Acts and Monuments Volume 2 Part 1

Thus you consume time, which might be better bestowed on other matters. Master Opponent, I pray you to your arguments.

I will here reason with you upon transubstantiation, which you say is contrary to the rule and Analogy of faith. The contrary whereof I prove by the Scriptures and the doctors. But before I enter argumentation with you, I demand first whether in the 6. chap. of John, there be any mention made of the sacrament, or of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament.

It is against reason that I should be impeached to prosecute that which I have to speak in this assembly, being not so long, but that it may be comprehended in few words.

Let him read on.

First of all, this presence is contrary to many places of the holy Scripture.

Secondly, it varieth from the articles of the faith.

Thirdly, it destroyeth and taketh away the institution of the Lord's supper.

Fourthly, it maketh precious things common to profane and ungodly persons: for it casteth that which is holy unto dogs, and pearls unto swine.

Fifthly, it forceth men to maintain many mōstruous miracles without necessity and authority of God's word.

Sixthly, it giveth occasion to the heretics which erred concerning the two natures in Christ, to defend their heresies thereby.

Seventhly, it falsifieth the sayings of the godly fathers: it falsifieth also the Catholic Faith of the Church, which the Apostles taught, the martyrs confirmed, and the faithful (as one of the Fathers saith) do retain and keep until this day. Wherefore the second parte of mine argument is true.

He requireth time to speak blasphemies. Leave your blasphemies.

I had little thought to have had such reprochefull words at your hands.

All is quiet. Go to the arguments M. Doctor.

I have not many moe things to say.

You utter blasphemies with a most impudent face: leave off (I say) and get you to the argument.

It forceth men to maintain many monstrous miracles, without all necessity and authority of God's word. For at the coming of this presence of the body and flesh of Christ, they thrust away the substance of bread, and affirm that the accidents remain without any subject, and in the stead thereof, they place Christ's body without his qualities and the true manner of a body. And if the Sacrament be reserved so long until it mould, & worms breed some say that the substance of bread miraculously returneth again, and some deny it. Other some affirm y ^t the real body of Christ goeth down into y ^e stomach of the receivers, & doth there abide so long only as they shall continue to be good, but another sort hold that the body of Christ is carried into heavē, so soon as the forms of bread be bruised with the teeth. O works of miracles: Truly & most truly I see that fulfilled in these men, whereof S. Paul prophesied. 2. Thess. 2. Because they have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved, God shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe lies, and be all damned which have not believed the truth. This gross presence hath brought forth that fond fantasy of concomitaunce, whereby is broken at this day and abrogated the commandment of the Lord for the distributing of the Lord's cup to the laity.

It giveth occasion to heretics to maintain and defend their errors: as to Martion, which said that Christ had but a fantastical body: and to Eutiches which wickedly confounded the two natures in Christ.

Finally, it falsifieth the sayings of the godly fathers and the Catholic faith of the church, which Vigilius a Martyr, and grave writer saith was taught of the Apostles, confirmed with the blood of Martyrs, and was continually maintained by the faithful, until his time. By the sayings of the fathers, I mean of Justin, Irenee, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Emisene, Athanasius, Cyril, Epyphanius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, Vigilius, Fulgentius, Bertram, and others most ancient fathers. All those places, as I am sure I have read, making for my purpose, so am I well assumed that I could show the same, if I might have the use of mine own books, which I will take on me to do, even upon the pearill of my life, and the loss of all that I may lose in this world.

But now (my brethren) think not, because I disallow that presence which this first proposition maintaineth (as a presence which I take to be forged, fantastical, and besides the authority of God's word, pernitiously brought into the Church by the Romanists) that I therefore go about to take away the true presence of Christ's body in his Supper rightly and duly ministered, which is grounded upon the word of God, and made more plain by the commentaries of y ^e faithful fathers: They that think so of me, the Lord knoweth how far they are deceived. And to make the same evident unto you. I will in few words declare what true presence of Christ's body in the sacrament of the Lord's supper I hold and affirm with the word of God and the ancient fathers.

I say and confess with the Evangelist Luke, and with the Apostle Paul, that the bread on the which thanks are given, is the body of Christ in the remembrance of him and of his death, to be set forth perpetually of the faithful until his coming.

I say and confess the bread which we break to be the Communion and partaking of Christ's body, with the ancient and the faithful fathers.

I say and believe that there is not only a signification of Christ's body set forth by the sacrament, but also that therewith is given to the godly and faithful, the grace of Christ's body, that is, the food of life & immortalitye. And this I hold with Cyprian.

I say also with S. Augustine, that we eat life, and we drink life: with Emisene, that we feel the Lord to be present in grace: with Athanasius, that we receive Celestial food, which cometh from above: the property of natural Communion, with Hyllarius: the nature of flesh and benediction which giveth life in bread and wine, with Cyril: and with the same Cyril, the virtue of the very flesh of Christ, life and grace of his body, the property of the only begotten, that is to say, life, as he himself in plain words expoundeth it.

I confess also with Basil, that we receive the mystical Advent and coming of Christ, grace, & the virtue of his very nature: the sacrament of his very flesh, with Ambrose: the body by grace, with Epiphanius: spiritual flesh, but not that which was crucified, with Jerome: Grace flowing into a sacrifice, and the grace of the spirit, with Chrysostom: grace and invisible verity, grace and society of the members of Christ's body, with Augustine.

Finally, with Bertram (which was the last of all these) I confess that Christ's body is in the Sacrament in this respect: namely (as he writeth) because there is in it the spirit of Christ, that is, the power of the word of God, which not only feedeth the soul, but also cleanseth it. Out of these I suppose it may clearly appear unto all mē, how far we are frō that opinion, whereof some go about falsely to slander us to the world, saying we teach that the godly and faithful should receive nothing else at the Lord's table, but a figure of the body of Christ.

You have occasioned me to go otherwise to work with you, then I had thought to have done. Me seemed you did in your supposition abuse the testimonies of scripture concerning the Ascension of Christ, to take away his presence in the Sacrament, as though this were a strong Argument to enforce your matter withal:

Christ did ascend unto heaven.

Ergo, he is not in the Sacrament.

Now therefore I will go about to disprove this reason of yours.

Christ's Ascension is no let to his real presence in the Sacrament.

Ergo, you are deceived, whereas you do ground youre self upon those places.

You import as though I had made a strong Argument by Christ's going up into heaven. But howsoever mine Argument is made, you collect it not rightly. For it doth not only stay upon his Ascension, but both upon his Ascension, and his abiding there also.

Christ's going up to heaven, and his abiding there, hinder not his real presence in the Sacrament.

Ergo, you are deceived.

Of Christ's real presence there may be a double understanding, if you take the real presence of Christ according to the real and corporal substance which he took of the virgins: that presence being in heaven, cā not be on the earth also. But if you mean a real presence, secūdum rem aliquam quae ad corpus Christi pertinet. i. according to something that appertaineth to Christ's body, certes the Ascension and abiding in heaven are no let at all to that presence. Wherefore Christ's body after that sort is here present to us in the Lord's supper: by grace I say as Epiphanius speaketh it.

I will cut off from henceforth all equivocation and doubt. For whensoever we speak of Christ's body, we mean that which he took of the Virgin.

Christ's Ascension and abiding in heaven cannot stand with this presence.

Christ appeared corporally and really on the earth for all his Ascension and continual abode in heaven unto the day of Dome.

Ergo, his Ascension and abiding in heaven, is no let to his real presence in the Sacrament.

Master Doctor, this Argument is nothing worth I do not so straightly tie Christ up in heaven, that he may not come into the earth at his pleasure. For when he will, he may come down from heaven, and be on the earth, as it liketh himself. Howbeit I do affirm that it is not possible for him to be both in heaven and earth at one time.

Mark I pray you my Masters, diligently that be here, what he answereth. First he saith, that the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his father, is a let to the real presence of his body in the Sacrament: and then afterward he flieth from it again.

I would not have you think that I do imagine or dream upon any such manner of sitting, as these men here sit in the School.

Ergo, it is lawful for Christ then to be here present on the earth, when he will himself.

Yea when he will, it is lawful indeed.

Ergo, his ascending into heaven, doth not restrain his real presence in the Sacrament.

I do not gaynesay, but that it is lawful sor him to appear on the earth, when he will: but prove you y ^t he will.

Then your answer dependeth upon the will of Christ, I perceive, Therefore I will join again with you in this short argument.

Christ, albeit he doth always abide in heaven after his ascension, was seen really and corporally on the earth. Ergo, not withstanding his Ascen • ion and continual sitting at the right hand of the father, he may be really and corporally in the sacrament.

If the Notaries should so record your Argument, as you have framed it, you peradventure would be ashamed thereof hereafter.

Christ after his Ascension was seen really and corporally upon the earth.

Ergo, notwithstanding his Ascension and abiding with his father, he may be corporally in the Sacrament.

I grant the antecedent: but I deny the consequent.

Do you grant the antecedent?

Yea I grant the antecedent. I am content to let you have so much. Because I know that there be certain ancient fathers of that opinion. I am well content to let you use that proposition as true. And I will frame the argument for you.

He was seen on earth after his Ascension, Ergo &c.

Nay, nay, I will frame it myself.

Christ after his Ascension was seen really and corporally on earth, albeit he do abide in heaven continually:

Ergo, notwithstanding his Ascension and continual abiding at the right hand of the father, he may be really and corporally on the earth.

Let us first agree about the continual sitting at the right hand of the father.

Doth he so sit at the right hand of his father, that he doth never forsake the same?

Nay I do not bind Christ in heaven so straitly. I see you go about to beguile me w ^t your equivocations. Such equinocatiōs are to be distincted. If you mean by his sitting in heaven, to reign with his father, he may be both in heaven and also in earth. But if ye understand his sitting to be after a corporal manner of sitting, so is he always permanent in heaven. For Christ to be corporally here on earth, when corporally he is resident in heaven, is clean contrary to the holy scriptures, as Augustine saith: Corpus Christi est in coelo, sed veritas eius vbi{que} diffusa est. i. The body of Christ is in heaven: but his truth is dispersed in every place.

Now if continually he abide in heaven after the manner of his corporal presence, then his perpetual abiding there, stoppeth or letteth that the same corporal presence of him cannot be in the sacrament.

Act. 3. We read that Christ shall sit perpetually at the right hand of God, unto the consummacion of the world.

I perceive you are come here to this issue, whether the body of Christ may be together both in earth and in heaven. I will tell you, that Christ in very deed, is both in earth and in heaven together and at one time, both one & the same natural Christ after the verity and substance of his very body, Ergo, &c.

I deny the Antecedent.

I prove it by 2. witnesses. First by Chrisost. hom. 17. ad Hebraeos. Nōne per singulos dies offerim{us}? Offerimus quidē, sed recordationē facientes mortis eius. Et vna est haec hostia, nō multae. Et quomodo vna, & non multae quae semel oblata est in sancto sanctorum: Hoc autem sacrificium exemplar est illius: id ipsum semper offerimus, nec nunc quidem alium agnum, crastina alium, sed semper eundem ipsum. Proinde vnum est hoc sacrificium: alioqui hac ration, quoniam in multis locis offertur, multi Christi sunt. Nequaquam, sed vnus vbi{que} est Christus: & hic plenus existens, & illic plenus, vnum Corpus, i. Do we not offer every day? We do so in deed: but doing it for the remembrance of his death. And this offering is one and not many. And howe is it one, and not many which was offered in the holy place? This sacrifice is a pattern of that: The self same we always offer: Not now as offering one Lamb today, and another tomorrow, but always one & the same Lamb. Wherefore here is but one sacrifice: for else by this means, seeing there be many sacrifices in many places be there many Christ's? not so, but one Christ in all places, both perfect here and perfect there, one only body. Now thus I argue.

We offer one thing at all times.

There is one Christ in all places, both here complete, and there complete:

Ergo, by Chrysostom there is one body both in heaven and earth.

I remember the place well. These things make nothing against me.

One Christ is in all places, here full and there full.

One Christ is in all places, but not one body in all places.

One body saith Chrysostom.

But not after the manner of bodily substance he is in all places, nor by circumscription of place. For [hic] & [illic] here and there, in Chrysostom do assign no place, as Augustine saith: Sursum est dominus, sed vbi{que} est veritas domini: The Lord is above: But the truth of the Lord is in all places.

You cannot so escape. He saith not the verity of Christ is one: but one Christ is in all places, both here and there.

One sacrifice is in all places, because of the unity of him whom the sacrifice doth signify: not that the sacrifices be all one and the same.

Ergo, by your saying it is not Christ, but the sacrifice of Christ.

But Chrysostom saith, one body & one Christ is there, and not one sacrifice.

I say that both Christ and the sacrifice of Christ is there: Christ by spirit, grace, and verity: the sacrifice by signification. Thus I grant with Chrysostom, that there is one Host or Sacrifice, and not many: and this our Host is called one by reason of the unity of that one, which one only all our Hosts do represent. That only host was never other, but that which was once offered on the alter of the cross, of which host all our hosts are but sacramental examples.

And where you allege out of Chrysostom, that Christ is offered in many places at once, both here full Christ, and there full Christ: I grant it to be true, that is: that Christ is offered in many places at once, in a mystery and sacramentally, and that he is full Christ in all those places, but not after the corporal substance of our flesh which he toke, but after the benediction which giveth life: and he is given to the godly receivers in bread and wine as Cyril speaketh. Concerning the oblation of Christ, whereof Chrysostom here speaketh, he himself doth clearly show what he meaneth thereby, in saying by the way of correction: We always do the selfsame: howbeit by the recordation or remembrance of his sacrifice.

The second witness is Bernard in a Sermon that he made of the Supper of the Lord, who saith:

Vnde hoc nobis pijssime Jesus, vt nos vermiculi, reptantes super faciem terrae nos inquam qui puluis & cinis sumus, te praesentem habere mereamur prae manibus, prae oculis, qui totus & integer sedes ad dextram patris, qui etiam vnius horae momento, ab ortu solis vsque ad occasum, ab Aquilone vsque ad Austrum, praesto es, vnus in multis, idem in diuersis locis? That is to say:

How cometh this to us, most gentle Jesus, that we seely woormes, creeping on the face of the earth, that we (I say) which are but dust and ashes, may deserve to have thee present in our hands, and before our eyes, who both together full and whole doest sit at the right hand of the father, and who also in the moment of one hour, from the rising of the Sun, to the going down of the same, art present one, and the selfsame in many and diverse places.

These words of Bernard make for you nothing at all. But I know that Bernard was in such a time, that in this matter he may worthily be suspected. He hath many good and fruitful sayings: as also in that same foresaid place by you alleged. But yet he followed in such an age, when as the doctrine of the holy supper was sore perverted. Notwithstanding yet I will so expound him, rather then reject him, that he shall make nothing for you at all. He saith that we have Christ in mystery, in a sacrament, under a veil or cover, but hereafter shall have him without all veil or cover. In the mean time, here now he saith, that the verity of Christ is everywhere. The verity of Christ is both here and there, and in all places.

What do you call verity? He saith not the verity of Christ, but the verity of the body of Christ.

The verity of the body of Christ is the true faith of the body of Christ: after that verity he is with them which truly believe upon him.

Christ is one and the same in diverse places. I urge these words [in diuersis locis] in diverse places, and yet I am not satisfied.

Christ was seen really and corporally on the earth after his ascension, and continually sitting at the right hand of the Father.

Ergo, the ascension and perpetual sitting in heaven, hinder nothing, but that he may be really and corporally in the Sacrament.

If by perpetual sitting, you mean the residence of his body in heaven, your reason containeth manifest contradiction.

These two have no contradiction in them at all, both to sit continually at his Fathers right hand, and also to be seen here really in earth after his ascension. First, you will give me that Christ sitteth in heaven at y ^e right hand of his father. For so it is written. Act. 5. Heaven must needs receive him unto the time of the restoring of all, &c. Secondly, he was also seen of Paul here corporally on earth: Wherefore these two do import, as ye see, no contradiction.

What setteth, but that Christ, if it please him, and when it pleaseth him, may be in heaven and in earth, and appear to whom he will? and yet notwithstanding you have not yet proved, that he will so do. And though Christ continually shall be resident in heaven unto the judgment, yet there may be some intermission, that notwithstanding. But this controversy (as I said) is amongst all the ancient Doctors and Writers. And that Christ hath been here seen, that they grant all: but whether then he being in earth or in heaven, that is doubtful.

I will prove, that he would appear in earth.

He so would, and also did appear here in earth after his ascension. Ergo, &c.

He appeared, I grant: but how he appeared, whether then being in heaven or in earth, that is uncertain. So he appeared to Stephen, being then corporally sitting in heaven. For speaking after the true manner of man's body, when he is in heaven, he is not the same time in earth: and when he is in earth, he is not the same time corporally in heaven.

Christ hath been both in heaven and in earth all at one time.

Ergo, you are deceived in denying that.

I do not utterly deny Christ here to have been seen in earth. Of uncertain things I speak vncertaynely.

He was seen of Paul, as being borne before his time, after his ascending up to heaven. 1. Cor. 15.

But his vision was a corporal vision:

Ergo, he was seen corporally upon the earth after his ascending into heaven.

He was seen really and corporally in deed: but whether being in heaven or earth, it is a doubt. And of doubtful things we must judge doubtfully. Howbeit you must prove that he was in heaven in the same time, whē he was corporally on earth.

I would know of you, whether this vision may enforce the resurrection of Christ?

I accompt this a sound and firm Argument to prove the resurrection. But whether they saw him in heaven or in earth, I am in doubt: and to say the truth, it maketh no great matter. Both ways the Argumente is of like strength. For whether he were seen in heaven, or whether he were seen on earth, either of both maketh sufficiently for the matter. Certain it is, he rose again: for he could not have been seen, unless he had risen again.

Paul saw him as he was here conversant on earth, and not out of heaven as you affirm.

You run to the beginning again: that you take for granted, which you should have proved.

You make delays for the nonce.

Say not so, I pray you. Those that hear us, be learned: they can tell both what you oppose, and what I answer well enough, I warrant you.

He was seen after such sort, as y ^t he might be heard.

Ergo, he was corporally on the earth, or else how could he be heard?

He that found the means for Stephen to behold him in heaven, even he could bring to pass well enough, that Paul might hear him out of heaven.

Da- Smith. As other saw him, so Paul saw him.

ti- Other did see him visibly and corporally on earth:

si. Ergo, Paul saw him visibly and corporally on earth.

I grant he was seen visibly and corporally: but yet have you not proved that he was seen in earth.

He was seen so of him, as of other.

But he was seen of other being on earth, and appeared visibly to them on earth:

Ergo, he was seen of Paul on earth:

Your controversy is about [existens in terra] that is, being on earth: if Existere, to be, be referred as unto y ^• place, I deny that Christ after that sort was on the earth. But if it be referred as to the verity of the body, then I grant it. Moreover, I say that Christ was seen of men in earth after his ascension, it is certain. For he was seen of Stephen: he was seen also of Paul. But whether he descended unto the earth, or whether he being in heaven, did reuele or manifest himself to Paul, when Paul was wrapped into the third heaven, I know that some contend about it: & the Scripture, as far as I have read or heard, doth not determine it. Wherefore we cannot but judge uncertainly of those things which be uncertain.

We have Egesippus and Linus against you, which testify that Christ appeared corporally on the earth to Peter after his Ascension. Lib. 3. cap. 3. Peter overcome with the requests and mournings of the people, which desired him to ge • him out of the City because of Nero his lying in wait for him, began without company to convey himself away from thence: and when he was 〈◊〉 to the gate, he seeth Christ come to meet him, and worshipping him, he said: Master, whether walk you? Chr • st answered, I am come again to be crucified. Linus writing of the passion of Peter, hath the selfsame story. Saint Ambrose hath the same likewise, and also Abdias, scholar to the Apostles, which saw Christ before his ascending into heaven. With what face therefore dare you affirm it to be a thing uncertain, which these men do manifestly witness to have been done?

I said before that y ^e Doctors in that matter did vary.

Do you think this story is not certain, being approved by so ancient and probable authority?

I do so think, because I take and esteem not their words, for the words of Scripture. And though I did grant you that story to be certain, yet it maketh not against me.

Such things as be certain, and approved of them, you do reject as things uncertain.

The story of Linus is not of so great authority: although I am not ignorant that Eusebius so writeth also in the story of the Church. And yet I accompt not these men's reports so sure as the Canonical scriptures. Albeit if at any time he had to any man appeared here on the earth after his Ascension, that doth not disprove my saying. For I go not about to tie Christ up in fetters (as some do untruly report of us) but that he may be seen vpō the earth according to his Divine pleasure, whensoever it liketh him. But we affirm that it is contrary to the nature of his manhood and the true manner of his body, that he should be together and at one instant both in heaven and earth, according to his corporal substance. And the perpetual sitting at the right hand of the father, may (I grant) be taken for the stability of Christ's kingdom, and his continual or everlasting equality with his father in the glory of heaven.

Now where as you boast that your faith is the very faith of the ancient Church: I will show here that is not so, but that it doth directly strive against the faith of the old Fathers. I will bring in Chrysostom for this point. Hom. 2. ad populum Antiochenum. Tanquam maximam haereditatem, Elisaeus melotem suscepit. Etenim vere maxima fuit haereditas, omni auro praetiosior: & erat duplex Helias ill: & erat sursum Helias, & deorsum Helias. Noui quod iustum illum beatum putatis, & velletis quisque esse vt ill. Quid igitur, si vobis demonstrauero quid aliud, quod illo multo maius omnes sacris m • sterijs imbuti recipimus. Helias quidem melotem discipulo reliquit: Filius autem dei ascendens suam nobis carnem dimisit. Sed Helias quidem exutus: Christus autem & nobis reliquit, & ipsam habens ascendit. That is: Eliseus received the mantell, as a right great inheritance. For it was in deed a right excellent inheritance, and more precious then any gold beside. And the same Helias was a double Helias: He was both Helias above, and Helias beneath. I know well you think that just man to be happy, and you would gladly be everyone of you as he is, what will you then say if I shall declare to you a certain other thing, which all we that are endued with these holy mysteries, do receive much more then that? Helias in deed left his mantell to his scholar. But the son of God ascending, did leave here his flesh unto us. Helias left it putting off the same. But Christ both left it to us, and ascended also to heaven having it with him.

I grant that Christ did both: that is, both took up his flesh with him, ascending up, and also did leave the same behind him with us, but after a diverse manner and respect. For he took his flesh with him, after the true and corporal substance of his body and flesh: again, he left the same in mystery to the faithful in the supper to be received after a spiritual communication and by grace. Neither is the same received in the Supper only, but also at other times, by hearing the Gospel and by faith. For, the [bread] which we break, is the communication of the body of Christ: And generally: unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you.

Chrysostom in his book de dignitate Sacerdotij. lib. 3. cap. 3. saith: O miraculum, O Dei beneuolentiam. Qui sursum sedet, tempore sacrificij, hominum manibus continetur. Or, as other have translated it: O miraculum, O Dei benignitatem, qui cum patre sursum sedet, in illo ipso tēpore articulo, omniū manibus pertractatur, ac seipse tradit volentibus ipsum accipere & complecti That is: O miracle, O good will of God. He that sitteth above, at the sacrifice time, is contained in the hands of men. Or else as other have translated, thus: Oh miracle, Oh the gentleness of God. He that sitteth above with the father, is handled with the hands of all men at the very same moment of time, and doth himself deliver himself to them that are desirous to take him and embrace him.

He that sitteth there, is here present in mistery and by grace, and is holden of the godly, such as communicate him, not only sacramentally with the hand of the body, but much more holesomely with the hand of the heart, and by inward drinking is received: but by the sacramental signification he is holden of all men.

Where is then the miracle if he be only present thorough his grace and in mistery only?

Yes, there is a miracle, good sir, Christ is not idle in his sacraments. Is not the miracle great (trow you) when bread, which is wont to sustain the body, becometh food to the soul? He that understandeth not that miracle, he understandeth not y ^e force of that misterye. God grant we may everyone of us understand his truth, & obey the same.

Chrysostom calleth it a miracle, that Christ sitteth at the right hand of God in heaven, and at the same time is held in the hands of men: not that he is handled with the hands of men only in a misterye, and is with them through grace. Therefore while you deny that, you are altogether deceived, and stray far from the truth.

The former place of Chrysostom is not to be let slip. Let me before I begin, ask this one question of you. Is it not a great matter that Elias left his cloke or mantell, and the gift of his prophecy to his Scholar?

Yes surely, it is a great matter.

Did not Elias then leave great grace?

He did so.

But Christ left a far greater grace then Helias: for he could not both leave his cloke and take it with him: Christ doth both in his flesh.

I am well content to grant, that Christ left much greater things to us, then Helius to Eliseus, albeit he be said to have left his double spirit with him: for that the strength and grace of the body of Christ, which Christ ascending up, here left with us, is the only salvation & life of all men which shall be saved: which life Christ hath here left unto us, to be received by faith through the hearing of y ^e word, and the right administration of the sacraments. This virtue and grace Chrysostom, after the phrase and manner of John the Evangelist, calleth Christ's flesh.

But Christ performed a greater matter. He carried up and left behind. You understand not the comparison. The comparison is in this, that Elias left his mantel, and carried it not with him, Christ left his flesh behind him & carried it with him also.

True it is, and I myself did affirm no less before. Now where you seem to speak many things, in deed you bring no new thing at all. Let there be a comparison between grace and grace, & then Christ gave the far greater grace, when he did inserte or graff us into his flesh.

If you will give me leave, I will ask you this question. If Chrysostom would have meant so, that Christ left his body in the Eucharist, what plainer words think you, or more evident could he have used then these?

These things be not of so great force as they bear a great show outwardly. He might also have used grosser words if he had listed to have uttered his mind so grossly: for he was an • loquent man. Now he speaketh after y ^e manner of other Doctors, which of mystical matters speak mystically, and of Sacraments Sacramentally.

The comparison lieth in this: That which was impossible to Elias, is possible to Christ.

I grant. It was possible to Christ, which was to y ^e other impossible. Helias left his cloke: Christ both left his flesh and took it with him.

Helias left behind him, & could not take with him: Christ both left behind him, and also took with him. Except you will say: the comparison here made to be nothing.

He took up his flesh with him to heaven, and left here the communion of his flesh in earth.

You understand in the first place his flesh for very true flesh: and in the second place for grace, & communion of his flesh: and why do you not understand it in y ^e second place also for his true flesh? I will make it evident, howe blockish and gross your answer is.

These be taunts and reproaches, not beseeming (as I think) the modesty of this Schole.

Elias left his cloke to his disciple: but the son of God, going up to heaven, left his flesh. But Elias certeinely left his cloke behind, and Christ likewise his flesh, and yet ascending, he carried the same with him to. By which words we make this reason.

Christ left his flesh to his Disciples, and yet for all that he took the same up with him:

Ergo, he is present here with us.

Here Doctor Weston crying to the people, said unto them: Master Doctor answereth it after this fashion:

He carried his flesh into heaven, and he left here the communion of his flesh behind. Assuredly the answer is to unlearned.

I am glad you speak in English. Surely I wish that all the whole world might understand your reasons and my answers. Reliquit nobis carnem suam. i. He left us his flesh. This you understand of his flesh, and I understand the same of grace. He carried his flesh into heaven, and left behind the communion of his flesh unto us.

Ye Judges, what think ye of this answer.

It is ridiculous and a very fond answer.

Well, I take your words patiently for Christ's cause.

Weston here citeth a place: Spargimur sanguine Christi: We are sprinkled with the blood of Christ.

M. Doctor, it is the same blood, but yet spiritually received. And in deed all the Prophets were sprinkled with y ^e same blood, but yet spiritually I say, and by grace. And whatsoever they be that are not sprinkled with this blood, they cannot be partakers of y ^e everlasting saluatiō.

Here I bring Bernard unto you again. Even from the West unto the East, from the North unto the South, there is one and the selfsame Christ in many and diverse places.

The answer is soon made, that one Christ is here and in diverse places. For God according to his Majesty, and according to his providence, as S. Agustine saith, is everywhere with the godly, according to his indivisible and unspeakable grace. Or else, if we should understand Bernard according to the corporal presence, how monstrous or huge, & giantlike a body would you then make Christ's body to be, which should reach even from North to South, from West to East.

Nay, nay, you make a monstrous answer and unlearned.

Before I come in with those reasons which I had purposed to bring against you, I am minded to come again to M. Doctors argument, by which you being brought into the briers, seemed to doubt of Christ's presence on the earth. To y ^e proof of which matter I will bring nothing else, then that which was agreed upon in the Catechism of the Synod of London, set out not long ago by you.

Syr, I give you to wit, before you go any farther, that I did set out no Catechism.

Yes, you made me subscribe to it when you were a Bishop in your ruffe.

I compelled no man to subscribe.

Yes by rood, you are the very author of that heresy.

I put forth no Catechism.

Did you never consent to the setting out of those things, which you allowed?

I grant that I saw the book. But I deny that I wrote it. I perused it after it was made, and I noted many things for it. So I consented to the book: I was not the author of it.

The Catechism is so set forth, as though the whole convocation house had agreed to it. Cranmer said yesterday that you made it.

I think surely that he would not say so.

The Catechism hath this clause: Si visibiliter & in terra, &c. i. If visibly on the earth, &c.

I answer that those articles were set out, I both witting and consenting to them. Myne own hand will testify the same, and M. Cranmer put his hand to them likewise, and gave them to other afterward. Now, as for the place which you allege out of it, that may easily be expounded, and without any inconvenience.

Christ is the power and virtue of his Father.

Ergo, he was not of so little strength, that he could not bring to pass whatsoever he would himself.

I grant.

Christ was the wisdom of the father.

Ergo, that he spake, he spake wisely, and so as every man might understand: neither was it his mind to speak one thing in steed of another.

All this I grant.

Christ was likewise the very truth: Ergo, he made and performed in deed, that which he intended to make. And likely it is, that he doth neither deceive, nor could be deceived, nor yet would go about to deceive other.

Hilarius in Psalmum 118. hath these words. Vera omnia sunt, & neque ociose, neque inutiliter constituta dei verba, sed extra omnem ambiguitatem superfluae inanitatis, ignita, & ignita vehementer, ne quid illic esse quod non perfectum ac proprium sit, existimetur. That is: All God's words or sayings are true, and neither idly placed, nor unprofitably, but fiery, and wonderful fiery without all doubtfulness of superfluous vanity, that there may be nothing thought to be there, which is not absolute and proper.

He is the truth of the father: Ergo, he can neither deceive, nor yet be deceived, especially, I mean, when he spake at his latter end, and his testament.

Christ is the very truth of the father: and I perceive well to what scope you drive your reason. This is but a far set compass of words. If that these words of Christ: This is my body, which you mean, be rightly understood, they are most true.

He took, he brake, he gave, &c. what took he?

Bread, his body.

What brake he?

Bread.

What gave he?

Bread.

Gaue he bread made of wheat, & material bread?

I know not whether he gave bread of wheat: but he gave true and material bread.

I will prove the contrary by Scriptures.

He delivered to them that which he had them take.

But he had not them take material bread, but his own body.

Ergo, he gave not material bread, but his own body.

I deny the Minor. For he bad them take his body Sacramentally in material bread: and after that sort it was both bread, which he bad them take, because the substance was bread, and it was also▪ his body, because it was the Sacrament of his body, for the sanctifying and the coming to of the holy Ghost, which is always assistentio those mysteries which were instituted of Christ, and lawfully administered.

What is he that so saith: By the coming unto of the holy spirit?

I have Theophilact for mine author for this manner of speaking. And here I bring him, that ye may understand that phrase not to be mine, upon Matthew. 26. Furthermore, the said Theophilact writing upon these words: This is my body, showeth, that the body of the Lord is bread, which is sanctified on the alter.

That place of Theophilact maketh openly against you. For he saith in that place, that Christ said not: This is a figure of my body, but my body. For saith he, by an unspeakable operation it is transformed, although it seem to us to be bread.

It is not a figure, that is to say non tantum est figura. i. it is not only a figure of his body.

Where have you that word [tantum] only?

It is not in that place, but he hath it in another & Augustine doth so speak many times, & other Doctors mo.

Here Weston repeating the words of Theophilact in English, said: He saith it is not a figure, and you say it is a figure.

And the same Theophilact saith moreover: that the cōuersiō or turning of the bread is made into the Lord's flesh.

That which Christ gave, we do give.

But that which he gave was not a figure of his body, but his body:

Ergo, we give no figure, but his body.

As concerning the authority of Theophilactus, what he thought and might have spoken of that Author, D. Ridley did not then speak, nor could conveniently (as he himself afterward declared, reporting and writing with his own hand the disputations in the prison) because of the uproars and clamours which were so great, and he of so many called upon, that he could not answer as he would, and what he thought touching the authority of Theophilactus, but answered simply to that, which was brought out of that author, on this sort.

I grant (quoth he) the bread to be converted and turned into the flesh of Christ, but not by transubstantiation, but by a Sacramental conversion or turning. It is transformed saith Theophilactus, in the same place, by a mystical benediction, and by the accession or coming of the holy Ghost unto the flesh of Christ. He saith not: by expulsion or driving away the substance of bread, and by substituting or putting in his place the corporal substance of Christ's flesh. And where he saith: It is not a figure of the body: we should understand that saying, as he himself doth elsewhere add only, that is: it is no naked or bare figure only. For Christ is present in his mysteries, neither at any time (as Cyprian saith) doth the divine Majesty absent himself from the divine mysteries.

You put in only, and that is one lie. And I tell you farther, Peter Martyr was fain to deny the Author, because the place was so plain against him. But mark his words, how he saith: It is no figure, but his flesh.

To take his words, and not his meaning, is to do injury to the author.

No other Doctor maketh more against you. For the words in Greek are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is in Latin, transelementatur, y ^t is, turned from one element into another. And showing the cause why it is in form of bread, he saith: Quoniam infirmi sumus, & horremus crudas carnes cōmedere, maxim hominis carne: ideo panis quidem apparet, sed caro est. That is: Because we are infirm, and abhor to eat raw flesh, specially the flesh of man: therefore it appeareth bread, but it is flesh.

That word hath not that strength which you seem to give it. You strayne it overmuch, and yet it maketh not so much for your purpose. For the same Author hath in another place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , That is, We are transelemented, or transformed and changed into the body of Christ: & so by that word, in such meaning as you speak of, I could prove as well that we are transformed in deed into the very body of Christ.

Learned M. Doctor, thus you expound the place, Hoc est corpus meum: This is my body. i. a figure of my body.

Although I know there be that so expound it, yet that exposition is not full to express the whole.

Da- Ward. My sheep here my voice, and follow me.

ti- But all the sheep of Christ hear this voice: This is my body, without a figure:

si. Ergo, the voice of Christ here hath no figure.

The sheep of Christ follow the voice of Christ, unless they be seduced and deceived through ignorance.

But the Fathers took this place for no figurative speech.

Yet they do all number this place among figurative & tropical speeches.

Justinus Martyr in his Seconde Apology hath thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Ne{que} vero haec pro pane potuue communi sumimus: Imo quemadmodum verbo Dei Jesus Christus, Seruator noster in carnatus, habuit pro salute nostra carnem & sanguinem: ita per orationem illius verbi consecratum hoc alimentum, quo sanguis & carnes nostrae perimmutationem enutriuntur, eiusdem incarnati carnem & sanguinem esse sumus edocti.

This place Cramner hath corrupted. Thus it is Englished.

For we do not take this for common bread and drink, but like as Jesus Christ our Savior, incarnate by the word of God, had flesh and blood for our salvation: even so we be taught the food wherewith our flesh and blood is nourished by alteration, when it is consecrated by the prayer of his word, to be the flesh & blood of the same Jesus incarnate.

Doctor Cranmer hath thus translated it: Bread, water and wine, are not to be taken as other common meats and drinks be, but they be ordained purposedly to give thanks to GOD, and therefore be called Eucharistia, and be called the body and blood of Christ: and that it is lawful for none to eat and drink of them but that profess Christ, and live according to the same: and yet the same meat and drink is changed into our flesh and blood, and nourisheth our bodies.

O good Mayster Doctor, go sincerely to work: I know that place, and I know how it is used.

Warde here repeated the place again out of Justin: We are taught. &c. as above.

O what vnright dealing is this? I have the self same place of Justin here copyed out. You know yourself which are skillful of Greek, howe the words here be removed out of the right place, and that without any just cause.

I stand still upon mine argument. What say you?

If you will that I should answer to Justin, then you must hears. I have but one tongue, I cannot answer at once to you all.

Christ gave us his very and true flesh to be eaten.

But he never gave it to be eaten, but in his last supper, and in the sacrament of the alter.

Ergo, there is the very true flesh of Christ.

If you speak of the very true flesh of Christ, after the substance of his flesh, taken in the Wombe of the Virgin Mary, and not by grace and spiritually, I then do deny the first part of your reason. But if you understand it of the true flesh, after grace and spiritual communication, I then grant the first part, and deny the second. For he giveth unto us truly his flesh, to be eaten of all that believe in him. For he is the very & true meat of the soul, wherewith we are fed unto everlasting life, according to this saying: My flesh is meat indeed. &c.

Desiderio desideraui hoc pascha manducare vobiscum. i. I have desired with my hearty desire to eat this Paschal with you. What Paschal I pray you desired he to eat? If you stand in doubt, you have Tertullian. Lib. 4. Contra Martionem • Professus ita{que} se concupiscentia concupiscere edere pascha suum (indignum enim vt alienum concupisceret Deus) acceptum panem & distributum discipulis suum corpus illum fecit: Hoc est corpus meum, dicendo. &c. i. He therefore protesting a great desire to eat his Paschal, his own Paschal I say (for it was not meet that he should desire any other then his own) taking bread and distributing it to his Disciples, made it his body, saying: This is my body.

What say you? did he understand by this Paschal the Judaical Lamb, or by that which afterward he gave in his Supper.

I suppose that the first he understood of the Judaical Passover, and afterward of the Eucharist.

Nay, then Tertullian is against you, which saith.

Ba- He desired to eat his Passover.

ro- But the Iudaical Passover was not his, but strange from Christ.

co. Ergo, he meant not of the Judaical Passover.

The Judaical Passover was not strange from Christ, but his own: insomuch as he is the Lord of all: and as well the Lord of the Judaical Passover, as of his own supper.

What answer you then to Tertullian, the which saith: He desired to eat his own Passover, and not the Iuish Passover, which stood upon words without flesh.

Tertullian may here dallye in sense Anagogical. I know that Cyprian hath these words: Tunc instituit quidē Eucharistiam, sed vtrum{que} erat Christi. i. He began th • to institute the holy Eucharist, but both were Christ's.

Augustine the Psalm. 96. Writing upon these words: Adorate scabellum pedum eius. i. Worshipp his footstool. &c. Quaero inquit, quid sit scabellum pedum eius. Et dicit mihi Scriptura, Terra scabellum pedum meorum: Fluctuans conuerto me ad Christum, quia ipsum quaero hic, & inuenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur scabellum pedum eius. Suscepit enim de terra terram, quia caro de terra est, & de carne Mariae carnem accepit▪ & quia in ipsa carne hic ambulauit, & ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit: nemo autem illam carnē manducat nisi prius adorauerit. Inuentum est, quo modo tale scabellum pedum Domini adoretur, vt non solum non peccemus adorādo, sed peccemus non adorando ipsum. &c. i. I ask (saith he) what is the footstool of his feet, and the Scripture telleth me: The earth is the footstool of my feet. And so in searching thereof I turn myself to Christ, because I seek him here in the earth, and I find how, without impiety, the footstole of his feet may be worshipped: for he took earth of earth, in that he is flesh of the earth, and of the flesh of Mary he took flesh, and because that in the same flesh here he walked and also he gave the same flesh to us, to be eaten unto salvation. But no man eateth that flesh except he have worshipped before. And so it is found, how such a footstool of the feet of the Lord is to be worshipped, so that, not only we sin not in worshipping, but also do sin in not worshipping the same.

Da- He gave to us his flesh to be eaten, y ^e which he took of the earth, in which also here he walked. &c.

ti- But he never gave his flesh to be eaten, but when he gave it at his Supper, saying: This is my body.

si. Ergo, in the Eucharist he gave us his flesh.

You do allege the place of Agustine upon the Psalm. 98. Where he saith: that Christ gave his flesh to be eaten which he took of the earth, and in which here he walked inferring hereupon that Christ never gave the same his flesh to be eaten, but only in the Eucharist, I deny your Minor, for he gave it both in the Eucharist to be eaten and also otherwise, as well in the word, as also upon the cross.

What if Augustine say, that Christ did not only give himself to us in a figure, but gave his own very flesh in deed and really?

I never said that Christ gave only a figure of his body. For in deed he gave himself in a real communication, that is, he gave his flesh after a communicatiō of his flesh.

Here Weston read the place of Augustine in English, and afterwards said: Ye say, Christ gave not his body, but a figure of his body.

I say not so, I say he gave his own body verily. But he gave it by a real, effectual, and spiritual cōmunicatiō.

After this, Doctor Glinne began to reason, who (notwythstandinge Mayster Ridley had always taken him for his old friend) made a very contumelious Preface against him. This preface Mayster Ridley therefore did the more take to heart, because it proceeded from him. Howbeit he thought that Doctor Glins mind was to serve the turn. For afterward he came to the house wherein Mayster Ridley was kept, and as far as Mayster Ridley could call ro remembrance, before Doctor Young and Doctor Oglethorpe he desired him to pardon his words. The which Mayster Ridley did even from the very heart, and wished earnestly, that God would give, not only to him, but unto all other, the true and evident knowledge of God's Evangelical sincerity, that all offenses put a part, they being perfectly and fully reconciled, might agree and meet together in the house of the heavenly father.

I see that you elude, or shift away all scriptures and fathers, I will go to work with you after another sort.

Christ hath here his Church known in earth, of which you were once a child, although now you speak contumeliously of the Sacraments.

This is a grievous contumely, that you call me a shifter away of the Scriptures, and of the Doctors. As touching the Sacraments, I never yet spake contumeliously of them. I grant that Christ hath here his Church in earth: but that Church did ever receive & acknowledge the Eucharist to be a sacrament of the body of Christ, and not the body of Christ really, but the body of Christ by grace.

Then I ask this question, whether the Catholic Church hath ever or at any time been Idolatrous?

The Church is the pillar and stay of truth, that never yet hath been idolatrous in respect of y ^e whole: but peradventure in respect of some part thereof, which sometimes may be seduced by evil Pastors and through ignorance.

That Church ever hath worshipped the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist.

But the church hath never been idolatrous:

Ergo it hath always judged the flesh of Christ to be in the Eucharist.

And I also worship Christ in the Sacrament: but not because he is included in the Sacrament: like as I worship Christ also in the Scriptures, not because he is really included in them. Notwithstanding I say that the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament: but yet Sacramētally and spiritually, according to his grace giving life, and in that respect, really, that is, according to his benediction giving life.

Furthermore I acknowledge gladly the true body of Christ to be in the Lord's Supper, in such sort as y ^e church of Christ (which is the spouse of Christ, and is taught of the holy ghost, and guided by God's word) doth acknowledge the same. But the true church of Christ doth acknowledge a presence of Christ's body in the Lord's Supper to be communicated to the godly by grace and spiritually, as I have often shown, and by a Sacramental signification, but not by the corporal presence of the body of his flesh.

Agustine contra Faustum Lib. 20. cap. 13. Non nulli propter panem & calicem, Cererem & Bacchum nos colere existimabāt. &c i. Some there were which thought us instead of bread and of the cup, to worship Ceres and Bacchus.

Upon this place I gather that there was an adoratiō of the sacrament among the fathers. And Erasmus in an Epistle to the brethren of low Germany, saith that the worshipping of the sacrament was before Agustine & Cyprian.

We do handle the signs reverently: but we worship the Sacrament as a Sacrament, not as a thing signified by the Sacrament.

What is the Symbole or Sacrament?

Bread.

Ergo we worship bread.

There is a deceipte in this word [Adoramus.] We worship the Symboles when reverently we handle them. We worship Christ wheresoever we perceive his benefits. But we understand his benefit to be greatest in the Sacrament.

So I may fall down before the bench here, and wor: ship Christ: and if any man ask me what I do, I may aunswre I worship Christ.

We adore and worship Christ in the Eucharist. And if you mean the external sacrament, I say, that also is to be worshipped as a Sacrament.

So was the faith of the primitive Church.

Would to God we would all follow the faith of that Church.

Think you that Christ hath now his Church?

I do so.

But all the Church adoreth Christ, verily and really in the Sacrament.

You know yourself that the Easte Church would not acknowledge transubstantiatiō, as it appeareth in the Council of Florence.

That is false. For in the same they did acknowledge transubstantiation, although they would not entreat of y ^e matter, for that they had not in their commission so to do.

Nay, they would determine nothing of that matter, when the Article was propounded unto them.

It was not because they did not acknowledge the same, but because they had no commission so to do.

Reverend Syr, I will prove and declare, that the body of Christ is truly and really in the Eucharist: & whereas the holy Fathers, both of the West and Easte Church have written, both many things and no less manifest of the same matter, yet I will bring forth only Chrysostom. The place is in cap. 10. Corinth. 1. Homel. 24.

That which is in the cup, is the same that flowed frō the side of Christ.

But true and pure blood did flowe from the side of Christ:

Ergo, his true and pure blood is in the cup.

It is his true blood which is in the Chalice (I grant) & the same which sprang from the side of Christ. But how? It is blood in deed, but not after the same manner, after which manner it sprang from his side. For here is the blood but by the way of a Sacrament.

Agayne, I say, like as the bread of the Sacrament and of thanks giving is called the body of Christ given for us: so the cup of the Lord is called the blood which sprang from the side of Christ. But that Sacramental bread is called the body, because it is the Sacrament of his body: even so likewise the cup is called the blood also, which flowed out of Christ's side, because it is in the Sacrament of that blood which flowed out of his side, instituted of the Lord himself for our singular commodity, namely for our spiritual nourishment, like as Baptism is ordained in water to our spiritual regeneration.

The Sacrament of the blood is not the blood.

The Sacrament of the blood, is the blood, and that is attributed to the Sacrament, which is spoken of the thing of the Sacrament.

Here Weston repeateth Curtoppes argument in English.

That which is in the Chalice, is the same which flowed out of Christ's side.

But there came out very blood:

Ergo, there is very blood in the Chalice.

The blood of Christ is in the Chalice in deed, but not in the real presence, but by grace and in a Sacrament.

That is very well. Then we have blood in y ^e chalice.

It is true, but by grace and in a Sacrament.

Here the people hissed at him.

O my masters, I take this for no judgment: I will stand to God's judgment.

Good Syr, I have determined to have respect of the time, and to abstain from all those things which may hinder the entrance of our disceptation: and therefore first I ask this question: When Christ said in the vi. of John Qui manducat carnem meam. i. He that eateth my flesh. &c. doth he signify in those words the eating of his true and natural flesh, or else of the bread and Symbole?

I understand that place of the very flesh of Christ to be eaten, but spiritually: And farther I say, that the sacrament also pertaineth unto the spiritual manducation. For without the spirit to eat the Sacrament, is to eat it unprofitably. For who so eateth not spiritually, he eateth his own condemnation.

I ask them whether the Euchariste be a Sacrament.

The Eucharist taken for a sign or symbol, is a Sacrament.

Is it instituted of God?

It is instituted of God.

Where?

In the supper.

With what words is it made a Sacrament?

By the words and deeds which Christ said and did, and commanded us to say and do the same.

It is a thing commonly received of all, that the Sacraments of the new law give grace to them that worthily receive.

True it is that grace is given by the Sacrament, but as by an instrument. The inward virtue & Christ give the grace through the sacrament.

What is a sacrament?

I remember there be many definitions of a sacrament in Augustine: but I will take that which seemeth most fit to this present purpose. A sacrament is a visible sign of invisible grace.

Ergo, grace is given to the receivers.

The society or conjunction with Christ through the holy Ghost, is grace, and by the Sacrament we are made the members of the mystical body of Christ, for that by the sacrament the part of the body is engrafted in the head.

But there is a difference between the mystical body, and natural body.

There is (I grant you) a difference, but the head of them both is one.

*The Eucharist is a sacrament of the new testament, Ergo, it hath a promise of grace:

But no promise of grace is made to bread and wine:

Ergo, bread and wine be not the sacraments of y ^e New Testament.

I grant that grace pertaineth to the Eucharist, according to this saying: The bread which we break is it not the communication or partaking of the body of Christ? And like as he that eateth, and he that drinketh unworthily the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, eateth & drinketh his own damnation: even so he that eateth and drinketh worthy, eateth life, and drinketh life. I grant also that there is no * promise made to bread and wyne. But in as much as they are sanctified and made the Sacraments of the body & blood of the Lord, they have a promise of grace annexed unto them, namely of spiritual partaking of the body of Christ to be communicated and given, not to the bread and wine, but to them which worthily do receive the Sacrament.

If the substance of bread and wine do remain, thē the society betwixt Christ and us, is promised to them that take bread and wine.

But that society is not promised to bread and wine, but to the receivers of his flesh and blood. John. 6. Qui manducat. &c.

Ergo, the substance of bread and wyne remaineth not.

The promise undoubtedly is made to the flesh and the blood, but the same be received in y ^e sacrament through faith.

Every Sacrament hath a promise of grace adnexed unto it.

But bread and wine have not a promise of grace adnexed unto it.

Ergo, the bread and wine are not sacraments.

True it is, every sacrament hath grace adnexed unto it instrumentally. But there is diverse understanding of this word [Habet] hath. For the sacrament hath not grace included in it: but to those that receive it well, it is turned to grace. After that manner the water in Baptism hath grace promised, and by that grace the holy spirit is given, not that grace is included in water, but that grace cometh by water.

This promise is made to the flesh & blood of Christ, and not to bread and wine.

Ergo, the sacrament is not bread and wyne, but the body and blood of Christ.

There is no promise made to him that taketh commō bread and common wine: but to him that receiveth the sanctified bread, and bread of the communion, there is a large promise of grace made: neither is the promise given to the symbols, but to the thing of the sacrament. But the thing of the sacrament is the flesh and blood.

Every sacrament of the new testament giveth grace promised of God, to those that worthily receive it.

This sacrament hath a promise of grace, made to those that receive it worthily, because grace is given by it, as by an instrument, not that Christ hath transfused grace into the bread and wyne.

But this promise which is made, is not but to those that worthily receive the flesh & blood: not y ^e bread & wine.

That proposition of yours hath a diverse understanding. There is no promise made to thē that receive common bread, as it were: but to those that worthily receive the sanctified bread, there is a promise of grace made, like as Origen doth testify.

Where is that promise made?

The bread which he brake, is it not a communication of the body of Christ? [And] we being many are one bread, one body of Christ?

What doth he mean by bread in that place?

The bread of the Lord's table, the Communiō of the body of Christ.

Hearken what Chrysostom saith vpō that place: Panis quem frangimus, nonne communicatio corporis Christi est? Quare non dixit participatio? Quia amplius quid significare voluit, & multam inter haec conuenientiam ostendere. Non enim participatione tantum & acceptione, sed vnitate communicamus. Quemadmodum enim corpus illud vnitum est Christo, ita & nos per hūc panē vnione coniungimur. That is: The bread which we break, is it not the Communication of Christ's body? Wherefore did he not say participation? because he would signify some greater matter, and that he would declare a great convenience and conjunction betwixt y ^e same. For we do not communicate by participation only and receiving, but also by conniting. For likewise as that body is connited to Christ, so also we by the same bread are conjoined and united to him.

Let Chrysostom have his manner of speaking and his sentence. If it be true, I reject it not. But let it not be prejudicial to me to name it true bread.

All (saith Chrysostom) which sit together at one board, do cūmunicate together of one true body. What do I call (saith he) this communicating▪ we are all the self same body. What doth bread signify? The body of christ. What be they that receive it? The body of Christ For many are but one body. Chrysostom doth interpret this place against you: All we be one bread, & one mystical body, which do participate together one bread of Christ.

All we be one mystical body, which do communicate of one Christ in bread, after the efficacy of regeneration or quickening.

Of what manner of bread speaketh he?

Of the bread of the Lord's table.

Is that bread one?

It is one, of the Church being one, because one bread is set forth vpō the table: and so of one bread altogether do participate which communicate at the table of the Lord.

See how absurdly you speak. Do you say all which be from the beginning to the end of the world?

All, I say, which at one table together have communicated in the mysteries, might well so do. Albeit the heavenly and celestial bread is likewise one also, whereof the Sacramental bread is a mystery: the which being one, all we together do participate.

A perverse answer. Which all? Mean you all Christian men?

I do distribute this word [All] : for all were wont together to communicate of one bread divided into parts. Al (I say) which were one cōgregatiō, and which all did communicate together at one table.

What? do you exclude then from the body of Christ, all them which did not communicate being present▪

But Cyprian saith: panis quem nulla multitudo consumit. i. Bread which no multitude doth consume. Which cannot be understanded, but only of the body of Christ.

Also Cyprian in this place did speak of the true body of Christ, and not of material bread.

Nay, rather he did there entreat of the Sacrament in that tractation De Coena domini, writing upon the Supper of the Lord.

Truth it is, and I grant, he entreateth there of the Sacrament: but also he doth admixt something there with all of the spiritual manducation.

When the Lord saith: This is my body, he useth no tropical speech:

Ergo, you are deceived.

I deny your antecedent.

I bring here Augustine in Psal. 33. Conc. 1. expounding these words: Ferebatur in manibus suis. He was carried in his own hands. 1. Regum.

Hoc quomodo possit fieri in homine, quis intelligat? Manibus enim suis nemo portatur, sed alienis. Quomodo intelligatur de David secundum literā, non inuenimus: de Christo autē inuenimus. Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis cū diceret: Hoc est corpus meum. Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis. &c. That is. How may this be understanded to be done in mā? For no man is carried in his own hands, but in the hands of other. How this may be understanded of David after y ^e letter, we do not find. Of Christ we find it. For Christ was borne in his own hands when he saith: This is my body: for he carried that same body in his own hands. &c.

Augustine here did not see how this place after y ^e letter could be understanded of dauid, because no man cā carry him self in his own hands. Therefore saith he, this place is to be understanded of Christ after the letter. For Christ carried himself in his own hands in his Supper, when he gave the Sacrament to his Disciples, saying: This is my body.

I deny your argument, and I explicate the same. Augustine could not find after his own understanding, how this could be understand of David after the letter. Augustine goeth here from other in this exposition, but I go not from him. But let this exposition of Augustine be granted to you: although I know this place of scripture be otherwise red of other men, after the verity of the Hebrew text, and also otherwise to be expounded. Yet to grant to you this exposition of Augustine, I say yet notwithstanding it maketh nothing against my assertion: for Christ did bear himself in his own hands, when he gave the sacrament of his body to be eaten of his disciples.

Ergo, it is true of Christ after the letter, that he was borne in his own hands.

He was borne literally, & after that letter which was spoken of David: but not after the letter of these words Hoc est corpus meum.

I grant that S. Augustine saith, that it is not found literally of David, that he carried himself in his own hands, and that is found of Christ. But this word [ad literam] literally, you do not well refer to that which was borne, but rather it ought to be referred to him that did bear it. S. Augustine's meaning is this: that it is not read anywhere in the Bible, that this carnal David, the son of Jesse, did bear himself in his hands, but of that spiritual David which overthrew Goliath the devil: that is, of Christ our savior, the son of the virgins it may well be found literally, that he bare himself in his own hands after a certain manner, namely in carrying y ^e Sacrament of himself. And note that S. Agustine hath these words [quodam modo] after a certain manner: which manifestly doth declare howe the Doctors meaning is to be taken.

When then was he borne in his own hands, and after what letter?

He was borne in the supper sacramentally, when he said: This is my body.

Every man may bear in his own hands a figure of his body.

But Augustine denieth that David could carry himself in his hands.

Ergo, he speaketh of no figure of his body.

It Agustine could have found in all the Scripture that David had carried the sacrament of his body, then he would never have used that exposition of Christ.

But he did bear himself in his own hands:

Ergo he did not bear a figure only.

He did bear himself, but in a Sacrament: and Agustine afterward addeth [quodam modo] that is, Sacramentally.

You understand not what Agustine meant when he said [quodam modo:] For he meant that he did bear his very true body in that supper, not in figure and form of a body, but in form and figure of bread.

Ergo, you are holden fast, neither are ye able to escape out of his labirinth.

Doctor Weston repeated this place again in English. Which done, then Doct. Tresham thus began to speak, moved (as it seemed to M. Ridley) with great zeal, and desired that he might be in stead of John the Baptist in converting the hearts of the fathers, and in reducing the said B. Ridley again to the mother church. Now at the first, not knowing the person, he thought he had been some good old man, which had the zeal of God, although not according to knowledge, and began to answer him with mansuetude and reverence. But afterward he smelled a fox under a sheep's clothing.

GOd almighty grant that it may be fulfilled in me, that was spoken by the Prophet Malachi of John the Baptist, which may turn the hearts of the Fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, that you at length may be converted. The wise man saith: Son, honor thy father and reverence thy mother. But you dishonor your father in heaven, and pollute your mother the holy church here on earth, while ye set not by her.

These by words do pollute your school.

If there were an Arian which had that subtle wit that you have, he might soon shift of the authority of the scriptures and fathers.

Either dispute, or else hold your peace, I pray you.

I bring a place here out of the Council of Lateran, the which Counsel representing the universal Church, wherein were congregated 300. Bishops & 〈◊〉 . Metropolitans, besides a great multitude of other, decreed y ^e bread & wine, by the power of God's word, was trāsubstātiate into the body & blood of y ^e Lord. Therefore whosoever saith contrary cannot be a child of the church, but an heretic.

Good Syr, I have heard what you have cited out of the Council of Lateran, and remember that there was a great multitude of Bishops and Metropolitans, as you said: but yet you have not numbered how many Abbots, Priors, and Friers were in that council, who were to the number of 800.

What, will you deny then the authority of that Counsel for the multitude of those Priors?

No syr, not so much for that cause, as for that especially, because the doctrine of that Council agreed not with the word of God as it may well appere by the acts of that Council which was hold̄ under Innocentius the third, a man (if we believe the histories) moste pernicious to the church and common wealth of Christ.

What, do you not receive the Council of Lateran? Whereupon he with certain other cried, Scribite, scribite, Write, write.

No syr, I receive not that Council: Scribite, & rescribite: Write, and write again.

Evil men do eat the natural body of Christ:

Ergo the true and natural body of Christ is on the altar.

Evil men do eat the very true and natural body of Christ sacramētally, and no further, as S. Augustine saith: but good men do eat the very true body both sacramentally and spiritually by grace.

I prove the contrary by S. Agustine, Lib. 5. contra Donatistas Cap. 8. Sicut enim Judas, cui buccellulam Dominus tradidit, non malum accipiendo, sed male accipiendo peccauit. &c. Like as Judas, to whom the Lord gave the morsel did offend, not in taking a thing that was evil, but in receiving it after an evil manner. &c. And a little after, Quia aliquis non ad salutem manducat, non ideo non est corpus. i. Because some do not eat unto salvation, it followeth not therefore that it is not his body.

It is the body to them, that is, the sacrament of the body: and Judas took the sacrament of the Lord to his condemnation. Agustine hath distincted these things well in another place, where he saith: Panem Domini, & panem Dominum. Mali manducant panem Domini, non panem dominum: boni autem manducant & panem Domini, & panem Dominum. That is. The bread of the Lord, the bread the Lord. Evil men eat the bread of the Lord, but not bread the Lord. But good men eat both the bread of the Lord and bread the Lord.

Paul saith, the body, and you say, the sacrament of the body.

Paul meaneth so in deed.

You understand it evil concerning the sign: for the Fathers say, that evil men do eat him which descended from heaven.

They eat him indeed, but sacramentally. The Fathers use many times the sacrament, for the matter of the sacrament, and all that same place maketh against you: and so here he cited the place.

I bring Theophilacte, which saith, that Judas did taste the body of the Lord. Ostendit Dominus crudelitatem Iudae, qui cum argueretur, non intellexit, & gustauit carnem Domini. &c. id est. The Lord did show the cruelty of Judas, which, when he was rebuked, did not understand, and tasted the Lord's flesh. &c.

This phrase to Divines is well known, and used of the Doctors. He tasted the flesh of the Lord Insensibiliter, Insensibly, that is the sacrament of the Lord's flesh.

Chrysostom saith, that the same punishment remaineth to them which receive the body of the Lord unworthily, as to them which crucified him.

That is, because they defile the Lord's body: for evil men do eat the body of Christ sacramentally, but good men eat both the sacrament, and the matter of the Sacrament.

You reject the Council of Lateran, because (you say) it agreeth not with God's word. What say you then to the Council of Nice? The words of the Council be these:

Ne humiliter spectemus propositum panem & potum, sed exaltata mente fideliter credamus iacere in illa sacra mensa agnum Dei tollentem peccata mundi à sacerdotibus sacrificatum. Let us not not look alow by the ground upon the bread and the drink set before us, but lifting up our mind, let us faithfully believe, there upon y ^e holy table to lie the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world, being sacrificed of the priests.

That Council was collected out of an • ient Fathers and is to me of great authority, for it saith: Positum esse panem in alt • ri, & exaltata mente considerandum eum qui in coelis est. i. That bread is set upon the altar, and having our minds 〈◊〉 up, we must consider him which is in heaven. The words of the Council make for me.

(Exaltata mente) with a mind exalted : That is, not as brute beasts at the rack or maunger, having an eye only upon the thing that is set before them. Agnus Dei iacet in mensa: the Lamb of God lieth on the table, saith the Council.

The Lamb of God is in heaven, according to the verity of the body: and here he is with us in a mistery, according to his power, not corporally.

But the Lamb of God lieth on the table.

It is a figurative speech, for in our mind we understand him which is in heaven.

But he lieth there, the Greek word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

He lieth, there that is, he is there present, not corporally, but he lieth there in his operation.

He lieth, but his operation lieth not.

You think very grossly of the sitting or lying of the Celestial Lamb on the Table of the Lord. For we may not imagine any such sitting or lying on y ^e table, as the reason of man would judge: but all things are here to be understand spirituallye. For that heavenly Lamb is (as I confess) on the table, but by a spiritual presence, by grace, and not after any corporal substance of his flesh taken of y ^e virgin Mary.

And indeed the same Canon doth very plainly teach, that the bread which is set on the table, is material bread, and therefore it (the Canon I mean) commandeth that we should not creep on the ground in our cogitation, to these things which are set before us, as who should say, what other things are they (as much as pertaineth to their true substance) then bread and wine? but rather (saith the Canon) lifting up our minds into heaven, let us consider w ^t faith the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of y ^e world, sitting or lying upon y ^e table. For a lifted up faith saith he seeth him, which sitteth on the right hand of God the father, after y ^e true manner of a body, set by grace on the Lord's Table, and taking away the sins of the world. For I think you mean not so, as though the Lamb did lie there prostrate with his members spread upon the table.

I bring another place out of the Council of Nice, Nullus Apostolorum dixit, haec est figura corporis Christi, Nullus venerabilium praesbyterorum dixit incruentum altaris sacrificium figuram: Ergo. &c. That is. None of the Apostles said, this is a figure of the body of Christ: None of the reverend Elders said, the unbloody sacrifice of the alter to be a figure.

Ergo, you are deceived.

This Chanon is not in the Council of Nice. For I have read over this Council many times.

Then came in another whom M. Ridley knew not, & said, the universal church both of the Greeks & Latins of the East and of the West, have agreed in the Council of Florence vniformably in y ^e doctrine of the sacrament, that in the Sacrament of the Aultar there is the true and real Body.

I deny the Greek and the East Church to have agreed either in the Council at Florence, or at any time else with the Romish Church in the doctrine of Transubstantiation of bread into the body of Christ. For there was nothing in the Council of Florence, wherein the Greeks would agree with the Romanists: albeit hitherto I confess it was left free for every Church to use, as they were wont, leuened or unleavened bread.

Here cried out D. Cole, & said, they agreed together concerning transubstantiation of bread into the body of Christ. M. Ridley said, that could not be.

Here start up another unknown to M. Ridley, but thought to be one of the Scribes, who affirmed with him, y ^t in deed there was nothing decreed concerning transubstantiation, but the Council left that, as a matter not meet nor worthy to disturb the peace and concord of the church. To whom M. Ridley answered again, saying: that he said y ^e truth.

What say you to that council, where it is said, that the Priest doth offer an unbloody sacrifice of the Bodye of Christ?

I say, it is well said, if it be rightly understand.

But he offereth an unbloody sacrifice.

It was called unbloody, and is offered after a certain manner, and in a misterye, and as a representation of that bloody sacrifice, and he doth not lie which saith, Christ to be offered.

I with one argument will throw down to y ^e ground your opinion, out of Chrysostom, Homi. 24. in. 1. ad Corinth. and I will teach, not only a figure or sign, or grace only▪ but the very same body which was here conversant in the earth, to be in the Eucharist.

We worship the self same body in y ^e Eucharist, which the wise men did worship in the maunger.

But that was his natural & real body, not spiritual:

Ergo the real body of Christ is in the Eucharist.

Agayne, the same Chrysostom saith: We have not here the Lord in the maunger, but on the altar. Here a woman holdeth him not in her hands, but a priest.

We worship I confess, the same true Lord and Savior of the world, which the wise men worshipped in the maunger, howbeit we do it in mystery, and in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, and that in spiritual liberty, as saith S. Aust Lib: 3. de doctrina Christiana: not in carnal servitude: that is, we do not worship servilely the signs for the things: for that should be, as he also saith, a part of a servile infirmity. But we behold with the eyes of faith, him present after grace and spiritually set upon the Table: and we worship him which sitteth above, & is worshipped o • the Angels, For Christ is always assistant to his mysteries, as the said August. saith. And the divine majesty, as saith Cyprian, doth never absent it self from the divine mysteries, but this assistance and presence of Christ, as in Baptism is wholly spiritual, and by grace, and not by any corporal substance of the flesh: even so is it here in the Lord's supper, being rightly & according to the word of God duly ministered,

That which the woman did hold in her womb, the same thing holdeth the priest.

I grant the priest holdeth the same thing, but after another manner. She did hold the natural body: the priest holdeth the mystery of the body.

Weston repeated again his argument out of Chrysostom in English.

I say that the author meant it spiritually.

Weston here dissolving the disputations, had these words: Videtis praefractum hominis animum, gloriosum, vafrum, inconstantem: videtis hodie veritatis vires inconcussas, Ita que clamate: Vicit veritas: that is, Here you see, the stubborn, the glorious the crafty, the unconstant mind of this man. Here you see this day, that the strength of the truth is with our foil. Therefore I beseech you all most earnestly to blow the note, and he began, and they followed. Verity hath the victory: Veritye hath the victory.

I pray you good master Prolocutour, do not exacte that of me, which is not in me, I have not these xx. years much used the Latin tongue.

Take your ease father.

I thank you Syr, I am well. Let me here protest my faith: for I am not able to dispute, & afterwards do your pleasure with me.

Then refuse you to dispute? Will you here then subscribe?

No good master, I pray you be good to an old man. You may (if it please God) be once old, as I am: ye may come to this age, and to this debility.

Ye said upon saterday last, that ye could not find the mass, nor the marybones thereof in your book: but we will find a mass in that book.

No good M. Doctor, ye cannot.

What find you then there?

Forsooth a Communion I find there.

Which Communion, the first or the last?

I find no great diversity in them: they are one supper of the Lord, but I like the last very well.

Then the first was naught belike.

I do not well remember wherein they differ.

Then cake bread & loaf bread are all one with you. Ye call it the Supper of the Lord, but you are deceived in that: for they had done the supper before, and therefore the Scripture saith: Postquam coenatum est, that is, After they had supped. For ye know that S. Paul findeth fault with the Corrinthians, for that some of them were drunken at this supper: and ye know no man can be drunken at your Communion.

The first was called Coena Iudaica, that is, The Jewish Supper, when they did eat the Paschal Lamb together: the other was called Coena dominica, that is, The Lord's supper.

That is false, for Chrysostom denieth that. And S. Ambrose in cap. 19. prioris ad Corinthios, saith, that Mysterium Eucharistiae inter coenandum datum, non est coena dominica: that is, The mystery of the sacrament, given as they were at supper, is not the supper of the Lord.

And Gregory Nazianzen saith the same: Rursus Pasche sacra cum discipulis in coenaculo ac post coenam, dieque vnica ante passionem celebrat. Nos vero ea in orationis domibus, & ante coenam & post resurrectionem peragimus: that is, Agayne, he kept he holy feast of Passover with his Disciples in the dinyng chamber after the supper, and one day before his passion. But we keep it both in the Churches and houses of prayer, both before the supper, and also after the resurrection.

And that first Supper was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , can you tell what that is?

I understand no Greek. Yet I think it meaneth charity.

Will you have all thing done that Christ did then? Why, then must the Priest be hanged on the morrow. And where find you I pray you, that a woman should receive the sacrament?

Will you give me leave to turn my book? I find it in the xi. chapter to the Corinthians. I trow these be his words: Probetautem seipsum homo, &c.

I pray you good master what Gender is homo ▪

Marrie the common gender.

It is in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

It is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, vir.

It is in my book of Erasmus translation, Probet seipsum homo.

It is Probet seipsum in deed, and therefore it importeth the Masculine gender.

What then? I trow when the woman touched Christ, he said: Quis tetigit me? Scio quod aliquis me tetigit : that is, Who touched me? I know that some man touched me.

I will be at host with you anon. When Christ was at his supper, none were with him, but his Apostles only.

Ergo, he meant no woman, if you will have this institution kept.

In the twelve Apostles was represented the whole Church, in which you will grant both men and women to be.

So thorough the whole heretical translated Bible, ye never make mention of Priest, till ye come to the putting of Christ to death. Where find you then that a priest or minster, (a minstrel I may cal him well enough) should do it of necessity?

A minister is a more fit name for that office, for y ^e name of a priest importeth a sacrifice.

Well, remember that ye cannot find that a woman may receive by scripture. M. Opponent fall to it.

Because I perceive that this charge is laid upon my neck, to dispute with you: to the ende that the same may go forward after a right manner and order, I will propose three questions, so as they are put forth unto me. And first I ask this question of you, although the same in deed ought not to be called in question: but such is the condition of the Church, that it is always vexed of the wicked sort. I ask (I say) whether Christ's body be really in the sacrament?

I trust I have obtained of M. Prolocutor, that no mā shall exact that thing of me, which is not in me. And I am sory that this worshipful audience should be deceived of their expectation for my sake. I have given up my mind in writing to M. Prolocutor.

Whatsoever ye have given up, it shall be registered among the Acts.

Disputation requireth a good memory: Ast abolita est mihi memoria, My memory is gone clean, and maruellouslye weakened, and never the better I wis for the prison.

How long have ye been in prison?

These three quarters of this yere.

And I was in prison six years.

The more pity Sir.

How long have you been of this opinion?

It is not long sir that I have been of this opinion.

The time hath been when you said Mass full devoutly.

Yea, I cry God mercy heartily for it.

Where learned you this new fanglenes?

I have long sought for the truth in this matter of the Sacrament, and have not been of this mind past seven years: and my L. of Canterbury his book hath especially confirmed my judgment herein. If I could remember all therein contained, I would not fear to answer any man in this matter.

There are in that book six hundred errors.

You were once a Lutheran.

No, I was a Papist: For I never could perceive how Luther could defend his opinion without transubstantiation. The Tigurines once did write a book against Luther, and I oft desired God that he might live so long to make them answer.

Luther in his book De priuata Missa, said, that the devil reasoned with him, and persuaded him that the Mass was not good. Fol. 14. Contigit me, &c Wherof it may appear, that Luther said Mass, and the devil dissuaded him from it.

I do not take in hand here to defend Luther's sayings or doings. If he were here, he would defend himself well enough I trow. I told you before that I am not meet for disputations. I pray you read mine answer, wherein I have declared my faith.

Do you believe this, as you have written?

Yea Sir.

Then have you no faith.

Then would I be sory Sir.

It is written, John. 6. Except ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. Which when the Capernaites and many of Christ's disciples heard, they said, This is a hard saying, &c. Now that the truth may the better appear, here I ask of you, whether Christ speaking these words, did mean of his flesh to be eaten with the mouth, or of the spiritual eating of the same?

I answer (as Augustine understandeth) that Christ meant of the spiritual eating of his flesh.

Of what flesh meant Christ, his true flesh, or no?

Of his true flesh, spiritually to be eaten in the supper by faith, and not corporally.

Of what flesh meant the Capernaites?

Of his true flesh also: but to be eaten with the mouth.

They (as ye confess) did mean his true flesh, to be taken with the mouth. And Christ also (as I shall prove) did speak of the receiving of his flesh with the mouth.

Ergo, they both did understand it of the eating of one thing, which is done by the mouth of the body.

I say, Christ understood it not of the bodily mouth: but of the mouth of the spirit, mind, and heart.

I prove the contrary: that Christ understandeth it of the eating with the bodily mouth. For where as custom is a right good maistresse and interpreter of things, and where as the acts put in practice by Christ, do certainly declare those things which he first spake: Christ's deeds in his supper, where he gave his body to be taken with the mouth, together with the custom which hath ben ever since that time, of that eating which is done with the mouth, doth evidently infer that Christ did understand his words here cited of me out of the vi. of John, of the eating with the mouth.

He gave not his body to be received with the mouth, but he gave the sacrament of his body to be received with the mouth: he gave the sacrament to the mouth, his body to the mind.

But my reason doth conclude, that Christ spake concerning his flesh to be received with the corporal mouth: for otherwise (which God forbid) he had been a deceyuer, and had been offensive to the Capernaites and his Disciples, if he had not meant in this point, as they thought he meant: for if he had thought as you do fain, it had been an easy matter for him to have said: You shall not eat my flesh with your mouth, but the Sacrament of my flesh: that is to say, ye shall receive with your mouth, not the thing it self, but the figure of the thing, and thus he might have satisfied them: but so he said not, but continued in the truth of his words, as he was wont: Therefore Christ meant the self same thing that the Capernaits did, I mean concerning the thing it self to be received with the mouth: videlicet, that his true flesh is truly to be eaten with the mouth. Moreover, for as much as you do expound for (corpus Christi) the body of Christ (Sacramentum corporis Christi) the sacrament of the body of Christ, & hereby do suppose that we obtain but a spiritual union, or union of the mind between us and Christ, plain it is that you are deceived in this thing, and do err from the mind of the Fathers: for they affirm by plain and express words, that we are corporally and carnally joined together. And these be the words of Hyllarie: Si vere igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit, & vere homo ill, qui ex Maria natus fuit, nos quoque vere sub mysterio carnē corporis sui sumimus, & per haec vnum erimus, quia pater in eo est, & ill in nobis. Quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur, cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfect Sacramentum sit vnitatis? That is, Therefore if Christ did truly take the flesh of our body upon him, and the same man be Christ in deed which was borne of Mary, then we also do receive under a mystery, the flesh of his body in deed, and thereby shall become one, because the father is in him, and he in us. How is the unity of will affirmed, when a natural propriety, by the sacrament is a perfect Sacrament of unity?

Thus far hath Hyllarie. Loe here you see how manifestly these words confound your assertion. To be short I myself have heard you preaching at Greenewich, before king Henry the eight, where you did openly affirm, that no Christian man ought to doubt of the true and real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, for as much as he had the word of Scripture on his side, ( videlicet, Hoc est corpus meum: This is my body: whereby he might be confirmed. But now there is the same truth: the word of Scripture hath the self same thing which it then had. Therefore why do you deny at this present, that whereof it was not lawful once to doubt before when you taught it?

Will you give me leave to speak?

Speak Latin I pray you, for ye can do it if ye li • t, promptly enough.

I cannot speak Latin so long and so largely. Master Prolocutor hath given me leave to speak English: And as for the words of Hyllarie, I think they make not so much for you. But he that shall answer the Doctors, had not need to be in my case, but should have them in a readiness, and know their purpose. Melancthon saith, if the Doctors had foreseen that they should have been so taken in this controversy, they would have written more plainly.

I will reduce the words of Hyllary into the form of a Syllogism.

Da- Such as is the unity of our flesh with Christ's flesh, such, (yea greater) is the unity of Christ with the Father.

ti- But the unity of Christ's flesh with ours, is true and substantial:

si. Ergo, the unity of Christ with the Father is true and substantial.

I understand you not.

I know your learning well enough, & how su • til ye be: I will use a few words with you, and that out of Cyprian, De coena Domini. The Old Testament doth forbid the drinking of blood. The New Testament doth command the drinking and tasting of blood: but where doth it command the drinking of blood?

In these words: Bibite ex hoc omnes: that is, Drink ye all of this.

Then we taste true blood.

We do taste true blood, but spiritually: and this is enough.

Nay, the old and New Testament in this do differ: for the one doth command, and the other doth forbid to drink blood.

It is true as touching the matter, but not as touching the manner of the thing.

Then there is no difference between the drinking of blood in the New Testament, and that of the old: for they also drank spiritually.

And we drink spiritually also, but a more precious blood.

Augustine upon the 45. Psalm, saith: Secure bibite sanguinem quē fudistis. i. Drink boldly the blood which ye have poured out.

Ergo, it is blood.

I never denied it, nor never will go from it, but that we drink the very blood of Christ in deed, but spiritually, for the same S. Augustine saith: Crede & manducasti. i. Beleue, and thou hast eaten.

Nay, Credere, non est bibere nec edere. i. To believe, is not to drink or eat. You will not say, I pledge you, when I say, I believe in God. Is not (manducare) to eat, in your learning put for (credere) to believe?

I remember my L. Chancellor demanded M. Hooper of these questions, whether * (Edere) to eat, were (Credere) to believe, and (Altare) an Aultar, were Christ, in all the Scripture, &c. And he answered yea.

Then said my Lord Chancellor: Why, then * Habemus Altare de quo non licet edere. i. We have an Aultare, of which it is not lawful to eat, is as much to say, as Habemus Christum, in quo non licet credere. i. We have a Christ, in whom we may not believe.

Believe, and thou hast eaten, is spoken of the spiritual eating.

It is true, I do allow your saying: I take it so also.

We are commanded to drink blood in the new Law.

Ergo, it is very blood.

We drink blood, so as appertaineth to us to drink to our comfort, in sacramental wyne. We drink blood Sacramentally: he gave us his blood to drink spiritually, he went about to show, that as certainly as we drink wyne, so certainly we drink his blood spiritually.

Do not you seem to be a papist, which do bring in new words, not found in the scripture? Where find you, that (Sacramentaliter) Sacramentally, in God's book?

It is necessarily gathered upon scripture.

The Old Testament doth forbid the tasting of blood, but the new doth command it.

It is true, not as touching the thing, but as touching the manner thereof.

Hear ye people, this is the argument.

That which was forbidden in the old Testament, is commanded in the new.

To drink blood was forbidden in the Old Testament and commanded in the new.

Ergo, it is very blood that we drink • in the new.

This argument, because the Major thereof is not universal, is not formal, and may well be retorted against West. thus.

Ce- No natural or moral thing forbidden materially in the Old Testament, is commanded in the new.

la- To drink man's natural blood, is forbidden materially in the Old Testament:

rent. Ergo, to drink man's natural blood materially, is not commanded in the new.

It is commanded spiritually to be drunken, I grant it is blood drunken in the New Testament, but we receive it spiritually.

It was not forbidden spiritually in the old law.

The substance of blood is drunken, but not in one manner.

It doth not require the same manner of drinking.

It is the same thing, not the same manner. I have no more to say.

Here Weston cited the place of Chrysostom, of Judas treason: O Iudae dementia. Ille cum Iudaeis triginta denarijs paciscebatur, vt Christum venderet, & Christus ei sanguinem, quem vendidit, offerebat: That is, O the madness of Judas. He made bargayne with the Jews for thirty pence to sell Christ, and Christ offered him his blood which he sold.

I grant he offered to Judas his blood, which he sold, but in a sacrament.

Because ye can defend your Doctors no better, ye shall see how worshipful men ye hang upon, and one that hath been of your mind, shall dispute with you. M. Cartwright, I pray you dispute.

Reverend father, because it is given me in commandment to dispute with you, I will do it gladly. But first understand ere we go any further, that I was in the same error that you are in: but I am sory for it, and do confess myself to have erred. I acknowledge mine offense, and I wish and desire God that you also may repent with me.

Wyll you give me leave to tell what hath caused M. Doctor here to recant? It is poena legis, the pain of the law, which hath brought you back, and converted you, and many moe: the which letteth many to confess God. And this is a great argument, there are few here can dissolve it.

That is not my cause, but I will make you this short Argument, by which I was converted from mine errors.

If the true body of Christ be not really in the Sacrament, all the whole Church hath erred from the Apostles time.

But Christ would not suffer his church to err:

Ergo, it is the true body of Christ.

The popish Church hath erred, & doth err. I think for the space of six or seven hundred years, there was no mentiō made of any eating but spiritually: for before these five hundred years, the Church did ever confess a spiritual manducation. But the Romish church begat the error of transubstantiation. My Lord of Caunterburies book handleth that very well, and by him I could answer you, if I had him.

Linus and all the rest do confess the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament: and S. Augustine also upon the 98. Psalm, upon this place: Adorate scabellum pedum. &c. grāteth it to be worshipped.

We do worship Christ in the heavens, & we do worship him in the Sacrament: but the massing worship is not to be used.

Do you think that Cyril was of the ancient Church?

I do think so.

He saith, that Christ dwelleth in us corporally: These be Cyrils words of the mystical benediction.

That ( corporally ) hath another understanding, then you do grossly take it.

Cyril saith, that Christ dwelleth corporally in us, but he saith not that Christ dwelleth corporally in y ^e bread. Which dwelling of Christ in us, is as our dwelling is also in Christ, not local or corporal, but spiritual & heavenly (corporally) therefore it is to be takē here in the same sense as S. Paul saith, the fullness of divinity to dwell in Christ corporally, that is, not lightly nor accidentally, but perfectly and substantially, with all his virtue and power, &c. And so dwelleth Christ corporally in us also.

Here Smyth repeateth these words of Cyril: Per communionem corporis Christi, habitat in nobis Christus corporaliter: That is, By the communicating of the body of Christ, Christ dwelleth in us corporally.

The solution of this is in my Lord of Canterburies book.

Cyril was no papist, and yet these be his words: Christ dwelleth in us corporally, but you say he dwelleth in us spiritually.

I say both: that he dwelleth in us both corporally and spiritually, according to his meaning: Spiritually by faith, and corporally by taking our flesh upon him. For I remember I have read this in my Lord of Canterburies book.

For because your learning is let out to Ferme, and shut up in my Lord of Caunterburies book. I will recite unto you a place of S. Ambrose, De apparatione ad Missam, where he saith: Videmus principem sacerdotem ad nos venientem, & offerentem sanguinem, &c. That is, We see the chief Prieste coming unto us, and offering blood, &c.

Likewise both Augustine in the 38. Psal. and Chrysostom, concerning the incomprehensible nature of God, Tom. 3. say: Non solum homines, &c.

I am not ashamed to acknowledge mine ignorance, and these testimonies are more then I can bear away.

Then must you leave some behind you for lack of carriage.

But for Chrysostom, he hath many figurative speeches, and Emphaticall loquutions, in many places, as in that which you have now recited: but he saith not, For the quick and the dead: he taketh the celebration for the sacrifice.

You shall hear Chrysostom again, upon the ninth chap. of the Acts: Quid dicis? Hostia in manibus sacerdotis, &c. He doth not call it a cup of wyne.

Ye have mine answer there with you in a paper: and yet he calleth it not, Propitiatorium sacrificium, i. A propitiatory sacrifice.

You shall hear it to be so: and I bring another place of Chrysostom out of the same treatise: Non temere ab Apostolis est institutum, &c.

He is too precious a thing for us to offer: he offereth himself.

Here in another place of Chrysostom to the people of Antioch, Homil. 69. and also to the Philippians he saith: There should be a memory and sacrifice for the dead.

I do say that the holy communion beareth the name of a sacrifice, because it is a sacrifice memoratiue.

How say you to the sacrifice for the dead.

I say that it needeth not, or it booteth not.

Augustine in his Enchiridion, the 110. chap. saith: Non est negandum defunctorum animos pietate suorum viuentium releuari, quum pro illis sacrificium Mediatoris offertur: That is, We must not deny, that the souls of the dead are relieved by the devotion of their friends which are living, when the sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them. Where he proveth the verity of Christ's body, & praying for the dead. And it is said, that the same Augustine said mass for his mother.

But that mass was not like yours, which thing doth manifestly appear in his writings, which are against it in every place. And Augustine is a reasonable man, he requireth to be believed no further, then he bringeth scripture for his proof, and agreeth with God's word.

In the same place he proveth a propiciatorie sacrifice and that upon an altar, and no Oyster board.

It is the Lord's table, and no Oyster board. It may be called an alter, and so the doctors call it in many places: but there is no propiciatorie sacrifice, but only Christ. The doctors might be deceived in some points, though not in all things. * I believe them when they say well.

Is it not a shame for an old man to lie? You say, you are of the old fathers faith, where they say well, and yet ye are not.

I am of their faith when they say well. I refer myself to my L. of Caunterburies book wholly herein.

Then are you not of Chrysostom's faith, nor of S. Augustine's faith.

I have said, when they said well, and bring scripture for them, I am of their faith, and further Augustine requireth not to be believed.

Origen. Hom. 13. upon Leviticus.

I have but one word to say, Panis Sacramentalis, the Sacramental bread, is called a Propitiation, because it is a Sacrament of the Propitiation. What is your vocation?

My vocation is at this time to dispute, otherwise I am a Priest, and my vocation is to offer.

Where have you that authorttie given you to offer?

Hoc facite, Do this, for facite in that place is taken for offerte, that is, offer you.

Is Facere nothing but sacrificare to sacrifice? Why then no man must receive the sacrament but priests only: for there may none offer but priests.

Ergo, there may none receive but priests.

Your argument is to be denied.

Did Christ then offer himself at his supper?

Yea, he offered himself for the whole world.

Then if this word (Facite) Do ye, signify Sacrificate, Sacrifice ye, it followeth, (as I said) that none but Priests only ought to receive the Sacrament, to whom it is only lawful to sacrifice: and where find you that, I pray you?

Fourty year agone, whether could you have gone to have found your doctrine?

The more cause we have to thank God, that hath now sent the light into the world.

The light? Nay lite and lewd Preachers: for you could not tell what you might have: Ye altered & changed so often your communions and altars, and all for this one end, to spoil and rob the Church.

These things pertain nothing to me. I must not answer for other men's deeds, but only for mine own.

Well, M. Latimer, this is our intent, to will you well, and to exhort you to come to yourself, and remember that without Noes Ark, there is no health. Remember what they have been that were the beginners of your doctrine, none but a few flying Apostates, running out of Germany for fear of the fagot. Remember what they have been which have set forth the same in this Realm: A sort of flyngbraines and light heads, which were never constant in any one thing, as it was to be seen in the turning of the Table, where like a sort of Apes, they could not tell which way to turn their tails, looking one day West, and another day East, one that way, and another this way. They will be like (they say) to the Apostles, they will have no Churches. A houell is good enough for them. They come to the Communion with no reverence. They get them a Tankard, and one saith, I drink, and I am thankful: the more joy of thee, saith another. And in them was it true that Hyllary saith: Annuas & menstruas de deo fides facimus▪ id est, We make every yere and every month a faith. A runagate Scot did take away the adoration or worshipping of Christ in the Sacrament: by whose procurement that heresy was put into the last Cōmunion book: so much prevailed that one man's authority at that time. You never agreed with the Tygurines or Germans, or with the Church, or with yourself. Your stubbornness cometh of a vain glory, which is to no purpose: for it will do you no good when a fagot is in your beard. And we see all by your own confession, how little cause you have to be stubborn, for your learning is in scoffers hold. The Queens grace is merciful, if ye will turn.

You shall have no hope in me to turn, I pray for the Queen daily even from the bottom of my heart, that she may turn from this religion.

Here you all see the weakness of heresy against the truth: he denieth all truth, and all the old fathers.

I Am not ignorant what a weighty matter it is, to entreat of the whole order and trade of the scriptures: and most hard it is to, in the great contention of Religion, to show the ready way, whereby the scriptures may be best understanded. For the often̄ reading of them doth not bring the true understanding of them. What other thing is there then? Verily this is the ready way, not to follow our own heads and senses, but to give over our judgment unto the holy catholic Church, who hath had of old years the truth, and always delivered the same to their posterity: but if the often reading of scriptures, and never so painful comparing of places should bring the true understanding, then diverse heretics might prevail even against whole general Councils. The Jews did greatly brag of the knowledge of the law, and of the Savior that they waited for. But what auailed it them? Notwithstanding, I know right well, that diverse places of the scripture do much warn us of the often reading of the same, and what fruit doth thereby follow: as Scrutamini, &c. Search the scriptures: for they do bear witness of me, &c. Lex Domini, &c. The law of the Lord is pure, able to turn souls. And that saying of S. Paul: Omnis Scriptura, &c. All Scripture inspired from above, doth make that a man may be instructed to all good works. Howbeit, doth the law of the Jews convert their souls? are they by reading instructed to every good work? The letter of the Old Testament, is the same that we have.

The heretics also have ever had the same scriptures which we have that be Catholics. But they are served as Tantalus that the Poetes do speak of, who in the plenty of things to eat and drink, is said to be oppressed with hunger and thirst. The swifter that men do seek the Scriptures without the Catholic church, the deeper they fall, and find hell for their labor. Saint Cyprian never swerving from the Catholic Church, saith: He that doth not acknowledge the Church to be his mother, shall not have God to be his father. Therefore it is true Divinity, to be wise with the Church, where Christ saith: Nisi manducaueritis, &c. Unless ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood, ye have no life in you.

If he had meant of only eating bread, and drinking wyne, nothing had been more pleasant to the Capernaites, neither would they have forsaken him. The flesh profiteth nothing to them that do so take it. For the Capernaites did imagine Christ to be given in such sort as he lived. But Christ spake high things: not that they should have him as flesh in the market, but to consider his presence with the spirit, * under the forms whereby it is given. As there is an alteration of bodies by courses and times of ages, so there is no less * variety in eating of bodies.

These things which I have recited briefly. M. Harpsfield did with many more words set out: and hereupon D. Weston disputed against him.

Christ's real body is not in the sacrament:

Ergo, you are deceived.

I deny the antecedent.

John the 6. Dico veritatem vobis, &c. I speak the truth unto you: It behooveth me that I go away from you. For unless I do depart, that comforter cannot come, &c.

Upon this I will make this argument.

Christ is so gone away as he did send the holy Ghost.

But the holy Ghost did verily come into the world:

Ergo, Christ is verily gone.

He is verily gone, and yet remaineth here.

S. Augustine saith, that these words: Ego ero, &c. I will be with you even to the end of the world, are accomplished, secundum maiestatem, According to his majesty : But secundum praesentiam carnis, non est hic, By the presence of his flesh, he is not here. The Church hath him not in flesh, but by belief.

We must diligently weigh that there are two natures in Christ: the divine nature, & human nature. The divine nature is of such sort, that it cannot choose but be in all places. The human nature is not such, that of force it must be in all places, although it be in diverse, after a diverse manner. So where that the doctors do entreat of his presence by majesty, they do commend the majesty of the Divine nature not to hinder us of the * natural presence here in the sacrament.

He saith further: Me autem non semper habebitis: Ye shall not have me always with you, is to be understanded in the flesh.

The presence of the flesh is to be considered, that he is not here as he was wont to live in conversation with them, to be seen, talked withal, or in such sort as a man may give him * any thing: after that sort he is not present.

But what say you to this of S. Augustine: Nō est hic, He is not here.

I do answer out of S. Augustine upon John, Tractatu. 25. upon these words. Non videbitis me. Vado ad patrem, &c. I go to the Father, ye shall not see me: That is, Such as I now am. Therefore I do deny the manner of his presence.

I will overthrow S. Augustine with S. Augustine: who saith this also: Quomodo quis possit tenere Christum? fidem mitte & tenuisti: that is, How may a man hold Christ? send thy faith, and thou holdest him.

So he showeth, that by sending our faith, we do hold Christ.

In deed no man holdeth Christ, unless he believe in him, but it is another thing to have Christ merciful and favorable unto us, and to have him present in the Sacrament.

There s. Augustine speaketh of holding him by faith, as he is favorable unto us.

Nay, he speaketh there how the Fathers had him in the flesh, and teacheth that we have him not so in flesh, as they had him long time, saying: Your fathers did hold Christ present in the flesh, do you hold him in your heart. What words can be more plain? Further he saith, He is gone, & is not here: he hath left us, and yet hath not forsaken us. Hic est maiestate, abijt carne: He is here in majesty, and gone touching the flesh.

I do understand Augustine thus: that Christ is here in his flesh to them that receive him worthily: to such as do not worthily receive him, to them he is not present in the flesh. I judge S. Augustine meaneth so. We have him, and have him not: we have him in receiving him worthily, otherwise not.

Nay, Tener • carnem est tenere corticem literae: I will prosecute another argument. Cyril doth say: By the majesty of his divinity he is ever here, but the presence of his flesh hath he taken away.

The sense of Cyril is thus to be understanded: The most true flesh of Christ is at the right hand of the Father. Thus the Fathers taught, and so they believed. Thus said Cyril: Thus said Augustine, and because this is the foundation of our faith, they did oftentimes teach it. Therefore, when they prove this, (the body to be in heaven,) they do not make against the presence in the sacrament.

So unless ye can plainly show, that the fathers do directly say, he is not in the sacrament, you make nothing against me: for I have shown why the Fathers so spake. They did teach the great difference between the divine nature, and the human nature, as I have before said.

I will then prove, that he is not in the sacrament. Uigilius against y ^e heretic Eutiches, upon these words: Me autem non semper habebitis, saith: The son of God as touching his humanity, is gone from us, by his divinity he remaineth with us. And that same Uigilius in his fourth book, saith: He that is in the heaven, is not in the earth, speaking of Christ.

I will show you the reason of these words. The heretic Eutiches did believe that the divine nature of Christ was fastened on the cross, and believed that Christ had no natural body. To this Uigilius said, that the human nature was taken up and ascended, which could not so have done, unless he had had a body. This he said not, to take away the presence in the sacrament.

For what had he to refer this sentence to the Sacrament? He never did so much as dream of the Sacrament.

Cyril saith: Although he be absent from us in body, yet are we governed by his spirit.

By these words he gave us a cheerfulness, to aspire upwards, seeking therehence our help. For as touching his conversation, he is not so in the Sacrament, as one meet to be lived withal. But let him teach us that he is not there to feed us: for after that sort he is there.

You have satisfied me with your answers, in doing the same learnedly, and catholikely. But now to another argument.

Christ is now so absent from the earth by his body, as he was absent from heaven when he lived here.

But when he did live bodily on earth, the same natural body was out of heaven.

Ergo, now whilst his natural body is in heaven, it is not in earth.

I deny the Major.

Fulgentus ad Transimundum Regem, libro secundo, saith: Secundum humanam substantiam absens erat coelo, cum descēdit de coelo. These are Fulgentius words touching his human substance. He was absent from heaven, when he descended from heaven, and touching the same substance, now he is in heaven, he is not on the earth: but concerning the divine nature, he never forsook, neither heaven nor earth.

After these words, not waityng Harpsfields answer, he offered master Cranmer to dispute: who began in this wise.

I have heard you right learnedly and eloquently entreat of the dignity of the scriptures, which I do both commend, & have marvelled thereat within myself. But where as you refer the true sense & judgment of y ^e scriptures to the catholic church as judge thereof, you are much deceued, specially for y ^t under the name of the church you appoint such Judges as have corruptly judged, and contrary to the sense of the scriptures. I wonder likewise why you attribute so little to the diligent reading of the scriptures, and conferryng of places, seeing the scriptures do so much commend the same, as well in diverse other places, as also in those which you yourself have already alleged. And as touching your opinion of these questions, it seemeth to me, neither to have any ground of the word of god, nor of the Primitive church. And to say the truth, y ^e scholemen have spoken diversely of them, and do not agree therein among themselves. Wherefore mynding here briefly to show my judgment also, I must desire you first to answer me to a few questions which I shall demand of you. Which being done, we shall the better proceed in our disputation. Moreover, I must desire you to bear also with my rudeness in the Latin tongue, which through long disuse is not now so prompt and ready with me, as it hath been. And now all other things set apart▪ I mind chiefly to have regard to the truth. My first question is this: How Christ's body is in the sacrament, according to your mind or determination?

Then answered a Doctor, he is there as touching his substance, but not after the manner of his substance.

He is there in such sort and manner, as he may be eaten.

My next question is: Whether he hath his quantity & qualities, form, figure, and such like properties.

Are these your questions, said Master Harpsfield? I may likewise ask you when Christ passed thorough the virgins womb, an ruperit ne • ne? When they had thus a while contended, there were diverse opinions in this matter.

All the doctors fell in a buzzing, incertaine what to answer: some thought one way, some another, and thus master Doctors could not agree.

Then master Cranmer said thus: you put of questions with questions, and not with answers. I ask one thing of you, and you answer another. Once again I ask: Whether he have those properties which he had on the earth?

No, he hath not all the quantities and qualities belonging to a body.

Stay you Master Tresham. I will answer to you Master Doctor, with the words of Damascene: Transformatur panis, &c. The bread is transformed, &c. But if thou wilt inquire how, Modus impossibilis, The manner is impossible.

Then two or three other added their answers to this question, somewhat doubtfully. A great hurley burley was among them: some affirming one thing, and some another.

Do you appoint me a body, and cannot tell what manner of body? Either he hath not his quantity, or else you are ignorant how to answer it.

These are vain questions, & it is not meet to spend the ryme on them.

Hear me a while, Lanfrancus sometime Bishop of Canterbury, doth answer in this wise unto Berengarius upon such like questions: Salubriter credi possunt, fideliter queri non possunt: They may be well believed, but never faithfully asked.

If ye think good to answer it, some of you declare it.

He is there as pleaseth him to be there.

I would be best contented with that answer, if that your appointing of a carnal presence had not driven me of necessity to have inquired for disputations sake, howe you place him there, sithence you will have a natural body.

When again he was answered of diverse at one time, some denying it to be quantum, some saying it to be quantitatiuum, some affirming it to have modum quanti, some denying it, someone thing, some another: up start D. Weston, and doughtily decided (as he thought) all the matter, saying: It is Corpus quantum, sed non per modum quanti. i. It is a body (saith he) having quantity, but not according to the manner of quantity.

Whereunto M. Warde, a great Sophister, thinking the matter not fully answered, did largely declare and discourse his sentence: How learnedly and truly I cannot tell, nor I think he himself neither, ne yet the best learned there. For it was said since, that far better learned then he, laid as good ear to him as they could, & yet could by no means perceive to what ende all his talk tended. In deed he told a formal tale to cloute up the matter. He was full of quantum & quantitatiuum. This that followeth, was as it is thought, the effect, yet others think no. How be it we will rehearse the sum of his words, as it is thought he spake them.

We must consider (saith he) that there are duae positiones, Two positions. The one standeth by the order of partes, with respect of the whole. The other in respect of that which containeth. Christ is in the Sacrament in respect of the whole. This proposition is in one of Aristotle's Predicamentes, called Situs. I remember I did entreat these matters very largely, when I did rule and moderate the Philosophical disputations in the public Schools. This position is sine modo quantitatiuo, as by an ensample: you can never bring heaven to a quantity. So I conclude that he is in the Sacrament, quantum sine modo quantitatiuo.

These words he amplified very largely, and so high he clymed into the heavens with Duns his ladder, and not with the scriptures, that it is to be marueled how he could come down again without falling? To whom M. Cranmer said: Then thus do I make mine argument.

In heaven his body hath quantity, in earth it hath none by your saying.

Ergo, he hath two bodies, the one in heaven, the other in earth.

Here some would have answered him, that he had quātitle in both, and so put of the antecedent: but thus said M, Harpsfield.

I deny your argument, though some would not have had him say so.

The argument is good. It standeth upon contradictories, which is the most surest hold.

I deny that there are contradictions.

I thus prove it. Habere modum quantitatiuum & non habere, sunt contradictoria.

Sed Christus in coelis, vt dicitis, habet modum quantitatiuū, in terra non habet:

Ergo, duo sunt corpora eius in quae cadunt haec contradictoria: Nam in idem cadere non possunt.

I deny the Minor.

I answer, that the Major is not true. For Habere quantum, & non habere, non sunt contradictoria nisi sic considerantur eiusdem ad idem, eodem modo & simpliciter.

I confirm the same: for one body may have modum quantitatiuum, and not have: and idem corpus was passable and impassible, one body may have wounds, and not wounds.

This cannot be at one time.

The ensample of the Potter doth prove that I say: who of that that is clay now, maketh a pot or cup forthwith.

But I say again, that it is so but at diverse times: as one piece of meat to be raw and sodden, cannot be at one time together. But you would have it otherwise, that Christ should be here and in heaven at one time, & should have modum quantitatiuum, and not have: which cannot be but by such argument as I have shown you.

But I say, Christ's body was passable and not passable at one instant.

You may ask as well other questions, how he is in heaven? whether he sit or stand, and whether he be there as he lived here.

You yourself by putting a natural presence, do force me to question how he is here. Therefore, next I do ask this question: Whether good and evil men do eat the body in the sacrament?

Yea, they do so, even as the sun doth shine upon kings pallaices, and on dung heaps.

Then do I inquire how long Christ tarrieth in the eater.

These are curious questions, unmeet to be asked.

I have taken them out of your Schools and Schoolmen, which you yourselves do most use: and there also do I learn to ask how far he goeth into the body.

We know that the body of Christ is received to nourish the whole man concerning both body and soul: Eo us{que} progreditur corpus quous{que} species.

How long doth he abide in the body?

S. Augustine saith, our flesh goeth into his flesh. But after he is once received into the stomach, it maketh no matter for us to know how far he doth pierce, or whether he is conveyed.

Here M. Tresham and one M. London answered, that Christ being given there under such form and quantity as pleased him, it was not to be inquired of his tarrying, or of his descending into the body.

You were wont to lay to our charge, that we added to the scripture: saying always that we should fetch the truth out of the scripture, and now you yourself bring questions out of the Schoolmen, which you have disallowed in us.

I say as I have said always, that I am constrained to ask these Questions, because of this carnal presence, which you imagine: and yet I know right well, that these questions be answered out of the Scriptures: As to my last question: How long he abideth in the body? &c. The scripture answereth plainly, that Christ doth so long dwell in his people, as they are his members. Wherupō I make this argument.

Ba- They which eat the flesh of Christ, do dwell in him▪ and he in them.

ro- But the wicked do not remain in him, nor he in them:

co. Ergo, the wicked do not eat his flesh, nor drink his blood.

I will answer unto you, as S. Augustine saith▪ not that how so ever a man do eat, he eateth the body: but he that eateth after a certain manner.

I cannot tell what manner ye appoint, but I am sure that evil men do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, as Christ speaketh in the sixth of John.

In the sixth of John, some things are to be referred to the godly, and some to the ungodly.

Whatsoever he doth entreat there of eating, doth pertain unto good men.

If you do mean only of the word of eating, it is true: if concerning the thing, it is not so: And if your meaning be of that which is contained under the word of • ating, it may be so taken, I grant.

Now to the Argument, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Doth not this prove sufficiently, that evil men do not eat that the good do?

You must add, Qui manducat digne: He that eateth worthily.

I speak of the same manner of eating, that Christ speaketh of.

Augustinus ad fratres in Eremo, Sermon. 28. Est c •• dan • manducandi modus. i. There is a certain manner of eating. Augustine speaketh of two manners of eating: the one of them that eat worthily, the other that eat unworthily.

All things in the 6. of John are not to be referred to the Sacrament, but to the receiving of Christ by faith. The Fathers do agree that there is not entreaty made of the supper of the Lord, before they come unto, Panis quem dabo vobis, caro mea est. &c.

There is entreatinge of Manna both before & after.

I will apply another answer. This argument hath a kind of poysone in it, which must be thus bitten away, that Manna and this Sacrament be not both one. Manna hath not his efficacy of him self, but of God.

But they that did take Manna worthily, had fruit thereby: and so by your assertion, he that doth eat the flesh of Christ worthily, hath his fruit by that.

Therefore the like doth follow of them both: and so there should be no difference between Manna & this sacrament by your reason.

When it is said, that they which did eat Manna, are dead, it is to be understand, that they did want the * virtue of Manna.

*If M. Harpsfield do mean of bodily life, they which eat the Sacrament do die, as well as they which did eat the Manna. If he mean of spiritual life, neither be they all damned that did eat Manna, nor all saved that do eat the Sacrament. Wherefore the truth is, that neither the eating of Manna bringeth death, nor the eating of the Sacrament bringeth salvation: but only the spiritual believing upon Christ's bodily passion, which only justifieth both them and us. And therefore as the effect is spiritual, which Christ speaketh of in this chapter: so is the cause of that effect spiritual whereof he meaneth, which is our spiritual believing in him, and not our bodily eating of him.

They then which do eat either of them worthily, do live.

They do live which do eat Manna worthily, not by Manna, but by the power of God given by it. The other which do eat this Sacrament, do live by the same.

Christ did not entreat of the cause, but the effect which followed: he doth not speak of the cause whereof the effect proceedeth.

I do say the effects are diverse, life and death, which do follow the worthy, and the unworthy eating thereof.

Sithens you will needs have an addition to it, we must use both in Manna & in this Sacrament, indifferently, either worthily or unworthily.

Christ spake absolutely of Manna, and of the Supper, so that after that absolute speaking of the Supper, wicked men can in no wise eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood.

Further Augustine upon John, Tractatu 26. upon these words, Qui manducat, &c. saith: There is no such respect in common meats, as in the Lord's body. For who that eateth other meats, hath still hunger, and needeth to be satisfied daily: but he that doth eat the flesh of Christ, and drinketh his blood, doth live forever. But you know wicked men not to do so.

Ergo, wicked men do not receive.

S. Augustine meaneth, that he who eateth Christ's flesh. &c. after a certain manner, should live forever. Wicked men do eat, but not after that manner.

Ca- Only they which participate Christ, be of the mystical body.

me- But the evil men are not of the mystical body:

stres. Therefore they do not participate Christ.

Your wonderful gentle behaueour and modesty (good master D. Cranmer) is worthy much commendation: and that I may not deprive you of your right & just deserving, I give you most hearty thanks in mine own name, and in the name of all my brethren. At which saying all the Doctors gently put off their cappes. Then M. Weston did oppose the Respondent on this wise.

Tertullian doth cal the sacrament the sign and figure of the Lord.

S. Augustine ad Dardanum saith: Non dubitauit Dominus dicere, hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corporis. i. The Lord did not stick to say, this is my body, when he gave a sign of his body.

Besides this, he giveth rules howe to understand the scriptures, saying: If the Scriptures seem to command some heinous thing, then it is figurative, as by example: Manducare carnem & bibere sanguinem, est tropicus sermo. i. To eat the flesh and drink the blood, is a tropical speech.

Tertullian did write in that place against Martion an heretic, who denied Christ to have a true body, and said, he had only a fantastical body. He went about to show that we had Christ both in heavē and in earth: and though we have the true body in the Sacrament, yet he would not go about so to confound him, as to say, that Christ was truly in the Sacrament: For that heretic would have thereat rather marveled, then believed it. Therefore he shown him, that it was the figure of Christ: and a figure cannot be, but of a thing that is, or hath been extant.

To the text of Augustine: the Church hath never taught the contrary. There is an outward thing in the Sacrament, which sometimes hath sundry names. For it may be called a Figure in this declaration: That Bodye which is in the sacrament, is a figure of Christ dwelling in heaven.

To the third: That which is brought by Augustine for example, about the understanding of the Scriptures, is thus to be understanded, as tending to a general manner of eating: so Manducare carnem, & bibere sanguinem. i. To eat the flesh, and drink the blood, may be a figurative speech to exclude Anthropophagiam. i. The eating of man's flesh, the which is, when we eat man's flesh cut into morsels, as we eat common meat: so as we neither have nor eat Christ in the Sacrament.

I understand your short & learned answer, which doth sufficiently content me. But now to the second question, which is of transubstantiation.

The scripture calleth it bread.

Ergo, it is bread.

In the name of bread all is signified which we do eat.

Theodoretus an ancient writer, in his first Dialogue, saith, that Christ changed not the nature, but called it his body.