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.

There disputed against him M. Parker, M. Poll••rd, M. Vauisor, and M. Yong.

Parker.

CHrist whose wordes are to be beleeued, sayd, This is my body, he said not this bread is my body, or w^t this bread, or vnder this bread, or by this bread, but sayd plainly, This is my body. And this he prooued by these reasons: First, for that it was prefigured before. Secondly,* 1.1 for that it was promised. Thirdly, for that it was geuen. The transubstā∣tiation of the bread was prefigured by the Manna which came downe from heauen, all that bread was heauenly, and without any earthly matter or substance adnexed. Se∣condly, it was promised in those wordes of Christ, y^e bread that I will geue, is my flesh, &c. Thirdly, it was geuen by Christ, and exhibited in hys last supper, sayeng: Take, eate, this is my body.

Here they were forced to breake of through the want of tyme, yet Parker replied thus agaynst Doct. Perne.

WE geue thee thanks most holy Father, that thou hast hid these thyngs from the wyse and prudent, and hast reuealed them to babes, for pryde is the roote of al heresies whatsoeuer. And on the other side, to acknowledge our owne infirmitie and imperfection, is the first steppe to the true vnderstandyng of the truth. Nestorius the heretike affirmed, that there were two persons in Christ, one that was man, another that was God, therefore he sayd that in the Eucharist was contayned true flesh, but onely of hys pure manhoode. Agaynst hym did the counsell of Ephesus conclude, sayeng: That there was the reall fleshe of the sonne of God, &c. This he proued by the words of Christ, My flesh is meate in deede, and what flesh that is, he tea∣cheth vpon the sixt of Iohn, that is, quoth he, the fleshe v∣nited to the deitie, and quickened by the holy Ghost, &c. Now that that flesh is in the Sacrament, it is playn•• by Hillarius, lib. 8. de Trinitate, he prooued the same also out of Chrysostome, homil. 45. vpon Iohn.* 1.2 We are one bodye with hym, mēbers of his flesh, and bones of his bones, &c. A∣gayne in the same homilie, we are ioyned to hys flesh, not onely by fayth and loue, but also in very deede, and truely▪ And agayne it pleased me to become your brother, and by the same thyngs wherin I was ioyned to you, haue I ge∣uen my selfe agayne vnto you, &c.

Perne.

I graunt vnto you that Christ is in the sacrament truely, wholy, & verely,* 1.3 after a certaine propertie & ma∣ner: I deny not hys presence, but hys reall and corporall presence I vtterly deny, for doubtles hys true and natural body is in heauen, and not in the sacrament: notwithstā∣dyng he dwelleth with vs, and in vs after a certaine vni∣tie. And also in the 6. chapter of Iohn, he speaketh not of the flesh of Christ crucified, &c.

Parker.

The flesh of Christ as it is in the sacramēt, is quick and geueth lyfe, Ergo, his reall and substantiall fleshe is in the sacrament.

Perne.

The flesh of Christ in that it is vnited to the deitie, doth viuifie, and geueth lyfe, but not otherwyse.* 1.4

Rochest.

Christ dwelleth in vs by fayth, and by fayth we receiue Christ both God and man, both in spirit and flesh, that is, this sacramentall eatyng is the meane and waye whereby we attayne to the spirituall eatyng, and in deede for the strengthenyng of vs to the eatyng of this spirituall foode, was this sacrament ordeyned.* 1.5 And these words This is my body, are ment thus, by grace it is my true body, but not my fleshly body, as some of you suppose.

Parker.

We are ioyned to Christ, not onely by faith, but also in very deede, ergo &c.

Rochest.

We are ioyned to Christ that is, we are made per∣takers of his flesh and of immortalitie. And so lyke case is there a vnion betweene man and woman, yet is there no transubstantia••ion of eyther, or both, &c.

Pollard.

The sacrament is not bare bread and nothing els, onely because it is called bread so often in the Scriptures,* 1.6 and that I prooue by three reasons. First, it is called bread because of the similitude. Secondly, because of the mutati∣on. Thirdly, for the matter whereof it is made and com∣pact, as the Angels are called men, the holy ghost a tonge, the rod of Aaron a serpent, and such lyke. The wordes of Christ do teach the same thyng, as appeareth in the hea∣lyng of the woman of Canaans daughter, Iairus sonne, and many others, &c. Ergo, &c. Then he prooued agaynst Rochester, that somewhat els was in the Sacrament be∣sides power and grace by this reason. The euill receyue the body of Christ, as is playne out of Augustine, homil. 21. de verbis domini, but the euill and wycked receyue not the vertue or grace, Ergo, there is not onely grace and vertue in the sacrament.

Rochest.

The euill do not receyue the Lord in Sacrament,

but the sacrament of the Lord,* 1.7 as Iudas, who in deed eate not the true body of the Lord.

Pollard.

In the sacrament be three thyngs, to wit, an out∣ward signe, the matter of the Sacrament, and the fruite of the same, the euill receyue the outward signe, and the subiect of the Sacrament, but not the fruite of the Sacra∣ment, Ergo, there is somewhat els in the Sacrament than onely grace. Also euery Sacrament ought to haue a cer∣taine similitude with the matter of the Sacrament, but the materiall bread hath not such similitude with the body of Christ, which is the matter of the Sacrament, Ergo, mate∣riall bread is not a Sacrament.

Perne.

I deny your Minor, for materiall breade doth so nourish the bodye, as the fleshe of Christ doth the soule.

Here he beyng requested, gaue place to others.

M. Vauisor.

THorough the shortnesse of tyme I am so constrayned, that neyther I can speake without losse of my reputa∣tion, nor yet hold my peace without offence to God. For in speakyng (as I doe) without great premeditation be∣fore this honourable, worshipfull, and learned audience, I shall but shewe foorth my childishnesse herein, and if I should hold my peace, I myght be thought to betray the truth of Gods cause. And therfore whilest I can neyther speake for the breuitie of tyme, nor yet hold my peace gods truth beyng in controuersie, I haue determined although with the impairyng of my good name, to render a reason of my fayth, which if I cannot affourd probably in words, yet wyll I not faulte in sayeng nothyng at all. For it see∣meth better that I be esteemed altogether foolish and vn∣learned, amongst so many graue learned Fathers & Doc∣tours, then to forsake the iust defence of the truth, which e∣uery good christian man throughout the world, hath euer holden inuiolable. For who so forsaketh the manifest knowen truth, had neuer any true fayth therein. Which thyng that I may ouerpasse in Berengarius,* 1.8 Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, and many others, who are certaynely knowen to be of no lesse variaunce amongest themselues, then vncertayn of theyr fayth what to beleeue. Zuinglius wryteth thus of hymselfe. Although this thyng which I meane to intreate of doth lyke me very well, yet notwith∣standyng, I dare define nothyng, but only shew my poore iudgement abroad to others, that if it please the Lord, o∣thers may be therby instructed by the spirit of God which teacheth all good thynges. In vayne doe I spende many wordes. You see playnely he dare not define anye thyng certainely, but doubteth whether it please GOD or not. Oecolampadius writyng to a certayne brother of hys, sayth thus: Peace be with thee. As farre as I can coniec∣ture out of the learned Fathers these wordes, Iohn. 6. This is my body, be figuratiue locutions, &c. You see hereby how vncertaine they be of their opinions. They leane not to the Scriptures, to Doctors, nor yet to the trueth, but to supposals and coniectures, who therefore hereafter wyll cleane vnto them? But nowe I come to your Oration, whose beginnyng pleased me very well, and whose pro∣gresse therein offended me not. But in the end you conclu∣ded in such sort, that you left the whole matter to me, as it were confirmyng my partes by the same. And herein you framed a Syllogisme after this maner. What Christ tooke, that he blessed, what he blessed, that he brake, what he brake that he gaue,* 1.9 Ergo, what he receyued he gaue, &c. Whereto I aunswer wyth a lyke Syllogisme out of Genesis. God tooke a ribbe out of Adams side, what hee tooke, he built, what he built that he brought, what he brought, that hee gaue to Adam to be hys wyfe, but he tooke a ribbe, Ergo, he gaue a ribbe to Adam to wyfe, &c. Also in your sayd Ora∣tion, you shute much at those wordes of Paule, where he calleth it bread so often, &c. But the Scripture in another place calleth it water, when in deede it was wyne, a rodde when it was a playne serpent.

Rochest.

You haue pretended great zeale & words inough, but what pith or substance your reasons will affourd, we shall see hereafter.

Vauisor.

Christ gaue the same flesh to vs, that he receyued of the virgine,* 1.10 but he tooke true and naturall flesh of her, Ergo, he gaue vs true and naturall fleshe. My Maior I prooue by August. vpon the 98. Psalme.

Rochest.

M. Uauisor you are in a wrong boxe, for y^e place maketh altogether for maintenāce of adoration, if it make for any thyng.

Vauisor.

I know it very well, and therefore I alledge it as the ground of my reason. These bee Augustines woordes, Christ of the earth receyued earth, and of the flesh of Ma∣ry, he receyued flesh, acknowledge his substance therefore?

Rochest.

I acknowledge it.

Vauisor.

And in the very same flesh he walked here vppon the earth, acknowledgge his substaunce.* 1.11

Rochest.

I acknowledge it.

Vauisor.

And the very same fleshe he gaue vs to eate, ac∣knowledge hys substaunce.

Rochest.

I acknowlege not hys reall substance to be there, but the propertie of hys substance.

Vauisor.

Then Uauisor recited the place, to the ende hee myght prooue that hys reall substaunce ought to bee ac∣knowledged as well in the last place, as in the first and se∣cond, affirmyng it out of Saint Augustine, who sayeth thus. The Disciples of Christ approchyng the Lordes ta∣ble, by fayth dranke the same bloud which the tormenters most cruelly spilt, &c. but the tormenters spilt no figure of bloud, Ergo, &c. this place will not permit the other so to be illuded.

Rochest.

It is no illusion good M. Uauisor, but surely you would moue a Saint with your impertinent reasons.

Vauisor.

I beseech your fatherhood to pardon my rudenes, for surely I cannot otherwyse speake without breache of conscience.

Perne.

That place of Augustine is to bee vnderstoode of a spirituall kynd of eatyng.

Vauisor.

I demand whether the faythfull may receyue spi∣ritually, so as they neede not to receiue sacramentally.

Perne.

They may.

Vauisor.

Then thus to you: To the spirituall eatyng, there is no need to come to the Lordes table, for so it is the meat of the soule, not of the teeth, but the faythfull come to the Lordes table, Ergo that place is to be vnderstood of a sacra∣mentall eatyng. And agayne, Augustine sayth, that he cari∣ed hymselfe in hys hands.

Rochest.

Augustine sheweth a little after, what he meaneth thereby, where he sayeth he caried hymselfe in his owne hands, after a certayne sort or maner.

Vauisor.

True it is that after one maner he sate at the ta∣ble, and after another maner was in the sacrament.

¶M. Yong here disputeth agaynst Perne, as followeth.

Yong.

I Understand the meanyng o•• this worde Proprietas, pro∣prietie, well enough, for in Hillarie and Eusebius, it sig∣nifieth not the vertue or power of any substance or beyng, but rather a naturall beyng or substance.

Rochest.

I commend your great diligence in searchyng of authors, but in diuinitie the matter standeth not so, for the proprietie of essence in the deitie, is the very essence, and whatsoeuer is in God, is God.

Yong.

True it is (most reuerend father) that this worde Proprietas, proprietie, in Hillary in hys 8. booke de Trinitate, intreatyng there of the diuinitie of the father, of the sonne, and of the holy ghost, is so meant and taken, but the same Hillary almost in the same place speaketh of our commu∣nion and vnitie wyth Christ, &c. Tertullian also writyng of the resurrection of the flesh, affirmeth that the fleshe of our sauiour is that whereof our soule is allied to God, that is it which causeth that our soules are ioyned to hym, but our flesh is made cleane, that the soule may be purged, our flesh is annoynted, that the soule may be made holy, the flesh is sealed, that the soule may be comforted, the fleshe is shadowed with the imposition of the handes, that our soule may be lightened with the glory of the spirite. Our flesh is clothed with a body and bloud, that the soule may be fed and nourished of God.

Rochest.

The fleshe in deede is fed with the body and the bloud of the Lord,* 1.12 when our bodies by mortification are made lyke to his body. And our body is nourished when the vertue and power of the body of Christ doth feede vs. The same Tertullian is not afrayd to cal it flesh, and bloud, but he meaneth a figure of the same.

Yong.

Then by your leaue it should follow by good con∣sequence, that where anye mortification is, there must needes be a sacramentall communion, which cannot be. Ergo, &c.

¶Here endeth the third, and last Disputation holden at Cam∣bridge. 1549.

This disputation continued three dayes. In the first dyd aunswer Doctour Madew. Agaynst whome dispu∣ted Doctour Glinne, M. Langdale, M. Segewike, M. Young.

In the second disputation did answer Doctor Glinne. Agaynst whome disputed M. Grindall, M. Perne, M. Gest, M. Pilkington.

* 1.13In the third disputation answered M. Perne. Against whome disputed one M. Parkar (not Doct. Math. Par∣kar) M. Pollard, M. Uauisour, M. Yong.

At length the disputations ended, the Bishop of Ro∣chester Doct. Nicolas Ridley after the maner of Scholes,* 1.14 made this determination vpon the foresayde conclusions, as here followeth.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Three vaine rea••sons, to proue th•• bread to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 transubst••••••ciate.
• * 1.2

  Hill••rius li. 8. de tri∣nitat. Chrisost. ho. 45.
• * 1.3

  Christ is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Sacra∣ment real•• after a 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪
• * 1.4

  How Christes fleshe ge∣ueth lyfe.
• * 1.5

  How the•••• wordes, this is my body are ment. There is a vnion be∣tweene 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and woma•• yet no tran••substantia∣tion.
• * 1.6

  Why it is called bread so often.
• * 1.7

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.8

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.9

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.10

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.11

  Anno. 1549.
• * 1.12

  When our bo∣dyes be fed with the bodye and bloud of Christ▪
• * 1.13

  Aunswerers and disputers in those disputatiōs at Cambridge.
• * 1.14

  Anno 1552.