Actes and monuments of matters most speciall and memorable, happenyng in the Church. [vol. 2, part 1] with an vniuersall history of the same, wherein is set forth at large the whole race and course of the Church, from the primitiue age to these latter tymes of ours, with the bloudy times, horrible troubles, and great persecutions agaynst the true martyrs of Christ, sought and wrought as well by heathen emperours, as nowe lately practised by Romish prelates, especially in this realme of England and Scotland. Newly reuised and recognised, partly also augmented, and now the fourth time agayne published and recommended to the studious reader, by the author (through the helpe of Christ our Lord) Iohn Foxe, which desireth thee good reader to helpe him with thy prayer.

The second matter to be disputed of is this.

That in the Lords Supper is none other oblation or sacrifice, then one onely remembraunce of Christes death, and of thankesgiuing.

IN this conclusion, I will be muche shorter, and more compendious then in the first. In consideration where∣of, you shall vnderstande, that the same is a very godly, and true catholique proposition. For to offer Christ, and to exhibite the same, is all one thing, for in that that he is of∣fered, he is set foorth for to eate, there is no difference at all betweene the maker of the sacrifice, or offerer, and the thing that was offered, which both were one Christ. The Lorde did commaund saying, Do this in remembraunce of me, hee made mention of the remembrance only, wherefore it can be none other sacrifice, but only that. The Apostle doth de∣clare the maner of the thing doing, saying thus: He tooke bread in his hands, he blessed it, he brake it, and gaue it to his dis∣ciples. What gaue he to them? forsooth bread, which was the sacrament, and not his body. No earthly creature nor heauenly, did euer offer vp Christ at any time, but he him∣selfe once for all, vpon the crosse, Ergo, he can not, nor ought not to be offered many times, and often, though that Pig∣hius with all the blinde rabble of Papists say the contrary. For truely in this point especially they knowe not what they say, being so led by the old pharisaicall blindnes. But to the purpose. You shall vndestand good auditors, that the pure and cleane oblation and sacrifice spokē of by the Pro∣phet Malachy, is nothing else, then deuoute, and faithfull prayer, and thankesgiuing, as Tertullian sayth in his third booke contra Marcionem expounding the Psalme, where it is sayd thus: The sacrifice of laude, and prayse shall honor mee. So doth S. Hierome, Irenaeus, and S. Austen say also vppon Malachy. Where also they denie that Christ is essencially in the sacrament. Yea and S. Austen Epistola 95. ad Paulinum witnesseth, that the mortifying of our earthly members is our true sacrifice that be Christians. And all the aunciente Fathers do call praiers by the name of sacrifices. And for this purpose, whosoeuer list to reade that most excellente and famous Clarke Zwinglius ca. 18. de articulis, shall finde the same confirmed of him by most grounded reasons, whatsoeuer the Papists do barke against it. Thus I haue declared my mind in both matters now disputable. And if my further declaration be required through the vehemency of argumentes, I will performe the same in my aunswe∣ring thereunto.

There disputed against this defendant Doctour Glin, M. Langedale, M. Segewike, and M. Yong, Students in Diui∣nitie.

Glin.

Notwithstanding right worshipfull Maister Doc∣tor, that you haue so exquisitely declared your mind and o∣pinion in euery of these matters now in contention before this honorable and learned audience, and also though iust occasion be ministred to me to infringe your positions in both conclusions, yet I will not inuade the same as now indirectly with contrarious and vaine wordes to occupie the small time which is appointed vs for the triall of the same, but we will go forthwith to the thing it selfe, whych conteineth in it matter ynough. It is but ••olly to vse many wordes where fewe will serue our purpose, as sayeth the maister of the Sentences. All words may signifie at plea∣sure and commonly there bee moe thinges then vocables, like as sometimes there was variance amongst learned men of the vnitie of two substances in one personage of Christ God and Man. So is there now in our dayes va∣riance of Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ. Wherefore I do require you first to shew me heare openly what the said Transubstantiati∣on is, that we go not from the thing it selfe, which is our first and chiefest ground.

Madew.

As for that I neede not to shew you, for euery man knoweth it.

Glin.

Peraduenture it is not so good Maister Doctor. And I am perfectly assured that euery man doth not knowe it indeede: for it is not so light a matter as you make it to be.

Madew.

Forsooth you know it your selfe, and so do all men else.

Glin.

Well, yet I pray you shew me what thing Christ did demonstrate and shew foorth by that article of the newter gender, where he said, This is my body. What did he appoint in that article this? for if he meant by that, the bread, then Christ in the Sacrament is not onely of two natures, but of three natures, as of the nature of bread, of the nature of man, and of the diuine nature, which to say, were blasphe∣mie. The argument is good, and doth hold by that text, He spake the word, and it was done, he commaunded, and they were created. Moreouer, if he should meane by that article of the newter gender (this) the materiall bread, then he woulde haue sayd, This bread is my body, so making the article of the newter gender: or else he would haue sayd thus, Heere with this bread is my body, to haue auoyded euer after all here∣sies, errours, and schismes. But he saide not so, but spake the article of the newter gender, saying, This is my body, that is to saye, the thing or substance conteyned vnder the forme and kind of bread, which you see not with your bo∣dely eyes is my body, according to my promise made to you before, that I woulde geue you my very fleshe to eate, Iohn. 6. In like maner when he gaue the cup of his blood, he sayd not this in the newter gender, as he woulde haue done if he had meant the materiall creature of wine to haue remained, but he saide then in the masculine gender, This is my bloud: That is to say the thing conteined vnder the forme of wine whiche you see not with your bodely eyes is my bloud. For truely the holy Ghost came downe to leade vs into all truth and veritie, and not to deceiue vs in so notable a point of our faith. But out of doubte he should haue deceaued in this matter, if so be he had geuen vs onely materiall bread and wine in stead of his bodye and bloud, and not haue fulfilled his promise made Iohn 6. where he promiseth thus. The bread whiche I will geue is my fleshe, which I will geue for the life of the world. Heere be two giuings spoken of, with two relatiues, whereof the first with his relatiue, must needes be referred to his gift in the last supper, and the second geuing of the same fleshe of his, with his relatiue, must be applied of necessitie vnto his geuing of his body vpon the Crosse. Nor we do finde in the whole Scripture, where Christ did fulfill his sayde promise made in y^e 6. of Iohn, but at those said two times. Wherefore if we be deceiued in this matter of Transub∣stantiation, we may well say, O Lord thou hast deceaued vs. But God forbid that we should once thinke such wic∣kednes of him. He must also be vniust of his promise if it be not performed at any season, as it is not indeede, if it were not at both the said times. Then if it were performed (as the Catholique Churche of Christe dothe holde, deter∣mine, and beleeue) then must it needes be graunted, that he gaue at his last Supper his owne body and flesh indeede and verely which he gaue vpon the Crosse for the life of the world, though not in so fleshly a manner and bloudie, yet the very same flesh and ••loud really after an vnblou∣dy sort, and spiritually. He said not This bread is my bo∣dy, nor yet heere with the bread is my body, but, This is my body, which shall be geuen for you. Nor he said not, this wine is my bloud, nor with this wine is my bloud, whiche cir∣cumstance of plaine speach he would haue vsed, if the pure creatures should haue remained, but he sayde, This is my bloud, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sinnes, that is to say, the substance hidden vnder these vi∣sible formes of bread and wine, are my very proper fleshe and bloud. I pray you where do you find in the whole bo∣dy of the Scripture expressed, or iustly vnderstanded, that Christ gaue but only a bare and naked signe, figure, or sa∣crament? Or where finde you that he gaue his body wyth

bread,* 1.1 it remayning bread still? And if you thinke to finde it, I pray you shewe me here, whether that bodye that hee gaue with materiall bread, were his true body or not? If not, then it was phantasticall, if it were his true body (as you doe graunt) then must there needes be two very true bodyes in one place together. Now that it was his verye true body and bloud, it is certayne by the playne wordes of the text saying thus. Which is betrayed or geuen, and which is shedde for you, and for many. But I will let all this passe ouer, and I do requyre of you this one question whether that the sacramentes of the old law, and of y^e new law be all one?

Madew.

* 1.2If you doe consider the thinges themselues they be all one, but if you respecte the onely signes, figures and sacramentes outwardly then they be diuers.

Glin.

I doe perceiue your aunswere very well, then fur∣ther to our purpose, was Christ then after the same maner in the bread that came from heauen. In the paschall lamb, and in Isaac, as he is in this Sacrament? Which if you do graunt me then these propositions were true, for Christ to say this Manna is my body, this Lambe is my body, this Isaac is my bodye. Moreouer if the Sacramentes of the olde law, and of the law of grace be all one, in very deede, & effect (as you seeme to graūt) thē what difference is be∣tweene the shew bread in Moyses law, and the bread, that we doe breake that Saynt Paule speaketh of? They then had that bread, which signified Christ and so doth ours (as you say) that was bread, so is ours, and so by your reason there is no difference betweene them: yea theyr Manna because it came from heauen, was better then this earth∣ly bread, that commeth from beneath, which is contrarye to the truth: for Saynt Paule sayth, that the law was ge∣uen by Moyses, but the verity was geuē by Iesus Christ. Wherefore that which Christ gaue, was not onely a signe but also the veritye, that is to saye, the liuing breade, that came from heauen, the true Lambe that taketh awaye the sinnes of the world, and Isaac himselfe which is Christ, or els you must graunt me that we christians doe receiue lesse then the Iewes did. For they receiued the breade called Manna from heauen, and we onely a poore morsel of bread from the earth. Theyrs was called Aungelles foode, and ours is (as you holde) little better then common breade. Me seemeth that you doe distrust the doctrine of the fayth of Christendome, for these fiue hundreth yeares, euen as though Christ had forsaken his Catholique Church after one thowsande yeares, but that is not so, for he promised his holy spirite to assist his spowse the Church, and to lead her continually into all trueth from time to time, as neede should require.* 1.3 As I remember you sayd, that adoration did followe vpon transubstaunciation, but the fathers for one thowsand yeares past doe graunt adoration of the sa∣crament therefore transubstantiation also. The minor I proue by the most cleare testimonies of S. Austen, S. Am∣brose, S. Deuise, S. Basile, and S. Chrisostome,

Madew.

I denye (mayster Doctour) that I sayde any suche thing, and therwith I say that the Fathers do vnderstand by adoration a certeine reuerent maner, that we should re∣ceiue the Lordes supper with, which may be called a certē veneration, but no adoration.

Glin.

No may? S. Austen (de ciuitate Dei) witnesseth that the Ethnikes, and Paynims doe esteme the Christians to worship and adore the gods of wheat and barly called Cae∣res, and the God of wyne called Bacchus. And agayne S. Austen saith thus. Lo no man eateth of that bread except he first adore and worship it.

Madew.

By your pacience S. Austen in that place speaketh of the honoring of Christes body now sitting in heauen.

Glin.

* 1.4Yea mayster Doctor, thinke you so? And why not al∣so of his blessed body in the sacrament? Seing that he saith it is there, this is my body, which is geuen for you, sayth he. More playnely he needed not to speake for the reall presēce of his blessed body, being both able & willing to verify his word. For if a cunning Lapidary should say to you or me thys is a true right diamōd,* 1.5 a perfecte carbuncle, saphyre, emrode or any such precious stone, we would beleue him, though we were ignorant of theyr natures. Wherefore we ought much more to beleue our Sauiour Christ God, and man, in that he sayth: this is my body. And why then ought we not to honor it in the sacrament. Or how many bodies hath Christ, seeing you do graunt his body in heauen to be honored, but not his body here in the sacrament.

Madew.

Forsooth he hath but one very body, & no moe, but the same is sacramentally in the sacrament, and substanci∣ally in heauen, here by fayth, and there in deed.

Glin.

Well yet once agayne to you thus. The very true bo∣dy of Christ is to be honored,* 1.6 but the same very true body is in the Sacrament, ergo the body of Christ in the sacra∣ment is to bee honored.

Rochester.

Welbeloued frendes and brethren in our sauior Christ you must vnderstand that this disputatiō,* 1.7 with the other that shalbe after this are appointed for to search forth the playne trueth of the holy scriptures in these matters of religion, which of a long season haue bene hidden from vs by the false gloses of that greate Antichrist and his Mini∣sters of Rome and now in our dayes must be reueyled to vs Englishe men, thorow the great mercy of God prin∣cipally, and secondarily thorow the most gentle clemencye of our naturall soueraigne Lord the kings maiesty, whom the liuing Lord long preserue to raigne ouer vs in health wealth & godlines, to mayntenaunce of Gods holy word, and to the exterpation of all blinde gloses of men, that goe about to subuert the truth. For because therfore that I am one that doth loue the truth, and haue professed the same a∣mongst you: th••••••ore I say because of conferring my mind with yours, I will here gladlye declare what I thinke in this poynt now in controuersy. Not because this worship¦full Doctor hath any need of my healpe in dissoluing of ar∣gumentes proposed agaynst him, for as me semeth he hath aunswered hitherto very well and clarkly according to the truth of Gods word. But now to the purpose. I do graūt vnto you (mayster oponent) that the old auncient fathers do record and witnesse, a certeine honour and adoration to be done vnto Christes body, but then they speake not of it in the sacrament, but of it in heauen at the right hand of the father as holy Chrisostome sayth, honor thou it,* 1.8 and then eat it but that honor may not be geuē to the outward signe but to the body of Christ it self in heauen. For that body is there onely in a signe vertually, by grace, in the exhibition of it in spirite, effect, and fayth, to the worthy receiuer of it. For we receiue vertually onely Christes body in the sacra∣ment.

Glin.

How thē (if it please your good Lordship) doth bap∣tisme differ from this Sacrament? For in that we receiue Christ also by grace and vertually.

Rochester.

Christ is present after an other sort in baptism, then in this sacrament,* 1.9 for in that he purgeth and washeth the infant from all kinde of sinne, but here he doth feed spi∣rituallye the receiuer in fayth, with all the merites of hys blessed death and passion. And yet he is in heauen still re∣ally and substancially. As for example. The kinges Maie∣sty our Lord and maister is but in one place, wheresoeuer that his royall person is abiding for the time, and yet hys mighty power, and authoritye is euery where in his real∣mes and dominions. So Christes reall person is onely in heauen subauncially placed, but his migh is in all thinges created effectually. For Christes flesh may be vnderstan∣ded for the power, or inward might of his flesh.

Glin.

If it please your fatherhood, S. Ambrose and S. Au∣sten do say, that before the consecratiō, it is but very bread,* 1.10 and after the consecration it is called the verye bodye of Christ.

Madew.

Indeed it is the very body of Christ sacramental∣ly after the consecration, whereas before it is nothing but common bread, and yet after that it is the Lordes bread, & thus must S. Ambrose and S. Austen be vnderstanded.

¶Here the proctours cōmanded the Opponent to di∣uert to the secōd conclusion, but he requested them, that they would permit hym as long in this matter, as they would in the second, and so he still prosecuted the fyrst matter as followeth

Glin.

THe bread after the consecration doth feed the soule,* 1.11 ergo the substaunce of common breade doth not remayne. The argument is good, for S, Ambrose de sacramentis saith thus. After the consecration there is not the thing, that na∣ture did forme, but that which the blessing doth consecrate. And if the benediction of the Prophet Elias did turne the nature of water how much more then doth the benedictiō of Christ here both God and man.

Madew.

That book of S. Ambrose is suspected to be none of his workes.

Rochester.

So say all the fathers.

Glin.

I doe maruaile at that, for S. Austen in his book of retractions maketh playne that, that was his own ve∣ry worke.

Rochester.

He speaketh indeede of such a booke so intituled to S. Ambrose, but yet we do lacke the same book indeed.

Glin.

Well, let it then passe to other mens iudgementes: What then say you to holy S. Ciprian 1200. yeares past?* 1.12 Who saith that the bread which our Lord gaue to his dis∣ciples, was not chaunged in forme, or quallitie: but in ve∣ry nature, and by the almighty word was made fleshe.

Madew.

I do aunswere thus, that this word fleshe may be taken two wayes either for the substaunce it selfe, or els for a natural propertie of a fleshly thing. So that Ciprian

there did meane of a naturall property, and not of fleshlye substance. And cōtrariwise in the rod of Aarō, where both the substance, and also the property was changed.

Glin.

Holy S. Ambrose sayth, the body there made by the mighty power of Gods worde,* 1.13 is a bodye of the Uyrgyne Mary.

Rochest.

That is to say, that by the word of God the thing hath a being, that it had not before, and we doe consecrate the body that we may receiue the grace and power of y^e bo∣dy of Christ in heauen by this sacramentall body.

Glin.

By your pacience (my Lorde) if it bee a bodye of the Uyrgyne as Saynt Ambrose sayth, which we do con∣secrate as ministers by Gods holy word, then must it nee∣des be more then a sacramentall, or spirituall bodye: yea a very body of Christ in deed, yea the same that is still in hea∣uen without all mouing from place to place, vnspeakably, and farre passing our naturall reason, which is in this mi∣stery so captiuate, that it cannot conceiue how it is there, without a liuely fayth to Gods word. But let this passe: You do graunt that this breade doth quicken or geue lyfe, which if it doe, then it is not a naturall bread, but a super∣substanciall bread.

Rochester.

So doth the effectuall, and liuely word of god, which for that it nourisheth the soule, it doth geue life, for the diuine essence infudeth it selfe vnspeakably into y^e faith∣full receiuer of the sacrament.

Glin.

How then say you to holy Damascene a Greeke au∣thour,* 1.14 who as one Tritenius sayth florished one thowsand yeares past, he sayth thus. The bodye that is of the holye Uirgine Mary is ioyned to the Diuinitye after the conse∣cration in veritye, and in deede, not so as the body once assumpted into heauen, and sitteth on the Fathers ryghte hand, doth remoue from thence, and commeth downe at the consecration time, but that the same breade and wyne are substauncially transumpted into the verye bodye and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. If (sayth he) thou doest not know the maner how it is brought to passe, let it be e∣nough to thee to beleue, that it is done by the operation of the holy Ghost, and we do know no more but that the ly∣uing word of God is working, and almighty, but the ve∣ry maner how, is inscrutable to vs, and no great maruell sayth he, for we cannot well expresse howe the materiall bread, wine, or water are transumpted naturally into the same body and bloud of the receiuer, and be become an o∣ther body, then they were before. So sayth this great an∣cient Clarke, also this shewbread with wine and water, are chaunged by the comming of the holy Ghost into chri∣stes body and bloud, and they be not two bodies there, but very one (of Christ) and the same.

Rochester.

First I denye (Mayster Doctour) that Damas∣cene was one thowsande yeares past,* 1.15 secondarily that hee is not to be holden as an auncient father, for that he main∣teyneth in his workes euill and damnable doctrine, as the worshipping of images, and such like. Thyrdly I say that in deede God by his holy spirit is the worker of that, whi∣che is done in the sacrament. Also I graunt that there is a mutation of the common bread and wine spiritually in∣to the Lordes breade and wine,* 1.16 by the sanctifying of them in the Lordes word. But I denye that there is any muta∣tion of the substaunces, for there is no other chaunge there indeed, then there is in vs, which when we do receiue the sacrament worthely, then are we chaunged into Christes body, bones and bloud, not in nature, but spiritually, and by grace, much like as Isaias saw the burning cole, euen so we see not there the very simple bread, as it was be¦fore the consecration, for an vnion cannot be but of two very thinges. Wherefore if we be ioyned to Christ recey∣uing the sacrament, then there is no adnihilation of bread, which is, whē it is reduced to nothing as it is in your fai∣ned transubstantiation.

Glin.

So I perceiue you would haue me to graunt, that the Sacrament is but a figure, which Theophilactus doeth deny.

Rochester.

You say trueth, he denyeth it deed to be a figure, but he meaneth that it is not onely a figure.

Glin.

* 1.17Whereas Saynt Paule sayth that we being manye are one bread, he speaketh not, nor meaneth one materiall bread, as you do here, ergo he speaketh of a heauenly bread. And holy Chrysostome vpon Mathew sayth, that the pas∣chall Lambe was a figure, but the mistery is the veryty: For the Disciples would not haue bene offended to haue dronken a figure of Christes bloud being well accustomed to figures.* 1.18 For Christ did not institute a figure for a figure but the cleare verity in stead of the figure, as Saynt Iohn sayth, grace and verity was geuen by Christ. Doest thou see bread? (sayth Chrisostome) doth it auoyd or passe as o∣ther meates do which we receiue? God forbid, ergo. &c.

Madew.

That auncient Clarke Origene vpon the 15. of S. Mathew sayth thus, as touching that which is materiall in the Sacrament, it descendeth,* 1.19 and issueth out as other nutrimentes doe. But as concerning that which is cele∣stiall, it doth not so.

Glin.

Chrisostome homile. 83. vpō Mathew sayth, that we cannot be deceiued of Christes wordes, but our naturall sences may be deceiued in this poynt very soone and ease∣ly: his sayd wordes cannot be false, but our sences be ma∣ny times beguiled of theyr iudgementes. Because there∣fore that Christ sayd this is my body, let vs not at any hand doubte (sayth he) but let vs beleue it, and well perceiue it with the eyes of our vnderstanding. And within a litle af∣ter in that place, he sayth thus. It was not enough that he was become man; and afterwardes to be scourged for vs but also he did reduce, and bring vs to be as one body with him, not thorow fayth onely, but in very deed also he ma∣keth vs his body. And after that, he sayth that these works are not of mannes power: But the same thinges that hee wrought in his last supper, he nowe worketh also by his precept to his right minister, and we doe occupy the place of the same ministers, but hee it is that doth sanctify, and transumpt the creatures, he performeth still the same.

Rochester.

M. Doctour you must vnderstand that in that place S. Chrisostome sheweth vs that Christ deliuered to vs no sensible thing at his last supper.

Glin.

Honourable syr by your pacience, I graunt that hee gaue to his Disciples no sensible thing in substaunce, but a thing insensible, his owne precious body, and bloud vn∣der the onely kindes of creatures. And truely (as it see∣meth) Theophilactus best knew the meaning of Chriso∣stome, because all authors accept him as a faythfull inter∣preter of him. And he hath these same playne words, tran∣selemented, and transformed. Also Theophilactus Alexandri∣nus super Marcum, Cyrillus, and Saynt Augustine sayth that before the consecration it is breade, but afterwardes it is Christes very body. In like maner S. Augustine vpon 33. Psalme. sayth, that in his last supper Christ did beare him∣selfe in his owne handes. Now euery man may beare the figure of his body in his owne hands, but S. Austen saith it there for a miracle. Ireneus in his fift booke is of the same minde. And Saynt Augustine sayth I doe remember my wordes. &c. The law and figures were by Moises, but the verity and body came by Christ.

Rochester.

Well, say what you list, it is but a figuratiue speach, like to this if you will receiue, and vnderstand he is Elias for a property, but indeede he was not Elias, but Iohn the Baptist. And so in this place Christ called it his body, when it was very bread. But better then the cō∣mon breade, because it was sanctified by the woorde of Christ.

¶Here Mayster Langdale replyed to Doctor Madew.

Langdale.

RIght worshipfull Mayster Doctor by your pacience I haue noted two thinges that you affirmed in youre position euen nowe before this honourable audience,* 1.20 the which as me seemeth, are not consonant to the trueth of Gods worde. The first is as touching Christes sayinge I will not from hence forth drinke any more of the fruite of the Uyne, vntill I drinke it newe with you. &c. Whyche place of the Scripture you dyd (as I thinke) vnderstand, and interprete as though nothing els remayned after the consecration, but very wyne still. Whereof I doe not a little maruell. Seeyng that, that most famous Clarke Erasmus whose authoritye and sentence you refuse at this present onely, yet neuerthelesse he is very worthy in thys matter of farre better estimation amongest learned men. Wherefore I trust I shall not offend to alledge him before this learned and honourable auditorye, he playnely affir∣meth that for all his great laboure in searching the Scrip∣tures,* 1.21 he coulde neuer finde either in the Euangelistes or yet in the Apostolicall doctrine, that it might be, or was called wyne, after the consecration. And therefore I can∣not but maruell, if the thing be so open and playne, as in your declaration you seeme to make it, that such a profoūd Clarke as he was, coulde not finde it out. For that sayde place he intreated of in his paraphrases, in his annotati∣ons, and in others of his lucubrations, and yet he playne∣ly denyeth that same very thing to be found of him, whiche you here openly affirmed, that it is wine, or may be so cal∣led after the consecration duely performed by a right mi∣nister. I beseeche you not to be offended, though I credite not your saying in this so weightye a matter of Christian religion, as I do his.

Madew.

No forsooth, I will not be offended one iote with

you,* 1.22 but for to contēt your minde in this poynt. It is most constant and sure, that Erasmus was of that mind and opi∣nion, that it was enough for a christian to beleue Christes body and bloud to be in the sacrament in what manner or condition soeuer it were.* 1.23

Langdale.

By your license good mayster Doctor, these be E∣rasmus wordes.* 1.24 The Church of Christ hath determined ve∣ry lately transubstanciation in the sacrament. It was of a long season enough to beleue Christes body to be eyther vnder the bread consecrated, or els to be present after anye other maner. But yet (sayth he) after that the sayd Church had pōdered and weyed the thing more pithely w^t greater iudgement, then she made a more certeyne determination of the same. In the which place 1. Cor. 7. Erasmus sayth that the proceeding of the holy Ghost equally from the Father, & the sonne, was also determined of the same Church. But let this passe. And as touching the second poynt, whiche I noted in your so eloquent declaration, which was that you did wrest,* 1.25 and wring the saying of Tertullian from the verity of his minde, for you sayde that he doth interpret the Prophette Malachye speaking of our dayly sacrifice in the new law, to meane nothing els, by that sacrifice in that place, but praier and thankesgeuing. But the sayd an∣cient Clerke Tertullian hath not those wordes that you doe alleadge of him, that is to saye, (nothing els.) And yet though that Oecolampadius do so interprete that place, yet (as me semeth) the iudgement of the hole Christen church is to be preferred in suche a matter of religion. But I will passe ouer this poynte, and returne to the matter it selfe. And first I doe requyre of your maystershippe••, whether that this sentence (this is my body) be spoken of Christ figu∣ratiuely or not?

Madew.

After the minde of the common glose of Cyprian & Origene it is so taken in very deed.

Langdale.

That cannot be by your pacience, for it is taken the••e substantially, ergo not figuratiuely.

Madew.

I deny your argument.

Langdale.

I proue my argument good thus. This worde substaunce doth playnely repugne, and is contrary to this word figure, ergo substancially, and figuratiuely do also re∣pugne. Moreouer I aske of you whether that this be a true proposition or not, bread is Christes body?

Madew.

* 1.26Yea forsooth, it is a true proposition.

Langdale.

Then thus to you. Christes body was geuen for vs, but you saye that bread is Christes body ergo bread was geuen for vs.

Rochester.

Not so syr, for your former propositiō is of dou∣ble vnderstanding.

Langdale.

Well, yet you M. Doctor doe graunt that Christ is substauncially in the sacrament.

Madew.

No I deny that I sayd so euer.

Langdale.

* 1.27Yea? do you so? Well I passe not thereupō great∣ly, for I will proue it by an other meanes. Christ did suffer his most glorious passion for vs really, and substauncially ergo he is also in the sacrament substauncially. The argu∣ment is good, for because that it is the same here, that was there crucified for vs, how be it here inuisibly, indeede spi∣ritually and sacramentally, but there visiblye, and after a mortall, and most bloudy maner.

Rochester.

Mayster Langdale, your argument doth well conclude, in case that his body were here in the sacrament, after such a sort as it was when he was betrayed. But that is not so, for he was betrayed, and crucified in his naturall body substauncially, and really in very deede: but in the Sacrament he is not so, but spiritually, and figuratiuely onely.

Langdale.

By your good Lordships fauor that is not so, for he is there, not figuratiuely but veryly, and indeed by the power of his mighty word, yea euen his very owne natu∣ral body vnder the sacramēt, duely performed by the law∣full minister.

Madew.

Oh say not so, for you speake blasphemy.

Langdale.

No, no, M. Doctor, God forbid, that either I or any mā els should be noted of blasphemy, saying nothing, but the very playne trueth, as in my conscience, & learning I do no lesse.

Rochester.

O M. Langdale, I wis it becommeth you, not heare to haue such wordes.

Langdale

If it like your good Lordship I gaue not y^e fyrste occasion of them, but onely did refute that, whiche I was vniustly burthened withall as reason doth require, and it greeued me to heare it. He sayth (if it please your Lord∣shippe) that there is a mutation or chaunge of the bread af∣ter it is consecrated,* 1.28 which if it be so (as I graunt no lesse) then I would inquyre of him, whether it be chaunged in the substaunce, or in the accidentes, or els in both, or in no∣thing. No man can iustly say that there is a chaunge into nothing. And all auncient fathers do agree, that the same accidentes are there still after, that were before, nor no do∣ctor sayth▪ that there is any mutation of both the substance, and accidentes also, ergo the substaunce o•• bread is chaun∣ged into some other thing, that is there really present vn∣der the formes of bread and wine, which by Christes wor∣des, must needes be his owne blessed body.

Rochester.

Syr you are deceiued greately, for there is no chaunge of the substaunces neither of the accidentes:* 1.29 but in very deed there do come vnto the bread other accidents, in so much that wheras the bread and wyne were not san∣ctified before, and holy, yet afterwardes they be sanctified, and so do receiue then an other sort, or kind of vertue whi∣che they had not before.

Here is to be noted, that Peter Martyr in his aunswere at Ox∣ford did graunt a chaunge in the substaunces of bread and wine, which in Cambridge by the Bishop Doct. Ridley was denyed.

Langdale.

By your pacience reuerend father,* 1.30 by such mea∣nes a man may easely auoyde all the misteries of our chri∣stē fayth: As where it is sayde thus of God the father, this is my beloued sonne. &c. A man may also wring that to be vnderstood thus: this is y^e image of my welbeloued sonne, or this is the vertue of my well beloued sonne: yea muche more iustly then your good Lordship doth y^e other, because S. Paule to the Hebrues doth call the sonne the Image of the father, and in an other place he calleth him the power, or vertue of God, and Gods wisedom▪ Now though he be so called in scripture, God forbid that we shoulde call hym onely Gods Image or Gods vertue, and not God him∣selfe.

Rochester.

Oh gentle M. Langdale,* 1.31 you ought not to rea∣son after such a sort as you do now, because that a trope or figuratiue speache is no••iue somewhere, but not euery where, nor in this matter.

Langdale.

Yet by your license (honorable father) it doth ap∣peare to me no trope at al in these words of christ,* 1.32 this is my body, which is geuen for you, and that for this reason: Chryst did exhibite or geue againe the very same things at his last supper, by the which thinges he was ioyned to vs, but he was ioyned or knit vnto vs by his owne naturall flesh, & bloud, ergo he did exhibite to vs at his last supper no lesse agayne. My former proposition I proue by the testimony of S. Chrisost. whose wordes in Christes person are these: I would be your brother, I tooke vpon me common flesh & bloud for your sakes, and euen by the same things that I am ioyned to you, the very same I haue exhibited to you agayne. &c.

¶Here the Proctors commaunded Langdale to geue place to an other.

Rochest.

We are not ioyned by natural flesh, but do receiue his flesh spiritually from aboue. &c.

¶Here M. Segewicke replied.

RIght worshipful M Doctor, I do also aske of you first of all,* 1.33 whether the greeke article (this) of the neuter gē∣der be referred to the word (bread) or to the word (body) if it be referred to the worde (bread) then Christ woulde not haue sayd this, in the neuter gender, but rather this, in the masculine gender.

Rochester.

Forsooth that article is referred to neyther of both, but may signify vnto vs any other kinde of thing.

Segewicke.

No forsoothe, but it doth note vnto vs some ex∣cellēt great thing determinately, & not so cōfusedly as you say. For such a great heap of articles, in the greek doth no∣tify vnto vs a great and weighty thing to be in the sacra∣ment determinately, if wee may credite the auncient Fa∣thers.* 1.34 Moreouer this word (bread) is not alwayes in the scriptures taken after one sorte: wherefore I desire you to shew me how it is taken in this place of S. Paule: we are many, one bread. &c.

Madew.

Forsooth of the very wheaten bread.

Segewicke.

Then after your minde, we are all very whea∣ten bread.

Rochest.

Forsooth we are bread, not for the nature of bread, but for the felowship and vnity that is noted by the coagu∣lation of many graynes into one bread or loafe.* 1.35

Segewicke.

Well let that passe, then thus. It is the body, er∣go no figure, for because there is a perpetuall contrarietye betweene the law of Moyses & the law of grace. Therein were figures & shadowes, and herein is the verity indeed.

Rochester.

I do graunt it to be Christes true body, & flesh by a propriety of the nature assumpted to the godhead,* 1.36 yea and we do really eat and drinke his flesh and bloud after a certeine reall property.

Segewicke.

It is not the figurate paschall lambe, it is not the figuratiue Manna, nor yet y^e figuratiue shewbread. &c. ergo it is no figure.

Madew.

I do deny your argument.

Segewicke.

I maynteyne my argument thus, all the sha∣dowes are wholy past, ergo also so be the figures, for eue∣ry figure is a shadow, if then it be but a figure, all y^e figu∣res are not past as yet, but that is false, ergo so is the other.

Rochest.

It is nothing but a figure, or token of the true bo∣dy of Christ as it is sayd of Iohn the baptiste,* 1.37 he is Elias, not that he was so in deede or person, but in property, and vertue he represented Elias.

Segewicke.

So, but most learned father, when Christ sayde I am the way, the truth, and the life: may it be vnderstanded as you do the other place thus: I am y^e vertue of the way, ve∣rity, and the life? But now to the matter it selfe. It is veri∣ly meat, ergo it is not figuratiuely.

Madew.

This verbe or word (is) in this place is taken for that that signifieth.

Here he was commaunded to reply in the second matter.

Segewicke.

NOw as touching our second conclusion thys I say. Wheresoeuer Christ is there is a sacrifice propiciato∣ry, but in the Lordes supper is Christ, ergo in the Lordes supper is a sacrifice propiciatory.* 1.38

Madew.

Christ is not offered in the Lordes supper, but is receiued spiritually.

Segewicke.

The priesthood and the sacrifice be corespondēt together,* 1.39 but Christes priesthood after the orde of Melchi∣zedech is perpetuall, ergo also so is his sacrifice.

Rochest.

Christ is a Priest for euer, that is to say his sacri∣fice, and priesthood offered once for all, is auaylable for euer so that no other shall succeed him.

Legewicke.

Where there is no oblatiō, there is no sacrifice, ergo if Christ be not perpetually offered,* 1.40 there is no perpe∣tuall sacrifice. Item the same bloudy sacrifice of Christ vp∣on the Crosse was the very fine and end of all the bloudye sacrifices figured in y^e law after the order of Aarons priest∣hoode. Wherefore you must needes graunt that he offered himselfe also at his last supper after the order of Melchize∣dech vnder the formes of breade and wine: or els you must shewe the scripture where he did so, which I cannot per∣ceiue to be done, but at his last supper onely after an vn∣bloudy maner. Item he is offered for the remission of sins daylye, ergo he is a sacrifice propitiatorye still in the newe law, as Saynt Augustine sayth expounding these wordes of the Psalme. Thou hast not willed to haue sacrifice and oblation, but. &c.

Rochester.

S. Cyprian speaketh much like y^e sorte, where he sayth thus. It is the Lordes Passion, whiche we doe of∣fer. &c.

Segewicke.

In the olde law there were many sacrifices pro∣piciatory, ergo there be also in the new law, or els you must graunt that God is not so beneficiall now to vs, as then he was to them, seing that we be as frayle, and as nedy as euer were they, whiche must be especially the moste pure dayly sacrifice of Christes body and bloud, that holy Ma∣lachy speaketh of.

Madew.

* 1.41As touching the place of Malachy the Prophet, I answere that it is nothing to your purpose for the offering of Christ dayly in the Sacrament. For that sacrifice there spoken of is nothing els, but the sincere & most pure prea∣ching of Gods holy word, prayer and of thankesgeuing to God the Father thorow Iesus Christ.

Here M. Segewicke was commaunded to cease to Mayster Yong.

Yong.

WOrshipful mayster Doctor, although you haue lear∣nedly, and Clarkely defended these your conclusiōs this day: yet seeing that I am now placed to impugne thē in place of a better: I do begin thus w^t you. It hath pleased Christ to make vs partakers of his holy spirite, and that in very deede, by receiuing of the Christen fayth, hope, and charitye, ergo muche more of his owne blessed bodye, and bloud spiritually and in very deede in the Lordes supper. Item the Aungels foode was altogether holy from aboue, and heauenly called Manna, ergo also this celestial, and heauenly foode can be iustly estemed to be of no lesse excel∣lency then that,* 1.42 but without comparison better: and so no very wheate, after due consecration of it. Item the wordes of holy scripture are euermore effectuall, and working, er∣go they must performe the thing indeede that they doe pro∣mise. For he that might create, might also chaunge at hys pleasure, the natures, and substaunces of creatures, as ap∣peareth that Christ did by chaunging water into wyne at a Mariage in Galile. But Christ in the Scripture dyd promise Iohn. 6. that the bread that he would geue, is hys flesh in deede, whiche promise was neuer ful••illed till in his last supper, when he tooke bread, gaue thankes, blessed it, and gaue it to his disciples saying, take, eate, this is my bo∣dy. Which bread then was his flesh in deede, as doth well appeare in the sayd place, and next promise depending vp∣on the same, thus, which flesh I will geue for the life of the world. This last promise was fulfilled by him vpon the Crosse, ergo the first was likewise at his last Supper. So that it was but one, and the same flesh, first and last promi∣sed and performed.

Rochester.

In deed the wordes of holy scripture doe worke theyr effectes potencially and thorowly by the mighty o∣peration of the spirite of God.

Yong.

If it please your Lordship,* 1.43 man is fedde and nou∣rished with Christes bloud, ergo thē it is his bloud indeed, though it do not so appeare, to our outward senses, which be deceiued, for Christ sayth this is my bloud: And also my bloud is drinke in deede. And because that we shoulde not abhorre his blessed bloud in his naturall kinde, or his flesh if they shoulde be so ministred vnto vs: of his most excel∣lent mercy, and goodnesse, condescending to our weake in∣firmityes, he hath appoynted them to be geuen vs, vnder the sensible kindes of his conuenient creatures, that is to say of bread and wyne. Also our body is fedde with Chri∣stes body, which is meate in deede, but it can not be nou∣rished with that that is not there present, ergo Christs bo∣dy that feedeth vs must needes be present in very deede in the sacrament. Item the nature of bread is chaunged, but the nature of the bread, and the substaunce of it, is all one thing, ergo the substaunce also is chaunged. My first pro∣position is S. Cyprian de coena domini saying, that the bread in figure is not chaunged, but in nature.

Rochester.

Cyprian there doth take thys worde nature for a propertye of nature onelye,* 1.44 and not for the naturall sub∣staunce.

Yong.

That is a straunge acception, that I haue not read in any author before this time, but yet by your leaue, the communion of Christes body, can not be there, where hys body is not, but the communion of Christes body is in the sacrament, ergo Christes body is there presēt in very deed.

Rochester.

Grace is there communicated to vs by the be∣nefite of Christes body sitting in heauen.

Yong.

Not so onely, for we are members of his flesh, and bones of his bones.

Rochester.

We be not consubstantiall with Christ,* 1.45 God for∣bid that, but we are ioyned to his mistical body thorow his holy spirite, and the communion of hys fleshe is commu∣nicated to vs spiritually thorow the benefite of his flesh in heauen.

Yong.

Well I am contented, and do most humbly beseeche your good Lordshippe to pardon me of my greate rude∣nesse and imbecillity, which I haue here shewed.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Anno 1549.
• * 1.2

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.3

  Adoration of the Sa∣crament mainteyned by Glyn.
• * 1.4

  Math 26. Marc.
• * 1.5

  Real pre∣••••nce 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the Papistes.
• * 1.6

  Argument.
• * 1.7

  Byshop Ridley replyeth.
• * 1.8

  Christ to be ho∣noured in hea∣uen not in the Sacrament.
• * 1.9

  Christ worketh otherwise in Baptisme, then the Sacramental bread.
• * 1.10

  Obiect.
• * 1.11

  Aunswere. Well cauilled & lyke a Papiste.
• * 1.12

  Cyprian.
• * 1.13

  Ambrose·
• * 1.14

  Damascene.
• * 1.15

  Damascene ex∣pounded.
• * 1.16

  A spirituall mu∣tation of the bread and wine, but no mutation of the substance.
• * 1.17

  Theophilact. expounded.
• * 1.18

  The paschall Lambe a figure.
• * 1.19

  The 〈…〉〈…〉 of the S••••cramēt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 out as ••••ther me•• doe.
• * 1.20

  Two 〈◊〉〈◊〉 noted in Madew•• position
• * 1.21

  The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Lordes Supper.
• * 1.22

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.23

  Anno 1549.
• * 1.24

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 to 〈…〉〈…〉 to present the Sa∣••••••ment 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.25

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.26

  A true pro∣position 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is Chri••••es ••••dy.
• * 1.27

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.28

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.29

  No change nei∣ther of the sub∣stance, nor yet of the accidents in the Sacrament.
• * 1.30

  How Scripture may be ab••sed to any purpose as commōly the Papistes vse it.
• * 1.31

  A figuratiue speach some∣where hurtfull, somewhere not.
• * 1.32

  A fond reason wherefore this is my body should seeme no figuratiue speach.
• * 1.33

  Whether the ar∣ticle of the new∣ter gender (this) be refer••ed to the bread o•• to the body.
• * 1.34

  Bread taken di∣uersly in the Scripture.
• * 1.35

  How we are bread, and how not.
• * 1.36

  How the bread is Christs body.
• * 1.37

  The bread but a figure and ••ow.
• * 1.38

  Christ not offe∣red, but recea∣ued in spirite.
• * 1.39

  Christes sacrifice offered once for all is onely suf∣ficient without any other.
• * 1.40

  Christes sacri∣fice an end of all sacrifices.
• * 1.41

  What sacrifice it is that Mala∣chie speaketh of.
• * 1.42

  The wordes of Scripture euer effectuall.
• * 1.43

  Man is ••••••rished b•• the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christe•• bloud b•• faith, b•• not by drincki•••• really in cuppe.
• * 1.44

  Cypria•• expound▪
• * 1.45

  We be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 consubs••••••••ciall wit•• Christ, ioyned 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 holy spi••••••▪