Acts and Monuments Volume 2 Part 1

The burning of one Collins at London.

NEither is here to be omitted the burning of one Collins, sometime a Lawyer & a Gentleman, which suffered the fire this year also in Smithfielde, anno. 1538. Whom although I do not here recite, as in the number of God's professed martyrs, yet neither do I think him to be clean sequestered from the company of the Lord's saved flock and family, notwithstanding that y ^e bish. of Rome's Church did condemn and burn him for an heretic: but rather do recount him therefore, as one belonging to the holy company of Saints. At leastwise this case of him and of his end may be thought to be such, as may well reprove and condemn their cruelty and madness, in burning so without all discretion, this man being mad and distract of his perfect wits, as he then was, by this occasion as here followeth.

This Gentleman had a wife of exceeding beauty and comeliness, but notwithstanding of so light behave our and unchaste conditions (nothing correspōdent to the grace of her beauty) that she forsaking her husband, which loved her entirely, betok herself unto another paramour. Which thing when he understood, he took it very grievously and heavily, more then reason would. At the last being overcome

Collins being beside his wits, seeing the Priest holding up the host over his head, & showing it to the people, he in like manner counterfeityng the Priest, took up a little dog by the legs, and held him over his head, showing him unto the people. For this he was by and by brought unto examination, and condemned to the fire, and was burned, and the dog with him, the same year of our Lord in the which John Lambert was burned. 1538.

*The burning of Cowbridge at Oxford. anno. 1538.

WIth this foresaid Collins, may also be adjoined the burning of Cowbridge, who likewise being mad, & beside his right senses, was either the same, or the next year following, condemned by Longland, Bishop of Lyncolne, and committed to the fire by him to be burnt at Oxford. What his opinions and Articles were, wherewith he was charged, it needeth not here to rehearse. For as he was then a man mad, and destitute of sense and reason, so his words and sayings could not be sound. Yea rather, what wise man would ever collect Articles against him, which said, he could not tell what? And if his Articles were so horrible and mad, as Cope in his Dialogues doth declare them, then was he in my judgment, a man more fit to be sent to Bethlehem, then to be had to the fire in Smithfield to be burned. For what reason is it to require reason of a creature mad or unreasonable, or to make heresy of the words of a senseless man, not knowing what he affirmed.

But this is the manner and property of this holy mother Church of Rome, that whatsoever cometh in their hands and inquisition, to the fire it must. There is no other way: neither pity that will move, nor excuse that will serve, nor age that they will spare, nor any respect almost that they consider: as by these two miserable examples both of Collins and Cowbridge, it may appear. Who rather should have been pitied, and all ways convenient sought, how to reduce the seely wretches into their right minds again, according as the true Pastors of Israel be commanded by the spirit of God, to seek again the things that be last, to bind up the things that be broken &c. and not so extremely to brust the things that be bruised before. But to ende with this matter of Cowbridge, whatsoever his madness was before, or how soever erroneous his Articles were (which for the fond fantasies of them, I do not express) yet as touching his end, this is certain, that in the midst of the flame, he lifting up his head to heaven, soberly and discretly called upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and so departed.

William Leiton and Puttedew Martyrs.

ABout the same time & year, or not much before, when John Lābert suffered at London, there was one Puttedew also condemned to the fire, about the parts of Suffolk, who coming into the Church, and meryly telling the Priest, that after he had drunk up all the wyne alone, he afterward blessed the hungry people with the empty Chalice, was for the same immediately apprehended, and shortly after burned, leaving to us an experiment. Quàm parum sit tutum ludere cum sanctis, as the old saying was then: but rather as we may see now. Quàm male tutum sit ludere cum impijs.

The other, Williā Leyton, was a Mōke of Aye, in the County of Suffolk & was burned at Norwich, for speaking against a certain Idole, which was accustomed to be carried about the Processions at Aye: & also for holding that the Sacramental Supper ought to be administered in both kinds, about the year and time aforesaid.

The burning of one Peke at Ipswich.

IN the burning of another Suffolk man, named N. Peke dwelling sometime at Earlestonh • , and burnt at Ipswich, somewhat before the burning of these aforesaid thus I find it recorded and testified: That when as he being fast bound to a stake, and Furse set on fire round about him, was so scor • hed, that he was as black as soote, one Doctor Redyng there standing before him, with Doctor Heyre and Doct. Springwell, having a long white, wande in his hand, did knock him upon the right shoulder, and said, Peke, recant, and believe that the Sacrament of the alter, is the very body of Christ, flesh, blood, and bone, after that the Priest hath spoken the words of Consecration over it, and here have I in my hand to absolve thee for thy misbelief that hath ben in thee, having a scroll of paper in his hand. When he had spoken these words, Peke answered, and said, I defy it and thee also, & with a great violence he spit from him very blood, which came by reason y ^t his vaynes brake in his body for extreme anguish. And when the said Peke had so spoken, then D. Reding said: To as many as shall cast a stick to the burning of this heretic, is granted fortye days of pardon by my Lord Bishop of Norwich. Then Barn Curson, Sir John Audley Knight, with many others of estimation being there present, did rise from their seats, and with their swords did cut down boughs, and throw them into the fire, and so did all the multitude of the people.

In the year last before this, which was of the Lord. 1537. it was declared how Pope Paul the third indicted a general Council to be holden at Mantua. Whereunto the king of England among other Princes being called, refused either to come or to send at the Popes call, and for defense of himself, directed out a public Apology or Protestation, rendering just and sufficient matter, why neither he would, nor was bound to obey the Popes commandment. Which Protestation is before to be read, page. 1084. This Council appointed to begin the 23. day of Maye, the year aforesaid, was then stopped by the Duke of Mantua, pretending that he would suffer no Council there, unless the Pope would fortify the City with a sufficient army, &c. For which cause the Pope proroged the said Council, to be celebrate in the month of November following, appointing at y ^e first no certain place. At length named and determined the city of Uincence (lyeng within the dominion of the Uenetians) to be the place for the Council▪ Whereunto when the King (the year next following, which is this present year of the Lord 1538.) was requested by the Emperor and other states, to resort either himself, or to send: he again refusing (as he did before) sendeth this Protestation in way of defense and answer for himself, to the Emperor and other Christian princes: the copy and effect whereof here under followeth, and is this.

Henry the eight by the grace of God, King of England and France, &c. saluteth the Emperor, Christian princes, and all true Christian men, desiring peace and concord amongst them.

WHereas not long sithens, a book came forth in our and all our Counsels names, which contained many causes why we refused the Council, then by the Bishop of Rome's usurped power first indicted at Mantua, to be kept the xxiij. day of May, after proroged to November, no place appointed where it should be kept, and whereas the same book doth sufficiently prove, that our cause could take no hurt, neither with anything done or decreed in such a company of addict men to one sect, nor in any other Council called by his usurped power: we think it nothing necessary so oft to make new protestations, as the Bishop of Rome and his Courts by suttletie and craft, do invent ways to mock the world, by new pretensed general Councils. Yet notwithstanding, because that some things have now occurred, either upon occasion given us by change of the place, or else through other considerations, which now being known to the world, may do much good, we thought we should do but even as that love enforceth us, which we owe unto Christ's faith and religion, to add this Epistle. And yet we protest, that we neither put forth that book, neither yet we would this Epistle to be set afore it, that thereby we should seem less to desire a general Council, then any other Prince or Potentate, but rather to be more desirous of it, so it were free for all partes, and universal. And further, we desire all good Princes, Potentates, and people, to esteem and think that no Prince would more willingly be present at such a Council then we: such a one we mean, as we speak of in our protestation made concerning the Council of Mantua.

Truly as our forefathers invented nothing more holier then general Councils, used as they ought to be, so there is almost nothing that may do more hurt to y ^e Christian common wealth, to y ^e faith, to our religion, then general Councils, if they be abused to lucre, to gains, to y ^e establishment of errors. They be called general, and even by their name do admonish us, that all Christian mē which do dissent in any opinion, may in thē openly, frankly, & without fear of punishment or displeasure, say their mind. For seeing such things as are decreed in general Councils, touche equally all men that give assent thereunto, it is meet that every man may boldly say there, that he thinketh. And verily we suppose, that it ought not to be called a general Council, where alonely those men are heard, which are determined forever, in all pointes, to defend the Popish parte, and to arm themselves to fight in the Bishop of Rome's quarrel, though it were against God and his Scriptures. It is no general Council, neither it ought to be called general, where the same men be only Advocates and adversaries: the same accused and judges. No it is against the law of nature, either that we should condescend to so unreasonable a law against our selves, either that we should suffer our selves to be left without all defense, and being oppressed with greatest injuries, to have no refuge to succor our selves at. The Bishop of Rome and his, be our great enemies, as we and all the world may well perceive by his doings.

He desireth nothing more then our hurt, and the destruction of our Realm: Do not we then violate the judgment of nature, if we give him power and authority to be our Judge? His pretended honor first gotten by superstition, after increased by violence, & other ways as evil as that: his power set up by pretence of religion, in deed both against religion, and also contrary to the word of God: his primacy borne by the ignorancie of the world, nourished by the ambition of Bishops of Rome, defended by places of Scripture falsely understand: these three things (we say) which are fallen with us, and are like to fall in other Realms shortly, shall they not be established again, if he may decide our cause as him lusteth? if he may at his pleasure oppress a cause most righteous, and set up his, most against truth? Certainly he is very blind, that seeth not, what ende we may look for of our controversies, if such our enemy may give the sentence.

We desire, if it were in any wise possible, a Council, where some hope may be, that those things shall be restored, which now being deprauate, are like (if they be not amended) to be the utter ruin of Christian Religion. And as we do desire such a Council, and think it meet that all men in all their prayers should desire & crave it of God: even so we think it pertaineth unto our office, to provide both that these Popish subtleties hurt none of our subjects, and also to admonish other Christian Princes, that the Bishop of Rome may not by their consent, abuse the authority of kings, either by the extinguishing of the true preaching of Scripture (that now beginneth to spring, to grow, and spread abroad) either to the troubling of Princes liberties, to the diminishing of Kings authorities, and to the great blemish of their princely majesty. We doubt nothing but a Reader not parciall, will soon approve such things as we here write, not so much for our excuse, as that the world may perceive both the sundry deceits, crafts, and subtleties of the papists, & also how much we desire that controversies in religion may once be taken away.

All that we said there of Mantua, may here well be spoken of Uincence. They do almost agree in all points. Neither is it like, that there will be anymore at this council at Uincence, then were the last yere at Mantua. Truly he is worthy to be deceived, y ^t being twice mocked, will not beware the third time. If any this last year made forth toward Mantua, and being half on their way, then perceived that they had taken upon them that journey in vain, we do not think them so foolish, that they will here after ride far out of town to be mocked. The time also and the state of things is such, that matters of Religion may rather now be brought further in trouble (as other things are) thē be commodiously entreated of and decided. For whereas in manner the whole world is after such sort troubled with wars, so incombred with the great preparations that the Turk maketh, can there be any man so against the settling of religion, that he will think this time meet for a general Council? Undoubtedly it is mere that such controversies as we have with the Bishop of Rome, be taken as they are, that is, much greater then that they may either be discussed in this so troublesome a time, or else be committed unto proctors, without our great jeopardy, albeit the time were never so quiet.

What other princes will do, we cannot tell: but we will neither leave our realm at this time, neither will we trust any Proctor with our cause, wherein the whole stay and wealth of our Realm standeth, but rather we will be at the handling thereof our self. For except both another Judge be agreed upon for those matters, and also a place more commodious be provided for the debating of our causes, albeit all other things were as we would have them, yet may we lawfully refuse to come or send any to this pretended Council. We will in no case make him our arbeter, which not many years past, our cause not heard, gave sentence against us. We will that such doctrine, as we following y ^e Scripture, do profess, be rightly examined, discussed, and brought to the Scripture, as to the only touchstone of true learning.

We will not suffer them to be abolished, ere ever they be dicussed, ne to be oppressed, before they be known: much less we will suffer them to be trodden down being so clearly true. No, as there is no jot in Scripture, but we will defend it, though it were with jeopardy of our life, and peril of this our Realm: so is there nothing that doth oppress this doctrine, or obscure it, but we will be at continual war through ^t . As we have abrogated all old popish traditions in this our Realm, which either did help his tyranny, or increase his pride: so if the grace of God forsake us not, we will well foresee, that no new naughty traditions be made with our consent, to blind us or our Realm.

If mē will not be willingly blind, they shall easily see even by a due and evident proof in reason, though grace doth not yet by the word of Christ enter into them, how small the authority of the Bishop of Rome is, by the lawful denial of the Duke of Mantua for the place. For if the Bishop of Rome did earnestly intend to keep a Council at Mantua, and hath power by the law of God, to call Princes to what place him liketh: why hath he not also authority to choose what him listeth: The Bishop chose Mantua: the Duke kept him out of it. If Paul the Bishop of Rome's authority be so great as he pretendeth, why could he not compel Fridericus the Duke of Mantua, that the Council might be kept there? The Duke would not suffer it. No, he forbad him his town.

How chanceth it, that here excommunications flee not abroad? Why doth he not punish this Duke? Why is his power, that was wont to be more then full, here empty? wont to be more then all, here nothing? Doth he not call men in vain to a Council, if they that come at his calling be excluded the place, to the which he calleth them? May not kings justly refuse to come at his call, when the Duke of Mantua may deny him the place that he chooseth? If other Princes order him as the Duke of Mantua hath done, what place shall be left him, where he may keep his general Council?

Agayne, if Princes have given him this authority to call a council, is it not necessary, that they give him also all those things, without the which he cannot exercise that his power? Shall he call men, and will ye let him to find no place to call them unto? Truly he is not wont to appoint one of his own cities, a place to keep the Council in. No, the good man is so faithful and friendly toward other, that seldom he desireth Princes to be his gestes.

And admit he should call us to one of his Cittyes, should we safely walk within the walls of such our enemies town? Were it meet for us there to discuss controversies of Religion, or to keep us out of our enemies traps? meet to study for the defense of such doctrine as we profess, or rather how we might in such a throng of perilles be in safeguard of our life? Well, in this one art the Bishop of Rome hath declared, that he hath none authority upon places in other men's dominions, and therefore if he promise a Coūsel in any of those, he promiseth that, that is in another man to perform, and so may he deceive us again.

Now if he cal us to one of his own towns, we be afraid to be at such an hosts table. We say, better to rise an hungered, then to go thence with our bellies full. But they say, the place is found, we need no more to seek where the Council shall be kept. As who saith, that that chanced at Mantua, may not also chance at Uincence: and as though it were very like, that the Uenecians, men of such wisdom, should not both foresee, and fear also, that the wise Duke of Mantua seemed to fear. Certes, when we think upon the state that the Uenecians be in now, it seemeth no very likely thing, that they will either leave Uincence their City to so many Nations, without some great garrison of soldiers, or else that they being else where so sore charged already, will now nourish an army there?

And if they would, do • h not Paul himself grant that it should be an evil President, & an evil example to have an armed Council?

Howe so ever it shall be, we most heartily desire you, that ye will vouchsafe to read those things that we wrote this last year, touching the Mantuan Council. For we nothing doubt, but you, of your equity, will stand on our side against their subtlety and frauds, and judge (except we be deceived) that we in this business, neither gave so much to our affections, neither without great and most just causes, refused their Councelles, their Censures, and Decrees.

Whether these our writings please all men, or no, we think we ought not to pass much. No, if that which indifferently is written of us, may please indifferent readers, our desire is accomplished. The false and mistaking of things by men parciall shall move us nothing, or else very little. If we have said ought against the deceits of the Bishop of Rome, that may seem spoken too sharply, we pray you, impute it to the hatred we bear unto vices, and not to any evil will that we bear him. No, that he and all his may perceive that we are rather at strife with his vices, then with him and his: our prayer is, that it may please God, at the last to open their eyes, to make soft their hard hearts, and that they once may with us (their own glory set apart) study to set forth the everlasting glory of the everlasting God.

Thus mighty Emperor, fare you most heartily well, and ye Christian Princes the pillars, and stay of Christendom, fare ye heartily well. Also all ye, what people so ever ye are, which do desire that the gospel, and glory of Christ may flourish, fare ye heartily well.

As the Lord of his goodness hath raised up Thomas Cromwell to be a friend and patron to the Gospel: so on the contrary side Satan (which is adversary, and enemy to all good things) had his organe also, which was Stephen Gardener, by all wyles and subtle means to impeach and to put back the same. Who after he had brought his purpose to pass, in burning good John Lambert (as ye have heard) proceeding still in his crafts and wyles, and thinking under the name of heresies, sects, Anabaptists, & sacramentaris, to exterminate all good books, and faithful professors of God's word out of England, so wrought with the king, that the next year following, which was of our Lord. 1539. he gave out these Injunctions, y ^e copy and contents whereof I though here also not to be pretermitted, and are these.

*Certain other Injunctions set forth by the authority of the King, against English books, sects, and Sacramentaries also, with putting down the day of Thomas Becket.

FIrst, that none without special license of y ^e king, transporte, or bring from outward parties into England, any manner of English books, neither yet sell, give, utter, or publish any such, upon pain to forfeyte all their good and cattelles, and their bodies to be imprisoned, so long as it shall please the kings majesty.

Item, that none shall print, or bring over any English books with annotations or Prologues, unless such books before he examined by the kings privy Counsel, or others appointed by his highness, and yet not to put thereto these words: Cum priuilegio Regali, w ^t out adding, Ad imprimendum solum: neither yet to print it, without the kings privilege be printed therewith in the English tongue, that all men may read it. Neither shall they print any translated book, without the plain name of the translator be in it, or else the printer to be made the translator, and to suffer the fine and punishment thereof at the kings pleasure.

Item, that none of the occupation of Printing shall within the Realm, print, utter, sell, or cause to be published any English books of Scripture, unless the same be first viewed, examined, and admitted by the kings highness, or one of his privy Counsel, or one Bishop with •• the Realm, whose name shall therein be expressed, upon pain of the kings most high displeasure, the loss of their goods and cattels, and prisonment, so long as it shall please the king.

Item, those that be in any errors, as Sacramentaries, Anabaptists, or any other, or any that sell books, having such opinions in them, being once known, both the books and such persons shall be detected and disclosed immediately unto the kings Majesty, or one of his priuye Counsel, to the intent to have it punished without favor, even with the extremity of the law.

Item, that none of the kings subjects shall reason, dispute, or argue upon the sacrament of the altar, upon pain of losing their lives, goods and cattels, without all favor, only these excepted that be learned in Diuinitye: they to have their liberty in their schools and appointed places, accustomed for such matters.

Item, that holy bread and holy water, procession, kneeling, and creeping on good Friday to the cross and Easter day, setting up of lights before the Corpus Christi, bearing of candles on Candlemas day, Purification of women delivered of child, offering of Crisomes, keeping of the four offering days, paying their tithes, and such like ceremonies must be observed & kept, till it shall please the king to change or abrogate any of them. This article was made for that the people was not quieted and contented (many of them) with the ceremonies then used.

Finally, all those Priests that be married, and openly known to have their wives, or that hereafter do intend to marry, shall be deprived of all Spiritual promotion, & from doing any duty of a Priest, and shall have no manner of office, dignity, cure, privilege, profit, or commodity in anything appertaining to the Clergy, but from thence forth shall be taken, had, and reputed as lay persons, to all purposes and intents: and those that shall after this proclamation marry, shall run in his graces indignatō, and suffer punishment and imprisonment at his graces will & pleasure.

Item, he chargeth all Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, Deacons, Prouostes, Parsons, Uicars, Curates, & other Ministers, and every of them in their own persons, within their cures diligently to preach, teach, open, and set forth to the people, the glory of God, & truth of his word: and also considering the abuses & superstitions that have crept into the hearts and stomachs of many, by reason of their fond ceremonies, he chargeth them upon pain of imprisonment at his graces pleasure, not only to preach and teach the word of God accordingly, but also sincerely and purely, declaring the difference between things commanded by God, and the • ites and ceremonies in their church then used, least the people thereby might grow into further superstition.

Item, for as much as it appeareth now clearly, that Thomas Becket sometime Archbishop of Canterbury, stubbernely withstanding the wholesome laws established against the enormityes of the Clergy, by the kings highness noble Progenitour King Henry the second, for the common wealth, rest, and tranquility of this Realm, of his froward mind fled the Realm into France, and to the Bishop of Rome, maynteyner of those enormityes, to procure the abrogation of the said Laws, (whereby arose much trouble in this said Realm) and that his death which they untruly called Martyrdom, happened upon a rescue by him made, and that (as it is written) he gave opprobrious words to the Gentlemen, which then counseled him to leave his stubbernenesse, and to avoid the commotion of the people risen up for that rescue, and he not only called the one of them bawde, but also took Tracie by the bosom, and violently shook him, and plucked him in such manner, that he had almost overthrown him to the pavement of the church, so that upon this fray, one of their company perceiving the same, strake him, and so in the thronge Becket was slain: and further, that his canonization was made only by the Bishop of Rome, because he had been a champion to maintain his usurped authority, and a bearer of the iniquity of the Clergy.

For these and for other great and urgent causes long to recite, the kings Majesty by the advise of his Counsel, hath thought expedient to declare to his loving subjects, that notwithstanding the said canonization, there appeareth nothing in his life and exterior conversation, whereby he should be called a Saint, but rather esteemed to have been a rebel and traitor to his Prince.

Therefore his grace straytly chargeth and commandeth, that from henceforth the said Thomas Becket shall not be esteemed, named, reputed, and called a Saint, but Bishop Becket, and that his Images and Pictures thorough the whole Realm shall be plucked down and avoided out of all Churches, Chapels, and other places, and that from henceforth the days used to be festival in his name, shall not be observed, nor the service, office, Antiphons, Collectes, & prayers in his name read, but rased & put out of all the books: & that all their festival days already abrogated, shall be in no wise solemnized, but his graces ordinances, and injunctions thereupon observed, to the intent his graces loving subjects shall be no longer blindly led & abused to commit Idolatry, as they have done in times passed, vpō pain of his maiestyes indignation, & imprisōmeant at his graces pleasure▪

Finally his grace straightly chargeth and commandeth that his subjects do keep and observe all and singular his injunctions made by his majesty, upon the pain therein contained.

Here followeth how religion began to go backward.

TO many which be yet alive, & can testify these things, it is not unknown, how variable the state of Religiō stood in these days: how hardly and with what difficulty it came forth: what chaunces and changes it suffered. Even as y ^e king was ruled and gave • are sometime to one, some time to another, so one while it went forward, at another season as much backward again, and sometime clea • altered & changed for a season, according as they could prevail which were about the king. So long as Queen Anne lived, the Gospel had indifferent success.

After that she, by sinister instigation of some about the king was made away, the cause of the gospel began again to incline, but that the Lord then stirred up y ^e Lord Cromwell, oportunely to help in that behalf. Who, no doubt did much avail for the increase of God's true Religion, & much more, had brought to perfection, if the pestilent adversaries maligning the prosperous glory of the Gospel, by contrary practicing had not craftily undermined him and supplanted his virtuous proceedings. By the means of which adversaries it came to pass after the taking away of the said Cromwell, that the state of Religion more and more decayed, during all the residue of the reign of king Henry.

Among these adversaries above mentioned, y ^e chief captain was Stephen Gardener bishop of Wint. who with his confederates and adherents, disdaining at the state of the L. Cromwell, and at the late marriage of the Lady Anne of Cleue (who in the beginning of the yere of our Lord. 1540. was married to the king) as also grieved partly at the dissolution of the Monasteries, and fearing the growing of the Gospel, sought all occasions how to interrupt these happy beginnings, and to train the king to their own purpose. Now what occasion this wilye Winchester found out to work upon, ye shall hear in order as followeth.

It happened the same time that the Lord Cromwell for the better establishing of sincere religion in this realm, devised a marriage for y ^e king to be concluded between him & the Lady Anne of Cleue, whose other sister was already married unto the duke of Saxony. By this marriage it was supposed that a perpetual league, amity, and ally should be nourished between this realm and the princes of Germany, & so thereby godly religion might be made more strong on both parts against the bishop of Rome, and his tyrannical religion. But the devil ever envying the prosperity of the gospel, laid a stumbling block in that clear way, for the king to stumble at. For when the parents of the noble lady were commoned withal for the furtherance of y ^e said marriage, among others of her friends, whose good will was required, y ^e duke of Saxony her brother in law misliked y ^e marriage, partly for that he would have had her bestowed upon some prince of Germany more nigh unto her sister, & partly for other causes, which he thoght reasonable. Wherupon it followeth that the slackness of the Duke in that behalf being espied, crafty Winchester taking good holdfast theron, so alienated the kings mind from the amity, that seemed now to begin and grow between the Duke and the king, that by the occasion thereof, he brought the king at length clean out of credit with that religiō and doctrine, which the duke had then maintained many years before.

Thus wily Winchester with his crafty fetches partly upon this occasion aforesaid, & partly also by other pestilent perswations creping into the kings ears ceased not to seek all means how to work his feat & to overthrow Religion, first bringing him in hatred with the Germane Princes, then putting him in fear of the Emperor, of the French king, of the Pope, of the king of Scots, and other foreign powers to rise against him, but especially of Ciuil tumults & commotions here within this realm (which above all things he most dreaded) by reason of innovation of religiō and dissolving of Abbeys: and for abolishing of rites, and other customs of the Church, sticking so fast in the minds of the people, that it was to be feared, least their hearts were or would be shortly stirred up against him, unless some spedy remedy were to the contrary provided: declaring moreover what a dangerous matter in a common wealth it is to attempt new alterations of anything, but especially of Religion. Which being so, he exhorted the king for his own safeguard and public quiet and tranquility of his realm, to see betime how and by what policy these so manifold mischiefs might be prevented. Agaynst which no other way nor shift could better be devised, then if he would show himself sharp and severe against these new Sectaryes, Anabaptists, & Sacramētaries (as they called them) & would also set forth such Articles, confirming the ancient & Catholic faith, as whereby he might recover again his credence with Christian Princes, and whereby all the world besides, might see and judge him to be a right and perfect Catholic. By these & such like crafty suggestions, the king being to much seduced and abused, began to withdraw his defense from the reformation of true Religion, supposing thereby to procure to himself more safety both in his own realm, and also to avoid such dangers, which otherwise might happen by other Princes, especially seeing of late he had refused to come to the general Council at Uincence, being thereto invited both by the Emperor, & other foreign potētates, as ye have heard before. And therefore, although he had rejected the Pope out of this Realm, yet because he would declare himself nevertheless to be a good Catholic son of the mother Church, and a withstander of new innovations and heresies (as the blind opinion of the world did then esteem them) first he stretched out his hand to the condemning and burning of Lambert, then after he gave out those Injunctions above prefixed: & now further to increase this opinion with all men, in the year next following, which was of the Lord. 540. through the devise and practice of certain of the Popes factors about him, he sūmoned a solemn Parliament to be holden at Westminster the 28. day of April, of all the states and Burgeses of the Realm: Also a Synod or convocation of all the Archbishops, Bishops, and other learned of the Clergy of this Realm to be in like manner assembled.

The Acte of the vi. Articles.

In which Parliament Synod, or convocation, certain Articles, maters and questions, touching religiō, were decreed by certain prelates, to the mumber especially of 6. commonly called the 6. Articles (or the whip with 6. stringes) to be had & received among the kings subjects in pretence of unity. But what unity thereof followed, y ^e groaning harts of a great number, and also the cruel death of diverse both in the days of K. Henry, & of Queen Mary, can so well declare, as I pray God, never the like be felt hereafter.

The doctrine of these wicked articles in the bloody act contained, although it be worthy of no memory amongst christen men, but rather deserveth to be buried in perpetual oblivion, yet for that the office of history, compelleth us thereunto, for the more light of posterity to come: faithfully and truly to comprise things done in the church, as well one as another, this shall be briefly to recapitulate y ^e sum & effect of the foresaid 6. articles, in order as they were given out, and hereunder do follow.

The penalties upon the 6, Articles.

That if any person or persons within this Realm of England, or any other the kings dominions, after the xii. day of July next coming by word, writing, imprinting, ciphring, or any otherwise, should publish, preach, teach, say affirm, declare, dispute, argue or hold any opinion, that in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, under form of bread and wine (after the consecration thereof) there is not present really, the natural body and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, conceived of the virgin Mary, or that after the said consecration, there remaineth any substance of bread or wine, or any other substance but the substance of Christ, god and mā, or after the time abovesaid, publish, preach, teach, say, affirm, declare, dispute, argue, or hold opinion, that in y ^e flesh, vnderforme of bread, is not the very blood of christ or that with the blood of Christ, under the form of wine, is not the very flesh of Christ, as well apart, as though they were both together: or by any of y ^e means abovesaid or otherwise, preach, teach, declare, or affirm the said sacrament to be of other substance then is abovesaid, or by any mean contemn, deprave, or despise the said blessed sacrament: that then every such person, so offēding their aiders comforters, counselors, consenters and ab • eters therein (being thereof convicted in form under written, by the authority abovesaid) should be deemed and adjudged heretics, and every of such offense should be adjudged manifest heresy: & that every such offender and offenders, should therefore have & suffer judgment, execution, pain & pains of death, by way of burning, without any abiuratiō, benefit of the clergy, or Sanctuary, to be therefore permitted, had, allowed, admitted or suffered: and also should therefore forfeit and loose to the kings highness, his airs and successors, all his or their honors, manors, castles, lands tenements, rentes, reversions, services, possessions, & all other his or their hereditaments, goods and cattle, terms and freeholdes, whatsoever they were, which any such offense or offenses, committed or done, or at any time after, as in any cases of high treason.

The penalty of the last v. Articles.

And as touching the other v. articles following, the penalty devised for them, was this: That every such person or persons, which do preach, teach, obstinately affirm, uphold, maintain or defend, after the 12. day of July, the said year anything contrary to the same, or if any being in orders or after a vow advisedly made did mary, or make marriage, or contract matrimony, in so doing should be adjudged as felones, and lose both life, and forfeit goods, as in case of felony, without any benefit of the clergy, or privilege of the Church or of Sanctuary &c.

Item, that every such person or persons, which after y ^e day aforesaid, by word, writing, printing, cyphring, or otherwise, did publish, declare, or hold opinion contrary to the 5. articles above expressed, being for any such offense duly convict or attainted, for the first time, besides the forfayt of all his goods and cattle and possessions what so ever, should suffer imprisonment of his body at the kings pleasure: & for the second time, being accused, presented, & thereof convict, should suffer, as in case aforesaid of felony.

Item, if any within order of pristhood, before the time of the said Parliament, had married or contracted Matrimony, or vowed widowhead, the said matrimony should stand utterly void and be dissolved.

Item, that the same danger that belonged to priests marrying their wives, should also redound to the womē married unto the Priests.

Furthermore, for the more effectual execution of the premises, it was enacted by the said Parliament, that full authority of Inquisition of all such heresies, fellonies and contemptes, should be committed and directed down into every shyre, to certain persons specially thereunto appointed: of the which persons three at least (provided always the Archbishop or bishop, or his Chancellor, or his Commissary to be one) should sit four times at least, in the year, having full power to take information & accusation by the depositions of any two lawful persons at the least, as well as by the oaths of xii. men, to examine and inquire of all and singular the heresies, fellonyes and contempts above remembered, having also as ample power to make process against every person or persons indicted, presented, or accused before them: also to hear & determine the foresaid heresies, fellonyes, contempts and other offenses, as well as if the mater had been presented before the Justices of peace in their Sessions: And also that the said Justices in their Sessions, & every Steward or vndersteward, or his Deputy in their law days, should have power by y ^e oaths of xii. lawful men to inquire likewise of all & singular the heresies, fellonyes, contemptes and other offenses, and to hear and determine the same, to all effects of this present Acte. &c.

Provided withal that no person nor persons therupō accused, indicted, or presented, should be admitted to challenge any that should be enpanelled for the trial of any matter or cause, other thē for malice or envy: which challenge should forthwith be tried in like manner, as in cases of felony. &c.

Provided moreover that every person that should be named Commissioner in this inquisition, should first take a corporal oth, the tenor of which oth here ensueth.

*The oth of the Commissioners.

YE shall swear, that ye to your cunning, wit and power, shall truly and indifferently execute the authority to you given by the kings Commission, made for correction of heretics & other offenders, mentioned in the same Commission without any favor, affection, corruption: dread or malice, to be borne to any person or persons, as God you help, and all Saints▪

And thus much briefly collected out of the act and Originals, which more largely are to be seen in y ^e statute an. 31 Reg. Henr. 8. concerning the six Articles, which otherwise for the bloody cruelty thereof are called the whip with six stringes, set forth after the death of Queen Anne, and of good John Lambert, devised by the cruelty of y ^e Bishops. but specially of the Bishop of Wint. and at length also subscribed by K. Henry. But herein, as in many other parts moe, the crafty policy of that Bishop appeared, who like a lurking Serpent, most slyly watching his time, if he had not taken the king coming out upon a soddayne, there where it was (I spare here to report as I heard it) it was thought and affirmed by certain, which then were pertaining to the king, that Winchester had not obtained y ^e matter so easily to be subscribed as he did.

These six Articles above specified, although they contained manifest errors, heresies, and absurdities against all Scripture and learning (as all men having any judgment in God's word may plainly understand) yet such was the miserable adversity of that time & the power of darkness, that the simple cause of truth and of religion, was utterly left desolate and forsakē of all friends. For every man seeing the kings mind so fully addict upon politic respects to have these articles to pass forward, few or none in all that Parliament would appear, which either could perceive that was to be defended, or durst defend that they understood to be true, save only Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, who then being married (as is supposed) like a constant Patron of God's cause, took upon him the earnest defense of the truth oppressed in the Parliament, three days together disputing against those six wicked articles, bringing forth such allegations and authorities, as might easily have helped the cause nisi pars major vic • sset, vt saepe solet, meliorem. Who in the said disputation, behaved himself with such humble modesty, and with such obedience in words toward his Prince, protesting the cause not to be his, but the cause of almighty God, that neither his enterprise was misliked of the king, & again his reasons and allegations were so strong, that well they could not be refuted. Wherefore the king (whoever bare special favor unto him) well liking his zealous defense, only willed him to depart out of the Parliament house, into the Council Chamber, for a time (for safeguard of his conscience) til the Acte should pass and be granted: which he notwithstanding, with humble protestation refused to do.

After the Parliament was finished & that matter concluded, the king considering the constant zeal of the Archbishop, in defense of his cause, and partly also weighing y ^e many authorities, & reasons whereby he had substantially confirmed the same, sent the Lord Cromwell (which w ^t in few days after was apprehended) the ii. dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, and all the Lord's of the Parliament, to dine with him at Lambeth, where they signified unto him that it was the kings pleasure that they all should in his hignes behalf, cherish, comfort & animate him, as one that for his travel in that parliament had declared him self both greatly learned, and also a man descreet & wise, and therefore they willed him not to be discouraged in anything that was passed in that Parliament contrary to his allegations. He most humbly thanked first y ^e kings highness, of his singular good affection towards him, and them all for their pains, adding moreover, that he so hoped in God that hereafter his allegations and authorities should take place, to the glory of god, & commodity of the realm. Which allegations and authorities of his, I wish were amongst us extant to be seen and read, no doubt but they would stand in time to come in great good stead, for y ^e over throw of the wicked and pernicious Articles aforesaid.

Allegations against the vi. Articles.

IN the mean while for so much as the said heretical articles are not so lightly to be passed over, whereby y ^e rude & ignorant multitude hereafter may be deceived in the false & erroneous doctrine of them anymore, as they have been in times past, for lack of right instructiō, and experience of the ancient state, & course of times in our fore elders days I thought therefore (the Lord thereunto assisting) so much as antiquity of stories may help to the restoring again of truth and doctrine decayed, to annex hereunto some allegations out of ancient records, which may give some light to the convincing of these newfangled Articles and heresies above touched.

And first as touching the Article of transubstantiation wherein this Parliament doth enact that the Sacrament of the Altar is the very natural body of Christ the self same which was borne of the virgin Mary: and that in such sort as there remaineth no substance of bread & wine, after the Priests consecration, but only the body & blood of Christ, under the outward forms of bread and wine: First here is to be noted, that this monstrous article of theirs, in that form of words as in standeth, was never obtruded, received, or holden either in the Greek Church, or in the Latin Church universally for a Catholic, that is, for a general opinion or article of doctrine, before y ^e time of the Lateran Counsel at Rome, under Pope Innocent the 3. an. 1216.

And for so much as it hath been a common persuasiō amongst the most sort of people, that this article in y ^e form of words as here standeth is & hath been, ever since Christ his time, a true Catholic, & general doctrine, commonly received and taught in the Church, being approved by the Scriptures and doctors, and consent of all ages unto this present time. To the intent therefore that the contrary may appere, & the people may see how far they have herein been beguiled: we will here (Christ willing) make a little stay in our story, & examine this foresaid article by true antiquity and course of histories, to try whether it be a doctrine old or new.

Now therefore, for y ^e better discussing of y ^e matter, let us first orderly and distinctly advise the words of the Article, the contents of which Article consist in 2 parts or menbers. In the first whereof is noted to us a presence of a thing which there was not before. In the second is noted a privation or absence of a thing which there before was present.

The presence is noted by these words of the Article where is said, that in the blessed Sacrament, by the words pronounced, is present the natural body and blood of our Savior, under y ^e forms of bread and wine: so that in these words, both the sacrament, & the natural body is imported necessarily to be present. For else, how can y ^e natural body of Christ be present in the Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, if the Sacrament there were not present it self? or how can a thing be said to be in that, which is not there? Wherefore, by these words, both the Sacrament and also the body must necessarily have their being 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 faith and mouth of the soul.

And therefore touching these prepositions in this Article (In) and (Under) if question be asked in what is the body of Christ, it may be well answered, in the Sacrament to the eyes of our faith, like as the outward sacrament is also present to the outward eyes of the body. Agayne, if the question be asked under what is the body of Christ? it may be well answered, under the forms of bread, and wine, so as the Doctors did take the form •• , to mean the outward elements and natures of the Sacrament, and not the accidences.

And thus, to the first part of the article being well expounded, we do assent, and confess the same to have been the true Catholic opinion approved by the ancient Doctors and consent of all times, even from the first institutiō 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 their own article. Secondly, that it standeth not with the doctrine of Scripture. Thirdly, that it standeth not with antiquity, but is merely a late i ••• ention.

And first that it agreeth not with their own Article, it is manifest. For whereas in the former part of their article, they say that the natural body of Christ is present in the blessed Sacrament, under the forms of bread & wine, how can the natural body of Christ be present in the Sacrament, if there remain no sacrament? or howe can any sacrament of y ^e body remain, if there remain no substance of bread which should make the sacrament? For how can the body of Christ be in that thing, which is not? or how cā the sacrament of the body have any being, where the substance of bread hath no being.

For first, that the body it self cannot be the sacrament of the body, it is evident of it self.

Secondly, that the accidēces of bread without the substance of bread, cannot be any Sacrament of Christ's body, certain it is and demonstrable by this argument.

Argumentum a definitione.

Ca- A sacrament is, that beareth a similitude of that thing whereof 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.

Wherefore upon this argument being thus concluded, upon the same this also must needs follow.

Argument,

Da- In the Sacrament of the Lord's body, the thing that representeth must needs bear a similitude of the thing represented.

ti- The substance of bread in the Sacrament, is only that which beareth the similitude of Christ's body.

j. Ergo, the substance of bread, must needs be in the Sacrament.

And therefore by this demonstratiō, it is apparent, that these ii. partes in the Article aforesaid, are evil couched together, whereof the one must needs destroy the other. For if the first part of the Article be true, that the natural body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine, and seeing the Sacrament wherein the body of Christ is present, must needs be the substance of bread and not the accidences only of bread, as is above proved, then the substance of bread cannot be euacuated from the Sacrament, and so the second member of the Article must needs be false.

Or if the second part be true that there is no substance of bread remaining, and seeing there is nothing else to make the sacrament of the natural body of Christ, but only the substance of bread, for as much as the accidences of bread can make no Sacrament of Christ's body, as is above shown: then taking away the substance of bread, the first pa • t of the article must needs be false, which saith that the natural body of Christ is present in the sacrament forasmuch as the substance of bread being euacuated, there remaineth no Sacrament, wherein the body of Christ should be present. 2. Secondly, that it disagreeth from the whole order and course of the scriptures, it is sufficiently explained before, in the treatise of John Lambert, upon the Sacrament. pag. 1099. as also in other sundry places in this volume besides. 3. Thirdly, that the said Article of transubstantiation is no ancient nor authentic doctrine in the church publicly received: but rather is a novelty lately invented, reaching not much above y ^e age of 3. or 4. hundred years or at most above the the time of Lancfrancus an, 1070. it remaineth now to be proved,

Wherein first may be joined this issue, that this monstrous paradox of transubstantiation was never induced or received publicly in the church, before the time of the Lateran Council, under 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 deny not, but that this question of transubstantiation began to come in controversy, and was reasoned upon, amongst certain learned of the clergy. But that this Article of transubstantiation was publicly determined, or prescribed in the church for a general law or Catholic doctrine of all men necessarily to be believed, before the time of the forsayd Innocentius the 3. it may be doubted, and also by histories of time proved to be false.

And though our adversaries seem to allege out of the old Doctors certain speeches and phrases, which they wrast and wring to their purposes: wherein they say: that the bread is called, is believed, & is the body of Christ that of bread is made the body of Christ: that the bread is changed, altered, or converted to the body of Christ, or is made to be his body, that the creatures be converted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ: that the bread and wine do pass into the divine substance, with such other like sentences: and bear themselves brag upon the same as thought this doctrine of transubstantiation stood upon y ^e consent of the whole universal Church, of all ages and times of nations and people, and that the judgment of the Church was never other then this: and yet if the old Doctors sayings be well weighed, and the discourse of times by this history 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 transubstantiatiō before y ^e time of Innocentius the 5. or at the furthest of Lanfrancus, as is aforesaid: about the which time Satan the old Dragon was prophesied by the Apocalypse to be let lose, to seduce the world.

For probation whereof, first I will begin with the time of Tertullian, and of Augustine: which both do teach the Sacrament to be a figure, a sign, a memorial, & representation of the Lord's body, and knew no such transubstantiation: & yet were no traitors nor heretics.

Neither was S. Ambrose any heretic or traitor, where he writeth these words: Vt sint, quae erant, & in aliud conuertantur. &c. Which words Lanfrancus could not answer unto any otherwise, but by denying them to be the words of Ambrose.

Gelasius was bishop if Rome, and lived about 500. years after Christ, and speaketh of a transmutation of the bread and wine into the divine nature, but there expounding himself, he declareth what he meaneth by that mutation, so that he expressly showeth the elements of bread & wine, notwithstanding to remain still in their proper nature, with other words moe, very plain, to the same effect: unto the which words Contarenus in the assemble of Ratesbone, could not well answer, but stood astonied.

Theodoretus likewise speaking of the visible simboles, hath these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i. after the sanctification they remain in their former substance, figure and form. &c.

Irenaeus, where he saith, that the bread broken and the cup mixed, after the vocation of God, cease to be common bread anymore, but are the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ: and explicating his words more plainly addeth moreover, that the Eucharist consisteth in 2. things, one being earthly, which is bread & wine: the other heavenly: which is the body and blood of Christ. &c. declareth in these words, both his own opinion plainly, & also teacheth us what was then the doctrine of his time.

Hesichius also who was 500. years after Christ where he speaketh of the said mistery, quod simul panis & caro est. i. which he saith to be both flesh, and bread, declareth thereby two substances to be in the Sacrament. By the which we have to understand, that transubstantiation in his age was not crept into the Church: and yet neither heresy nor treason therefore was ever laid to his charge for so saying.

Emissenus, comparing a man converted to Christ, by regeneration, unto the holy misteryes converted into the body and blood of our Lord, expresseth plainly, quod in exteriori nihil additum est, & totum in interiori mutatum est. That is, that outwardly nothing is changed, and that all the change is inward. &c. wherein (no doubt) he spake plain against this Article, and yet no man in all that age did accuse him therefore either to be heretic or traitor.

Here might be added the words 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 deliver unto you, signifieth the New Testament.

Bede also who lived about the year 730. writing vpō the psalm 21. hath these words: Edent paupers. &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, & sanguinē verum domini, quae verus cibus & verus potus sunt, quo non venter distenditur, sed men's saginatur. &c. that is: Poor men, to wit, despisers of the world, shall eat in deed really, if it be referred unto the Sacraments, and shall be filled eternally, because they shall understand in bread and in wine, being visibly set before them▪ a thing invisible, to wit, the true body and true blood of the Lord, which are true meat, & true drink, wherewith not the belly is filled, but the mind is nourished.

And thus in these words of Bede likewise is to be understand, that no transubstantiation, as yet in his time was received in the Church of England.

Long it were to stand upon all particulars Briefly to conclude, the farther the church hath been from these our latter days, the purer it was in all respects, and especially touching this barbarous article of transubstantiation. We will now draw more near our own time, coming to the age of Bertrame, and of Haimo, who were about the year of our Lord 810. under Carolus Magnus.

By whose writings it is evident, that the church was infected as yet with no such phantasy of transubstantiatiō neither did any almost, dream of taking away y ^e substance of bread from the Sacrament. For although Haymo, Remigius, Rabanus, and other which lived in that age, do attribute to the Sacrament, the honorable name, and reverence (as we also do) of the Lord's body and blood: yet they exclude not from thence all substance of mele & bread & lean the bare accidences, as our new come Catholics do, as by the words of Haymo doth appear. Where he following the words of Bede, showeth also the cause, why it is so called by the name of the Lord's body. Quia (saith he) panis corpus confirmat, ideo ill corpus Christi congruenter nuncupatur: Vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur. That is: Because bread confirmeth the heart of man, therefore it is called conveniently the body of Christ, and because wine worketh blood in the flesh of man, thereof is it referred to the blood of Christ. What can be more effectually spoken to prove the substance of bread there to remain? For take away the substance of bread & wine, what is in the accidences left, that can confirm mans heart, or ingender blood in the flesh. And therefore seeing there must needs something remain, that must be referred to Christ's body & blood in that Sacrament, it either must be the substance of bread and wine, or else it can be no Sacrament. And furthermore, speaking of the visible things which are sanctified how and whereunto they be converted, he saith: that by the holy ghost they pass to a Sacrament of the Lord's body.

And likewise the same Haymo in another place, speaking of the feuites of the earth, that is, of corn and wyne, declareth, how our Savior making of them an apt mistery, cōuerteth them to a Sacrament of his body and blood. &c. Lib. 7. in Ecclesiast. cap. 8.

Bertramus likewise, as he lived in the same age, so in like sort he shown his opinion therein, to the like effect as Haymo did. For as Haymo writing in these words declareth, quia aliud est Sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti: sacramentum enimuero percipitur, virtute Sacramenti interior homo satiatur, that is: the sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the sacrament is another thing: for the sacrament is received with the mouth, but with the virtue of the Sacrament, the inward man is satisfied.

So after like manner, Bertramus according to y ^e same, thus writeth: Ille panis, qui per Sacerdotis ministerium Christi corpus efficitur, aliud exterius humanis sensibus ostendit, & aliud interius fidelium mentibus clamat. &c. That is: the bread, which by the ministry of y ^e priest is made the body of christ doth import one thing outwardly to the senses of man, & another thing it speaketh to the minds of the faithful. Outwardly it is bread, the same as was before, the same form is pretended, the color appeareth, the same taste remaineth. But inwardly there is another matter fare more precious, and more excellent, because it is heavenly, which is the body of Christ, that is scene, not with the outward eyes of the flesh, but with the sight of a faithful mind. &c.

We will now proceed to the testimony of Rabanus Maurus bishop of Mainz & scholar sometime to Alcuinus in Paris, an english man: who living also in the same age with Haymo and Bertrame, (which was 800. years after Christ) giveth the like testimony of this doctrine in his book of Institutions. Where he asking the question, why the Lord would give the mysteries of his body and blood, then under such things as might be kept and reserved whole with great honor? thus he answereth again: The Lord (saith he) would rather that the Sacraments of his body and blood should be received with the mouth of the faithful, and made to be their food, that by the visible action, the invisible effect might be shown: For like as material meat outwardlye nourisheth and quickeneth the body, so also the word of God inwardly nourisheth and strengtheneth the soul. For man liveth not only by bread, but by every word proceeding from the mouth of God.

And after followeth: For this bread and drink, signifieth the eternal society of the head, and of the members together.

And again: For the Sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the Sacrament is another thing. The Sacrament is received with the mouth, with the virtue of the Sacrament the inward man is nourished: For the Sacrament is turned to the nourishment of the body, but the virtue of the Sacrament, the dignity of eternal life is gotten.

Wherefore, like as the same is turned into us, when we eat of it: so also are we turned into the body of Christ, when we live obediently and godly. &c. Who seeth not by these words of this Byshoppe, what form of doctrine was then in the Church received concerning this article of the Sacramet, much diverse from this our gross opinion of transubstantiation.

With the said Rabanus also accordeth another of the like standing and also doctrine, called Christianus Druthmerus : who writing upon Math. The wine (saith he) doth chere and cherish the blood, and therefore not incōuenienlty the blood of christ is figured thereby: for whatsoever proceedeth frō him to us it chereth us with true gladness, & increaseth all goodness unto us.

And a • it • e before, the said Druthmarus saith: The Lord gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his body, to the remission of sins, and keeping of charity, that they always remembering his doing, might do that in figure, which he should do for them. This is my body (saith he) that is, in Sacrament. This Druthmarus lived also in the time of Carolus Magnus, as witnesseth Abbas Spaynehemensis.

After Bertamus was Johannes Scotus, or else as some call him, Johannes Erigena, a man well accepted with Carollus Caluus, and afterward with Lodouicus Balbus, about the yere of our Lord 880. He wrote a Book De corpore & sanguine Domini, so affirming therein, & teaching, as he knew that Bertramus had taught a little before in France. This book y ^e pope caused to be condemned in Vercellensi Synodo, Of the life and conversation of this Johannes Scotus, & also of his death, read before, pag. 146.

In the yere of our Lord. 950. lived Odo Archbyshop of Canterbury, in whose time it appeareth in the catholickes own confession, that many priests then affirmeth, that the bread and wine after consecration, did remain in their former substance, and that the said mysteries were only a figure of the body and blood of Christ, as we find it witnessed by Osberne himself, who did write the lives of Odo, Dunstane. and Elphege, at the bidding of Lanfrāke Archbyshop of Canterbury, as reporteth Edmerus, Anselmus Chaplain. The words of Osberne be these: Hoc fere tempore, quidam clerici maligno error seducti, asseuerare conabantur panem & vinum, quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem, in priori substantia manere, & figuram tantummodo esse corporis & sāguinis Christi. &c. That is: About this time (saith Osbern, writing in the days of Lanfrak) certain of the Clergy, being seduced by wicked error, did hold and maintain, that bread and wine, which are set upon the altar, after the consecration do remain in their former substance, and are but only a figure of the body and blood of Christ. &c. And no doubt but at that time, the common opinion of most of the Clergye was so that the Sacrament was the body and blood of Christ, and that the substance of bread and wine notwithstanding were not transubstantiate, as the Romish Catholics do now teach. But this is the guise of these men that in their writings and stories, still they diminish the better number, whereby their faction may seem ever to be the bigger and therefore to extenuate the common opinion then received in the Church, he inferreth mention of certain of the Clergy. &c.

And as he faileth in the number of these Clergymen which then held against transubstantiation, so he upholdeth the same with as lying a miracle: Which miracle he feigneth to be wrought the same time, for the conversion of the said Clergy men, by the blood dropping out of the host at Mass, as Odo was breaking the host over the chalice. At the sight whereof, first Odo himself (saith he) wept for joy, seeing his petition accomplished, which he so earnestly prayed for. Secondarily, all those Clergy men (saith he) which before believed not this transubstantiation, by & by were converted, and blessed the archbishop that ever he was borne, desiring him to pray again, that the blood might return to his former shape, & straight it was done. And this was the miracle: which seemeth as true, as that which W. Malmesbury writeth of the said Odo, howe by his prayers, he caused a sword to come flying from heavē into king Aethelstanes scabbard whē he had lost his own, as he should fight against Analanus : or else as that miracle where the said Odo is said to cover and defend the church of Canterbury, that no drop of rain could touch it, so long as the roof thereof was in making. Ex W. Malmesb. Vid sup. pag. 151.

In the which so miraculous a miracle, many things are to be marveled. First I marvel, that at this great miracle of the Archb. in his Cathedral Church, amongst so many singing men, we read of no Te Deum there to be song, after the doing thereof.

Secondly I marvel, that those Priests and Clerks, which then denied transubstantiation, were suffered to be so near the Archb. at his Mass, and that they were not committed rather to ward like heretics and traitors, if this Article of transubstantiatio had ben then such a Catholic doctrine, and so publicly received in the Church as they say it was.

Thirdly I marvel, seeing the time of miracles is expired, we having the scriptures to guide us, why y ^e Archbyshop would seek to miracles and apparitions to convert men, rather then to the law and Prophets, according as we are commanded, especial having no such example of all the old Doctors, which in confutatiō of so many erroneous opinions, yet never sought to such miracles, or blind means,

Fourthly, I marvel much at the discrepance in telling this tale, between Osbern and the other which since have written Legendes of Odo. For whereas Osbern speaking of certain Priests, nameth no place, but leaveth the matter at large, and speaketh absolutely: quidam clerici : all other which have since written the Legendes of Odo, do tell this tale against certain Priests of Canterbury, adding to the words of Osberne, quidam Clerici Cantuarienses But to convict the falsehood of them all, as well Osberne as of the rest, there is a legend of the life of Odo, and of Oswald together, more ancient then this of Osberne, written (as it may seem) in the time of Aelfricus Archb. of Canterbury & Elphege then Bishop of Winchester, wherein mention is made in deed of this miracle, but after another sort, then this of Osberne, & to another purpose, then to dissuade certain priests infected with that error frō the opiniō before declared: which is only brought to show the holiness of Odo: as commonly the manner of Legendes is to do. So that in this old Legend it is thus reported, that when this miracle was done, Odo disclosed the matter not to many priests of England, that were in that error as Osborne would: sed vocat protinus fidelem seruum, qui cominus erat, & miraculum secrete demonstrate, &c. that is, but called unto him a certain faithful servant, which was near about him, and shown unto him the miracle secretly. Wher upon the Priest (saith the Legende) much rejoiced at the holiness of Odo, and desired him to make his prayer to almighty God, that the body might return again to the former shape. &ce. Out of this old lying Legend, Osberne, and other likewise that followed him, seemeth to have takē this tale: so that out of the error of one (as the manner is) springeth the error of a number mo.

But this much more I marvel, why this miracle is not stored in Henry Huntingdon, which professedly writeth of such miracles, nor in Rog. Houeden, and such other: but only in such blind Legendes, which commonly have no substance of verity, nor certeinetie of time or writer, to know when, and by whom they were written, and for the most part are stuffed with lying visions, and prodigious fables.

Finally, if this miraculous fiction of Osberne, were true y ^t for the converting of Priests of England, which would not believe transubstantiation, this blood did drop out of the host (of the which blood peradventure came the blood of Hales) and that by the sight thereof the Priests e • tsoone were all converted (as Osberne pretendeth) how then came it to pass, that after the time of Odo, in the days of Elfricus, which was after him Archb. of Canterbury, y ^e third from Dunstane, and fourth from Odo, not only the Priests of England, but also the Archbishop himself, wer not yet brought to the belief of this transubstantiatiō, but taught the very same doctrine of the sacrament thē, which we do now? as most clearly appeareth both by the Epistles and Homilies of the foresaid Archbishop Elfricus, which herunder, for the more evidence (Christ willing) we will annex.

This Elfricus, as saith Capgrave, in the life of Oswald bishop of Worcester, was first Abbot of S. Albo • es and after made archbishop of Canterbury, about the yere of our Lord 996. in the time of king Etheldred, & of Wulfsinus B. of Scyrburne, Elfricus also (as witnesseth Will. of Malmesbery, in Vita Adelmi ) was Abbot of Malmesbery. Furthermore the said Will. of Malmesbery writing of Elfricus Archbishop of Canterbury, saith that he was before bishop of Welles, and afterward archbishop of Canterbury. So that Elfricus was Archbishop of Canterbury, it is out of all ambiguity. But whether Elfricus which was Abbot (of whom we do here entreat) were the same Archbishop, or not, by this diversity of Capgrave & Malmesbery, it may be doubtful. But whether, he were or no, to this our present purpose is not greatly material, for so much as the said Elfricus, & Elfricus (although they were diverse persons yet were they both in one age, and lived in one time together.

Furthermore, the same Elfricus (of whom now we speak) of what calling soever he was, yet notwithstanding he was of such estimation and good liking in those days among the most learned, that for his learning authority, and eloquence, his writings were accepted and authorised among y ^e Canons & constitutions of y ^e Church in that time, as hereby may appear: For where as the bishops and Priests before the coming of William Conqueror had collected together a certain book of Canons and ordinances, to govern the Clergy, gathered out of general and particular councils, out of the books of Gildas, out of the poenitentiall books of Theodorus Archbyshop of Canterbury, out of the writings of Egbertus archbishop of York, out of the Epistles of Aleuinus, as also out of the writings of the old Fathers of the primitive Church. &c. among the same Canons & Constitutions be placed these two Epistles of the said Elfricus here under following, whereof the one was sent to Wulfsinus Bysh. of Scyrburne, the other to Wulfstane Archb. of York, as yet are to be seen in ii. books belonging to the Library of the Church of Worcester, the one written in the old Saxons tongue entitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the other for the most part in Latin, with this title: Admonitio spiritualis doctrinae. Which book of Saxon Canons & Constitutions belonging sometime to Wulfstane Bishop of Worcester, was given by him as for a great jewel, to the Church o • Worcester, as by the same book appeareth.

Moreover, besides this book of Worcester above touched, there is yet extant also another like book of Canons belōgyng to the Church of Exeter, wherein the same two Epistles of Elfricus be contained in the old Saxon tongue, and also in Latin, and prescribed yearly to be read to the Clerks and Priests of that Church: Which book in like manner was given to the Church of Exeter by Leofricus the first, and most famous Bishop of that sea.

Of this Elfricus further is to be understanded, that he translated two books of 80. sermons out of Latin, into the Saxon speech, used then orderly to be read in Churches on sondayes & other festiual days of the year, as by his own words may appear in the end of one of y ^e said books of sermons, whose words be these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; We let pass many good Gospels which he that liest, may translate. For we dare not enlarge this book much further, left it be ouergreat, and so be a cause of lothsomnes to men, through the bigness thereof. &c.

Also in another place he confesseth the same of himself: whose words in the preface before his grammar be these. Ic AElfric ƿolde þa listlan boc aƿendan to engliscum gereorde of ðam staef craefte ðe is gehaten grammatica. syððan ic tƿa bec aƿende on hund eahtatigum spellum; I Elfrike was desirous to turn into our English tongue from the art of letters, called grammar, this little book, after that I had translated the two books of fourscore sermons, &c.

Of his Epistles especially we read of four, which he wrote. One to the monks of Egnesham. De consuetudine monachorum. An other to Wulfstane Arch. of York, wherein is touched the matter of the Sacrament. The third, he wrote against priests marriage, to one Sygeferth, with whom there was a certain Anker abiding, which defended the marriage of priests, affirming it to be lawful. The fourth, he wrote to Wulfsinus B. of Scyrburne, touching the matter of the sacrament. In the which epistle he taking occasion by a certain abuse in his time, which was, that priests on Easter day filled their housel box, and so kept it for the space of the whole year, till Easter came again, for sick persons, writeth upon that occasion, in these words as follow in his own Saxons tongue.

Besides these Epistles above prefixed, of Elfricus to Wulfsinus, and Wulfstane, which fight directly against transubstantiatiō, mention was touched also before of certain Sermons to the number of lxxx. translated by the said Elfricus, out of Latin into the Saxon, that is, into our English tongue, as ye partly have heard before. Of the which lxxx. Sermons, xxiiij. were chiefly selected, to be read, as in stead of Hom • lies, or treatises, unto the people: in such order, as the first xii. Sermons or treatises, entreating of general matters (as De initio creaturae, de augurils, de die iudicij, vnius confessoris de vanilo • uio & negligentia, d • auaritia, de falsis dijs, &c. ) were appointed to be read at pleasure, & at the discretion of the Minister. The other xii. sermons were prescribed of proper feasts: (as De annūtiatione beat Mariae, de natiuitate domini, de circumcisione domini, de Epiphania, de purificatione sanctae Mariae. Dominica prima in Quadragesima, Dominica palmarum Die Pascae &c. Wherof this testimony remaineth in y ^e same book yet to be seen both in the Saxon tongue, and also in the Preface of the latter xii. Sermons in Latin, in these words following: In hoc codicillo con tinentur sermons Anglice, quos accepimus de libris quos Abbas Anglice transtulit. &c.

Furthermore as touching these lxxx. Sermons aforesaid, which El • ricus translated into English, here is to be understanded, that in the said Sermons used then orderly to be recited to y ^e people, there is one appointed to be red in die Sancto Pascae, that is, upon Easter day, Which Sermon being translated by the said Elfricus, we have here exhibited both in Saxon speech and in English, to the intent, that the Christian and indifferent reader perusing the same, may judge thereby, how the fantastical doctrine of transubstantiation, in those days of Elfricus & before his time, was not yet received nor known in the Church of England: for so much as the said Sermon being in Latin before, doth leave unto us an evident declaratiō, what was the common opinion of this Sacrament in the Church received: before that Elfricus did ever set hand to translate the same out of the Latin.

And though the Latin copies and exemplars of these foresaid Sermons, are not remaining in our Libraries, let y ^t be no marvel to thee, loving reader: but understand thereby the crafty packing of the Popes Clergy, who in the time of Lanfrancus, & Pope Innocent, studying by all means, how to prefer and further this their newcome doctrine of transubstantiation, did abolish and rase out of Libraries and Churches, all such books which made to the contrary. And therefore because Lanfrancus and other Italian Priests here in England understood not y ^e Saxon books as they did the Latin, all that which they understood, they made away. The Saxon books, because they knew them not, they let remain, And this is the cause why our Latin copies now are not to be found. Which to be true by iii. reasons coniectural it may probably be supposed.

First, for that these Saxon Sermons being translated out of the Latin (as ye have heard by the words of Elfricus already proved) only we see the Saxon books reserved: of the Latin none doth appear.

Secondly, there is yet remaining one certain piece or fragment of an epistle of Elfricus in the Library of Worcester, wherein, so much as maketh against the matter of transubstantiation, we have found in the middle of the said Latin epistle, utterly rased out, so that no letter or piece of a letter doth there appear. The words cut out, were these: Non est tamen hoc sacrifi • ium corpus eius, in quo passus est pro nobis ne{que} sanguis eius quem pro nobis effudit: sed spiritualiter corpus eius efficitur & sanguis, sicut Manna quod de caelo pluit, & aqua quae de petra fluxit. Sicut Paulus &c. 1. Notwithstanding this sacrifice is not the same body of his, wherein he suffered for us, nor the same blood of his: which he shed for us but spiritually it is made his body and blood as that Manna which rained from heaven and the water which did flowe out of the rock, as Paul. &c. These words so rased out are to be restored again by another Saxon book found in Exceter. By the rasing of which one place, it may easily be conjectured, what these practicers have likewise done in the rest.

Thirdly by one Italian trick of Polydore Uirgill in our days, the properties and doings of all other Italian papists of elder time, may partly be conjectured. For so I am informed by such, as precisely will affirm it to be true y ^t when Polydore being licensed by the king to view and search all Libraries, had once accomplished his story by the help of such books as he had compiled out of Libraries in y ^e end, when he had taken out what he would: like a true factor for y ^e popes own tooth, he piled his books together & set them all on a light fire. For what cause he so did, I cannot certainly pronounce: but who so considereth well his religion, may shrewdly suspect him. For a probatiō, whereof, this may serve for a sufficient trial: that whereas of all other writers of histories that have been in England, as of Fabian, Lanquer, Rastall, More, Leland, Balle, Halle, & such other, some of their books which they then occupied yet remain in hands to be seen. Only of such books, as Polydore used and which past his hands, what English man is he that hath seen, or can show me one? Whereby it may well be thought, the foresaid information to be true. As also by this one Italian trick of Polydore, may other Italians likewise be suspected, in making away such Latin books within this land, as made not for their purpose. But for so much as those Latin books be n • w abolished, and cannot be had, let us return to our Saxon tongue again, and see what this Saxon sermon of Elfricus translation, doth say for transubstantiation: The copy whereof here ensueth.

And thus I suppose, it standeth clear & evidently proved by course of all these ages afore recited, from the time of Tertullian and Agustine unto the days of this Elfricus above mentioned, and after him, that this newcome miracle of transubstantiation was not yet crept into the heads of men, nor almost came in any question amongst learned mē nor was admitted for any doctrine in the Church, at least for any general doctrine of all men to be received, til a M. year complete after Christ, that is, till that Satan began to be let at large. Apoca. 20. For whoever heard in all the primitive Church, or ever read in the works of the old ancient Doctors this question once to be asked, or disputed, whether any substance of bread and wine remained in the Lord's Supper? Or what man was ever so doltish to believe any such thing, or ever called heretic for not believing the same, before the time of seduction that is before the 1000. years aforesaid were expired.

Wherefore they that stand so much upon the antiquity of this Article as a doctrine which hath ever since Christ's time been received in the Church, taught by the Apostles, believed of all Catholics, and confirmed by consent of all ages, of Councils, of nations, and people unto this present day: these I say, either show them selves very ignorant in histories and in all state of antiquity or else most impudently they do abuse the simple credulity of the people.

To proceed now farther in this discussion of antiquity, it followed, that after the time of Elfricus aforesaid, this matter of transubstantiation began first to be talked off, & to come in question among a few superstitious monks: so that as blindness and superstition began more and more to increase, so the said gross opinion still more and more, both in number and authority prevailed, in so much that about the year of our Lord. 1060. the denying of transubstantiation began to be counted heresy.

And in this number first was one Berengarius a French man, and Archdeacon of Angeowe, which of all Christian men, which we read of, was first called and counted an heretic for denying of transubstantiation, & troubled for the same, as ye shall hear.

This Berengarius lived in the time of Pope Leo 9. Uictor, and Nicholas 2. which was about the year of our Lord. 1060. Albeit I do find our writers here in some discrepaunce. For the most of them do hold, that he first recanted under Pope Leo 9. in the Council of Uercellense: and afterward again under Pope Nicholas 2. about the year 1062. as is to be gathered of Gratian, De consecrate. dist. 2. Ego Berengarius, where he saith, that Pope Nicholas did send about to Bishops and Archbishops, the Copy of his recantation.

Again, by the Acts of the Council of Rome, it there appeareth, that the said Berengarius made this his said last recantation under Pope Hildebrand, called Gregory 7. But this difference of times is no great matter to stand upon. The truth of the story is this: that when Berengarius had professed the truth of the sacrament, & had stand in the open confession thereof, according to the ancient verity of the doctrine received in the Church before, he was so handled by certain malignaunt & superstitious monks that what by evil entreaty, and what for fear of death (such is the weak frailty of man) he began to shrink, and afterward did in deed recant the truth.

Of these malicious enemies against Berengarius, the chiefest troubler was Lancfranke, Abbot of Codune, afterward Archbishop of Canterbury, Guimond monk, likewise first of the abbey of Leufrede, & afterward Archb. of Auersane: Algerius also monk of Corbein: Fulbertus also monk and bishop: and Hildebrand sometime monk of Cluniake, and then Archdeacon of Turon, & afterward Bishop of Rome.

By these and such other monks of the like fraternity, the error and heresy of transubstantiation began first to be defended, and partes publicly in writing to be taken about that matter. Of the which sides and partes, the first that began to set up that faction by writing, seemeth to be Paschasius, who was a little before Berengarius about the time of Bertrame: and likewise Lancfrancke the first that brought it into England.

On the contrary side again, the first that was openly impugned and troubled for denying transubstantiation, was this Berengarius: with whom Lancfranck also was supposed at the first beginning to hold and take part, but afterward to clear himself, he stood openly against him in the Council, and wrote against him.

It followeth then in the Acte of the Council, that when the Synod of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and other Prelates were together assembled, y ^e greater number (saith the story) did hold, that the bread and wine were turned substantially into the body and blood of Christ. Notwithstanding (saith he) diverse there were in the said Council which held the contrary with Berengarius, but at last were driven to give over. Berengarius among the rest, after he had long stand in the constant defense of the truth, at last relented to their willes, confessing his error where none was, and desired pardon of the Council. And this was (as seemeth to W. Malmesb.) his first giving over. Who afterward returning to himself again after the death of Pope Leo, and prickte with the stinge of conscience, was driven again to recognise the truth, which he before had denied.

The Pope (saith Malmesb.) perceiving this, would not leave him so, but sent into France, Hildebrand his Cardinal Chaplain (as meet a mate for such a seat, as was in all Satan's court) and made him with a wany and to come again coram nobis: who so handled Berengarius and bringing him before the face of the Council bolden at Turon, that he made him to say, erraui, once again: against whom stood up in that Council Lanfrancus, and Guimundus aforesaid, impugning his assertion. And thus standeth the narration of W. Malmesbery. But by the acts of y ^e Council of Rome appeareth another declaration, which is, that this latter recantation of Berengarius should be at Rome under Hildebrand, being then Pope, in the yere of our Lord. 1076. and in the month of February, and that in the said Council holden in Ecclesia Saluatoris, this recantation of, Ego Berengarius, was made, and he enjoined by the said Pope Hildebrand, upon his oth, never hereafter to teache or dispute contrary to that faith of the Sacrament there holden. &c.

Again, Henry Bullinger in his book, De origin erroris, following belike some other author, expresseth the order of the foresaid recantation after this sort, and saith, that in the time of Pope Leo. 9. Anno. 1051. there was a Roman Council holden at Uercellense, in the which Council Lanfrancke being then present, the Book of John. Scotus was openly read, and there condemned. Also Berengarius was sent for, who seeing the prejudicial proceeding of that Council, refused himself to come, but sent two Clerks, which openly there defended his cause and quarrel, and were for the same committed unto prison. Such is the freedom of the Popes general Councils, w ^t prisons and violence to defend their verities. Against the doings of this Council notwithstanding, the French men stood stiff, both at Angew, and Turon, joining and consenting with Berengarius.

Not long after this, died Pope Leo, and after him succeeded Pope Uictor, by whom another Synod was kept at Florence, where the Acts and doings of the foresaid Council of Uercellense, were confirmed, and a Legate also appointed to be sent to Turon in France. This legate was Hildebrand above mentioned, who calling the clergy of France together in a Synod, fell there in hand with the cause of the Sacrament. Berengarius not being ignorant of these Romaine Councils, so kept himself, that in all his action, he would give none other answer, but that he believed and consented with the faith of the Catholic Church: & so for that time did frustrate the purpose of the council, rather deluding the pretēses of his enemies, then freely confessing the simple truth.

Again, after Uictor came Pope Nicholas 2. who congregating another Council at Rome, An. 1058. sent for Berengarius there to appear, who being present, argued what he could, for the justness of his cause, but all would not serve: In the Popes general Councils, such a stroke and mastership beareth authority above verity. Berengarius being thus borne down on every side by might & superiority, when no remedy would serve, but he must needs recant again (for the law of relapse was not yet in season) he desired to know what other confession of the sacrament the Pope would require of him, besides y ^t which he had there confessed. Then Pope Nicolas committed that charge to Humbart a Monk of Lotharinge, and after a Cardinal, y ^t he should draw out in formable words, the order of his recantatiō, after the prescription of Rome, which he should read and publicly profess before the people. The form of which words is registered in the Decrees, De consecrate. dist 2. Ego Berengarius. &c. The effect whereof is this: That he pretendeth with heart and mouth, to profess, that he acknowledging the true, catholic, and Apostolical faith, doth execrate all heresy, namely, that, wherewith he hath lately been infamed, as holding that the bread and wine upon the Altare, after the consecration of the Priest, remain only a Sacrament, and are not the very self body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, neither can be handled or broken with the priests hands, or chewed with the teethe of the faithful, otherwise then only by manner of a Sacrament Consenting now to the holy and Apostolical Church of Rome, he professed with mouth and heart, to hold the same faith touching the Sacraments of the Lord's mass, which the Lord Pope Nicholas, with his Synod here present doth hold, and commandeth to be holden by his Evangelical and Aposticall authority, that is, that the bread and wine upon the Altar, after consecration are not only a Sacrament, but also are the very true and self body, and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and are sensibly felt and broken with hands, and chewed with teethe: swearing by the holy Evangelists, that whosoever shall hold or say to the contrary, he shall hold them perpetually accursed, and if he himself shall hereafter presume to preach or teach against the same, he shall be content to abide the severity and rigor of the Canons. &c.

This cowardly recantation of Berengarius, as it offended a great number of the godly sort: so it gave to the contrary part no little triumph, whereby ever since they have taken the greater courage to tread down the truth.

It happened shortly after this, that Hildebrand the Popes graunde Captain, in the behalf of his Mayster Pope Nicolas, went in warfare against the Normandes. Which war being finished, shortly after, he set upon a new viage to fight for Pope Alexander, against Cadolus: which victory being also achieved, it was not long, but he put the new Pope Alexander beside the cushion, and was made Pope himself: so that during the busy stir of these wars, the Popes holiness had no laisure to attend the debating of this controversy of the Sacrament.

At length, when all was quieted, and Pope Hildebrand now was where he would be, his restless brain could not be unoccupied, but eftsoone summoneth a new Council at Rome in the Church of Lateran, to revive again the old disceptation of Berengarius, about the year (as some hold) 1079.

Thus Berengarius being toste by these Monks and Pharisees, was so confounded, and baited on every side, that partly for worldly fear, straining him on the one side, partly for shame and grief of conscience, that he had now twice renied the truth, on the other side, that the man (as is of him reported) after these such turbulent tragedies, forsaking his goods, his studies, learning, and former state of life, became a laborer, and wrought with his hands for living, all the residue of his life.

The opinion which Berengarius sustained touching the Sacrament (as by his own words in Lancfranckes book may appear) was this: The sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two things: The one visible: the other invisible, that is, of the Sacrament, and of the thing or matter of the Sacrament. Which thing (which is to mean, the body of Christ) if it were here present before our eyes, it were a thing visible & to be seen: but being lift up into heaven, and sitting on the right hand of his father, to the time of restoring of all thing (as S. Peter saith) it cannot be called down from thence. For the person of Christ consisteth of God and man: the Sacrament of the Lord's table consisteth of bread and wine, which being consecrate are not changed, but remain in their substances, having a certain resemblance or similitude of those things, whereof they be sacraments, &c. Ex Lib. Lancfranci.

By these words of Berengarius doctrine, all indifferent readers may see & judge, that he affirmed nothing but that was agreeable to the holy scripture, believing with S. Agustine, and all other ancient elders of the Church, that in the holy supper all faithful believers be refreshed spiritually, with the body & blood of the Lord, unto everlasting life. Wherefore most impudently they do misreporte him (as they do many other besides) which falsely lay to his charge, as though his teaching should be, that in the sacred supper of the Lord, nothing else were received of y ^e faithful, besides only y ^e bare signs, which is the bread & the wine.

And now that you have seen the doctrine of Berengarius, let us also take a vewe of the contrary teaching of Lanfrancus and his fellows, conferring and comparyng together the institution of the one side, with the institution of the other, to mark and consider which of them soundeth nearer to the truth of the scriptures. The words of Lanfrancke be these:

I believe the earthly substances, which upon the Lord's table are divinely sanctified, through the ministration of the Priest, to be converted unspeakably, incomprehensibly, and miraculously by the operation of God's mighty power, into the essence of the Lord's body, the outward forms only of the things themselves, and certain qualities reserved, and that for two respects: The one, least the sight of the raw and bloody flesh might otherwise make men to abhor from eating thereof for that they which believe the thing they see not, might have the greater merit for their belief. The conversion of which earthly substances into the essence of the Lord's body, notwithstanding, yet is the self same body of the Lord in heaven, and there hath his essential being at the right hand of his father immortal inuiolate, perfect, vndeminished, and uncorrupted: so that truly it may be affirmed, the self same body both to be received of us, and yet not the self same. The self same, I mean, as touching the essence, property, and virtue of his true nature: and yet not the self same as touching the forms of bread and wine, and other outward qualities incurring to our outward senses. &c. And thus have ye the confession of Lancfranke Archb. of Cant.

From this confession of Lancfranke, the opinion and assertion also of Guimundus Archb. of Auersane, doth nothing differ in grosenesse and impiety, but rather passeth the same, thus affirming and defending: That the body of Christ is pressed, and torn with teethe even like as it was felt and touched with the hands of Thomas.

And moreover, the said Guimundus (if his book be not rather counterfaited at Louaine) in the same place answering to an objection put out, that it is not lawful for Christ to be torn in pieces with teethe, doubteth not to pronounce that whether we take tearing for hard bitinge, or soft biting, it is not repugnant nor disagreeing, but that (by the will of God agreeing thereunto) the body of Christ may be touched with hands, bitten with mouth, crushed, yea and divided in pieces, with hard or soft pressing of the teeth: and that, as he was bruised upon the cross, according to the Prophet, saying: He was bruised for our iniquities, &c. so the same body for the health of the faithful, may devoutly be torn and rent with their teethe any thing to the contrary notwithstanding. &c. Guimund. lib. Sacrament. fol. 30. Judge now all good studious readers, what is to be thought of this kind of doctrine, and howe this opinion cohereth with the infallible voice of God's word, saying: Exod. And of him ye shall not break a bone. &c.

Thys rude and misshapen doctrine of these Monks, concerning transubstantiation, as ye have heard, whē and by whom it began first to be broached: so if ye would now know by what learning and scriptures they did confirm, and establish the same, ye must here think and understand, howe their chiefest grounds and substance to persuade the people was at this time, certain miracles by them forged, and published both in their writings and preachings whereof one was the same of Odo above recited, which Osberne, or some other monkish Legend invented of him, howe he should show unto certain the host turned into the likeness of flesh and blood droppinge into the chalice for the conversion of those clearkes, which before would not believe it.

An other like miracle is also told by the said Osberne of Dunstane in this order, how the said Dunstane appeared to a certain lame crepill in the night, willing him to resort unto his tomb, to have his limbs again restored. Which crepil, according as he was willed, after he had there continued praying for health a long time, and could not obtain, began to return home again after long tarrying, w ^t out all hope of recovery. To whom the said Dunstane appearing again by the way, asked from whence he came, and whether he would. The crepill answering, declared how he came thither upon hope of health, where he had long tarried, and because he could find no recovery, therefore he now was returning home. To whom then said Dunstane: I am (saith he) Dunstane the fellow servant of all God's servants, and have been occupied with certain necessary business, for the which I could not be present there with my children. For Elfrike (said he) otherwise surnamed Bata hath attempted to disherite my church, but I have so stopped him, that he could not prevail.

Many other fabulous miracles of the like stamp are rife in popish stories, counterfeited & forged under diverse and sundry names, some referred to Gregory, some to Paschasius, and to other moe, which to recite all, would fill a whole sea full of lies & fables. Among many, one is thus invented of Paschasius. There was a Priest, saith he, of Almain, named Plegildus, who did see and handle with his hands, visibly the shape of a child upon the altar & so after he had embraced and kissed him, it returned again to the likeness of bread, as he should come to the receiving thereof. This miracle when it was objected against Berēgarius, he merely deriding the blind fable, answered in these words: Speciosa inquit, pax nebulonis, vt cui oris praeberet basium, eo dentium in ferret exitium. That is, A goodly peace quoth he of a false verlet, that whō he before kissed with his mouth, by & by he goeth about to tear him with • is teeth.

An other miracle is reported of a Jew body, who upon a time entering into the Church, with another Christian lad which was his play fellow, saw upon the altar a little child broken & torn in pieces, and afterward by portions to be distributed among the people. Which sight when the young Jew coming home had told unto his father to be true and certain, he was for the same, condemned to be burned. Thus he being enclosed in a house, and the door fast where he should be burned, he was found and taken out from thence by the Christians, not only alive, but also having not one hear of his head blemished w ^t the flames about him. Who then being of the Christians, demanded howe he was so preserved from the burning fire: there appeared (said he) to me a beutiful woman sitting on a chair, whose son the child was, which was before divided & distributed in the Church among the people, who reached to me her hand in the burning flame, and with her gown skirtes kept the flame from me, so that I was preserved thereby from pearishing. &c. Belike these Monks lacked miracles among the Christians, when they were fain to borrow such figmentes of the Jews to prove their feigned transubstantiation.

And these commonly were then the arguments of these Monks, wherewith they persuaded the people to believe their transubstantiation. But to leave these monks fictions, & to return again to Berengarius, thus Malmesbury of him reporteth, that after he had once or twice recāted (as is aforesaid) yet notwithstanding this doctrine of the Sacrament still remained in the mind of his hearers. And how so ever the tyranny of the Pope did drive him thorough fear to deny his opinion, and wrought him much trouble, yet notwithstanding after his death he lacked not his well willers. In the number of whom was Hildebertus Bishop Cenomanensis, whose verses in commendation of his master, I thought here not unworthy to be preserved, being otherwise rare peradventure to be found in our story writers.

Althoughe in this time of Berengarus, which was about the year of our Lord. 1060. (as ye have heard) this error of transubstantiation began to grow in force and strength, by the supporting of certain popish monks above rehearsed, as Lancfrancus, Guimundus, Algerius, Hugo, Bishop of Lincoln. Fulbertus, (of whom it is said in stories, that our Lady gave him suck being sick, with her own breasts) and such other: yet notwithstanding, all this while the said Transubstantiatiō was decreed for no public law, nor doctrine to be holden by any general consent, either of the Church of Rome, or any other Council, before the Council of Lateran, under Pope Innocent the 3. who in the year of our Lord. 1215. celebrating in the church of Lateran, a general council of 1300. bishops, enacted there diverse constitutions, as of yearly confession, and the communion to be used of the whole multitude once a year through every parish church.

Item, for the recovery of the holy land, with a subsidy also to be leauied for the same.

Item for the abolishing of the books and writings of Joachim Abbas, and also the opinions of Almaricus afore mentioned: notwithstanding that y ^e said Joachim did subscribe with his own hand that he held the same doctrine, which was in the church of Rome, and also submitted his books to be presented to the Sea of Rome, there to be corrected or approved. And yet was he judged though not an heretic yet to be erroneous, & especially in those books which he wrote against Peter Lombard, calide afterward the master of Sentence.

In the said Counsel, besides diverse other constitutions and the Articles of the Creed there in order repeated, as appeareth, Extr. De summa trinit. & fide Catholica, cap. 1. firmiter, there was also enacted, decreed, and establyshed the faith and belief of Transubstantiation, in these words following.

There is one universal Church of the faithful, without which none can be saved, in the which Church the self same Jesus Christ is both Priest and also the sacrifice, whose body and blood are truly contained in the Sacrament of the altar, under the forms of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the body and the wine, into the blood, by the power and working of God: so that to the accomplishing of this mystery of unity, we might take of his, the same which he hath taken of ours. And this sacrament none can make or consecrate, but he that is a priest lawfully ordained, according to the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ hath left to his Apostles, and to their successors. &c.

And thus was the foundation laid for the building of transubstantiatiō, upon the consent of these foresaid. 1300. Bishops, in the year of our Lord above specified, under pope Innocentius, and the doctrine thereof intruded for an article of faith into the church, necessarily to be believed of all men under pain of heresy.

But yet all this while, notwithstanding that the substaunte of bread and wine was now banished out of the sacrament, and utterly transcorporated into the substance ot Christ's very body and blood: yet was not this body eleuated over the priests head nor adored of the people till the days af pope Honorius the 3. succeeding after Innocentius, who by his counsel likewise commanded adoration and elevation to be joined with transubstantiation as one idolatry commonly bringeth forth another.

Agayne, the said sacramedt of the Lord's supper being now consecrated, transubstantiated, eleuated and adored yet it was not offered up for a sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and the dead, nor for a remedy of the souls in Purgatory, nor for a merit operis operati, sine bono motu vtentis. &c. before that other popes coming after, added still new aditions to the former inventions of their predecessors.

And thus have you the whole order and origin of these Idolatrous partes of the mass described by their times & ages, which first began with consecration and the form thereof, which were words of the Canon. Then came transubstantiation by Innocentius, and after eleleuation & adoration by Honorius, and last of all came the oblation meretorious and propitiatory for the quick and dead in remission of sins, Ex opere operato.

Which things being thus constituted by the to much usurped authority of the church of Rome, shortly after followed persecution, tyranny and burning among the Christians, first beginning with the Albigenses, and the faith full congregation of Toulouse, near about the time of the said Innocentius, as is afore remembered. pag. 271.

And thus much for the first article of transubstantiatiō which (as ye have heard) was not admitted into y ^e Church for any general doctrine of faith, before the year and time above assigned, of pope Innocent the third, and therefore if any have been otherwise persuaded, or yet do remain in the same persuasion still of this doctrine, as though it had been of a longer continuance then frō the time above expressed, let him understand that by ignorance of histories he is deceived, and for the more satisfyinge of his mind, if he credit not me, let him believe the words of one of his own catholic sort, John Duns I mean, who in his 4. book writing of Transubstatiation, in what time and by whose authority it was first establieshd, hath these words, which also are before mentioned, pag. 257. These words of the Scripture might be expounded more easily and more plainly without transubstantiatiō: but the Church did choose this sense, which is harder, being thereto moved (as seemeth) chiefly because men should hold of the Sacraments, the same which the Church of Rome doth hold. &c. And further in the same place the said Duns expounding himself what he meaneth by the church of Rome, maketh there express mention of the said Innocentius the 3. and of this Council of Lateran. &c.

And furthermore, to the intent that such as be indifferent seekers of the truth, may be more amplie satisfied in this behalf, that this transubstantion is of no antiquity, but of a late invention: I will also adjoin to this testimony of Johan. Scotus, the judgment and verdict of Erasm. lib. Annot. where he writeth in these words: In Synaxi transubstantiationē sero definiuit Ecclesia. Diu satis erat credere sieve sub pane consecrato, sieve quocun{que} modo adesse verum corpus Christi. &c. That is, In the sacrament of the communion, the church concluded transubstantiatiō but of late days. Long before that it was sufficient to believe the true body of Christ to be present either under bread, or else by some manner. &c.