¶The history of Iohn Frankesh, Humfrey Mid∣dleton, Nicholas Sheterden.
* 1.1HAuyng now passed ouer the examinations of Maister Bland, let vs further proceed to the rest of his felowes concaptiues, being ioyned the same time with him both in the like cause, and like affliction. The names of whome were Iohn Frankesh, Nicholas Sheterden, Humfrey Middleton, Thacker, and Cocker: of whome Thacker onely gaue back. The rest constātly standing to the truth, were altogether condemned by the Suffragan of Caun∣terburye, the 25. daye of Iune, the yeare aboue expressed. Touching whose examinations, I shall not need long to stand, for somuche as the articles ministred agaynst them, were all one: so in their aunsweres they little or nothyng disagreed, as hereafter (by the Lords help) you shal heare. In the meane time, because Nicholas Sheterden in his examinations had a little more large talke with the Arch∣deacon and the Commissary, I will first beginne with the same.
* 1.2FIrst the Archdeacon and Commissary affirmed that the very wordes of Christ, when he sayd: This is my bodye, did chaunge the substaunce, without any other interpreta∣tion or spirituall meaning of the wordes.
Then belike when Christ sayd: This cup is my bloud, the substaunce of his Cup was chaunged into hys bloud, without any other meaning, and so the cup was changed, and not the wine.
Not so: for when Christ sayde: This cup is my bloud, be meant not the cup, but the wine in the cup.
If Christ spake one thing, and meant an other, then the bare wordes did not chaunge the substaunce: but there must be a meaning sought as well of the bread, as of the cup.
There must be a meaning sought of the cup other∣wise then the words stand. But of the bread it must be vn∣derstand onely as it standeth, without any other meaning.
Then do ye make one halfe of Christes institution a figure, or borowed speache, and the other halfe a playne speach, and so ye deuide Christes supper.
Christ meant the wyne, and not the cup, though he sayd: This cup is my bloud.
Then shew me whether the words which the prie∣stes doe speake ouer the cup, do chaunge the substaunce, or whether the minde of the priest doth it?
The minde of the priest doth it, and not the words.
If the minde of the prieste doth it, and not ye words, if the Priest then doe minde hys harlot, or any other vaine thing, that thing so minded was there made, and so the people doe worship the priestes harlot in stead of Christes bloud: and agayne, none of the people can tell when it is Christes bloud, or when it is not, seeing the matter stan∣deth in the minde of the Priest. For no man can tell what the priest meaneth, but himselfe: and so are they euer in daunger of committing idolatry.
Then was the Archdeacon somewhat moued, & sate hym downe, and sayde to the Commissarye? I pray you maister Commissary speake you to him an other while,* 1.3 for they are vnreasonable and peruerse aunsweres, as e∣uer I heard of. Then stode vp the Commissary, and sayd.
Your argumentes is much agaynst your selfe: for ye graunt that the bread is a figure of Christes body▪ but the Cup can be no figure of his bloude, nor yet his verye bloud: and therefore Christ did not meane the cup, but the wine in the cup.
My argument is not agaynst me at all: for I do not speake it to proue that the cup is his bloud, nor the figure of his bloud, but to proue that the bare wordes being spo∣ken of the priest, do not chaunge the substaunce no more of the bread then they do chaunge the cup into bloud.
It coulde not be spoken of the Cup, when hee sayde: This Cup is my bloud, but he meant the wyne in the cup.
Then it remaineth for you to answere my question to the Archdeacon, that is, whether the minde of the priest when he speaketh ouer the cup, doth chaunge it into bloud or the bare wordes.
Both together doth it, the wordes and ye mind of the priest together: yea the intent and the wordes toge∣ther doth it.
If the wordes and intentes together doe chaunge the substaunce, yet must the cup be his bloud,* 1.4 and not the wyne, for as much as the wordes are, This cup is my bloud, and the intent, ye say, was the wyne: or els the words take none effect, but the intent onely.
After, the Commissary in his chamber sayd, it was the intent of the priest before he went to masse, wythout the wordes: for the Priest did intend to doe as holy Churche had ordayned, then the intent made the sacrament to take effect.
If the Sacramentes take effect of the intent of the Priest, and not of Gods word, then manye Parishes ha∣uing a Priest that intendeth not wel, are vtterly deceiued,* 1.5 both in Baptising, and also worshipping that thing to be God, whiche is but bread, because for lacke of the priestes intente, the wordes doe take none effecte in it: so that by this, it is euer doubtfull whether they worship Christe, or bread, because it is doubtfull what the Priestes doe in∣tende.
Then the Commissary would proue to me, that Chrystes Manhood was in two places at one tyme,* 1.6 by these woordes of Christ in Ioh. the thyrd Chapiter, where he sayth, No man ascendeth vpp to heauen, but hee that came downe from heauen, that is to say, the sonne of man whiche is in heauen. By this he would proue, that Christe was then in heauen, and in earth also, naturally and bodily.
This place and other must needes be vnderstand for the vnitie of persons, in that Christe was God & man, and yet the matter must be referred to the Godhead, or els ye must fall into great errour.
That is not so: for it was spoken of the man∣hoode of Christ, for as much as he sayth, the sonne of man whiche is in heauen.
If yee will needes vnderstande it to be spoken of Christes manhoode,* 1.7 then must ye fall into the error of the Anabaptistes, which deny that Christ took fleshe of ye vir∣gin Mary: for if there be no bodye ascended vpp, but that whiche came downe, where is then his incarnation? for then he brought his body downe with him.
Loe how ye seeke an errour in me, and yet see not how ye erre your selfe. For it cannot be spoken of the Godhead, except ye graunt that God is passible, for God cannot come downe because he is not passible.
If that were a good argumente that God could not come down because he is not passible: then it might be said