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
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
holdest hym So he sheweth that by sending our fayth we do hold Christ. Harpesfield In deed no man holdeth Christ vnlesse he beleeue in him but it is another thing to haue Christ mercyful and fauourable vnto vs and to haue him present in the Sacrament There s. Augustine speaketh of holding him by faith as he is fauourable vnto vs. West Nay he speaketh there how the Fathers had him in the fleshe and teacheth that we haue him not so in fleshe as they had him long tyme sayeng Your fathers dyd holde Christ present in the flesh do you hold him in your heart What wordes can be more plaine Further he sayth He is gone is not here he hath left vs and yet hath not forsaken vs. Hic est maiestate abijt carne He is here in maiestie and gone touching the fleshe Harps I doe vnderstand Augustine thus that Christ is here in his flesh to them that receiue him worthily to such as doe not worthily receiue him to them he is not present in the fleshe I iudge S. Augustine meaneth so We haue hym and haue hym not we haue him in receiuyng hym worthily otherwyse not West Nay Tenerâ— carnem est tenere corticem literae I wyll prosecute another argument Cyrill doth say By the maiestie of his diuinitie he is euer here but the presence of hys fleshe hath he taken away Harpsfield The sense of Cyrill is thus to be vnderstanded The most true fleshe of Christ is at the right hande of the Father Thus the Fathers taught and so they beleeued Thus sayd Cyrill Thus said Augustine and because this is the foundation of our fayth they did oftentymes teach it Therefore when they prooue this the body to bee in heauen they do not make agaynst the presence in the sacrament 〈…〉 how then doth the â—ame body remaine still vnlesse eyther ye make him to haue 2. boâ—yes or eis make 2. contradictoryes true in one proposition So vnlesse ye can plainly shew that the fathers do directly say he is not in the sacrament you make nothyng against me for I haue shewed why the Fathers so spake They did teach the great difference betwene the diuine nature and the humane nature as I haue before sayd Weston I will then prooue that he is not in the sacrament Uigilius against y e heretike Eutiches vpon these words Me autem non semper habebitis sayeth The sonne of God as touching his humanitie is gone from vs by his diuinitie hee remayneth with vs. And that same Uigilius in hys fourth booke sayeth Hee that is in the heauen is not in the earth speakyng of Christ. Harps I wyll shew you the reason of these wordes The hereticke Eutiches did beleeue that the diuine nature of Christ was fastned on the crosse and beleeued that Christ had no naturall body To this Uigilius sayd that the humane nature was taken vp and ascended which could not so haue done vnlesse he had had a body This he sayd not to take away the presence in the sacrament For what had he to referre this sentence to the Sacrament Hee neuer dyd so much as dreame of the Sacrament West Cyrill sayth Although he be absent from vs in body yet are we gouerned by his spirit Cyrillus The body of Christ is here to feede our bellyes but not to be liued withal Harps By these wordes he gaue vs a cheerefulnesse to aspire vpwards seeking therehence our helpe For as touching his conuersation he is not so in the Sacrament as one meet to be liued withall But let hym teach vs that he is not there to feed vs for after that sort he is there West You haue satisfied me with your answers in doyng the same learnedly and catholikely But now to an other argument * The argument holdeth a proportione Christ is now so absent from the earth by his body as he was absent from heauen when he liued here But when he did liue bodily on earth the same naturall body was out of heauen Ergo now whilest his naturall body is in heauen it is not in earth Harps I deny the Maior West Fulgentus ad Transimundum Regem libro secundo saith Secundum humanam substantiam absens erat coelo cum desceÌ„dit de coelo These are Fulgentius wordes touchyng hys humane substaunce He was absent from heauen when he descended from heauen and touching the same substance now he is in heauen he is not on the earth but concernyng the diuine nature he neuer forsooke neither heauen nor earth ¶ After these wordes not waityng Harpsfields aunswer he offered maister Cranmer to dispute who began in this wyse Cranmer I haue heard you right learnedly and eloquently entreat of the dignitie of the scriptures which I doe both commend haue maruelled thereat within my selfe But where as you referre the true sense iudgement of y e scriptures to the catholicke churche as iudge thereof you are much deceued specially for y t vnder the name of the church you appoynt such Iudges as haue corruptly iudged and contrary to the sense of the scriptures I wonder likewyse why you attribute so little to the diligent readyng of the scriptures and conferryng of places seyng the scriptures do so much commend the same as wel in diuers other places as also in those which you your selfe haue alredy alleged And as touching your opinion of these questioÌ„s The opinion of M. Harpsfield reproued referring the sence of the Scripture rather to the iudgemeÌ„t of the Church then to the diligent reading conferring of places it semeth to me neither to haue any grouÌ„d of the word of god nor of the Primitiue church And to say the truth y e scholemen haue spoken diuersly of them and do not agree therein among themselues Wherfore mynding here briefly to shew my iudgement also I must desire you first to aunswere me to a fewe questions which I shall demaund of you Which beyng done we shall the better proceed in our disputation Moreouer I must desire you to beare also with my rudenes in the Latin tonge which through long disuse is not now so prompt and ready with me as it hath bene And now all other things set apart I mynd chiefly to haue regard to the truth My first question is this How Christes body is in the sacrament accordyng to your mynde or determination Then answered a Doctor he is there as touching hys substance but not after the maner of his substance Christ present in the SacrameÌ„t in substance but not after the maner of substance Harpsfield He is there in such sort and manner as he may be eaten Cran. My next question is Whether he hath his quantitie qualities forme figure and such like properties Harpsfield Are these your questions sayd Maister Harpsfield I may likewise aske you when Christ passed thorough the virgines wombe an ruperit neâ—ne When they had thus a while contended there were diuers opinions in this matter All the doctors
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
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
the one nor the other And as for tumult none could reasonably be feared of any thing spoken agreable to the kings maiesties lawes as there did folow none nor the people or any man did offer my person any wrong or make tumult against me not withstanding players iesters rimers ballademakers did signify me to be of the true catholike faith Winchesâ—â—â— agaynst Players 〈◊〉 bâ—llademâ—â—kers which I according to my dutie declared to the kings maiesty from whoÌ„ I may hide no truth that I thinke expedient for hym to know And as the name of God cannot be vsed of any creture agaynst God no more can the kings name beyng vsed of any subiect against his highnes Wherfore seyng the abuse of this holy sacrament hath in it a danger assured by scripture of body soule whosoeuer is perswaded in y e catholike faith as I am findeth himself so burdened to vtter that vnto his maiesty as no worldly losse caÌ„ let him to do his duty in that behalfe and much lesse my Lordes priuate letters written without other of the counsails hands The 11. Article Item that after the premisses viz. in the month of May or Iune or one of them in the 3. yeare of his hyghnes raigne 11. 〈◊〉 his maiestye sent eftsoones vnto you to know your conformitie towards hys sayd reformations and specially touchyng the booke of common prayer then lately set foorth by hys maiestie whereunto you at the same tyme refused to shew your selfe conformable Winchester To the xi article for answer and declaration thereof he sayd The next day at after noone after he had preached Answeâ—â— the 11. 〈◊〉 when he looked for no such matter came to his house the right worshipfull Sir Anthony Wingfield and Sir Rafe Sadler knights accompanied wyth a great nomber of the gard and vsed themselues for their part according to theyr worships and I doubt not as they were appoynted Sir Rafe Sadler begaÌ„ thus w t me My L. said he ye preached yesterday obedience but ye did not obey your selfe went forth w t his message very soberly as he can and discretely I asked him wherein I obeied not He sayde touching my L. of Somersets letter Maister Sadler quoth I I pray you say to my Lords grace I would he neuer made mention of that letter for the loue I beare him And yet quoth I I haue not broken that letter I was mineded quoth I to haue wrytten to my L. vpon the receipt of it and loe quoth I ye may see how I begaÌ„ and shewed him because we were then in my study the beginning of my letter and reasoned with him for declaration of my selfe and told him therwith I wil not spend quoth I many wordes w t you for I caÌ„ not alter this determination And yet in good faith quoth I my maner to you and this declaration may haue this effecte that I be gently handled in the prisone and for that purpose I pray you make sute on my behalfe Wynchester 〈◊〉 Wynchester committed 〈◊〉 the tower Maister Wingfield laide his hand on my shoulder and arested me in y e kings name for disobedience I asked them whether I shoulde They sayde to the Tower Finally I desired them that I might be spoken wyth shortly heard what I could say for my selfe and praied them to be suters in it and so they saide they would After y t I was once in the tower vntill it was within 6. dayes of one whole yere I could heare no maner word message comfort or relief sauing once when I was sicke and me thought some extremity towardes me my Chaplaine had licence to come to me for one time then denied againe being aunswered that my feuer was but a tertian which my said Chaplaine tolde me when he came to me at the Easter followinge and there beinge wyth me from the morning till night on Easter day departed and for no suâ—e could neuer haue him since To M. Lieftenant I made diuers sutes to prouoke the duke of Somersets grace to hear me And if I might haue the liberty of an English man I would plainly declare I had neither offended law statute acte proclamation nor his own letter neither but al wold not help I shal report me to M. LieftenaÌ„t whether in al this time I maligned grudged or vsed any vnsemely wordes euer demanding iustice to be heard according to iustice When I had bene thus in the tower one whole yeare within 6. daies or 7. as I remember The Lord Chauncellour and Secretary Peter commeth to Wynchester in the tower came to the Tower the Lord Chancellor of England now being the L. Treasurer and master Secretarye Peter who calling me vnto them as I remember entred this They sayde they hadde brought with them a booke passed by the parlament which they would I should looke on and say my minde to it and vpon my conformitie in it my Lord of Somerset would be suter to the kings maiestie for mercy to be ministred to me Wherunto I answered that I trusted if I might be heard the kings Maiesties iustice would releue me which I had longsued for and could not be heard And to sue for mercy quoth I when I haue not in my conscience offended and also to sue out of thys place Wynchester denyeth to sue for mercy wher asking of mercy emploieth a further suspition then I woulde be for all the worlde touched in it were not expedient And therefore quoth I not guiltie is and hath bene allowed a good plee for a prisoner Then my Lord sayd why quoth he were ye not commaunded to preache of the kings authoritie in his younge age yet did not I told him I was not commaunded Is not quoth he that Article in the papers yee had deliuered you I assured him no. And after communication of the kings Maiesties authority wherein was no disagrement Take betweene the Lord ChauÌ„cellour and Wynchester in the tower then my lord Chancellor said I had disobeied my Lordes graces letter I told him I thought not and if the matter came to iudgement it should appeare And then I sayd to him my Lord howe many open iniunctions vnder Seale and in open Courte haue bene broken in this Realme the punishment wherof hath not ben handled after this sort yet I would stande in defence y t I had not broken his letter waying the words of the letter wherein I reasoned with M. Peter Secretarie what a controuersie was and some part what I could say further But what so euer I canne saye quoth I you must iudge it and for the passion of God do it and then let me sue for mercy when the nature of the offence is known if I will haue it Wynchester will acknowledge no offence But when I am quoth I declared an offender I will with humilitie of suffering make amendes to the kings Maiestie so farre as I am able for I shoulde neuer
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
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
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
ridden 40. miles on horsebacke as their busines doth sometime require they should not be able to say at night that they sawe their horses all y e day but only the colour of theyr horsses and by hys reason Christe must go to schole learne of Aristotle to speake For when he saw Nathanaell vnder the fig tree if Aristotle had stand by he would haue said no Christe thou sawest not him but the colour of him After this Watson sayde what if it were graunted that Theodoret was on the other side whereas they had one of that opinion there were an hundred on the other side Then the Prolocutor called for M. Morgan to helpe and sayd Morgan is called for 〈◊〉 helpe at 〈◊〉 pinche that Theodoret did not more then he might lawfully do For first he graunted the truthe and then for feare of suche as were not fully instructed in the faythe he spake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is couertly and in a mysterie and thys was lawfull for him to do for first he graunted the trueth and called them the body of Christ bloud of Christ. Then afterward he seemed to geue somwhat to the sences and to reason but that Theodorete is of the same minde that they were of the words folowing quoth he do declare For that which followeth is a cause of that whiche went before and therefore he sayth The immortalitie c. Morgan is taken with false alleaâ—ging of thâ— texte Whereby it doth appeare that he meante the diuine nature not the humane Then was Morgan taken w t misalleging of the text For the booke had not this word for For the Greeke word did rather signify truly not for so that it mighte manifestly appeare that it was the beginning of a newe matter not a sentence rendring a cause of that he had sayd before Then was it said by Watson again suppose that Theodoret be wyth you whych is one that we neuer hearde 〈◊〉 printed but two or three yeres ago Yet he is but one and what is one against the whole consent of the church After this M. Cheyney inferred that not only Theodorete was of that minde that the substance of bread and wine doe remaine but diuers other also speciallye Irenaeus who making mention of this sacrament sayth thus when the cuppe whych is mingled with wine and the breade that is broken Irenaeus Lib. 5. contra Valenâ—â—um doe receiue the worde of God it is made the Euchariste of the bodye and bloude of Christ by the whiche the substaunce of our flesh is nourished and doeth consist If the thankes geuing doe nourish our body then ther is some substance besides Christes body To the which reason both Watson and Morgan aunsweared that Ex quibus By the whych Watson in the sentence of Irenaeus was referred to the next antecedent that is to the body and bloud of Christ and not to the wine which is in the cup and the bread that is broken Master Cheiney replied M. Cheynâ—â— that it was not the bodye of Christ which norished our bodies And let it be that Christes flesh norisheth to immortalitie yet it doth not answere that argument although it be true no more then that aunswere which was made to my allegation out of S. Paule The bread which we breake c. w t certaine other like whereunto you answered that bread was not taken there in hys proper signification but for that it had bene no more then the rod of Aaron which was taken for the serpent because it had beene a serpent After this M. Cheyney broughte in Hesechius Anno 1553. and vsed the same reason that hee did of the custome of burning of Symboles and hee asked them what was burnt Master Watson sayd we must not enquire nor aske but if there were any faulte impute it to Christ. Then sayde M. Cheiney whereof came those ashes not of a substance or can anye substance arise of accidents Then was M. Harpsfield called in to see what he could say in the matter Harpesfield calle◠〈◊〉 to helpe watson Who told a faire tale of the omnipotencie of God and of the imbecilitie and weaknesse of mans reasons not able to attaine to godly things And he sayde that it was conuenient whatsoeuer we sawe felt or tasted not to trust our sences And he tolde a tale out of S. Cyprian how a woman sawe the Sacrament burning in her cofer Here is goodly 〈◊〉 as if 〈◊〉 were out of the Legends of â—yes and that which burned there quoth Harpsfielde burneth heere and becoÌ„meth ashes But what that was that burnt he could not tell But M. Cheiney continued still and forced them with this question what it was that was burnt It was eyther sayde he the substance of breade or els the substaunce of the body of Christe which were too much absurditie to graunt At length they answeared that it was a miracle wherat M. Cheiney smiled and sayd that he could then say no more Then D. Weston asked of the company there whether those menne were sufficiently answeared or no Westâ—â— woulde know whether they were sufficiently answered when he and his had answered no argument Certaine Priestes cried Yea but they were not heard at all for the great multitude which cried No no. Which cry was heard and noised almost to the ende of Paules Whereat D. Weston being much mooued answered bitterly that hee asked not the iudgement of the rude multitude vnlearned people but of them which were of the house Then asked he of M. Haddon and his fellowes whether they woulde aunswere them other three dayes Haddon Cheiney and Elmar sayd No. But the Archdeacon of Winchester stoode vp and sayde that they should not say but they should be aunsweared and though all other did refuse to answer yet he would not M. Philpot. but offered to answere them all one after another Marke Westonâ— impudencie wyth whose profer the Prolocutor was not conteÌ„ted but raised on him and sayd that he should goe to Bedlem to whome the Archdeacon soberly made this answer that he was more worthy to be sent thether who vsed himselfe so ragingly in that disputation without any indifferent equalitie Then rose D. Weston vp and sayde All the company hath subscribed to our Article sauing only these men which you see A strong argument of Weston Where he is not able to answere he would out face What their reasons are you haue heard We haue answeared them 3. daies vppon promise as it pleased him to descaÌ„t wythout truth for no such promise was made that they should answer vs againe as long as the order of disputation doeth require and if they be able to defend theyr doctrine let them so doe Then M. Elmar stood vp prooued how vaine a man Weston was M. Elmers reason why they would not answer for hee affirmed that they neuer promised to dispute but only to open testifye to
remayneth that the natuâ—all vniâ—â—ng to Christes body commeth not by the bodely eating of the Sacrament vnto our body but to our soule so shall redounde at length vnto our bodyes naturally I prooue it thus As Christ liueth by the Father so lyue we by hys flesh eaten of vs But Christ liueth not by hys father onely by faith and loue but naturally Therfore we do not lyue by eating of Christs flesh only by faith and loue as you suppose but naturally Cran. The Minor is not true Tres. This is the opinion of Arrius that Christ is vnited to his father by coniunction of mynd and not naturally Cran. I say not so yet neither do I thinke so But I wil tel you what I like not in your Minor You say that Christ doth not liue by his father only by faith and loue but I say that Christ liueth not at all by his faith West Marke and consider well this word by faith least any occasion of cauilling be geuen Tres. Let that worde by faith he omitted Neither dyd I meane that Christ liueth by his father thorough faith Yet the strength of the Argument remayneth in force If that vnion of the substance of flesh should be graunted vnto our bodies then should our bodies neuer dye nor see corruption For els Hillary doth not conâ—ute y e Arrians except there be a greter coniunction betwene vs Christ when he is eaten of vs then only a spiritual coniunction You do only graunt a vnion As for a carnall or naturall vnion of the substance of flesh by which we are ioyned more then spiritually you do not grant But our lord Iesus geue you a better mind and shew you the light of his truth that you may returne into the way of righteousnesse West We came hether to dispute and not to pray Tres. Is it not lawfull to pray for them that erre West It is not lawfull yet But proceed Tres. Agayne I reason thus As Christ liueth by hys father after the same maner do we lyue by the eating of hys flesh But Christ liueth not by his father onely in vnitie of will The same argument againe repeated but naturally Ergo we do not lyue when we eate the flesh of Christ only by fayth and vnitie of will but naturally Cran. This is my faith and it agreeth with the scripture Christ liueth by his father naturally Aunswere maketh vs to lyue by himselfe in deede naturally and that not onely in the sacrament of the Eucharist but also in Baptisme For Infants when they are baptised do eate the flesh of Christ. Weston Aunswer eyther to the whole argument or to the partes therof For this argument is strong and cannot be dissolued Cran. This is the argument As Christ liueth by his father after the same maner do we lyue by his flesh The Archb. repeateth the argument beyng eaten of vs But Christ liueth not by his father onely in vnitie of will but naturally Ergo we eating his flesh do not lyue only by faith and loue but naturally But the Maior is false namely that by the same maner we liue by Christ as he liueth by his father West * Christ not after his manhood but after his diuine nature liueth naturally by his father which diuine nature of his worketh also in his manhoode an immortality So our spirite and soule receauing the naturall bodye of Christ in the misteries by fayth do receaue also the nature of his body that is his purenes iustificatioÌ„ lyfe the operation wherof redounding likewise vnto our bodyes doth make the same also capable of the same glory and immortality And thus it is true that as Christ liueth naturallye by his father so we liue naturally by the bodye of Christ eaten in the misteryes hauing respecte both to the manhood of him and of vs. For as the fleshe of Christ in respecte of bare fleshe liueth not naturally by the father but for that it is ioyned to his diuinity So our flesh liueth not naturally by Christs body eaten in the SacrameÌ„t for then euery wicked man eating the SacrameÌ„t should liue naturally by hym but for that our flesh is ioyned to the spirite and soule whiche truely eateth the bodye of Christe by fayth and so onely the bodyes of the faythfull doe lyue by eating the bodye of Christe naturally in particypatyng the naturall propertyes of the bodye of Christe Hillary sayth after the same manner vpon these words he that eateth my flesh shal lyue by me Ergo Christ liueth by his father and as he liueth by his father after the same maner we shall lyue by his fleshe Here you see that Hillary saith after the same maner Cran. After the same manner doth not signifie lyke in all things but in deed and eternally for so do we liue by Christ and Christ liueth by his father For in other respects Christ liueth otherwise by his father then wee lyue by Christ. West He liueth by his father naturally and eternally Ergo we liue by Christ naturally and eternally Cran. We do not liue naturally but by grace if you take naturally for the manner of nature As Christ hath eternall lyfe of hys Father so haue we of hym West I sticke to this word naturally Cran. I meane it touching the truth of nature For Christ liueth otherwise by his Father then we lyue by Christ. West Hillary in the 8. booke De Trinitate denieth it when he sayth he liueth therfore by his father and as he liueth by his Father Naturall expounded after the same manner we shall lyue by his flesh Cran. We shall lyue after the same maner as concerning the nature of the flesh of Christ for as he hath of his father the nature of eternitie so shall we haue of him West Answer vnto the partes of the Argument As Christ liueth by his father after the same manner shall we lyue by his flesh The argument the third tyme repeated But Christ doth not lyue by his father onely in vnitie of will but naturally Ergo we eating his flesh do not liue onely by faith and loue but naturally Cran. I graunt as I said we liue by Christ naturally but I neuer heard that Christ liueth with his Father in vnitie of will onely West Because it semeth a meruaile vnto you heare what Hillary sayth These things are recited of vs to this ende because the heretikes fayning an vnitie of wyll onely betweene the father and the sonne did vse the example of our vnity with godâ— as though that we beyng vnited to the sonne and by the sonne to the father onely by obedience and wyll of religion had no proprietie of the naturall communion by the sacrament of the body and bloud But answer to the argument Christ lyueth by his father naturally and eternally therfore do we liue by Christ naturally and eternally Cran. Cyrill and Hillary do say that Christ is vnited to vs not onely by will but also by nature
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
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