernacle not made with hands â—â—crifice of 〈…〉 that is not of this building neyther by the bloud of Gotes and Calues but by his owne bloud entred once into the holye place and obtayned for vs eternall redemption c. and now in the end of the world he hath appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of hymselfe And agayne Christ was once offered to take away the sinnes of many Moreouer he sayth With one
October 27. which was Theodoret about one onely worde which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet were they come the 3. daye to answer al things that could be obiected so that they would shortly put out their argumeÌ„ts So M. Haddon Deane of Exeter desired leaue to appose M. Watson which wyth 2. other mo that is Morgan Harpsfield was apoynted to answer M. Haddon Deane of Exceter disputeth against M. Watson Morgan and Harpsfield M. Haddon demaunded this of him whether any substaÌ„ce of bread or wine did remaine after the consecration Then Master Watson asked of him againe whether he thought there to be a reall presence of Christes body or no M. Haddon saide it was not meete nor orderlike that hee which was appoynted to be respondent should be opponent he whose duty was to obiect shuld answer Yet M. Watson along while would not agree to answer but that thing first being granted him At last an order was set and M. Haddon had leaue to go forwarde with his argument Then he prooued by Theodorets words a substance of breade and wine to remaine For these are his wordes The same they were before the sanctification The wordes of Theodoretus alleaged whiche they are after M. Watson sayde that Theodoret meant not the same substance but the same essence Whereupon they were driuen againe vnto the discussing of the Greeke woorde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and M. Haddon prooued it to meane a substaunce A popish distinction betweene substaÌ„ce and essence bothe by the Etimologie of the word and by the wordes of the Doctor For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quoth he coÌ„meth of the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which descendeth of the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so commeth the Noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth substance Then M. Watson answeared that it had not that signification onely But M. Haddon prooued y t it must nedes so signifie in that place Then hee asked Watson when the bread wine became Symboles Wherunto he answered after the consecration and not before Then gathered M. Haddon this reason out of hys author Da The same thing saieth Theodoret that the bread and wine were before they were Symboles the same they remaine still in nature and substance Argument of M. Haddon after they are Symboles ti Bread and wine they were before si Therefore bread and wine they are after Then M. Watson fell to the deniall of the authour and said he was a Nestorian Watson is driueÌ„ to a shamefull shift to deny the author when he cannot aunswer and he desired y t he might answer to master Cheiney whyche stoode by for that he was more meete to dispute in the matter because he had granted and subscribed vnto the real presence M. Cheyney desired pacience of the honorable men to heare hym trusting that he should so open the matter that the veritie should appeare protesting furthermore M. Cheyney that he was no obstinate nor stubburne man but would be conformable to all reason and if they by their learning which he acknowledged to be much more then his could answer his reasons then he would be ruled by them and say as they sayd for he would be no author of schisme nor hold any thing coÌ„trary to the holy mother the church which is Christes spouse D. Weston liked this well and commended him highly saying that he was a well learned and a sober man well exercised in all good learning and in the Doctors and finallye a man meete for his knowledge to dispute in that place I pray you heare him quoth he Then Master Cheiney desired such as there were present to pray 2. words with him vnto God and to say Vincat veritas Lette the veritie take place and haue the victorie M. Cheynyes prayer and all that were present cried with a loud voyce Vincat veritas vincat veritas Then sayde D. Weston to him that it was hypocriticall Men may better say quoth he Vincit veritas Trueth hath gotten the victorie Weston Master Cheyny sayd againe if he woulde geue hym leaue he woulde bryng it to that poynte that he might wel say so Then he began wyth M. Watson after thys sorte you sayd M. Cheny and Watson disputeth that M. Haddon was vnmete to dispute because hee graunteth not the naturall and real presence but I say you are muche more vnmeete to aunswere because you take away the substance of the sacrament M. Watson said he had subscribed to the real presence should not go away from that M. Haddon chalenged for subscribing to the reall presence So sayde Weston also the rest of the Priestes in so muche that for a greate while hee could haue no leaue to say any more till the Lordes spake and willed that he should be heard Then he tolde them what hee meant by his subscribing to the reall presence farre otherwyse then they supposed So then he went forwarde and prosecuted M. Haddons argument in prouing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a substance vsing the same reason that M. Haddon did before him and when he had receiued the same aunswere also that was made to M. Haddon he said it was but a leâ—d refuge when they could not answer to deny the author proued the author to be a catholike doctor and that being prooued he confirmed that was saide of the nature and substance further The similitude of Theodorete is this quoth he As the token of Christes body and bloud after the inuocation of the Prieste doe change their names yet continue the same substaunce so the body of Christ after his ascension changed his name was called immortall yet had it his former fashion figure circumscription and to speake at one word the same substance of his body Therefore said M. Cheiney The arguâ—ment of Theodore renued by M. Cheyâ— if in the former part of the similitude you denye the same substaunce to continue then in y e later parte of the similitude which agreeth with it I wil deny the body of Christ after his ascensioÌ„ to haue the former nature substance But y t were a great heresy therefore it is also a great heresye to take awaye the substance of bread and wine after the sanctification Then was M. Watson enforced to saye that the substaunce of the bodye in the former parte of the similitude brought in by him did signifie quantitie other accidentes of the sacramentall tokens which be sâ—ene and not the very substance of the same and therfore Theodoret saith Quae videntur c. that is Those things which be seene For according to Philosophie the accidentes of things be seene and not the substances Then M. Cheiney appealed to the honorable meÌ„ and desired that they shoulde geue no credite to them in so saying for if they should so thinke as they woulde teache M. Cheyâ—â— appealed 〈◊〉 the Lordâ— after theyr Lordshippes had
noâ— denyed whyche is grounded vpon the word of God and made more plaine by the commentaries of y e faithfull fathers They that thinke so of me the Lord knoweth how far they are deceiued And to make the same euident vnto you I will in fewe woords declare what true presence of Christes body in the sacrameÌ„t of the Lordes supper I hold and affirme with the worde of God and the auncient fathers I say and confesse with the Euangelist Luke The fayth confession of D. Ridley in affiâ—â—ming the true preseÌ„t in the Sacrament and wyth the Apostle Paule that the bread on the which thankes are geuen is the body of Christe in the remembraunce of hym and of his death to be set foorth perpetually of the faithfull vntill his comming I say and confesse the bread which we breake to be the Communion and partaking of Christes bodye wyth the auncient and the faithfull fathers I say and beleeue that there is not onely a signification of Christes body sette foorth by the sacrament The grace of 〈◊〉 and immortal geuen with the Sacrament to the â—â—ythfull Life eaten Aâ—â—gust The Lord 〈◊〉 grace Emisse Celestiall foode receaued 〈◊〉 The property naturall communion receâ—â—ued Hilar. The vertue oâ— Christes flesh Cyrill The misticall â—â—uent of Chriâ—â— Basill The 〈…〉 Ambros. The body by grace 〈…〉 but not that which 〈…〉 Hierom Grace 〈…〉 a sacrifice 〈◊〉 Chrisost. Grace 〈…〉 verâ—ty The power of Gods 〈…〉 Bertram but also that therewith is geuen to the godly and faithfull the grace of Christes body that is the foode of life immortalitye And this I holde wyth Cyprian I say also with S. Augustine that wee eate life and wee drinke life with Emisene that we feele the Lorde to be present in grace wyth Athanasius that wee receiue Celestiall foode which commeth from aboue the propertie of natural Communion wyth Hyllarius the nature of flesh and benediction whych geueth life in breade and wine wyth Cyrill and wyth the same Cyrill the vertue of the very flesh of Christ life and grace of his body the propertie of the onely begotten that is to say life as he himselfe in plaine words expoundeth it I confesse also with Basil that we receiue the mysticall Aduent and comming of Christ grace the vertue of hys very nature the sacrament of his very flesh with Ambrose the body by grace with Epiphanius spirituall flesh but not that which was crucified with Hierome Grace flowing into a sacrifice and the grace of the spirite with Chrysostome grace and inuisible veritie grace and societie of the members of Christes body with Augustine Finally with Bertram which was the last of all these I confesse that Christes body is in the Sacrament in thys respect namely as he writeth because there is in it the spirite of Christ that is the power of the worde of God which not onely feedeth the soule but also clenseth it Out of these I suppose it may clearely appeare vnto al meÌ„ how farre we are froÌ„ that opinion wherof some go about falsly to slaunder vs to the world saying we teach that the godly and faithfull shoulde receiue nothing else at the Lordes table but a figure of the body of Christ. ¶ The second proposition After the consecration there remayneth no substaunce of bread and wine neyther any other substaunce then the substaunce of God and man The Aunswere â—â—swere to 〈…〉 THE seconde conclusion is manifestly false directly against the word of God the nature of the Sacramente and the most euident testimonies of the godly Fathers and it is the rotten foundation of the other two conclusions propounded by you The â— proâ—â—sition of transubstantation deâ—ye both of the first and of the third I will not therefore now tary vpon any further explication of this aunswere being contented with that which is already added afore to the aunswer of the first proposition ¶ The first argument for the confirmation of this aunswere IT is very playne by the worde of God that Christ did geue bread vnto his Disciples and called it his body But the substance of bread is another maner of substaÌ„ce then is the substance of Christes body God and man Confirm thou 〈◊〉 his answere Therefore the conclusion is false The second part of mine argument is playne and the first 〈◊〉 proued thus ¶ The second argument Da That which Christ dyd take on the which he gaue thanâ—â—s and the which he brake he gaue to his Disciples and called it his body ri But he toke bread gaue thaÌ„ks on bread brake bread si Ergo the first part is true And it is confirmed with the authorities of the Fathers Irene Tertullian Origene Cyprian Epiphaâ—ius Hierome Augustine Theodoret Cirill Rabanus and Beâ—â— Whose places I will take vpon me to shew most manifest in this behalfe if I may be suffered to haue my bookes as my request is Bread is the body of Christ Ergo it is bread * The rule of Logicke is this A propositione de tertio adiacente ad cam 〈◊〉 est de secundo 〈◊〉 verbo 〈…〉 A tertio adiacente ad secundâ—m adiacens cum verbi substantiui pura copula ¶ The third Argument Ba As the bread of the Lordes table is Christes naturall body so is it his mysticall body ro But it is not Christes mysticall body by transubstantiation co Ergo it is not his naturall body by transubstantiatioÌ„ The second part of my argument is plaine and the first is proued thus As Christ who is the veritie spake of the bread This is my body which shall be betrayed for you speaking there of his naturall body euen so Paul moued with y e same spirit of truth The Maior 〈◊〉 said We though we be many yet are we all one bread and one body which be partakers of one bread â— Cor. 10. ¶ The fourth Argument We may no more beleeue bread to be transubstantiate into the body of Christ The argument holdeth a destructione 〈…〉 Math. 26. Marke 14. then the wine into his bloud But the wine is not transubstantiate into his bloud Ergo neyther is that bread therefore transubstantiate into his body ¶ The first part of this argument is manifest the second part is proued out of the authoritie of Gods word in Mathew Marke I will not drinke of the fruite of the vine c. Now the fruite of the vine was wine which Christ dranke and gaue to his disciplis to drinke With this sentence agreeth playnely the place of Chrysostome on the xx Chapter of Mathew ChrisostoÌ„e Cyprian As Ciprian doth also affirming that there is no bloud if wine be not in the cup. 〈◊〉 argument holâ—eth after 〈◊〉 same 〈◊〉 as 〈…〉 ¶ The fift Argument Ba The words of Christ spoken vpon the cup and vpon the bread haue like effect and working ro But the wordes spoken vpon the cup haue not vertue to transubstantiate co Ergo it followeth that
in myne owne name and in the name of all my brethren At which saying all the Doctors gently put off theyr cappes Then M. Weston did oppose the Respondent on this wise West Tertull. 〈…〉 August ad Dardan Tertullian doth cal the sacrament the signe and figure of the Lorde S. Augustine ad Dardanum sayeth Non dubitauit Dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corporis i. The Lorde did not sticke to say this is my body when hee gaue a signe of his body Besides this he geueth rules howe to vnderstand the scriptures saying If the Scriptures seeme to commaund some heynous thing August de â—octrina Christiana then it is figuratiue as by example Manducare carnem bibere sanguinem est tropicus sermo i. To eate the flesh and drinke the bloud is a tropicall speache Harps Aunswere to Tertull. Tertullian did wryte in that place against Martion an heretique who denied Christ to haue a true body and said he had onely a fantasticall body He went aboute to shewe that we had Christ both in heaueÌ„ and in earth and though we haue the true bodye in the Sacrament yet hee woulde not goe about so to confounde him as to say that Christe was truely in the Sacrament For that heretique woulde haue thereat rather marueiled then beleeued it Therefore hee shewed him that it was the figure of Christe and a figure can not be but of a thing that is or hath bene extant To the texte of Augustine the Churche hathe neuer taught the contrarye Aunswere to August There is an outwarde thing in the Sacrament which sometimes hath sundry names For it maye be called a Figure in this declaration That Bodye which is in the sacrament is a figure of Christ dwelling in heauen To the thirde That whych is brought by Augustine for example about the vnderstanding of the Scriptures Aunswere to August De doctrinâ— Christian. is thus to be vnderstanded as tending to a generall manner of eating so Manducare carnem bibere sanguinem i. To eate the flesh and drinke the bloude may be a figuratiue speache to exclude Anthropophagiam i. The eating of mans flesh the which is when we eate mans flesh cutte into morsels as we eate common meate so as we neither haue nor eat Christ in the Sacrament West I vnderstand your short learned answeare The 2. question which doth sufficiently content me But nowe to the second question which is of transubstantiation The scripture calleth it bread Ergo it is bread Harps In the name of breade all is signified whyche wee doe eate West Theodoretus an ancient wryter Theodoretus Dial. 1. in his firste Dialogue sayth that Christ changed not the nature but called it his body Harps He doeth there speake de Symbolo which is Externa species sacramenti i. The outwarde forme of the Sacrament A single sole aunswere to Theodoretus Hee meaneth that that doth tarie in his owne nature Moreouer as it was reported hee brought for his answere Augustinum in sententijs Prosperi West Theodorete also in hys seconde Dialogue of these kindes of breade and wine sayeth Nec naturam egrediuntur Theodoretus Dial. 2. manent etiam in sua substantia i. They goe not oute of their owne nature but they tarie in their owne substaunce Harps They are vnderstanded to be of the same substance wherein they are * And how are they turned if they remayne in Priori substaÌ„tia Simbolum quid turned West But what say you by this Manent in priori substantia They remaine in their former substance Harps Symbola manent The outward signes doe tarie West But what is meant here by this word Symbolum Harps The outwarde fourme or shape onely of the Nature West Then you can not call them a substance Harps Yes Syr euery thing hath a certaine substaunce in hys kinde West That is true but accidentes are not substaunces in theyr kinde Harpsfielde Sunt quid in suo genere Of thys they contended much West Chrysostome ad Caesarium Monachum sayeth Chrisost. ad Caesarium Monachum Sicut antequam consecratur panis est sic postquam consecratur liberatus est ab appellatione panis donatusque est appellatione corporis Domini cum natura remanet That is Like as before it is consecrated it is breade so after it is consecrated it is deliuered from the name of breade and is endued with y e name of the Lordes body where as the nature doth remaine Harps Where reade you this place I pray you D. Weston compyleth his argumentes out of Pet. Martyrs story West Here in Peter Martyr I finde it I haue hys Booke in my hand Harps The authour shall be of more credite before that I make so much of him as to frame an answere vnto it Weston In deede I knowe not well where he findeth it But Gelasius sayeth Gelasius that the nature of breade and wine doe tarrie Harps What is that Gelasius West A Bishop of Rome Harps Then he allowed the Masse West Yea and oftentimes sayde it and Purgatorie he also allowed and so prayer for the deade reliques and inuocation to saintes Harps Belyke then hee meant nothing against Transubstantiation West It doeth appeare so in deede Origenes in Mat. cap 15. But Origene vppon Math. the 15. Chapter saith that the material breade doeth tarrye and is conueyed into the priuie and is eaten of wormes Harps Tushe tushe thys place appertaineth vnto holye breade West What doth it appertaine to holy bread Harps Yea vnto holy breade West By what meanes can you shewe how this myraculous worke bringeth Christ into the sacrament Harps By the scriptures I prooue that which sayeth Hoc est corpus meum This is my body West It doeth reioyce all vs not a little that you haue so well maintained the sound doctrine of the sacrament of the Altare wherein you haue faithfully cleaued to the Catholike Church as an onely stay of our religion by the whych meanes you haue prooued your selfe meete to be authorised further towardes the practising of the scripture And heere I doe openly witnesse that I doe throughly consente wyth you and haue for disputations sake onely brought these argumeÌ„ts against you which you haue right learnedly satisfied and nowe all things being done after our forme and maner we wil end this disputation saying In oppositum est sacra theologia In oppositum est c. ¶ Thus haue ye heard in these foresaide disputations about the holy supper of the Lorde the reasons and arguments of the Doctors the answeres and resolutions of the Bishops and the triumphe of the Prolocutor triumphing before the victorie w t Vicit veritas who rather in my minde shoulde haue exclaimed vicit potestas As it happeneth alwaies Vbi pars maior vincit meliorem For els if potestas had not helped the Prolocutor more then veritas there had ben a small victoria But so it
Frier What thinkest thou thy selfe better learned then S. Thomas The Martyr I do arrogate no such learning vnto my self But this I say this parable is not so to be expoūded but is set forth for example of the Lord to cōmend to vs charity toward our neighbour how one should help an other The Frier Thou sayst in thy cōfessiō y t we are iustified onely by faith I wil proue y t we are iustified by works By our workes we do merite Iustification Ergo by workes we are iustified The Martyr I deny the antecedent The Frier S. Paule Heb. the last sayth Forget not to doe good and to distribute vnto others Talibus enim victimis promeretur Deus 1. For by such oblatiōs God is merited We merite God by our workes Ergo we are iustified by our workes The Martyr The wordes of S. Paule in that place be otherwise and are thus to be translated Talibus enim victimis delectatur Deus c. 1. With such sacrifices God is delighted or is well pleased The Iudge Vilard Vilard the Iudge turned the booke and found the place euen to be so as the prisoner sayd Here the friers were maruellously appalled troubled in theyr mindes of whom one asked then what he thought of confession The Martyr To whom the martyr answered that confession onely is to be made to God that those places whiche they alledge for auricular confession Confession out of S. Iames and other are to be expounded of brotherlye reconciliation betwene one another and not of confession in the Priestes eare And here agayne the friers stood hauing nothing to say agaynst it A blacke Frier Doest thou not beleue y e body of Christ to be locally and corporally in the sacrament I will prooue the same Iesus Christ taking bread sayd Transubstitiation this is my body Ergo it is truely his body The Martyr The verbe est is not to be takē here substantiuely in his owne proper signification as shewing the nature of a thing in substance as in Philosophy it is wont to be takē but as noting y e property of a thing signifiyng after the maner phrase of the Scripture Where one thing is wont to be called by the name of an other so as the signe is called by the name of the thing signified c. So is Circumcision called by the name of the Couenaunt and yet is not the Couenaunt So the Lambe hath the name of the Passeouer yet is not the same In which 2. Sacraments of the olde law ye see the verbe est to be taken not as shewing the substaunce of being but the property of being in the thing that is spoken of And so likewise in the Sacrament of the new law The Frier The Sacraments of the old law of the new do differ greatly for these geue grace so did not y e other The Martyr Neither the sacramentes of the olde Sacraments geue no grace nor of y e new law do geue grace but sheweth him vnto vs which geueth grace in deed The minister geueth the sacramēts but Iesus Christ geueth grace by the operation of the holy Ghost of whom it is sayd This is hee which baptiseth with the holy Ghost c. The Frier The fathers of the old Testament Iohn 2. were they not partakers of the same grace and promises with vs The Martyr Yes for S. Paule sayth that the fathers of y e old Testament did eat the same spirituall meat and dyd drinke of the same spirituall drinke with vs. The Frier Iesus Christ sayth Iohn 6. Your Fathers did eate Manna in the desert and are dead Ergo they were not partakers of the same grace with vs in the new Testament The Martyr Christ here speaketh of them which did not eate that Manna with fayth which was a type and figure of that bread of life The true eating of Māna that came from heauen and not of them which did eate the same with fayth as Moses and Aaron Iosua Caleb and suche other who vnder the shadowes of the olde Testament did look for Christ to come For so it is written of Abraham that hee sawe the day of Christ and reioysed not seeing it with his bodely eyes but with the eyes of his fayth Here the doltish Doctor was at a stay hauing no thing to say but heare frend be not so hoat nor so hasty tary a while tary a while At length after his tarying this came out The Frier I will proue that they of the olde Testamēt were not partakers of the same grace with vs. The fathers of the olde Testament howe they were vnder the law and howe they were vnder grace The lawe sayth S. Paule worketh anger And they that are vnder the law are vnder malediction Ergo they of the olde law and Testament were not partakers of the same grace with vs. The Martyr S. Paule here proueth that no man by the lawe can be iustified but that all men are vnder the anger and curse of God therby for so much as no man performeth that which in the law is comprehended and therfore we haue need euery man to runne to Christ to be saued by faith seing no man can be saued by the law For who so euer trusteth to the lawe hoping to finde iustification therby and not by Christ onely the same remayneth still vnder malediction not because the law is cursed or the times therof vnder curse but because of the weakenes of our nature which are not able to performe the law The Frier S. Paule Rom. 7. declareth in the olde Testamēt to be nothing but anger and threatnings and in the new Testament to be grace and mercy in these wordes where he sayth Wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from the body of this death The grace of god by Iesus Christ. The Martyr S. Paule in this place neither meaneth nor speaketh of the difference of times betwene the olde and the new Testament but of the conflicte betweene the flesh and the spirite so that whereas the flesh is euer rebelling agaynst the spirit yet the spirituall manne notwithstanding through the faith of Christ hath the victory Furthermore the true translation of y e place hath not Gratia Dei but Gratias ago Deo per Iesū Christum c. Primacius the Officiall The Officiall seeing the Frier almoste here at a poynt The Sacrament set in sayd Thou lewd hereticke doest thou deny the blessed Sacrament The Martyr No Syr but I embrace and reuerēce the Sacrament so as it was instituted of the Lord and left by his Apostles The Officiall Thou denyest the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament and thou callest the Sacrament bread The Martyr The Scripture teacheth vs to seeke the bodye of Christ in heauen and not in earth where we reade Colos. 3. If ye be risen with Christ seeke not for the thinges which are vpon the earth but for the thinges which are
in heauen where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God c. And where as I affirme the Sacrament not to be the body but bread speaking of bread remayning in his owne substaunce herein I do no other but as S. Paule doth which Cor. 11. doth call it bread likewise 4. or 5. times together The Frier Iesus Christ sayd that he was the bread of life The Officiall Thou noughty hereticke Iesus Christ sayd that he was a vyne a dore c. Where he is to be expoūded to speak figuratiuely But the wordes of the Sacrament are not so to be expounded· The Martyr Those testimonyes which you alledge make more for me then for you The Officiall What sayst thou leud hereticke is the bread of the Lordes Supper and the bread that we eate at home all one and is there no difference betwene them The Martyr In nature and substance there is no difference in quality and in vse there is much difference For the bread of the Lordes table though it be of the same nature substance with the bread that we eat at home yet when it is applyed to be a sacrament it taketh an other quality and is set before vs to seale the promise of our spiritual and eternal life And this was the effect of their examinations Ex Crisp. The name of his persecutour appeareth not in his story Petrus Bergerius At Lyons An. 1553. About the same time Petrus Bergerius martyr when these 5. students aboue specified were apprehended this Bergerius also was taken at Lions with them examined and made also the like confession with them together shortly after them suffered the same martyrdome He had bene before an occupier or marchant of wines He had wife and children at Geneua to whom he wrote sweet and comfortable letters In the doungeon with him was a certayne Theefe and Malefactor which had lyen there the space of seauen or eyght monethes This Theefe for payne and torment cried out of God and cursed his parentes that begat him being almost eaten vp with lice miserably handled and fed with such bread as dogs and horses had refused to eat The notable cōuersion of a theefe in prison So it pleased y e goodnes of almighty God that through the teaching and praiers of this Bergerius he was brought to repentaunce of hymselfe and knowledge of God learning much comfort and patience by the word of the Gospel preached vnto him Touching his conuersion he wrote a sweete letter to those 5. studentes aboue mentioned wherein he praiseth God for them and especially for this Bergerius declaring also in the same letter that the next day after that he had taken holde of the Gospell and framed himself to pacience according to the same his life whith he could plucke out before no lesse then 12· at once betwixte his fingers nowe were so gone from him that he had not one Furthermore so the almes of good men was extended towardes him that he was fed with white bread and that which was very good Such is the goodnes of the Lord toward thē that loue and seeke his trueth The name of this conuert was Iohn Chambone Ex Epist. Ioan. Cambon Ex Crisp. Pantal. c.  Stephanus Peloquinus Dionysius Peloquinus At Ville Franche about Lyons An. 1553. Steuen Peloquine Brother to this Dionysius Steuen and Dionyse Peloquine brethren and martyrs was taken about 2. or 3. yeares before with Anne Audebert aboue mentioned and also martyred for the testimonye of the Gospell at the same time with a smal fire After whome followed Dyonise Peloquine in the same steppes of Martyredome which was his Brother Thys Dionise had bene sometime a Monke and chaungyng hys weede tooke a Wyfe with whom he liued a certayne space at Geneua in Godly order and modesty of life Comming afterward to Uille Franche sixe myles from Lyons from thence he was had to Lyons where he remayned in prison 10. monethes Frō thence he was reuersed to Uille Franche where he was condemned degraded and burned The Articles wherupon he was condemned were for the Masse the Sacrament auricular confession Purgatory the Uirgine Mary and the Popes supremacy He suffered in the yeare of our Lord. 1553. Septemb 11. In his martyrdome such pacience and fortitude God gaue that whē he was halfe burned yet he neuer ceased holding vp his handes to heauen and calling vpon the Lord to the great admiration of thē that looked on Ex Ioan Crisp. The kinges Lieuetenant at Lyons The Officiall The Fryers Lodouicus Marsacus Michael Gerard his cosin Steuen Granot Carpenter At Lyons An. 1553. At Lyons the same yere these 3. also were apprehēded and sacrificed Lodouicke Marsac Michaell Gerard Steuen Granot Martyrs Ludouicus hadde bene of the order of the Dimilances whiche serued the king in hys warres Afterwarde comming to Geneua he was trayned vppe in the knowledge and doctrine of the Lorde Upon diuers Articles he was examined as inuocation to Saynts and of the Uyrgyne Mary free wyll merites and good woorkes auricular confession fasting the Lords supper In his second examinatiō they inquired of him and also of the other 2. touching vowes the Sacramentes the Masse and the Uicar of Christ. In all which articles because his and their iudgement dissented from the doctrine of the Popes Church they were condemned The aunsweres of Marsac to the articles are to be seene at large in the booke of the French martyrs set out by Ioan. Crisp. The blasphemies of the Papistes The Lieuetenant among other blasphemies had these woordes Of the iiij Euangelistes but ij were pure Mathew and Iohn The other two Marke Luke were but gatherers out of the other The Epistles of S. Paule but that the Doctors of the church had authorised them he would otherwise esteme thē no better then the fables of Aesope Item the sayde Lieuetenant sayd to M. Copes mayd Note what opinion the Papists haue of the law of God when it standeth not with their law speaking somewhat of the law Cursed be the God of that law When the sentence of condemnation was geuen agaynst these three they were so glad thereof that they went out praysing God and singing Psalmes Which troubled the iudges sore to see them so litle to esteme their death in so much that the Lieuetenaunt caused thē to be made to hold theyr peace saying shal these vile abiectes so vaunt themselues agaynst the whole state of the realme Thē as Marsac was going to a corner by to pray one of y e souldiors woulde not suffer him To whō he sayd that litle time which we haue wil you not geue vs to pray With that the souldiour being astonished went his way As they should be brought out of prison to y e stake the hangman tyed a rope about the neckes of the other two Marsac seing himself to be spared because of his order and degree called by the way to the Lieuetenaunt that he
In the Sacrament bread is receaued either leauened or vnleauened j. Ergo in the Sacrament is substaunce of bread and not accidences onely ¶ Argument Ba The body of Christ is named of that which is proportioned round and is vnsensible in operation ro Accidences only of bread haue no figure of roundnes co Ergo the body of Christ is not named of accidences but of very bread substantiall ¶ Argument The wordes of the Euangelist speaking of that whyche Christ tooke blessed brake and gaue do importe it to be bread and nothing else but bread Ergo the substance of bread is not to be excluded out of the Sacrament Chrisostome Christ in bread and wyne sayde do this in remembraunce of me Chrisost. â— Cor. 11. 〈◊〉 27. Cyrillus He gaue to them peeces or fragments of bread Cyrill in 〈◊〉 lib. 4. 〈◊〉 14. Also the same Cyrill sayth In bread we receaue his precious body and his bloud in wyne Ergo by these Doctours it remaineth bread after consecration Ambrose Before the blessing of the heauenly words it is called another kynde of thyng After consecration the body of Christ is signified ¶ Arguments of Peter Martyr disputing with M. Chadsey vpon the first question Da The Analogie and resemblaunce betwene the Sacrament and the thing signified must euer be kept in all Sacraments ti In the Sacrament of the Lordes body this Analogie or resemblaunce can not be kept if bread be transubstantiated si Ergo the substance of bread must needes remayne in the Sacrament of the Lords body The Maior of this Argument is certaine by S. Austen Lib. De catechisandis rudibus â—ugust eâ—â—st ad â—ardanum Epist. ad Dardan Where hee sayeth Sacramentes must needes beare a similitude of those thyngs whereof they are Sacramentes or else they can be no Sacramentes The Minor is thus proued ¶ Argument Ba The resemblaunce betweene the Sacrament and the body of Christ is this â—â—alogi◠〈◊〉 proporâ—â—â—n beâ—â—eene the â—â—tward â—â—urishing 〈◊〉 bread in 〈◊〉 bodyes 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 Christes 〈…〉 in 〈◊〉 soules that as the properties of bread and wyne do nourish outwardly so the properties of the body of Christ do nourish spiritually ro Without the substaunce of bread and wine there is no resemblaunce of nourishing co Ergo without the substaunce of bread and wyne the Analogie can not hold ¶ Argument Ba Agayne another resemblaunce and similitude or Analogie of this Sacramente is this that as one loafe of bread and one cuppe of wine conteineth many cornes and many grapes so the mysticall congregation coÌ„teineth many members and yet maketh but one bodie ro Without the substance of bread wine no such resemblaunce or similitude of coÌ„iunction can be represented co Ergo without the substaunce of bread and wyne the Analogie of this spirituall coniunction can not holde ¶ Another Argument Ba Euery Sacrament consisteth in two thynges that is in the thing signifieng and the thing signified ro Without the substance of bread and wine there is nothing that signifieth in the Sacrament co Ergo the substaunce of bread and wyne in the Sacramente can in no wise be transubstantiate from theyr natures The Minor is thus to be proued Fes There is no signification in any Sacrament without the element â—i The substaunce of bread and wine is the elemente of this Sacrament â—o Ergo without the substaunce of bread and wine there is no similitude nor signification in this Sacrament And for somuch as the aduersaries ground their transubstantiation so much vpon these wordes of Christ This is my body which they expound onely after y e litteral sense Three causes prouing that these wordes of Christ. Hoc est corpus meum are not to be taken literally but spiritually without troupe or figure now that this their exposition is false and that the sayde woordes are to be taken figuratiuely and spiritually by three causes it is to be proued 1. First by the wordes of the Scripture 2. By the nature of a Sacrament 3. By the testimonies of the fathers 1. First by these wordes of the scripture where he sayth Doe this in remembraunce of mee for so muche as remembraunce properly serueth not for thinges corporally preseÌ„t but for thinges rather being absent 2. Secondly where he saith Vntill I come Places of Scripture making agaynst transubstantiation Which words were vayne if he were already come by consecration 3. Thirdly where S. Paule sayth The breaking of bread is it not the communion of the body of Christ Which words of breaking in no case can be verified vppon the body of Christ which for the glory thereof is vnpossible 4. Furthermore where as the Lord biddeth theÌ„ to take and eate it is euident that the same cannot be vnderstand simply of the body of Christ without a trope forsomuch as he cannot be eaten and chawed with teeth as we vse properly in eating other meates to doe 5. The wordes moreouer of Luke and Paule spoken of the cuppe doe argue likewise that the other words spoken of the bread must needes be taken mistically As where it is sayd This cup is the new testament which woordes must needes be expounded thus thys cup doth signifie the new Testament 6. Item these wordes of S. Iohn chap. 6. My wordes be spirite and life The flesh profiteth nothing c. 7. IteÌ„ where in the same place of S. Iohn Christ to refell the carnal vnderstanding of the Capernaites of eating his body maketh mention of his Ascension c. The second cause why the wordes of Christ The secoÌ„d cause the nature of a Sacrament This is my body cannot be litterally expounded without trope is y e nature of a sacrament whose nature and propertie is to beare a signe or signification of a thinge to be remembred which thing after the substantiall and reall presence is absent As touching which nature of a sacrament sufficiently hath bene sayd before The third cause the testimonye of the fathers The third cause why the woordes of consecration are figuratiuely to be taken is the testimonie of the auncient Doctours Tertullianus This is my body that is to say this is a figure of my body Tertullianus Contra Martionem Lib. 4. Augustinus Psal. 3. August contra Adamantum Cap. 12. Hiâ—ronimus August Psal. 3. Christ gaue a figure of his body August Contra Adamantum Manichaeum He did not doubt to say This is my body when he gaue a signe of his body Hieronimus Christ represented vnto vs his body August August in his booke De Doctrina Christiana declareth expressely that this speache of eating the body of Christ August de Doctrina Christiana Lib. is a figuratiue speach Ambrosius As thou hast receaued the similitude of his death so thou drinkest the similitude of his precious bloud ¶ Argument Fe The death of Christ is not present really in the sacrament but by similitude ri The precious bloud of Christ is present in the Sacrament
c. Segewicke In the olde law there were many sacrifices propiciatory ergo there be also in the new law or els you must graunt that God is not so beneficiall now to vs as then he was to them seing that we be as frayle and as nedy as euer were they whiche must be especially the moste pure dayly sacrifice of Christes body and bloud that holy Malachy speaketh of Madew What sacrifice it is that Malachie speaketh of As touching the place of Malachy the Prophet I answere that it is nothing to your purpose for the offering of Christ dayly in the Sacrament For that sacrifice there spoken of is nothing els but the sincere most pure preaching of Gods holy word prayer and of thankesgeuing to God the Father thorow Iesus Christ. Here M. Segewicke was commaunded to cease to Mayster Yong. Yong. WOrshipful mayster Doctor although you haue learnedly and Clarkely defended these your conclusioÌ„s this day yet seeing that I am now placed to impugne theÌ„ in place of a better I do begin thus w t you It hath pleased Christ to make vs partakers of his holy spirite and that in very deede by receiuing of the Christen fayth hope and charitye ergo muche more of his owne blessed bodye and bloud spiritually and in very deede in the Lordes supper Item the Aungels foode was altogether holy from aboue and heauenly called Manna ergo also this celestial and heauenly foode can be iustly estemed to be of no lesse excellency then that The wordes of Scripture euer effectuall but without comparison better and so no very wheate after due consecration of it Item the wordes of holy scripture are euermore effectuall and working ergo they must performe the thing indeede that they doe promise For he that might create might also chaunge at hys pleasure the natures and substaunces of creatures as appeareth that Christ did by chaunging water into wyne at a Mariage in Galile But Christ in the Scripture dyd promise Iohn 6. that the bread that he would geue is hys flesh in deede whiche promise was neuer fulâ—illed till in his last supper when he tooke bread gaue thankes blessed it and gaue it to his disciples saying take eate this is my body Which bread then was his flesh in deede as doth well appeare in the sayd place and next promise depending vpon the same thus which flesh I will geue for the life of the world This last promise was fulfilled by him vpon the Crosse ergo the first was likewise at his last Supper So that it was but one and the same flesh first and last promised and performed Rochester In deed the wordes of holy scripture doe worke theyr effectes potencially and thorowly by the mighty operation of the spirite of God Yong. If it please your Lordship Man is â—â—â—rished bâ— the 〈◊〉 Christeâ— bloud bâ— faith bâ— not by drinckiâ—â— really in cuppe man is fedde and nourished with Christes bloud ergo theÌ„ it is his bloud indeed though it do not so appeare to our outward senses which be deceiued for Christ sayth this is my bloud And also my bloud is drinke in deede And because that we shoulde not abhorre his blessed bloud in his naturall kinde or his flesh if they shoulde be so ministred vnto vs of his most excellent mercy and goodnesse condescending to our weake infirmityes he hath appoynted them to be geuen vs vnder the sensible kindes of his conuenient creatures that is to say of bread and wyne Also our body is fedde with Christes body which is meate in deede but it can not be nourished with that that is not there present ergo Christs body that feedeth vs must needes be present in very deede in the sacrament Item the nature of bread is chaunged but the nature of the bread and the substaunce of it is all one thing ergo the substaunce also is chaunged My first proposition is S. Cyprian de coena domini saying that the bread in figure is not chaunged but in nature Rochester Cyprian there doth take thys worde nature for a propertye of nature onelye Cypriaâ— expound and not for the naturall substaunce Yong. That is a straunge acception that I haue not read in any author before this time but yet by your leaue the communion of Christes body can not be there where hys body is not but the communion of Christes body is in the sacrament ergo Christes body is there preseÌ„t in very deed Rochester Grace is there communicated to vs by the benefite of Christes body sitting in heauen Yong. Not so onely for we are members of his flesh and bones of his bones Rochester We be not consubstantiall with Christ We be 〈◊〉 consubsâ—â—â—â—ciall witâ— Christ ioyned 〈◊〉 him by 〈◊〉 holy spiâ—â—â— God forbid that but we are ioyned to his mistical body thorow his holy spirite and the communion of hys fleshe is communicated to vs spiritually thorow the benefite of his flesh in heauen Yong. Well I am contented and do most humbly beseeche your good Lordshippe to pardon me of my greate rudenesse and imbecillity which I haue here shewed ¶ Here ended the first disputation holden at Cambridge the 20. day of Iune 1549. ¶ The second disputation holden at Cambridge 24 of Iune Ann. 1549. Doctor Glin in his first conclusion Misterieâ— may 〈◊〉 be beleeâ—â— then cuâ—â—â—ously seaâ—â—ched TThe misteries of fayth as August witnesseth may very profitably be beleued but they cannot well be searched forth as sayth the scripture I beleued therefore I spake and he that confesseth me before men him will I coÌ„fesse before my father which is in heauen We beleue euery man in his arte therefore much more Christ our sauior in his word Maruell not most honorable Lordes and worshipfull Doctours that I speake thus nowe for once you your selues spake the same But peraduenture some wyll say beleue not euery spirite I aunswere charity beleeueth all thinges but not in all thinges If those thinges whiche I shall vtter be conuinced as false I shall desire you to take them as not spoken at all But these are the wordes of of trueth hoc est corpus meum this is my body Christ spake them therefore I dare not say this bread is my body As 〈◊〉 called 〈◊〉 the breaâ— figure 〈◊〉 speaking â—â—â—guratiue at other tymes caâ—â—led theâ— not plaâ—â— figures though they 〈◊〉 so for so Christ sayd not Christ sayd thus this is my body and therfore I but duste and ashes yea a worme before him dare not say this is a figure of his body heauen and earth saith he shal passe but my word shall not passe Whatsoeuer our old father Adam called euery creature that is his name to this day y e new Adam Christ Iesus sayd this is my body is it not so he neuer sayd this is a figure of my bodye nor eat you this figure or signe of my body And therfore wheÌ„ y e paschall lambe was set before him he sayd not this
and wine aâ—teâ— the consecration and Paule calleth it bread after the consecration it is therfore bread wine Glin. Truely syr you must bring better arguments or els you will proue nothing for your purpose For to your reasons thus I answere Chrisost. sayth Christ did drinke of the bloud but whether this sentence I will not drinke of the fruit of the vine be spokeÌ„ of the bloud it is not certayne And truly Erasmus denyeth that it is not to be found in all y e whole scripture that it is called bread after the consecration Or els thus I may answere you EueÌ„ as it is called bread for the forme How it is called bread and in what respect and kind and accidentes which remayne so for y e forme similitude which it hath it may be called y e fruit of the vine after the consecratioÌ„ And wheras Chrisost. calleth it wine he speaketh of the nature wherof the sacrameÌ„t necessarily is made And I denye not but it may be called wine but yet eucharisticall c. Rochest The Euangelistes Math. Marke and Luke call iâ— the fruit of the vine and Chrisost. saith that the fruit of the vine is nothing els but wine ergo Christ gaue them wine and dranke wine himselfe also not bloud Christ 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 Glin. Christ said twise I will not drink of the fruit of the vine once at the eating of the paschall Lambe as Luke sayth then was it wine indeed And agayne after the consecration of his body and bloud he sayd the like and then it was not wine which me think I can proue by the plain words of S. Luke if we compare him with Math. For if it were wine as they both affirme then the wordes of Christ cannot well stand because first as Luke sheweth he sayde at his legall supper I will not drinke of the fruit of this vine c. And agayne in Math. after the consecration of his body bloud he dranke it followeth therefore that that which he dranke was not wine by nature for then must Christ needes be a lyer which were blasphemy to say Rochest August doth thus reconcile those places saying it is spoken by a figure which we call histeron proteron Glin I know that August sayth so Two 〈◊〉 assoyle 〈◊〉 but me thinke y t which I haue sayd semeth to be the true meaning of the places Rochest August seeketh no starting holes nor yet any indirect shiftes to obscure the truth Glin. Say your fatherhoode what you will of Aug. I thinke not so Grindall This cup is the new testament in my bloud but here is a trope ergo In these wordes this is mâ— body is a trope in these wordes of Christ this is my body is a trope also Glin. I deny your argumeÌ„t for wheras Luk saith this cup Math. sayth this is my bloud therfore as Aug. sayth places that be darcke are to be expounded by other that be light Rochest All of your side deny y e Christ euer vsed any trope in the instituting of sacramentes Glin. For my part I hold no opinion but the truth wherof you your selfe also do pretend the like Rochest What vnderstaÌ„d you by this word hoc this in what words standeth the force or strength of the sacrameÌ„t A quest wherein consistetâ— the 〈◊〉 of the Saâ—cramentâ— In this pronowne hoc this or in this verbe est is or els in this whole sentence this is my body Glin. It is not made the true body except all the words be spokeÌ„ as in baptisme I baptise thee in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy ghost For neither doth baptisme consist in this word ego I or in baptise or in this word te thee or in these words in nomine in the name c. but in all the wordes spoken in order Grindall If to eat the body of Christ be a figuratiue speach To eate body of Christ a figuratiâ—â— speachâ—â— as August sayth it is ergo then these wordes this is my body is a figuratiue speach also Glin. It is a figuratiue speach because we eat not the body of Christ after the same maner that we do other meates c. Grind. Ciprian vnderstandeth this of those y t come vnworthely Cyprian explaneâ— make no difference of y e Lordes body speaking of y e diiudicatioÌ„ of the sacramentes not of the body of Christ. Glin. Truely he speaketh of the true body of Christ. Rochest They receiue vnworthely who neither iudge themselues nor yet the sacraments taking them as other common bread Grind. August vpon the 33. psal sayth Christ bare himselfe in his owne handes after a sort not in deed or truely c. Glin. You omit many other thinges which August sayth I confesse that he caried himselfe in his own handes after â— sort but August deliuereth this vnto vs and as a great miracle And you know it was no great miracle to cary a figure of his body in his hands And wheras you say y t â—hrist caryed himselfe after a sort in his owne handes it is verye true but yet diuersly for he sat after one maner at his supper after an other maner he caried himselfe in his hands For Christ in the visible figure bore himselfe inuisibly Chrisâ— sup 〈◊〉 homil 〈◊〉 cap. 5. Grind. Tertullian calleth it a figure ergo it is so Glin. It is as I haue sayd a figure but not a figure onely But heare what Tertullian sayth he tooke bread and made it his body saying this is my body c. Grind. Heare what Chrisost. vpon Math. homil 11. sup ca. 5 if vessels sanctified to holy vses c. Glin. That worke is receiued not as Chrisostomes but some mans els as you know or thus I answere it is not y e true body in proper and visible forme Here Mayster Gest disputed THe bread is not chaunged before the consecration ergo not after it neither Glin. I deny your argument M. Gest. Gest. Christ gaue earthly bread ergo there is no transubstantiation Glin. I deny your antecedent Gest. That that Christ tooke he blessed that which he blessed he brake what he brake he gaue ergo he receiuing earthly bread gaue the same bread Glin. Your order in reasoning standeth not for by y e same reason may you gather that God tooke a rib of man and therof built a rib and brought it vnto Adam Ergo what he receiued he brought but he receiued a rib Ergo he brought a ribbe Gest. How is the body of Christ in heauen and how in the sacrament whether circumscriptiuely or diffinitiuely Glin. The body of Christ is in heauen circumscriptiuely but not so in the sacrament The angels also are conteined diffinitiuely But I haue learned that the body of Christ is in the sacrament but not locally nor circumscriptiuely but after an vnspeakable maner vnknowen to man Rochest Ah know
do we eate the substaunce or the accidents Glin. Both as when we eate wholesome and vnwholesome meates together so we eate the substance of Christes body and yet not without the accidents of bread Pilking I prooue that the accidents are eaten for whatsoeuer entreth in by the mouth goeth into the priuy but the accidents go in by the mouth Ergo into the priuy Glin. This sentence whatsoeuer entreth in by the mouth c. is not ment of all kynd of meats as not of that which Christ eate after hys resurrection Pilking You shall not eate this body which you see Glin. That is not after that maner as you see it now nor after the same visible forme Pilking Wheresoeuer Christ is there be his ministers also for so he promised But Christ as you hold is in the Sacrament Ergo his ministers are there also Where Christ is there be his ministers Glin. To bee with Christ is spoken diuers wayes as in hart in mynd and place and sometymes both or to bee with Christ is to minister vnto him and to do his wil c. The third disputation holden at Cambridge as before M. Perne CHrist at his last supper tooke bread brake bread distributed bread Ergo not his body but a Sacrament of hys body for the bones of Christ could no man breake as witnesseth the Prophet sayeng Os non comminuetis ex eo that is you shall not breake a bone of hym This cuppe is the cup of the new Testament in my bloud In this sentence there is a trope by theyr owne confession wherefore there is in the other also This is my body for the holy scripture is a perfect rule not onely of doyng but also of speakyng Paule calleth it bread three tymes Ergo it is bread c. And wheras they vrge so much this Pronoune illum it is not in the Greeke canon which hath panem bread not panem illum that bread There was no transubstantiation in the Manna Ergo nor in this sacrament for there is this article est if that can prooue transubstantiation as they suppose And if Manna were a figure say they then this is not This mysterie or Sacrament we hold to be true bread and true meate Manna gaue lyfe vnto them as this doth vnto vs yet was it but a figure In euery sacrament there ought to be a certaine analogie Their ought to be a certaine analogie in euery Sacrament betwene the thing that signifieth the thing that is signified both of the interne and externe thyng of the Sacrament as Augustine sayth writyng to Bonifacius but betwixt the formes of bread and wyne and the body of Christ there is no analogie at all Ergo they make not a Sacrament As of many graynes c. This similitude of Paule is spoken of y e substance of bread not of the forme thereof otherwyse Paule should in vayne compare vs to bread As in Baptisme there is materiall water so in the sacrament of the Eucharist is materiall bread Dionysius called the Sacrament of Christes bodye no otherwyse then bread Eusebius in ecclesiastica historia doth the same Tertullian lib. 4. against Marcion sayth thus He gaue hys body that is sayth he a figure or type of hys body Cyprian sayeth In his last supper he gaue bread and wyne and hys body vpon the crosse The same Cyprian epist 6. lib. 1. and epist. 3. lib. 2. sayeth Christ dranke wyne at his last supper Cyprian epist. 6. Cyprian epist. 6. li. 1. epist. 3 li. 2. because he would root out the heresie of certaine who onely vsed water in the ministration thereof Chrysost. hom 13. vpon Math. sayth That onely bread remayneth c. Theodoretus sayth in hys first dialogue bread remayneth still in hys first nature as before Augustine sayth The bread doth not loose his first nature after the consecration but receyue y e another qualitie whereby it differeth from common bread The same August lib. 3. agaynst Maximinus sayeth Aug. li. 3. contra Maximinum Sacramentes are figures beyng one thyng in deede and shewyng forth an other thyng he speaketh of no transubstantiation here Agayne writyng to Bonifacius he sayth The Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ and so is the sacrament of wyne also c. The sacraments of the olde and new law are all one in substaunce of matter notwithstandyng they be diuers in signes which Sacramentes why should they not be one wheÌ„ as they signified al one thing The body of Christ when it was on the earth was not in heauen so now it beyng in heauen is not on the earth Wherby it may appeare that transubstantiation is a most blasphemous sacrilegious and damnable errour and a most vayne Transubstantiation a most blasphemouse errour vnsauory and diuelish papisticall inuention defended and maintayned onely by the papistes the professed and sworn enemies of all truth Those who impugn this doctrine of transubstantiation are no new vpstartes as the enemies of the truth the papists beare the world in hand But contrarily those who maintayne this diuelish doctrine are new sprong vp cocatrices as Manicheus Euticus and others Gelasius sayth The sacramentes which we receyue are diuine thyngs yet cease they not to bee bread and wyne in nature Out of this puddle of transubstantiation hath sprong vp adoration of the sacrament and inducyng men to beleeue that Christ hath many bodies The declaration of the sayd M. Perne in the 2. conclusion MAthew Marke Luke and the apostle Paule call it a commemoration or remembraunce of Christes body and bloud And Paule to the Hebrews sayth By one onely oblation once offered are we made perfect to eternall saluation c. By hym therefore doe we offer vp the sacrifice of laud and prayse to God that is the fruit of the lips c. It is called the Eucharist Why it is called the Eucharist because we offer to God praise and thankesgeuyng with deuout myndes and it is called the cup of thankesgeuyng because we geue thankes to God thereby also You shall preach forth the Lordes death c. that is you shall geue thanks be myndfull of his death c. Geue your bodies a quick and liuyng sacrifice c. The sacrifice of prayse and thankesgiuing shall honour me c. Chrysostome sayth No other sacrifice but onely prayse and thankesgeuing The wyse men offered three kyndes of sacrifices gold frankencense and myrrhe so we doe also namely vertue prayer and almes deedes These be the sacrifices wherewith Christ is pleased And Augustine sayth there are no other sacrifices theÌ„ prayer prayse and thanksgeuyng c. Chrysostome homil 46. vpon Iohn sayth to be conuerted or turned into Christ is to be made pertaker of hys body and bloud There disputed against him M. Parker M. Pollâ—rd M. Vauisor and M. Yong. Parker CHrist whose wordes are to be beleeued sayd This is my body he said not this bread is my body or w t
not to say This is my body when he gaue but a signe of his body Augustine vpon the thirde Psalme August 〈◊〉 Psal. 3. Christus adhibuit Iudam ad conuiuium in quo corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis suis commeÌ„dauit tradidit Christ receiued Iudas to the Supper in the which he commended and deliuered a figure of his body and bloud vnto hys Disciples Rabanus de institutione clericorum Quia panis corpus confirmat Rabanus institut Clericoâ—â— ideo ille corpus Christi congruenter nuncupatur Vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur Because the breade strengtheneth the bodye therefore it is aptly called Christes body And likewise the wine because it encreaseth bloud in the flesh it doth resemble the bloud of Christ. Druthmarus Monachus in Mathaeum Druthmâ—â—â—rus in Matth. Vinum laetificat sanguinem auget ideo non inconuenienter per hoc sanguis Christi figuratur Wine maketh glad the heart and encreaseth bloud and therefore the bloude of Christ is not vnaptly signified thereby Irenaeus witnesseth plainly that in the Sacrament remaineth bread and wine by these woordes Quemadmodum terrenus panis percipiens vocationem Dei Irenaeus contra Vâ—â—lentinuâ— Lib. 3. iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti As the earthly breade receiuing the vocation of God is now no common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the one earthly the other heauenly Heere he recordeth that there remaineth in the Sacrament an earthly nature which is either breade or nothing Gelasius wryting against Nestorius auoweth the same sayinge Gelasius In Eucharistia non definit substantia panis natura vini Etenim imago similitudo corporis saÌ„guinis Domini in actione mysteriorum celebratur i. In the Eucharist the substance of the bread and nature of the wine ceasseth not to be For the Image and similitude of the body and bloud of the Lorde is celebrated in the action of the mysteries Chrysostome in his 20. Homely vpon the 2. Epistle to the Corinthians preferreth a poore man before the Sacramente Chrisost. 〈◊〉 hom 20. epist. 2. ad Corinâ—â— and calleth hym the body of Christe rather then the other Whereof I maye gather this reason Bo The poore man is not the naturall and reall bodye of Christ. car Euery poore member of Christe is the body of Christe rather then the Sacrament Chrysost. do Ergo the Sacrament is not the naturall and reall body of Christ. His wordes are Hoc altare veneraris quoniam in eo proponitur corpus Christi Eum autem qui reipsa corpus est Christi afficis contumelia negligis pereuntem This aultare thou doest reuerence because the body of Christ therein is set before thee but him whiche is the body of Christe in deede thou doest spitefully intreate and doest neglect him readye to perish Chrysostome in the 11. Homely vppon Mathewe Quod si haec vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus est transferre periculosum in quibus non verum corpus Christi Chrisost. in Hom. sup 〈◊〉 sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur quanto magis vasa corporis nostri If it be so perillous a matter to translate these sanctified vessels vnto priuate vses in the which not the true body of Christ but a mysterie of the bodye of Christe is contained howe muche more then these vesselles of our bodye Athanasius vppon these woordes Athanasiâ—â— in verba â—â—uang 〈◊〉 dixerit veâ—bum in 〈◊〉 hominis Qui dixerit verbum contra filium hominis sayeth Ea quae Christus dicit non sunt carnalia sed spiritualia Quod enim â—omedentibus suffecisset corpus vt totius muÌ„di fieret alimonia Sed idâ—irco meminit Ascensionis filij hominis in coelum vt eos a corporali cogitatione auelleret The words that Christe heere speaketh be not carnall but spirituall For what bodye mighte haue suffised for all that shoulde eaâ—e to be a nourishment of the whole worlde But therefore hee maketh mention of the Ascension of the sonne of manne into Heauen August Marcelliâ—â— to the entenâ—e to plucke them awaye from that corporall cogitation Augustinus ad Marcellinum In illis carnalibus viâ—ctimis figuratio fuit carnis Christi quam pro peccatis nostris erat oblatuâ—us sanguinis quem erat effusurus In iâ—to autem Sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit sanguinis quem pro nobis effudit In iâ—lo ergo Sacrificio quid nobis sit donandum figuratè significatur in hoc autem sacrificio quid nobis donatum sit euidenter ostenditur In illis sacrificijs pâ—â—nunciabatur filius Dei occidendus in hoc pro impijs annunciatur occisus In those carnall oblations the flesh of Christ was figured which he should offer for our sinnes and the bloud which he should bestow for vs. But in this sacrifice is the giuing of thanks and memorial of the flesh of Christ which he hath offred for vs and of the bloud which he hath shedde for vs. In that sacrifice therfore is signified figuratiuely what should be giueÌ„ for vs in this sacrifice what is giuen to vs is euidently declared In those sacrifices the sonne of God was before preached to be slaine in thys sacrifice he is shewed to be slaine already for the wicked Origenes vpon Mat. expounding these words This is my body sayth Panis iste quem Christus corpus suum fatetur esse verbum est nutritorium animarum i. The bread which Christ confesseth to be hys body is a nutritiue worde of our soules Augustinus Nulli aliquatenus dubitandum vnumquemque fidelium corporis sanguinis Domini tunc esse participem quando in baptismate membrum efficitur Christi Sacramenti quippe illius participatione ac beneficio non priuabitur quando in se hoc inuenit quod SacramentuÌ„ significati No manne ought in any wise to doubt but that euery faithfull man is then partaker of the body and bloud of the Lord when in Baptisme he is made a member of Christ. For he shall not be depriued of the participation and benefite of that Sacrament when he findeth in himselfe that thing which the Sacrament doeth signifie Ambrosius Tanta est vis verbi vt panis vinum maneant quae sunt muteÌ„tur in aliud Such is the force strength of the worde that the bread and wine remaine the same as they were and yet are changed into an other thing For it is not any longer common breade Ambrosius but it is turned into a Sacrament Yet notwithstanding there remaineth bread and wine Tertullian wryting against an hereticke named Martion which taught that the creatures of God as flesh bread wine and such like were naught and vncleanly Non abiecit Deus creaturam suam sed ea
repraesentauit corpus suum God hath not cast away his creature but by it hee hath represented his body Origenes vppon Leuiticus speaking of the drinking of Christes bloud sayeth Non sanguinem carnis expetimus sed sanguinem verbi Origines in 〈◊〉 We doe not desire y e bloud of the flesh but the bloud of the woorde Ambrose called the Sacrament Typum corporis Christi and Basilius Antitypum whych is as much to say Typus Antyphon as a token a figure a remeÌ„brance and example of Christes body Origine vpon the 14. chapt of Mathew In isto pane quod est materiale eijcitur in secessum id autem quod fit per verbum Dei pro fidei ratione prodest Origen 〈◊〉 Matth. Cap. 14. In thys bread that thing which is matoriall passeth throughe mans body but that which is made by the woord of God by the meanes of faith doth profite And least perhaps you thinke that hee spake those woordes of our common table bâ—ead he concludeth the matter himselfe with these words Haec diximus de pane symbolico These things we haue spoken of the mysticall bread Augustinus contra aduersarium legis Prophetarum declareth that it must needes be a figure and a remembraunce of the body of Christ Augustinus contra aduersaâ—um 〈◊〉 Prophetaâ—â—â— Ista secundum sanae fidei regulam figuratè intelliguntur Nam alioqui horribilius videtur esse humanam carnem vorare quam perimere humanum sanguinem potare quâ—m fundere These things are vnderstanded figuratiuely according to the rule of sound and true faith For otherwise it seemeth to be more horrible to eate mannes flesh then to kill a man and more horrible to drinke mannes bloud then to shed it And therfore he saith vpon the 98. Psalme Non hoc corpus quod videtis estis manducaturi August in Psal. 98. nec bibituri sanguinem quem fundent qui me crucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis trado i. Ye shall not eat this body which you see and drinke that bloud which they shal shed that shall crucifie me I commend vnto you a Sacrament Tertullian Aliud a pane corpus Iesus habet nec pro nobis panis traditus Tertulliaâ—â—s sed ipsum Christi verum corpus traditum est in crucem quod panis figura in coena exhibitium est i. Iesus hath an other body then breade for breade was not geuen for vs but the very true body of Christ was geuen vppon the crosse which body was exhibited in the Supper vnder the figure of bread This recordeth Theodoretus an auncient wryter and anoweth that there is no turning or altering of the bread in the Sacrament â—â—â—odoreâ—â—â— His woordes are these Symbola visibilia corporis sanguinis sui appellatione honorauit non mutans naturam sed naturae addens gratiam i. He hath honoured and dignified the visible signes wyth the name of his body and of his bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to nature And in an other place where hee maketh a true Christian man to reason with an heretike he geueth to the hereticke this part to holde with the turning of breade and wine into the natural body and bloud of Christ. The heretickes wordes are these Sacramentum Dominici corporis sanguinis alia sunt ante sacram inuocationeÌ„ post inuocationem verò muâ—antur alia fiunt The sacramentes of the Lordes body and bloude before the holy inuocation are one thing but after inuocation they are changed and made an other This maketh Theodor. to be the heretikes part Then bringeth he foorth the true Christian man which reprooueth the hereticke for so saying Incidisti in laqueos quos ipse struxeras Neque enim sancta illa symbola post consecrationem discedunt a natura sua Manent enim in priori substantia figura etenim oculis videri digitis palpari vt ante possunt Thou art fallen into the snares which thou thy seâ—â—e hast laid For those selfe same holy signes after this consecration do not go froÌ„ their nature for they abide still both in their former substance and figure and may be both with eyes seene and felt wyth handes as before To the same agreeth well Chrysostome saying Postquam sanctificatur panis Chrisostomus non amplius appellatur panis tametsimaneat natura panis i. After the breade is sanctified it is called breade no more althoughe the nature of bread stil remaine Hereby you may vnderstand how in what sort the old fathers how the primatiue and beginning church how the Apostles howe Christ himselfe tooke these wordes This is my body Now to withstand and stoutly to go against not onely ancient wryters or the congregation of Christian people which at that time was not ouergrown no neither spotted with couetousnesse and worldly honour but the Apostles also and God himselfe no doubt it is great fondnesse But what speake I of the olde fathers It is not long since the sacrament grew out of his right vnderstanding Transubstantiation a new inuention For thys word Transubstantiatio wherby they signifie turning of the breade into the body of Christ was neuer neyther spoken neither heard neither thought among y e auncient fathers or in the olde Churche But aboue 500. yeares past Pope Nicolas 2. in a Councell holden at Lateranum in Rome confirmed that opinion of the changing of bread woulde haue made an article of the faith and placed it in the Credo After whiche time ensued Corpus Christi daye Masses of Corpus Christi reseruation of the sacrament with honoure with canapies with sensing w t kneeling wyth worshypping and adoration and with so much as any man coulde deuise For they thought they could not do to much to hym after that the Bishoppe of Rome had allowed hym for a God But not fully 200. yeare before that time when thys doctrine first began to bud and yet notwithstandinge had not so preuailed but that a greate number of learned and good men could know the Sacrament to be a Sacrament and not himselfe Charles the great king of Fraunce and Emperour of Rome demaunded of a great learned man Carolus Magnus Bertramus whose name was Bertramus what hee thoughte by that straunge kinde of calling downe Christe from heauen and turning a litle gobbet of bread into his naturall body To whom Bertram made answere in this wise Dicimus quòd multa differentia feparantur corpus in quo passus est Christus sanguis quem in cruce pendens fudit hoc corpus quod in mysterio passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur Etenim hoc corpus pignus species est illud autem ipsa veritas Apparet ergo quod tam multa differeÌ„tia separentur quantum est inter pignus eam rem pro qua pignus traditur quantum inter imaginem rem eam cuius imago est quantum inter speciem veritatem This
disputation he desired that the Prolocutor would bee a meane vnto the Lords that some of those that were learned setters forth of the same Catechisme might be broght into the house to shew their learning that mooued them to set forth the same Request to haue Doct. Ridley M. Rogers at the disputation Aunswere of the Bishops vnto the request and that D. Ridley M. Rogers with two or three mo might be licenced to be present at this disputation and to be associate with them This request was thought reasonable and was proposed vnto the Bishops who made this aunswer that it was not in them to call such persons vnto our house since some of them were prisoners But they sayd they would be petitioners in this behalfe vnto the Counsayle and in case any were absent that ought to bee of the house they willed them to bee taken in vnto them if they listed After this they mindyng to haue entred into disputation there came a Gentleman as messenger from the Lord great master signifiyng vnto the Prolocutor that the L. great maister and the Earle of Deuonshire would be present at the disputations and therfore he deferred the same vnto monday at one of the clocke at after noone ¶ The Acte of the third day Upon Monday the xiij of October at the time apointed The third SessioÌ„ October 23. in the presence of many Erles Lordes Knights gentlemen and diuers other of the Court and of the Citie also the Prolocutor made a Protestation that they of the house had appoynted this disputation not to call the truth into doubt to the which they had alredy all subscribed sauing v. or sixe but that those gainsayers might be resolued of their arguments in the which they stood as it shall appeare vnto you not doubting but they will also condesceÌ„d vnto vs. M. Haddon and M Elmar refusâ— to aunswere except their request were graunted Then he demanded of M. Haddon whether he would reason against the questions proposed or no. To whom he made answer that he had certified hym before in writyng that he would not since the request of such learned men as were demaunded to be assistent with them would not bee graunted M. Elmar likewyse was asked Who made the Prolocutor the like aunswer addyng moreouer this that they had done too much preiudice already to the truth to subscribe before the matter was discussed and little or nothyng it might auayle to reason for the truth since all they were now determined to the contrary After this he demaunded of M. Cheyney whome the Prolocutor sayd allowed the presence with them M. Cheyny the Archdeacon of Herford now B. of Glocester but he denyed the transubstantiation by the meanes of certayne authorities vppon the which he standeth and desireth to be resolued as you shall heare whether he will propose his doubtes concernyng Transubstantiation or no. Yea quoth he I would gladly my doubts to be resolued which mooue me not to beleeue Transubstantiation The first is out of S. Paule to the Cor. who speakyng of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ M. Cheynyes doubtes about transubstantiation calleth it oft tymes bread after the consecration The second is out of Origene who speaking of this sacrament sayth that the materiall part therof goeth down to the excrements The third is out of Theodoretus who making mention of the sacramentall bread and wine after the consecration saith that they go not out of their former substance forme and shape These be some of my doubts among many other wherein I require to be answered Then the Prolocutor assigned D. Moreman to answer him Moremans aunswere to S. Paule who to Saint Paule answered him thus That the Sacrament is called by hym bread in deede but it is thus to be vnderstood that it is the sacrament of bread that is the forme of bread Then M. Cheyney inferred and alledged that Hesychius called the sacrament both bread and flesh M. Cheyny replyeth to Moremans aunswere Yea quoth Moreman Hesychius calleth it bread because it was bread not because it is so And passing ouer Origen he came to Theodoretus sayd that men mistooke hys authoritie by interpreting a general into a special as Peter Martyr hath done in y e place of Theodoret interpretyng 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for substance Moremans auÌ„swere to Theodoreâ—tus which is a special signification of y e word whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a general word as well to accidence as to substane and therefore I answer thus vnto Theodoret y t the sacramental bread and wine do not go out of their former substance forme and shape that is to say not out of their accidentall substance and shape After this M. Cheyney sat him downe by and by M. Elmar stood vp as one that could not abide to heare so foÌ„d an answer to so graue an authoritie M Elmar argueth aâ—gaynst D. Moremans aunswere reasoned vpon the authoritie of Theodoret alledged before by M. Cheyney declared that Moremans aunswer to Theodoret was no iust nor sufficient answer but an illusion and a subtill euasion contrary to Theodorets meaning For said he if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify an accident in the place alledged as it is answered by M. Moreman then were it a word superfluous set in Theodoret there where do follow two other wordes which sufficiently do expound the accideÌ„ces of y e bread y t is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signify in English shape and forme so prooue out of the same author by diuers allegations Moremans shift is ouâ—â—throwen y t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek could not be so generally taken in that place as Moreman for a shift would haue it But Moreman as a man hauing no other salue for that sore affirmed stil that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth substance must needes signify an accidental substance properly To whose importunity since he could haue no other answer Elmar as a man wearied with his importunity gaue place After this stood vp Iohn Philpot and sayd Philpots replicatioâ— to Moremans shifâ— y t hee could prooue that by the matter that Theodoret intreateth of in the place aboue alledged and by the similitude whiche hee maketh to prooue his purpose by no meanes M. Moremans interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be taken for an accideÌ„tall substaunce as he for a shift would interprete it to be For the matter which Theodoret intreateth of in y t place The place of Theodâ—â—ret openeâ— is against Eutiches an hereticke whiche denied two natures of substance to remayne in Christ beyng one person and that his humanitie after the accomplishment of y e mysterie of our saluation ascendyng into heauen The arguâ—ment of Theodoreâ— a simili being ioined vnto the Diuinitie was absorpt or swalowed vp of y e same so that Christ should bee no more but of one deuine substance
remeÌ„ber that once you were as farre as a man might iudge of the Religion that I am of at this present 〈…〉 of the 〈◊〉 religiâ—â— with M. â—â—adford and I remember that you haue set forth the same earnestly Gladly therfore would I learn of you what thing it was that moued your conscience to alter and gladly would I see what thing it is that you haue sene sithen which you saw not before Pendleton Maister Bradford I doe not know wherefore you are condemned Bradford Transubstantiation is the cause wherfore I am condemned and because I denye that wicked men receyue Christes body wherein I woulde desire you to shewe me what reasons which before you knew not did moue your conscience now to alter For once as I sayd you were as I am in Religion Here mayster Pendleton halfe amazed began to excuse himselfe if it would haue bene as though he had not denied fully transubstantiation in deede although I sayde quoth he that the word was not in Scripture Pendleton belike would study out the reasons that moued him to alter for he had none ready to shew Euill men receiue not Christes body He must be in Christes body that must receiue Christes body and so hee made an endlesse tale of the thing that moued hym to alter but sayd he I wil gather to you the places which moued me and send you them And here he desired Bradforde that hee might haue a copye of that whiche he had sent to Mayster Weston the which Bradford did promise him Syme reasoning also they had whether euill men dyd receiue Christes body Bradford denying and Pendleton affirming Bradford sayd that they receiued not the spirit Ergo not the body for it is no 〈◊〉 carkas Hereto Bradford brought also S. Augustine how Iudas receiued Panem Domini and not Panem Dominum how that he muste be in Christs body which must receiue the body of Christ. But Pendleton went about to put it away with idem and not ad idem and how that in Corpore Christi was to be vnderstand of all that be in the visible Church with Gods elect Bradforde denyed this to be Saynt Augustines meaning and sayd also that the allegation of idem and not ad idem could not make for that purpose They talked more of Transubstantiation Pendleton bringing forth Cyprian The place of S. Cyprian expounded how the nature of bread is chaunged Cyprian expounded by Gelasius Panis natura mutatur c. And Bradforde sayde that in that place natura did not signify substaunce As the nature of an herbe is not the substaunce of it so the breade chaunged in nature is not to be taken for chaunged in substaunce For now it is ordeined not for the foode of the body simply but rather for the soule Here also Bradford alleadged the sentence of Gelasius Pendleton sayde that he was a Pope Yea sayd Bradford but his faith is my fayth in the Sacrament if ye would receiue it They reasoned also whether accidentia were res or no. If they be properly res sayde Bradford then are they substaunces and if they be substances they are earthly Pendleton driuen to say that accidences be substance then are there earthly substaunces in the Sacramen as Irenaeus sayth which must needes be bread But Pendleton sayde that the colour was the earthly thing and called it an accidentall substaunce I omitte the talke they had of my Lord of Canterbury of Peter Martyrs booke of Pendletons Letter layde to Bradfordes charge when he was condemned with other talke more of the Church whether Dic Ecclesiae was spokeÌ„ of the vniuersall Church or of a particular which PeÌ„dleton at the length graunted to bee spoken of a particulare Church also of vayne glory which he willed Bradford to beware of and such like talke A litle before his departing Bradford sayd thus Maister Doctor Bradford could heare no reason of the Papistes to infirme his opinion agaynst transubstantiation as I said to M. Weston the last day so saye I vnto you agayne that I am the same man in Religion agaynst Transubstantiation styll which I was wheÌ„ I came into prison for hitherto I haue sene nothing in any poynt to infirme me At which words Pendleton was something moued and said that it was no Catholicke doctrine Yes quoth Bradford and that wil I proue euen by the testimony of the Catholicke fathers vntill Concilium Lateranense or thereabout Thus Pendleton weÌ„t his way saying that he would come oftener to Bradford God our father be with vs all and geue vs the spirite of his truth for euer Amen The same day in the afternoone about fiue of the clock came Mayster Weston to Bradford and after gentle salutations he desired the company euery man to depart so they two sat downe And after that he had thanked Bradford for his writing vnto him he pulled out of his bosome the same writing which Bradford had sent him The writing is this that foloweth * Certayne reasons agaynst Transubstantiation gathered by Iohn Bradford and geuen to Doctour Weston and others 1. THat which is former sayth Tertullian is true that whiche is latter is false TransubstantiatioÌ„ not brought into the church before the yeare 1215. by Pope Innocentius 3. But the doctrine of transubstantiation is a late doctrine for it was not defined generally afore the Councel of Laterane about 1215. yeares after Christes comming vnder Pope Innocentius the thyrd of that name For before that time it was free for all men to beleue it or not beleue it as the Bishop of Duresme doth witnesse in his booke of the presence of Christ in his Supper lately put forth Ergo the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false 2. That the words of Christes supper be figuratiue the circuÌ„staÌ„ces of the scripture the Analogy or proportioÌ„ of the sacrameÌ„tes Three reasons prouing the wordes of the Lordes supper to be figuratiue the senteÌ„ces of all the holy fathers which were did write for the space 1000. yeares after Christes Ascension do teach wherevpon it foloweth that there is no transubstantiation 3. That the Lord gaue to his Disciples bread and called it his body the very Scriptures do witnesse For he gaue that called it his body which he tooke in his handes wheron he gaue thankes which also he brake gaue to his Disciples that is to say bread as the fathers 1. Circumstances of Scripture 2. Proportion of Sacramentes 3. Testimony of olde Doctours The wine is not transubstantiateâ— Ergo neyther the bread Iraeneus Tertullian Origene Cyprian Epiphanius Augustine and all the residue which are of antiquity doe affirme but in as much as the substaunce of breade and wine is an other thing then the substance of the body bloud of Christ it plainely appeareth that there is no transubstantiation 4. The bread is no more transubstantiate then the wine but that the wine is not traÌ„substaÌ„tiate S. Mathew S. Mark
reproue any thing in them for feare to be called hereticke and then they would make him smoke or beare a Fagot And the Cardinall himselfe was so elated that he thought himselfe equall with the King and when he had sayd Masse he made Dukes Earles to serue him of wine with a say taken and to hold the bason at the Lauatories Furthermore as he was Ambassadour sent to the Emperour at Bruxels he had ouer with him the great Seale of England and was serued with his seruitours kneeling on their knees and many noble men of England wayting vpon him to the great admiration of all the Germaines that beheld it such was his monstrous pompe and pride Ex Parâ—lip Abb. Vrspur This glorious Cardinall in his tragicall doyngs dyd exceede so farre all measure of a good subiect that he became more like a Prince then a Priest for although y e King bare the sword yet he bare the stroke makyng in a maner the whole Realme to bend at his becke to daunce after hys pipe Such practises and fetches he had that when he had well stored his own cofers first he fetched the greatest part of the Kings treasure out of the realme in xij great barels ful of gold siluer to serue the Popes warres And as his auaritious mind was neuer satisfied in getting so his restles head was so busie ruffling in publicke matters that he neuer ceassed before he had let both England Fraunce Flaunders Spayne and Italy together by the cares Thus this Legate well following the steppes of hys maister the Pope and both of them well declaring the nature of their religion vnder the pretence of y e Church practised great hipocrisie and vnder the authoritie of y e King he vsed great extortion with excessiue taxes and lones and valuation of euery mans substance The pilling 〈…〉 Cardinall so pilling the commoÌ„s and Marchaunts that euery man complayned but no redresse was had Neither yet were the Churchmen altogether free from the pillax and pollax from the pilling polling I meane of this Cardinall who vnder his power Legantine gaue by preueÌ„tions all benefices belonging to spirituall persons by which hard it is to say whether he purchased to himselfe more riches then hatred of the spiritualty So farre his licence stretched that he had power to suppresse diuers Abbeyes Priories and Monasteries and so did taking from them all their goodes moueables and not moueables except it were a little pension left onely to the heads of certayne houses By the saide power Legantine he kept also generall visitations through y e Realme sending Doctor Iohn Alein his Chaplein riding in hys gowne of veluet The Fryers obseruaunts 〈◊〉 of the Cardiâ—â—ll with a great traine to visit all religious houses whereat the Friers obseruants much grudged would in no wise coÌ„descend thereunto wherfore they were openly accursed at Paules crosse by frier Forest one of the same order so that the Cardinall at length preuayled both against them Of Fryer 〈◊〉 Vid. 〈…〉 Reg. Henriâ— 8. and all other Against whom great disdayne arose among the people perceauing how he by visitatioÌ„s making of Abbots probates of testamentes graunting of faculties licences and other pollings in his courtes Legantine had made his treasure equall with the Kings and yet euery yeare he sent great summes to Rome And thys was their dayly talke against the Cardinall Beside many other matters and greeuances which stirred the harts of the commons against the Cardinall thys was one which much pinched them for that the sayd Cardinall had sent out certain strait commissions in the Kings name that euery man should pay the vj. part of his goods Wherupon there folowed great muttering amongst y e coÌ„mons 〈…〉 19. Reg. Henriâ— 8. in such sort y t it had almost growen to some riotous commotion or tumult especially in the partes of Suffolke had not the Dukes of Northfolke and Suffolke with wisedome and gentlenes stept in and appeased the same Another thing that rubbed the stomackes of many or rather which moued them to laugh at the Cardinall was this to see his insolent presumption so highly to take vpon him as the Kings chiefe counsailer to set a reformation in the order of the Kings houshold making and establishing new ordinances in the same He likewise made new officers in y e house of the Duke of Richmond which was then newly begon In like maner he ordeined a Counsell established another houshold for y e Lady Mary then being princes so that all thing was done by his coÌ„sent by none other All this with much more tooke he vpoÌ„ him making the King beleeue y t all should be to his honour and y t he needed not to take any paine insomuch that the charge of all things was committed vnto him whereat many men smiled to see his great folly and presumption At this tyme the Cardinall gaue the King the lease of the Manour of Hampton Court which he had of the Lord of S. Iohns and on which he had done great coste Therfore y e King again of his geÌ„tle nature licenced him to lie in his Manour of Richmond so he lay there certain times But when the common people and specially such as were King Henry the vij seruantes sawe the Cardinall keepe house in the royall Manour of Richmond which K. Henry the vij so much esteemed it was a maruaile to here how they grudged saieng See a butchers dogge lie in the Manour of Richmond These with many other opprobrious wordes were spoken agaynst the Cardinall whose pride was so hygh that he regarded nothyng yet was he hated of all men And now to expresse some part of the 〈◊〉 practises and busie intermedlynges of this Cardinall in Princes warres first here is to be noted The Cardinall ruffling in matters and warres of Princes that after loÌ„g warres betwene England Fraunce 1524. in the which warres kyng Henry takyng the Emperours part agaynst FrauÌ„ces the French kyng had waged with his money y e Duke of Bourbon and a great part of the Emperours army to inuade and disturbe certaine partes of Fraunce it happened that the French kyng commyng with his armye toward Millan at the siege of Pauia was there takeÌ„ by the Duke of Bourbon Uiceroy of Neaples Fraunces 〈◊〉 French king taken prisoner and so led prisoner into Spayne Here note by the way that all this while the Cardinall held with the Emperour hopyng by hym to be made Pope but when that would not be he went cleane from the Emperour to the French kyng as the Lord willyng ye shall heare After this victory gotten and the French kyng beyng taken prisoner who remayned in custody about a yeare halfe at leÌ„gth through great labour solicitation as well of other as namely of the Cardinall and kyng Henry an order was taken The French king prisoner a yeare and a halfe and conditions propouÌ„ded
Scripture doth not say that Christ being vpon earth did speake vnto Paule But that sodenly a lighte from heauen did shine rounde about him and hee falling to the ground heard a voyce sayinge vnto him Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me I am Iesus whom thou persecutest c. Here this place doth nothing lette but that Christe sittinge in heauen Act 9. myghte speake vnto Paul and be heard vpon earth for they which were wyth Paule verely heard the voyce but did see no body The Archbishop on the contrary part sayd Paule him selfe doth witnesse The Archbishops replye Actes 26. that Christe did appeare vnto him in the same vision But Lambert againe sayde that Christ did witnesse in the same place That hee woulde againe appeare vnto hym Answere to the replye and deliuer him out of the handes of the Gentiles Notwythstanding we read in no place that Christ did corporally appear vnto him Thus The hasty impudencye of the bishop of Winchester The reason of Stepheâ— wint when they had contended about the conuersion of S. Paule and Lambert so aunswearinge for hymselfe that the king semed greatly to be mooued therwith and the Byshop himselfe that disputed to be entangled and all the audience amased then the Byshop of Winchester whych was appoynted the 6. place of the disputation fearing least the argument should be taken out of hys mouth or rather being drowned wyth malice against the poore man wythout the kinges commaundement obseruing no order before the Archbishop had made an end vnshamefastly kneeled downe to take in hand the disputation alledged a place out of the 12. Chapter to the Corinthians where S. Paule sayeth Haue I not seene Iesus And againe in the 15. chapter He appeared vnto Cephas and afterwarde vnto Iames then to all the Apostles but last of al he appeared vnto me as one borne out of due time â— Cor. 15. c. Heereunto Lambert aunswered he did nothing doubt but that Christ was seene and did appeare but he did deny that hee was in two or in diuers places accordinge to the maner of his body Then Winchester agayne abusinge the authoritie of Paule repeateth the place out of the seconde Epistle to the Corinthians and 5. Chapter And if so be we haue knowen Christe after the fleshe Wint. replyeth nowe hencefoorth knowe wee hym so no more c. 2. Cor. 5. Lambert aunswered that this knowledge is not to be vnderstanded according to the sense of the body and that it so appeared sufficiently by S. Paule whyche speaking of hys owne reuelation sayeth thus I know not whether in the body or without the body Lambert aunswereth to Wint. God knoweth whiche was rapte into the thirde heauen I knowe not whether in the body or without God knoweth Whereby euen by the testimony of S. Paule a man shall easily gather that in thys reuelation hee was taken vp in spirite into the heauens did see those things rather then that Christe came downe corporally from heauen to shew them vnto him especially for that it was said of the Aungell That euen as hee ascended into heauen so hee should come againe And S. Peter sayeth whom it behoueth to dwell in the heauens And moreouer appoynting the measure of time he addeth Euen vntill that all things be restored c. Heere againe Lambert being taunted and rebuked coulde not be suffered to prosecute hys purpose After the Byshoppe of Winchester had done Tonstall Bishop of Durham tooke hys course and after a long preface wherein he spake much of Gods omnipotencie at the last he came to this poynt Tonstall Byshop of Durisme against Lambert saying that if Christ could performe that which he spake touching the conuerting of hys body into bread without doubt he would speak nothyng but that he would performe Lambert answeared that there was no euidente place of Scripture wherein Christ doth at any time say that he woulde chaunge the breade into hys body and moreouer that there is no necessitie why he shoulde so doe But thys is a figuratiue speache The answer of Lambert to Tonstall The figuratiue phrase of the scripture to be marked euery where vsed in the Scripture wheÌ„ as the name and appellation of the thing signified is attributed vnto the signe By whiche figure of speache circumcision is called the couenaunt the Lambe the passeouer beside 600. such other Nowe it remaineth to be marked whether wee shall iudge all these after the words pronounced to be straightway chaunged into an other nature Then agayne began they to rage a freshe againste Lambert so that if hee coulde not be ouercome wyth arguments he shoulde be vanquished with rebukes and tauntes What shoulde he doe He might well holde his peace like a Lambe but bite or barke againe he could not Next orderly stepped forth the valiant champion Stokesly byshop of London who afterward lying at y e poynte of death reioysed boasting that in his life time he had burned 50. heretickes The wicked â—oast of Stokesly Thys man amongest the residue intending to fight for his belly with a long protestation promised to proue that it was not onely a worke of a diuine miracle but also that it did nothing abhorre nature For it is nothing dissonant from nature sayeth he the substances of lyke things to be oftentimes chaunged one into an other So that neuertheles The waterishe cold argument of Stokesly One substance may be chaunged into an other but then the accidents change also with it The bishops â—â—iumphe before the â—ictory Lamberts â—â—swere to Stokesly 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 against Lambert the accidentes doe remayne all be it the substaunce it selfe and the matter subiecte be chaunged Then hee declared it by the example of water boylinge so long vppon the fire vntill all the substance thereof be euaporate Nowe sayeth he it is the doctrine of the Philosophers that a substaunce can not be chaunged but into a substaunce wherefore we doe affirme the substaunce of the water to passe into the substaunce of the aire Notwythstanding the qualitie of the water which is moystnesse remaineth after the substaunce is chaunged for the ayre is moist euen as the water is When this argument was heard the Byshops greatly reioysed and sodenly their countenance chaunged as it were assuring themselues of a certaine triumph and victory by this Philosophicall transmutation of elements and like as it had ben of more force then Crisippus argument which passed all maner of solution Lambertes aunswere was long looked for heere of all men Who assoone as he had obtained silence and liberty to speake first of all denied the Bishoppes assumpte that the moisture of the water did remaine after the substance was altered For all be it sayth he that we doe graunt with the Philosophers the ayre to be naturall moist notwythstanding it hathe one proper and a diuers degree of moysture and the water an other Wherefore when as the water is conuerted into the
for your sakes that you may beleeue because I was not there But shewing the greatenes of hys diuinitie he sayd to his Disciples Behold I am with you vnto the ende of the world For how did he ascend into heauen but because he is locall and true man And how is hee present to hys faithfull but because he is almighty and true God c. In thys maner doth he proceede foorth speaking much full agreeably to my senteÌ„ce which is now ouerlong here to write But what can be sayd more plainely in so few words making for me First he saith that Christ being a man is as concerning his manhead Christ in his humane substance is locall locall that is to say conteined in one place And to expresse that â—hore clearely he addeth to it sayeng He is one and the same according to his humane substaunce absente from heauen when he was in earth and leauing the earthe when he ascended into heauen Whereas he hath a contrary Antithesis for the godly nature to shew forth the first point the more effectually The Antithesis is thus But according to his diuine and incomparable substaunce Antithesis that is to say contrary position or relation neither leauing heauen when he descended from heauen neither forsaking the earth wheÌ„ he ascended into heauen Whereby is also confirmed that I said Christ did descend and aâ—cend as touching his humanitie but not in his Deitie which is immutable and vnmoueable as we may perceiue by that he here doth call it Almighty substance Furthermore to shew that Christ as touching his humane and naturall body is locall and in one place he alledgeth and that right iustly two textes of Scripture The first is I ascend to my father c. And the second is of Lazarus I am glad for your sakes c. Finally he maketh this demaund But how he did ascend into heauen but because he is a locall and very man Whereby we may see that by this sentence Christ could not ascend except he had bene locall that is conteined in one place and so very man August We must not so defeÌ„d Christes diuinitye that we must destroy his humanitye And that is according to S. Augustine writing as is aboue shewed And he shall so come as the Angell witnesseth euen as you haue seene him going vp into heauen that is to say in the same forme and substance of his flesh According to this forme he is not spread abroade in euery place for wee must beware that we do not so esteeme his diuinitie that we thereby doo take awaye the veritie of his bodie So that they both do testifie that Christ could not haue ascended except he had bene locall that is to witte conteined in one place and very man and that if he were not locall he coulde not be a man Wherefore Saint Augustine sayeth further ad Dardanum Spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt August ad DardanuÌ„ Bodye cannot be without limitatioÌ„ of place nec erunt That is to witte Take away localitie or occupieng of place from bodies and they shall bee no where and for because they shall be no where they shall haue no being at all We therfore coueting to find Christ or his natural body should seeke for him in heauen where his naturall manhood is sittyng on y e right haÌ„d of his father So willeth vs S. Ambrose in the x. booke which he writeth vppon Luke speakyng of Christes humanitie assuÌ„pt in this wise Ergo Ambrose in Lucam noÌ„ supra terram nec in terra nec secunduÌ„ carnem te quaerere debemus si volumus te inuenire c. Therefore we ought not to seeke thee vpon the earth nor in the earth neither accordyng to the flesh if we will finde thee for now accordyng to the flesh we do not know Christ. Furthermore StepheÌ„ did not seeke thee vpon the earth when that he did see thee standyng on the right hand of God the Father But Mary whiche sought thee vppon the earth could not touch thee Stephen touched thee because hee sought thee in heauen Stephen amoÌ„gest the Iewes saw thee beyng absent c. Thus we must seeke for the naturall body of Christ not vppon the earth but in heauen if we will not be deceiued And that doth he more largely shew in the same treatise speakyng thus of the veritie of Christes body Quomodo noÌ„ corpus quiesceret in quo manebant insignia vulnerum vestigia cicatricum quae Dominus palpanda obtulit c. How could it come to passe that the body could not rest in the sepulcher in whiche the tokens of the woundes and scarres did appeare which the Lord him selfe did offer to be touched in whiche doyng hee did not onely stablish the fayth but also augmeÌ„ted deuotion Because he would rather cary vp into heauen the woundes receaued for vs and would not put them away that he might present to God the Father the price of our libertie Such a one the Father doth place at his right haÌ„d embracing the triumph and victory of our saluation c. Gregory also in an Homely of Pentecost sayth agreably to the other in these wordes Gregor in Homel Pente QuaÌ„do non maneret apud eos qui ascensuâ—us coelos promittit dicens Ecce ego vobiscuÌ„ sum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem saeculi c. When was it that he did not tary with them which ascending vp into heauen promiseth saying Behold I am here with you continually vntill the ende of the world But the word incarnate tarieth and also goeth away It departeth in body and tarieth in Diuinitie And therefore he sayth that he 〈◊〉 with them euen he which was euer present with them 〈…〉 power and now departed by his corporaâ—â—◠〈…〉 doth he testifie in the Homeâ—y of 〈…〉 With these doth Bede accord in an Homely of 〈◊〉 in which he declareth this text Ioh. 16. A litle while Bede in hom in cap. 16. Ioan. and ye shall not see me And agayne a litle while and ye shall see me And also in an Homely of the vigill of PeÌ„tecost And who can otherwise say or thinke knowyng the Scripture and our belief but that the naturall body of Christ is so assuÌ„pt into heauen all whole that it must there abide without returnyng vntill the generall Iudgement Notwithstandyng seyng this is the chief poynt whereupon I secke to establish my sentence in this matter of the holy SacrameÌ„t that Christes holy naturall body is so assumpt into heauen that there it must remayne all whole without returnyng vntill the generall dome I will yet with the permission of your grace adde one or two Arguments deduced out of the Scriptures to declare further my senteÌ„ce to be faythfull and Catholicke ¶ Argumentes out of Scripture First as Christ was enclosed and so borne about in the wombe of his mother bryng a Uirgin vndefiled Christ in his
man head not in many places at once and after was borne into this world and put in a maunger and so he growyng in age did abide in diuerse places but in one after an other sometime in Galile sometime in Samaria sometime in Iury sometyme beyond sometyme on this side of Iordan consequently he was crucified at Hierusalem there beyng enclosed buried in a graue frō whēce he did arise so that the aungels testified of him He is risen and is not here Mathew 28. and as at the tyme appointed Math. 28. after his resurrectiō he was assumpt or lifted vp into heauen from the top of the Moūt of Oliuet in the sight of his Disciples a cloude compassing him about Euen so shall he come from the same celestiall place corporally as they did see him to depart out of the one place corporally accordyng to the testimony of the aūgels Actes 1. Actes 1. So that in this we may vndoubtedly finde that Christ as touchyng his manhead can not be corporally in many diuers places at once and so to be corporally in his naturall body in heauen and also in the earth and that it is moreouer in so many partes of the world as men haue affirmed Neither doth the Scripture require that we should spoyle Christ of the propertie of mans nature The property of mans nature not to be sequestred frō Christ. which is to be in one place whō the same Scripture doth perpetually witnesse and teach to be man so to counfound the condition of his bodily nature with the nature Diuine Paul doth teach that Christ in māhead was made in all pointes lyke vnto his brethren sinne excepted how then can his body be in more places at once vnlike vnto the naturall propertie of the bodies of vs his brethren But heere doo some wittie Philosophers yea rather Sophisters then Diuines bring in to the anulling of Christes humanitie a similitude of mans soule whiche beeing one is yet so all whole in all our whole body that it is said to be all whole in euery part of the body But such should remēber that it is no conuenient similitude which is made of things different and diuerse in nature such as be the soule and body of man to proue them to haue like properties This is as if they woulde proue Christes body to be of one nature and propertie with his soule that things naturally corporal were not most diuers from creatures naturally spirituall Furthermore if so it might be that the body or fleshe of Christ Thinges corporall and thinges spirituall not to be compared were meerely spirituall and full like vnto the substance of Angels yet could it not in this wise follow that his body could be euery where or in diuers places at once Wherefore such subtilties are to be omitted and the trade of Scripture should well like vs by whiche the olde Doctors do define that the body of Iesu exalted or assumpt into heauen must be locall circumscript and in one place notwithstanding that the veritie spirituall grace fruite that commeth of it is diffused and spread abroade in all places or euery where How coulde Christ corporally depart out of this world The body of Christ is locall and in one place Iohn 13. and leaue the earth if he in y e kinds of bread and wine be not onely corporally conteined and receiued but also there reserued kept and enclosed What other thing else do these words testifie Iohn xiij But Iesus knowing that his houre was come that he should passe out of this world to his father Luke 24. c. And in like forme Luke 24. And it came to passe that as he blessed them he departed from them and was caried vp into heauen What doe they signifie if Christ went not verely out of this worlde his naturall body being surely assumpt into heauen They do therefore vndoubtedly declare that Christ being very God and very man did verely depart out of this world in his naturall body his humanitie being assumpt into heauen where it remaineth sitting in glory wyth the father Where as yet his Deitie did not leaue the world ne depart out from the earth Paule doth say Philippians 2. that of ij things he wist not which he might rather choose Phil. 2. that is to witte to abide in the flesh for preaching the Gospell or els to be dissolued from the flesh seing that to abide with Christ is much and farre better By the which Paule doth manifestly proue that they bee not presentlye with Christ which yet do abide mortall in the flesh Yet they bee with Christ in suche wise as the Scripture doth saye that the beleeuing be the Temple of Christ. And as Paule doth say 2. Cor. 13. Do you not know your selues that Iesus Christ is in you 2. Cor. 13. In which sense he also promised to be with vs vnto the end of the world Christ therefore must be otherwise in that place in which the Apostle desired to be with him being dissolued and departed from his body then he doth abide either in the supper or else in any other places of the Churches He therefore doth vndoubtedly meane heauen which is the paradise of perfect blisse and glory Where as Christ being a victour triumpher and conquerour ouer death sinne and hell and ouer all creatures doth reigne remaine corporally Thus do I trust that your grace doth see my sentence this farforth to be right Catholicke Christen and faithfull according to holy scripture to holy Fathers and to the Articles of our Christen beliefe Whiche sentence is thus Christes naturall body is so assumpt into heauen where it sitteth or remaineth in glory of the father that it can no more come from thence that is to wit from heauen returne vntill the end of the world and therefore can not the same naturall body naturally be heere in the world or in the Sacrament For then should it be departed or gone out of the world The naturall body of Christ cannot be both in heauen and in earth locally and yet be still remaining in the world It should then be both to come and alreadye come which is a contradiction and variaunt from the nature of his manhead The second part of this matter Now my sentence in the second part of thys matter is this if so be your grace shall please to knowe it The secōd part how the naturall body of Christ is in the Sacrament as I your poore and vnworthy but full true subiect woulde with all submission and instance beseech you to know it I graunt the holy sacrament to be the very and naturall body of our Sauiour and his very naturall bloud and that the naturall body and bloud of our Sauiour is in the Sacrament after a certaine wise as after shall appeare For so doe the words of the supper testifie Take eate this is my body which is geuen for you And againe Drinke
approued by the Scriptures and doctors and consent of all ages vnto this present time To the entent therfore that the contrary may appere the people may see how far they haue herin bene beguiled we will here Christ willing make a litle stay in our story examine this foresayd article by true antiquity and course of historyes to try whether it be a doctrine old or new Now therfore for y e better discussing of y e matter let vs first orderly and distinctly aduise the wordes of the Article The article of the sacraâ—ment conâ—â—â—steth in 〈◊〉 partes the contents of which Article consist in 2 parts or meÌ„bers In the first whereof is noted to vs a presence of a thynge which there was not before In the secoÌ„d is noted a priuation or absence of a thing which there before was present The presence is noted by these wordes of the Article where is said that in the blessed Sacrament by the words pronounced is present the naturall body and bloud of our Sauior vnder y e formes of bread and wine so that in these wordes both the sacrament the naturall body is imported necessaryly to be preseÌ„t For els how can y e natural body of Christ be present in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine Tâ—â— things present in 〈…〉 that repreâ—â—â—teth the thing represented if the Sacrament there were not preseÌ„t it selfe or how can a thing be sayd to be in that which is not there Wherfore by these wordes both the Sacrament and also the body must necessaryly haue theyr beyng and presence the one being in the other And this presence both of the Sacrament and of the body being rightly taken may right well stand together the Sacrament to the outward eyes and mouth of man the body of Christ to the inward eyes of fayth and mouth of the soule And therefore touching these prepositions in thys Article In and Vnder if question be asked in what is the body of Christ In Vnder it may be well aunswered in the Sacrament to the eyes of our fayth like as the outward sacrament is also present to the outward eyes of the body Agayne if the question be asked vnder what is the body of Christ it may be well aunswered vnder the formes of bread and wine so as the Doctors did take the formeâ—â— to meane the outward elements and natures of the Sacrament and not the accidences The preseÌ„ce of the naturall body of Christ well expounded may be graunted in the sacrament Absence of bread in the sacrament The article of the sacrameÌ„t agreeth not with it selfe The body of Christ can not be in the Sacrament of his bâ—dy And thus to the first part of the article beyng well expounded we do assent and confesse the same to haue bene the true Catholick opinion approued by the auncient Doctors and consent of all times euen from the first institutioÌ„ of this Sacrament But as concerning the second member or part of y e article which taketh away all presence and substance of bread from the Sacrament to that we say that first it standeth not with theyr owne article Secondly that it standeth not with the doctrine of Scripture Thirdly that it standeth not with antiquity but is meerly a late iâ—â—â—ention And first that it agreeth not with theyr owne Article it is manifest For whereas in the former part of their article they say that the naturall body of Christ is present in the blessed Sacrament vnder the formes of bread wine how can the naturall body of Christ be present in the Sacrament if there remayne no sacrament or howe can any sacrameÌ„t of y e body remayne if there remayne no substauÌ„ce of bread which should make the sacrament For how can the body of Christ be in that thing which is not or how caÌ„ the sacrament of the body haue any being where the substance of bread hath no being The accideÌ„ces of the body cannot be the sacrament of Christes naturall body For first that the body it selfe can not be the sacrament of the body it is euident of it selfe Secondly that the accideÌ„ces of bread without the substance of bread can not be any Sacrament of Christes body certayne it is and demonstrable by this argument Argumentum a definitione Sacramentes if they had no similitude with the thinges which they represent they were no Sacraments Aug. ad Boâ—â—â— epist. 23. Ca A sacrament is that beareth a similitude of that thing wherof it is a Sacrament mest Accidences bere no similitude of that thing which is there signified res Ergo Accidences can in no wise be a Sacrament Wherfore vpon this argument being thus concluded vpon the same this also must nedes folow The resemblaunce betwene the Sacrament and the body of Christ consisteth in this that as the bread drinke â—â—ne nouryshmâ—t to our outward life so the body bloud of Christ doe nourishe vnto spirituall 〈◊〉 The Popish 〈…〉 stand togeather ¶ Argument Da In the Sacrament of the Lordes body the thing that representeth must nedes beare a similitude of the thing represented ti The substance of bread in the Sacrament is onely that whiche beareth the similitude of Christes body j. Ergo the substaunce of bread must needes be in the Sacrament And therfore by this demonstratioÌ„ it is apparant that these ij partes in the Article aforesayd are euil couched together wherof the one must nedes destroy the other For if the first part of the Article be true that the naturall body of Christ is present in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine and seing the Sacrament wherein the body of Christ is present must nedes be the substance of bread and not the accidences onely of bread as is aboue proued then the substance of bread can not be euacuated from the Sacrament and so the second member of the Article must nedes be false Or if the second part be true that there is no substaunce of bread remayning and seing ther is nothing els to make the sacrament of the naturall body of Christ but onely the substaunce of bread for as much as the accidences of bread can make no SacrameÌ„t of Christes body as is aboue shewed then taking away the substance of bread the first paâ—t of the article must needes be false which sayth that the naturall body of Christ is present in the sacrament forasmuch as the substance of bread being euacuated there remaineth no Sacrament wherin the body of Christ should be preseÌ„t 2. Secondly The article of transubstantiatioÌ„ disagreeth from the scripture that it disagreeth from the whole order and course of the scriptures it is sufficiently explaned before in the treatise of Iohn Lambert vpon the Sacrament pag. 1099. as also in other suÌ„dry places in this volume besides 3. Thirdly that the sayd Article of transubstantiation is no auncient nor authentike doctrine in the church publickly receiued but rather is a nouelty
drynke his bloude when we receiue with true beliefe that holye housell That time they kept with them at Easter 7. daies with great worship when they were deliuered from Pharao and went from that land So also Christen men keepe Christes resurrection at the time of Easter these 7. dayes because throughe his suffering and rising we be deliuered and be made cleane by going to this holy housel as Christ sayeth in hys Gospell Verely verely I say vnto you ye haue no life in you excepte yee eate my flesh and drinke my bloud He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloude â—ohn 6. abideth in mee and I in him and hath that euerlasting life and I shall raise him vp in the last day I am the liuely bread that came downe from heauen not so as your forefathers did eate that heauenly breade in the wildernesse and afterwarde died Hee that eateth this breade liueth for euer Hee blessed breade before his suffering and deuided it to hys Disciples thus sayinge Eate of thys breade it is my body and doe this in my remembraunce Also hee blessed wyne in one cuppe â—ath 26. 〈◊〉 22. â—arkke 14. Cor. 11. and sayd Drinke ye all of this This is my bloude that is shedde for manye in forgeuenesse of sinnes The Apostles did as Christ commanded that is they blessed breade and wine to housel againe afterward in his remembrance Euen so also their successours and all priestes by Christes commaundement do blesse bread and wine to housel in his name wyth the Apostolicke blessing Nowe menne haue often searched and doe yet often * * Note how Christes words were taken by signification before BereÌ„garius time search how bread that is gathered of corne and through fires heate baked may be turned to Christes body or howe wine that is pressed out of many grapes is turned through one blessing to y e Lords bloud Now say we to such men that some thinges be spoken of Christ by * * A necessary distinction signification and some be thinges certayne True this is and certayne that Christ was borne of a mayd and suffered death of his owne accord and was buryed and on this day rose from death He is sayde to be bread by signification and a Lambe a Lyon a mountayne He is called bread because he is our life and angels lyfe He is sayd to be a Lambe for his innocencie a Lyon for strength wherewith he ouercame the strong deuil But Christ is not so notwithstanding after true nature neither bread nor a lambe nor a lyon Why is then the holy house called Christes body or his bloud if it be not truely that it is called Why is the housell called christs body when it is not so truely Truely the bread and the wine which in the supper by the priest is hallowed shewe one thing without to humaine vnderstanding and an other thing within to beleuing mindes Without they be seene bread and wine both in figure in taste they be truely after theyr hallowing Christes body and his bloud through ghostly mistery An heathen childe is christened yet hee altereth not his shape without though he be chaunged within He is brought to y e fontstone sinfull through Adams disobedience howbeit he is washed froÌ„ all sinne within though he hath not chaÌ„ged his shape without * * The water in baptisme and bread wine in the Lordes supper compared Euen so the holy font water that is called the welspring of life is like in shape to other waters and is subiect to corruption but y e holy ghostes might commeth to the corruptible water through the priests blessing and it may after wash the body and soule from al sin through ghostly might Behold now we see two things in this one creature after true nature y t water is corruptible moysture and after ghostly mistery hath wholsom vertue So also iâ— we behold the holy housell after bodily vnderstanding then we see that it is a creature corruptible and mutable If we knowledge therein ghostly might theÌ„ vnderstand we that life is therein and that it geueth immortalitie to theÌ„ that eate it with beliefe Muche is betwixt the inuisible might of the holy housel and the visible shape of proper nature It is * * No transubstantiation naturally corruptible bread and corruptible wine is by might of Gods word truely christes body and bloud not so notwithstaÌ„ding bodily but ghostly Much is betwixt the * * Difference betwixt Christs naturall body and the Sacrament thereof body of Christ which he suffered in and the body that is hallowed to housel The body truly that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Marie w t bloude and with bone with skin and with sinewes in humaine lims with a reasonable soule liuing and his ghostly body which we call the housel * * 1. Difference is gathered of many cornes without bloud and bone without limme w tout soule * * Not the body that suffered is in the housell and therefore nothing is to be vnderstand therein bodely but all is ghostly to be vnderstande Whatsoeuer is in that housel which geueth substaunce of life that is of the ghostly might and inuisible doing Therefore is that holy housell called a mysterie because there is one thing in it seene and an other thing vnderstanded That which is there * * 2. Difference seene hath bodely shape and that we do there vnderstande hath ghostly might Certainely Christes body whyche suffered death and rose from death neuer * * 3. Difference dieth hencefoorth but is eternal and vnpassible That housel is temporal not eternal Math. 15. * * 4. Difference corruptible and dealed into sundrye partes chewed betweene teeth and sent into the belly howbeit neuerthelesse after ghostly myght it is all in euery parte Many receiue that holy body and yet notwithstandinge it is so all in euery part after ghostly mysterie Though some chewe the lesse yet is there no more might notwithstaÌ„ding in the more parte then in the lesse because it is whole in all men after the inuisible might This mysterie is a * * 5. Difference pledge and a figure Christes body is truth it selfe Thys pledge we doe kepe mystically vntill that we be come to the truth it selfe and then is this pledge ended Truely it is so as we before haue sayde Christes body and his bloude not bodily but ghostly But now here the Apostles words about this misterie Paul the Apostle speaketh of the old Israelites thus writing in his epistle to faithful men Al our forefathers were baptised in the cloud and in the sea 1. Cor. 10. and all they did eate the same ghostly meat dranke the same ghostly drinke They drank truly of the stone that followed them and that stone was Christ Neither was that * * Note this exposition which is now a dayes thought newe Iohn 4.
stone then from which the water ran bodily Christe but it signified Christe that calleth thus to all beleuing and faithful men Who soeuer thirsteth let hym come to mee and drinke and from his bowelles shall flowe liuely water This he sayd of the holy Ghost whych they receiued who beleeued on him The Apostle Paul sayth that the Israelites did eate the same ghostly meat dranke the same ghostly drinke because that heauenly meate that fed them 40. yeares and that water which from the stone did flowe had signification of Christes body and hys bloud that now be offred daily in Gods Church It was the same which we now offer not bodely but ghostly We said vnto you ere while that Christ halowed bread and wine to housell before his suffering Math. 26. Luke 22. Marke 14. and sayde Thys is my body and my bloud Yet he had not then suffered but so notwithstanding he * * Now we eate that body which was eaten before he was borne by faith turned through inuisible mighte the bread to his owne bodye and that wine to his bloud as he before did in the wildernes before that he was borne to be a man when he * * Here is no transubstantiation turned y e heauenly meate to his flesh and the flowing water from that stone to his owne bloud Uery many did eate of that * * Mantua heauenly meat in the wildernes and drinke the ghostly drinke and were neuerthelesse dead as Christ sayd And Christ meant not y e death whych none can escape but that euerlasting death which some of that folke deserued for theyr vnbelief Moyses and Aaron and many other of that people which pleased God did eate that heauenly bread and they died not y ◠euerlasting death though they died the common death They sawe that the heauenly meate was visible and corruptible they ghostly vnderstood by that visible thing and ghostly receiued it The Sauiour sayeth Iohn 6. Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath euerlasting life And he bad them not eate that body wherewith hee was enclosed nor to drinke that bloude which he shed for vs * * What body the faithful do now eate but he meant with those wordes that holy housell which ghostly is his body and his bloud and hee that tasteth it with beleeuing heart hathe that eternall life In the olde lawe faithfull men offred to God diuers Sacrifices that had * * A signification before Christ. foresignification of Christes bodye which for our sinnes he himselfe to his heauēly father hath since * * A sacrifice in Christes tyme. offered to sacrifice Certainly this housell which we do now halow at Gods alter is a * * A remēbraūce of Christ. Math. 26. Hebr. 10. remembrance of Christes body which he offered for vs and of hys bloud whych he shed for vs So he himselfe commaunded Doe thys in my remembraunce Once suffered Christe by hym selfe but yet neuerthelesse hys suffering is daily renued at thys supper through mysterie of the holy housell Therefore we ought to consider diligently howe that this holy housell is both Christes bodye and the bodye of all * * The housell is also the body of al faithfull men faithfull menne after ghostly mysterie As wise Augustine sayeth of it If ye wil vnderstand of Christes body here the Apostle Paule thus speaking Yee truely be Christes body and his members Nowe is your mysterie sette on Gods table and ye receiue youre mysterie which mysterie ye your selues be Be that which ye see on the altare and receiue that which yee your selues be Againe the Apostle Paule sayeth by it We manye be one bread and one bodye Understande nowe and reioyce many be one bread and one body in Christ. He is our heade and we be his limmes and the bread is not of one corne but of many nor the wine of one grape but of many So also we all shoulde haue one vnitie in our Lorde as it is wrytten of the faithfull armie how that they were in so great an vnitie as though al of them were one soule and one heart Christe hallowed on hys table the mysterie of oure peace and of our vnitie He which receiueth that mysterie of vnitie keepeth not the bonde of true peace receiueth no mysterie for himselfe but a witnesse against himselfe It is very good for Christen men that they goe often to howsell if they bring with them to the alter vngiltines and innocēcy of hart if they be not oppressed with sinne To an euil man it turneth to no good but to destruction if hee receyue vnworthely that holy housell Holy * * No scripture inforceth the mixture of water with the wine bookes commaund that water be mingled to that wine which shall be for housell because the water signifieth the people the * * The wine signifieth Christes bloud wine Christes bloud and therefore shall neither the one wythout the other be offered at the holy masse that Christ may be wyth vs and we with Christ the head with the limmes and the limmes with the head Wee woulde before haue intreated of the Lambe whyche the olde Israelites offered at theyr Easter time but that we desired first to declare vnto you of this mysterie and after how we should receiue it That signifying lambe was offered at the Easter And the Apostle Paule sayeth in the Epistle of this present day that Christ is our Easter who was offred for vs and on this day rose from death The Israelites did eate the Lambes fleshe as God commaunded with vnleauened bread and wilde lettisse * * How we should come to the holy communion so wee shoulde receiue that holy housell of Christes body and bloud without the leauen of sinne and iniquitie As leauen turneth the creatures from their nature so doth sinne also chaunge the nature of manne from innocencie to vncleannesse The Apostle hath taught howe we shoulde feast not in the leauen of the euilnesse but in the sweete doughe of puritie and truth The herbe which they should eate with the vnleauened bread is called lettisse and is bitter in taste So we should with bitternesse of vnfained repentaunce purifie oure minde Exod. 12. if wee will eate Christes bodye Those Israelites were not woonte to eate rawe fleshe and therefore God badde them to eate it neyther raw nor sodden in water but rosted with fire He shal receiue the body of God rawe that shal thinke without reason that Christ was onely manlike vnto vs and was not God And he that will after mans wisedome search y e mystery of Christs incarnation doth like vnto him that doth seeth lambes fleshe in water because that water in this same place signifieth mans vnderstanding but we should vnderstand that all the mistery of Christes humanitie was ordered by the power of the holy Ghost and then eate we his body rosted with fire because the holy
into Christes substance Ergo the substance of the bread is not changed into Christes body And to be shorte and playne with you most honourable audience the whole vniuersall world hath bene and yet is sore deceaued and deluded about the estimation of this Sacrament Therefore this is most true when we do receaue the sayd Sacrament worthely then are we ioyned by faith spiritualy to Christ our sauiour And thus much haue I said in this first matter The second matter to be disputed of is this That in the Lords Supper is none other oblation or sacrifice then one onely remembraunce of Christes death and of thankesgiuing IN this conclusion I will be muche shorter and more compendious then in the first In consideration whereof you shall vnderstande that the same is a very godly and true catholique proposition For to offer Christ and to exhibite the same is all one thing for in that that he is offered he is set foorth for to eate there is no difference at all betweene the maker of the sacrifice or offerer and the thing that was offered which both were one Christ. The Lorde did commaund saying Do this in remembraunce of me hee made mention of the remembrance only wherefore it can be none other sacrifice but only that The Apostle doth declare the maner of the thing doing saying thus He tooke bread in his hands he blessed it he brake it and gaue it to his disciples What gaue he to them forsooth bread which was the sacrament and not his body No earthly creature nor heauenly did euer offer vp Christ at any time but he himselfe once for all vpon the crosse Ergo he can not nor ought not to be offered many times and often though that Pighius with all the blinde rabble of Papists say the contrary For truely in this point especially they knowe not what they say being so led by the old pharisaicall blindnes But to the purpose You shall vndestand good auditors that the pure and cleane oblation and sacrifice spokeÌ„ of by the Prophet Malachy is nothing else then deuoute and faithfull prayer and thankesgiuing as Tertullian sayth in his third booke contra Marcionem expounding the Psalme where it is sayd thus The sacrifice of laude and prayse shall honor mee So doth S. Hierome Irenaeus and S. Austen say also vppon Malachy Where also they denie that Christ is essencially in the sacrament Yea and S. Austen Epistola 95. ad Paulinum witnesseth that the mortifying of our earthly members is our true sacrifice that be Christians And all the aunciente Fathers do call praiers by the name of sacrifices And for this purpose whosoeuer list to reade that most excellente and famous Clarke Zwinglius ca. 18. de articulis shall finde the same confirmed of him by most grounded reasons whatsoeuer the Papists do barke against it Thus I haue declared my mind in both matters now disputable And if my further declaration be required through the vehemency of argumentes I will performe the same in my aunswering thereunto There disputed against this defendant Doctour Glin M. Langedale M. Segewike and M. Yong Students in Diuinitie Glin. Notwithstanding right worshipfull Maister Doctor that you haue so exquisitely declared your mind and opinion in euery of these matters now in contention before this honorable and learned audience and also though iust occasion be ministred to me to infringe your positions in both conclusions yet I will not inuade the same as now indirectly with contrarious and vaine wordes to occupie the small time which is appointed vs for the triall of the same but we will go forthwith to the thing it selfe whych conteineth in it matter ynough It is but â—olly to vse many wordes where fewe will serue our purpose as sayeth the maister of the Sentences All words may signifie at pleasure and commonly there bee moe thinges then vocables like as sometimes there was variance amongst learned men of the vnitie of two substances in one personage of Christ God and Man So is there now in our dayes variance of Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ. Wherefore I do require you first to shew me heare openly what the said Transubstantiation is that we go not from the thing it selfe which is our first and chiefest ground Madew As for that I neede not to shew you for euery man knoweth it Glin. Peraduenture it is not so good Maister Doctor And I am perfectly assured that euery man doth not knowe it indeede for it is not so light a matter as you make it to be Madew Forsooth you know it your selfe and so do all men else Glin. Well yet I pray you shew me what thing Christ did demonstrate and shew foorth by that article of the newter gender where he said This is my body What did he appoint in that article this for if he meant by that the bread then Christ in the Sacrament is not onely of two natures but of three natures as of the nature of bread of the nature of man and of the diuine nature which to say were blasphemie The argument is good and doth hold by that text He spake the word and it was done he commaunded and they were created Moreouer if he should meane by that article of the newter gender this the materiall bread then he woulde haue sayd This bread is my body so making the article of the newter gender or else he would haue sayd thus Heere with this bread is my body to haue auoyded euer after all heresies errours and schismes But he saide not so but spake the article of the newter gender saying This is my body that is to saye the thing or substance conteyned vnder the forme and kind of bread which you see not with your bodely eyes is my body according to my promise made to you before that I woulde geue you my very fleshe to eate Iohn 6. In like maner when he gaue the cup of his blood he sayd not this in the newter gender as he woulde haue done if he had meant the materiall creature of wine to haue remained but he saide then in the masculine gender This is my bloud That is to say the thing conteined vnder the forme of wine whiche you see not with your bodely eyes is my bloud For truely the holy Ghost came downe to leade vs into all truth and veritie and not to deceiue vs in so notable a point of our faith But out of doubte he should haue deceaued in this matter if so be he had geuen vs onely materiall bread and wine in stead of his bodye and bloud and not haue fulfilled his promise made Iohn 6. where he promiseth thus The bread whiche I will geue is my fleshe which I will geue for the life of the world Heere be two giuings spoken of with two relatiues whereof the first with his relatiue must needes be referred to his gift in the last supper and the second geuing of the same fleshe of his
How Scripture may be abâ—sed to any purpose as commoÌ„ly the Papistes vse it by such meanes a man may easely auoyde all the misteries of our christeÌ„ 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 y 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 y 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 Rochester Oh gentle M. Langdale A figuratiue speach somewhere hurtfull somewhere not you ought not to reason after such a sort as you do now because that a trope or figuratiue speache is noâ—iue somewhere but not euery where nor in this matter Langdale Yet by your license honorable father it doth appeare to me no trope at al in these words of christ A fond reason wherefore this is my body should seeme no figuratiue speach 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. ¶ Here the Proctors commaunded Langdale to geue place to an other Rochest We are not ioyned by natural flesh but do receiue his flesh spiritually from aboue c. ¶ Here M. Segewicke replied RIght worshipful M Doctor I do also aske of you first of all Whether the article of the newter gender this be referâ—ed to the bread oâ— to the body whether the greeke article this of the neuter geÌ„der 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 excelleÌ„t great thing determinately not so coÌ„fusedly 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 Bread 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 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 How we are bread and how not Segewicke Well let that passe then thus It is the body ergo no figure for because there is a perpetuall contrarietye betweene the law of Moyses the law of grace Therein were figures shadowes and herein is the verity indeed Rochester I do graunt it to be Christes true body flesh by a propriety of the nature assumpted to the godhead How the bread is Christs body 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 y e figuratiue shewbread c. ergo it is no figure Madew I do deny your argument Segewicke I maynteyne my argument thus all the shadowes are wholy past ergo also so be the figures for euery figure is a shadow if then it be but a figure all y e figures are not past as yet but that is false ergo so is the other Rochest It is nothing but a figure or token of the true body of Christ as it is sayd of Iohn the baptiste The bread but a figure and â—ow he is Elias not that he was so in deede or person but in property and vertue he represented Elias Segewicke So but most learned father when Christ sayde I am the way the truth and the life may it be vnderstanded as you do the other place thus I am y e vertue of the way verity and the life But now to the matter it selfe It is verily meat ergo it is not figuratiuely Madew This verbe or word is in this place is taken for that that signifieth Here he was commaunded to reply in the second matter Segewicke NOw as touching our second conclusion thys I say Wheresoeuer Christ is there is a sacrifice propiciatory but in the Lordes supper is Christ ergo in the Lordes supper is a sacrifice propiciatory Christ not offered but receaued in spirite Madew Christ is not offered in the Lordes supper but is receiued spiritually Segewicke The priesthood and the sacrifice be corespondeÌ„t together Christes sacrifice offered once for all is onely sufficient without any other but Christes priesthood after the orde of Melchizedech is perpetuall ergo also so is his sacrifice Rochest Christ is a Priest for euer that is to say his sacrifice and priesthood offered once for all is auaylable for euer so that no other shall succeed him Legewicke Where there is no oblatioÌ„ there is no sacrifice ergo if Christ be not perpetually offered Christes sacrifice an end of all sacrifices there is no perpetuall sacrifice Item the same bloudy sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse was the very fine and end of all the bloudye sacrifices figured in y e law after the order of Aarons priesthoode Wherefore you must needes graunt that he offered himselfe also at his last supper after the order of Melchizedech vnder the formes of breade and wine or els you must shewe the scripture where he did so which I cannot perceiue to be done but at his last supper onely after an vnbloudy maner Item he is offered for the remission of sins daylye ergo he is a sacrifice propitiatorye still in the newe law as Saynt Augustine sayth expounding these wordes of the Psalme Thou hast not willed to haue sacrifice and oblation but. c. Rochester S. Cyprian speaketh much like y e sorte where he sayth thus It is the Lordes Passion whiche we doe offer
that it should be an occasion of Idolatry And long after the Apostles time as Tertullian wryteth womeÌ„ were suffered to take it home with them and to lap it vp in their châ—stes And the priest many times sent it to sicke persones by a childe which no doubt would haue geuen more reuerence therto if they had taken it for their God But a great while after about 300. yere agone Honorius 3. the Bishop of Rome tooke him and hanged him vp and caused men to kneele and crouch downe and all to bâ—god him Futhermore Pope Honorius 3. first author of worshipping the Sacrament An 1220. if the bread be turned and altered into the body of Christ doubtles it is the greatest miracle that euer God wrought But the Apostles saw no myracle in it Nazianzenus an olde wryter and Augustine entreating of al the myracles that are in the scripture number the Sacrament for none As for the apostles it appeareth wel that they had it for no maruel for they neuer mused at it Apostles olde Doctours make no miracle nor maruell at the Sacrament neither demanded how it might be whereas in other thinges they euermore were ful of questions As touching S. Augustine he not only ouerhippeth it as no wonder but by plaine expres words testifieth that ther is no maruel in it For speaking of the Lords supper and of the other sacraments he sayeth these words * That is to say Sacraments here may haue their honour as things religious but they are not to be woÌ„dred at as miracles Hic SacrameÌ„ta honorem vt religiosa habere possunt stuporem autem vt mira non possunt Moreouer a little before the institution of the sacrament Christe spake of hys ascension saying I leaue the world I tary but a litle while wyth you Let not your hearts be troubled because I go from you I tell you truthe it is for your profite that I goe from you for if I goe not the spirite of comfort cannot come to you Ihon 14. wyth many other like warnings of his departure S. Steuen sawe hym sitting at the right hand of his Father and thought it a speciall reuelation of God but he neuer said that he sawe him at the Communion or that he made him Actes 3. euery daye himselfe And in the Actes of the Apostles S. Peter sayeth that Christ must needes keepe the heauen till all be ended Esay Salomon and S. Steuen Actes 17. saye that God dwelleth not in temples made with mans hand S. Paule wysheth that he were dissolued and dead and were with Christ not in the aultar doutlesse where he might be daily but in heauen And to be briefe it is in oure Credo we do constantly beleeue that Christe is ascended into heauen and sitteth at his fathers right hande and no promise haue we that he will come iumping downe at euery priests calling Hereof I gather this reason Christes body can not both be gone and be heere If Christ were both gone and tarried then he should seme to haue left himselfe behinde him But he is gone and hath left the world Therefore it is follie to seeke him in the world Cust. Fie you be farre deceiued I can not in no wise brooke these words You shut vp Christ too straitly and imprisone hym in one corner of heauen not suffering hym to goe at large No doubtlesse he hath deserued more gentlenesse at your hande then to be tied vp so shorte Veri I do neither locke vp neither imprison Christ in heauen The body of Christ imprisoned by the Papistes in a boxe and afterward burned when he is mouldye but according to the Scriptures declare that hee hath chosen a blessed place moste worthy to receiue his maiestie in which place who so is inclosed thinketh not himself as I suppose to be a prisonner but if you take it for so hainous a thing y t Christ should sit resident in heauen in y e glory of his father what thinke you of them that imprison him in a litle boxe yea and keepe him in captiuitie so long vntil he be mouldy ouergrowne with vermine when he is past mans meat be not contented to hang him till he stincke but will haue him to a newe execution and burne hym too This is wonderfull and extreme cruell imprisoning But to returne to the matter wee are certainely perswaded by the worde of God that Christ the very sonne of God vouchsaued to take vppon him the body and shape of man that he walked was conuersant amongst men in that same one not in many bodies and that hee suffered death rose againe and ascended to heauen in the selfe same body and that he sitteth at his fathers ryght hande in hys manhode in the nature and substance of the said one body This is our beliefe this is the very word of God Wherefore they are far deceiued which leauing heauen wil grope for Christes body vpon the earth Cust. Nay sir but I see now you are farre out of the way For Christ hath not so grosse fleshly a body as you think Christes body iâ— spirituall in thâ— Sacrament say the Papistes but a spirituall and a ghostly body and therefore without repugnaunce it may be in many places at once Veri You say right wel and do graunt that Christes body is spiritual But I pray you answer me by the waye Can any other body then that which is spirituall be at one time in sondry places Cust. No truely Veri Haue we that same selfe sacrament that Christe gaue to his Disciples at his Maundie or no Cust. No doubtlesse we haue the same Veri When became Christes body spirituall was it so eueÌ„ from his birth Cust. No for doubtles before he arose from death his bobody was earthly as other mens bodies are Veri Well but when gaue Christe the Sacrament to hys Disciples before he arose from death or after Cust. The Popes doctrine repugnant to it selfe You know your selfe he gaue it before his resurrection the night before he suffered hys Passion Veritie Why then me thinketh he gaue the Sacrament at that time when his body was not spirituall Cust. Euen so Veri And was euery portion of the Sacrament delt to the Apostles and receaued into their mouthes the very reall and substantiall body of Christ Cust. Yea doubtles Veri Marke well what ye haue said for you haue graunted me great repugnance First you say that no body being not spiritual can be in sundry places at once Then say you that at the maundy Christes body was not spirituall and yet hold you that he was there present visible before the Apostles eyes and in ech of theyr handes and mouthes all at one time which graunts of yours are not agreeable But I will gather a better and a more formall reason of youre wordes The Papistes though they be conuicted yet they will not beleue in this sort Fe
sanguinem 〈…〉 ad iudicium suum 〈…〉 And in the persons of Christ he sayeth likewise Qui non 〈…〉 in quo ego non maneo ne se dica◠〈◊〉 existimeâ— manducare corpus meum aut sanguinem meum bibere Ambrose auoweth the same by these woordes Qui discordat a Christo non manducat carnâ—m eius nec bibit sanguinem etsâ— tantae rei Sacramentum accipiat â—â—brosius In like maner wryteth Prosperus â—â—â—â—perus Qui discordat a Christo nec carnem Christi edit nec sanguinem bibit etsi tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè acciprat â—â—gustinus And therfore S. Augustine sayth Mali Sacramentum habent reâ—â— autem Sacramenti non habent Thus by the woordes of God by reason and by the old fathers it is plaine that sinnefull men eate not the bodye of Christ receiue they the Sacrament neuer so ofte Whiche thing coulde not be if in the Sacramente there remained nothing but the body of Christ. The Sacramente in the Scriptures is named Fractio paâ—is the breaking of bread whiche to say the trueth were but a colde breaking if there remained no breade to breake but certaine phantasies of white and round Yet where as they with wordes crossinges blessinges breathings leapings and much a do can scarsly make one God they haue suche vertue in their fingers that at one crosse they be able to make 20. Gods for if they breake the Sacrament euery portion yea euery mite must needes be a God After the Apostles time there arose vppe heretickes whych sayde that Christ walking here amongst men bodely vpon the earth had no very body but a thing like a body and so therewith dimmed mennes light Against whom the old fathers vsed these arguments Christ increased in growing fasted hungred eate wept sweat was weary and in coÌ„clusion died had all other properties of a very body wherfore he had a body I will vse the same kinde of reasoning It feedeth Agaynst transubstantiation it tasteth like bread it looketh like bread the litle sely mouse taketh it for bread and to be short it hath all the properties and tokens of bread Ergo it is bread The old fathers wheÌ„ there remained anye parte of the Sacramente more then was spent at the Communion they vsed to burne it and of it there came ashes But there is nothing in the Sacrament that can turne to ashes Reasons proprouing bread in the SacrameÌ„t but onely bread for I thinke they burned not Christes body to ashes Ergo in the Sacrament there remaineth bread Henry the Emperour the 6 of that name was poysoned in the hoste and Uictor the Bishop of Rome in the Chalice But poyson can not hang in Gods body and bloude Wherefore there remayneth breade and wine What needeth many wordes in a matter so euident If you demaund either Gods word or the doctours and the auncient wryters or your reason or your eyes or nose or toung or fingers or the Cat or the Ape or the Mouse all these agree in one and aunswere together there is bread wherefore if yoâ— reâ—ecte so many and so constant witnesses and so well agreeing in their tale specially being such as will lie for no mans pleasure I will appeale from you and take you as no indifferent iudge If all these witnesses suffice you not I wil call the sacrament it selfe to record It crieth vnto you and plainely doth aduertise you what you should thinke of it I am it sayth grated wyth y e tooth I am conueied into the belly I perish I can endure no space I canker I suffer grene mould blew mould red mould I breede wormes The Sacrament geueth witnes that it is breade I am kept in a boxe for feare of battes if you leaue me out al night I shal be deuoured before morning for if the mouse gette mee I am gone I am bread I am no God beleeue them not This crieth the sacrament daily and beareth witnesse it selfe Cust. The deuill on such like reasons and therfore I will neuer trouble my braines to make you aunswere But if it be true that you haue sayde why is the Sacrament so well of Christ himselfe as of hys Apostles and the olde fathers called the body of Christ Veri Because it is no straunge thynge in Scripture so to speake as I haue declared before But wil you stand to S. Augustines arbitrement in the matter Cust. To no man sooner Veri S. Augustine in an Epistle to his frende Bonifacius The cause why the scripture calleth the Sacrament the body of Christ. geueth a good cause why the Sacramente although it be not the body of Christ is notwithstanding called the bodye of Christ. His wordes be these Si Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent omâ—iâ—o Sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque â—arum reâ—m nomina accipiunt Ergo Augustinus ad Bonifacium Epist 23. secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est Sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est If Sacraments had not a certaine similitude of those things wherof they be sacraments then were they no Sacramentes Of the which similitude many times they take their name Wherefore after a certaine manner the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ and the Sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ. c. And vpon the 23. Psalme he wryteth likewise Augustine in Psal. 23. Christus quodâ—mmodo se ferebat in manibus suis cum diceret Hoc est corpus meum Christ after a certaine manner and fashion as it were did beare himselfe in his owne handes when he sayde This is my bodye In manner he sayeth and after a fashion not in very dede Again when faithful menne receiue the Sacrament they thinke not of the breade nor marke the wine An other causâ— why the Scripture calleth the Sacrament the body of Christ. Rom. 6. but they looke farther beholde the very body of Christ spread vppon the Crosse and his very bloud poured downe for their sakes So in Baptisme men regarde not greatly the water â—ut accounte them selues washed wyth the bloude of Christ So sayeth S. Paule What so euer we bee that are Baptised wee are washed in the bloude of Christ. Wherefore to the faithfull receiuers you may say that the water of Baptisme is the bloude of Christe and the breade and wine the body and bloud of Christ for to them it is no lesse then if the natures were altered and chaunged Whyche thynge you maye very well learne of Chrysostome whose woordes are these Mysteria omnia interioribus oculis consideranda sunt hoc est spiritualiter Interiores autem oculi postquam panem vident creaturas transuolant neque de illo pane à pistore cocto cogitant Chrisost. in Ioan. Hom. 46. sed
no lesse then the learned mayster his yong scholer Now here euery man would haue his saying which I passe ouer not much materiall for to tell But sir quoth I me thinkes it is not charitably done to beare the people in hand that any man doth so lightly esteme the sacrament as to make of it a figure For that but maketh it a bare figure without any more profit which that book doth often deny as appeareth to the reader most playnely Yes quoth he that they do Sir no quoth I of a truth and as for me I ensure you I make no lesse of the sacrament then thus I say whosoeuer receiueth the sacrament he receiueth therewith eyther life or death No quoth M. Secretary scripture sayth not so Sir quoth I although not in the same souÌ„d of words yet it doth in the same sense and S. Augustine sayth in the sound of words also for Paule sayth The bread which we breake is it not the partaking or felowship of the bodye of Christ And S. Augustine Manduca vitam Bibe vitam i. eate life drinke life Then sayd mayster Pope what can ye make of it wheÌ„ ye say there is not the reall body of Christ Whiche I doe beleue c. I pray God I may neuer beleue other How can it bring as ye say either life or death The 〈◊〉 bring 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 when Christes body is not there Syr quoth I when you heare Gods word truely preached if ye do beleue it and abide in it ye shal and do receiue life withal and if ye do not beleue it it doth bring vnto you death and yet Christes body is still in heauen and not carnall in euery preachers mouth I pray you tell me quoth he how can you aunswere to this Quod pro vobis tradetur which shall be geuen for you was the figure of Christes body geuen for vs No sir quoth I but the very body it selfe wherof the sacrament is a sacramentall figure How say ye then quoth he to Quod pro vobis tradetur which shall be geuen for you Forsoothe quoth I Tertullians exposition maketh it playne for he sayth Corpus est figura Corporis i. The body is a figure of the body Nowe put to Quod pro vobis tradetur Whiche shall bee geuen for you and it agreeth exceedyng well In fayth quoth he I would geue xl pouÌ„d that ye were of a good opinion For I ensure you I haue heard you and had an affection to you I thanke you mayster Pope for your hart and minde and ye knowe quoth I I were a very foole if I woulde in this matter dissent froÌ„ you if that in my conscience y e truth did not enforce me so to do For iwise as ye do perceiue I trowe it is somewhat out of my way if I would esteeme worldly gayne â—â—prian What say ye quoth he to Cyprian Doth he not saye playnly Panis quem dedit Dominus non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro i. The Bread whiche the Lorde did deliuer being changed not according to the forme but according to the nature thereof by the omnipotent word is made flesh True Syr so he doth say and I answere euen the same which once by chaunce I preached at Paules Crosse in a Sermon 〈◊〉 Ridley â—â—lsely deâ—arted for 〈◊〉 Sermâ—n 〈…〉 Paules for the which I haue bene as vniustly as vntruely reported as any pore man hath bene For there I speaking of the sacrament and inueying against them that estemed it no better then a piece of bread told eueÌ„ the same thing of Poenitentes Audientes Catecumeni Energumeni that I spake of before and I bad them depart as vnworthy to heare the misterye and then I sayd to those that be Sancti Cyprian the Martyr shall tel you how it is that Christ calleth it saying Panis est corpus cibus potus caro c. i. Breade is the body The place of Saint Cyprian â—xpounded meat drinke flesh because that vnto this materiall substance is geuen the property of the thing whereof it beareth the name and this place then tooke I to vtter as the time would then suffer that the materiall substaunce of bread doth remaine M. Fecknam which as is reported to me did belie me openly in y e same matter at Paules crosse heard all this my talke as red as skarlet in his face and herein aunswered me neuer one word You do know wel quoth M. Secretary that Origenes and Tertullian were not Catholicke but erred 〈◊〉 of all 〈◊〉 Doctors 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 pointes Syr quoth I there is none of all the Doctors that are holden in all points but are thought to haue erred in some thinges But yet I neuer heard that it was eyther layd to OrigeÌ„s charge or to Tertullian y t euer they were thought to haue erred in this matter of the sacrament What quoth M. Chomley late chiefe Iustice doth not christ say plainly that it is his very flesh his very bloud and we must needes eate him or we can haue no life Syr quoth I if you wil heare how S. Augustin expouÌ„deth that place you shal perceiue that you are in a wrong boxe And when I began to tell S. Augustines minde in his book de Doctrina Christiana Yea yea quoth M. Secretary that is true S. Augustine doth take it figuratiuely in deed Forty yeares agoe quoth M. Fecknam all were of one opinion in this matter Forty yeares ago quoth I all held that the Bishop of Rome was supreme head of the vniuersall Church What then was master Fecknam beginning to say c. but M. Secretary tooke the tale and sayde that was but a positiue law A positiue law quoth I No Syr he would not haue it so for it is in his decrees that he challeÌ„ged it by Christes owne word For his decree sayth Nullis Synodicis constitutis neque Consilijs sed viua voce Domini praelata est Ecclesia Romana omnibus Ecclesijs in toto Mundo dicente Domino Petro tu es Petrus c. The Church of Rome was aduaunced aboue all other Churches in the world not by any Sinodicall constitutioÌ„s nor yet any counsell but by the liuely voyce of the Lord according as the Lord sayd to Peter Thou art Peter c. And in an other place he entreateth Tu es Cephas id est caput i. Thou art Cephas that is to say the head Tush it was not counted an article quoth M. Secretary of our fayth Yes sayd I if ye call that an article of our fayth which is to be beleued vnder payne of damnation For he sayeth Omninò definimus declaramus pronunciamus omnem creaturam subesse Romano pontifici de necessitate salutis i. We do absolutely determine declare and pronouÌ„ce that euery creature is subiect to the obedience of the Byshop of Rome vpon necessity of saluation And here wheÌ„ we spake of lawes and decrees M Roger Chomley
of participation in so much as we communicating therof do participate the grace of Christ so that you meane hereby only the effect therof But our conclusioÌ„ standeth vpon the substance and not the efficacye onely which shall appeare by the testimony both of Scriptures and of all the fathers a thousand yeare after Christ. And first to begin with the Scripture let vs consider what is written in Math. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. fyrste to the CorinthiaÌ„s 11. Mathew sayth Math. 26. As they sat at supper Iesus tooke bread c. In Marke there is the same sense although not the same wordes Math. 14. who also for one part of the Sacrament speaketh more playnely Iesus taking breade c. After the same sense also writeth Luke 22. Luke 22. And when Iesus had taken bread c. In the mouth of two or three witnesses sayth the Scripture standeth all truth Here we haue three wytnesses together that Christ sayd that to be his body which was geueÌ„ for many and that to be his bloud which should be shed for many wherby is declared the substance and not onely the efficacy alone therof Ergo it is not true that you say there to be not the substance of his body but the efficacy alone therof Cran. Substance and efficacie both graunted in the Sacrament Thus you gather vpon mine aunswere as though I did meane of the efficacy and not of the substance of the body but I meane of them both as well of the efficacye as the substance And for so much as all things come not readily to memory to a man that shall speake ex tempore therfore for the more ample and fuller aunswere in the matter this writing here I do exhibite An other explication for aunswere exhibited in writing by the Archb. ¶ An explication exhibited by Cranmer OUr Lord and Sauior Iesus Christ at the time of his Maundy preparing himselfe to die for our cause that he might redeeme vs from eternall death to forgeue vs all our sinnes and to cancell out the handwriting that was agaynst vs y t we through ingratefull obliuion should not forget his death therfore he at y e time of his holy supper did institute a perpetuall memory of this his death to be celebrated amoÌ„g christians in bread wine The 〈◊〉 cause 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 wa◠〈◊〉 according as it is sayd Do this in remembraunce of me And so often as you shall eat this bread drinke this cup you shall shew forth the Lordes death till he come And this remembraunce or sacrament of his holy passion that is of his body slayne bloud shed he would all christians to frequent celebrate in bread and wine according as he sayd Take eate and drink ye all of this Therfore whosoeuer for mans tradition denyeth the cup of Christes bloud to lay men they manifestly repugne agaynst Christ forbidding that which Christ commaundeth to be done and be like to those Scribes and Phariseis of whom the Lord spake Ye hipocrites ye haue reiected the coÌ„maundementes of God for your traditions Math. 2â— Well did Esaye prophecy of you saying This people honoureth me with theyr lips but theyr hart is farre from me Luke 7. Without cause do they worship me teaching the doctrines and preceptes of men The sacrament and misticall bread being broken and distributed after the institution of Christ and the mysticall wine likewise being taken and receiued be not onely sacramentes of the fleshe of Christ wounded for vs and of hys bloudshedding but also be most certaine sacraments to vs and as a manne would say seales of Gods promises and giftes Sacramâ—â—â— seales 〈◊〉 Gods pâ—â—â—mises and also of that holy felowship which we haue with Christ and all his members Moreouer they be to vs memorials of that heauenly food and nourishment wherwith we are nourished vnto eternall life and the thyrste of our boyling conscience quenched and finally wherby the harts of the faythfull be replenished with vnspeakeable ioy and be corroborated and strengthened vnto all workes of godlines We are many sayth S. Paule one bread and one body all we which doe participate of one breade 1. Cor. 11 and one cuppe And Christ sayth Eate ye this is my body And drinke ye this is my bloud Math. 2 And I am the liuing breade which came downe from heauen He that eateth me shall also liue for me Iohn 6. Not as your fathers did eate Manna in the desert and are dead He that eateth me shall also liue for me Thus therefore true bread and true wine remaynfull in the Eucharist vntill they be consumed of the faythfull to be signes as seales vnto vs annexed vnto Gods promises making vs certayne of Gods gifts towardes vs. Bread 〈◊〉 wine remayne in the Eâ—â—charist 〈◊〉 be seale vs 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 promisâ—â— Also Christ remaineth in them they in Christ which eate his flesh drinke his bloud as Christ himselfe hath promised They that eat my flesh drinke my bloud abide in me I in them Moreouer he abideth also in them which worthely receiueth the outward sacrament neither doth he depart so soone as the sacramentes is consumed but continually abideth feeding and nourishing vs so long as we remayne bodies of that head meÌ„bers of the same I acknowledge not here the naturall body of Christ which is only spirituall intelligible and vnsensible hauing no distinctioÌ„ of meÌ„bers partes in it but that body onely I acknowledge worship which was borne of the virgin which suffred for vs which is visible palpable hath all the forme shape and partes of the true naturall body of man Christ spake not these wordes of any vncertayne substance but of the certayne substance of bread which he then held in his hands shewed his disciples wheÌ„ he sayd Christâ— wordeâ— spoken of an 〈◊〉 certaine substaÌ„câ— of a 〈…〉 bread 〈◊〉 which had in 〈◊〉 handeâ— Eat ye this is my body and likewise of the cup when he sayd Drinke ye this is my bloud meaning verely of that bread which by nature is vsuall and common with vs which is taken of the fruit of the ground compacted by the vniting of many graynes together made by man by mans hand brought to that visible shape being of a round compasse without all sense or life whiche nourisheth the bodye and strengtheneth the hart of man Of this same bread I say and not of any vncertaine and wandring substance the old fathers say that Christ spake these wordes Eate ye this is my body How doctoâ—â— doe 〈◊〉 speachâ—â— Chrisâ—â— Tropiâ—â—â— Figuraâ—â—â—â— Anagoâ—â—â—call 〈◊〉 Bread 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 name 〈◊〉 body And likewise also of the wine which is the creature and fruite of the vine pressed out of many clusters of grapes maketh mens hart mery of the very same wine I say Christ spake drinke ye this is my bloud And so the olde Doctors doe call this
God and also of our lord and sauior both ascending into heauen beholding from thence who despiseth and who obserueth them not so shal come from thence to iudge all men The argument is thus formed Ba Whosoeuer sayth that the Testator lyed is a wicked heyre Argument ba But whosoeuer sayeth that Christ spake by figures sayth that he did lye ra Ergo whosoeuer sayeth that Christ here spake by figures is a wicked heyre Cran. I deny the Minor As who say it is necessary that he which vseth to speake by tropes and figures Aunswere should lie in so doyng Ogle Your iudgement is disagreeyng with all churches Cran. Nay I disagree with the papisticall church Ogle This you do through the ignorance of Logike Cran. Nay this you say through the ignorance of the Doctours Weston I will go playnly to worke by Scriptures What tooke he Cran. Bread West What gaue he Cran. Bread West What brake he Cran. Bread West What did they eate Cran. Bread West He gaue bread therfore he gaue not his body Argument He gaue not his body therfore it is not his body verily in deed and in truth Cran. I deny the argument Cole This argument holdeth a disparatis It is bread Ergo Disparata is a Schoole terme meaning diuers substances being so sondred in nature that one can neuer be sayd to be the other it is not the body and it is such an argument or reason as cannot be dissolued Cran. The lyke argument may be made He is a rocke Ergo he is not Christ. Cole It is not lyke West He gaue not his body in deede Ergo it was not his body in deed Cran. He gaue his death his passion and the sacrament of his passion And in uery deede settyng the figure aside formally it is not his body West Why then the scripture is false The Sacrâ—â—ment settiâ—â— the figure aside formally 〈…〉 Christes body Cran. Nay the scripture is most true West This sayth Chrisostome Homil. 61. ad populum Antiochenum Necessarium est dilectissimi mysteriorum dicere miraculum quid tandem sit quare sit datum quae rei vtilitas c. That is to say Needfull it is deare frends to tel you what the miracle of the mysteries is and wherfore it is geuen Chrysost. hom 61. and what profite there is of the thing We are one body and members of his flesh and of hys bones We that be in the mysterie let vs follow that thyng which was spoken Wherfore that we may become this thyng not only by loue but also that we may become one with that flesh in deede that is brought to passe by this foode which hee gaue vnto vs mynding to shew his great good will that he hath toward vs and therefore he mixed hymselfe with vs and vnited his own body with vs that we should be made all as one thyng together as a body ioyned and annexed to the head for this is a token of most ardent and perfect loue And the same thyng Iob also insinuatyng sayd of hys seruaunts of whom he was desired aboue measure in so much that they shewyng their great desire toward him sayde who shall geue vnto vs to be filled with his fleshe Therefore also Christ dyd the same who to induce vs into a greater loue toward hym and to declare hys desire toward vs dyd not onely geue hymselfe to be seene of them y t would but also to be handled and eaten and suffered vs to fasten our teeth in hys flesh and to be vnited together and so to fill all our desire Lyke Lyons therfore as breathyng fire let vs go from that table beyng made terrible to the deuil remembryng our head in our mynde his charitie which he shewed vnto vs. For parents many tymes geue theyâ— children to other to be fed but I doe not so sayth he but feed you with myne owne fleshe and set my selfe before you desiryng to make you all iolly people and pretending to you great hope and expectation to looke for thynges to come who here geue my selfe to you but much more in the world to come I am become your brother I tooke flesh bloud for you Agayne my flesh and bloud by the which I am made your kinsman I deliuer vnto you Thus much out of Chrysostome Out of which words I make this argument The same flesh whereby Christ is made our brother kinsman is geuen of Christ to vs to be eaten D. Weston argument without true formâ— or figure Christ is made our brother and kinsman by hys true naturall and organicall flesh Ergo his true naturall and organicall flesh is geuen to vs to be eaten Cran. I graunt the consequence and the consequent D. Weston argument denyed 〈◊〉 eate the true body 〈◊〉 Christ Ergo we eate it witâ— our mouth A figureâ—â— Argumenâ— West Therfore we eate it with our mouth Cran. I deny it We eate it through fayth West He gaue vs the same flesh to eate wherby he became our brother and kinsman But he became our brother and kinsman by his true naturall and organicall flesh Therfore he gaue his true natural and organical flesh to be eaten Cran. I graunt he tooke and gaue the same true naturall and organicall flesh wherin he suffered and yet he feedeth spiritually and that flesh is receyued spiritually Weston He gaue vs the same fleshe which he tooke of the Uirgin Fallax a dicto secuâ—â—dum quâ—d ad simpliâ—citer But he tooke not the true flesh of the Uirgine spiritually or in a figure Ergo he gaue his true naturall flesh not spiritually Cran. Christ gaue to vs his owne naturall fleshe the same wherin he suffred but feedeth vs spiritually Aunswerâ— West Chrysostome is against you Homil. 83. in 26. cap. Mat. where he sayth Chrisost alleaged D. Westoâ— Hom. 83.26 cap. Mat. Veniat tibi in mentem quo sis honore honoratus qua mensa fruaris Ea namque re nos alimur quaÌ„ angeli c. That is to say Let it come into thy remembrance with what honour thou art honored and what table thou sittest at for wyth the same thyng we are nourished which the angels do behold and tremble at neither are they able to behold it w tout great feare for the brightnesse which commeth therof and we be brought and compact into one heape or masse with hym Being together one bodye of Christ and one flesh w t him Who shal speake the powers of the Lord and shall declare forth all his prayses What Pastor hath euer nourished hys sheepe wyth hys owne members Manye mothers haue put foorth their Infantes after their byrth to other Nurses which he would not do but feedeth vs w t hys owne body conioyneth and vniteth vs to himselfe Wherupon I gather this argument Like as Mothers nurse their children with mylke so Christ nourished vs with his body But mothers do not nourish their
to the first proposition nor of the worlde Therefore this proposition or cōclusion is framed after an other maner of phrase or kinde of speeche then the Scripture vseth Againe it is very obscure and darke by meanes of sundry wordes of doubtfull signification And being taken in the sence whych the Schoolemen teache The proposition put foorth in 〈…〉 and at thys time the church of Rome doth defend it is false and erroneous and plaine contrary to the doctrine which is according to godlinesse The explication How farre the diuersitie and newnes of the phrase in all this first proposition is from the phrase of the holy Scripture and that in euery part almost it is so plaine euident to any that is but meanely exercised in holy wryte that I neede not now especially in this company of learned men to spend any time therein except the same shal be required of me hereafter First The first doubt· there is a doubtfull sense in these woordes by the vertue of Gods word For it is doubtful what word of God this is whether it be that which is red in the Euangelists or in Paul or any other And if it be that which is in the Euangelists or in S. Paule what that is If it be in none of them then how it may be knowen to be Gods worde of such vertue y t it should be able to worke so great a matter Againe there is a doubte in these woordes of the Priest whether no man may be called a Priest 2. Doubt in the word priest but he whych hath authoritie to make propitiatorie sacrifice for the quicke and the deade and howe it may be prooued that thys authoritie was committed of God to any man but to Christ alone It is likewise doubted 3. Doubt in the word sacrificing after what order the sacrificing Priest shall be whether after the order of Aaron or els after the order of Melchisedech For as farre as I know the holy scripture doth allow no moe West Let thys be sufficient D. Weston interrupteth him in his explication Rid. If we lacke time at this present there is time enough heereafter West These are but euasions or starting holes You consume the time in vaine Rid. I can not start farre from you I am captiue bound West Fall to it my maisters Smith That whych you haue spoken may suffice at thys present Rid. Let me alone I pray you for I haue not much to say behinde West Goe forwarde Rid. Moreouer there is ambiguitie in thys word really whether it be to be taken as the Logicians terme it 4. Doubt in the word really transcendenter that is most generally and so it may signifie any manner of thing which belongeth to the body of Christ by any meanes after which sort we also graunt Christes body to be really in the sacramente of the Lordes Supper as in disputation if occasion be geuen shall be declared or whether it be taken to signifie the very same thing hauing body life and soule which was assumed taken of the worde of God into the vnitie of persone In which sence sith the body of Christ is really in heauen because of the true manner of his body it may not be sayde to be here in the earth There is yet a further doubtfulnesse in these words 5. Doubt in the words of formes of bread wine vnder the formes of breade and wine whether the formes be there taken to signifie the onely accidental and outward shewes of bread and wine or there withall the substantial natures therof which are to be seene by their qualities and perceiued by exterior sences Now the error and falsenes of the proposition The proposition erroneous after the sense of the Romishe Church Transubstantiation not founded in scripture after the sense of the Romish church and scholemen may hereby appeare in that they affirm the bread to be transubstantiated and chāged into the flesh assumed of the word of God and that as they say by the vertue of the woorde whych they haue deuised by a certaine number of woordes and cannot be founde in any of the Euangelistes or in Paule and so they gather that Christes bodye is reallye contained in the sacrament of the aultar Which position is grounded vpon the foundation of transubstantiation The Analogie of the sacramēts is the similitude and likenes whiche they haue with the thinges they represent which foundation is monsterous against reason and destroieth the Analogie or proportion of the sacraments and therfore this proposition also which is builded vpon thys rotten foundation is false erroneous and to be counted as a detestable heresy of the Sacramentaries West We lose time Rid. You shall haue time inough West Fall to reasoning You shall haue some other day for this matter Rid. I haue no more to say concerning my explication If you will geue me leaue and let me alone I wil but speake a woord or two for my confirmation West Go to say on The confirmation of the foresaid answere Fes THere oughte no Doctrine to bee established in the church of God Confirmation of his aunswere which discenteth from the word of God from the rule of faith and draweth with it many absurdities that cannot be auoided ti But this doctrine of the first proposition is such no. Ergo Argument it ought not to be established and maintained in the Church of God The Maior or first part of my argument is plaine and the Minor or second part is prooued thus This doctrine maintaineth a real corporal and carnal presence of Christes flesh assumed and taken of the woorde to be in the Sacrament of the Lordes Supper that not by vertue grace onely but also by the whole essence and substance of the body and flesh of Christ. The reall presence of Christes body disagreeth from the scriptures But such a presence disagreeth from Gods word from the rule of faith and cannot but drawe wyth it manye absurdities Ergo the second part is true The first part of thys argument is manifest and the second may yet further be confirmed thus West Thus you consume time which might be better bestowed on other matters D. Weston agayne interrupted D. Ridley Maister Opponent I pray you to your arguments Smith I will heere reason with you vppon transubstantiation which you say is contrary to the rule and Analogy of faith The contrary whereof I proue by the Scriptures and the doctors But before I enter argumentation wyth you I demaund first whether in the 6. chap. of Iohn there be any mention made of the sacrament or of the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament Rid. It is againste reason that I shoulde bee impeached to prosecute that which I haue to speake in this assembly being not so long but that it may be comprehended in few woordes West Let him reade on Rid. First of all this presence is contrary to many
Steuen to beholde him in heauen euen hee could bring to passe well enough Aunswere that Paule might heare him out of heauen Da Smith As other saw him so Paule saw him ti Other did see him visibly and corporally on earth si Ergo Paule saw him visibly and corporally on earth Argumenâ— Rid. I graunt he was sene visibly and corporally but yet haue you not proued that he was seene in earth Aunswere Smith He was seene so of him as of other But he was seene of other being on earth and appeared visibly to them on earth Ergo he was seene of Paule on earth Rid. Your controuersie is about existens in terra that is being on earth if Existere to be be referred as vnto y â— place I deny that Christ after that sort was on the earth But if it be referred as to the veritie of the body then I graunt it Moreouer I say that Christ was seene of men in earth after his ascension it is certayne For he was sene of Steuen he was seene also of Paule But whether he descended vnto the earth or whether he being in heauen did reuele or manifest himselfe to Paule when Paule was rapt into the third heauen I know that some contend about it the Scripture as far as I haue read or heard doth not determine it Wherfore we cannot but iudge vncertainly of those things which be vncertayne Smith Wee haue Egesippus and Linus agaynste you whiche testifie that Christe appeared corporally on the earth to Peter after hys Ascension Lib. 3. cap. 3. Peter ouercome with the requestes and mournings of the people whiche desired him to geâ— hym out of the Citie because of Nero his lying in waite for him began without company to conuey hymselfe away from thence and when he was 〈◊〉 to the gate he seeth Christ come to meete him and worshipping him he sayd Maister whether walke you Chrâ—st aunswered I am come againe to be crucifyed Linus writing of the passion of Peter hath the selfesame story Saint Ambrose hath the same likewise and also Abdias scholer to the Apostles which saw Christ before his ascending into heauen With what face therefore dare you affirme it to be a thing vncertaine which these men do manifestly witnes to haue bene done Rid. I sayd before that y e Doctors in that matter did vary Smith Do you thynke thys story is not certayne beeyng approued by so auncient and probable authoritie Rid. I do so thinke because I take and esteeme not theyr words for the wordes of Scripture And though I dyd graunt you that story to be certayne yet it maketh not against me Smith Such things as be certayne and approued of them you do reiect as things vncertayne Rid. The story of Linus is not of so greate authoritie although I am not ignorant that * Thâ—â—â—ddition is taken out of the 〈◊〉 of B. Riâ—â—leys owne writâ—â—g Eusebius so writeth also in the story of the Church And yet I accompt not these mens reports so sure as the Canonicall scriptures The credite of Linus story Albeit if at any time he had to any man appeared heere on the earth after his Ascension that doth not disprooue my saying For I goe not about to tye Christ vp in fetters as some do vntruly report of vs but that he may be sene vpoÌ„ the earth according to his Diuine pleasure whensoeuer it liketh him But we affirme that it is contrary to the nature of his manhoode and the true maner of his body that he should be together and at one instant both in heauen and earth according to his corporall substaunce And the perpetuall sitting at the right hand of the father may I graunt be taken for the stabilitie of Christes kingdome and his continuall or euerlasting equalitie with his father in the glory of heauen Smith Now where as you boast that your faith is the very fayth of the auncient Church I will shew heere that is not so but that it doth directly striue against the fayth of the old Fathers I will bring in Chrysostome for this poynt Hom. 2. ad populum Antiochenum Tanquam maximam haereditatem Chrysost. alleaged â—om 2. ad populuÌ„ Antioch Elisaeus melotem suscepit Etenim verè maxima fuit haereditas omni auro praetiosior erat duplex Helias ille erat sursum Helias deorsum Helias Noui quòd iustum illum beatum putatis velletis quisque esse vt ille Quid igitur si vobis demonstrauero quid aliud quod illo multo maius omnes sacris mâ—sterijs imbuti recipimus Helias quidem melotem discipulo reliquit Filius autem dei ascendens suam nobis carnem dimisit Sed Helias quidem exutus Christus autem nobis reliquit ipsam habens ascendit That is Eliseus receiued the mantell as a right great inheritaunce For it was in deede a right excellent inheritaunce and more precious then any gold beside And the same Helias was a double Helias He was both Helias aboue and Helias beneath I know well you thinke that iust man to be happy and you would gladly be euery one of you as he is what will you then say if I shall declare to you a certayne other thing whych all we that are indued with these holy mysteries do receiue much more then that Helias in deede left his mantell to his scholer But the sonne of God ascending dyd leaue heere his flesh vnto vs. Helias left it putting off the same But Christ both left it to vs and ascended also to heauen hauing it with him Rid. Here at this aunswere great 〈◊〉 of taunting spitefull 〈…〉 vpon this good Bishop I graunt that Christ did both that is both tooke vp his fleshe wyth hym ascending vp and also did leaue the same behynde him with vs but after a diuers manner and respect For he tooke his flesh with him after the true and corporall substance of his body and flesh againe he left the same in mysterie to the faithfull in the supper to be receiued after a spirituall communication and by grace Neither is the same receiued in the Supper onely but also at other times by hearing the Gospell and by fayth For the bread which we breake is the communication of the body of Christ And generally vnles ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye shall haue no life in you Smith Chrysost. De 〈◊〉 de Sacerdotij lib. 3. cap. 3. Chrysostome in his booke de dignitate Sacerdotij lib. 3. cap. 3. sayth O miraculum O Dei beneuolentiam Qui sursum sedet tempore sacrificij hominum manibus continetur Or as other haue translated it O miraculum O Dei benignitatem qui cum patre sursum sedet in illo ipso teÌ„pore articulo omniuÌ„ manibus pertractatur ac seipse tradit volentibus ipsum accipere complecti That is O miracle O good will of God He
triumph in the latter ende being both the actor the moderator and also Iudge himselfe And what maruell then if the courage of this victorious Conquerour hauyng the lawe in his owne handes to doe and say what him liâ—ted would say for himself Vicit veritas although he sayd neuer a true word nor made neuer a true conclusion almost in al that disputation It followed furthermore after disputation of these three dayes being ended that M. Harpsfield the next day after Aprill 19 which was the xix of Aprill should dispute for his forme to be made Doctor To the which disputation the Archb. of Cant. was brought forth and permitted among the rest to vtter an argument or two in defence of his cause As in sequele hereof may appeare * Disputation of Maister Harpesfield Bacheler of Diuinitie aunswering for his forme to be made Doctour Harpesfield I Am not ignoraunt what a weighty matter it is to entreat of the whole order and trade of the scriptures Aprill 1. The iudgement of M. Harpsfielâ— for the beâ—â— way to vâ—â—derstaÌ„d 〈◊〉 Scripture If Master Harpsfielâ— had wille vs to 〈◊〉 our sences to the holâ— ghost he had sayd much better and most hard it is to in the great contention of Religion to shew the ready way whereby the scriptures may be best vnderstanded For the ofteÌ„ reading of them doth not bring the true vnderstanding of them What other thing is there then Uerily this is the redy way not to folow our owne heads and senses but to geue ouer our iudgement vnto the holy catholike Church who hath had of olde yeres the truth and alwayes deliuered the same to their posteritie but if the often readyng of scriptures and neuer so paynefull comparing of places should bring the true vnderstandyng then diuers heretikes might preuaile euen agaynst whole generall Councels The * No but those Iewes sticking so much to thâ— old custoâ—â— and face of theyr Church not seeking for knowledge by ignorance the Scriptures werâ— deceiued 〈◊〉 so be you Iewes did greatly brag of the knowledge of the law and of the Sauiour that they waited for But what auailed it them Notwithstanding I know right well that diuers places of the scripture doe much warne vs of the often reading of the same and what fruit doth therby follow as Scrutamini c. Search the scriptures for they do beare witnesse of me c. Lex Domini c. The law of the Lord is pure able to turne soules And that saying of S. Paule Omnis Scriptura c. All Scripture inspired from aboue doth make that a man may bee instructed to all good workes Howbeit doth the lawe of the Iewes conuert their soules are they by reading instructed to euery good worke The letter of the old Testament is the same that we haue The heretikes also haue euer had the same scriptures which we haue that be Catholikes But they are serued as Tantalus that the Poetes do speake of who in the plentye of thynges to eate and drinke is sayd to bee oppressed with hunger and thirst The swifter that men do seeke the Scriptures without the Catholike church the deeper they fall and fynde hell for their labour Saint Cyprian neuer swaruing from the Catholike Church saith He that doth not acknowledge the Church to bee his mother shall not haue God to be his father Therefore it is true Diuinitie * Vnder thâ— formes thâ—â— is vnder thâ— properties of bread 〈◊〉 wine so all this is true In the maâ—teriall 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 body there is no varieâ—tye for to eate mans flesh eythâ—â— vnder acciâ—dences or not accideÌ„â—ces both is agaynst thâ— Scripture 〈◊〉 agaynst naâ—ture to bee wise with the Church where Christ sayeth Nisi manducaueritis c. Vnlesse ye eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud ye haue no lyfe in you If he had meant of onely eating bread and drinkyng wyne nothyng had bene more pleasaunt to the Capernaites neither would they haue forsaken hym The fleshe profiteth nothing to them that doe so take it For the Capernaites did imagine Christ to be geuen in such sorte as he lyued But Christ spake high thinges not that they should haue hym as fleshe in the market but to consider his presence with the spirite * vnder the formes whereby it is geuen As there is an alteration of bodies by courses and tymes of ages so there is no lesse * varietie in eatyng of bodies These things which I haue recited briefly M. Harpsfield did with many more wordes set out and hereupon D. Weston disputed against hym West Christes real body is not in the sacrament Ergo you are deceyued Harps I deny the antecedent West Iohn the 6. Dico veritatem vobis c. I speake the truth vnto you It behooueth me that I go away from you For vnlesse I do depart that comforter cannot come c. Upon this I will make this argument Christ is so gone away as he did send the holy Ghost But the holy Ghost did verily come into the world Ergo Christ is verily gone Harps He is verily gone and yet remaineth here West S. Augustine sayth that these wordes Ego ero c. I wyll be with you euen to the end of the world are accomplished secundum maiestatem According to his maiestie But secundum praesentiam carnis non est hic By the presence of hys flesh he is not here The Church hath hym not in flesh but by beliefe Harps We must diligently weigh that there are two natures in Christ the diuine nature humane nature The diuine nature is of such sort that it cannot chuse but bee in all places The humane nature is not such that of force it must be in all places althogh it be in diuers after a diuers maner So where that the doctors do entreat of hys presence by maiestie they do commend the maiestie of the Diuine nature not to hinder vs of the * natural presence here in the sacrament West He sayth further Me autem non semper habebitis Ye shall not haue me alwayes with you is to be vnderstanded in the fleshe Harpsfield The presence of the flesh is to bee considered that he is not here as he was woont to lyue in conuersation with them to be seene talked withall or in such sort as a man may geue hym * any thyng after that sort he is not present West But what say you to this of S. Augustine NoÌ„ est hic He is not here Harpesfield I do answer out of S. Augustine vpon Iohn Tractatu 25. vpon these woordes Non videbitis me Vado ad patrem c. I goe to the Father ye shall not see me That is Such as I now am Therefore I doe deny the maner of hys presence West I wil ouerthrow S. Augustine with S. Augustine who saith this also Quomodo quis possit tenere Christum fidem mitte tenuisti that is How may a man hold Christ send thy fayth and thou
Antichrist frō the Bible true Gods seruice and religion to Latine lying Legendes Portases Masse bookes and superstition They say theyr Church cannot erre in any poynt whē in deed they be not of gods church and therfore they can do nothyng but erre euen as they doe almost in all cases of true fayth But to come agayne to the packer rather then preacher hee bringeth S Chrysostome writyng Ad populum Antiochenum where he makyng a comparison betweene Christes flesh and Elias cloke cast downe to Elizeus when Elias was taken vp in the fiery Chariot at length he sayeth that Christ ascendyng vp to heauen tooke hys flesh with hym and also left hys flesh behynd hym in earth The meanyng of it is he dyd ascend with hys flesh The meaning of Chrisost. rightly expounded concerning Elias cloke and left a memoriall cloke of the same body and flesh which he calleth hys flesh as he in the sacramentall phrase calleth bread his body because it representeth his body and as in the lyke manner of Sacramentall speach a Lambe was called the Passeouer the Circumcision Gods couenaunt He tooke vp hys flesh corporally least his flesh in mystery and sacrament spiritually Of this memoriall cloke read before in D. Ridleys disputations The place of Genesis 49. Or it may be sayd that he left hys flesh vpon earth that is hys mysticall body his faythfull people whom S. Paule calleth the members of hys body of hys flesh of hys bones Ephes. 5. In the 49. chap. of Genesis there is no word of Christes sacrament but there is a prophesie of Christes passion wherein hys Fole was bound that is hys body And where hee speaketh there of grapes and wyne it is as that is spoken of Christ in an other place where hee sayeth Ego solus torcular calcaui I alone dyd treade the wyne presse meanyng thereby that Christ alone suffered paynefull passion for the remission of sinnes and for the consolation of all hys faithfull souldiors It is not true that the packer sayd that Christs infinite power may make his body to bee in a thousand places at once as a loafe to be in a thousand bellies Christes natural body cannot be diuided for then myght Christ deuide the partes of hys body as a loafe is deuided and so consumed then myght scripture be false appointyng Christes body to bee but in one place Act. 3. Phil. 3. Heb. 3. The articles of our faith tel vs sufficiently where Christes body is It was neuer in two places at once neyther euer shall be neither euer can be corporally and naturally neither euer was is can Christes body was neuer in two places at once or shall be eaten so with any corporall mouthes as the Capernaites and the papistes most erroneously and heretically doe iudge If our sauiour Iesus Christ hath no other body natural then is made of the substāce of bread and is in a thousand places at once as I haue often sayd in Hadley we are not yet redeemed neyther shall our bodies ryse againe be made lyke vnto his glorious body We are sure that our sauiour Christs body is made of none other substaunce then of his mother the blessed virgin Maries substaunce We are sure that he taketh not the nature of Angels much lesse of bread Only he taketh on hym the seed of Abraham Heb. 2. In all thynges lyke vnto vs sin only except Heb. 2. And this is a comfortable doctrine to vs christians beleuing stedfastly as the true catholike fayth is that Christ hath but two natures perfect God and perfect man Vpon this rocke Christs church is builded and the gates of hell shall neuer preuayle agaynst it Math. 16. I speake nothing now of auricular confession and praying for soules departed Auricular confession because I do not heare what authors the packer brought in for this purpose Sure I am that he can bryng no authenticall and canonicall warrant for such his packware He may say what hee wyll of Hebricians and Graecians Praying for the dead and fleshe vnder formes and not aboue formes or aboue the bourd He may coniure and conuey passe repasse euen what he wil in such clouds and mystes He reproued the scriptures as full of darkenes yet is full of darkenes hymselfe He did wittily to bring proofes out of Iewry Turky and other strange places for his rounde whyte cake for that such his pedlary pelfe packe is contrary to the plain simplicity of Christes supper He glaunced at priests mariage He meaneth by the place 1. Tim. 4. where S. Paule speaketh of the doctrine of Deuills c. He myght agaynst that haue brought as auncient a Doctor as any be alledged out of Hebrue for hys masse and wafer cake that is D. Deuill 1. Tim. 4. I meruaile that he dyd not confute and confound S. Paul for the sentences written aboue the aultar of the which hee made mention in the pulpit For he and his fellowes of Oxford bee so profound so excellent so glorious and triumphant clarkes that they can easily prooue a man an asse and writers in the Bible ignorant simple full of errors ful of heresies beggerly fooles Yet they wil be called catholikes faithfull true christian people defenders of the holy mother the Church but truely they take part with the prince of darknes with Antichrist with Iezabell Apoc. 2. They wyll not be called Papists Pharises Iewes Turkes heretikes and so forth but whatsoeuer they will be called Gods religion had neuer more euident aduersaries and that in all the chiefe points of it no not then when our sauiour Christ whypt such Merchants out of the temple callyng them a company of theeues Math. 21. God geue them grace to repent God be thanked that the Nobilitie somethyng of late hath spied and stopped their tyranny O vnhappy England Oh more vngrate people English people likened to the Galathians sooner bewitched then the folish Galathians We haue now none excuse We haue vndoubtedly seene the true trace of the propheticall Apostolicall primatiue catholike church We are warned to beware least we be led out of that way societie and rule of Religion Now we shall shew what countrey men we bee whether spirituall and heauenly or carnall and worldly We had as true knowledge as euer was in any countrey or in any tyme since the beginnyng of the world God be praysed therfore If Hadley beyng so many yeares perswaded in such truth will now willingly and wittingly forsake the same and defile it selfe withe the Cake god Idolatry and other Antichristianitie thereunto belongyng The Cake god let it surely looke after many and wonderfull plagues of God shortly Though another haue the Benefice yet as God knoweth I cannot but be carefull for my deare Hadley And therefore as I could not but speake after the first abhominable Masse begun there I beyng present no more I can not but write now beyng absent The carefull zeale of
into his kingdom The triumph victory ouer death where he now sitteth at his fathers right hand that is to say in power glory equall in maiesty coeternall From thence he shal come to iudge the quicke the dead He shal appeare againe in great glory to receiue his elect vnto himselfe to put his enemies vnder his feete chaunging all liuyng men in a moment and raising vp al that be dead that all may be brought to his iudgement In this shall he geue ech man according to his deedes They which haue folowed him in regeneratioÌ„ which haue their sinnes washed away in hys bloud are clothed with hys righteousnes shall receiue the euerlasting kingdome and raigne with him for euer and they which after the race of the corrupt generation of Adam haue followed fleshe and bloud shall receiue euerlasting damnation with the deuill and hys angels I beleeue in the holy ghost I do beleue that the holy ghost is God the third person in Trinitie in vnitie of the Godhed equal with the father the sonne geuen through Christ to inhabite our spirites by which we are made to feele and vnderstand the great power vertue louing kindnes of Christ our lord For he illumineth quickneth and certifieth our spirit that by him we are sealed vp vnto the day of redemption by whom we are regenerate and made new cretures so that by hym and through hym we do receyue all the aboundaÌ„t goodnes promised vs in Iesus Christ. The holy Catholike Church This is an holy number of Adams posteritie elected gathered The Church washed and purified by the bloud of the Lambe from the beginning of the world and is dispersed through the same by the tiranny of Gog Magog that is to say the Turke and his tiranny and Antichrist otherwyse named the Bish. of Rome and hys aungels as this day also doth teach The Communion of Saints Which most holy congregation beyng as Paule teacheth builded vppon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophetes Christ beyng the head corner stone though it be by the tyranny of Satan and his ministers persecuted some by imprisonment some by death and some by other afflictions painful torments yet doth it remayne in one perfect vnitie both in faith and fellowship which vnity is knit in an vnspeakable knot as well of them which are departed from this mortal life as of them which now be liuyng and hereafter shall be in the same and so shall continue vntill they all do meete in the kyngdome where the head Iesus Christ with all hys holy members of which number thorough Christ I assuredly beleeue that I am one shall be fully complete knit and vnited together for euermore The forgeuenesse of sinnes I do beleeue that my sinnes and all their sinnes which do rightly beleeue the holy Scripture Remission only through Christ. are forgeuen onely thorough that Iesus Christ of whom onely I do professe that I haue my whole and full saluation and redemption which S. Paule saith commeth not through our workes and deseruyngs but freely by grace lest any should boast hymselfe Thorough the bloud of his Crosse all thyngs in heauen and earth are reconciled and set at peace wyth the Father without him no heauenly lyfe is geuen nor sinne forgeuen The resurrection of the body I do beleue that by the same my sauiour Christ I and all men shall rise againe from death for he as Paul sayth is risen agayne froÌ„ the dead and is become the first fruits of them which sleepe Resurrection For by a man came death and by a man commeth the resurrection from death This man is Christ through the power of whose resurrection I beleue that we all shall rise agayne in these our bodyes the elect clothed with immortalitie to liue with Christ for euer the reprobate also shall rise immortall to liue with the deuill and his angels in death euerlasting And the life euerlasting Through the same Iesus by none other I am sure to haue life euerlasting He onely is the way and entrance into the kingdome of heauen Iohn 3. For so God loued the world that he did geue his onely sonne Iesus Christ to the ende that so many as do beleue in him might haue euerlasting lyfe The which I am sure to possesse so soone as I am dissolued Life and Saluation onely by fayth in Christ. departed out of this tabernacle in the last day shall both body and soule possesse the same for euer to the which God graunt all men to come I beleue that the sacramentes that is to say of Baptisme and of the Lordes supper are seales of Gods moste mercyfull promises towardes mankind Two sacraments of the new Testament In Baptisme as by the outward creature of water I am washed from the filthines which hangeth on my flesh so do I assuredly beleue y t I am by Christes bloud washed cleane froÌ„ my sins through which I haue sure confidence of my certaine saluation In the partaking of the Lordes supper as I receyue the substance of bread wyne the nature of which is to strengthen the body so do I by faith receyue the redemption wrought in Christes body broken on the crosse life by his death resurrection by his resurrection and in summe all that euer Christ in his body suffered for my saluation to the strengthening of my faith in the same And I beleeue that God hath appointed the eatyng drinking of the creatures of bread and wine in his holy supper according to his word to mooue and to stirre vp my mynd to beleue these articles aboue written This is my faith this I do beleue and I am content by Gods grace to confirme and seale the truth of the same with my bloud By me Iohn Warne ¶ A letter of Iohn Cardmaker to a certaine friend of his The peace of God be with you YOu shall right well perceiue A 〈◊〉 M. Câ—â—â—â—make◠〈…〉 that I am not gone backe as some men do report me but as ready to geue my lyfe as any of my brethren that are gone before me although by a pollicie I haue a little prolonged it and that for the best as already it appeareth vnto me and shortly shall appeare vnto all That day that I recant any poynt of doctrine I shall suffer twenty kyndes of death the Lord beyng myne assistance as I doubt not but he wil. Commend me to my friend and tell hym no lesse This the Lorde strengthen you me and all his elect My riches and pouertie is as it was woont to be and I haue learned to reioyce in pouertie as well as in riches for that count I now to bee very riches Thus fare ye well in Christ. Salute all my brethren in my name I haue conferred with some of my aduersaries learned men and I finde that they be but Sophistes and shadowes ¶ A note concerning M. Cardmaker MAister Cardmaker beyng condemned in
Earle of Darby because you desired to conferre with vs. Brad. I neuer desired your comming nor to conferre with you or any other But seeing you are come of charitie as you say I cannot but thanke you and as touchyng conference though I desire it not yet I wil not refuse to talk with you if you will Alphon. It were requisite that you did praye vnto God that ye might follow the direction of Gods spirite that he woulde inspire you so that ye be not addict to your owne selfe will or wyt ⧠The talke betwene M. Bradford and two Spanish Fryers Brad. Whereupon Bradford made a prayer and besought God to direct all theyr willes Bradford willed to pray 〈◊〉 his prayer wordes and works as the wils wordes and workes of his children for euer Alph. Yea you must pray with your hart For if you speak but with toung onely God will not geue you his grace Brad. Syr do not iudge least ye be iudged You haue heard my words now charity would haue you to leaue y e iudgement of the hart to God Alph. You must be as it were a neuter and not wedded to your selfe but as one standing in doubt pray and be ready to receiue what God shall enspire for in vain laboreth our toung to speake els Brad. Syr my sentence if you meane it for Religion must not be in a doubting or vncertain as I thanke God I am certayne in that for which I am condeÌ„ned I haue no cause to doubt of it but rather to be most certayne of it and therfore I praye God to confirme mee more in it For it is his trueth and because it is so certayne and true that it may abide the light I dare be bold to haue it looked on and conferre it with you or any man in respect wherof I am both glad of your comming and thanke you for it Alph. What is the matter whereof you were condemned we know not Brad. Syr I haue bene in prison almost 2. yeares I neuer transgressed any of theyr lawes wherefore I might iustlye be prisoned now am I condeÌ„ned onely because I franckly confessed wherof I repeÌ„t not my fayth concerning the sacrament when I was demauÌ„ded in these 2. poynts one that there is no transubstantiation the other that the wicked do not receiue Christes body Alph. Let vs looke a little on the firste Doe you not beleue that Christ is present really and corporally in the forme of bread Brad. No I do beleue that Christ is present to the fayth of the worthy receiuer as there is present bread and wyne to the sences and outward man as for any such preseÌ„ce of including and placing Christ I beleue not nor dare beleue Alph. I am sure you beleue Christes naturall body is circuÌ„scriptible And here he made much ado of the 2. natures of Christ how that the one is euery where the other is in his proper place demauÌ„ding such questions as no wise man would haue spent any time about At length because the Frier had forgotten to conclude Bradforde put him in mind of it and thus then at length he concluded how that because Christes bodye was circumscriptible concernyng the humayne nature in heauen therefore it was so in the bread Brad. How hangeth this together Euen as if you should say because you are here Ergo it must needes followe that you are at Rome For this you reason Because Christes bodye is in heauen Ergo it is in the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread which no wise man will graunt Alph. Why will you beleue nothing but that which is expressely spoken in the Scriptures Brad. Yes Syr I will beleue whatsoeuer you shall by demonstratian out of the Scripture declare vnto me Alph. He is obstinate quoth Alphonsus to his felow and then turning to Bradford sayd is not God able to do it Christ is able to doe it Ergo he doth it Brad. Yes but here the question is of Gods will and not of his power Alph. Why doth he not say playnely this is my body Brad. Yes and I deny not but that it is so to the fayth of the worthy receyuer Alph. To the fayth how is that Brad. Forsooth Syr as I haue no toung to expresse it so I know ye haue no eares to heare vnderstand it For fayth is more then man can vtter Alph. But I can tell all that I beleue Brad. You beleue not much then For if you beleue y e ioyes of heauen and beleue no more therof then you can tell you wil not yet desire to come thither For as the mind is more capable receiueable theÌ„ the mouth so it conceiueth more then toung can expresse Alph. Christ sayth it is his body Brad. And so say I after a certayne maner Alph. After a certayne maner that is Hoc est corpus meum Quodam modo Augustinus Epistola ad Bonifacium Argument As grace is in the water of baptisme so is the body in the Sacrament But grace is in the water by signification Ergo so is the body in the Sacrament A Popish distinction of Sacramentes after an other maner then it is in heauen Brad. S Augustine telleth it more playnely that it is christes body after the same maner as Circumcision was the couenaunt of God and the Sacrament of fayth is fayth or to make it more playne as baptisme and the water of baptisme is regeneration Alph. Uery well sayd Baptisme and the water therof is a Sacrament of Gods grace spirite in the water clensing the Baptised Brad. No Syr away w t your enclosing but this I graunt that after the same sort Christes bodye is in the breade on which sort the grace and spirit of God is in the water Alph. In water is Gods grace by signification Brad. So is the body in the bread in the Sacrament Alph. You are much deceiued in that you make no differeÌ„ce betwene the Sacramentes that be standers and the sacramentes that are transitory and passers by As for example the Sacrament of Order which you deny though S. Augustine affirme it it is a standerd although the ceremony be past But in Baptisme so soone as the bodye is washed the water ceaseth not to be a Sacrament Brad. Uery good and so it is in the Supper of the Lord no longer then it is in vse is it Christes Sacrament Here was the Fryer in a wonderfull rage and spake so high as often he had done before that the whole house rang agayne chaâ—ing with om and cho Hee hath a greate name of learning The Frier in a chafe but surely hee hath little pacience For if Bradford had bene any thing hote one house coulde not haue held them At the length hee commeth to this poynt that Bradford coulde not finde in the Scripture Baptisme and the Lordes Supper to beare any similitude together And here he triuÌ„phed before the conquest saying that these men would receiue nothing
do teach vs for they witnes that Christ sayd that he would drinke no more of the fruit of the vine which was not bloud but wine and therfore it foloweth that there is no transubstantiation Chrysostome vpoÌ„ Mathew and S. Cyprian do affirme this reason 5. As the bread in the Lordes Supper is Christes naturall bodye so is it his mysticall body for the same spirit that spake of it This is my body The same spirit which sayeth This is my body sayth also We many are one bread and one body c. The words doe not transubstaÌ„tiate the cup into the new testament Ergo neyther the bread into the body did say also for we many are one bread one body c. but now it is not the mysticall body by transubstantiation and therfore it is not his naturall body by transubstantiation 6. The wordes spoken ouer the cup in S. Luke and Paule are not so mighty and effectuall as to transubstantiate it For then it or that which is in it should be transubstantiate into the new Testament therfore the wordes spoken ouer the bread are not so mighty as to make transubstantiation 7. All that doctrine which agreeth with those Churches whiche be Apostolicke mother Churches or originall churches is to be counted for truth in that it holdeth that which these Churches receiued of the Apostles the Apostles of Christ Christ of GOD. But it is manifest that the doctrine taughte at this present of the church of Rome concerning transubstantiation doth not agree with the Apostolicke and mother Churches in Grece of Corinthus The doctrine of the Church of Rome for transubstantiatioÌ„ agreeth not with the Apostles Church nor with the Greke Churches nor with the olde Romain church of Phillppos Colossia Thessalonica Ephesus which neuer taught transubstantiation yea it agreeth not with the doctrine of the Churche of Rome taught in times past For Gelasius the Pope setting forth the doctrine which that sea did theÌ„ hold doth manifestly confute the error of transubstantiation and reproueth them of the sacriledge which deuide the mistery and keepe from the Laity the cup Therefore the doctrine of transubstantiation agreeth not with the truth This was the writing which Weston pulled out of his bosome yet before he began to read it he shewed Bradford that he asked of his conuersatioÌ„ at CaÌ„bridge sithen his last being with him and quoth he Mayster Bradford because you are a man not geuen to the glory of the world I will speake it before your face Your life I haue learned was such there alwayes as all men euen the greatest enemyes you haue can not but prayse it and therefore I loue you much better then euer I did but now I will reade ouer your argumentes and so we will conferre them Such they are that a man may well perceiue you stand on coÌ„science therfore I am the more redy glad to pity you So he began to read the first to the which he sayd that though the word transubstantiatioÌ„ began but lately yet the thyng alwayes was and hath bene sithen Christes institution Brad. I do not contend or hang vpon the worde onely but vpon the thing which is as new as the word West Then went he to the seconde and there brought out S. Augustine The wordes of Austen guilefully wrasted by Weston how that if an euill man goyng to the deuill did make his will his sonne heyre would not say his father did lye in it or speak tropically much more Christ going to God did neuer lye or vse any figuratiue spech in his last wil and testament Do you not remember this place of S. Augustine sayd he Brad. Yes Syr but I remember not that S. Augustine hath those wordes tropicè or figuratiue as you rehearse theÌ„ for any man may speak a thing figuratiuely and lye not so Christ did in his last Supper West After this he went to the thyrd and brought foorth Cyprian howe that the nature of the bread is turned into flesh Here sayth he my Lord of Caunterbury expoundeth nature for quality by Gelasius the which interpretatioÌ„ serueth for the answere of your third argument y t Christ called bread his body that is the quality forme apperance of bread And further the Scripture is wont to call things by the same names whiche they had before Simon though he were called the leper yet he was seene to be no leper But bread is seene still to be bread and therfore hath his name not of that it was but of that it is Cyprian expounded by Gelasius as Symon the Leaper he was not so preseÌ„tly but because he had bene so Brad. Cyprian wrote before Gelasius therefore Cyprian must not expouÌ„d Gelasius but Gelasius Cyprian and so they both teach that bread remaineth stil. As for things hauing still the names they had is no aunsweare except you could shew that this nowe were not breade as easily as a man might haue known sene then Symon to haue bene healed and cleare from his Leprosye West After this he went to the fourth of the cup the which he did not fully read but digressed into a long talke of Cyprians Epistle De Aquarijs also of S. Augustine expounding the breaking of breade by Christ to his two Disciples going to Emaus to be the Sacrament with such other talk to no certaine purpose and therfore Bradford prayed him that in as much as he had written the reasons that stablished his fayth agaynst Transubstantiation Weston â—â—â—quired 〈◊〉 write 〈◊〉 reasonâ— so hee woulde likewise doe to him that is aunswere him by writing and shew him moe reasons in writing to confirme Transubstantiation Which Doctor Weston promised to do sayde that he would send or bring it to Bradford agayne within three dayes Thus when he had ouer read the argumentes here and there spokeÌ„ litle to the purpose for the auoiding of theÌ„ and Bradford had prayed him to geue him in writing hys aunsweres then he began to tell Bradford how and what he had done for Grimoald and how that Bradford neded not to feare any reproch or sclaunder he should suffer Grimoalâ— subscribeâ—â— meaning belike to haue Bradford secretly come to theÌ„ as Grimoald did for he subscribed Brad. Maister Deane I would not gladly that you should conceiue of me that I passe of shame of men simply in thys matter I rather would haue you to think of me M. 〈◊〉 playne aâ—â—firme in confessiâ—â— the truth as the very truth is that hitherto as I haue not sene nor heard any thing to infirme my fayth agaynst Transubstantiation so I am no lesse setled in it then I was at my coÌ„ming hither I loue to be playne with you and to tell you at the first as you shall finde at the last West In good fayth maister Bradford I loue you the better for your playnnes do not think otherwise of me but that you shall finde me playne in all my talke
should see the Law whereby ye may compell me to aunswere Douer My Lord tooke the Scribes book and read the answere that I made to D. Faucets reason which I knewe not that they had written Bland My Lord I made you no such aunswere when ye asked me I take M. Collins and M. Glasier to witnes Then they brought forth a Decretall a booke of the bishop of Romes law to bind me to answere whiche my hart abhorred to looke vpon The effecte was that the Ordinarye had authority to examine The popes Kay and that they so examined must needes aunswere But I sayde that it meaned of suche as were iustly suspect as I was not And here we had muche communication For I charged them with vniust imprisonment which they could not auoyd M. Oxenden helpeth the Catholickes But M. Oxenden would haue helped them and said the Iustices put me in prison for a sermon sediously spokeÌ„ and for troubling a priest at masse Bland That is not true For after I had bene 10. weekes in prison I was bayled till I was cast in agayne and as the Iustice sayd for the disobeying mine Ordinary which I neuer did Collins Will ye be content to conferre with some It will be better for you nowe we offer it you because ye woulde not desire it Bland As I did not refuse before no more will I nowe But I did not perceyue before but that one mighte haue come without any leaue asking to conferre the scriptures and therfore I looked that D. Faucet would haue come to me without desiring M. Bland was tutor to Doct. Faucet if any commodity to me had bene in confereÌ„ce for though I was neuer able to do him good yet once I was his tutor Collins Aâ—e ye content to come to his Chamber at after noone Bland Syr I am a Prisoner and therefore it is meete that I obey These 3. belyke were Bland Shetterden and Middleton Miller a clothier excommunicate let go and come whyther you will and so departed At this tyme wee were three But they tooke an other to appeare before them the Tewesday seuennight after And when he came I knewe not what was done but that I heare they excoÌ„municated hym and let him go His name was Myller a Clothyer ¶ Here foloweth a certayne confutation of M. Bland agaynst false and manifest absurdities graunted by M. Mylles priest of Christes Church in Caunterbury MYlles The Popish fayth of the Sacrament We say that Christ is in or vnder the sacrameÌ„t really and corporally which are the formes of bread wyne and that there is his body conteined inuisibly and the qualities which we do see as whitenes and rouÌ„dnes be there without substance by Gods power as quantitye and weight be there also by inuisible measure Bland This is your owne Diuinity to make accidences the Sacrament and Christes reall body inuisibly conteyned in them and so to destroy the Sacrament And yet the Doctors saye * 1. The matter of the SacrameÌ„t is bread and wine Materia Sacramenti est panis vinum And GOD by his power woorkerh no myracles with Hoc est Corpus meum so to chaunge the substaunce of breade and wine into hys bodye and bloud in that hee maketh accidences to bee without theyr substaunce by inuisible measure I am ashamed to see you so destroy Christes Sacrament contrary to your owne Doctours and trifle so with Gods worke Mylles To Christe is geuen all power in heauen and in earth * If christ be able to be where he liste occupy no place why then is not he able to be aswell vnder the substance of bread as vnder the accidences of breade seeing he is omnipotent so that by his omnipotent power of his Godhead he may be and is where he listeth and is in the Sacramente really and corporally without occupying of place for a glorified body occupyeth on place Bland Marke your owne reason All power is geuen to Christ both in heauen and earth by the omnipotent power of his Godhead he may be where he list Ergo hee is in the sacrament really and corporally without occupying of place I denye your argument for it foloweth neyther of your Maior nor Minor And first I woulde learne of you * Christ 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 liste 〈◊〉 Christ 〈◊〉 in the Saâ—crament â—ut 〈◊〉 of place 〈◊〉 true and 〈◊〉 false howe you know that Christ listeth to be present at euerye Priestes list For if the Priest list not to say your Masse theÌ„ Christ listeth not to be there Agayne ye say all power is geuen vnto Christ both in heauen and in earth so that that is the cause by your reason that by the omnipoteÌ„t power of his Godhead he may be where he list and by that reason he had not the power of his Godhead till he had his humayne body and then he was not equall with the father in diuinity for all power was not geuen to Christe before the humanitye and the Godhead were knit together neither was he Filius Here is more daunger then ye are ware of if ye would stand to it with iust Iudges Milles. We eate Christes flesh and bloud spiritually when wee receiue it with fayth and charitye And wee also doe eate it corporally in the Sacrament ane the body that we so receiue hath life For the Godhead is annexed thereto Which although it be receiued with the body of Christ yet it is not inuisible after a grosse sort and the flesh of Christe that we receiue is liuely for it hath the spirite of God ioyned to it And if a man be drunken it is not by receiuinge of the bloud of Christe for it is contrary to the nature of Christes bloud Case being put that the 〈◊〉 king a great quantity in th◠〈◊〉 hee be made dronke 〈◊〉 these three is it that maketh dronke the nature of 〈◊〉 accidences onely of Wine 〈◊〉 the true substance of Wine 〈◊〉 reasonable man iudge If he be drunken it is by the qualities and quaÌ„tities without substance of bloud Bland I am glad that you are so muche agaynst all men to saye that Christes body is aliue in the Sacramente it may fortune to bring you to the truth in time to come Me thinke it is euill to keepe Christes body aliue in the Pixe or els must ye graunt that he is aliue in receiuing dead in the Pixe And ye say truth that it is * Christes bloud hath not thâ— qualitye to make a man 〈◊〉 Receauing of that in the 〈◊〉 can make a man dronke Ergo that in the 〈◊〉 not be the bloud of Christ. not the naturall receiuing of Christes bloud that maketh a man drunken Argument for it is the nature of wine that doth that which ye denye not And a more truth ye confesse then ye dyd thinke when ye sayd If a man be drunken it is by the qualities and quantities without the substaunce of bloud for