Acts and Monuments Volume 2 Part 1
Finally, that you require to know of the names and surnames, in order particularly of them, that be to me adherents, or that have promised me to be adherent in this part: I say, that I know of none particular, that I remember, without I should note unto you a great multitude, which you may know, and here of (I suppose) through all regions and realms of Christendom, that do think likewise, as I have shown, I ween the multitude mounteth nigh unto the one half of Christendom: and more should do likewise, by a great sort within a while (I doubt not) but that our ghostly enemy laboreth a main, to have the knowledge of the truth suppressed, and letteth, that it cannot come abroad for to be seen. I say therefore again I know of no particular adherents, ne of none that hath so promised me to be in these matters. And though I did, I would not (except I knew that charity so required, which I do not find yet hitherto) detect, ne bewray any one of them, for no man's pleasure: For I am bound to obey God above men. Who be with us, and grant the truth to be known. Amen.
These answers of John Lambert, to the 45. Articles above expressed, were directed and delivered to Doctoure Warham Archbyshop of Canterbury, as it appeareth, about the year of our Lord 1532. at what time, the said Lambert was in custody in the Archbishops house of Otforde, being there destitute of all help and furniture of books, as by his own words is to be gathered. But so the providence of God wrought for Lambert, that within short space after, An. 1533. the said Archbyshop Warham died: whereby it seemeth that Lambert for that time was delivered. In this mean while Doct. Cranmer was sent over in Ambassage, with the Earl of Wilshyre, Doctoure Stokesley, Doct. Kerne, Doctor Benet, and other learned men, to the bishop of Rome lying then at Bonony, to dispute the matter of the Kings marriage, openly first in the Courte of Rome, then in the Courte of the Emperor. Where after sundry promises, and appoyntmentes made, yet when the time came, no man there appeared, to dispute with them, in these two propositions: 1. That no man, iure diuino, could or ought to marry his brothers wife. 2. That the Bishop of Rome by no means ought to dispence to the contrary. But of this more copiously we will entreat (the Lord's grace permitting) in the sequel of our story, coming to Doctor Cranmer's life.
After the death of William Warham, succeeded in that Sea the said Doctor Cranmer. Lambert in the mean season being delivered, partly by the death of this Archbyshop, partly by the coming in of Queen Anne, returned into London, and there exercised himself about the Stocks, in teaching children, both in the Greek, and latin tongue. And for so much as priests in those days could not be permitted to have wives, he left his priesthood; & applied him self to that function of teaching, intending shortly after also to be free of the grocers, and to be married. But God, who disposeth all men's purposes after his secrete pleasure, did both intercept his marriage, and also his freedom, and married him to his son Christ Jesus, as now consequently followeth to be declared.
Thus then after that John Lambert now had continued in this vocation of teaching, with great commendation, and no less commodity to the youth: it happened this present year 1538. he was present at a Sermon, in S. Peters Church at London. He that preached, was named Doctor Tailor, a man in those days not far disagreeing from the Gospel, and afterward in the time of King Edward was made Bishop of Lincoln, and at last in the time of Queen Marie was deprived from the same, and so ended his life, among the confessors of Jesus Christ.
When the Sermon was done, Lambert having gotten opportunity, went gently unto the Preacher to talk with him, and uttered diverse arguments wherein he desired to be satisfied. Al the whole matter or controversy was concerning the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. Taylor excusing himself at that present for other business, willed him to write his mind, and to come again at more leisure.
Lambert was contented, and so departed. Who within a while after, when he had written his mind, came again unto him. The sum of his arguments were ten, which he comprehended in writing, approving the truth of the cause, partly by the Scriptures, and partly by good reason, and by the Doctors. The which arguments, although they came not all unto our hands, yet such men as were present at those affairs, reported thē to be of great force and authority. And of a few which were borne away in memory, the first reason was this, gathered upon Christ's words, where it is said in the Gospel: Thys cup is the new Testament.
And if (saith he) these words do not change neither the Cup, neither the wine corporally into the new Testament: by like reason it is not agreeable that the words spoken of the bread, should turn the bread corporally into the body of Christ.
An other reason was this: that it is not agreeable unto a natural body to be in two places or more at one time: wherefor it must follow of necessity, that either Christ had not a natural body, or else truly according to the common nature of a body, it cannot be present in two places at once, and much less in many: that is to say, in heaven & in earth, on the right hand of his father, and in the Sacrament.
Moreover, a natural body cannot be without his form and shape, conditions, and accidents, like as the accidents and conditions also cannot be without their subject or substance. Then, for so much as in the sacrament there is no quality, quantity, or condition of the body of Christ, and finally no apparaunce at all, of flesh: who doeth not plainly perceive that there is no transubstantiate body of his in the sacrament? And to reason by the contrary: all the proper conditions, signs, and accidents whatsoever they be pertaining unto bread, we do see to be present in the sacrament, which cannot be there without the subject: therefore we must of necessity confess the bread to be there. He added also many other allegations out of the Doctoures. But to be short, this Taylor the preacher, whom I spake of before, willing and desiring (as is supposed) of a good mind to satisfy Lambert in this matter, amongst other, whom he took to counsel, he also conferred with doct. Barns, Which Barns, although he did otherwise favor the Gospel, and was an earnest preacher, notwithstanding seemed not greatly to favor this cause, fearing peradventure, that it would breed some let or hinderance among the people, to the preaching of the Gospel, which was now in a good forwardness, if such sacramentaries should be suffered: He persuaded Taylor by and by to put up the matter to Thomas Cranmer Bishop of Canterbury. And hereby may we see it truly verified, which Will. Tyndale before writing to John Frith, did note in Doct. Barns, saying: that D. Barns will be hot against you, &c. pag. 154.
Upon these originals, Lamberts quarrel first began, and was brought unto this point, that through the sinister doing of many, it began of a private talk, to be a public and common matter. For he was sent for by the archbishop and brought into the open court, and forced to defend his cause openly: for the archbishop had not yet savored y e doctrine of the Sacrament, whereof afterward he was an earnest professor. In that disputation, it is said, that Lābart did appeal from the Bishops, to the kings Majesty. But how soever the matter was, the rumour of that disputation, was by and by spread throughout the whole Court.
I told you before, how that king Henry for two years past showing the part of an hard husband, had beheaded Queen Anne his wife. Which deed did not only greatly displease the German Princes (who for that only cause had broken of the league with him, an. 1536. but also many other good men in England.
Moreover, how that within a while after, Abbayes began to be subverted, and all their goods to be confiscate and given abroad. For which causes, but especially for the late abolishing of the bishop of Rome, the commons had conceived a very evil opinion of him, in so much as the sediciouse sort rebelled against him.
At that time Stephen Gardener then Bishop of Winchester, was in authority amongst the kings Counsellers who as he was of a cruel nature, so was he no less of a subtle and crafty wit, ever gapyng for some occasion how to let and hinder the Gospel: albeit a long time he was not so greatly esteemed with the king that he could much prevail to achieve his conceived purpose: But at length: upon this matter advising himself, he thought he had apt occasion and opportunity to accomplish his desire. Neither did he forslacke the occasion ministered, but went straight unto the king, privily admonishing him, & with fair flattering words, giving him most pernicious counsel, declaring howe great hatred and suspicion was raised upon him, almost in all places.
First, for abolishing the Bishop of Rome's authority, then for subversion of the monasteries, and also for that the divorcement of Queen Katherine was yet fresh in men's minds: and now the time served, if he would take it, easily to remedy all these matters, and pacify the minds of them, which were offended with him, if only in this matter of John Lambert, he would manifest unto y e people, how stoutly he would resist heretics: and by this new rumor he should bring to pass, not only to extinguish all other former rumors, and as it were with one nail to drive out another, but also should discharge himself of all suspicion, in that he now began to be reported to be a favorer of new sects and opinions.
The king giving ear more willingly, then prudently or godly to this Cyrene, immediately received the wicked counsel of the Bishop, and by and by sent out a general Commission, commanding all the nobles and Bishops of this Realm, to come with all speed, to London to assiste the king against heretics and heresies, which the king himself would sit in judgment upon.
These preparations made, a day was set for Lambert, where a great assembly of the nobles was gathered from all partes of the realm, not without much wonder and expectation in this so strange a case. All the seats and places were full of men round about the scaffold.
By and by the godly servant of Christ John Lambert was brought from the prison with a garde of armed men, even as a Lamb to fight w t many Lions, and placed right over against where the kings royal seat was, so that now they tarried but for the kings coming to the place.
At the last, the king himself did come as judge of that great controversy, with a great garde, clothed all in white, as covering by that color and dissimuling severity of all bloody judgment.
On his right hand sat the Bishops, and behind them the famous Lawyers, clothed all in purple, according to the manner. On the left hand sat the Peers of the Realm, the Justices, and other Nobles in their order: behind whom sat the Gentlemen of the kings privy Chamber. And this was the manner and form of the Judgment, which albeit it was terrible enough of it self, to abash any innocent, yet the kings look, his cruel countenance, and his brows bent unto severity, did not a little augmēt this terror, plainly declaring a mind full of indignation far unworthy such a Prince, especially in such a matter and against so humble and obedient a subject.
When the king was set in his throne, he beheld Lambert with a stern countenance, and then turning himself unto his counsailours, he called forth D. Day Bishop of Chechester, commanding him to declare unto the people, the causes of this present assembly and judgment.
The whole effect of his Oration tended in a manner, to this point: That the king in this Session would have all states, degrees, Bishops and all other, to be admonyshed of his will and pleasure, that no man should conceive any sinister opinion of him, that now the authority and name of the Bishop of Rome being utterly abolished, he would also extinguish all Religion, or give liberty unto heretics to perturb and trouble the Churches of England, without punishment, whereof he is the head: and moreover that they should not think, that they were assembled at that present, to make any disputation upon the heretical doctrine, but only for this purpose, that by the industry of him and other Bishops, the heresies of this man here present (meaning Lambert) and the heresies of all such like, should be refuted or openly condemned in the presence of them all.
When he had made an ende of his Oration, the King standing up upon his feet leaning vpō a cushion of white cloth of tussue, turning himself toward Lambert with his brows bent, as it were threatening some grievous thing unto him, said these words: Hoe good fellow, what is thy name? Then the humble Lamb of Christ, humbly kneeling down upon his knee, said: My name is John Nicolson, although of many I be called Lambert. What (said the king? have you two names? I would not trust you having two names, although you were my brother. Lambert, O most noble Prince, your bishops forced me of necessity to change my name. And after diverse Prefaces and much talk had in this manner, the king commanded him to go unto the matter, and to declare his mind & opinion what he thought as touching the Sacrament of the altare.
Then Lambert beginning to speak for himself, gave God thanks which had so inclined the heart of the king, that he himself would not disdain to here and understand the controversies of Religion: for that it happeneth oftentimes, through the cruelty of the bishops, that many good & innocent men in many places are privily murdered and put to death without the kings knowledge.
But now for so much as that high and eternal king of kings, in whose hands are the hearts of all Princes, hath inspired and stirred up the kings mind, that he himself will be present to understand the causes of his subjects, specially whom God of his divine goodness hath so abundantly endued with so great gifts of judgment and knowledge, he doth not mistrust, but that God will bring some great thing to pass through him, to the setting forth of the glory of his name.
Then the king, with an angry voice, interrupting his Oration: I came not hither (said he) to hear mine own praises thus painted out in my presence, but briefly go to the matter, without anymore circumstance. Thus he spake in Latin.
But Lambert being abashed at the Kynges angry words, contrary to all men's expectation, staid a while considering whether he might turn him self in these great straits and extremities.
But the king being hasty, with anger and vehemency said: why standest thou still? Aunswere as touching the Sacrament of the alter, whether doest thou say, that it is the body of Christ, or wilt deny it? And with that word the king lifted up his cap.
Lambert. I answer with S. Augustine, that it is the body of Christ, after a certain manner.
The king. Answer me neither out of S. Augustine, neither by the authority of any other, but tell me plainly, whether thou sayest it is the body of Christ, or no? These words the king spake again in Latin.
Lambert. Then I deny it to be the body of Christ.
The king. Mark well, for now thou shalt be condemned even by Christ's own words: Hoc est corpus meum.
Then he commanded Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury to refute his assertion: who first making a short preface unto the hearers, began his disputation with Lambert, very modestlie, saying: Brother Lambert, let this matter be handled between us indifferently, that if I do convince this your argument to be false by the Scriptures, you will willingly refuse the same: but if you shall prove it true by the manifest testimonies of the scripture, I do promise, I will willingly embrace the same.
The argument was this, taken out of that place of the Acts of the Apostles, where as Christ appeared unto S. Paul by the way: disputing out of that place, that it is not disagreeable to the word of God, that the body of Christ may be in two places at once, which being in heaven was seen unto S. Paul the same time upon earth: & if it may be in two places, why by the like reason, may it not be in many places?
In this manner the Archbishop began to refute the second argument of Lambert, which as we have before said, was written & delivered by the said Lābert, unto the preacher: for the king had first disputed against his first reason.
Lambert answered unto this argument, saying: that the Minor was not thereby proved, that Christ's body was dispersed in two places, or more, but remained rather still in one place, as touching the manner of his body. For the Scripture doth not say, that Christ being upon earth, did speak unto Paul: But that suddenly a light from heaven did shine round about him, and he falling to the ground, heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why doest thou persecute me? I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. &c. Here this place doth nothing let, but that Christ sitting in heaven, might speak unto Paul, and be heard upon earth, for they which were with Paul, verily heard the voice, but did see nobody.
The Archbishop on the contrary part, said: Paul him self doth witness. Acts 26. that Christ did appear unto him in the same vision.
But Lambert again said, that Christ did witness in the same place, That he would again appear unto him, and deliver him out of the hands of the Gentiles: Notwythstanding we read in no place, that Christ did corporally appear unto him.
Thus, when they had contended about the conversion of S. Paul, and Lambert so aunswearinge for himself, that the king seemed greatly to be moved therewith, and the Bishop himself that disputed, to be entangled, and all the audience amazed: then the Bishop of Winchester, which was appointed the 6. place of the disputation, fearing least the argument should be taken out of his mouth, or rather being drowned with malice against the poor man, without the kings commandment, observing no order, before the Archbishop had made an end, vnshamefastly kneeled down to take in hand the disputation, alleged a place out of the 12. Chapter to the Corinthians, where S. Paul saith: Have I not seen Jesus? And again in the 15. chapter: He appeared unto Cephas: and afterward unto James, then to all the Apostles, but last of all, he appeared unto me as one borne out of due time. &c.
Hereunto, Lambert answered, he did nothing doubt but that Christ was seen, and did appear, but he did deny that he was in two or in diverse places, according to the manner of his body.
Then Winchester again, abusing the authority of Paul, repeateth the place out of the seconde Epistle to the Corinthians and 5. Chapter: And if so be, we have known Christ after the flesh, now henceforth know we him so no more. &c.
Lambert answered, that this knowledge is not to be understanded according to the sense of the body, and that it so appeared sufficiently by S. Paul, which speaking of his own revelation, saith thus: I know not whether in the body or without the body, God knoweth, which was rapte into the third heaven, I know not, whether in the body or without, God knoweth. Whereby, even by the testimony of S. Paul, a man shall easily gather, that in this revelation he was taken up in spirit into the heavens, & did see those things, rather then that Christ came down corporally from heaven, to show them unto him: especially, for that it was said of the Angel: That even as he ascended into heaven, so he should come again. And S. Peter saith, whom it behooveth to dwell in the heavens. And moreover appointing the measure of time, he addeth: Even until that all things be restored. &c. Here again, Lambert being taunted and rebuked, could not be suffered to prosecute his purpose.
After the Byshoppe of Winchester had done, Tonstall Bishop of Durham took his course, and after a long preface, wherein he spake much of God's omnipotency, at the last he came to this point, saying: that if Christ could perform that which he spake touching the converting of his body into bread, without doubt he would speak nothing, but that he would perform.
Lambert answered, that there was no euidente place of Scripture, wherein Christ doth at any time say, that he would change the bread into his body: and moreover, that there is no necessity why he should so do. But this is a figurative speech, everywhere used in the Scripture, whē as the name and appellation of the thing signified, is attributed unto the sign. By which figure of speech, circumcision is called the covenant, the Lamb, the passover: beside 600. such other.
Now it remaineth to be marked, whether we shall judge all these after the words pronounced, to be straightway changed into another nature. Then again began they to rage a fresh against Lambert, so that if he could not be overcome with arguments, he should be vanquished with rebukes and taunts. What should he do? He might well hold his peace like a Lamb, but bite or bark again he could not.
Next orderly stepped forth the valiant champion Stokesly bishop of London, who afterward lying at y e point of death, rejoiced, boasting, that in his life time he had burned 50. heretics. Thys man amongst the residue, intending to fight for his belly, with a long protestation promised to prove, that it was not only a work of a divine miracle, but also that it did nothing abhor nature. For, it is nothing dissonant from nature (saith he) the substances of like things to be oftentimes changed one into another: So that nevertheless, the accidents do remain, all be it the substance it self, and the matter subject be changed. Then he declared it by the example of water boylinge so long upon the fire, until all the substance thereof be euaporate. Now (saith he) it is the doctrine of the Philosophers, that a substance cannot be changed, but into a substance: wherefore we do affirm the substance of the water, to pass into the substance of the air. Notwythstanding the quality of the water, which is moystnesse, remaineth after the substance is changed, for the air is moist, even as the water is.
When this argument was heard, the Bishops greatly rejoiced, and suddenly their countenance changed, as it were assuring themselves of a certain triumph and victory by this Philosophical transmutation of elements, and like as it had ben of more force, then Crisippus argument, which passed all manner of solution.
Lambertes answer was long looked for here of all men. Who, as soon as he had obtained silence and liberty to speak, first of all denied the Bishops assumpte, that the moisture of the water did remain after the substance was altered. For all be it (saith he) that we do grant with the Philosophers, the air to be natural moist, notwithstanding it hath one proper and a diverse degree of moisture, and the water another. Wherefore, when as the water is converted into the air, there remaineth moisture, as you do say, but that is not the moisture of water, but the proper and natural moisture of the air. Whereupon there is another doctrine amongst the Philosophers, as a perpetual rule, that it can by no means be, that the qualities & accidents in natural things should remain in their own proper nature, without their proper subject.
Then again the king and the Bishops raged against Lambert, in so much that he was not only forced to silence, but also might have ben driven into a rage, if his ears had not been acquainted with such taunts afore. After this the other Bishops, everyone in his order, as they were appointed, supplied their places of disputation.
There were appointed ten in number, for the performing of this Tragedie, for his ten Arguments, which (as before we have declared) were delivered unto Taylor the preacher. It were too long in this place, to repeat the reasons and arguments of every Bishop: and no less superfluous were it so to do, specially for so much as they were all but common reasons, and nothing forceable, and such as by the long use of disputation have ben beaten, and had little in them, either worthy the hearer, or the reader.
Lambert in the mean time being compassed in with so many and great perplexities, vexed on the one side with checks and taunts, and pressed on the other side, with the authority and threats of the personages, and partly being amazed with the majesty of the place in the presence of the King, and especially being wearied with longe standing, which continued no less then five hours, from twelve of the clock, until five at night, being brought in despair that he should nothing profit in this purpose, and seeing no hope at all in speaking, was at this point, that he chose rather to hold his peace.
Whereby it came to pass, that those Bishops, which last of all disputed with him, spake what they lusted without interruption, save only that Lambert now and then, would allege somewhat out of S. Augustine for the defense of his cause, in which author he seemed to be very prompt and ready. But for the most parte (as I said) being overcome with weariness and other griefs, he held his peace, defending himself rather with silence, then with arguments, which he saw would nothing at all prevail.
At the last, when the day was passed, and that torches begā to be lighted, the king minding to break up this pretensed disputation, said unto Lambert in this wise: What sayst thou now (said he) after all these great labors which thou hast taken upon thee, and all the reasons & instructions of these learned men, art thou not yet satisfied? Wilt y u live or die? What sayst thou? Thou hast yet free choose. Lambert answered: I yield and submit myself wholly unto the will of your Majesty. Then said the king. Commit thyself unto the hands of God, and not unto mine.
Lambert, I commend my soul unto the hands of God, but my body I wholly yield & submit unto your clemency. Then said the king, if you do committee yourself unto my judgment, you must die, for I will not be a patron unto heretics, and by and by turning himself unto Cromwell, he said: Cromwell: read the sentence of condemnation against him. This Cromwell was at that time the chief friend of the Gospellers. And here is it much to be marvelled at, to see how vnfortunately it came to pass in this matter, that through the pestiferous & crafty counsel of this one Bishop of Winchester, Satan (which oftentimes doth raise up one brother to the destruction of another) did here perform the condemnation of this Lambert by no other ministers, then Gospellers themselves. Taylor, Barns, Cranmer and Cromwell, who afterwards in a manner all, suffered the like for the Gospels sake: of whō (God willing) we will speak more hereafter.
This undoubtedly was the malicious and crafty subtlety of the Bishop of Winchester, which desired rather, that the sentence might be read by Cromwell, then by any other, so y t if he refused to do it, he should likewise have incurred the like danger. But to be short, Cromwell at the kings commandment taking the schedule of condemnation in hand, read the same: Wherein was contained the burning of heretics, which either spake or wrote any thing, or had any books by them, repugnant or disagreeing from the Papistical Church, and their tradition, touching the sacrament of the altar: also, a decree that the same should be set up upon the Church porches, and be read four times every year, in every Church throughout the Realm, whereby the worshipping of the bread should be the more firmly fixed in the hearts of the people. And in this manner was the cōdamnation of John Lambert. Wherein great pity it was, and much to be lamented, to see the Kings highness that day so to oppose and set his power and strength • o fiercely and vehemently in assisting so many proud and furious adversaries, against that one poor seely soul, to be devoured. Whō his Majesty with more honor might rather have aided and supported, being so on every side oppressed and compassed about without help or refuge, among so many Wolves and vultures, especially in such a cause tending to no derogation to him nor to his realm, but rather to the necessary reformation of sincere truth and doctrine decayed. For therein especially consisteth the honor of Princes, to pity the miserable, to relieve the oppressed, to rescue the wrongs of the poor, and to tender and respect the weaker parte, especially where righte and truth standeth with him: which if the King had done that day, it had ben, in my mind, not so much for the comfort of that poor persecuted creature, as it would have redounded to the immortal renown of his Princely estate to all posterity.
But thus was John Lambert, in this bloody Session, by the king judged and condemned to death, whose judgment now remaineth with the Lord against that day, whē as before the tribunal seat of that great judge, both princes and subjects shall stand and appear, not to judge, but to be judged, according as they have done and deserved. Ex testimonio cuiusdam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . A.G.
And thus much hitherto of Lambertes articles, answers, disputation, and his condemnation also. Now to proceed further to the story of his death.
Upon the day that was appointed for this holy martyr of God to suffer, he was brought out of the prison at 8. of the clock in the morning, unto the house of the L. Cromwell, and so carried into his inward chamber, where as it is reported of many, that Cromwell desired him of forgiveness, for that he had done. Ther, at the last, Lambert being admonished, that the hour of his death was at hand, he was greatly comforted and cheered, and being brought out of the chamber into the Hal, he saluted the gentlemen, and sat down to breakfast with them, showing no manner of sadness or fear. When as the breakfast was ended, he was carried straight way to the place of execution, where as he should offer himself unto the Lord a sacrifice of sweet savor, who is blessed in his Saints forever and ever. Amen.
As touching the terrible manner and fashion of the burning of this blessed Martyr, here is to be noted, that of all other, which have been burned and offered up at Smithfielde, there was yet none so cruelly and piteously handled, as he. For after that his legs were consumed and burned up to the stumpes, and that the wretched tormentors and enemies of God had withdrawn the fire from him, so that but a small fire and coals were left under him, then two that stood on eche side of him, with their Hallebardes pitched him upon their pikes, as far as the chain would reach, after the manner & form as here in this picture is described. Then he lifting up such hands as he had, and his fingers ends, flaming with fire, cried unto the people in these words: None but Christ, none but Christ, and so being let down again from their Hallebardes, fell into the fire, and there gave up his life.
Thus ye have heard by what craft and subtlety this
During the time that he was in the Archbyshoppes Warde at Lambeth, which was a little before his disputation before the king, he wrote an excellent confession or defense of his cause unto king Henry.
Wherein he first mo • lifying the kings mind and ears, w t a modest & sober preface, declaring how he had a double hope of solace laid up, the one in the most high and mighty Prince of Princes, God: the other next unto God, in his Majesty, which should represent the office and ministry of that most high Prince in governing here upon earth: after that proceeding in gentle words, he declared y e cause which moved him to that which he had done.
And albeit he was not ignorant howe odious this doctrine would be unto the people, yet notwithstanding, because he was not also ignorant how desirous the kings mind was to search out the truth, he thought no time unmeet to perform his duty, especially for so much as he would not utter those things unto the ignorant multitude, for avoiding of offense, but only unto the Prince him self, unto whom he might safely declare his mind.
After this Preface made, he entering into the Book, confirmed his doctrine touching the Sacrament, by diverse testimonies of the Scriptures, by the which Scriptures, he proved the body of Christ, whether it riseth, or ascendeth, or sitteth, or be conversant here, to be always in one place.
Then he gathering together the minds of the ancient Doctors, did prove and declare by sufficient demonstration, y e sacrament to be a mystical matter. Albeit he so ruled himself in such temperaunce and moderation, that he did not deny, but that the holy sacrament was the very natural body of our savior, and the wine his natural blood, and that moreover his natural body & blood were in those mysteries, but after a certain manner, as all y e ancient Doctors, in a manner do interpret it.
After this protestation thus made, he inferreth y e sentence of his confession, as here followeth.
*A treatise of John Lambert to the king.
CHrist is so ascended bodily into heaven, & his holy manhode thither so assumpt, whereas it doth sit upon the right hand of the father, that is to say, is with the Father there remanent and resident in glory, that by the infallible promise of God, it shall not or cannot from thence return before the general dome, which shall be in the ende of the world: And as he is no more corporally in the world, so cā I not see how he can be corporally in the sacrament, or his holy supper. And yet notwithstanding do I knowledge & confess that the holy sacrament of Christ's body & blood is his very body & blood in a certain manner, which shall be shown hereafter with your graces favor & permissiō, according to the words of our savior instituting y e same holy sacrament, & saying: This is my body, which is givē for you. And again: This is my blood which is of the New Testament▪ which is shed for many for the remission of sins,
But now for approving of the first part, that Christ is so bodily ascended into heaven, and his holy manhood so thither assumpte. &c. that by the infallible promise of God, he shall not, or cannot anymore from thence boldly return before the general dome, I shall for this allege first the scriptures, and following the authorities of old holy Doctors, w t one consent testifying with me. Besides this, I need not to tell, that the same is no other thing, but that we have taught to us in these. 3. articles of our Creed: He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of GOD the father almighty, from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. For Christ did ascend bodily, the God head which is infinite, vncircūscriptible, replenishing both heaven and earth, being immutable, and immovable, so that properly it can neither ascend nor descend.
Scriptures affirming the same.
The Scriptures which I promised to allege for the confirmation of my said sentence, be these: He was lifted up into heaven in their sight, and a cloud received him from their eyes and when they were looking up into heaven, they saw two men. &c. Here it is evidently shown, that Christ departed and ascended in a visible and circumscripte body. That this departing was visible and in a visible body, these words do testify: And when they were looking up. Whye stand ye here looking up into heaven. And: even as ye have seen him. &c. That secondly it was in body, I have afore proved, and moreover the Deity is not seen, but is invisible, as appeareth: To God only invisible. &c. and, He dwelleth in the inaccessible light, which no man seeth nor may see. &c. Therefore the manhead and natural body was assumpt, or did ascend. That thirdly it was in a circumscript body, appeareth manifestly in this. First, y t his ascension and bodily departing, caused them to loke up. And secondly, that he was lift up, that is to wit, from beneath or from a low. And thirdly, that a cloud received him. Whereas no cloud nor clouds can receive or embrace the Deity. &c.
I am • aine to leave out other evident Arguments for the same purpose, least I should be over prolixe and tedious. It doeth there also further follow in like form, how the Angels made answer to the Disciples, saying: Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gasing into heaven? Thys Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come again, as you have seen him going up into heaven. Here we see again, that Jesus is assumpte, or taken away into heaven. And then it must be from out of the world, according to that we read, John 16. I went forth from the father, & I came into the world. I leave the world again, and I go unto the Father: That is not else, but as he came from the father of heaven into this world, in that he was incarnate & made man, for his Godhead was never absent, either from heaven, or yet from earth: even so should his manhood leave the world again, to go to heaven. Moreover, in that it is said: So shall he come, is plainly testified, that he is away, and now corporally absent.
Finally, it is shown further, after what manner he shall come again, by these words: Even as you have seen him going up into heaven. Which is not else, but, as you did visibly see him ascend or go away to heavē, a cloud embrasing him and taking him from among you: even so shall you visibly see him to come again in the clouds, as we read. Math. 26. You shall see the son of man to come in the clouds of heaven. And again, Math. 24. And they shall see the son of man. Such other texts have we full many, declaring my sentence to be Catholic and true. Of which I here shall brieflye note some places, and pass over them, knowing that a little rehearsal is sufficient to youre noble wisdom, The places be, Mark 16. Luke 24. John 13.14.16. and 17. Rom. 8. Ephes. 1. and 2. and 2. Cor. 6. Hebr. 8.9.10. and 12. and 1. Thess. 4. and 1. Pet. 2. which all do testify, that Christ hath bodily forsaken the world, departed from it unto his father, ascended into heaven, sitting still upon the right hand of the father above all dominion, power, and principality, where he is present advocate and intercessor before his father, and that he shall so bodily come again, like as he was seen to depart from hence.
Nothing can better or more clearly testify and declare, what is contained in the Sacrament of Christ's holy body and blood, then do the words of Scripture, whereby it was institute. Mark doth agree with Matthew, so that in a manner he reciteth his very words. And no marvel it is. For as the Doctors do say, the Gospel of Mark is a very Epytome or abridgement of Matthew. I shall therefore write the relations of them touching the institution of this sacrament together. The relation or testimony of Matthew is this: As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks he brake and gave to his disciples, and said: Take, eat, this is my body. And taking the cup, and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many, for the remission of sins. And I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day, that I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father.
The testimony or relation of Mark, is this: And as they did eat, Jesus took the bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it and gave it to them, and said: Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it, and he said unto them▪ This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many. Verily, I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine unto that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. Luke being the companion of Paul, as appeareth in the Acts, and 2. Timothy 4. doth so next agree with him in making relation of this Supper, and holy institution of the Sacrament. Hys relation or report is this: When he had taken bread and given thanks, he brake it and gave to them, saying: This is my body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also after Supper, he took the cup, saying: This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you.
Paul's testimony doeth follow next, agreeablye to Luke, & it is thus: For I have received of the Lord, that which I also have delivered to you. That our Lord Jesus Christ in the same night wherein he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it and said: Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you: this do ye in the remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped, saying: This cup is the new Testament in my blood: this do as oft as ye drink it, in the remembrance of me: for as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall show the Lord's death, till he come. By these testimonies shall I declare my sentence to your grace, which I conceive of the holy Sacrament of Christ's blessed body and blood, and in all points of difficulty, shall I annex the very interpretation of the old holy Doctors and Fathers, to show that I do not ground anything upon myself. Thereafter shall I add certain arguments, which I trust shall clearly prove and justify my sentence to be true, Catholic, and according both with God and his laws, and also with the mind of holy Doctors.
My sentence is this, that Christ ascended into heaven, and so hath forsaken the world, and there shall abide, sitting on the right hand of his Father, without returning hither again until the general dome: at what time he shall come from thence, to judge the dead and living. This all do I believe, done in his natural body, which he took of the blessed virgins Marie his mother, in the which he also suffered passion for our safety & redemption upon a cross: which died for us & was buried: in which he also did arise again to life immortal. That Christ is thus ascended in his manhood and natural body, & so assumpt into heaven, we may soon prove, for as much as the godhead of him is never out of heavē, but ever replenishing both heaven and earth, and all that is besides, being infinite and interminable or vncircumscriptible, so that it neither cā properly either ascend or descend, being without all alterations and vnmutable or immovable.
So that now his natural body being assumpt from among us, and departed out of the world, the same can no more return from thence unto the ende of the world. For as Peter witnesseth. Act. 3. Whome the heaven must contain until the time that all things be restored which God had spoken by the mouthe of all his holy Prophets, since the world began. And the same doth y e Article of our Creed teach us, which is: From thence (.i. from heavē) he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. Which time Paul calleth the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1. Timoth. 6.
Seeing then, this natural body of our Savior, that was borne of his mother Marie, being a Virgin, is all whole assumpt into heavē, and departed out of this world, and so, as saith S. Peter: He must remain in heaven until the ende of the world, which he calleth the time when all things must be restored: This (I say) seen and believed according to our Creed and the Scriptures, I cā not perceive how the natural body of him can contrariwise be in the world, and so in the Sacrament. And yet notwithstanding is this true, that the holy Sacrament is Christ's body & blood, as after shall be declared.
Doctors affirming the same.
But first, for the establishing of my former purpose, that the natural body of our Savior is so absent from this world, and ascended to heaven, that it can be here no more present unto the general dome, I would beseech your grace to consider the mind and sentence of old holy Doctors, in this purpose or matter, how agreeably they testify with that is tofore shown. Amongest whom we have first S. Augustine, writing thus to Dardanus: Proinde quod ad verbum attinet, Creator est Christus: Omnia enim per ipsum facta sunt. Quod vero ad hominem. &c. Therefore as concerning the word, Christ is the Creator: all things are made by him: but as touching man, Christ is a creature made of the seed of David accordi • g to the flesh, and ordained according to the similitude o • • enne. Also because man consisteth of two things, the soul and the flesh: in that he had a soul, he was pensive and sorrowful unto death, in that he had flesh he suffered death. Neither when we call the son of God Christ, we do separate his manhood, nor when we cal the same Christ the son of man, we do separate his Godhead from him. In that he was man, he was conversant upon the earth (and not in heaven where he now is) when he said: no man ascendeth up into heaven, but he which descended from heaven, the son of man which is in heaven. Although in that respect that he was the son of God, he was in heaven, and in that he was the son of man, he was yet in the earth, and as yet was not ascended into heavē. Likewise in that respect that he is the son of God, he is the Lord of glory: and in that he is the son of man, he was crucified. And yet notwithstanding the Apostle saith▪ And if they had known the Lord of glory, they would never have crucified him. And by this both the son of man was in heaven, and the son of God in that he was man, was crucified upon earth. Therefore as he might well be called the Lord of glory being crucified, when as yet that suffering did only pertain unto the flesh, so it might well be said: Thys day thou shalt be with me in Paradise, when according to the humility of his manhood in his flesh, he lay in grave, and according to his soul he was in the bottom of hell that same day. According to his divine immutability he never departed from Paradise, because he by his Godhead is always every where. Doubt you not therefore that there is Christ Jesus according to his manhood, from whence he shall come. Remember it well, & keep faithfully thy Christian confession: for he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of the father: neither will he come from any other place, then from thence to judge the quick and the dead. And he shall come, as the voice of the Angel beareth witness, as he was seen to go into heaven, that is to say, in the self same form and substance of fl • sh, whereunto undoubtedly he gave immortality, but he did not take away the nature thereof: According to this form of his flesh he is not to be thought to be everywhere And we must take heed that we do not so affirm the divinity of his manhood, that we thereby take away the truth of his body. For it is not a good consequente, that that thing which is in God, should so be in every place as God. For the Scripture saith very truly of us, that in him we live, move, and have our being: and yet notwithstanding we are not in every place as he is, but that man is otherwise in God, because that God is otherwise in man, by a certain proper and singular manner of being: for God and man is one person, and only Jesus Christ is both. In that he is God, he is in every place: but in that he is man, he is in heaven.
By which words of holy Augustine, your grace may evidently see, that he testifieth and teacheth the blessed body or flesh of Christ to be nowhere else then in Heaven. For to it being assumpt or ascended into heaven, God (as he saith) hath given immortality, but not taken away nature. So that by the nature of that holy flesh or body, it must occupy one place. Wherefore it followeth: According to this form: that is to wit, of his flesh. Christ is not to be thought to be in every place. For if Christ should in his humanity be everywhere diffused or spread abroad, so should his bodily nature or natural body be taken from him. And therefore he saith: For we must beware that we do not so affirm the divinity of man, that we do take away the humanity of his body. But in that he is God, so is he everywhere, according to my words before written: and in that he is man, so is he in heaven. And therefore it is said: For God and man is one person, and only Jesus Christ is both. He in that he is everywhere, is God: but in that he is man, he is in heaven,
And yet do we read agreeable to the same matter, more largely in the same Epistle, by these words: Christum Dominum nostrum vnigenitum Dei filium, equalem patri eundemque hominis filium, quo major est pater, vt vbique totum, praesentem esse non dubites tanquam Deum, & in eodem templo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem Deum, & in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum. Thou shalt not doubt Christ our Lord the only son of God, equal with his father, and the same being the son of man whereby the father is greater, is present everywhere as God, and is in one and the • ame Temple of God as God, and also in some place of heaven as concerning the true shape of his body.
Thus find we clearly, that for the measure of his very body, he must be in one place, and that in heaven, as concerning his manhood, and yet everywhere present in that he is the eternal son of God & equal to his father. Like testimony doeth he give in the 30. Treatise that he maketh upon the Euangelie of John. These be his words there written: Donec saeculum finiatur, sursum est Dominus, sed etiam hic est veritas Domini. &c. Until the world be at an ende, the Lord is above, but here is the truth of the Lord also, for the body of our Lord in which he rose, must be in one place: but his truth is abroad in every place. The first parcel, that is, until the worlds ende, is so put, that it may join to the sentence going before, or else to these words following: The Lord is above. &c. And so should it well accord to my sentence before shown, which is, the Lord is so bodily ascended, that in his natural body he cannot again return from heaven until the general dome.
But howsoever the said clause or parcel be applied, it shall not greatly skill: for my sentence notwythstāding remaineth full steadfast. In so much, as the scripture doth mention but of two Aduents or comings of Christ, of which the first is performed in his blessed incarnation, and the second is y e coming at the general dome. And furthermore, in this Article of our Creed: From thence shall he come to judge the quick and the dead, is not only shown wherefor he shall come again, but also when he shall come again so that in the mean while, as y e other Article of our Crede witnesseth: He sitteth at the right hand of God his father, that is not else to say, thē he remaineth in glory with the father. Furthermore, even as I have before rehearsed the foresaid authority of Augustine, so have I read it in his Quinquagenes upon a Psalm, of which I cannot now precisely note or name the number. And the same words doth he also write in the Epistle to S. Jerome. So y t we may know he had good liking in it, that he so commonly doth use it, as his usual proverb or by word.
In the same is also testified, that his blessed body can be but in one place, so that it being now according to the scripture and article of our belief or Creed, in heaven it cā not be in earth: and much les can it be in so vnnumerable places of the earth, as we may perceive that the Sacrament is. Thus, although the body of our Savior must be in one place, as he writeth agreeably to y e saying of Peter: Whome the heavens must receive until the time of the restitution of all thing: Yet as the words following make mention: Veritas autem eius vbique diffusa est. But his verity is scattered everywhere. This verity of Christ, or of his body, I do take to be that he in other places, doth call Virtus Sacramenti The virtue of the Sacrament. As in the 25. treatise upon John we find thus written: Aliud est Sacramentum, aliud virtus Sacramenti. The Sacrament is one thing, & the virtue of the Sacrament, is another thing. And again: Si quis manducauerit ex ipso, non moritur, sed qui pertinet ad virtutē sacramēti, nō qui pertinet ad visible sacramētū. &c. If any mā eat of him he dieth not, but he meaneth of him, which doth apertain to the virtue of the sacrament, & not of him which pertaineth to the visible sacrament. And to declare what is the virtue of the sacrament, y t I count to be y e truth of the lord or of his body▪ he saith: Qui manducat int{us}, nō foris, qui manducat in cord, non qui premit dente. He which eateth inwardly in spirit, not outwardly: he that eateth in heart, and not he which chaweth with teeth.
So that finally, this truth of the Lord or his body, which is dispersed everywhere abroad, is the spiritual profit, fruit, and comfort, that is opened, to be received everywhere of all men by faith in the verity of the Lord, that is to wit, in the very and true promise or Testament made to us in the Lord's body that was crucified and suffered death for us, and arose again ascending immortal into heaven: where he sitteth, that is, abideth on the right hand of his father, from thence not to return until the general dome or judgment. This bodily absence of our Savior is likewise clearly shown in the 50. treatise that he maketh upon John: where he doth expound this text: Ye have the poor always with you, but you shall not always have me with you, to my purpose, that thereby I count and hold mine opinion to be rather Catholic, then theirs that hold the contrary. Finally, the same doth he confirm in his Sermons of the seconde and third Feries of Gaster, and in so many places besides forth, as here cannot be recited, the number of them is so passing great.
With him consenteth full plainly Fulgentius in his second book, to Trasimundus, writing in this wise: Vnus idemque homo localis ex homine, qui est Deus immensus ex patre Vnus idemque secundum humanam substantiam, absens coelo cum esset in terra, &c. One and the same man being local, in that he is man which is God almighty of the Father. One and the same according to human substance, being absent from heaven when he was in the earth, and leaving the earth when he ascended up into heaven. But according to his divine and almighty substance, neither departing from heaven, when he descended from heaven, neither leaving the earth, when he ascended into heaven. The which may well be known by the vndoubtfull saying of our Lord himself: which that he might the better show his humanity occupyeng a place, said unto his Disciples: I ascend up unto my father and your father, unto my God and your God. Also when he had said of Lazarus: Lazarus is dead, he adjoined saying: And I am glad for your sakes, that you may believe, because I was not there. But showing the greatenes of his divinity, he said to his Disciples: Behold I am with you unto the ende of the world. For how did he ascend into heaven? but because he is local and true man? And how is he present to his faithful, but because he is almighty and true God? &c. In this manner doth he proceed forth, speaking much, full agreeably to my sentence, which is now ouerlong here to write. But what can be said more plainly in so few words making for me?
First he saith, that Christ being a man, is as concerning his manhead, local, that is to say, contained in one place. And to express that • hore clearly, he addeth to it, saying: He is one and the same according to his human substance, absent from heaven when he was in earth, and leaving the earth when he ascended into heaven. Whereas he hath a contrary Antithesis for the godly nature, to show forth the first point the more effectually. The Antithesis is thus: But according to his divine and incomparable substance, neither leaving heaven when he descended from heaven, neither forsaking the earth whē he ascended into heaven. Whereby is also confirmed, that I said: Christ did descend and a • cend, as touching his humanity, but not in his Deity, which is immutable and unmovable: as we may perceive by that he here doth call it, Almighty substance. Furthermore, to show, that Christ (as touching his human and natural body) is local, and in one place: he alledgeth, and that right justly, two texts of Scripture. The first is: I ascend to my father, &c. And the second is of Lazarus, I am glad for your sakes, &c.
Finally, he maketh this demand: But how he did ascend into heaven, but because he is a local and very man? Whereby we may see, that by this sentence, Christ could not ascend, except he had been local, that is, contained in one place, and so very man. And that is according to S. Augustine, writing as is above shown: And he shall so come (as the Angel witnesseth) even as you have seen him going up into heaven, that is to say, in the same form and substance of his flesh. According to this form he is not spread abroad in every place: for we must beware that we do not so esteem his divinity, that we thereby do take away the verity of his body. So that they both do testify, that Christ could not have ascended, except he had been local, that is to wit, contained in one place, and very man: and that if he were not local, he could not be a man. Wherefore Saint Augustine saith further, ad Dardanum: Spatia locorum tolle corporibus, & nusquam erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt. That is to wit: Take away localitie, or occupieng of place from bodies, and they shall be nowhere: and for because they shall be nowhere, they shall have no being at all.
We therefore coveting to find Christ or his natural body, should seek for him in heaven, where his natural manhood is sitting on y e right hand of his father. So willeth us S. Ambrose in the x. book which he writeth upon Luke, speaking of Christ's humanity assūpt, in this wise: Ergo, nō supra terram, nec in terra, nec secundū carnem te quaerere debemus, si volumus te inuenire. &c. Therefore we ought not to seek thee upon the earth, nor in the earth, neither according to the flesh, if we will find thee: for now according to the flesh we do not know Christ. Furthermore, Stephē did not seek thee upon the earth, when that he did see thee standing on the right hand of God the Father. But Mary which sought thee upon the earth, could not touch thee. Stephen touched thee because he sought thee in heaven. Stephen amongst the Jews saw thee being absent. &c. Thus we must seek for the natural body of Christ, not upon the earth, but in heaven, if we will not be deceived. And that doth he more largely show in the same treatise, speaking thus of the verity of Christ's body: Quomodo nō corpus quiesceret, in quo manebant insignia vulnerum, vestigia cicatricum, quae Dominus palpanda obtulit? &c. How could it come to pass that the body could not rest in the sepulcher, in which the tokens of the wounds and scars did appear, which the Lord him self did offer to be touched (in which doing he did not only stablish the faith, but also augmented devotion?) Because he would rather carry up into heaven the wounds received for us, and would not put them away, that he might present to God the Father, the price of our liberty. Such a one the Father doth place at his right hand, embracing the triumph and victory of our salvation▪ &c.
Gregory also in an Homely of Pentecost, saith agreeably to the other, in these words: Quādo non maneret apud eos, qui ascensu • us coelos, promittit dicens: Ecce ego vobiscū sum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem saeculi? &c. When was it that he did not tarry with them, which ascending up into heaven, promiseth, saying: Behold I am here with you continually until the ende of the world? But the word incarnate tarrieth and also goeth away. It departeth in body, and tarrieth in Divinity. And therefore he saith that he 〈◊〉 with them: even he which was ever present with them 〈…〉 power, and now departed by his corpora ••• 〈…〉 doth he testify in the Home • y of 〈…〉
With these doth Bede accord in an Homely of 〈◊〉 in which he declareth this text. John. 16. A little while, and ye shall not see me: And again, a little while and ye shall see me. And also in an Homely of the vigill of Pētecost. And who can otherwise say or think, knowing the Scripture and our belief, but that the natural body of Christ is so assūpt into heaven all whole, that it must there abide without returning, until the general Judgment. Notwithstandyng, seeing this is the chief point whereupon I seek to establish my sentence in this matter of the holy Sacrament, that Christ's holy & natural body is so assumpt into heaven, that there it must remain all whole without returning until the general dome: I will yet with the permission of your grace, add one or two Arguments deduced out of the Scriptures, to declare further my sentence to be faithful and Catholic.
Scriptures affirming the same.
The Scriptures which I promised to allege for the confirmation of my said sentence, be these: He was lifted up into heaven in their sight, and a cloud received him from their eyes and when they were looking up into heaven, they saw two men. &c. Here it is evidently shown, that Christ departed and ascended in a visible and circumscripte body. That this departing was visible and in a visible body, these words do testify: And when they were looking up. Whye stand ye here looking up into heaven. And: even as ye have seen him. &c. That secondly it was in body, I have afore proved, and moreover the Deity is not seen, but is invisible, as appeareth: To God only invisible. &c. and, He dwelleth in the inaccessible light, which no man seeth nor may see. &c. Therefore the manhead and natural body was assumpt, or did ascend. That thirdly it was in a circumscript body, appeareth manifestly in this. First, y t his ascension and bodily departing, caused them to loke up. And secondly, that he was lift up, that is to wit, from beneath or from a low. And thirdly, that a cloud received him. Whereas no cloud nor clouds can receive or embrace the Deity. &c.
I am • aine to leave out other evident Arguments for the same purpose, least I should be over prolixe and tedious. It doeth there also further follow in like form, how the Angels made answer to the Disciples, saying: Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gasing into heaven? Thys Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come again, as you have seen him going up into heaven. Here we see again, that Jesus is assumpte, or taken away into heaven. And then it must be from out of the world, according to that we read, John 16. I went forth from the father, & I came into the world. I leave the world again, and I go unto the Father: That is not else, but as he came from the father of heaven into this world, in that he was incarnate & made man, for his Godhead was never absent, either from heaven, or yet from earth: even so should his manhood leave the world again, to go to heaven. Moreover, in that it is said: So shall he come, is plainly testified, that he is away, and now corporally absent.
Finally, it is shown further, after what manner he shall come again, by these words: Even as you have seen him going up into heaven. Which is not else, but, as you did visibly see him ascend or go away to heavē, a cloud embrasing him and taking him from among you: even so shall you visibly see him to come again in the clouds, as we read. Math. 26. You shall see the son of man to come in the clouds of heaven. And again, Math. 24. And they shall see the son of man. Such other texts have we full many, declaring my sentence to be Catholic and true. Of which I here shall brieflye note some places, and pass over them, knowing that a little rehearsal is sufficient to youre noble wisdom, The places be, Mark 16. Luke 24. John 13.14.16. and 17. Rom. 8. Ephes. 1. and 2. and 2. Cor. 6. Hebr. 8.9.10. and 12. and 1. Thess. 4. and 1. Pet. 2. which all do testify, that Christ hath bodily forsaken the world, departed from it unto his father, ascended into heaven, sitting still upon the right hand of the father above all dominion, power, and principality, where he is present advocate and intercessor before his father, and that he shall so bodily come again, like as he was seen to depart from hence.
Nothing can better or more clearly testify and declare, what is contained in the Sacrament of Christ's holy body and blood, then do the words of Scripture, whereby it was institute. Mark doth agree with Matthew, so that in a manner he reciteth his very words. And no marvel it is. For as the Doctors do say, the Gospel of Mark is a very Epytome or abridgement of Matthew. I shall therefore write the relations of them touching the institution of this sacrament together. The relation or testimony of Matthew is this: As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks he brake and gave to his disciples, and said: Take, eat, this is my body. And taking the cup, and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many, for the remission of sins. And I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day, that I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father.
The testimony or relation of Mark, is this: And as they did eat, Jesus took the bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it and gave it to them, and said: Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it, and he said unto them▪ This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many. Verily, I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine unto that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. Luke being the companion of Paul, as appeareth in the Acts, and 2. Timothy 4. doth so next agree with him in making relation of this Supper, and holy institution of the Sacrament. Hys relation or report is this: When he had taken bread and given thanks, he brake it and gave to them, saying: This is my body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also after Supper, he took the cup, saying: This cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you.
Paul's testimony doeth follow next, agreeablye to Luke, & it is thus: For I have received of the Lord, that which I also have delivered to you. That our Lord Jesus Christ in the same night wherein he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it and said: Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you: this do ye in the remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped, saying: This cup is the new Testament in my blood: this do as oft as ye drink it, in the remembrance of me: for as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall show the Lord's death, till he come. By these testimonies shall I declare my sentence to your grace, which I conceive of the holy Sacrament of Christ's blessed body and blood, and in all points of difficulty, shall I annex the very interpretation of the old holy Doctors and Fathers, to show that I do not ground anything upon myself. Thereafter shall I add certain arguments, which I trust shall clearly prove and justify my sentence to be true, Catholic, and according both with God and his laws, and also with the mind of holy Doctors.
My sentence is this, that Christ ascended into heaven, and so hath forsaken the world, and there shall abide, sitting on the right hand of his Father, without returning hither again until the general dome: at what time he shall come from thence, to judge the dead and living. This all do I believe, done in his natural body, which he took of the blessed virgins Marie his mother, in the which he also suffered passion for our safety & redemption upon a cross: which died for us & was buried: in which he also did arise again to life immortal. That Christ is thus ascended in his manhood and natural body, & so assumpt into heaven, we may soon prove, for as much as the godhead of him is never out of heavē, but ever replenishing both heaven and earth, and all that is besides, being infinite and interminable or vncircumscriptible, so that it neither cā properly either ascend or descend, being without all alterations and vnmutable or immovable.
So that now his natural body being assumpt from among us, and departed out of the world, the same can no more return from thence unto the ende of the world. For as Peter witnesseth. Act. 3. Whome the heaven must contain until the time that all things be restored which God had spoken by the mouthe of all his holy Prophets, since the world began. And the same doth y e Article of our Creed teach us, which is: From thence (.i. from heavē) he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. Which time Paul calleth the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1. Timoth. 6.
Seeing then, this natural body of our Savior, that was borne of his mother Marie, being a Virgin, is all whole assumpt into heavē, and departed out of this world, and so, as saith S. Peter: He must remain in heaven until the ende of the world, which he calleth the time when all things must be restored: This (I say) seen and believed according to our Creed and the Scriptures, I cā not perceive how the natural body of him can contrariwise be in the world, and so in the Sacrament. And yet notwithstanding is this true, that the holy Sacrament is Christ's body & blood, as after shall be declared.
Doctors affirming the same.
But first, for the establishing of my former purpose, that the natural body of our Savior is so absent from this world, and ascended to heaven, that it can be here no more present unto the general dome, I would beseech your grace to consider the mind and sentence of old holy Doctors, in this purpose or matter, how agreeably they testify with that is tofore shown. Amongest whom we have first S. Augustine, writing thus to Dardanus: Proinde quod ad verbum attinet, Creator est Christus: Omnia enim per ipsum facta sunt. Quod vero ad hominem. &c. Therefore as concerning the word, Christ is the Creator: all things are made by him: but as touching man, Christ is a creature made of the seed of David accordi • g to the flesh, and ordained according to the similitude o • • enne. Also because man consisteth of two things, the soul and the flesh: in that he had a soul, he was pensive and sorrowful unto death, in that he had flesh he suffered death. Neither when we call the son of God Christ, we do separate his manhood, nor when we cal the same Christ the son of man, we do separate his Godhead from him. In that he was man, he was conversant upon the earth (and not in heaven where he now is) when he said: no man ascendeth up into heaven, but he which descended from heaven, the son of man which is in heaven. Although in that respect that he was the son of God, he was in heaven, and in that he was the son of man, he was yet in the earth, and as yet was not ascended into heavē. Likewise in that respect that he is the son of God, he is the Lord of glory: and in that he is the son of man, he was crucified. And yet notwithstanding the Apostle saith▪ And if they had known the Lord of glory, they would never have crucified him. And by this both the son of man was in heaven, and the son of God in that he was man, was crucified upon earth. Therefore as he might well be called the Lord of glory being crucified, when as yet that suffering did only pertain unto the flesh, so it might well be said: Thys day thou shalt be with me in Paradise, when according to the humility of his manhood in his flesh, he lay in grave, and according to his soul he was in the bottom of hell that same day. According to his divine immutability he never departed from Paradise, because he by his Godhead is always every where. Doubt you not therefore that there is Christ Jesus according to his manhood, from whence he shall come. Remember it well, & keep faithfully thy Christian confession: for he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of the father: neither will he come from any other place, then from thence to judge the quick and the dead. And he shall come, as the voice of the Angel beareth witness, as he was seen to go into heaven, that is to say, in the self same form and substance of fl • sh, whereunto undoubtedly he gave immortality, but he did not take away the nature thereof: According to this form of his flesh he is not to be thought to be everywhere And we must take heed that we do not so affirm the divinity of his manhood, that we thereby take away the truth of his body. For it is not a good consequente, that that thing which is in God, should so be in every place as God. For the Scripture saith very truly of us, that in him we live, move, and have our being: and yet notwithstanding we are not in every place as he is, but that man is otherwise in God, because that God is otherwise in man, by a certain proper and singular manner of being: for God and man is one person, and only Jesus Christ is both. In that he is God, he is in every place: but in that he is man, he is in heaven.
By which words of holy Augustine, your grace may evidently see, that he testifieth and teacheth the blessed body or flesh of Christ to be nowhere else then in Heaven. For to it being assumpt or ascended into heaven, God (as he saith) hath given immortality, but not taken away nature. So that by the nature of that holy flesh or body, it must occupy one place. Wherefore it followeth: According to this form: that is to wit, of his flesh. Christ is not to be thought to be in every place. For if Christ should in his humanity be everywhere diffused or spread abroad, so should his bodily nature or natural body be taken from him. And therefore he saith: For we must beware that we do not so affirm the divinity of man, that we do take away the humanity of his body. But in that he is God, so is he everywhere, according to my words before written: and in that he is man, so is he in heaven. And therefore it is said: For God and man is one person, and only Jesus Christ is both. He in that he is everywhere, is God: but in that he is man, he is in heaven,
And yet do we read agreeable to the same matter, more largely in the same Epistle, by these words: Christum Dominum nostrum vnigenitum Dei filium, equalem patri eundemque hominis filium, quo major est pater, vt vbique totum, praesentem esse non dubites tanquam Deum, & in eodem templo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem Deum, & in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum. Thou shalt not doubt Christ our Lord the only son of God, equal with his father, and the same being the son of man whereby the father is greater, is present everywhere as God, and is in one and the • ame Temple of God as God, and also in some place of heaven as concerning the true shape of his body.
Thus find we clearly, that for the measure of his very body, he must be in one place, and that in heaven, as concerning his manhood, and yet everywhere present in that he is the eternal son of God & equal to his father. Like testimony doeth he give in the 30. Treatise that he maketh upon the Euangelie of John. These be his words there written: Donec saeculum finiatur, sursum est Dominus, sed etiam hic est veritas Domini. &c. Until the world be at an ende, the Lord is above, but here is the truth of the Lord also, for the body of our Lord in which he rose, must be in one place: but his truth is abroad in every place. The first parcel, that is, until the worlds ende, is so put, that it may join to the sentence going before, or else to these words following: The Lord is above. &c. And so should it well accord to my sentence before shown, which is, the Lord is so bodily ascended, that in his natural body he cannot again return from heaven until the general dome.
But howsoever the said clause or parcel be applied, it shall not greatly skill: for my sentence notwythstāding remaineth full steadfast. In so much, as the scripture doth mention but of two Aduents or comings of Christ, of which the first is performed in his blessed incarnation, and the second is y e coming at the general dome. And furthermore, in this Article of our Creed: From thence shall he come to judge the quick and the dead, is not only shown wherefor he shall come again, but also when he shall come again so that in the mean while, as y e other Article of our Crede witnesseth: He sitteth at the right hand of God his father, that is not else to say, thē he remaineth in glory with the father. Furthermore, even as I have before rehearsed the foresaid authority of Augustine, so have I read it in his Quinquagenes upon a Psalm, of which I cannot now precisely note or name the number. And the same words doth he also write in the Epistle to S. Jerome. So y t we may know he had good liking in it, that he so commonly doth use it, as his usual proverb or by word.
In the same is also testified, that his blessed body can be but in one place, so that it being now according to the scripture and article of our belief or Creed, in heaven it cā not be in earth: and much les can it be in so vnnumerable places of the earth, as we may perceive that the Sacrament is. Thus, although the body of our Savior must be in one place, as he writeth agreeably to y e saying of Peter: Whome the heavens must receive until the time of the restitution of all thing: Yet as the words following make mention: Veritas autem eius vbique diffusa est. But his verity is scattered everywhere. This verity of Christ, or of his body, I do take to be that he in other places, doth call Virtus Sacramenti The virtue of the Sacrament. As in the 25. treatise upon John we find thus written: Aliud est Sacramentum, aliud virtus Sacramenti. The Sacrament is one thing, & the virtue of the Sacrament, is another thing. And again: Si quis manducauerit ex ipso, non moritur, sed qui pertinet ad virtutē sacramēti, nō qui pertinet ad visible sacramētū. &c. If any mā eat of him he dieth not, but he meaneth of him, which doth apertain to the virtue of the sacrament, & not of him which pertaineth to the visible sacrament. And to declare what is the virtue of the sacrament, y t I count to be y e truth of the lord or of his body▪ he saith: Qui manducat int{us}, nō foris, qui manducat in cord, non qui premit dente. He which eateth inwardly in spirit, not outwardly: he that eateth in heart, and not he which chaweth with teeth.
So that finally, this truth of the Lord or his body, which is dispersed everywhere abroad, is the spiritual profit, fruit, and comfort, that is opened, to be received everywhere of all men by faith in the verity of the Lord, that is to wit, in the very and true promise or Testament made to us in the Lord's body that was crucified and suffered death for us, and arose again ascending immortal into heaven: where he sitteth, that is, abideth on the right hand of his father, from thence not to return until the general dome or judgment. This bodily absence of our Savior is likewise clearly shown in the 50. treatise that he maketh upon John: where he doth expound this text: Ye have the poor always with you, but you shall not always have me with you, to my purpose, that thereby I count and hold mine opinion to be rather Catholic, then theirs that hold the contrary. Finally, the same doth he confirm in his Sermons of the seconde and third Feries of Gaster, and in so many places besides forth, as here cannot be recited, the number of them is so passing great.
With him consenteth full plainly Fulgentius in his second book, to Trasimundus, writing in this wise: Vnus idemque homo localis ex homine, qui est Deus immensus ex patre Vnus idemque secundum humanam substantiam, absens coelo cum esset in terra, &c. One and the same man being local, in that he is man which is God almighty of the Father. One and the same according to human substance, being absent from heaven when he was in the earth, and leaving the earth when he ascended up into heaven. But according to his divine and almighty substance, neither departing from heaven, when he descended from heaven, neither leaving the earth, when he ascended into heaven. The which may well be known by the vndoubtfull saying of our Lord himself: which that he might the better show his humanity occupyeng a place, said unto his Disciples: I ascend up unto my father and your father, unto my God and your God. Also when he had said of Lazarus: Lazarus is dead, he adjoined saying: And I am glad for your sakes, that you may believe, because I was not there. But showing the greatenes of his divinity, he said to his Disciples: Behold I am with you unto the ende of the world. For how did he ascend into heaven? but because he is local and true man? And how is he present to his faithful, but because he is almighty and true God? &c. In this manner doth he proceed forth, speaking much, full agreeably to my sentence, which is now ouerlong here to write. But what can be said more plainly in so few words making for me?
First he saith, that Christ being a man, is as concerning his manhead, local, that is to say, contained in one place. And to express that • hore clearly, he addeth to it, saying: He is one and the same according to his human substance, absent from heaven when he was in earth, and leaving the earth when he ascended into heaven. Whereas he hath a contrary Antithesis for the godly nature, to show forth the first point the more effectually. The Antithesis is thus: But according to his divine and incomparable substance, neither leaving heaven when he descended from heaven, neither forsaking the earth whē he ascended into heaven. Whereby is also confirmed, that I said: Christ did descend and a • cend, as touching his humanity, but not in his Deity, which is immutable and unmovable: as we may perceive by that he here doth call it, Almighty substance. Furthermore, to show, that Christ (as touching his human and natural body) is local, and in one place: he alledgeth, and that right justly, two texts of Scripture. The first is: I ascend to my father, &c. And the second is of Lazarus, I am glad for your sakes, &c.
Finally, he maketh this demand: But how he did ascend into heaven, but because he is a local and very man? Whereby we may see, that by this sentence, Christ could not ascend, except he had been local, that is, contained in one place, and so very man. And that is according to S. Augustine, writing as is above shown: And he shall so come (as the Angel witnesseth) even as you have seen him going up into heaven, that is to say, in the same form and substance of his flesh. According to this form he is not spread abroad in every place: for we must beware that we do not so esteem his divinity, that we thereby do take away the verity of his body. So that they both do testify, that Christ could not have ascended, except he had been local, that is to wit, contained in one place, and very man: and that if he were not local, he could not be a man. Wherefore Saint Augustine saith further, ad Dardanum: Spatia locorum tolle corporibus, & nusquam erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt. That is to wit: Take away localitie, or occupieng of place from bodies, and they shall be nowhere: and for because they shall be nowhere, they shall have no being at all.
We therefore coveting to find Christ or his natural body, should seek for him in heaven, where his natural manhood is sitting on y e right hand of his father. So willeth us S. Ambrose in the x. book which he writeth upon Luke, speaking of Christ's humanity assūpt, in this wise: Ergo, nō supra terram, nec in terra, nec secundū carnem te quaerere debemus, si volumus te inuenire. &c. Therefore we ought not to seek thee upon the earth, nor in the earth, neither according to the flesh, if we will find thee: for now according to the flesh we do not know Christ. Furthermore, Stephē did not seek thee upon the earth, when that he did see thee standing on the right hand of God the Father. But Mary which sought thee upon the earth, could not touch thee. Stephen touched thee because he sought thee in heaven. Stephen amongst the Jews saw thee being absent. &c. Thus we must seek for the natural body of Christ, not upon the earth, but in heaven, if we will not be deceived. And that doth he more largely show in the same treatise, speaking thus of the verity of Christ's body: Quomodo nō corpus quiesceret, in quo manebant insignia vulnerum, vestigia cicatricum, quae Dominus palpanda obtulit? &c. How could it come to pass that the body could not rest in the sepulcher, in which the tokens of the wounds and scars did appear, which the Lord him self did offer to be touched (in which doing he did not only stablish the faith, but also augmented devotion?) Because he would rather carry up into heaven the wounds received for us, and would not put them away, that he might present to God the Father, the price of our liberty. Such a one the Father doth place at his right hand, embracing the triumph and victory of our salvation▪ &c.
Gregory also in an Homely of Pentecost, saith agreeably to the other, in these words: Quādo non maneret apud eos, qui ascensu • us coelos, promittit dicens: Ecce ego vobiscū sum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem saeculi? &c. When was it that he did not tarry with them, which ascending up into heaven, promiseth, saying: Behold I am here with you continually until the ende of the world? But the word incarnate tarrieth and also goeth away. It departeth in body, and tarrieth in Divinity. And therefore he saith that he 〈◊〉 with them: even he which was ever present with them 〈…〉 power, and now departed by his corpora ••• 〈…〉 doth he testify in the Home • y of 〈…〉
With these doth Bede accord in an Homely of 〈◊〉 in which he declareth this text. John. 16. A little while, and ye shall not see me: And again, a little while and ye shall see me. And also in an Homely of the vigill of Pētecost. And who can otherwise say or think, knowing the Scripture and our belief, but that the natural body of Christ is so assūpt into heaven all whole, that it must there abide without returning, until the general Judgment. Notwithstandyng, seeing this is the chief point whereupon I seek to establish my sentence in this matter of the holy Sacrament, that Christ's holy & natural body is so assumpt into heaven, that there it must remain all whole without returning until the general dome: I will yet with the permission of your grace, add one or two Arguments deduced out of the Scriptures, to declare further my sentence to be faithful and Catholic.
Arguments out of Scripture.
First, as Christ was enclosed and so borne about in the womb of his mother bring a Virgin undefiled, and after was borne into this world, and put in a maunger, and so he growing in age did abide in diverse places, but in one after another, sometime in Galilee, sometime in Samaria, sometime in Jury, sometime beyond, & sometime on this side of Jordan, & consequently he was crucified at Jerusalem, there being enclosed & buried in a grave, frō whence he did arise, so that the angels testified of him: He is risen and is not here. Matthew. 28. and as at the time appointed, after his resurrectiō, he was assumpt or lifted up into heaven, from the top of the Moūt of Olivet, in the sight of his Disciples, a cloud compassing him about: Even so shall he come from the same celestial place corporally, as they did see him to depart out of the one place corporally, according to the testimony of the aūgels. Acts. 1. So that in this we may undoubtedly find that Christ, as touching his manhead, cannot be corporally in many & diverse places at once, and so to be corporally in his natural body in heaven and also in the earth, and that it is moreover, in so many partes of the world, as men have affirmed.
Neither doth the Scripture require that we should spoil Christ of the property of man's nature, which is to be in one place, whō the same Scripture doth perpetually witness and teach to be man, & so to counfound the condition of his bodily nature, with the nature Divine. Paul doth teach that Christ in manhead, was made in all pointes like unto his brethren, sin excepted: how then can his body be in more places at once, unlike unto the natural property of the bodies of us his brethren? But here do some witty Philosophers, yea, rather Sophisters then Divines, bring in to the anulling of Christ's humanity, a similitude of man's soul which being one, is yet so all whole in all our whole body, that it is said to be all whole in every part of the body. But such should remember, that it is no convenient similitude which is made of things different and diverse in nature, such as be the soul and body of man, to prove them to have like properties. This is as if they would prove Christ's body to be of one nature and property with his soul, & that things naturally corporal, were not most diverse from creatures naturally spiritual.
Furthermore, if so it might be, that the body or flesh of Christ, were merely spiritual, and full like unto the substance of Angels, yet could it not in this wise follow, that his body could be everywhere, or in diverse places at once. Wherefore such subtleties are to be omitted, and the trade of Scripture should well like us, by which the old Doctors do define, that the body of Jesus exalted or assumpt into heaven, must be local, circumscript, and in one place: notwithstanding that the verity, spiritual grace, & fruit that cometh of it, is diffused and spread abroad in all places, or everywhere. How could Christ corporally depart out of this world, and leave the earth, if he in y e kinds of bread and wine be not only corporally contained and received, but also there reserved, kept and enclosed? What other thing else do these words testify, John xiii. But Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to his father, &c. And in like form, Luke 24. And it came to pass, that as he blessed them, he departed from them, and was carried up into heaven: What do they signify, if Christ went not verily out of this world, his natural body being surely assumpt into heaven?
They do therefore undoubtedly declare that Christ, being very God and very man, did verily depart out of this world in his natural body, his humanity being assumpt into heaven, where it remaineth sitting in glory with the father: Whereas yet his Deity did not leave the world, ne depart out from the earth. Paul doth say Philippians 2. that of ii. things he wist not which he might rather choose, that is to wit, to abide in the flesh for preaching the Gospel, or else to be dissolved from the flesh, seeing that to abide with Christ is much and far better. By the which Paul doth manifestly prove, that they be not presentlye with Christ, which yet do abide mortal in the flesh. Yet they be with Christ in such wise, as the Scripture doth say that the believing be the Temple of Christ. And as Paul doth say 2. Cor. 13. Do you not know yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you? In which sense he also promised to be with us unto the end of the world. Christ therefore must be otherwise in that place, in which the Apostle desired to be with him, being dissolved, and departed from his body, then he doth abide either in the supper, or else in any other places of the Churches. He therefore doth undoubtedly mean heaven, which is the paradise of perfect bliss and glory: Whereas Christ being a victor, triumpher, and conqueror over death, sin, and hell, and over all creatures, doth reign & remain corporally. Thus do I trust that your grace doth see my sentence, this farforth to be right Catholic, Christian, and faithful, according to holy scripture, to holy Fathers, and to the Articles of our Christian belief. Which sentence is thus: Christ's natural body is so assumpt into heaven, where it sitteth or remaineth in glory of the father, that it can no more come from thence, that is to wit, from heaven return, until the end of the world: and therefore cannot the same natural body, naturally be here in the world, or in the Sacrament: For then should it be departed or gone out of the world, and yet be still remaining in the world. It should then be both to come, and already come, which is a contradiction, and variaunt from the nature of his manhead.
The second part of this matter.
Now my sentence in the second part of this matter, is this (if so be your grace shall please to know it, as I your poor and unworthy, but full true subject, would with all submission and instance beseech you to know it) I grant the holy sacrament to be the very and natural body of our Savior, and his very natural blood, and that the natural body and blood of our Savior, is in the Sacrament after a certain wise, as after shall appear. For so do the words of the supper testify: Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you. And again: Drink ye all of this, this is my blood which is of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Of which words, seeing in them dependeth a great trial and proof of this matter, and that for the interpretation of them, is and hath been all controversy of this matter, I therefore shall show the interpretation, that holy Doctors have made of them, that as to me seemeth, be full worthy credit.
First, we find in the seconde book of Tertullian which he writeth against Marcion: Ipse Christus nec panem reprobauit, &c. Christ did not reprove the bread, because it doth represent his body. This Marcion, against whom Tertullian doth thus write, did erroneously reprove all creatures as evil. Which thing Tertullian doth improve by the Sacrament, saying as is above written: Christ did not reprove the bread, which representeth his body. As who would say: If Christ had judged the bread evil, then would he not have left it for a sign or sacrament to represent his blessed body. Agreeably to the same doth he also say in the fourth book made against the said Marcion in these words: Christus acceptum panem & distributum Discipulis, corpus suum illud fecit, &c. Christ made that same bread which he took and distributed to his Disciples, his body, saying: This is my body, that is to say, the figure of my body. But it could not have been a figure, unless it were the body of a very true thing in deed. Furthermore, a void thing which is a fantasy, could not receive a figure or a form. This Marcion had an erroneous opinion, that Christ had no natural body, but a body fantastical. Which error or heresy, this famous Doctor Tertullian doth improve by the holy Sacrament, saying as afore is written, That the Sacrament is a figure of Christ's body: Ergo, Christ had a very and true body. For a thing which is vain and fantastical, can receive no figure. So that in both places we may clearly perceive his interpretation of these words: Thys is my body: Which interpretation is not new but authentic or full ancient, like as is the Writer. And this interpretation do I the rather allow, because none of the old Doctors, which followed him, did ever improve him therefore, but rather have followed it, as appeareth by holy Augustine. In the Preface upon the third Psalm, doth the said Augustine highly commend the wonderful sufferance of Christ, which so long did suffer and forbear Judas, as if he had been a good and an honest man: where as notwithstanding he did know his traiterous thoughts, when he received him to the feast or supper, in which he did commend and deliver to his Disciples, the figure of his body and blood. The words of Agustine in Latin, be these. In historia noui Testamenti, ipsa Domini nostri tanta & tam admiranda patientia erat, quod eum tādiu pertulit tanquā bonū, &c. In the story of the new testament, the patience of our Lord was so great, and so to be marveled at, because he suffered Judas so long as a good man, when as he knew his thoughts when he rereceiued him to the feast, in the which he did commend and deliver the figure of his body and blood to his disciples.
The same holy Doctor also writing against Adamantius, saith thus: Non enim dubitauit Dominus dicere, hoc est corpus meum, cùm daret signum corporis sui: For the Lord did not doubt to say: This is my body, when he gave a sign of his body. And for a further declaration of the same Chapter, he saith: Sic enim sanguis est anima, quomodo petra erat Christus, &c. For the blood is so the soul, as the rock was Christ. Notwithstanding he doth not say, that the rock did signify Christ: but he doth say that the rock was Christ.
Expressely doth Augustine here call the sign of Christ's body, his body, plainly interpreting these words, This is my body, as both he and Tertullian did before.
Moreover, he taketh these three sentences: This is my body: The soul is the blood: and Christ was the stone, to be of one phrase, and to be like speeches, or to be expounded, after one fashion. And this text: The rock was Christ doth he commonly thus expound: The rock did signify Christ, as appeareth Lib. 18. de Ciuitate Dei. Cap. 48. Also in the book of Questions upon Genesis, and in the book of Questions upon Leviticus, handling the 28. Chapter of John: and in his Sermon of the Annuntiation of our Lady.
In like manner also Saint Jerome expoundeth it in the small scholies, written upon the first chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, and all other writers with one consent, so far as I can read: and so doth the text require it to be expounded. For Christ was not a natural stone, as all men may well perceive, and yet was he the very true stone figuratively, as Lyra saith: Solet res quae significat, nomine rei quam significat, nominari: The thing which signifieth is wont to be called by the name of the thing which it doth signify. And so is the stone signifying Christ, called Christ, which thereby is signified. And as he doth approve this text, The stone was Christ, likewise doth he expound: The blood is the soul, with the which he doth knit this text: This is my body, to be figuratively expounded, as they be. According to this, doth the holy Doctor write, Psalm 50. Nisi quis manducauerit carnem meam, non videbit vitam aeternam, &c. Unless a man do eat my flesh, he shall not see eternal life. They understood that very foolishly, and conceived the same carnally, and thought that our Lord would cut away lumps or pieces of his body, and give to them. And they said: This is an hard saying. But they were hard of belief, and not the saying. For if they had not been hard, but meek, they would have said to them selves: He speaketh not this without a cause, but because there is some hyd Sacrament or mystery therein. They should have aboden with him, easy of belief, and not hard, and then should they have learned of him that which other learned, that tarried, after they were gone away.
In this may we see, that our Savior willeth his precious flesh to be eaten. But for the manner of eating, is, and hath been much controversy. The Jews of Capernaum were offended with Christ, when he said, he would have his flesh eaten: and except a man should eat his flesh, he could not come to life eternal. They supposed grossly, and understood him (if a man might so plainly speak it) butcherly, that he would cut out lumps and pieces out of his body, as the butcher doth out of dead beasts, and so give it them to eat of, as Augustine doth here say. And upon this gross, or (as holy Augustine doth here call it) foolish and fleshly understanding, they were offended, and said to him: This is a sore or hard saying. They did shoot forth their bolt, and unwise saying over soon, and were offended before they had cause. They took that for hard and sore, which should have been passing pleasant and profitable to them, if they would have heard the thing declared thoroughly to the end.
And even so now, that which in this matter may appear at the first blush, a sore, strange, and intolerable sentence, for as much as we have not heard of it before, but the contrary hath of long time ben beaten into our heads, and persuaded to our minds, yet by deliberation and indifferent, and abiding a trial of that which at the first may appear sore and intolerable, shall (I trust) be found a sweet truth, to such specially as your grace is, loving to hear & to know all truth. But the Capernaites were hard, as here saith Augustine, and not the word. For if they had not been hard, but soft and patient to hear, they would have said in themselves, Christ saith not this without a cause, and there is some hid mystery therein: and so by patient • ariance, they should have known the truth, that they could not attain to, for perverse hastiness, or haste, which is a great stop and let of true judgment. But the Disciples tarried patiently to hear further, and so did they know this speech of Christ to be the words of life, that to the other, over readily departing from Christ, were words of death: For they took them literally and grossly, and the letter (as Paul saith) slayeth.
But to show what the Disciples remaining with Christ did learn, saint Augustine doth consequently show by the words of the Gospel, saying thus: Ille autem instruxit eos, & ait illis: Spiritus est qui viuificat, caro nihil prodest, &c. But he instructed them, and said unto them: The Spirit is that which giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are spirit and life. Understand you that which I have spoken, spiritually. You shall not eat this body which you see, neither shall you drink that same blood which they shall shed forth, that shall crucify me. I have set forth to you a certain Sacrament or mystery, which being spiritually understand, shall give you life: and although it be requisite that this be celebrated visibly, yet it ought to be understand invisibly. In this do we see, that both Christ and Augustine would have Christ's words to be understand spiritually, and not carnally: figuratively, and not literally, and therefore doth he say: You shall not eat this body which you see, neither shall you drink that same blood which they shall shed forth that shall crucify me. And what else is this, but that Christ would his body to be eaten, and his blood to be drunken: But he would not his body to be carnally eaten, which was materially seen of them to whom he spake, nor his material or natural blood to be carnally drunken, which his crucifiers should cause to issue from his natural body crucified, as saith Augustine: but he ordained and willed his body and blood to be spiritually eaten and drunken in faith and belief, that his body was crucified for us, and that his blood was shed for the remission of our sins.
This eating and drinking is nothing but such true faith and belief as is shown. Wherefore as Christ saith: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting. Even so doth he say: He that believeth in me, hath life everlasting. And Saint Augustine agreeably to the same, treating upon John, doth say: At quid paras dentem & ventrem? Crede, & manducasti, &c. Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and belly? Beleue, and thou hast eaten. I do know that Christ ordeineth his Sacrament to be received and eaten, which is in a certain wise called his body, as after shall be more largely opened: but the same doth not feed y e mind of them, except it be takē spiritually & not corporally. Heb. 13. It is good to stablish the heart with grace, & not with meat.
And S. Augustine assentyng to the same, doth say in a Sermō, that he maketh vpō these words, in the Gospel of Luke: Lord teache us to pray. Panem dixit, sed Epiousion, hoc est supersubstantialem. &c. He said bread, but supersubstantiall bread. This is not the bread, which goeth into the body: but that bread which doth satisfy the substance of our soul. Our souls therefore, into whom nothing corporal, can corporally enter, doth not carnally receive the body & blood of our Savior, neither did he ordain his blessed body and blood so to be eaten and drunken. Although our souls cannot live, except they be spiritually fed with the blessed body and blood of him, spiritually eating and drinking them, in taking also at times convenient, the blessed Sacrament, which is truly called his body and blood: Not that it is so really, but as is shown by the interpretation both of Tertullian & Augustine, because it is a sign or figure of Christ's body and blood. And the signs or Sacraments both commonly, as saith Augustine, both ad Bonifacium, and in his work, De Ciuitate Dei, take their denomination of the things by them represented and signified.
But for so much as some will object, that Augustine in the word afore rehearsed, doth not speak of eating the Sacrament, for the text of the Scripture, upon the which he doth ground, is not spoken by eating the Sacrament, which text is this: Unless a man eat my flesh. &c I answer, that true it is, he began of spiritual eating, and thereto serveth the text recited. Nevertheless, he meaneth that Christ is not ordained to be eaten, either without the Sacrament, or in the Sacrament, but spiritually of the faithful: as more evidently doth appear by these words there following: Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendaui, quod spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos. &c. I have commonded unto you a Sacrament, which being understand of you spiritually, shall quicken you. Although it were necessary that the same should be celebrated visibly, yet notwithstanding it ought to be understand invisibly.
Here doth he show, that he meaneth of eating, not without the Sacrament only, but also in the Sacrament: And therefore he doth not only say, I have commended unto you a certain Sacrament. &c. But he addeth moreover. Although it is requisite the same to be celebrate visibly. How therefore can the eating of Christ, and the Sacrament thereof be visibly celebrate, but in the Maūdy, or in his Supper? Which is celebrate visibly in visible things of bread and wine: which cannot quicken or relieve us and our souls, except they be understand and so reciued spiritually.
Furthermore, as concerning the Exposition of these words of the Supper, This is my body &c. S. Augustine writing to Boniface, saith thus: Sepe ita loquimur, vt Pascha appropinquāte, crastinam vel perendinam Domini passionem dicamus. &c. We use oftentimes this manner of phrase, that when Easter doth approach, we name the day that cometh after, or the next day after that, the Passion of the Lord, when as he notwithstanding had suffered before that, many years: neither that Passion was done but once for all. So truly do we say upon the Lord's day: This day the Lord hath risen, when so many years are past since he rose. Wherefore no man is so fond, that he will reprove us as liars, for this manner of speaking, because we call these days according to the similitude of those, in which these things were done: so that it is called the same day which is not the same, but by course of time of the year coming about, is like unto it: and also because that thing is said to be done that day, through the celebration of the Sacrament, which was not done that day, but long before that time. Was not Christ once offered up in him self? And yet notwithstanding he is not only offered up in the Sacrament, in the solemn feasts of Easter, but every day mystically for the people. Neither doth he make a lie, which being demanded, answereth, that Christ is offered up. For if the Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments, then should they be no Sacraments at all. By reason of this similitude or likeness, Sacraments oftentimes do receive the names of the self same things, whereof they are Sacraments.
Therefore, as after a certain manner, the Sacrament of Christ's body, is the body of Christ, and the Sacrament of Christ's blood, is the blood of Christ: even likewise the Sacrament of faith, is faith For to believe is none other thing, then to have faith. And by this it is answered, that the very infantes have faith, because of the Sacrament of faith, and convert them selves unto God, because of the Sacrament of conversion: for the very answer it self doth appertain unto the celebration of the Sacrament: as the Apostle speaketh of Baptism. For he saith, We are buried by Baptism, into death. He doth not say, we have signified a burieng, but he plainly saith we are buried. Therefore he named the sacrament of so weighty a matter or thing by no other name, but by the very name of the thing it self.
Nothing can be more plainly spoken, nor more agreeably to the natural understanding of the texts of the Supper, and to the exposition afore shown, of Tertullian and of himself. For seeing that Christ is bodily in heaven, and so absent from the earth, it is needful to know, howe the holy Sacrament, which he doth call his body and blood, should be his body and blood.
This holy Doctor therefore Augustine, doth this matter manifestly and sincerely declare by other like speeches, and first by common speeches, and secondly by speeches of Scripture. The common speech is this: We do (saith he) use often to say, that when Easter doth approach to draw nigh, tomorrow or the next day, is the Lord's Passion, whereas he did suffer afore many years past, and that passion was never but once done.
The second common speech is, And of that Sondaye we say, that this day the Lord did rise from death, whereas so many years be yet past since the time he arose. Wherefore, to conclude he saith: No man is so foolish, that he will reprove us for so saying, or to say, that we have lied, for because we do call these days after the similitude of those, in which these things were done. So that it is called the same day, not for that it is the selfsame, but by reuolution of time, like unto it. And the resurrection is said to be done in the same day, through the celebrating of the Sacrament of that which is not done that day, but long time afore past.
The third speech: was not Christ offered up once for all in his own person? Yet is he nevertheless offered in the Sacrament mystically for the people, not only every year at the feast of Easter, but also every day. Neither doth he lie, which when he is demanded, shall answer, that he is offered up or sacrificed. For if the Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things, of which they be Sacraments, then should they be no Sacraments at all. By reason of which similitude, they do for the most parte receive the denomination or name of those things signified. And therefore after a certain manner, the Sacrament of Christ's body, is the body of Christ, and the Sacrament of Christ's blood, is the blood of Christ, and so also be the Sacraments of faith, called faith.
This doth he yet prove by another example of speech, which is this: It is none other thing to believe, then to have faith. And therefore when answer is made, that the infantes have faith, which in deed have it not in full working, it is answered, that such have faith for the Sacrament of faith, and that they do convert themselves unto faith, for the Sacrament of Conversion. For the very answer it self doth pertain to the celebration of the Sacrament, &c. Thus doth it sufficiently appear, that as we use truly to call that good Friday, or the day of Christ's passion, which is not in deed the day of Christ's Passion, but only a memorial thereof once done forever: and as we use to call the next Easter day, the day of Christ's resurrection, not because that Christ in the same day shall arise, but only for a memorial of his resurrectiō once done forever, and that of long time passed.
And Christ being offered up once for all in his own proper person, is yet said to be offered up, not only every year at Easter, but also every day in the celebration of the Sacrament, because his oblation once forever made, is thereby represented. Even so (saith Augustine) is the Sacrament of Christ's body, the body of Christ, and the sacrament of Christ's blood, the blood of Christ, in a certain wise or fashion. Not that the Sacrament is his natural body or blood in deed, but that it is a memorial or representation thereof, as the days before shown, be of his very and natural body crucified for us, and of his precious blood shed for the remission of our sins. And thus be the holy signs or Sacraments truly called by the names of the very things in them signified. But why so? For they (saith Augustine) have a certain similitude of those things whereof they be signs or Sacraments, for else they should be no Sacraments at all: And therefore do they commonly, and for the most part receive the denomination of the things whereof they be Sacraments.
So that we may manifestly perceive that he calleth not the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, the very body and blood of Christ, but as he said before. But yet he saith in a certain manner or wise: Not that the Sacrament absolutely and plainly, is his natural body or blood. For this is a false argument of Sophistry, which they call, Secundum quid ad simpliciter, that is to say, that the Sacrament of Christ's body, is in a certain wise, the body of Christ, Ergo, it is also plainly and expressly the natural body of Christ. For such another reason might this be also: Christ is after a certain manner, a Lion, a Lamb, and a door: Ergo, Christ is a natural Lion and Lamb, or material door. But the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, is therefore called his body and blood, because it is thereof a memorial, sign, sacrament, token, & representation, spent once for our redemption. Which thing is further expounded by another speech, that he doth here consequently allege of baptism: Sicut de ipso baptismo apostolus dicit, &c.
The Apostle (quoth Augustine) saith not, we have signified buryeng, but he saith utterly, we be buried with Christ, For else should all false Christians be buried with Christ from sin, which yet do live in all sin. And therefore saith Augustine immediately thereupon, he called therefore the sacrament of so great a thing, by none other name, then of the thing it self. Thus (O moste gracious and godly prince) do I confess and knowledge, that the bread of y e sacrament is truly Christ's body, and the wyne to be truly his blood, according to the words of the institution of the same Sacrament: but in a certain wise, that is to wit, figuratively, sacramētally, or significatiuely, according to the exposition of the Doctors before recited, & hereafter following. And to this exposition of the old Doctors, am I enforced, both by the articles of my Creed, and also by the circumstances of the said Scripture, as after shall more largely appear. But by the same can I not find the natural body of our Savior to be there naturally, but rather absent, both from the sacrament, & from all the world, collocate and remaining in heaven, where he by promise must abide corporally, unto the end of the world.
The same holy Doctor writing against one Faultus, saith in like manner: Si Machabaeos cum ingenti admiratione praeferimus, quia escas quibus nunc Christiani licite vtuntur, attingere noluerunt (quia pro tempore tunc Prophetico non licebat) quanto nunc magis pro Baptismo Christi, pro Eucharistia Christi, pro signo Christi, &c. If we do prefer with great admiration the Maccabees, because they would not once touche the meats which Christian men now lawfully use to eat of, for that it was not lawful for that time then being prophetical, that is, in the time of the old Testament: how much rather now ought a Christian to be more ready to suffer all things for the Baptism of Christ, and for the Sacrament of thanksgiving, and for the sign of Christ, seeing that those of the old Testament were the promises of the things to be complete and fulfilled, and these Sacraments in the new Testament are the tokens of things complete and finished? In this do I note, that according to the expositions before shown, he calleth the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Sacrament of Christ's body & blood, otherwise properly named Eucharistia, signum Christi, and that in the singular number, for as much as they both do signify well nigh one thing. In both them is testified the death of our Saueour. And moreover, he calleth them Indicia rerum completarum: that is to wit, The tokens or benefits that we shall receive by the belief of Christ for us crucified. And them doth he call usually both the sacraments, signum Christi, in the singular number. And as the same Saint Augustine in his fifty treatise upon the Gospel of Saint John teacheth, where he saith thus: Si bonus es, si ad corpus Christi pertines, (quod significat Petrus) habes Christum, & in praesenti, & in futuro. In praesenti per fidem, &c. If thou be good, if thou pertain to the body of Christ (which this word, Petrus, doth signify) then hast thou Christ both here present, and in time to come: Here present through faith: here present by the sign and figure of Christ: here present by the Sacrament of Baptism: here present by the meat and drink of the altar, &c.
More there was that John Lambert wrote to the king, but thus much only came to our hands.
The death of Robert Packington.
AMong other acts and matters passed and done this present year, which is of the Lord 1538. here is not to be silenced the unworthy and lamentable death of Robert Packington, Mercer of London, wrought and caused by the enemies of God's word, and of all good proceedings. The story is this: The said Robert Packington, being a man of substance, and dwelling in Chepeside, used every day at five of the clock, Winter and Summer, to go to prayer at a Church then called S. Thomas of Acres, but now named Mercers Chapel. And one morning amongst all other, being a great misty morning, such as hath seldōe been seen, even as he was crossing y e streate from his house to the Church, he was suddenly murdered with a gunne, which of y e neighbors was plainly heard: and by a great mumber of laborers standing at Soper lane end, he was both seen go forth of his house, and the clap of the gunne was heard, but the deed dooer was a great while vnespied and unknown. Although many in the mean time were suspected, yet none could be found faulti • therein. The murderer so covertly was conveyed, till at length by the confession of Doctor Incent Dean of Paul's in his death bed, it was known, and by him confessed, y t he himself was the author thereof, by hiring an Italian for lx. crowns or thereabout, to do the seat. For the testimony whereof, and also of the repentant words of the said Incent, the names both of thē which heard him confess it, and of thē which heard the witnesses report it, remain yet in memory, to be produced, if need required.
The cause why he was so little favored with the clergy, was this, for that he was known to be a mā of great courage, & one that could both speak, & also would be heard: for at y e same time he was one of the burgesses of the Parlamēt for the city of Londō, & had talked somewhat against the covetousness & cruelty of the clergy, wherefore he was had in contempt with them, and was thought also to have some talk with the King, for the which he was the more had in disdain with them, & murdered by the said Doctor Incent, for his labor, as hath been above declared.
And thus much of Rob. Packington, which was the brother of Agustine Packington above mentioned, who deceived bishop Tonstal, in bying the new translated Testament of Tyndale. Whose pitious murder, although it was privy and sudden, yet hath it so pleased the Lord, not to keep it in darkness, but to bring it at length to light.
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 first Article.
THe first Article in this present Parliament accorded and agreed upon: was this: that in the most blessed Sacrament of the alter, by the strength and efficacy of Christ's mighty word (it being spoken by the priest) is present really under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, conceived of the virgins Mary and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread or Wyne, or any other substance, but the substance of Christ God and man.
The 2. Article.
Secondly, that the communion in both kinds, is not necessary ad salutem, by the law of God to all persons: and that it is to be believed & not doubted of, but that in the flesh, under form of bread, is the very blood, & with the blood, under form of wine, is the very flesh as well apart, as they were both together.
The 3. Article.
Thirdly, that priests after the order of priesthood received as afore, may not mary by the law of God.
The 4. Article.
Fourthly, that the vows of chastity or widowhead, by mā or woman made to God advisedly, ought to be observed by the law of God: and that it exempteth them from other liberties of christen people, which without that they might enjoy.
The 5. Article.
Fifthly, that it is meet and necessary, that private Masses be continued and admitted in this english Church and congregation, as whereby good Christ̄ people, ordering themselves accordingly, do receive both godly & goodly consolations and benefits: And it is agreeable also to God's law.
The 6. Article.
Sixthly that auricular confession is expedient and necessary to be retained, and continued, used and frequented in the Church of God.
After th • se Articles were thus concluded and cōscented upon the Prelates of the Realm craftily perceiving that such a foul & violent act could not take place or prevail, unless straight and bloody penalties were set upon them, they caused through their acustomed practice to be ordained and enacted by the king and the Lord's spiritual, and temporal, and the commons in the said Parliament, as followeth.
The first Article.
THe first Article in this present Parliament accorded and agreed upon: was this: that in the most blessed Sacrament of the alter, by the strength and efficacy of Christ's mighty word (it being spoken by the priest) is present really under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, conceived of the virgins Mary and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread or Wyne, or any other substance, but the substance of Christ God and man.
The 2. Article.
Secondly, that the communion in both kinds, is not necessary ad salutem, by the law of God to all persons: and that it is to be believed & not doubted of, but that in the flesh, under form of bread, is the very blood, & with the blood, under form of wine, is the very flesh as well apart, as they were both together.
The 3. Article.
Thirdly, that priests after the order of priesthood received as afore, may not mary by the law of God.
The 5. Article.
Fifthly, that it is meet and necessary, that private Masses be continued and admitted in this english Church and congregation, as whereby good Christ̄ people, ordering themselves accordingly, do receive both godly & goodly consolations and benefits: And it is agreeable also to God's law.
The 6. Article.
Sixthly that auricular confession is expedient and necessary to be retained, and continued, used and frequented in the Church of God.
After th • se Articles were thus concluded and cōscented upon the Prelates of the Realm craftily perceiving that such a foul & violent act could not take place or prevail, unless straight and bloody penalties were set upon them, they caused through their acustomed practice to be ordained and enacted by the king and the Lord's spiritual, and temporal, and the commons in the said Parliament, as followeth.
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.
A writing of Aelfrike to wulfstne.
Man sceal healden þaet halige husel mid mycelre gymene & ne forhealdan hit. ac halgian oþen edniƿe to sceocum mannum. a. embe VII. niht. oððe embe XIIII. night {that} hit huru fynig ne sy. forðon ðe eal sƿa {that} ðe on easterdaeg ƿaes gehadgod; Ðaet husel is Cristes lichama na lichamlice ac gastlice; Na se lichama ðe he on ðroƿode. ac se lichama ðe he embe spraec. ða ða h bletsode hlaf & ƿin to husel anre nihte aer his ðroƿunge. & cƿaeþ be þam gebletsode hlaf. ðis is min lichama. & eft be ðam halgan ƿine. ðis is min blode þe bið for manegum agoten on synna forgifenesse; Vnderstandaþ nu {that} se drighten ðe mihte aƿendon ðone hlaf aer his ðroƿunge to his lichaman. & {that} ƿin to his blode gastlice. þaet se ylca daeghƿamlice bletsah ðurh sacerda handa hlaf & ƿin to his gastlican lichaman. and to his gastlican blode.
The same in English.
Men shall reserve more carefully that holy housel, & not reserve it to long, but halow other of new for sick men always within a week or a fortnight, that it be not so much as hory. For so holy is the housel which to days hallowed, as that which on Easterday was hallowed, That housel is Christ's body not bodily but ghostly. Not the body which he suffered in, but the body of which he spake, when he blessed bread and wine to housel the night before his suffering, and said by the blessed bread: this is my body, & again by the holy wine, this is my blood, which is shed for many in forgiveness of sins. Understand now that the Lord, who could turn that bread before his suffering to his body, and that wine to his blood ghostly, y t the self same Lord blesseth daily through the priests hands, bread and wine to his ghostly body, and to his ghostly blood.
After this Epistle above prefixed of Elfricus, written to Wulfsinus B. of Shireburne, concerning the sacramental bread, how it is not Christ's body, lichamlice that is, bodily, or (as we term it now) really: and also howe the same ought not to be ouerlong kept in y e pyx: here followeth further another epistle of the said Elfricus written to Wulfstane Archb. of York, both reprehending y e said abuse above touched, and also containing matter more at large against the bodily presence in the sacramental bread. The copy of his epistle, both in his own Saxon, and in our English here followeth.
An other Epistle of Aelfricus against the bodily presence to Wulfstane Archbishop of York.
SVme preostas gefyllað heora husel box on 〈◊〉 & healdaþ ofer tƿelf monaþ to untrumum 〈◊〉 sƿylce ðaet husel sy haligre ðonne oþer. Ac hi 〈◊〉 ƿislice. forðam he hit ƿannað. oððe mid ealle for •••• on sƿa langum first. & he bið • on scyldig 〈◊〉 saegþ seo boc; Se ðe husel forhylt. oððe hit 〈◊〉 oððe miseton. oððe oðre nytenu. sceaƿa þapoenitentialem. hƿaet he saegðe þisum; Eal sƿa halig is ðaet 〈◊〉 ðe bið gehalgod to daeg. sƿa ðaet ðe bið gehalgod on ð •• halgan easterdaege; Healda • forþig ic bid þone hal •• Cristes lichaman mid maran ƿisdome to seocum ••• num fram sunnan daege to sunna daege on sƿiþe 〈◊〉 box. oððe be ðam maestan feoƿertyne niht and ðþþ hit þonne. and lecgað ðaer oþer; ƿe habbaþ by s ••• ðam on Moses bocum. sƿa sƿa God sylf bebead 〈◊〉 Moses ae. ðaet se sacerd sceolde on aelcum saet ••• daege ƿettan tƿelf hlafas on ðam tabernaculo ealle ••• bacene. ða ƿaeron gehatene Panes propositionis. and 〈◊〉 sceoldon ðaer standan on ðam God's getaelde oð 〈◊〉 saeternes daeg. & etan hi ðonne ða sacerdas sylfe ••• tan daer oðre; Sume preostas nellað ðicgan ðaet 〈◊〉 ðe hi halgiaþ; Nu ƿille ƿe eoƿ secgan. hu seo boc segð 〈◊〉 þam; Presyter missam celebrans. & non audens sac •• ficium accurante conscientia sua anathema est; 〈◊〉 maessepreost ðe maessaþ. and ne dear ðaet husel ðicg •• ƿat hine scyldigne. se is amansumod; Laesse 〈◊〉 ••• digenne ðaet husel. ðonne to halgienne; Se ðe tu ••• gaþ ane ofletan to husle. se bið þam gedƿolan gelice. ••• an cild fullaþ tuƿa; Christ sylf gehalgod husel aer 〈◊〉 ðroƿunge. he bletsode ðone hlaf. & to braec þus sƿeþe • de to his halgum apostolum. etaþ ðisne hlaf. hit is m •• lichama: and he eft bletsode aenne calic mid ƿine and cƿ ••• heom ðus to. drincaþ ealle of ðisum. his is min ag ••• blode ðaere niƿan gecydnysse. ðe bið for maneg •• •• goten on synna forgyfenysse; Se drihten þe halg ••• husel aer his ðroƿunge, and cƿaeþ {that} se hlaf ƿaere his 〈◊〉 lichama. and þaet ƿin ƿaere ƿitodllice his blod. se ha ••• daeghƿamlice þurgh his sacerda handa hlaf to his ••• man. & ƿin to his blod on gastlicere geryne. sƿa 〈◊〉 raedaþ on bocum; Ne bið se liflica hlaf lichamlice 〈◊〉 ah se ylca lichama. ðe Christ on ðroƿode; Ne ðaet 〈◊〉 ge ƿin nis þaes haelendes blod • e for us agoten ƿaes ••• chamlice þinge. ac on gastlicum andgyte; aegþer 〈◊〉 soþlice se hlaf his lichama. and {that} ƿin eac his blod sƿa 〈◊〉 heofonlica hlaf ƿaes. ðe ƿe hataþ manna. ðe feoƿertig •• ara afedde God's folce. & þaet hlutre ƿaeter ƿas ••• lice his blod. ðe arn of ðam stane on ðam ƿaetene ð ••• Sƿa sƿa Paulus aƿraet on sumon his pistole: Omnes 〈◊〉 nostri eandem escam spiritualem manducauerunt: & 〈◊〉 eundem potum spiritualem biberunt. &c. Ealle uref ••• aeton on ðam ƿaestene þone ylcan gastlican mete. & ð ••• gastlican drenc druncon; Hi druncon of þam gastli ••• stane. & se stane ƿaes Christ; Se apostol saede sƿa sƿa 〈◊〉 nu gehyrdon þaet hi ealle aeton ðone ylcan gast ••• mete. and hi ealle druncon ðone gastlican drenc; N • cƿaeð he na lichamlice. ac gastlice; Naes Christ ða gyt geboren. ne his blod naes agoten. ða þaet Israhela folc 〈◊〉 aet ðone mete. & of ðam stane dranc. & se stan naes lichamlice Christ ðeah he sƿa cƿaede; Hit ƿaeron ða ylcan geryn • on ðaere ealdam ae. & hi gastlice getacnodon þaet gastlice husel ures haelendes lichaman. ðe ƿe halgiaþ nu.
The same in English.
SOme Priests fil their box for housel on Easter day, and so reserve it a whole yere for sick men, as though that housel were more holy then any other. But they do unadvisedly, because it waxeth hory, or altogether rotten by keeping it so long space: and thus are they become guilty, as y e book witnesseth to us. If any do keep y t housel to long or lose it or myse or other beasts do eat it, se what the penitential book saith by this: So holy is altogether that housel, which is hallowed today, as that which is hallowed on Easter day. Wherefore I beseech you to keep the holy body of Christ with more advisement: for sick men, frō Sunday to Sunday, in a very clean box: or at the most not to keep it above a fortnight, and then eat it, laying other in the place. We have an example hereof in Moses books, as God him self hath commanded in Moses law, how the Priests should set every Saturday, twelve loaves all new baked, upon the tabernacle: the which were called Panes propositionis: and those should stand thereon God's tabernacle, till the next Saturday, and then did the Priests thenselves eat them, and set other in the place. Some Priests will not eat the housel, which they do hallow: But we will now declare unto you how the book speaketh by thē Presbyter missam celebrans, & non audens sumere sacrificium, accusante conscientia, an athema est. The Prieste that doeth say mass and dare not eat the housel, his conscience accusing him, is accursed. It is less danger to receive the housel, then to hallow it. He that doth twice halow one host to housel, is like unto those heretics, who do christen twice one child. Christ himself blessed houssel before his suffering: he blessed the bread and brake it, thus speaking to his Apostles: Eate this bread, it is my body. And again, he blessed one Chalice with wyne, & thus also spake unto them: Drink ye all of this, it is mine own blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering, & saith that the bread was his own body, & that the wyne was truly his blood, haloweth daily by the hands of the priest, bread to his body and wine to his blood in ghostly mystery, as we read in books▪ And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so, nor the self same body that Christ suffered in: nor that holy wine is the Saviors blood which was shed for us in bodily thing: but in Ghostly understanding. Both be truly, y e bread is his body, & that wine also is his blood, as was the heavenly bread, which we call manna that fed forty years God's people. And the clear water which did then run from the stone in the wilderness, was truly his blood, as S. Paul wrote in one of his Epistles: Omnes patres nostri candemescam spiritualem manducauerunt, & omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt, &c. Al our fathers did eat in the wilderness the same ghostly meat, and drank y e same ghostly drink. They drank of that Ghostly stone, and that stone was Christ. The Apostle hath said (as you now have heard) that they all did eat the same ghostly meat, & they all did drink the same ghostly drink. And he saith not bodily, but ghostly. And Christ was not yet borne, nor his blood shed, when that the people of Israel did eat that meat and drank of that stone. And the stone was not bodily Christ, though he so said. It was the same mystery in the old law, and they did ghostly signify that ghostly housel of our Saviors body which we consecrate now.
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.
A Sermon translated out of Latin into the Saxon tongue by Aelfricus, against Transubstantiation. An. 996.
In die Sanctae Pascae.
The Alphabet of the Saxon tongue.
a. b. c. d. e. f. y. h. i. l. m. n. o. p. r. s. t. u. ƿ. x. y. z.
Abbreuiations.
This Sermon was usual to be read in the Church here in England in the Saxons time. An. 366.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
The same in English.
A Sermon on Easter day.
MEn beloved, it hath been often said unto you about our Saviors resurrection, howe he on this present day, after his suffering mightily rose from death. Now will we open unto you through God's grace, of the holy housel, which ye should now go unto, and instruct your understanding about this mystery, both after the old covenant, and also after the new, that no doubting may trouble you about this lively food. The almighty God bad Moses his Captain in the Lande of Egypt, to command the people of Israel to take to every family a lamb of one yere old, the night they departed out of the country to the land of promise, and to offer that lamb to God, and after to cut it, and to make the sign of the Cross with the lambes blood upon the side posts, and the upper post of their door, and afterward to eat the Lambes flesh roasted, and unleavened bread with wild lettisse, God saith unto Moses: Eate of the Lamb nothing raw, nor sodden in water but roasted at the fire. Eate the head, the feet, and the inwardes, and let nothing of it be left until the morning, if any thing thereof remain▪ that shall you burn with fire. Eate it in this wise: Girde your loins▪ and do your shoes on your feet▪ have you staves in your hands, and eat it in haste. The time is the Lord's Passover. And there was slain on that night in every house through out Pharaoh's reign, the first borne child: and God's people of Israel were delivered frō that sudden death through the Lambes offering & his bloudes marking. Then said God unto Moses. Keep this day in your remembrance, and hold it a great feast in your kindredes with a perpetual observation, and eat unleavened bread always seven days at this feast. After this deed, God led the people of Israel over the red Sea with dry foot, & drowned therein Pharaoh and all his army together with their possessions, and fed afterward the Israelites 40. years, with heavenly food, and gave them water out of the hard rock, until they came to the promised land. Parte of this story we have treated off in another place, partly we shall now declare, to wit, that which belongeth to the holy housel, Christian men may not now keep that old law bodily, but it behooveth them to know what it Ghostlye signifieth. That innocent Lamb which the old Israelites did then kill, had signification after Ghostly understanding, of Christ's suffering, who vnguiltie shed his holy blood for our redemption. Hereof sing God's servants at every Mass, Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. That is in our speech: Thou Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Those Israelites were delivered from that sudden death, and from Pharaoh's bondage by the lambes offering, which signified Christ's suffering: through which we be delivered from everlasting death, and from the devils cruel reign, if we rightly believe in the true redeemer of the whole world Christ the Savior. That Lamb was offered in the evening: and our savior suffered in the sixth age of this world. This age of this corruptible world is reckoned unto the evening. They marked with the lambes blood upon the doors, and the upper posts Thau, that is the sign of the cross, and wer so defended from the Angels that killed the Egyptians first borne child. And we ought to mark our foreheads and our bodies with the token of Christ's rood, y t we may be also delivered from destruction, when we shall be marked both on forehead, and also in heart with the blood of our Lord's suffering. Those Israelites did eat the lambes flesh at their Easter time, when they were delivered, and we receive ghostly Christ's body, & drink his blood, when we receive with true belief, that holy housel. That time they kept with them at Easter 7. days with great worship, when they were delivered from Pharaoh, and went from that land. So also Christian men keep Christ's resurrection at the time of Easter these 7. days, because through his suffering and rising we be delivered, and be made clean by going to this holy housel, as Christ saith in his Gospel: Verily, verily I say unto you ye have no life in you except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him, and hath that everlasting life, and I shall raise him up in the last day. I am the lively bread that came down from heaven: not so as your forefathers did eat that heavenly bread in the wilderness, and afterward died. He that eateth this bread, liveth forever. He blessed bread before his suffering, and divided it to his Disciples, thus saying: Eate of this bread, it is my body, and do this in my remembrance. Also he blessed wyne in one cup, and said: Drink ye all of this: This is my blood that is shed for many, in forgiveness of sins. The Apostles did as Christ commanded, that is, they blessed bread and wine to housel again afterward in his remembrance. Even so also their successors and all priests by Christ's commandment do bless bread and wine to housel in his name with the Apostolic blessing. Now men have often searched and do yet often search, how bread that is gathered of corn, and through fires heat baked, may be turned to Christ's body: or howe wine that is pressed out of many grapes is turned through one blessing, to y e Lord's blood. Now say we to such men, that some things be spoken of Christ by signification▪ and some be things certain. True this is and certain that Christ was borne of a maid, and suffered death of his own accord, and was buried, and on this day rose from death. He is said to be bread by signification, and a Lamb, & a Lyon, & a mountain. He is called bread, because he is our life and angels life. He is said to be a Lamb for his innocence: a Lyon for strength wherewith he overcame the strong devil. But Christ is not so notwithstanding after true nature, neither bread, nor a lamb, nor a lyon. Why is then the holy house called Christ's body, or his blood, if it be not truly that it is called? Truly the bread and the wine which in the supper by the priest is hallowed, show one thing without to human understanding, and another thing within to believing minds. Without they be seen bread and wine both in figure & in taste, & they be truly after their hallowing Christ's body and his blood through ghostly mistery. An heathen child is christened, yet he altereth not his shape without, though he be changed within. He is brought to y e fontstone sinful through Adams disobedience: howbeit he is washed frō all sin within, though he hath not changed his shape without.