King James Bible Adam Clarke Bible Commentary Martin Luther's Writings Wesley's Sermons and Commentary Neurosemantics Audio / Video Bible Evolution Cruncher Creation Science Vincent New Testament Word Studies KJV Audio Bible Family videogames Christian author Godrules.NET Main Page Add to Favorites Godrules.NET Main Page




Bad Advertisement?

Are you a Christian?

Online Store:
  • Visit Our Store

  • ACTS AND MONUMENTS
    PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP - FB - TWITTER - GR VIDEOS - GR FORUMS - GR YOUTUBE    


    BOOK 10. THE BEGINNING OF THE REIGN OF QUEEN MARY.

    THE PREFACE TO THE HEADER FORASMUCH as we are come now to the time of queen Mary, when so many were put to death for the cause especially of the Mass, and The Sacrament of the Altar (as they call it), I thought it convenient, upon the occasion given, in the ingress of this foresaid story, first, to prefix before, by the way of preface, some declaration collected out of divers writers and authors, whereby to set forth to the reader the great absurdity, wicked abuse, and perilous idolatry, of the popish mass; declaring how, and by whom, it came in, and how it is clouted and patched up of divers additions: to the intent that the reader, seeing the vain institution thereof, and weighing the true causes why it is to be exploded out of all churches, may the better thereby judge of their death, who gave their lives for the testimony and the word of truth.

    First concerning the origin of this word “Missa 118 , 1 whether it came of tsf in Hebrew, (Deuteronomy 16:10) or hjns (Leviticus 6:15) which signifieth “oblation;” or whether it came of sending away the catechumeni, and persons unworthily out of place of ministration (as certain writers suppose), or else, “Ex missis donariis et symbolis, quae in offertorio proponebantur,” that is, “Of gifts and oblations, wont to be offered before the communion.” Or whether Missa is derived of Remissa 2 , which in the former writers was used “Pro remissione;” or whether Missa, “Pro licentia dimittendi populum,” is taken of sending away the congregation by the words of the deacon,” Ite missa est;” or whether Missa hath its denomination of what the Grecians call a]fesiv tou~ la>ou, “dismission of the people” (alluding to the story of the Hebrews, licensed of Pharaoh to depart out of captivity after the eating of the paschal lamb, as I read in an old popish book, entituled De Sacramentis Sacerdotalibus), or what term soever it be else, either Latin, Syrian, Dutch, or French, or howsoever else it taketh its appellation, as there is no certainty amongst themselves who most magnify the mass, so it is no matter to us that stand against it. To my judgment and conjecture, this latter exposition of the word seemeth more probable, both for that it is joined with the word “ite,” which signifieth “departing” and also the time and order in speaking the same agreeth well thereunto. For, as the old Hebrews, after the supper of the lamb and not before, were set at liberty straightway to depart out of captivity, so, belike, to declare our mystical deliverance by Christ offered and slain for us, first goeth before the action of the holy supper: that done, then the priest or deacon saith “Ite missa est,’’ meaning, thereby, the deliverance and liberty which is spiritually wrought in us, after that the body of Christ hath been offered for us. Or else, if Missa, otherwise should signify the celebration or the action of the supper, it would not be said “Ite,” but “Venite missa est,” etc. Moreover, besides other arguments, there be certain places in Cassianus 3 which seem to declare that “Missa” signifieth the dismission of the congregation: as where he writeth of him who cometh not in time to the hours of prayer, saying it not to be lawful for him to enter into the oratory, Sed stantem pro foribus congregationis missam praestolari debere; that is, that he ought, standing without the doors, to wait for the miss of the congregation.

    And again in the next chapter following, he inferreth the same vocable “Missa,” in like sense: “contenti, somno qui nobis post vigiliarum missam usque ad lucis indulgetur adventum:” that is, “contented with so much sleep as serveth us for the miss, or breaking up of the night vigil 4 unto the coming of the day,” etc. But, to let pass these conjectures, this by the way I give the reader to note and understand: that as this word “Missa” never yet entered into the church nor usage among the Greeks, so it is to be observed among our Latin interpreters (such as have translated of old time the ancient Greek authors), as Eusebius, and the Tripartite History (and others that were the Greek writers), have these terms suna>gein suna>xeiv poi>ein and ejkklhsia>zein, 5 that is, “to call the congregation, “to convent assemblies,” and “to frequent together;” the old translator of Epiphanius, and others, translate upon the same “Missas facere,” “collectas agere,” “missas celebrare,” etc. Whereby it is not obscure to be seen, that this word “mass,” in the old time, was not only and peculiarly applied to the action of consecration, but as well as to all christian assemblies collected, or congregations convented, according as in the Dutch language this name “Messe,” signifieth any solemn frequency or panagery, or gathering together of the people. But of the name enough and too much.

    To (express now) the absurdity of the said mass, and the irreligious application thereof, unseemly and perilous for Christians to use, I will bring two or three reasons of the worthy servant and martyr of God, John Bradford, to which many more may also be added out of others. First, the mass, saith he, is a most subtle and pernicious enemy against Christ; and that, two ways: namely, against his priesthood, and against his sacrifice.

    Which he proveth by this way: for the priesthood of Christ, saith he, is an everlasting priesthood, and such an one as cannot go to another; but the mass utterly putteth him out of place, as though he was dead for ever, and so God were a liar who said, that Christ should be “a Priest for ever;” which, briefly, cometh unto this argument.

    That thing is not perpetual, nor standeth alone, which admitteth succession of others, to do the same thing that was done before:

    But the mass-priests succeed after Christ, doing the same sacrifice, as they say, which he did before:

    Ergo, the mass-priests make Christ’s priesthood not to be perpetual.

    ANOTHER ARGUMENT.

    All priests either be after the order of Aaron, or after the order of Melchizedek, or after the order of the apostles, or after that spiritual sort, whereof it is written,” Vos estis spirituale sacerdotium,”etc.

    But our mass-priests neither be after the order of Aaron, for that is to resume that which Christ hath abolished; neither after the order of Melchizedek, for that is peculiar only to Christ; neither after the order of the apostles, for then should they be ministers, not masters; not priests but preachers; and which of the apostles was ever named by the title of a priest? Again, neither are they after the general sort of the spiritual priesthood, for after that prerogative every true Christian is a spiritual priest, as well as they offering up spiritual, not bodily, sacrifice: as prayers, thanksgiving, obedience, mortification of the body framed to the obedience of his commandments.

    Ergo, our mass-priests, are no priests, unless it be after the order of the priests of Baal!

    Secondly, concerning the sacrifice of Christ above mentioned, he reasoneth in like manner; which we have reduced in the way of argument as followeth:

    To reiterate a thing once done, for the attaining or accomplishing of the end whereof it was begun, declareth the imperfection of the same thing before.

    The mass-priests do reiterate the sacrifice of Christ, once done for the end whereof it was begun; that is, for propitiation and remission “a poena et culpa, pro vivis et pro defunctis.”

    Ergo, mass-priests make the sacrifice of Christ to be imperfect; and so are they injurious to the sacrifice of Christ.

    For confirmation of the premises, mark here reader, I beseech thee, the Rubric here following, written before the Mass of the Five Wounds, in the mass-book. Boniface, bishop of Rome, lay sick and was like to die, to whom our Lord sent the archangel Raphael with the office of the Mass of the Five Wounds, saying, Rise and write this office, and say it five times, and thou shalt be restored to thy health immediately; and what priest soever shall say this office for himself, or for any other that is sick five times, the person, for whom it is said shall obtain health and grace, and in the world to come, if he continue in virtue, life everlasting. And in whatsoever tribulation a man shall be in this life, if he procure this office to be said five times for him of a priest, without doubt he shall be delivered. And if it be said for the soul of the dead, anon as it shall be said and ended five times, his soul shall be rid from pains. This hearing, the bishop did erect himself up in his bed, conjuring the angel, in the name of almighty God, to tell him what he was, and wherefore he came, and that he should depart without doing him harm; who answered, that he was Raphael the archangel, sent unto him of God, and that all the premises were undoubtedly true. Then the said Boniface confirmed the said office of the five wounds by the apostolic authority.

    Another argument against the mass is, for that it is a hinderance to the true service of God, and to the godly life of men; the declaration whereof is more at large by the said author set out, but, briefly, in form of argument it may be thus contracted.

    ANOTHER ARGUMENT.

    Whatsoever causeth or occasioneth a man to rest in outward serving of God (whose service should be all inward, in spirit and verity), that hindereth the true service of God.

    The mass occasioneth a man to rest in outward serving; as, in heating, seeing, and saying mass, which be but outward senses of a man, and is, as they say, meritorious, “ex opere operato, etiam sine bono motu intentionis.”

    Ergo, the mass hindereth the tight and true service of God.

    ANOTHER ARGUMENT, Proving that the Mass hindereth Good Life, is this: Major.

    Upon the mass riseth false hope; a false remedy is promised to wicked livers. For evil men, hearing mass in the morning, upon hope thereof, take more security in doing all day what they list.

    And such as have (in bibbing, brawling, taverning, swearing, whoring, dicing, carding), committed wickedness, to them the mass is set up; promising him sufficient propitiation, sacrifice, remedy of body and soul, for man and beast, “a poena, et culpa, pro vivis et mortuis:” though they never heard preaching, never used praying, never repented. Or, how wicked soever they have been, yet if they come to the church, take holy bread and holy water, and hear mass, or find a soul-priest upon the remedy thereof, then they think themselves discharged, and good catholic men.

    Upon what cause soever riseth false hope, and false remedy is promised to wicked livers, which hindereth good life.

    Ergo: the mass hindereth good life.

    ANOTHER ARGUMENT.

    Where one thing is sufficient and serveth alone, there all other helps be needless thereunto, wherein it serveth.

    The mass (as they say), hath all — serveth for all; for, by it, cometh pardon for sins, by it cometh deliverance from hell and purgatory, by it cometh health for man and beast: in summa, the mass is “mare bonorum,” etc.

    Ergo: all other helps else be needless; — hearing of God’s word, faith, praying in spirit, repenting, preaching, piety, and all other helps to good life, etc.

    ANOTHER ARGUMENT:

    Proving that the Mass is diverse, and contrary from, the Institution of Christ’s Supper. 1. Christ ordained his supper to be a memorial of his death and passion, to be preached until he came.

    The mass is no memorial thing of Christ remembered in the sacrament, but rather they make the sacrament to be Christ himself offered and sacrificed for remission of sins; both for the quick and the dead. 2. Christ ordained his supper to be celebrated and received of the congregation; and therefore Paul biddeth the Corinthians to tarry one for another.

    In the mass there is no such thing: choose the people to come or no, “sir John” is kin to the tide, he will tarry for no man; if he have a boy to say “amen,” it is enough. 3. Christ received not, but he distributed also the whole in every part: “sir John,” when he hath received all alone, he showeth the people the empty chalice; and if he distribute to the people once a year, it is but in one kind alone. 4. Christ ordained the supper to be a taking matter, an eating matter, a distributing and a remembering matter: contrary our mass-men make it a matter, not of taking, but of gazing, peeping, pixing, boxing, carrying, re-carrying, worshipping, stooping, kneeling, knocking, with “stoop down before, hold up higher,” “I thank God I see my Maker today,” etc. Christ ordained it a table-matter: we turn it to an altar-matter. He, for a memorial, we, for a sacrifice; he sat, our men stand; he in his common tongue, we in a foreign tongue: whereby it is manifest to appear, how diverse and repugnant the mass is to the institution of the Lord’s supper.

    ANOTHER ARGUMENT:

    Proving that the Mass is contrary to God’s Commandments. Item, Whereas the first table of God’s blessed and sacred commandments, teacheth men to worship and serve him, and to direct the meditations of their hearts only unto him, and that in all places, at all times, both publicly and privately; The mass-book doth point out service for saints and for creatures by name, to be served at least three hundred days and years; as appeareth by the calendars, masses, collects, martyrologue, etc.:

    Ergo: the doctrine and institution of the mass-book tendeth contrary to God’s holy commandments.

    ANOTHER REASON AGAINST THE MASS. Item, Whereas St. Paul, in express words, willeth all things to be done in an edifying tongue, the mass is celebrated in a tongue foreign, strange, and unknown to the people; so that although the matter therein contained were wholesome and consonant to Scripture (as it is much disagreeing to the same), yet for the strangeness of the tongue it giveth but a sound, and worketh no edifying to the ignorant.

    Now both the tongue being strange to the ears of the people, and the matter also in the mass contained being repugnant to God’s word, what defense can the mass have, but utterly it is to be rejected?

    And forasmuch therefore as the mass so long used in a foreign language hath not hitherto come to the understanding of the simple and vulgar sort, to the intent they may themselves perceive the matter, and be their own judges, I have here set forth the chiefest part thereof, which is the canon, in English, so as I found it in a certain written copy, by master Coverdale translated, adjoining withal the rubric and circumstance of the same in every point, as it is in the mass-book contained.

    THE WHOLE CANON OF THE MASS, WITH THE RUBRIC THEREOF, AS IT STANDETH IN THE MASS-BOOK, AFTER SALISBURY USE, TRANSLATED WORD BY WORD OUT OF LATIN INTO ENGLISH. After the Sanctus, the priest immediately joining his hands together, and lifting up his eyes, beginneth these words: “Te igitur clementissime,” etc.; that is to say, “Therefore, most gracious Father, through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, we humbly beseech thee,” Let him bow down his body while he saith: “And we desire,” Here the priest, standing upright, must kiss the altar on the right hand of the sacrifice,8 saying: “That thou accept and bless,” Here let the priest make three crosses upon the chalice and the bread, saying: “These + gifts, these + presents, these + holy and unspotted sacrifices.” 9 When the signs are made upon the chalice, let him lift up his hands, saying thus: “Which, first of all, we offer unto thee for thy holy catholic church,10 that thou vouchsafe to pacify, keep, unite, and govern it throughout the whole world, with thy servant our pope N . and our bishop N .,” [that is his own bishop only 11 ] “and our king N .” [and they are expressed by name.] Then let there follow: “And all true believers, and such as have the catholic and apostolic faith in due estimation.”

    Here let him pray for the living: “Remember Lord thy servants and handmaids N . and N .”

    In which prayer a rule must be observed for the order of charity.

    Five times let the priest pray; first, for himself: 12 secondly, for father and mother, carnal and spiritual, and for other parents: thirdly, for special friends, parishioners, and others: fourthly, for all that stand by: fifthly, for all christian people. And here may the priest commend all his friends 13 to God (but my counsel is, that none make overlong tarrying there, partly for distraction of mind, partly because of immissions which may chance through evil angels), and all that stand hereby round about, whose faith and devotion unto thee is known and manifest; for whom we offer unto thee, or which themselves offer unto thee, this sacrifice of praise for them and theirs, for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their salvation and health, and render their vows unto Thee, the eternal living and true God.

    Communicating, and worshipping the memorial, first, of the glorious and ever Virgin; 15 bowing down a little, let him say: “Mary, the mother of our God and Lord Jesu Christ, and also of thy blessed apostles and martyrs, Peter, Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddeus, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Laurence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and of all thy saints: by whose merits and prayers, 16 grant thou, that in all things we may be defended with the help of thy protection, through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.”

    Here let the priest behold the host with great veneration, 17 saying: “Therefore Lord we beseech thee, that thou, being pacified, wilt receive this oblation of our bound service, and of all thy household; and order our days in thy peace, and command us to be delivered from eternal damnation, and to be numbered in the flock of thine elect, through Christ our Lord. Amen.”

    Here again let him hold the host,18 saying: “Which oblation we beseech thee, O Almighty God, in all things to make,” Here let; him make three crosses upon both 19 when he saith: “blessed, + appointed, + ratified, reasonable, and acceptable; that unto us it may be,” Here let him,make a cross upon the. bread, saying; + The body, here upon the chalice: “and + blood, Here with hands joined together, let him say, “of thy most dearly beloved Son our Lord Jesu Christ;” Here let the priest lift up his hands and join them together, and afterward wipe his fingers, and lift up the host, saying: “Who, the next day, 20 afore he suffered, took bread into his holy and reverent hands, and his eyes being lift up into heaven,” Here let him lift up his eyes, “unto the God Almighty his Father,” Here let him bow down, and afterward erect himself up a little, saying: “Rendering thanks unto thee, he + blessed, he brake,” Here let him touch the host, saying: “and gave unto his disciples, saying, Take ye, 21 and eat of this ye all; 22 for this is my body.” And these words must be pronounced with one breath, and under one prolation, without making of any pause between. After these words let him bow himself to the host, and afterward lift [it] up above his forehead, that it may be seen of the people: 24 and let him reverently lay it again before the chalice, in manner of a cross made with the same. And then let him uncover the chalice, and hold it between his hands, not putting his thumb and forefinger asunder, save only when he blesseth, saying thus: “Likewise after they had supped, he, taking this excellent cup into his holy and reverent hands, rendering thanks also unto thee,” Here let him bow himself, saying: “Blessed, and gave unto his disciples, saying, ‘Take, and drink of this ye all;’” Here let him lift up the chalice a little, saying thus:

    For this is the cup of my blood, of the new and everlasting testament, the mystery of faith 26 which, for you and for many, shall be shed to the remission of sins.”

    Here let him lift the chalice to his breast, or further than his head, saying:

    As oft as ye do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of me.’ Here let him set down the chalice again, and rub his fingers over the chalice. 28 Then let him lift up his arms, and cover the chalice. Then let him lift up his arms crosswise, his fingers being joined together until these words: “de tuis donis;” that is to say, of thine own rewards. “Wherefore, O Lord, we also, thy servants, and thy holy people, being mindful as well of the blessed passion and resurrection, as of the glorious ascension of the same Christ thy Son, our Lord God, do offer unto thy excellent Majesty of thy own rewards and gifts.”

    Here let there be made five crosses, 29 namely, the three first upon the host and cup, saying: + “a pure host; + a holy host; + an undefiled host.”

    The fourth upon the bread only, 30 saying: “The holy + bread of eternal life,” The fifth upon the cup, saying: “And + cup of eternal salvation. Vouchsafe thou also, with a merciful and pleasant countenance, to have respect hereunto, and to accept the same, as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the gifts of thy righteous servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and the holy sacrifice, the undefiled host, that the high priest Melchizedek did offer unto thee.” Here let the priest, with his body bowed down, and his hands holden across, say, “Supplices to rogamus,” “we humbly beseech thee,” until these words, “Ex hac altaris participatione,” “of this partaking of the altar.” And then let him stand up, kissing the altar on the right side of the sacrifice; and let him make a sign of the cross upon the host, and in his own face, when he saith, “Omni benedictione coelesti,” “with all heavenly benediction.” “We humbly beseech thee, O Almighty God, command thou these to be brought by the hands of thy holy angel unto thy high altar in the presence of thy Divine Majesty,34 that as many of us as,” Here erecting up himself, let him kiss the altar on the right side of the sacrifice, saying: “Of this participation of the altar shall receive thy Son’s holy” Here let him make a sign of the cross upon the host 35 saying: “body,” Then upon the cup, saying: “and + blood may be replenished” Then let him make a sign in his own face 36 saying: “With all heavenly benediction and grace through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.”

    Here let him pray for the dead. “Remember Lord, also, the souls of thy servants and handmaidens, N . and N . which are gone before us with the mark of faith, and rest in the sleep of peace. We beseech thee, O Lord, that unto them, and unto all such as rest in Christ,37 thou wilt grant a place of refreshing, of light, and of peace, through the same Christ our Lord.

    Amen.”

    Here let him smite once upon his breast,38 saying: “Unto us sinners also, thy servants, hoping of the multitude of thy mercies, vouchsafe to give some portion and fellowship with thy holy apostles and martyrs; with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and with all thy saints; within whose fellowship we beseech thee admit us, not weighing our merit, but granting us forgiveness through Christ our Lord.”

    Here is not said, “Amen.” “By whom, O Lord, all these good things thou dost ever create.”

    Here let him make a sign over the chalice three times, 40 saying: “Thou + sanctifiest; thou + quickenest; thou + blessest, and givest unto us.”

    Here let him uncover the chalice, and make a sign of the cross with the host five times: first beyond the chalice on every side; secondly, even with the chalice; thirdly, within the chalice; fourthly, like as at the first; fifthly, before the chalice. “Through + him, and with + him, and in him, is unto thee God, Father + almighty, in the unity of the + Holy Ghost, all honor and glory.”

    Here let the priest cover the chalice, and hold his hands still upon the altar till the Pater-noster be spoken, saying thus: “World without end, Amen. — Let us pray. Being advertised by wholesome precepts, and taught by God’s institution, 42 we are bold to say,” Here let the deacon take the paten, and hold it uncovered on the right side of the priest, his arm being stretched out on high 43 until “da propitius.”

    Here let the priest lift up his hands, saying, “Pater noster,” etc.

    The choir must say, “Sed libera nos,” etc. “Deliver us, we beseech thee O Lord, from all evil, past, present, and for to come; and that, by the intercession of the blessed, glorious, and our Virgin Mary the mother of God, and thy blessed apostles Peter, and Paul, and Andrew; with all saints.” Here let the deacon commit the paten to the priest, kissing his hand; and let the priest kiss the paten. 45 Afterward let him put it to his left eye, and then to the right. 46 After that let him make a cross with the paten above upon his head 47 and so lay it down again into its place, 48 saying: “Give peace graciously in our days, that we, being helped through the succor of thy mercy, may both be always free from sin, and safe from all trouble,” Here let him uncover the chalice, and take the body, doing reverence, shifting it over in the hollow room of the chalice, holding it between his thumbs and forefingers; 49 and let him break it into three parts; the first breaking, while there is said: “Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ thy Son,” The second breaking: “Who, with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth God.”

    Here let him hold two pieces in his left hand, and the third piece in the right hand, upon the brink of the chalice, saying this with open voice: 50 “World without end.”

    Let the choir answer: “Amen.”

    Here let him make three crosses within 51 the chalice with the third part of the host, saying: “The peace of the Lord + be always + with + you,” Let the choir answer: “And with thy spirit.”

    To say Agnus Dei, let the deacon and subdeacon approach near unto the priest, both being on the right hand, the deacon nearer, the subdeacon further off. And let them say privately: “O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us: O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us: O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, grant us peace.”

    In masses for the dead 54 it is said thus: “O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, give them rest,” With this addition in the third repetition, “Everlasting.”

    Here making a cross, let him put down the said third part of the host into the sacrament of the blood, saying: “This holy mingling together of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be unto me, and to all that receive it, salvation of mind and body: 56 a wholesome preparation both to deserve and to receive eternal life, through the same Christ our Lord.”

    Afore the pax be given, let the priest say: “O Lord, holy Father, almighty eternal God, grant me so worthily to take this holy body and blood of thy Son our Lord Jesu Christ, that by this 57 I may merit 58 to receive forgiveness of all my sins, and be replenished with thy holy Spirit, and to have thy peace: for thou art God alone, neither is there any other without thee, whose glorious kingdom and empire endureth continually world without end, Amen.”

    Here let the priest kiss the corporas on the right side, and the brink of the chalice 60 and afterward let him say to the deacon: “Peace be unto thee, and to the church of God.”

    Answer: “And with thy spirit.”

    On the right hand of the priest let the deacon receive the pax of him, and reach it to the subdeacon. Then to the step of the choir let the deacon himself bear the pax unto the rectors of the choir; and let them bring it to the choir, either of them to his own side, beginning at the eldest. But in feasts and ferial days, when the choir is not governed, 61 the pax is borne from the deacon unto the choir by two of the lowest of the second form, like as afore.

    After the pax given, let the priest say the prayers following, privately, before he communicate; holding the host with both his hands: “O God, Father, thou fountain and original of all goodness, who, being moved with mercy, hast willed thine only-begotten Son, for our sake, to descend into the lower parts of the world, and to be incarnate, whom I unworthy hold in my hands;” Here let the priest bow himself to the host,64 saying: “I worship thee, I glorify thee, I praise thee with whole intention of mind and heart: and I beseech thee that thou fail not 65 us thy servants, but forgive our sins, so as with pure heart, and chaste body, we maybe able to serve thee, 66 the only living and true God, through the same Christ our Lord: Amen. “O Lord Jesu Christ, thou Son of the living God, who, according to the will of the Father, the Holy Ghost working withal, hast quickened the world through thy death, deliver me, I beseech thee, through this thy holy body, and this thy blood, from all my iniquities, and from all evils. And make me to alway obey thy commandments, and never suffer me to be separated from thee for evermore, thou Savior of the world, who, with God the Father, and the same Holy Ghost, livest and reignest God, world without end:

    Amen. “O Lord Jesu Christ, let not the sacrament of thy body and blood which I receive (though unworthy), be to my judgment and damnation; but, through thy goodness, let it profit to the salvation of my body and soul: Amen.”

    To the body let him say with humiliation before he receive: “Hail for evermore, thou most holy flesh of Christ; 67 unto me, afore all things and above all things, the highest sweetness. The body of our Lord Jesu Christ be unto me, sinner, the way and life, in the + name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

    Amen.”

    Here let him take the body, a cross 68 being first made with the same body afore his mouth, saying: “Hail for evermore, thou heavenly drink! unto me, before all things and above all things, the highest sweetness. The body and blood of our Lord Jesu Christ profit me, sinner, for a remedy everlasting unto life eternal: Amen. In the + name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Amen.”

    Here let him take the blood, which when it is received, let him bow himself and say the prayer: “I render thanks to thee, O Lord, holy Father, almighty eternal God, which hast refreshed me out of the most holy body and blood of thy Son our Lord Jesu Christ. And I beseech thee, that this sacrament of our salvation, which I, unworthy sinner, have received, come not to my judgment nor condemnation after my merits; but to the profit of my body, and to the salvation of my soul into life everlasting: Amen.”

    Which prayer being said, let the priest go to the right side of the altar, with the chalice between his hands, his fingers being yet joined together as afore, 69 and let the subdeacon approach near, and pour out wine and water into the chalice. And let the priest rinse his hands, lest any parcels of the body or blood be left behind in his fingers or in the chalice. 70 But, when any priest must celebrate twice in one day 71 then, at the first mass, he must not receive any ablution, but put it in the sacristy, or in a clean vessel, till the end of the other mass; and then let both the ablutions be received.

    After the first ablution, is said this prayer: “That we have received with mouth, O Lord, let us take with a pure mind, and out of a temporal gift,72 let it be to us a remedy everlasting.”

    Here let him wash his fingers in the hollow room of the chalice with wine being poured in by the subdeacon; which, when it is drunk up, let the prayer follow: “Lord let this communion 74 purge us from sin, and make us to be partakers of the heavenly remedy.”

    After the receiving of the ablutions, let the priest lay the chalice upon the paten; that if aught remain behind, it may drop. And afterward bowing Himself, let him say: “Let us worship the sign of the cross 75 whereby we have received the sacrament of salvation.”

    Afterward let him wash his hands. 76 In the mean season let the deacon fold up the corporas. When his hands are washen, and the priest returneth to the right end of the altar, let the deacon reach the chalice to the priest’s mouth 77 that if aught of that which was poured in do remain behind, he may receive it. 78 After that, let him say the communion with his ministers, 79 Then, making a sign of the cross in his own face, let the priest turn himself to the people; and with his arms somewhat lifted up, and his hands joined together, let him say, “Dominus vobiscum;” and, turning him again to the altar, let him say, “Oremus,” “Let us pray.”

    Then let him say the postcommon, 81 according to the number and order of the aforesaid prayers. Before the epistle, when the last postcommon is ended, and the priest hath made a sign of the cross in his forehead, let him turn him again to the people, and say, “Dominus vobiscum;” Then let the deacon say, “Benedicamus Domino.” At another time is said, “Ite missa est” As oft as “Ite missa est” is said, it is always said in turning to the people. And when “Benedicamus Domino,” or “Requiescant in pace” must be said, let it be said in turning to the altar. When these things are spoken, let the priest (with his body bowed down, and his hands joined together), in the midst before the altar, say, with a still voice, this prayer: “O holy Trinity, let the office of my bond-service 83 please thee! and grant that this sacrifice, which I, unworthy, have offered in the eyes of thy majesty, may be acceptable unto thee: and that unto me and all them for whom I have offered it, it may avail to obtain remission, 84 thou being merciful, who livest and reignest God,” etc.

    Which prayer being ended, let the priest stand upright, crossing himself in his face, 85 saying, “In nomine Patris,” etc. And so when obeisance is made, after the same order wherein they came afore to the altar at the beginning of the mass, so, having on their apparel, with the censer-bearer, and other ministers, let them go their way again. THE END OF THE CANON.

    Now it remaineth (as we have promised before) to entreat of the parts and parcels of the Mass, declaring likewise how, and by whom, this popish or rather apish mass became so clampered and patched together with so many divers and sundry additions; whereby it may the better appear what hath been the continuance of the same.

    First, in the beginning of this preface it was declared before, how this word “mass” was never used or known in the old primitive church, among the first Christians, nor among the Grecians. Therefore they that deduce and derive the origin of the mass from St. James and Basil, are far deceived. As I think, that St. James was once bishop at Jerusalem, so I think not contrary, but sometimes he ministered at the communion there, in breaking of bread, and that not without the Lord’s Prayer, and other prayers of thanksgiving, as we now in our communion use like prayers, and these prayers make not the communion to be a mass. And the like is to be said of St. Peter, who though he did celebrate the communion at Rome, yet it followeth not that he said mass at Rome, as some report him to have done.

    Neither is it hard to fetch out the origin, how this error first came up among the people, that St. James said mass at Jerusalem, if a man consider well histories and authors who have written. For in the history of Eusebius, Egesippus thus writeth of St. James 119 , “Eum ab apostolis primum constitutum fuisse episcopum et liturgum,” etc. 87 Upon the which word “liturgus, 88 it is not unlike, and divers suppose, this error to come: that St James did first set and institute the order of mass. For so lightly the old translators, wheresoever they find “liturgia,” or “collecta,” koinwni>a they translated it “missa;” whereupon the greatest occasion of this error riseth, to make the people believe the mass to be so ancient as to proceed from the apostles, and from St. James. Notwithstanding that error as it lightly came up, so it may be as lightly exploded. For how could St. James say mass then at Jerusalem, or St. Peter at Rome, when as yet neither the name of mass was heard, nor the parts thereof invented? And although Sigebert in his Chronicles reports, that in the city of Bazas, being delivered from the siege of the Huns, the pastor of that church did celebrate mass with thanksgiving, about the year 453, yet Sigebert, in so saying, is to be taken as speaking rather after the use and manner of his time when he wrote it, than of that time when it was done. For in all the works of St.

    Augustine, and of Chrysostome, and in all that age, the name of mass is not found, but it is called either the supper of the Lord, or the Lord’s board or communion, synaxis, sacrifice, oblation, mystery, celebration of the sacrament, eucharistia, the mystical table, mystagogia, coena mystica; or with some other like term they nominate it. The name of the mass was not yet devised, nor were the patches thereof compiled. Platina testifieth, that before pope Celestine, only the epistle and gospel were read at the communion, which being done, the communion ended. And Gregory saith that the apostles, afore the ministration of the sacrament did use only the Lord’s Prayer, that is, the Pater-noster. Let us hear what Walafridus Strabo writeth of that matter: 91 “That which now is done in the church, with such a long circumstance of so many orisons, lessons, or readings, songs and consecrations; all that the apostles, and they that next succeeded the apostles (as it is thought), did accomplish simply with prayer only, and with the commemoration of the Lord’s passion,” etc. It followeth in the same author: “And, as the report is, like as it is in the Roman church upon Good Friday, where the communion is wont to be taken without any mass; so it was in the old time with them,” etc.

    Now how this mass hath grown up and increased since, let us search out, by the Lord’s help, out of authors, so much as may be found.

    THE “INTROITE.” Pope Celestine gave the first Introite, as Platina and Sigebert write. THE PSALM. “ JUDICA ME DEUS,” ETC.

    And before the priest do prepare himself to his mass, first with the psalm, “Judica me Deus et discerne causam meam,” etc.: that was ordained by the said Celestine.

    And where they ascribed to St. Ambrose the two prayers which he used in the preparation to the mass, and be added to the books of Ambrose, Erasmus judgeth the same to be none of his, and that rightly as it seemeth: for therein are contained errors, not else to be found in the books of Ambrose, both in giving adoration to the bread of the sacrament, and making invocation to saints, namely, to blessed Mary; as in the second prayer, where he saith: 94 “And that this my prayer may be of efficacy, I desire the suffrage and intercession of blessed Mary the virgin,” etc.: whereby it may appear learned Ambrose not to be the author of such an error.

    Chrysostome, in the eleventh Homily upon the gospel of Matthew 120 , saith, that in his time, and afore his time, the use was to sing whole psalms, till they were entered and assembled together. And so belike Celestine borrowed this custom of the Greeks, and brought it into the Latin church as Rupertus writeth. Gregory the Great (as some write) called a synod at Rome, about the year of our Lord 594, in which synod he appointed that the introite of the mass should be taken out of some psalm. “THE CONFITEOR.”

    The “Confiteor,”pope Damasus brought into the mass, as it is written: albeit peradventure not this popish Confiteor, which in the latter church hath been used, stuft full of idolatry and invocation of saints, against the word of God.

    THE “KYRIE ELEISON” The “Kyrie Eleison,” nine times to be repeated 121 in such a tongue as few priests either understand, or do rightly pronounce, Gregory did institute about 600 years after Christ; taking it out of the Greek church, and yet transposing it otherwise than there it was used. For among the Greeks this “ Kyrie Eleison, 122 ” which they called their litany, was sung of all the people; the which Gregory ordained to be sung only of the choir: adding thereto also Christe Eleison, which the Grecians used not; as Gregory himself, writing to the bishop of Syracuse, 96 doth testify. “ GLORIA IN EXCELSIS123 ,” Next followeth “Gloria in Excelsis” etc.; which words were sung of the angels, at the Birth of our Savior. Albeit these words also were corrupted, as many other things were in the church; for where the words of the angels’ hymn were “Hominibus bona voluntas,” that is “To men good will;” the mass said, “Hominibus bona voluntatis;” that is, “To men of good will,” etc. This hymn was brought into the mass by pope Symmachus (and not by Telesphorus, as some not truly write, that he ordained three masses on Christmas-day; for in his time there was no mass, A.D. 140), about the year of our Lord 510. And after, the said hymn was augmented by Hilary, of Poictiers, with those words that follow, “Laudamus te,” etc., singing it first in his own church, which was A.D. 340.

    And afterward it was brought into other churches by pope Symmachus, A.D. 510, as is aforesaid. “DOMINUS VOBISCUM,” WITH THE ANSWER “OREMUS”AND THE COLLECTS. “Dominus vobiscum,” with the answer of the people, although we have no certain author named by whom it came; yet this is certain, that it was deduced out of the Greek church into the Latin; as may appear by the Liturgy of Chrysostome and Basil (if the Liturgy be rightly ascribed unto them): also by Origen, and other ancient writers; by whom, it may seem that the liturgy or mass (as they call it) did first begin with “Dominus vobiscum,” and then “Sursum corda;” after that “Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro,” and so following upon the same, “Vere dignum et justum est,” etc.: to the which beginning of the canon other additions, after, were put by others, as ye shall hear, by the Lord’s grace, hereafter more at large. Hugo de Sto. Victore writeth, 100 that this prayer was taken out of the ancient salutation of Boaz saluting his harvest-folks. And out of the book of Paralipomena, where the prophet saluteth Asa the king, with his company about him, saying, “Dominns vobiscum.” Honorius writeth thus: 101 “As the priest saluteth the people with the words of the Old Testament, ‘Dominus vobiscum;’ so the bishop useth the words of the New Testament, saying, ‘Pax vobiscum,’” etc. Concerning the collects, Walafridus writeth, that as they be divers and uncertain, so they were made of divers and sundry authors, as every of them thought it congrue.

    Hugo de Sto. Victore affirms, that chiefly they were made by Gelasius and Gregory.

    Why they were called collects, William Durand and Micrologus show the cause: for that in the city of Rome they said them over the people collected together on the station-day, therefore they were called “collectae.” 102 THE “GRADUAL,” WITH “ALLELUIA,” “TRACT,” 103 AND “SEQUENCES.”

    The responsory, which is called the “gradual” (being wont to be sung at the steps 104 going up), with Alleluia, Honorius saith that Ambrose made them, but pope Gregory ordained them to be received. Upon festival days the “sequences,” which were wont to be sung, were chiefly composed by an abbot called Notherus de Sto. Gallo, 106 and by pope Nicholas commanded to be sung in the mass.

    The gradual the people were wont to sing when the bishop was about to go up to the pulpit, or some higher standing, where the word of God might be the better and more sensibly heard at his mouth, reading the epistle and the gospel.

    THE EPISTLE AND THE GOSPEL.

    The reading of the epistle and the gospel, although it was not used in the apostles’ times, yet it seemeth to be of ancient continuance, as Hugo saith: 107 “In former time the mass began first with the epistle of St. Paul, after which epistle then followed the gospel, as also now,” etc.

    Walafridus saith, “It is uncertain who first ordered and disposed them so to be.”

    Some attribute them to Jerome, some to Damsaus, some to Telesphorus aforesaid. This is certain, that pope Anastasius 108 ordained to stand up at the hearing of the gospel read; about the year of our Savior 406.

    Petrus Ciruelus writeth thus: 109 “We read that about 500 years since almost, the epistle,” saith he, “was brought into the mass.”

    Honorius: 110 “Alexander,” saith he, “appointed the epistle and gospel to be read at mass. The translation and the disposition of them, in that order as they stand, Jerome the priest collected; but Damasus appointed them to be read in the church, so as the use is now.”

    Betwixt the epistle and the gospel the old canons of the Spaniards did forbid any hymn or canticle to be sung in the order of the mass, which now by the Romish order is broken. 111 THE CREED.

    The creed was made by the synod of Constantinople, but, by Damasus the pope, ordained to be sung at the mass. 112 And whereas some affirm, that it was brought in by pope Marcus, about the year of our Lord 340 — to reconcile these two together, peradventure thus it may be taken, that the one brought in the creed, or symbol of the Nicene Council, the other appointed the creed of Constantinople, as is said. THE OFFERTORY.

    After this, oblations were wont to be offered of the people to the priest; and the offertory to be sung of the choir. Of these oblations speaketh Irenaeus: 115 “Instead of the sundry rites of sacrifices, let the simple oblation of bread and wine suffice the faithful.” Item, Walafridus: 116 “Every person entering in the church must do sacrifice, as the order of ecclesiastieal institution doth teach.” What order this was, it is declared ‘in Ordine Romano’ by these words: “The people give every one his oblations; that is, bread and wine, first the men, then the women. After them priests and deacons offer, but bread only,” etc.

    Likewise Burchardus testifieth the same: 118 “In the synod of Mascon it was ordained, that every Sunday and festival day, oblation should be made of all the people which came to the mass, or liturgy, both men and women, in the church; every person bringing and offering his own oblation. The liturgy being done, they should receive the oblations of the priest,” etc.

    Thus ye may see what were their oblations and sacrifice in the ancient time, in their liturgy. Whereof now remaineth nothing but the name only with the song.

    This offertory some ascribe to Eutychianus, about the year of our Lord 280, but thereof no certain evidence appeareth. “ ORATE PRO ME, FRATRES,” ETC, Nauclerus writeth, that pope Leo brought in that which is said in the mass, “Orate pro me, fratres et sorores,” etc. THE PREFACE OF THE CANON124 . The preface of the Canon from “vere dignum et justum est,” etc. to “per Christum Dominum nostrum,” is given to Gelasius. “Sursum corda” seemeth to be borrowed out of the old manner of the Greek church; St.

    Cyprian also maketh mention of the same, and St. Augustine. 121 And therefore Thomas Walden judgeth that this part of the preface cannot be attributed to Gelasius.

    After “Christum Dominum nostrum,” in the old liturgy, then followed “Qui pridie quam pateretur,” as Rhenanus supposeth; but then came Gelasius 1. about the year of our Lord 497, who inserted that which followeth, “Te igitur clementissim,” etc. 122 Whereby it is to be noted, that Polydore Virgil, who ascribeth “Qui pridie 125 ”to pope Alexander, is deceived.

    The like is also to be said of Panormitane, who referreth the same clause, “Qui pridie,” etc., to the apostles. Furthermore note, good reader, how this doth agree with the long canon of St. Ambrose (lib. 4 de Sacrament. cap. 5): “Dicit Sacerdos, ‘Fac nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam, rationalem, acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Qui pridie quam pateretur in sanctis manibus suis accepit panem, respexit ad coelum, ad to Sancte Pater omnipotens et aeterne Deus, gratias agens benedixit, fregit,’” etc. If it be true either that Panormitane saith, or that Gelasius made “Qui pridie,” etc., how can this canon then be fathered upon St. Ambrose? And by the same reason also his whole book, entituled “De Sacramentis,” may be suspected; as of divers learned men it is.

    Then came pope Sixtus ten years after him, who brought into the canon “Sanctus, Sanctus,” thrice to be sung out of the book of Isaiah; and, to annex it together, joined also that which goeth before, “Per quem majestatem tuam,” etc.

    He that writeth the Liturgy of Basil, ascribeth it to his name: whether he doth it truly or no, I will not here contend. This is to be noted, that seeing in the said Liturgy of Basil the same particle “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth: pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria tua, Osanna in Excelsis” is sung; therefore it must needs follow, that either Leo, who was about the year of our Lord 460, borrowed this out of Basil’s Liturgy, or else the same is falsely attributed to Basil. After this followeth “Sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam,” till ye come to “placatus accipias,” which Leo the First did make and institute.

    The words in the communion, “Hoe quotiescunque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis,” etc., were put in by pope Alexander, as Humbertus writeth: “Alexander martyr et papa quintus ab apost. Petro, passionem Domini inserens canoni missae, ait, ‘Hoc quotiescunque feceritis,’” etc. Pope Gregory 3. about the year of our Lord 732, put to this piece, “Et eorum quorum memoria,” etc. This Gregory 3. called a council at Rome, wherein he decreed, that images should not only be had in temples, but also be worshipped, and that all gainsayers should be counted as heretics.

    Innocent 3. affirmeth pope Gelasius, who was about four hundred and ninety years after Christ, to have made a great piece of that canon, as he himself did something therein, about the year of our Lord 1215.

    Panormitane affirmeth that Gregory did add to the canon this clause, “Diesque nostros in pace disponas.” Briefly, Gregory 129 saith, “that one Scholasticus made the most part of the canon, finding also fault with the same, that in composing the canon he would put in his own prayers, and leave out the Lord’s Prayer,” etc.

    Where it is to be noted, for the reconciling these writers together, of whom some impute the canon to Gelasius, some again to Scholasticus 126 : in my conjecture it may be said, that both these be one, and so the matter is reconciled. The reason that moveth me is this; for so I find in a certain ancient book “De Officio Missae,” after these words, “Gelasius, Papa ex Scholastico effectus, in ordine 48. fecit Tractatus et Hymnos,” etc.

    THE ELEVATION AND ADORATION.

    The elevation and adoration of the sacrament we cannot find to come in by any other than by Honorius III., about the year of our Lord 1222; who ordained that the people then should kneel down and worship the sacrament. THE “PATER-NOSTER.”

    John the deacon, writing of Gregory, saith, 131 “that Gregory caused the Lord’s Prayer to be recited immediately after the canon upon the host,” etc.

    Although the apostles ever used the Lord’s Prayer at the supper of the Lord, as is said before; yet Gregory (belike) placed it so, in that order, after the canon, and brought it in with those words, “Praeceptis salutaribus,” etc.

    Gregory: 132 “The Lord’s Prayer,” saith he, “amongst the Grecians, was wont to be sung generally of all the people: with us it is sung only of the priest.”

    THE “AGNUS.”

    The “Agnus,” pope Sergius, about the year of our Lord 700, brought into the mass, as witnesseth Expositio Rom. Ordin. “Propter officium confractionis Dominici corpotis, constitutum est a papa Sergio ut Agnus Dei decantetur,” etc.

    THE “PAX.”

    Innocent ordained the “pax” to be given to the people. “Pacis, ait, oseulum dandum post confecta mysteria, ut constet populum ad omnia, quae in mysteriis aguntur, prabeuisse consensum” 133 etc.

    Peter Martyr, in his commentaries on Jude, saith, that it was brought in by pope Leo II., as it is said: and yet he supposeth the same not to be so, saying, “That this was an ancient custom in the apostles’ time, for Christians to salute one another with the kiss of peace,” etc.

    To this of Peter Martyr agreeth also Gabriel Biel, writing in these words: 134 “In the primitive church the priest gave a kiss of peace to the minister, to be given by him to the people.”

    THE DISTRIBUTION AND COMMUNION.

    After this followeth the communion, wherein our popish mass and ministers thereof do much alter and degenerate from ancient antiquity, two manner of ways. First, in that they make no communion thereof, receiving only to themselves, contrary both to their own words, where they say after their receiving, “Sacramenta quae sumpsimus,” etc., and also to the ancient examples and decrees of the apostles and others; and where it is decreed in the epistle of Anacletus 127 , 135 “The consecration being done, let all communicate together; unless they will be thrust out of the church doors,” etc.

    Here note by the way, gentle reader, how Gratian the writer of the pope’s decrees is overseen, who, in his book De Consecrat., dist. 2, referreth this saying of Anacletus to pope Calixtus. And likewise also Cochleus, writing against Musculus, followeth Gratian in the same error. Likewise in the canons of the apostles (if the canons were theirs), we read, pa>ntav tou~v eijsiontastuv mh< parame>.nontav de< th~ proseuch~| kai< aJgi>a| metalh>yei, 137 etc. i.e. “All the faithful, who resort to the church, and tarry not out the end of the service, and receive not the holy communion, be such as, bringing in disorder to the church, ought to be dissevered,” etc. And again, “Si quis episcopus, presbyter, aut diaconus, nut quicunque ex saeerdotali consortio, oblatione facta, non communicaverint, causam dicito,” 138 etc.

    For how can that be called a communion, which is not common, but private to one? As Micrologus writeth: 139 “It cannot be called a communion, except more than one do participate of one sacrifice,” etc.

    And Durandus: 140 “In the primitive time all that were present at the ministration were wont every day to communicate, because that the apostles did altogether drink of the cup,” etc.

    Secondly, They alter and degenerate therein from ancient antiquity, in that when they communicate also with the people, yet they deprive them of the holy cup: which deprivation was not in the church before the council of Constance, about the year of our Lord, 1414. For before, it was so authenticly received, that it was counted a sacrilege to receive the one without the other, as appeareth by the words of pope Gelasius. 141 The whole in English is this: “We understand that there be some, who, receiving the one part only of the holy body, abstain from the cup of the sacred blood; who, because they be taught so to do (by what superstition I cannot tell), either let them receive the sacrament whole together, or let them abstain from the whole sacrament altogether; because the division of that one and whole sacrament cannot be without great sacrilege,” etc.

    Hitherto also pertaineth the testimony of St. Augustine in these words: “There be you at the table; and at the cup there also be you with us: for together we receive, and together we drink, because we live together.”

    As also out of the book of Gregory it is manifest, that not only the people received them in both kinds; but also the words were prescribed to the minister, that he should say in giving the cup: 143 “Let the priest say, in giving the cup, ‘The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ keep thee to everlasting life, Amen.’” Further, in rendering the cause why it should so be done, Thomas Aquinas writeth: 144 “For that serveth to represent the passion of Christ, wherein his blood was parted severally from the body, etc. Secondly, for that it is convenient to the use of the sacrament, that the body should severally be given to the faithful for meat, and the blood for drink.”

    And therefore served the office of the deacons, as we read: 145 “To lay the offerings of the people upon the altar to be hallowed, and when the mysteries be consecrated, to distribute the cup of the sacred blood of the Lord to the faithful,” etc.

    But among all other testimonies to prove that the sacrament ought to be common to all people in both kinds, there is none more evident than that of Jerome: 146 “The supper of the Lord ought to be indifferently common to all his disciples there present,” etc.

    And thus have ye heard the canon described, which otherwise is called “Secretum;” that is, “The secret of the mass,” being so termed, because the priest was wont to read it in secret or in silence. The reason thereof pope Innocent 3. declareth in his third book: “For that the holy words,” saith he, “of the canon, should not grow in contempt with the people, by the daily use and hearing thereof.” And he bringeth in an example concerning the same of certain shepherds, who in the fields, using the same words of the canon upon their bread and wine, “the matter was turned,” saith he, “into flesh and blood, and they plagued there-for from heaven:” but with such popish tales the church hath been long replenished. THE POSTCOMMON.

    After the canon and communion then followeth the postcommon, with the collects, which the mass-book requireth always to be used in an odd number, sometimes teaching to use but one, as in the Sundays in Lent; and sometimes three, as in certain masses from Low-Sunday till the Ascension; but never to pass the number of seven. “ITE MISSA EST.”

    Last of all cometh “Ite missa est,” whereby the minister dimitteth and sendeth away all the congregation there present to their business: for, as you heard before, it was decreed in ancient time, that it was not lawful to depart from the congregation in the time of holy ministration, before the end of the whole communion. 148 And therefore, all things being accomplished, the minister, turning to the assembly, pronounceth, “Ite missa est.”

    Where note that upon Sundays and festival days only, when “Gloria in excelsis” was sung, “Ite missa est” was wont to be said: on the work-days “Benedicamus Domino;” sometimes “Requiescant in pace.”

    Now concerning such trinkets as were to the aforesaid mass appertaining or circumstant: first, the linen albes and corporasses were brought in by pope Mark A.D. 340; 149 if that be true which is thought by some. Where note again, that in the time of this pope it was nothing offensive for every honest priest to have his own proper wife. In the time also of this Mark; was the council of Elvira in Spain, which condemned all kinds of images and pictures in temples.

    Contrary to the which council pope Gregory III., about the year of our Lord 732, calling a council at Rome, did not only stablish the images before condemned, but condemned the gainsayers for heretics, as is aforesaid. By Sixtus 2. it was ordained, that no liturgy 151 should be done save only upon altars hallowed, about the year of our Lord 260, as some suppose.

    But as I see no firm probation upon the same, so have I probable conjecture the same not to be true.

    Some there be that shame not to say, that St. Clement brought in the albes and vestments to the popish mass. Item, That the sacrament of the blood of the Lord should be consecrated in chalices of glass, and not of wood, as it was in time before, they say it was the ordinance of pope Zephyrinus. After this came in golden chalices, and a true proverb withal, “That once they had wooden chalices, and golden priests; now they have golden chalices, and wooden priests.”

    Sabinian ordained the ringing of bells and burning of lamps in churches. Vitalian the playing on the organs. Damasus, by the instigation of Jerome, appointed “Gloria Patri” after the Psalms. Pelagius devised the memento for the dead.

    Leo brought in the incense.

    Eutychian, 156 as others say, brought in the offertory, which was then after a manner far otherwise than it is, or hath been used now a great while. For what time as many of the heathen, being greatly accustomed with offerings, were converted unto Christ, and could not be well brought from their old long use of offerings, the pope thought to bear somewhat with, the weak, and permitted them to bring meats into the congregation or church, that when the bishop had blessed them, they that brought them might distribute them to the poor, or take them to their own use. But afterwards did pope Gregory so help with this sentence, 157 “Thou shalt not appear in the sight of thy God empty,” etc., that as he willed the people to lay their offerings upon the altar, so they did; and have not yet forgotten to do so still.

    Soul-masses, and masses applied for the dead, came in partly by Gregory, partly by Pelagius, who brought in the Memento, as is said.

    Wherein note, good reader, and mark, how these two stand together, that which: our Savior saith in his evangelist, “Hoe facite in mei commemorationem,” “Do this in remembrance of me;” and that which they say, “In quorum memoria corpus Christi sumitur,” etc. i.e. “In whose commemoration the body of Christ is taken,” etc. Christ would it to be done in his remembrance; and the pope saith, “Do it in remembrance of the dead,” etc. — What can be more contrary?

    Innocent 3. ordained that the sacrament should be reserved in the church.

    The same brought also in auricular confession 158 as a law, about the year of our Lord 1215. He did also constitute that no archbishop should enjoy the pall, unless he were of his own religion; and therefore no great marvel if there be such unity in popery.

    Vigilius ordained that the priest should say mass having his face toward the east.

    Platina writeth how the first Latin mass 128 was sung in the sixth council of Constantinople, which was about the year of our Lord 680: so that the said mass was there and then first allowed, and not before. And yet they (I mean the Greek church) should have known as soon as the mass, if it had proceeded from James or Basil, as the Latin church did know it.

    The opinion to think the mass to help souls in purgatory, was confirmed by pope John 17. by reason of a dream, wherein he dreamed that he saw (and heard the voices of) devils lamenting and bewailing, that souls were delivered from them by the saying of masses and diriges. And therefore he did approve and ratify the feast of All Souls, brought in by Odilo.

    Moreover he adjoined also to the same the feast of Allhallows, about the year of our Lord 1003.

    Concerning Lent fast, some think that Telesphorus, 159 about the year of our Lord 140, was the author thereof. But that peradventure may be as true, as that which they also attribute to him, that he ordained three masses of one priest to be said on Christmas-day. Or, if he did ordain that fast, yet he did ordain it but freely to be kept: for so I find among the decrees, that Lent was commanded first to be fasted but only of the clergy or churchmen.

    Pope Leo commanded the sacrament to be censed.

    Pope Boniface set in his foot for covering of the altars.

    In St. Cyprian’s time it seemeth that water was then mingled with the wine, whereof we read mention in his second book of Epistles, 160 which mixture is referred to Alexander I., in the Order of the Roman canon. As concerning the breaking of the body in three parts, we read also mention to be made in the same book of Order, but no certain author thereof to be named. The words of the book be these: 162 “Three ways is the body of the Lord understood: one which rose again from the dead, being signified by that part which is let fall to the blood in the chalice; the other is that which yet is living in the earth, which the part of the priest eaten doth signify; the third is that which now resteth in Christ, which also is figured by that particle that is reserved upon the altar.”

    Dedication of churches came in by Felix III.; and that churches might not be hallowed but by a bishop, A.D. 492.

    The canticle, “Gloria, laus,” etc. in the procession before the mass on Palm Sunday, was instituted by Theodulphus, bishop of Orleans, as Sigebert writeth, about the year of our Lord 843 129 .

    Giving of holy bread came in by this occasion, as it is to be gathered, partly out of Honorius, partly out of Durandus, and others. The manner was in ancient time, that the ministers were wont to receive certain meal of every house or family, wherewith a great loaf was made, called “Panis Dominicus,” able to serve in the communion, and to be distributed unto the people, who then were wont every day to be present and to receive, especially they that offered the meal: for whom it was wont therefore to be said in the canon, “Omnium circumstantium, qui tibi hoc sacrificium laudis offerunt,” etc. But afterward, the number of the people increasing, and piety decreasing, as Durandus writeth, it was then ordained to communicate but only upon Sundays. 163 At length followed the third constitution, that thrice a year, at least Easter, every man should communicate; it being thus provided, that instead of the daily communion before used, the “pax” did serve. And instead of receiving upon the Sunday, bread was hallowed, and suddenly given and distributed unto the people, which also was called “Eulogia;” the constitution whereof seemeth to proceed from pope Pius. For so we read in the decrees of the said pope Pius: 164 “That the minister shall take of the oblations offered of the people, remaining of the consecration, or else of the bread which the faithful bring unto the church, or else to take of his own bread and cut it conveniently in portions in a clean and a convenient vessel; so that after the solemnity of the ministration being done, they that were not prepared and ready to communicate, may receive every Sunday or festival-day ‘eulogies,’ or benedictions with the same.” Haec ille.

    As concerning holy water, which they used to sprinkle at the church door upon them that entered in, I will not say that it sprung from the idolatrous use of the Gentiles.

    This I say as I find in “Historia Sozomeni:” 165 “It was an old custom among the Romans, that at the entering in at the church door, the priest, after the usual manner of the Ethnics, having in his hand moist branches of olive, did sprinkle with the same such as entered in,” etc. To the which custom this our manner of giving of holy water is so like, that it seemeth to proceed out of the same.

    In the book of the pope’s Decrees, and in the Distinctions of Gratian, there is a certain decree fathered upon Alexander 1. about the year of our Lord 121; which decree may well seem to be a bastard decree, neither agreeing to such a father, nor such a time, concerning the conjuring of holy water. The words of the decree be these: 166 “We bless water sprinkled with salt among the people, that all such as be sprinkled with the same, may be sanctified and purified; which thing we charge and command all priests to do. For if the ashes of the cow, in the old law, being sprinkled among the people, did sanctify and cleanse them, much more water sprinkled with salt, and hallowed with godly prayers, sanctifieth and cleanseth the people. And if that Elisha the prophet, by the sprinkling of salt, did heal and help the barrenness of the water; how much more doth the salt, being hallowed by godly prayers, take away the barrenness or human things, and sanctify and purge them that be defiled; also multiply other things that be good, and turn away the snares of the devil, and defend men from the deceptions of fantasy,” etc. Thus ye have heard the author and father of holy water, which some also ascribe to pope Sixtus, who succeeded Alexander: but as the papists do not agree in the first author or institutor of this hallowing of elements, so I think the same untruly to be ascribed to either. But leaving the probation of this to further pleasure, let us now hear, in our own tongue, their own words, which they use in this their conjuration.

    THE FORM AND WORDS USED OF THE PRIEST IN CONJURING SALT.

    I conjure thee, thou creature of salt, by the + living God, by the + true God, by the holy God, etc.: that thou mayest be made a conjured salt, to the salvation of them that believe; and that unto all such as receive thee thou mayest be health of soul and body; and that from out of the place wherein thou shalt be sprinkled, may fly away and depart all fantasy, wickedness, or craftiness of the devil’s subtlety, and every foul spirit, etc.

    THE FORM OF CONJURING WATER.

    I conjure thee, thou creature of water, in the name of + God the Father almighty, and in the name of + Jesu Christ his Son our Lord, and in the virtue + of the Holy Ghost, that thou become a conjured water to expel all power of the enemy, etc.

    Who seeth not in these words blasphemy intolerable; how that which is only due to the blood of Christ, and promised to faith only in him, is transferred to earthly and insensate creatures, to be salvation both to body and spirit, inwardly to give remission of sins, to give health and remedy against evils and devils, against all fantasies, wickedness, and all foul spirits, and to expel the power of the enemy, etc.? If this be true, whereto serveth the blood of Christ, and the virtue of christian faith?

    Therefore judge thyself, gentle reader, whether thou think this trumpery rightly to be fathered upon those ancient fathers aforenamed; or else whether it may seem more like truth that John Sleidan writeth, whose words, in his second book “De Monarchiis,” are these: 168 “The decrees of these aforesaid bishops and martyrs be inserted in the Book of Councils; but of these decrees many be so childish, so trifling, and so far disagreeing from the holy Scripture, that it is very like that the same were reigned and counterfeited of others long after their time,” etc. Thus much saith Sleidan, with more words in that place; unto whose testimony if I might be so bold also to add my conjecture, I would suppose the conjuration of this aforesaid water and salt to spring out of the same fountain, from whence proceeded the conjuring of flowers and branches, because I see the order and manner of them both to be so like and uniform as may appear.

    THE MANNER OF HALLOWING FLOWERS AND BRANCHES.

    I conjure thee, thou creature of flowers and branches, in the name of + God the Father almighty, and in the name of + Jesu Christ his Son our Lord, and in the virtue of the Holy + Ghost. Therefore be thou rooted out and displanted from this creature of flowers and branches, all thou strength of the adversary, all thou host of the devil, and all the power of the enemy, even every assault of the devils, etc.

    And thus much concerning the antiquity of holy bread and holy water; whereby thou mayest partly conjecture the same not to be so old as Stephen Gardiner, in his letter against master Ridley above mentioned, would have; being both deceived himself, and also going about to seduce others.

    Furthermore, as touching the reserving of relics and the memorial of saints brought into the mass, Gregory 3. is the author thereof, who also added to the canon thereof this clause, “Quorum solemnitates hodie in conspectu Divinae majestatis tuae celebrantur,” etc. Finally, it were too long to recite every thing in order, devised and brought in particularly to the mass, and to the church. For after that man’s brain was once set on devising, it never could make an end of heaping rite upon rite, and ceremony upon ceremony, till all religion was turned well nigh to superstition. Thereof cometh oil and cream, brought in by pope Sylvester, 170 not wont to be hallowed but by a bishop: that the corporas should not be of silk, but only of fine linen cloth: that the psalms should be sung on sides, the one side of the choir singing one verse, the other another, with “Gloria Patri,” etc.: that baptism should be ministered at no other time in the year but only at Easter and Whitsuntide (save only to infants, and such as were in extreme infirmity), and that it should be required forty days before: so determined by pope Siricius. 171 And therefore was it that fonts were hallowed only at these two seasons, the which hallowing they keep yet still, but the ordinance they have rejected. Item, that bells also were christened. 172 Item, no priest should wear a beard, or have long hair: so appointed by pope Martin I. 173 Item, that auricular confession should be made, that the book of decrees and decretals should be established, and transubstantiation confirmed; in which three acts pope Innocent 3. was the chiefest doer, about the year of our Lord 1215. And thus have ye in sum the gatherings of the mass, with the canon and all the appurtenance of the same: which, not much unlike to the crow of A Esop, being patched with the feathers of so many birds, was so long a gathering, that the temple of Solomon was not so long in building, as the pope’s mass was in making. Whereby, judge now thyself, good reader, whether this mass did proceed from James and other apostles, or no. And yet this was one of the principal causes for which so much turmoil was made in the church, with the bloodshed of so many godly men, suffering in so many quarters of this realm; some consumed by fire; some pined away with hunger; some hanged; some slain; some racked; some tormented one way, some another: and that only or chiefly for the cause of this aforesaid popish mass; as by the reading of this story following, by the grace of Christ, our Lord, shall appear more at large. In whom I wish thee to continue in health, and to persevere in the truth.

    QUEEN MARY THE FIRST ENTERING OF QUEEN MARY TO THE CROWN, WITH THE ALTERATION OF RELIGION, AND OTHER PERTURBATIONS HAPPENING THE SAME TIME IN THIS REALM OF ENGLANDWHAT time king Edward, by long sickness, began to appear more feeble and weak, in the meanwhile, during the time of this his sickness, a certain marriage was provided, concluded, and shortly also upon the same solemnized in the month of May, between the lord Guilford, son to the duke of Northumberland, and the lady Jane, the duke of Suffolk’s daughter; whose mother, being then alive, was daughter to Mary, king Henry’s second sister, who first was married to the French king, and afterward to Charles duke of Suffolk. But to make no long tarriance hereupon, the marriage being ended, and the king waxing every day more sick than other, whereas indeed there seemed in him no hope of recovery, it was brought to pass by the consent not only of the nobility, but also of the chief lawyers of the realm, that the king, by his testament, did appoint the aforesaid lady Jane, daughter to the duke of Suffolk, to be inheretrix unto the crown of England, passing over his two sisters, Mary and Elizabeth.

    To this order subscribed all the king’s council, and the chief of the nobility, the mayor and city of London, and almost all the judges and chief lawyers of this realm, saving only justice Hales of Kent, a man both favoring true religion, and also an upright judge as any hath been noted in this realm, who, giving his consent unto lady Mary, would in no case subscribe to lady Jane. Of this man (God willing) you shall hear more in the sequel of this story. The causes laid against lady Mary, were as well for that it was feared she would marry with a stranger, and thereby entangle the crown; as also that she would clean alter religion, used both in king Henry her father’s, and also in king Edward her brother’s days, and so bring in the pope, to the utter destruction of the realm, which indeed afterward came to pass, as by the course and sequel of this story may well appear.

    Much probable matter they had thus to conjecture of her, by reason of her great stubbornness showed and declared in her brother’s days, as in the letters before mentioned, passing between her, and king Edward and the council, may appear. The matter being thus concluded, and after confirmed by every man’s hand, king Edward, an imp of so great hope, not long after this, departed by the vehemency of his sickness, when he was sixteen years of age; with whom also decayed in a manner the whole flourishing estate and honor of the English nation.

    When king Edward was dead, this Jane was established in the kingdom by the nobles’ consent, and was forthwith published queen by proclamation at London, and in other cities where was any great resort, and was there so taken and named. Between this young damsel and king Edward there was little difference in age, though in learning and knowledge of the tongues she was not only equal, but also superior unto him, being instructed of a master right nobly learned. 176 If her fortune had been as good as her bringing up, joined with fineness of wit, undoubtedly she might have seemed comparable not only to your Aspasias, and Sempronias 130 (to wit, the mother of the Gracchi), yea to any other women beside, that deserved high praise for their singular learning; but also to the university-men, which have taken many degrees of the schools.

    In the meantime, while these things were a working at London, Mary, who had knowledge of her brother’s death, writeth to the lords of the council in form as followeth.

    A LETTER OF THE LADY MARY, SENT TO THE LORDS OF THE COUNCIL, WHEREIN SHE CLAIMETH THE CROWN AFTER THE DECEASE OF KING EDWARD.

    My lords, we greet you well, and have received sure advertisement, that our dearest brother the king, our late sovereign lord, is departed to God’s mercy; which news how woeful they be unto our heart, he only knoweth, to whose will and pleasure we must, and do, humbly submit us and our wills. But in this so lamentable a case, that is to wit now, after his majesty’s departure and death, concerning the crown and governance of this realm of England, with the title of France, and all things thereto belonging, what hath been provided by act of parliament, and the testament and last will of our dearest father, besides other circumstances advancing our right, you know, the realm and the whole world knoweth; the rolls and records appear by the authority of the king our said father, and the king our said brother, and the subjects of this realm; so that we verily trust that there is no good true subject, that is, can, or would, pretend to be ignorant thereof: and of our part we have of ourselves caused, and, as God shall aid and strengthen us, shall cause, our right and title in this behalf to be published and proclaimed accordingly. And albeit this so weighty a matter seemeth strange, that our said brother, dying upon Thursday at night last past, we hitherto had no knowledge from you thereof, yet we consider your wisdoms and prudence to be such, that having eftsoons amongst you debated, pondered, and well weighed this present case with our estate, with your own estate, the commonwealth, and all our honors, we shall and may conceive great hope and trust, with much assurance in your loyalty and service; and therefore for the time interpret and take things not to the worst, and that ye will, like noblemen, work the best. Nevertheless, we are not ignorant of your consultations, to undo the provisions made for our preferment, nor of the great bands, and provisions forcible, wherewith ye be assembled and prepared — by whom, and to what end, God and you know, and nature cannot but fear some evil. But be it that some consideration politic, or whatsoever thing else hath moved you thereto; yet doubt you not, my lords, but we can take all these your doings in gracious part, being also right ready to remit and fully pardon the same, and that freely, to eschew bloodshed and vengeance, against all those that can or will intend the same; trusting also assuredly you will take and accept this grace and virtue in good part, as appertaineth, and that we shall not be enforced to use the service of others our true subjects and friends, which in this our just and right cause, God, in whom our whole affiance is, shall send us. Wherefore, my lords, we require you, and charge you and every of you, that of your allegiance which you owe to God and us, and to none other, for our honor and the surety of our person, only employ yourselves, and forthwith, upon receipt hereof, cause our right and title to the crown and government of this realm to be proclaimed in our city of London and other places, as to your wisdom shall seem good, and as to this case appertaineth; not failing hereof as our very trust is in you.

    And this our letter, signed with our hand, shall be your sufficient warrant in this behalf.

    Given under our signet, at our Manor of Kenning-hall, the ninth of July, 1553.

    TO THIS LETTER OF THE LADY MARY, THE LORDS OF THE COUNCIL MAKE ANSWER AGAIN, AS FOLLOWETH:

    Answer of the Lords of the Council unto the Lady Mary’s Letter.

    Madam, we have received your letters, the ninth of this instant, declaring your supposed title, which you judge yourself to have, to the imperial crown of this realm, and all the dominions thereunto belonging: For answer whereof, this is to advertise you, that forasmuch as our sovereign lady queen Jane is, after the death of our sovereign lord Edward the Sixth, a prince of most noble memory, invested, and possessed with the just and right title in the imperial crown of this realm, not only by good order of old ancient laws of this realm, but also by our late sovereign lord’s letters patent, signed with his own hand, and sealed with the great seal of England in presence of the most part of the nobles, councillors, judges, with divers other grave and sage personages, assenting and subscribing to the same: we must, therefore, as of most bounden duty and allegiance, assent unto her said grace, and to none other, except we should (which faithful subjects cannot) fall into grievous and unspeakable enormities, Wherefore we can no less do, but, for the quiet both of the realm and you also, to advertise you, that forasmuch as the divorce made between the king of famous memory, king Henry the Eighth, and the lady Katherine your mother, was necessary to be had both by the everlasting laws of God, and also by the ecclesiastical laws, and by the most part of the noble and learned universities of Christendom, and confirmed also by the sundry acts of parliaments remaining yet in their force, and thereby you justly made illegitimate and unheritable to the crown imperial of this realm, and the rules, and dominions, and possessions of the same, you will, upon just consideration hereof, and of divers other causes lawful to be alleged for the same, and for the just inheritance of the right line and godly order taken by the late king our sovereign lord king Edward the Sixth, and agreed upon by the nobles and greatest personages aforesaid, surcease by any pretense to vex and molest any of our sovereign lady queen Jane’s subjects from their true faith and allegiance due unto her grace: assuring you, that if you will for respect show yourself quiet and obedient (as you ought), you shall find us all and several ready to do you any service that we with duty may, and be glad, with your quietness, to preserve the common state of this realm, wherein you may be otherwise grievous unto us, to yourself, and to them. And thus we bid you most heartily well to fare. From the Tower of London, in this ninth of July, 1553. Your Ladyship’s friends, showing yourself an obedient subject, Thomas Canterbury. The Marquis of Winchester. John Bedford. William Northampton. Thomas Ely, chancellor. Northumberland. Henry Suffolk.

    Henry Arundel. Shrewsbury. Pembroke. Cobham. R. Riche. Huntingdon.

    Darcy. Cheney. R. Cotton. John Gates. W. Peter. W. Cecil. John Cheke.

    John Mason. Edward North. R. Bowes. After this answer received, and the minds of the lords perceived, lady Mary speedeth herself secretly away far off from the city, hoping chiefly upon the good will of the commons, and yet perchance not destitute altogether of the secret advertisements of some of the nobles. When the council heard of her sudden departure, and perceived her stoutness, and that all came not to pass as they supposed, they gathered speedily a power of men together, appointing an army, and first assigned that the duke of Suffolk should take that enterprise in hand, and so have the leading of the band. But afterward, altering their minds, they thought it best to send forth the duke of Northumberland, with certain other lords and gentlemen; and that the duke of Suffolk should keep the Tower, where the lord Guilford and the lady Jane the same time were lodged.

    In the which expedition the guard also, albeit they were much unwilling at the first thereunto, yet notwithstanding, through the vehement persuasions of the lord treasurer, master Chomley, and others, they were induced to assist the duke, and to set forward with him.

    These things thus agreed upon, and the duke now being set forward after the best array out of London, having notwithstanding his times prescribed, and his journey appointed by the council, to the intent he might not seem to do any thing but upon warrant, Mary, in the meanwhile, tossed with much travail up and down, to work the surest way for her best advantage, withdrew herself into the quarters of Norfolk and Suffolk, where she understood the duke’s name to be had in much hatred for the service that had been done there of late under king Edward, in subduing the rebels; and there, gathering to her such aid of the commons on every side as she might, kept herself close for a space within Framlingham-castle. To whom first of all resorted the Suffolk men; who, being always forward in promoting the proceedings of the gospel, promised her their aid and help, so that she would not attempt the alteration of the religion, which her brother king Edward had before established by laws and orders publicly enacted, and received by the consent of the whole realm in that behalf.

    To make the matter short, unto this condition she eftsoons agreed, with such promise made unto them that no innovation should be made of religion, as that no man would or could then have misdoubted her. Which promise, if she had as constantly kept, as they did willingly preserve her with their bodies and weapons, she had done a deed both worthy her blood, and had also made her reign more stable to herself through former tranquillity. For though a man be never so puissant of power, yet breach of promise is an evil upholder of quietness; fear is worse; but cruelty is the worst of all.

    Thus Mary, being guarded with the power of the gospellers, did vanquish the duke, and all those that came against her. In consideration whereof it was, methinks, a heavy word that she answered to the Suffolk men afterwards, who did make supplication to her grace to perform her promise: “Forasmuch,” saith she, “as you, being but members, desire to rule your head, you shall one day well perceive, that members must obey their head, and not look to bear rule over the same.” And not only that, but also to cause the more terror unto others, a certain gentleman named master Dobbe, dwelling about Wyndham side, for the same cause (that is, for advertising her by humble request of her promise), was punished, being three sundry times set on the pillory to be a gazing stock unto all men.

    Divers others delivered her books and supplications made out of the Scripture, to exhort her to continue in the true doctrine then established; and for their good will were sent to prison. But such is the condition of man’s nature, as here you see, that we are for the most part more ready always to seek friendship when we stand in need of help, than ready to requite a benefit once past and received. Howbeit against all this, one sheet-anchor we have, which may be a sure comfort to all miserable creatures, that equity and fidelity are ever perfect and certainly found with the Lord above; though the same, being shut out of the doors in this world, be not to be found here among men. But, seeing our intent is to write a story, not to treat of office, let us lay Suffolk men aside for a while, whose deserts, for their readiness and diligence with the queen, I will not here stand upon. What she performed on her part, the thing itself, and the whole story of this persecution do testify, as hereafter more plainly will appear. * In 178 the mean time, queen Mary keeping at Fremingham (as is said), God so turned the hearts of the people to her, and against the council, that she overcame them without bloodshed, notwithstanding there was made great expedition against her both by sea and land.* On the contrary side, the duke of Northumberland having his warrant under the broad seal, with all furniture in readiness, as he took his voyage, and was now forward in his way; what ado there was, what stirring on every side, what sending, what riding and posting, what letters, messages, and instructions went to and fro, what talking among the soldiers, what heart-burning among the people, what fair pretences outwardly, inwardly what privy practices there were, what speeding of ordnance daily and hourly out of the Tower, what rumours and coming down of soldiers from all quarters there were; a world it was to see, and a process to declare, enough to make a whole Iliad.

    The greatest help that made for the lady Mary was the short journeys of the duke, which by commission were assigned to him before, as is above mentioned. For the longer the duke lingered in his voyage, the lady Mary the more increased in puissance, the hearts of the people being mightily bent unto her, which after the council at London perceived, and understood how the common multitude did withdraw their hearts from them, to stand with her, and that certain noblemen began to go the other way, they turned their song, and proclaimed for queen the lady Mary, eldest daughter to king Henry VIII., and appointed by parliament to succeed king Edward, dying without issue.

    And so the duke of Northumberland, being by counsel and advice sent forth against her, was left destitute, and forsaken alone at Cambridge with some of his sons, and a few others, among whom the earl of Huntingdon was one; who there were arrested and brought to the Tower of London, as traitors to the crown, notwithstanding that he had there proclaimed her queen before.

    Thus have ye Mary now made a queen, and the sword of authority put into her hand, which how she afterward did use, we may see in the sequel of this book. Therefore (as I said), when she had been thus advanced by the gospellers, and saw all in quiet by means that her enemies were conquered, sending the duke captive to the Tower before (which was the 25th of July), she followed not long after, being, brought up the 3d day of August to London, with the great rejoicing of many men, but with a greater fear of more, and yet with flattery peradventure most great, of feigned hearts.

    Thus coming up to London, her first lodging she took at the Tower, where the aforesaid lady Jane, with her husband the lord Guilford, a little before her coming, were imprisoned; where they remained waiting her pleasure almost five months. But the duke, within a month after his coming to the Tower, being adjudged to death, was brought forth to the scaffold, and there beheaded; albeit he, having a promise, and being put in hope of pardon (yea, though his head were upon the block), if he would recant and hear mass, consented thereto, and denied in words that true religion, which, before time, as well in king Henry the Eighth’s days, as in king Edward’s, he had oft evidently declared himself both to favor and further — exhorting also the people to return to the catholic faith, as he termed it; whose recantation the papists did forthwith publish and set abroad, rejoicing not a little at his conversion, or rather subversion, as then appeared.

    Thus the duke of Northumberland, with sir John Gates, and sir Thomas Palmer (which Palmer on the other side confessed his faith that he had learned in the gospel, and lamented that he had not lived more gospel-like), being put to death; in the meantime queen Mary, entering thus her reign with the blood of these men, besides hearing mass herself in the Tower, gave a heavy show and signification hereby, but especially by the sudden delivering of Stephen Gardiner out of the Tower, that she was not minded to stand to that which she so deeply had promised to the Suffolk men before, concerning the not subverting or altering the state of religion, as in very deed the surmise of the people was therein nothing deceived.

    Besides the premises, other things also followed, which every day more and more discomforted the people, declaring the queen to bear no good will to the present state of religion; as not only the releasing of Gardiner, being then made lord chancellor of England and bishop of Winchester, Dr.

    Poynet being put out; but also that Bonner was restored to his bishopric again, and Dr. Ridley displaced. Item, Dr. Day, to the bishopric of Chichester; John Scory being put out. Item, Dr, Tonstal to the bishopric of Durham. Item, Dr. Heath to the bishopric of Worcester, and John Hooper committed to the Fleet. Item, Dr. Vesey to Exeter, and Miles Coverdale put out. These things being marked and perceived, great heaviness and discomfort grew more and more to all good men’s hearts; but on the contrary, to the wicked, great rejoicing: in which discord of minds, and diversity of affections, was now to be seen a miserable face of things in the whole commonwealth of England. They that could dissemble, took no great care how the matter went: but such whose consciences were joined to truth, perceived already coals to be kindled, which after should be the destruction of many a true christian man; as indeed it came to pass. In the meanwhile queen Mary, after these beginnings, having removed from the Tower to Hampton-court, caused a parliament to be summoned against the 10th of October 179 next ensuing, whereof more is to be said hereafter.

    Ye heard before, how divers bishops were removed, and others placed in their rooms; amongst whom was Dr. Ridley bishop of London, a worthy man both of fame and learning. This Dr. Ridley, in the time of queen Jane, had made a sermon at Paul’s Cross 131 , so commanded by the council; declaring there his mind to the people as touching the lady Mary, and dissuaded them, alleging there the incommodities and inconveniences which might rise by receiving her to be their queen; prophesying, as it were before, that which after came to pass, that she would bring in foreign power to reign over them, besides the subverting also of all christian religion then already established: showing, moreover, that the same Mary being in his diocese, he, according to his duty 132 (being then her ordinary), had travailed much with her to reduce her to this religion, and notwithstanding in all other points of civility she showed herself gentle and tractable, yet in matters that concerned true faith and doctrine, she showed herself so stiff and obstinate, that there was no other hope of her to be conceived, but to disturb and overturn all that, which, with so great labors, had been confirmed and planted by her brother afore. Shortly after this sermon, queen Mary was proclaimed; whereupon he, speedily repairing to Framlingham to salute the queen, had such cold welcome there, that, being despoiled of all his dignities , he was sent back upon a lame halting horse to the Tower 133 .

    After him preached also master Rogers the next Sunday 134 , entreating very learnedly upon the gospel of the same day.

    This so done, queen Mary, seeing all things yet not going so after her mind as she desired, devised with her council to bring to pass that thing by other means, which as yet, by open law, she could not well accomplish; directing forth an inhibition by proclamation, that no man should preach or read openly in churches the word of God, besides other things also in the same proclamation inhibited, the copy whereof here followeth.

    AN INHIBITION OF THE QUEEN135 , FOR PREACHING, PRINTING, ETC.

    The queen’s highness, well remembering what great inconveniences and dangers have grown to this her highness’s realm in times past, through the diversity of opinions in questions of religion, and hearing also that now of late, since the beginning of her most gracious reign, the same contentions be again much revived, through certain false and untrue reports and rumors spread by some light and evil-disposed persons, hath thought good to do to understand, to all her highnes’s most loving subjects, her most gracious pleasure in manner following:

    First, her majesty, being presently by the only goodness of God settled in her just possession of the imperial crown of this realm, and other dominions thereunto belonging, cannot now hide that religion, which God and the world knoweth she hath ever professed from her infancy hitherto: which as her majesty is minded to observe and maintain for herself by God’s grace, during her time, so doth her highness much desire, and would be glad, the same were of all her subjects quietly and charitably embraced. And yet she doth signify unto all her majesty’s loving subjects, that of her most gracious disposition and clemency, her highness mindeth not to compel any her said subjects thereunto, until such time as further order by common assent may be taken therein: forbidding nevertheless all her subjects of all degrees, at their perils, to move seditions, or stir unquietness in her people by interpreting the laws of this realm after their brains and fantasies, but quietly to continue for the time, till (as before is said) further order may be taken, and therefore willeth and straitly chargeth and commandeth all her said good loving subjects to live together in quiet sort and christian charity, leaving those new-found devilish terms of papist or heretic, and suchlike, and applying their whole care, study, and travail, to live in the fear of God, exercising their conversations in such charitable and godly doing, as their lives may indeed express that great hunger and thirst of God’s glory and holy word, which, by rash talk and words, many have pretended: and in so doing they shall best please God, and live without danger of the laws, and maintain the tranquillity of the realm. Whereof as her highness shall be most glad, so, if any man shall, rashly presume to make any assemblies of people, or at any pubic assemblies, or otherwise shall go about to stir the people to disorder or disquiet, she mindeth, according to her duty, to see the same most severely reformed and punished according to her highness’s laws.

    And furthermore, forasmuch as it is also well known, that sedition and false rumors have been nourished and maintained in this realm, by the subtlety and malice of some evil-disposed persons, which take upon them, without sufficient authority, to preach and to interpret the word of God after their own brain in churches, 180 and other places both public and private, and also by playing of interludes, and printing of false-found books, ballads, rhymes, and other lewd treatises in the English tongue, concerning doctrine, in matters now in question and controversy, touching the high points and mysteries of christian religion; which books, ballads, rhymes, and treatises, are chiefly by the printers and stationers set out to sale to her grace’s subjects, of an evil zeal, for lucre and covetousness of vile gain: her highness, therefore, straitly chargeth and commandeth all and every of her said subjects, of whatsoever state, condition, or degree they be, that none of them presume from henceforth to preach; or, by way of reading in churches, or other public or private places (except in schools of the university), to interpret or teach any Scriptures, or any manner of points of doctrine concerning religion; neither also to print any books, matter, ballad, rhyme, interlude, process, or treatise, nor to play any interlude (except they have her, grace’s special license, in writing for the same), upon pain to incur her highness’s indignation and displeasure.

    And her highness also further chargeth and commandeth all and every her said subjects, that none of them, of their own authority, do presume to punish, or to rise against any offender in the causes above said, or any other offender in words or deeds in the late rebellion committed or done by the duke of Northumberland, or his complices, or to seize any of their goods, or violently to use any such offender by striking or imprisoning or threatening the same; but wholly to refer the punishment of all such offenders unto her highness and public authority, whereof her majesty mindeth to see due punishment, according to the order of her highness’s laws.

    Nevertheless, as her highness mindeth not hereby to restrain and discourage any of her loving subjects, to give from time to time true information against any such offenders in the causes abovesaid, unto her grace or her council, for the punishment of every such offender, according to the effect of her highness’s laws provided in that part: so her said highness exhorteth and straitly chargeth her said subjects, to observe her commandment and pleasure in every part aforesaid, as they will avoid her said highness’s indignation and most grievous displeasure; the severity and rigor whereof as her highness shall be most sorry to have cause to put in execution: so doth she utterly determine not to permit such unlawful and rebellious doings of her subjects (whereof may ensue the danger of her royal estate) to remain unpunished, but to see her said laws touching these points to be thoroughly executed: which extremities she trusteth all her said loving subjects will foresee, dread, and avoid accordingly; her said highness straitly charging and commanding all mayors, sheriffs, justices of peace, bailiffs, constables, and all other public officers and ministers, diligently to see to the observing and executing of her said commandments and pleasure, and to apprehend all such as shall wilfully offend in this part, committing the same to the next gaol, there to remain without bail or mainprize, til, upon certificate made to her highness, or her privy council, of their names and doings, and upon examination had of their offenses, some further order shall be taken for their punishment, to the example of others, according to the effect and tenor of the laws aforesaid.

    Given at our manor of Richmond, the eighteenth day of August in the first year of our most prosperous reign.

    MASTER BOURN PREACHING AT PAUL’S CROSS.

    About this time, or not long before, Bonner bishop of London, being restored, appointed master Bourn, a canon of Paul’s, to preach at the Cross, who afterward was bishop of Bath. Bourn took occasion of the gospel of that day, to speak somewhat largely in justifying of Bonner being then present: “Which Bonner,” said he, “upon the same text, in that place that day four years, had preached before; and was, upon the same, most cruelly and unjustly cast into the most vile dungeon of the Marshalsea, and there kept during the time of king Edward. 181 His words sounded so evil in the ears of the hearers, that they could not keep silence; and began to murmur and to stir in such sort, that the mayor and aldermen with other estates then present, feared much an uproar. But the truth is, that one hurled a dagger at the preacher; but who it was, it could not then be proved, albeit afterward it was known.

    In fine the stir was such, that the preacher plucked in his head, and durst no more appear in that place. The matter of his sermon tended much to the derogation and dispraise of king Edward, which thing the people in no case could abide. Then master Bradford, at the request of the preacher’s brother and others, then being in the pulpit, stood forth and spake so mildly, christianly, and effectually, that with few words he appeased all: and afterward he and master Rogers conducted the preacher betwixt them from the pulpit to the grammar-school door, where they left him safe, as further, in the story of master Bradford, is declared. But, shortly after, they were both rewarded with long imprisonment, and, last of all, with fire in Smithfield.

    By reason of this tumult at Paul’s Cross, an order was taken by the lords of the council 136 with the mayor and aldermen of London to this effect:

    That they, calling the next day following a common council of the city, should thereby charge every householder to cause their children, apprentices, and other servants, to keep their own parish churches upon the holy days, and not to suffer them to attempt any thing to the violating of the common peace: willing them also to signify to the said assembly the queen’s determination, uttered unto them by her highness the 12th of August, in the Tower; which was, that albeit her grace’s conscience was stayed in the matters of religion, yet she graciously meant not to compel or strain other men’s consciences otherwise than God should (as she trusted) put in their hearts a persuasion of the truth that she was in, through the opening of his word unto them by godly, virtuous, and learned preachers, etc.

    Also it was then ordered, that every alderman, in his ward, should forthwith send for the curates of every parish within their liberties; and warn them not only to forbear to preach themselves, but also not to suffer any others to preach, or make any open or solemn reading of Scripture in their churches, unless the said preachers were severally licensed by the queen.

    After this sermon at Paul’s Cross aforenamed, the next *Sunday* 137 it followed that the queenguard was at the Cross with their weapons to guard the preacher. And when quiet men withdrew themselves from the sermon, order was taken by the mayor, that the ancients of all companies should be present, lest the preacher should be discouraged by his small auditory. August. — The 15th of August, a.d. 1553 138 , was one William Rutter committed by the council to the Marshalsea, for uttering certain words against master Bourn preacher, for his sermon at Paul’s Cross on Sunday last before.

    The 16th of August, was Humfrey Palden committed to the Compter, for words against the said Bourn’s sermon at Paul’s Cross.

    A letter sent to the sheriffs of Buckingham and Bedford, for the apprehending of one Fisher, parson of Amersham, a preacher.

    Another letter to the bishop of Norwich, not to suffer any preacher or other to preach or expound the Scripture openly, without special license from the queen.

    The same day 139 were master Bradford, master Vernon, and master Beacon, preachers, committed to the charge of the lieutenant of the Tower.

    The same day, also, was master John Rogers, preacher, commanded to keep himself prisoner in his own house at Paul’s, without having any conference with any other than those of his own household.

    The 22d of August 140 , there were two letters directed to master Coverdale bishop of Exeter, and master Hooper bishop of Gloucester, for their undelayed repair to the court, and there to attend the council’s pleasure.

    The same day Fisher, parson of Amersham, made his appearance before the council, according to their letter the 16th of August, and was appointed the next day to bring in a note of his sermon.

    The 24th of August, was one John Melvin a Scot, and preacher, sent to Newgate in London by the council.

    The 26th of August, there was a letter sent to the mayor of Coventry and his brethren, for the apprehension of one Symons, of Worcester, preacher, and then vicar of St. Michael’s in Coventry; and for the sending of him up to the council, with his examinations and other matters they could charge him with; with a commission to them to punish all such as had, by means of his preaching, used any talk against the queen’s proceedings.

    The 29th of August, master Hooper, bishop of Gloucester, made his personal appearance before the council, according to their letters the 22d of August.

    The 31st of August master Coverdale, bishop of Exeter, made his appearance before the council, according to their letters the 22d of August. September. — The 1st of September, , master Hooper and master Coverdale appeared again before the council, whence master Hooper was committed to the Fleet, and master Coverdale commanded to attend the lords’ pleasure.

    The 2d of September, master Hugh Symons 142 , vicar of St. Michael’s in Coventry, was before the council for a sermon and was commanded to appear again upon Monday next after.

    The 4th of September 143 , a letter was directed from the council to master Hugh Latimer, for his appearance before them.

    About the 5th day of September 144 the same year, Peter Martyr came to London from Oxford, where, for a time he had been commanded to keep his house, and found there the archbishop of Canterbury, who offered to defend the doctrine of the book of Common Prayer, both by Scriptures and doctors, assisted by Peter Martyr and a few others, as hereafter ye shall hear. But whilst they were in hope to come to disputations, the archbishop and others were imprisoned; but Peter Martyr was suffered to return whence he came.

    The same day there was a letter sent to the mayor of Coventry to set Hugh Symons at liberty, if he would recant his sermon; or else to stay him, and to signify so much to the council.

    The 13th of September 145 , master Hugh Latimer appeared before the council, according to their letter the 4th of September, and was committed to the Tower close prisoner, having his servant Austin to attend upon him.

    The same day the archbishop of Canterbury, appearing before the council, was commanded to appear the next day at afternoon before them in the Star-chamber.

    The 14th of September 146 , the archbishop of Canterbury, according to their former day’s commandment, made his appearance before the lords in the Star-chamber; where they, charging him with treason, and spreading abroad of seditious bills 147 to the disquieting of the state, committed him from thence to the Tower of London, there to remain till further justice and order at the queen’s pleasure.

    The 15th of September there was a letter sent to master Horn, dean of Durham, for his appearance before them; and another was sent to him the 7th of October next after, for his speedy appearance.

    The 16th of September there were letters sent to the mayors of Dover and Rye, to suffer all French protestants to pass out of this realm, except such whose names should be signified to them by the French ambassador. October. 182 The 1st day of October queen Mary was crowned at Westminster, and the 10th day of the same month began the parliament with the solemn mass of the Holy Ghost, after the popish manner, celebrated with great pomp in the palace of Westminster; to the which mass among the other lords, according to the manner, should come the bishops who yet remained undeposed, who were the archbishop of York, Dr. Taylor bishop of Lincoln, John Harley bishop of Hereford. Of the bishops, Dr. Taylor and master Harley, (presenting themselves according to their duty, and taking their place amongst the lords), after they saw the mass begin, not abiding the sight thereof, withdrew themselves from the company: for the which cause the bishop of Lincoln being examined, and protesting his faith, was, upon the same, commanded to attend; who not long after, at Ankerwyke, by sickness departed 148 . Master Harley, because he was married, was excluded both from the parliament and from his bishopric.

    Mass being done, the queen, accompanied with the estates of the realm, was brought into the parliament-house, there, according to the manner, to enter and begin the consultation: at which consultation or parliament were repealed all statutes made in the time of king Henry the Eighth for praemunire, and statutes made in king Edward the Sixth’s time for administration of Common Prayer and Sacrament in the English tongue; and further, the attainder of the the duke of Northumberland was by this parliament confirmed. In the meanwhile many men were forward in erecting of altars and masses in churches. And such as would stick to the laws made in king Edward’s time, till others should be established, some of them were marked, and some presently apprehended; among whom sir James Hales, a knight of Kent and justice of the Common Pleas, was one; who, notwithstanding he had ventured his life in queen Mary’s cause, in that he would not subscribe to the disinheriting of her by the king’s will, yet for that he did, at a quarter sessions, give charge upon the statutes made in the time of king Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth, for the supremacy and religion, he was imprisoned in the Marshalsea, Compter, and Fleet, and so cruelly handled and put in fear, by talk that the warden of the Fleet used to have in his hearing, of such torments as were in preparing for heretics (or for what other cause God knoweth), that he sought to rid himself out of this life by wounding himself with a knife, and afterward was contented to say as they willed him: whereupon he was discharged. But, after that, he never rested till he had drowned himself in a river, half a mile from his house in Kent: of whom more is to be seen, when you come to his story.

    During the time of this parliament, the clergy likewise, after their wonted manner, had a convocation, with a disputation also, appointed by the queen’s commandment, at Paul’s Church in London the same time, which was about the 18th of October; in the which convocation, first master John Harpsfield, bachelor of divinity, made a sermon “ad clerum,” the 16th of October. After the sermon done, it was assigned by the bishops, that they of the Clergy-house, for avoiding confusion of words, should choose them a prolocutor; to the which room and office, by common assent, was named Dr. Weston, dean of Westminster, and presented to the bishops with an oration of master Pie, dean of Chichester, and also of master Wimbisley, archdeacon of London: which Dr. Weston, being chosen and brought unto the bishops, made his gratulatory oration to the house, with the answer again of bishop Bonner.

    After these things thus sped in the convocation-house, they proceeded next to the disputation appointed, as is above said, by the queen’s commandment, about the matter of the sacrament; which disputation continued six days: wherein Dr. Weston was chief on the pope’s part, who behaved himself outrageously in taunting and checking. In conclusion, such as disputed on the contrary part were driven some to flee, some to deny, and some to die; though to the most men’s judgments that heard the disputation, they had the upper hand, as here may appear by the report of the said disputation, the copy whereof we thought fit here to annex as followeth:

    THE TRUE REPORT OF THE DISPUTATION HAD AND BEGUN IN THE CONVOCATION-HOUSE AT LONDON THE 18TH OF OCTOBER, A.D. 1553. Whereas divers and uncertain rumors be spread abroad of the disputation had in the Convocation-house; to the intent that all men may know the certainty of all things therein done and said, as much as the memory of him that was present thereat can bear away, he hath thought good, at request, thoroughly to describe what was said therein on both partes of the matters argued and had in question, and of the entrance thereof.

    The Act of the First Day.

    First, upon Wednesday, being the 18th of October, at afternoon, master Weston, the prolocutor, certified the house, that it was the queen’s pleasure, that the company of the same house, being many learned men assembled, should debate of matters of religion, and constitute laws thereof, which her grace and the parliament would ratify. “ And for that,” said he, “there is a book of late set forth, called the Catechism 150 [which he showed forth] bearing the name of this honorable synod, and yet put forth without your consents, as I have learned; being a book very pestiferous, and full of heresies; and likewise the Book of Common Prayer very abominable,” as it pleased him to term it, “I thought it therefore best, first to begin with the articles of the Catechism, concerning the sacrament of the altar, to confirm the natural presence of Christ in the same, and also transubstantiation. Wherefore,” said he, “it shall be lawful, on Friday next ensuing, for all men freely to speak their conscience in these matters, that all doubts may be removed, and they fully satisfied therein.”

    The Act of the Second Day.

    The Friday coming, being the 20th of October, when men had thought they should have entered disputation of the questions proposed, the prolocutor exhibited two several bills unto the house; the one for the Natural Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar; the other concerning the Catechism, that it was not of that house’s agreement set forth, and that they did not agree thereunto: requiring all them to subscribe to the same, as he himself had done. Whereunto the whole house did immediately assent, except six 184 which were the dean of Rochester, the dean of Exeter, the archdeacon of Winchester, the archdeacon of Hereford, the archdeacon of Stow, and one other.

    And whilst the rest were about to subscribe these two articles, John Philpot stood up, and spake, first, concerning the article of the Catechism, that he thought they were deceived in the title of the Catechism, in that it beareth the title of the Synod of London last before this; although many of them which then were present were never made privy thereof in setting it forth; for that this house had granted the authority to make ecclesiastical laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the king’s majesty; and whatsoever ecclesiastical laws they, or the most part of them, did set forth, according to a statute in that behalf provided, it might be well said to be done in the Synod of London, although such as be of this house now, had no notice thereof, before the promulgation.

    And in this point he thought the setter-forth thereof nothing to have slandered the house, as they, by their subscription, went about to persuade the world, since they had our synodal authority unto them committed, to make such spiritual laws as they thought convenient and necessary.

    And moreover he said, as concerning the article of the Natural Presence in the Sacrament, that it was against reason and order of learning, and also very prejudicial to the truth, that men should be moved to subscribe before the matter were thoroughly examined and discussed. But when he saw that allegation might take no place, being as a man astonished at the multitude of so many learned men, as there were of purpose gathered together to maintain old traditions more than the truth of God’s holy word, he made this request unto the prolocutor: That whereas there were so many ancient learned men present on that side, as in the realm the like again were not to be found in such number; and that on the other side of them that had not subscribed, were not past five or six, both in age and learning far inferior unto them: therefore, that equality might be had in this disputation, he desired that the prolocutor would be a mean unto the lords, that some of those that were learned, and setters-forth of the same catechism, might be brought into the house, to show their learning that moved them to set forth the same; and that Dr. Ridley and master Rogers, with two or three more, might be licensed to be present, at this disputation, and to be associated with them.

    This request was thought reasonable, and was proposed unto the bishops, who made this answer: That it was not in them to call such persons unto our house, since some of them were prisoners.

    But they said, they would be petitioners in this behalf unto the council, and in case any were absent that ought to be of the house, they willed them to be taken in unto them if they listed. After this, they minding to have entered into disputation, there came a gentleman as messenger from the lord high steward 151 , signifying unto the prolocutor, that the lord great master and the earl of Devonshire would be present at the disputations, and therefore he deferred the same unto Monday, at one of the clock at afternoon.

    The Act of the Third Day.

    Upon Monday, the 23d of October, at the time appointed, in the presence of many earls, lords, knights, gentlemen, and divers other of the court and of the city also, the prolocutor made a protestation, that they of the house had appointed this disputation, not to call the truth into doubt, to the which they had already all subscribed, saving five or six, but that those gainsayers might be resolved of their arguments in the which they stood “as it shall appear unto you, not doubting but they will also condescend unto us.”

    Then he demanded of master Haddon, whether we would reason against the questions proposed, or no. To whom he made answer, that he had certified him before, in writing, that he would not, since the request of such learned men as were demanded to be assistant with them, would not be granted. Master Elmar likewise was asked, who made the prolocutor the like answer; adding moreover this, that they had done too much prejudice already to the truth, to subscribe before the matter was discussed: and little or nothing it might avail to reason for the truth, since all they were now determined to the contrary.

    After this he demanded of master Cheney, 185 who, the proloeutor said, allowed the presence with them; but he denied the transubstantiation by the means of certain authorities upon the which he standeth, and desireth to be resolved (as you shall hear), whether he will propose his doubts concerning transubstantiation, or no. “Yea,” quoth he, “I would gladly my doubts to be resolved, which move me not to believe transubstantiation. The first is out of St. Paul to the Corinthians, who, speaking of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, calleth it ofttimes bread, after the consecration. The second is out of Origen, who, speaking of this sacrament, saith, that the material part thereof goeth down to the excrements. The third is out of Theodoret, who, making mention of the sacramental bread and wine after the consecration, saith, that they go not out of their former substance, form, and shape. These be some of my doubts, among many others, wherein I require to be answered.”

    Then the prolocutor assigned Dr. Moreman to answer him, who, to St. Paul, answered him thus: “The sacrament is called by him bread indeed; but it is thus to be understood: that it is the sacrament of bread; that is, the form of bread.”

    Then master Cheney inferred and alleged, that Hesychius called the sacrament both bread and flesh. “Yea,” quoth Moreman, “Hesychius calleth it bread, because it was bread, and not because it is so.” And passing over Origen, he came to Theodoret, and said, that men mistook his anthority, by interpreting a general into a special, as Peter Martyr hath done in that place of Theodoret, interpreting oujsi>a for substance, which is a special signification of the word; whereas oujsi>a is a general word, as well to accidents as to substance; “and therefore I answer thus unto Theodoret; That the sacramental bread and wine do not go out of their former substance, form, and shape; that is to say, not out of their accidental substance and shape.”

    After this master Cheney sat him down; and by and by master Elmar stood up, as one that could not abide to hear so fond an answer to so grave an authority, and reasoned upon the authority of Theodoret alleged before by master Cheney, and declared, that Moreman’s answer to Theodoret was no just or sufficient answer, but an illusion and subtle evasion, contrary to Theodoret’s meaning. “For,” said he, “if oujsi>a should signify an accident in the place alleged, as it is answered by master Moreman, then were it a word superfluous set in Theodoret there, where do follow two other words, which sufficiently do expound the accidents of the bread, that is ei+dov kai< schma<, which signify in English, shape and form.” And so he proved out of the same author, by divers allegations, that oujsi>a , in Greek, could not be so generally taken in that place, as Moreman for a shift would have it. But Moreman, as a man having no other salve for that sore, affirmed still, that oujsi>a, which signifieth substance, ‘must needs signify an accidental substance properly. To whose importunity, since he could have no other answer, Elmar, as a man wearied with *so long talk,* gave place.

    After this stood up John Philpot, and said, that he could prove, that by the matter that Theodoret entreateth of in the place above alleged, and by the similitude which he maketh to prove his purpose, by no means master Moreman’s interpretation of oujsi>a, might be taken for accidental substance, as he for a shift would interpret it to be; for the matter which Theodoret entreateth of in that place, is against Eutyches a heretic, who denied two natures of substance to remain in Christ, being one person, and that his humanity, after the accomplishment of the mystery of our salvation, ascending into heaven, and being joined unto the divinity, was absorpt, or swallowed up of the same; so that Christ should be no more but of one divine substance only, by his opinion. Against which opinion Theodoret writeth, and by the similitude of the sacrament proveth the contrary against the heretic: that like as in the sacrament of the body of Christ, after the consecration, there is the substance of Christ’s humanity, with the substance of bread remaining as it was before, not being absorpt by the humanity of Christ, but joined by the divine operation thereunto; even so in the person of Christ, being now in heaven, of whom this sacrament is a representation, there be two several substances, that is, his divinity and humanity united in one hypostasis or person, which is Christ; the humanity not being absorpt by the conjunction of the divinity, but remaining in his former substance. “And this similitude,” quoth Philpot, “brought in of Theodoret to confound Eutyches, should prove nothing at all, if the very substance of the sacramental bread, did not remain as it did before. But if Dr. Moreman’s interpretation might take place for transubstantiation, then should the heretic have thereby a strong argument, by Theodoret’s authority so taken, to maintain his heresy, and to prove himself a good christian man; and he might well say thus unto Theodoret: “Like as thou, Theodoret, if thou wert of Dr. Moreman’s mind, dost say, that after the consecration in the sacrament, the substance of the bread is absorpt or transubstantiate into the human body of Christ coming thereunto, so that in the sacrament is now but one substance of the humanity alone, and not the substance of bread as it was before: even so likewise may I affirm, and conclude by thine own similitude, that the humanity ascending up by the power of God into heaven, and adjoined unto the Deity, was by the might thereof absorpt and turned into one substance with the Deity; so that now there remaineth but one divine substance in Christ, no more than in the sacramental signs of the Lord’s supper, after the consecration, doth remain any more than one substance, according to your belief and construction.”

    In answering to this, Dr. Moreman staggered, whose defect Philpot perceiving, spake on this wise, “Well, master Moreman, if you have no answer at this present ready, I pray you devise one, if you can conveniently, against our next meeting here again.”

    With that his saying the prolocutor was grievously offended, telling him that he should not brag there, but that he should be fully answered. Then said Philpot, “It is the only thing that I desire, to be answered directly in this behalf; and I desire of you, and of all the house at this present, that I may be sufficiently answered, which I am sure you are not able to do, saving Theodoret’s authority and similitude upright, as he ought to be taken.” None other answer, then, was made to Philpot’s reasons, but that he was commanded to silence.

    Then stood up the dean of Rochester, 186 offering himself to reason in the first question against the natural presence, wishing that the Scripture and the ancient doctors, in this point, might be weighed, believed, and followed. And against this natural presence, he thought the saying of Christ in St. Matthew to make sufficiently enough, if men would credit and follow Scripture; who said there of himself, that poor men we should have alway with us, but Him we should not have always: “which was spoken,” quoth he, “concerning the natural presence of Christ’s body. Therefore we ought to believe as he hath taught — that Christ is not naturally present on earth in the sacrament of the altar.”

    To this was answered by the prolocutor, that we should not have Christ present always to exercise alms-deeds upon him, but upon the poor.

    But the dean prosecuted his argument, and showed it out of St.

    Augustine further, that the same interpretation of the Scripture alleged, was no sufficient answer; who writeth on this wise, 187 on the same sentence: “When he said (saith St. Augustine) ‘me shall ye not have always with you;’ he spake of the presence of his body. For by his majesty, by his providence, by his unspeakable and invisible grace, that is fulfilled which is said of him, ‘Behold I am with you until the consummation of the world.’ But in the flesh, which the Word took upon him, in that which was born of the Virgin, in that which was apprehended of the Jews, which was crucified on the cross, which was let down from the cross, which was wrapped in clouts, which was hid in the sepulcher, which was manifested in the resurrection, ‘You shall not have me always with you.’ And why? For after a bodily presence he was conversant with his disciples forty days; and they accompanying him, seeing and not following him, he ascended and is not here; for there he sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and yet here he is, because he is not departed in the presence of his majesty. After another manner we have Christ always, by the presence of his majesty; but, after the presence of his flesh, it is rightly said, ‘You shall not verily have me always with you.’ For the church had him in the presence of his flesh a few days, and now by faith it apprehendeth him, and seeth him not with eyes.”

    To this anthority Dr. Watson took upon him to answer, and said, he would answer St. Augustine by St. Augustine. And having a certain book in his hand of notes, he alleged out of the 95th treatise upon St. John [Section 3], that after that mortal condition and manner we have not now Christ on earth, as he was heretofore before his passion.

    Against whose answer John Philpot replied, and said, that master Watson had not fully answered St. Augustine by St. Augustine, as he would seem to have done; ‘for that in the place above mentioned by master dean of Rochester, he doth not only teach the mortal state of Christ’s body before his passion, but also the immortal condition of the same after his resurrection: in the which mortal body St. Augustine seemeth plainly to affirm, that Christ is not present upon the earth, neither in form visibly, neither in corporal substance invisibly, as in few lines after the place above alleged, St.

    Augustine doth more plainly declare by these words, saying, “Now these two manners of Christ’s presence declared, who is, by his majesty, providence, and grace, now present in the world, who before his ascension was present in flesh; and being now placed at the right hand of the Father, is absent in the same from the world, I think (saith St. Augustine) that there remaineth no other question in this matter.” “Now,” quoth Philpot, “if St. Augustine acknowledged no more presence of Christ to be now on earth, but only his divine presence, and touching his humanity to be in heaven, we ought to confess and believe the same. But if we put a third presence of Christ, that is corporally to be present always in the sacrament of the altar invisibly, according to your suppositions, where of St.

    Augustine maketh no mention at all in all his works; you shall seem to judge that, which St. Augustine did never comprehend.” “Why,” qouoth Watson, “St Augustine, in the place by me alleged — maketh he no mention how St. Stephen, being in this world, saw Christ after his ascension?” “It is true,” said Philpot: “but he saw Christ, as the Scripture telleth, in the heavens being open, standing at the right hand of God the Father.’ Further to this Watson answered not.

    Then the prolocutor went about to furnish up an answer to St.

    Augustine, saying, that he is not now in the world after the manner of bodily presence, but yet present, for all that, in his body.

    To whom Philpot answered, that the prolocutor did grate much upon this word “secundum” in St. Augustine; which signifieth, after the manner, or in form: but he doth not answer to “id quod,” which is that thing or substance of Christ, in the which Christ suffered, arose, and ascended into heaven, in the which thing and substance he is in heaven, and not on earth; as St. Augustine, in the place specified, most clearly doth define.

    To this nothing else being answered, maister dean of Rochester proceeded in the maintenance of his argument, and read out of a book of annotations sundry authorities for the confirmation thereof; to the which Moreman, who was appointed to answer him, made no direct answer, but bade him make an argument, saying, that maister dean had recited many words of doctors, but he made not one argument. Then said maister dean, “The authorities of the doctors by me rehearsed, be sufficient arguments to prove mine intent, to the which my desire is to be answered of you.” But still Moreman cried, “Make an argument,” to shift off the authority which he could not answer unto.

    After this maister dean made this argument out of the institution of the sacrament: — “Do this in remembrance of me;” and, “Thus ye shall show forth the Lord’s death until he cometh:” the sacrament *therefore* is the remembrance of Christ: ergo, the sacrament is not very Christ; for yet he is not come. For these words, “until he come,” do plainly signify the absence of Christ’s body. Then the prolocutor went about to show that these words, “until he come,” did not import any absence of Christ on the earth, by other places of Scripture, where “donec,” “until,” was used in like sense; but directly to the purpose he answered nothing. In conclusion maister dean fell to questioning of Moreman, whether Christ ate the paschal lamb with his disciples, or no? He answered, Yea. Further, he demanded whether he did eat likewise the sacrament with them, as he did institute it? Moreman answered, “Yea.” Then he asked, what he did eat, and whether he did eat his own natural body, as they imagine it to be, or no? which when Moreman had affirmed.; then said the dean, “It is a great absurdity by you granted; and so he sat down.”

    Against this absurdity Philpot stood up and argued, saying, he could prove it by good reason deduced out of the Scripture, that Christ ate not his own natural body at the institution of the sacrament; and the reason is this: *The body of Christ given by the sacrament* hath a promise of remission of sins adjoined, ‘unto all them that receive it duly.* Christ, eating the sacrament, had no promise of remission of sin.

    Ergo, Christ, in the sacrament, did not eat his own body.

    To this reason Moreman answered, denying the former part of the argument, that the sacrament had a promise of remission of sins annexed unto it.

    Then Philpot showed this to be the promise in the sacrament: “Which is given for you, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins.” But Moreman would not acknowledge that to be any promise, so that he drave Philpot to John 6, to vouch his saying with these words; “The bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

    Moreman answering nothing directly to this argument, Harpsfield started up to supply that which was wanted in his behalf; and thinking to have answered Philpot, confirmed more strongly his argument, saying, “Ye mistake the promise which is annexed to the body of Christ in the sacrament: for it pertained not to Christ, but to his disciples, to whom Christ said, ‘This is my body which is given for you,’ and not for Christ himself.” “You have said well for me,” quoth Philpot, “for that is mine argument. The promise of the body of Christ took no effect in Christ: ergo, Christ ate not his own body.”

    Then the prolocutor, to shoulder out the matter said, the argument was nought; for by the like argument he might go about to prove, that Christ was not baptized, because the remission of sin, which is annexed unto baptism, took no effect in Christ. To the which Philpot replied, that like as Christ was baptized, so he ate the sacrament: but he took on him baptism, not that he had any need thereof, or that it took any effect in him; but as our master, to give the church an example to follow him in the ministration of the sacrament, and thereby to exhibit unto us himself; and not to give himself to himself.

    No more was said in this; but afterward the prolocutor demanded of Philpot, whether he would argue against the natural presence, or no? To whom he answered, Yea, if he would hear his argument without interruption, and assign one to answer him, and not many; which is a confusion to the opponent, and especially for him that was of an ill memory.

    By this time the night was come on; wherefore the prolocutor brake up the disputation for that time, and appointed Philpot to be the first that should begin the disputation the next day after, concerning the presence of Christ in the sacrament.

    The Act of the Fourth Day.

    On Wednesday, the 25th of October, John Philpot, as it was before appointed, was ready to have entered the disputation, minding first to have made a certain oration, and a true declaration in Latin of the matter of Christ’s presence, which was then in question. Which thing the prolocutor perceiving, by and by he forbade Philpot to make any oration or declaration of any matter; commanding him, also, that he should make no argument in Latin, but to conclude on his arguments in English.

    Then said Philpot, “This is contrary to your order taken at the beginning of this disputation. For then you appointed that all the arguments should be made in Latin, and thereupon I have drawn and devised all my arguments in Latin. And because you, master prolocutor, have said heretofore openly in this house that I had no learning, I had thought to have showed such learning as I have in a brief oration and a short declaration of the questions now in controversy; thinking it so most convenient also, that in case I should speak otherwise in my declaration than should stand with learning, or than I were able to warrant and justify by God’s word, it might the better be reformed by such as were learned of the house, so that the unlearned sort, being present, might take the less offense thereat.”

    But this allegation prevailed nothing with the prolocutor, who bade him still form an argument in English, or else to hold his peace.

    Then said Philpot, “You have sore disappointed me, thus suddenly to go from your former order: but I will accomplish your commandment, leaving mine oration apart; and I will come to my arguments, the which as well as so sudden a warning will serve I will make in English. But before I bring forth any argument, I will, in one word, declare what manner of presence I disallow in the sacrament, to the intent the hearers may the better understand to what end and effect mine arguments shall tend; not to deny utterly the presence of Christ in his sacraments, truly ministered according to his institution; but only to deny that gross and carnal presence, which you of this house have already subscribed unto, to be in the sacrament of the altar, contrary to the truth and manifest meaning of the Scriptures: That by transubstantiation of the sacramental bread and wine, Christ’s natural body should, by the virtue of the words pronounced by the priest, be contained and included under the forms or accidents of bread and wine. This kind of presence, imagined by men, I do deny,” quoth Philpot, “and against this I will reason.”

    But before he could make an end of that he would have said, he was interrupted of the prolocutor, and commanded to descend to his argument. At whose unjust importunity Philpot being offended, and thinking to purchase him a remedy there-for, he fell down upon his knees before the earls and lords which were there present, being a great number; whereof some were of the queen’s council, beseeching them that he might have liberty to prosecute his arguments, without interruption of any man; the which was gently granted him of the lords. But the prolocutor, putting in ure a point of the practice of prelates, would not condescend thereunto, but still cried, “Hold your peace, or else make a short argument.” “I am about it,” quoth Philpot, “if you will let me alone. But first, I must needs ask a question of my respondent, 188 concerning a word or twain of your supposition; that is, of the sacrament of the altar, What he meaneth thereby, and whether he taketh it as some of the ancient writers do, terming the Lord’s supper the sacrament of the altar — partly because it is a sacrament of that lively sacrifice which Christ offered for our sins upon the altar of the cross, — and partly because that Christ’s body, crucified for us, was that bloody sacrifice, which the blood-shedding of all the beasts offered upon the altar in the old law did prefigurate and signify unto us; *and* in signification whereof the old writers sometimes do call the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, among other names which they ascribe thereunto, the sacrament of the altar, *and that right well*? Or whether you take it otherwise; as for the sacrament of the altar which *now a days* is made of lime and stone, *and hanging over the same,* and to be all one with the sacrament of the mass, as it is at this present in many places? This done, I will direct mine arguments according as your answer shall give me occasion.”

    Then made Dr. Chedsey this answer, that in their supposition they took the sacrament of the altar, and the sacrament of the mass, to be all one. “Then,” quoth Philpot, “I will speak plain English as master prolocutor willeth me, and make a short resolution thereof: That that sacrament of the altar, which, ye reckon to be all one with the mass, once justly abolished. and now put in full use again, is no sacrament at all, neither is Christ in any wise present in it. And this his saying he offered to prove before the whole house, if they listed to call him thereunto; and likewise offered to vouch the same before the queengrace and her most honorable council, before the face of six of the best learned men of the house of the contrary opinion, and refused none. “And if I shall not be able,” quoth he, “to maintain by God’s word that I have said, and confound those six which shall take upon them to withstand me in this point, let me be burned with as many faggots as be in London, before the court gates.” This he uttered with great vehemency of spirit.

    At this the prolocutor, with divers others, was very much offended, demanding of him, whether he wist what he said, or no? “Yea,” quoth Philpot, “I wot well what I say;” desiring no man to be offended with his saying, for that he spake no more than by God’s word he was able to prove. “And praised be God,” quoth he, “that the queen’s grace hath granted us of this house (as our prolocutor hath informed us), that we may freely utter our consciences in these matters of controversy in religion: and therefore I will speak here my conscience freely, grounded upon God’s holy word, for the truth; albeit some of you here present mislike the same.”

    Then divers of the house, besides the prolocutor, taunted and reprehended him for speaking so unfearingly against the sacrament of the mass, and the prolocutor said, he was mad; and threatened him, that he would send him to prison, if he would not cease his speaking.

    Philpot, seeing himself thus abused, and not permitted with free liberty to declare his mind, fell into an exclamation, casting his eyes up towards the heaven, and said, “O Lord, what a world is this, that the truth of thy Holy Word may not be spoken and abiden by?” And for very sorrow and heaviness the tears trickled out of his eyes.

    After this, the prolocutor being moved by some that were about him, was content that he should make an argument, so that he would be brief therein. “I will be as brief,” quoth Philpot, “as I may conveniently be, in uttering all that I have to say. And first, I will begin to ground my arguments upon the authority of Scriptures, whereupon all the building of our faith ought to be grounded; and after, I shall confirm the same by ancient doctors of the church. And I take the occasion of my first argument out of Matthew 27, of the saying of the angel to the three Marys, seeking Christ at the sepulcher, saying, ‘He is risen, he is not here:’ and Luke 23, the angel asketh them, Why they sought him that liveth among the dead. Likewise the Scripture testifieth, that Christ is risen, ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father: all the which is spoken of his natural body: ergo, it is not on earth included in the sacrament. “I will confirm this yet more effectually, by the saying of Christ in John 16; ‘I came,’ saith Christ, ‘from my Father into the world, and now I leave the world and go away to my Father:’ the which coming and going he meant of his natural body. Therefore we may affirm thereby, that it is not now in the world. “But I look here,” quoth he, “to be answered with a blind distinction of visibly and invisibly, that he is visibly departed in his humanity, but invisibly he remaineth notwithstanding in the sacrament. But that answer I prevent myself, that with more expedition I may descend to the pith of mine arguments, whereof I have a dozen to propose; and will prove that no such distinction ought to take away the force of that argument, by the answer which Christ’s disciples gave unto him, speaking these words: ‘Now thou speakest plainly, and utterest forth no proverb;’ which words St. Cyril, interpreting, saith, ‘That Christ spake without any manner of ambiguity and obscure speech. And therefore I conclude hereby thus, that if Christ spake plainly, and without parable, saying; ‘I leave the world now and go away to my Father,’ then that obscure, dark, and imperceptible presence of Christ’s natural body to remain in the sacrament upon earth invisibly, contrary to the plain words of Christ, ought not to be allowed. For nothing can be more uncertain, or more parabolical and illsensible, than so to say. Here now will I attend what you will answer, and so descend to the confirmation of all that I have said by ancient writers.”

    Then Dr. Chedsey, reciting his argument in such order as it was made, took upon him to answer severally to every part thereof on this wise. First, to the saying of the angel, “That Christ is not here;” and, “Why seek ye the living among the dead?” he answered, that these sayings pertained nothing to the presence of Christ’s natural body in the sacrament; but that they were spoken of Christ’s body being in the sepulcher, when the three Marys thought him to have been in the grave still. And therefore the angel said: “Why do you seek him that liveth amongst the dead?” And to the authority of John 16, where Christ saith, “Now I leave the world and go to my Father,” he meant that of his ascension. And so likewise did Cyril, interpreting the saying of the disciples, that knew plainly that Christ would visibly ascend into heaven. But that doth not exclude the invisible presence of his natural body in the sacrament; for St. Chrysostome, writing to the people of Antioch, doth affirm the same, comparing Elijah and Christ together, and Elijah’s cloak unto Christ’s flesh: “Elijah,” quoth he, “when he was taken up in the fiery chariot, left his cloak behind him unto his disciple Elisha. But Christ, ascending into heaven, took his flesh with him, and left also his flesh behind him.”

    Whereby we may right well gather, that Christ’s flesh is visibly ascended into heaven, and invisibly abideth still in the sacrament of the altar.

    To this Philpot replied, and said, “You have not directly answered to the saying of the angel, ‘Christ is risen, and is not here,’ because you have omitted that which was the chiefest point of all. For,” said he, “I proceeded further, as thus: He is risen, ascended, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father: ergo, he is not remaining on the earth. Neither is your answer to Cyril, by me alleged, sufficient; but by and by I will return to your interpretation of Cyril, and more plainly declare the same, after that I have first refelled the authority of Chrysostome, which is one of your chief principles that you alleged, to make for your gross carnal presence in the sacrament; which being well weighed and understood, pertaineth nothing thereunto.”

    At that the prolocutor startled, that one of the chief pillars in this point should be overthrown; and therefore recited the said authority in Latin first, and afterward Englished the same, willing all that were present to note that saying of Chrysostome, which he thought invincible, on their side. “But I shall make it appear,” quoth Philpot, “by and by, that it doth make little for your purpose.” And as he was about to declare his mind in that behalf, the prolocutor did interrupt him, as he did almost continually; wherewith Philpot, not being content, said, “Master prolocutor thinketh that he is in a sophistry school, where he knoweth rightwell the manner is, that when the respondent perceiveth that he is like to be enforced with an argument, to the which he is not able to answer, then he doth what he can, with cavillation and interruption, to drive him from the same.”

    This saying of Philpot was ill taken of the prolocutor and his adherents; and the prolocutor said, that Philpot could bring nothing to avoid that authority, but his own vain imagination. “Hear,” quoth Philpot, “and afterward judge. For I will do in this, as in all other authorities wherewith you shall charge me in refelling any of my arguments that I have to prosecute, answering either unto the same by sufficient authorities of Scripture, or else by some other testimony of like authority of yours, and not of mine own imagination; the which if I do, I will it to be of no credit. And concerning the saying of Chrysostome, I have two ways to beat him from your purpose; the one out of Scripture, the other out of Chrysostome himself, in the place here by you alleged. First, where he seemeth to say, that Christ ascending took his flesh with him, and left also his flesh behind him, truth it is: for we all do confess and believe, that Christ took on him our human nature in the Virgin Mary’s womb, and, through his passion in the same, hath united us to his flesh; and thereby are we become one flesh with him: so that Chrysostome might therefore right well say, that Christ, ascending, took his flesh, which he received of the Virgin Mary, away with him; and also left his flesh behind him, which are we that be his elect in this world, who are the members of Christ, and flesh of his flesh; as very aptly St. Paul to the Ephesians, in the fifth chapter, doth testify, saying, ‘We are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones.’ And if percase any man will reply, that he entreateth there of the sacrament, so that this interpretation cannot so aptly be applied unto him in that place, then will I yet interpret Chrysostome another way by himself. For in that place, a few lines before those words which were here now lately read, are these words; that Christ, after he ascended into heaven, left unto us, endued with his sacraments, his flesh in mysteries; that is, sacramentally. And that mystical flesh Christ leaveth as well to his church in the sacrament of baptism, as in the sacramental bread and wine. And that St. Paul justly doth witness, saying, ‘As many of us as are baptized in Christ have put upon us Christ.’ and thus you may understand that St. Chrysostome maketh nothing for your carnal and gross presence in the sacrament, as you wrongfully take him.”

    Now in this mean while master Pie rounded the prolocutor in the ear, to put Philpot to silence, and to appoint some other, mistrusting lest he would shrewdly shake their carnal presence in conclusion, if he held on long, seeing in the beginning he gave one of their chief foundations such a pluck. Then the prolocutor said to Philpot, that he had reasoned sufficiently enough, and that some other should now supply his room. Wherewith he was not well content, saying: “Why, sir, I have a dozen arguments concerning this matter to be proposed, and I have yet scarce overgone my first argument; for I have not brought in any confirmation thereof out of any ancient writer (whereof I have for the same purpose many), being hitherto still letted by your oft interrupting of me.” “Well,” quoth the prolocutor, “you shall speak no more now, and I command you to hold your peace.” “You perceive,” quoth Philpot, “that I have stuff enough for you, and am able to withstand your false supposition, and therefore you command me to silence.” “If you will not give place,” quoth the prolocutor, “I will send you to prison.” “This is not,” quoth Philpot, “acording to your promise made in this house, nor yet your brag made at Paul’s Cross, that men should be answered in this disputation to whatsoever they can say; since you will not suffer me, of a dozen arguments, to prosecute one.”

    Then master Pie took upon him to promise that he should be answered another day. Philpot seeing he might not proceed in his purpose, being therewith justly offended, ended, saying thus: “A sort of you here, who hitherto have lurked in corners, and dissembled with God and the world, are now gathered together to suppress the sincere truth of God’s holy word, and to set forth every false device, which, by the catholic doctrine of the Scripture, ye are not able to maintain.”

    Then stepped forth master Elmar, chaplain to the duke of Suffolk, whom master Moreman took upon him to answer; against whom master Elmar objected divers and sundry authorities for the confirming of the argument he took the day before in hand, to prove that oujsi>a in the sentence of Theodoret, brought in by master Cheney, must needs signify substance, and not accidents: whose reasons and probations, because they were all grounded and brought out of the Greek, I do pass over, for that they want their grace in English, and also their proper understanding. But his allegations so encumbered master Moreman, that he desired a day to overview them, for at that instant he was without a convenient answer.

    Then did the prolocutor call master Haddon, dean of Exeter, and chaplain to the duke of Suffolk, who prosecuted Theodoret’s authority in confirming master Elmar’s argument: to whom Dr.

    Watson took upon him to give answer; who, after long talk, was so confounded, that he was not able to answer to the word “mysterium:” but, forasmuch as he seemed to doubt therein, master Haddon took out of his bosom a Latin author to confirm his saying, and showed the same to master Watson, asking him whether he thought the translation to be true, or that the printer were in any fault. “There may be a fault in the printer,” quoth Watson, “for I am not remembered of this word.” Then did master Haddon take out of his bosom a Greek book, wherein he showed forth with his finger the same words; which master Watson could not deny. His arguments further I omit to declare at large, because they were for the most part in Greek, about the bulting out of the true signification of oujsi>a.

    Then stept forth master Pern, and in argument made declaration of his mind against transubstantiation, and confirmed the sayings and authorities alleged by master Elmar and master Haddon; to whom the prolocutor answered, saying, “I much marvel, master Pern, that you will say thus; forsomuch as, on Friday last, you subscribed to the contrary.” Which his saying master Elmar did mislike, saying to the prolocutor, that he was to blame, so to reprehend any man, “partly for that this house,” quoth he, “is a house of free liberty for every man to speak his conscience, and partly for that you promised yesterday, that, notwithstanding any man had subscribed, yet he should have free liberty to speak his mind.” And for that the night did approach, and the time was spent, the prolocutor, giving them praises for their learning, did yet notwithstanding conclude, that all reasoning set apart, the order of the holy church must be received, and all things must be ordered thereby. The Act of the Fifth Day.

    On Friday, the 27th of October, Dr. Weston the prolocutor did first propound the matter, showing that the convocation hath spent two days in disputation already about one only doctor, who was Theodoret, and about one only word, which was oujsi>a: yet were they come, the third day, to answer all things that could be objected, so that they would shortly put their arguments. So master Haddon, dean of Exeter, desired leave to appose master Watson, who, with two other more, that is, Morgan and Harpsfield, was appointed to answer.

    Master Haddon demanded this of him, “Whether any substance of bread or wine did remain after the consecration.” Then master Watson asked of him again, Whether he thought there to be a real presence of Christ’s body or no. Master Haddon said, It was not meet nor order-like, that he who was appointed to be respondent, should be opponent; and he whose duty was to object, should answer. — Yet master Watson, a long while, would not agree to answer, but that thing first *granted him. At last* an order was set, and master Haddon had leave to go forward with his argument.

    Then he proved, by Theodoret’s words, 190 a substance of bread and wine to remain. For these are his words: “The same they were before the sanctification, Which they are after.” Master Watson said, that Theodoret meant not the same substance, but the same essence.

    Whereupon they were driven again unto the discussing of the Greek word oujsi>a ; and master Haddon proved it to mean a substance, both by the etymology of the word, and by the words of the doctor. “For oujsi>a ,” quoth he, “cometh of the particle w\n , which descendeth of the verb eijmi< ; and so cometh the noun oujsi>a, which signifieth substance.” Then master Watson answered, that it had not that signification only: but master Haddon proved that it must needs so signify in that place.

    Then Haddon asked Watson, When the bread and wine became symbols? Whereunto he answered, “After the consecration, and not before.” Then gathered master Haddon this reason out of his author.

    The same thing, saith Theodoret, that the bread and wine were before they were symbols, the same they remain still in nature and substance, after they are symbols.

    Bread and wine they were before:

    Therefore bread and wine they are after.

    Then master Watson fell to the denial of the author, and said he was a Nestorian; and he desired that he might answer to master Cheney who stood by, for that he was more meet to dispute in the matter, because he had granted and subscribed unto the Real Presence.

    Master Cheney desired patience of the honorable men to hear him, trusting that he should so open the matter, that the verity should appear: protesting furthermore, that he was no obstinate or stubborn man, but would be conformable to all reason; and if they, by their learning (which he acknowledged to be much more than his), could answer his reasons, then he would be ruled by them, and say as they said; for he would be no author of schism, nor hold any thing contrary to the holy mother the church, which is Christ’s spouse.

    Dr. Weston liked this well, and commended him highly, saying that he was a well-learned and sober man, and well exercised in all good learning, and in the doctors; and finally, a man meet, for his knowledge, to dispute in that place. “I pray you hear him,” quoth he.

    Then master Cheney desired such as there were present, to pray two words with him unto God, and to say, “Vincat veritas;” “Let the verity take place, and have the victory;” and all that were present cried with a loud voice, “Vincat veritas, Vincat veritas.”

    Then said Dr. Weston to him, that it was hypocritical. “Men may better say,” quoth he, “Vicit veritas,” “Truth hath gotten the victory.” Master Cheney said again, If he would give him leave he would bring it to that point, that he might well say so.

    Then he began with master Watson after this sort: “You said, that master Haddon was unmeet to dispute, because he granteth not the natural and real presence; but I say, you are much more unmeet to answer, because you take away the substance of the sacrament.”

    Master Watson said, he [Cheney] had subscribed to the Real Presence, and should not go away from that: so said Weston also, and the rest of the priests; insomuch that for a great while he could have no leave to say any more, till the lords spake, and willed that he should be heard.

    Then master Cheney told them what he meant by his subscribing to the Real Presence, far otherwise than they supposed. So then he went forward, and prosecuted master Haddon’s argument, in proving that oujsi>a was a substance; using the same reason that master Haddon did before him. And when he had received the same answer also that was made to master Haddon, he said it was but a lewd refuge, when they could not answer, to deny the author. *Yet he proved the author to be a catholic doctor; and, this proved, he confirmed his saying of the nature and substance further: “For* the similitude of Theodoret is this,” quoth he: “As the tokens of Christ’s body and blood, after the invocation of the priest, do change their names, and yet continue the same substance; so the body of Christ, after his ascension, changed its name, and was called immortal, yet had it its former fashion, figure, and circumscription; and, to speak at one word, the same substance of his body. Therefore,” said master Cheney, “if, in the former part of the similitude, you deny the same substance to continue, then, in the latter part of the similitude, which agreeth with it, I will deny the body of Christ, after his ascension, to have the former nature and substance. But that were a great heresy; therefore it is also a great heresy to take away the substance of blood and wine after the sanctification.”

    Then was master Watson enforced to say, that the substance of the body, in the former part of the similitude brought in by him, did signify quantity, and other accidents of the sacramental tokens which be seen, and not the very substance of the same; and therefore Theodoret saith, “Quae videntur,” etc. that is, “those things which be seen.” For, according to philosophy, the accidents of things be seen, and not the substances.

    Then master Cheney appealed to the honorable men, and desired that they should give no credit to them in so saying; for if they should so think as they would teach, after their lordships had ridden forty miles on horseback (as their business doth sometimes require), they should not be able to say at night, that they saw their horses all the day, but only the color of their horses. And, by his reason, Christ must go to school, and learn of Aristotle to speak: for when he saw Nathanael under the fig-tree, if Aristotle had stood by, he would have said, “No, Christ; thou sawest not him, but the color of him.” After this, Watson said, “What if it were granted that Theodoret was on *their* side? Where as they had one of that opinion, there were an hundredth on the *other* side.” Then the prolocutor called for maister Morgan to *help. And he* said, that Theodoret did no more than he might lawfully do. For first, he granted the truth, and then, for fear of such as were not fully instructed in the faith, he spake aijnigmatikkkw~|v; that is, covertly, and in a mystery; and this was lawful for him to do: for first he granted the truth, and called them the body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. Then, afterwards, he seemed to give somewhat to the senses, and to reason: “but, that Theodoret is of the same mind that they were of, the words following,” quoth he, do declare; for that which followeth is a cause of that which went before. And therefore he saith, ‘The immortality,’ etc. whereby it doth appear, that he meant the divine nature, and not the human.”

    Then was Morgan taken with misalleging of the text 152 : for the book had not this word “for;” for the Greek word did rather signify “truly” and not “for;” so that it might manifestly appear, that it was the beginning of a new matter, and not a sentence rendering a cause of that he had said before.

    Then it was said by Watson again, “Suppose that Theodoret be with you, who is one that we never heard of printed, but two or three years ago; yet is he but one, and what is one against the whole consent of the church?” After this, master Cheney inferred, that not only Theodoret was of that mind, that the substance of bread and wine do remain, but divers others also, and especially Irenaeus, who, making mention of this sacrament, saith thus: “When the cup which is mingled with wine, and the bread that is broken, do receive the word of God, it is made the eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, by the which the substance of our flesh is nourished, and doth consist.” 191 If the thanksgiving do nourish our body, then there is some substance besides Christ’s body.

    To the which reason both Watson and Morgan answered, that “Ex quibus,” “By the which,” in the sentence of Irenaeus, was referred to the next antecedent, that is, to the body and blood of Christ; and not to the wine which is in the cup, and the bread that is broken.

    Master Cheney replied, that it was not the body of Christ which nourished our bodies. “And let it be that Christ’s flesh nourisheth to immortahty, yet it doth not answer to that argument, although it be true, no more than that answer which was made to my allegation out of St. Paul, ‘The bread which we break,’ etc., with certain other like: whereunto you answered, That bread was not taken there in its proper signification, but for that it had been; no more than the rod of Aaron was taken for the serpent, because it had been a serpent.”

    After this, master Cheney brought in Hesychius, and used the same reason that he did, of burning of symbols; and he asked them, What was burnt. Master Watson said, we must not inquire nor ask, but if there were any fault, impute it to Christ. Then said master Cheney, Whereof came those ashes? not of a substance? or can any substance arise of accidents?

    Then was master Harpsfield called in to see what he could say in the matter; who told a fair tale of the onmipotency of God, and of the imbecility, and weakness of man’s reason, not able to attain to godly things. And he said, that it was convenient, whatsoever we saw, felt, or tasted, not to trust our senses. And he told a tale out of St. Cyprian 192 how a woman saw the sacrament burning in her coffer; and that which burned there,” quoth Harpsfield, “burneth here, and becometh ashes.” But what that was that burnt, he could not tell. But master Cheney continued still, and forced them with this question, What it was that was burnt? “It was either,” said he, “the substance of bread, or else the substance of the body of Christ, which were too much absurdity to grant.” At length they answered, that it was a miracle; whereat master Cheney smiled, and said, that he could then say no more.

    Then Dr. Weston asked of the company there, whether those men were sufficiently answered, or no. Certain priests cried, “Yea,” but they were not heard at all for the great multitude which cried, “No, No;” which cry was heard and noised almost to the end of Paul’s.

    Whereat Dr. Weston being much moved, answered bitterly, that he asked not the judgment of the rude multitude and unlearned people, but of them which were of the house. Then asked he of master Haddon and his fellows, whether they would answer them other three days? Haddon, Cheney, and Elmar said, “No.” But the archdeacon of Winchester stood up and said, that they should not say, but they should be answered; and though all others did refuse to answer, yet he would not, but offered to answer them all one after another. With whose proffer the prolocutor was not contented, but railed on him, and said, that he should go to Bedlam: to whom the archdeacon soberly made this answer, that he was more worthy to be sent thither, who used himself so ragingly in that disputation, without any indifferent equality. Then rose Dr.

    Weston up, and said:

    All the company have subscribed to our article, saving only these men which you see. What their reasons are, you have heard. We have answered them three days, upon promise (as it pleased him to descant without truth, for no such promise was made), that they should answer us again as long as the order of disputation doth require; and if they be able to defend their doctrine, let them so do.

    Then master Elmar stood up, and proved how vain a man Weston was; for he affirmed that they never promised to dispute, but only to open and testify to the world their consciences. For when they were required to subscribe, they refused, and said that they would show good reasons which moved them, that they could not with their consciences subscribe; as they had partly already done, and were able to do more sufficiently: “Therefore,” quoth he, “it hath been ill called a disputation, and they were worthy to be blamed that were the authors of that name. For we meant not to dispute, nor now mean to answer, before our arguments,” quoth he, “which we have to propound, be solved, according as it was appointed.

    For by answering we should but encumber ourselves, and profit nothing; since the matter is already decreed upon and determined, whatsoever we shall prove, or dispute to the contrary.

    The Act of the Sixth Day.

    On Monday following, being the 30th of October, the prolocutor demanded of John Philpot, archdeacon of Winchester, whether he would answer in the questions before propounded to their objections, or no? To whom he made this answer, That he would willingly so do, if, according to their former determination, they would first answer sufficiently to some of his arguments, as they had promised to do; whereof he had a dozen, *and not half of the first yet* decided: and if they would answer fully and sufficiently but to one of his arguments, he promised that he would answer to all the objections that they should bring. Then the prolocutor bade him propound his argument, and it should be resolutely answered by one of them; whereunto master Morgan was appointed. “Upon Wednesday last,” quoth he, “I was enforced to silence before I had *beaten out* half mine argument; the sum whereof was this (as was gathered by the just context of the Scripture) — That the human body of Christ was ascended into heaven, and placed on the right hand of God the Father: wherefore it could not be situate upon earth in the sacrament of the altar, invisible after the imagination of man.” The argument was denied by Morgan: for the proof whereof, Philpot said, that this was it wherewith he had to confirm his first argument, if they would have suffered him the other day, as now he trusted they would. “One self and same nature,” quoth he, “receiveth not in itself any thing that is contrary to itself. “But the body of Christ is a human nature, distinct from the Deity, and is a proper nature of itself: “Ergo, It cannot receive any thing that is contrary to that nature, and that varieth from itself. “But bodily to be present, and bodily to be absent; to be on earth, and to be in heaven, and all at one present time; be things contrary to the nature of a human body: ergo, it cannot be said of the human body of Christ, that the selfsame body is both in heaven, and also in earth at one instant, either visibly or invisibly.”

    Morgan denied the major, that is, the first part of the argument; the which Philpot vouched out of Vigilius 193 an ancient writer. But Morgan cavilled that it was no Scripture, and bade him prove the same out of Scripture. Philpot said, he could also so do, and right well deduce the same out of St. Paul, who saith, “that Christ is like unto us in all points, except sin:” and therefore, like as one of our bodies cannot receive in itself any filing contrary to the nature of a body, as to be in Paul’s Church and at Westminster at one instant, or to be at London visibly, and at Lincoln invisibly, at one time (for that is *so* contrary to the nature of a body, and of all creatures, *that* as Didimus and Basil do affirm, that an invisible creature, as an angel, cannot be at one time in divers places): wherefore he concluded that the body of Christ might not be in more places than in one, which is in heaven; and so consequently not to be contained in the sacrament of the altar.

    To this the prolocutor took upon him to answer, saying, that it was not true that Christ was like unto us in all points, as Philpot took it, except sin. For that Christ was not conceived by the seed of man, as we be.

    Whereunto Philpot again replied, that Christ’s conception was prophesied before, by the angel, to be supernatural; but after he had received our nature by the operation of the Holy Ghost in the Virgin’s womb, he became *afterwards* in all points like unto us, except sin.

    Then Morgan inferred that this saying of Paul did not plainly prove his purpose. “Well,” quoth Philpot, “I perceive that you do answer but by cavillation, yet am I not destitute of other Scriptures to confirm my first argument, although you refuse, the probation of so ancient and catholic a doctor as Vigilius is. St. Peter, in the sermon that he made in Acts 3, making mention of Christ, saith these words, “Whom heaven must receive, until the consummation of all things,” etc.: which words are spoken of his humanity. If heaven must hold Christ, then can he not be here on earth, in the sacrament, as is pretended.”

    Then Morgan, laughing at this, and giving no direct answer at all, Harpsfield stood up, being one of the bishop of London’s chaplains, and took upon him to answer to the saying of St. Peter, and demanded of Philpot, whether he would, “ex necessitate,” that is, of necessity, force Christ to any place, or no.

    Philpot said, that he would no otherwise force Christ of necessity to any place, than he is taught by the words of the Holy Ghost, which sound thus: That Christ’s human body must abide in heaven until the day of judgment, — as I rehearsed out of the chapter before mentioned. “Why,” quoth Harpsfield, “do ye not know that God is God omnipotent?” “Yes,” said Philpot, “I know that right well; neither doubt I any thing at all of his omnipotency. But of Christ’s omnipotency what he may do, is not our question, but rather what he doth. I know he may make a stone in the wall a man, if he list, and also that he may make more worlds: but doth he therefore so?

    It were no good consequent so to conclude; he may do this or that, therefore he doth it. “ Only so much 153 is to be believed of God’s omnipotency, as is in the word expressed. “That Christ’s body is both in heaven, and here also really in the sacrament, is not expressed in the word: “Ergo, It is not to be believed, that the body of Christ, being in heaven, is here also really in the sacrament.” “Why,” quoth the prolocutor, “then you will put Christ in prison in heaven.” 195 To the which Philpot answered, “Do you reckon heaven to be a prison? God grant us all to come to that prison.”

    After this, Harpsfield inferred that this word “oportet” in St. Peter, which signifieth in English “must,” did not import so much as I would infer, of necessity, as by other places of Scripture it may appear, as in 1 Timothy 3, where Paul saith, “Oportet episcopum esse unius uxoris virum,” “A bishop must be the husband of one wife.” “Here,” quoth he, ‘oportet’ doth not import such a necessity, but that he that never was married may be a bishop.”

    To this Philpot said again, that the places were not alike, which he went about to compare; and that in comparing of the Scriptures we must not consider the naked words, but the meaning rather of the Scriptures, for that, in the place by him alleged, St. Paul doth declare of what quality a bishop ought to be. But in the other, St.

    Peter teacheth us the place where Christ must necessarily be, until the end of the world: which we ought to believe to be true. “And this comparison of this word ‘oportet’ doth no more answer mine argument, than if I should say of you now being here, ‘Oportet to hic esse,’ ‘You must needs be here;’ which importeth such a necessity for the time, that you can no otherwise be but here: and yet you would go about in words to avoid this necessity with another ‘oportet’ in another sense, as this; ‘Oportet te esse virum bonum,’ ‘You must be a good man;’ where ‘oportet’ doth not in very deed conclude any such necessity, but that you may be an evil man. Thus you may see that your answer is not sufficient, and as it were no answer to my argument.”

    Then the prolocutor brought in another “oportet,” to help this matter (if it might be), saying, “What say you to this, ‘Oportet haereses esse;’ must heresies needs be therefore, because of this word ‘oportet?’” “Yea, truly,” quoth Philpot, “it cannot otherwise be, if you will add that which followeth immediately upon these words of Paul, that is, ‘Ut qui electi sunt manifestentur;’ that is, ‘That such as be the elect of God may be manifested and known.’” “Why,” quoth the prolocutor, “the time hath been, that no heresies were.” “I know no such time,” quoth Philpot; “for since the time of Abel and Cain heresies have been, and then began they.”

    Then said the prolocutor,” Will you now answer Morgan an argument or two?” “I will, quoth Philpot, if I may first be answered to my argument any thing according to truth and learning.” “What!” quoth the prolocutor, “you will never be answered.” “How I am answered,” quoth Philpot, “Let all men that are here present judge, and especially such as be learned; and with what cavillations you have allied with me. First, to the ancient authority of Vigilius you have answered nothing at all, but only denying it to be Scripture, that he saith. Secondly, to the saying of St. Peter in the Acts, ye have answered thus — demanding of me Whether I would keep Christ in prison, or no. Let men now judge, if this be a sufficient answer, or no.”

    Then stood Morgan up again, and asked Philpot whether he would be ruled by the universal church, or no? “Yes,” quoth he, “if it be the true catholic church. And since you speak so much of the church, I would fain that you would declare what the church is.” “The church,” quoth Morgan, “is diffused and dispersed throughout the whole world.” “That is a diffuse definition,” quoteth Philpot, “For I am yet as uncertain as I was before, what you mean by the church: But I acknowledge no church but that, which is grounded and founded on God’s word; as St Paul saith ‘Upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and upon the Scriptures of God.’” “What!” quoth Moreman, “was the Scripture before the church?” “Yea,” quoth Philpot. “But I will prove nay,” quoth Moreman, “and I will begin at Christ’s time. The church of Christ was before any Scripture written; for Matthew was the first that wrote the gospel, about a dozen years after Christ: ergo, the church was before the Scripture.”

    To whom Philpot answering, denied his argument; which when Moreman could not prove, Philpot showed that his argument was “elenchus,” or a fallacy that is, a deceivable argument. For he took the Scripture only to be that which is written by men in letters; whereas, in very deed, all prophecy uttered by the Spirit of God, was counted to be Scripture before it was written in paper and ink, for that it was written in the hearts, and graven in the minds, yea, and inspired in the mouths, of good men and of Christ’s apostles, by the Spirit of Christ: as the salutation of the angel was the Scripture of Christ, and the word of God before it was written.

    At that Moreman cried, “Fie! fie!” wondering that the Scripture of God should be counted Scripture before it was written; and affirmed, that he had no knowledge that said so.

    To whom Philpot answered, that concerning knowledge in this behalf, for the trial of the truth about the questions in controversy, he would wish himself no worse matched than with Moreman.

    At the which saying the prolocutor was grievously offended, saying, that it was arrogantly spoken of him, that would compare with such a worshipful learned man as Moreman was, being himself a man unlearned, yea, a madman; meeter to be sent to Bethlehem, than to be among such a sort of learned and grave men as were there; and a man that never would be answered, and one that troubled the whole house: and therefore he did command him that he should come no more into the house, demanding of the house, whether they would agree thereupon, or no. To whom a great company answered “Yea.Then said Philpot again, that he might think himself happy that was out of that company.

    After this Morgan rose up, and rounded the prolocutor in the ear.

    And then again the prolocutor spake to Philpot, and said, “Lest thou shouldest slander the house, and say that we will not suffer you to declare your mind, we are content you shall come into the house as you have done before; so that you be apparelled with a long gown and a tippet, as we be, and that you shall not speak, but: when I command you.” “Then,” quoth Philpot, “I had rather be absent altogether.”

    Thus they, reasoning to and fro, at length, about the 13th of December, queen Mary, to take up the matter, sendeth her commandment to Bonner bishop of London, that he should dissolve and break up the convocation.

    The copy of which commandment here followeth.

    THE PRECEPT OF THE QUEEN TO BONNER, BISHOP OF LONDON, FOR THE DISSOLVING OF THE AFORESAID CONVOCATION.

    Maria, etc., reverendo in Christo Patri et domino, domino Edmundo Londinensis episcopo, salutem. Cum praesens Convocatio Cleri Cantuariensis provinciae apud S. Paulum London. jam modo tenta et instans existit, certis tamen urgentibus cansis et considerationibus nos specialiter moventibus, de advisamento concilii nostri ipsam praesentem convocationem duximus dissolvendam. Et ideo vobis mandamus quod eandem praesentem convocationem apud Sanctum Paulum praedictum debito modo absque aliqua dilatione dissolvatis, dissolvive faciatis prout convenit, significantes ex parte nostra universis et singulis episcopis, necnon archidiaconis, decanis, et omnibus aliis personis ecclesiasticis quibuscunque dictae Cantuariensis provinciae quorum interest, vel interesse poterit, quod ipsi et eorum quilibet huic mandato nostro exequendo intendentes sint et obedientes prout decet. — Teste meipsa apud Westmonasterium 13 die Decembris, anno regni nostri primo.

    During the time of this disputation, the 20th day of November, the mayor of Coventry sent up unto the lords of the council Baldwin Clarke, John Careless, Thomas Wilcocks, and Richard Estelin, for their behavior upon Allhallows-day last before: whereupon Careless and Wilcocks were committed to the Gatehouse, and Clarke and Estelin to the Marshalsea.

    The same day there was a letter directed to sir Christopher Heydon, and sir William Farmer, knights, for the apprehension of John Huntingdon preacher, for making a rhyme against Dr. Stokes and the sacrament: who, appearing before the council the 3d of December next after, was, upon his humble submission and promise to amend as well in doctrine as in living, again suffered to depart.

    In the days of king Henry, and also king Edward reigning after him, divers noble men, bishops, and others, were cast into the Tower, some charged with treason, as lord Courtney, 196 and the duke of Norfolk — whose son lord Henry, earl of Surrey, had been the same time beheaded, a worthy and ingenuous gentleman, for what cause, or by whom, I have not here to deal: this is certain, that not many years after his death followed the beheading of both the lord Seymours, and at last of the duke of Northumberland also — some for the pope’s supremacy, and suspicious letters tending to sedition (as Tonstal, bishop of Durham), and others for other things, all which continued there prisoners till queen Mary’s coming-in: unto whom the said queen eftsoons granted their pardon, and restored them to their former dignities; amongst whom, also, was Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, whom she not only freed out of captivity, but also advanced him to be high chancellor of England. Furthermore, to the lord Courtney she showed such favor, that she made him earl of Devonshire, insomuch that there was a suspicion amongst many, that she would marry him; but that proved otherwise.

    The same time Bonner, also, had been prisoner in the Marshalsea; whom likewise queen Mary delivered, and restored to the bishopric of London again, displacing Dr. Ridley, with divers other good bishops more, as is above mentioned: as Cranmer from Canterbury, the archbishop of York likewise, Poynet from Winchester, John Hooper from Worcester, Barlow from Bath, Harley from Hereford, Taylor from Lincoln, Ferrar from St.

    David’s, Coverdale from Exeter, Scorry from Chichester, etc., with a great number of archdeacons, deans, and briefly, all such beneficed men, who either were married, or would constantly adhere to their profession. All which were removed from their livings, and others of the contrary sect set in the same, as cardinal Pole (who was then sent for), Gardiner, Heath, White, Day, Tubervill, 197 etc.

    And as touching Cranmer, of whom mention was made before, forsomuch as there was rumor spread of him the same time in London, that he had recanted, and caused mass to be said at Canterbury, for purging of himself he published abroad a declaration of his truth and constancy in that behalf, protesting that he neither had so done, nor minded so to do: adding moreover, that if it would so please the queen, he, with Peter Martyr, and certain others whom he would choose, would, in open disputation, sustain the cause of the doctrine taught and set forth before in the time of king Edward, against all persons whomsoever. But while he was in expectation to have this disputation obtained, he, with other bishops, was laid fast in the Tower, and Peter Martyr permitted to depart the realm; and so went he to Strasburg. November. — After this, in the month of November, the archbishop Cranmer, notwithstanding he had earnestly refused to subscribe to the king’s will in disinheriting his sister Mary, alleging many grave and pithy reasons for her legitimation, was, in Guildhall of London, arraigned and attainted of treason, with the lady Jane, and three of the duke of Northumberland’s sons, who, at the entreaty of certain persons, were had again to the Tower, and there kept for a time. All which notwithstanding, Cranmer, being pardoned of treason, stood only in the action and case of doctrine, which they called heresy, whereof he was right glad and joyful.

    This being done in November, the people, and especially the churchmen, perceiving the queen so eagerly set upon her old religion, they likewise, for their parts, to show themselves no less forward to serve the queen’s appetite (as the manner is, of the multitude, commonly to frame themselves after the humor of the prince and time present), began in their choirs to set up the pageant of St. Katharine, and of St. Nicholas, and of their processions in Latin, after all their old solemnity, with their gay gardeviance 154 , and grey amices. December. — And when the month of December was come, the parliament brake up, but first of all such statutes were repealed, which were made either of praemunire, or touched any alteration of religion and administration of sacraments under king Edward: in the which parliament, also, communication was moved of the queen’s marriage with king Philip the emperor’s son.

    In this meanwhile cardinal Pole, being sent for by queen Mary, was by the emperor requested to stay with him, to the intent (as some think) that his presence in England should not be a let to the marriage: which he intended between Philip his son, and queen Mary. For the making whereof he sent a most ample ambassade, with full power to make up the marriage betwixt them; which took such success, that after they had communed of the matters a few days, they knit up the knot. January. — The 13th of January, 1554, Dr. Crome, for his preaching upon Christmas-day without license, was committed to the Fleet.

    The 21st of January, master Thomas Wootton, esquire, was, for matters of religion, committed to the Fleet close prisoner.

    This mention of marriage was about the beginning of January, and was very evil taken of the people, and of many of the nobility, who, for this, and for religion, conspiring among themselves, made a rebellion, whereof sir Thomas Wyat, knight, was one of the chief beginners; who, being in Kent, said (as many else perceived), that the queen and the council would, by foreign marriage, bring upon this realm most miserable servitude, and establish popish religion. About the 25th of January news came to London of this stir in Kent, and shortly after of the Duke of Suffolk, who was fled into Warwickshire and Leicestershire, there to gather a power. The queen therefore caused them both, with the Carews of Devonshire, to be proclaimed traitors; and sent into Kent against Wyat, Thomas, duke of Norfolk, who, being about Rochester-bridge forsaken of them that went with him, returned safe to London without any more harm done to him, and without bloodshed on either part.

    Furthermore, to apprehend the duke of Suffolk, being fled into Warwickshire, was sent the earl of Huntingdon in post, who, entering the city of Coventry before the duke, disappointed him of his purpose.

    Wherefore the duke, in great distress, committed himself to the keeping of a servant of his, named Underwood, in Astley-park, who, like a false traitor, betrayed him. And so he was brought up to the Tower of London. February. — In the meanwhile sir Peter Carew, hearing of that was done, fled into France; but the others were taken, and Wyat came towards London in the beginning of February. The queen, hearing of Wyat’s coming, came into the city to the Guildhall, where she made a vehement oration against Wyat; the contents (at least the effect) whereof, here followeth, as near as out of her own mouth could be penned.

    THE ORATION OF QUEEN MARY IN THE GUILDHALL, ON THE FIRST OF FEBRUARY, 1554.

    I am come unto you in mine own person, to tell you that, which already you see and know; that is, how traitorously and rebelliously a number of Kentish-men have assembled themselves against both us and you. Their pretense (as they said at the first) was for a marriage determined for us: to the which, and to all the articles thereof, ye have been made privy. But since, we have caused certain of our privy council to go again unto them, and to demand the cause of this their rebellion; and it appeared then unto our said council, that the matter of the marriage seemed to be but a Spanish cloak to cover their pretended purpose against our religion; for that they arrogantly and traitorously demanded to have the governance of our person, the keeping of the Tower, and the placing of our councillors.

    Now, loving subjects, what I am, ye right well know. I am your queen, to whom at my coronation, when I was wedded to the realm and laws of the same (the spousal ring whereof I have on my finger, which never hitherto was, nor hereafter shall be left off), you promised your allegiance and obedience unto me. And that I am the right and true inheritor of the crown of this realm of England, I take all Christendom to witness. My father, as ye all know, possessed the same regal state, which now rightly is descended unto me: and to him always ye showed yourselves most faithful and loving subjects; and therefore I doubt not, but ye will show yourselves [such] likewise to me, and that ye will not suffer a vile traitor to have the order and governance of our person, and to occupy our estate, especially being so vile a traitor as Wyat is; who most certainly, as he hath abused mine ignorant subjects which be on his side, so doth he intend and purpose the destruction of you, and spoil of your goods. 198 And I say to you, on the word of a prince, I cannot tell how naturally the mother loveth the child, for I was never the mother of any; but certainly, if a prince and governor may as naturally and earnestly love her subjects, as the mother doth love the child, then assure yourselves, that I, being your lady and mistress, do as earnestly and tenderly love and favor you. And I, thus loving you, cannot but think that ye as heartily and faithfully love me; and then doubt not but we shall give these rebels a short and speedy overthrow.

    As concerning the marriage, ye shall understand, that I enterprised not the doing thereof without advice, and that by the advice of all our privy council, who so considered and weighed the great commodities that might ensue thereof, that they not only thought it very honorable, but also expedient, both for the wealth of the realm, and also of you our subjects. And as touching myself, I assure you, I am not so bent to my will, neither so precise nor affectionate, that either for mine own pleasure I would choose where I lust, or that I am so desirous, as needs I would have one.

    For God, I thank him, to whom be the praise therefore, I have hitherto lived a virgin, and doubt nothing, but with God’s grace, I am able so to live still. But if, as my progenitors have done before, it may please God that I might leave some fruit of my body behind me, to be your governor, I trust you would not only rejoice thereat, but also I know it would be to your great comfort. And certainly, if I either did think or know, that this marriage were to the hurt of any of you my commons, or to the impeachment of any part or parcel of the royal state of this realm of England, I would never consent thereunto, neither would I ever marry while I lived. And on the word of a queen, I promise you, that if it shall not probably appear to all the nobility and commons in the high court of parliament, that this marriage shall be for the high benefit and commodity of the whole realm, then will I abstain from marriage while I live.

    And now, good subjects, pluck up your hearts, and, like true men, stand fast against these rebels, both our enemies and yours, and fear them not, for I assure you, I fear them nothing at all. And I will leave with you my lord Howard, and my lord treasurer, who shall be assistants with the mayor for your defense.

    Here is to be noted, that at the coming of queen Mary to the Guildhall, it being bruited before, that she was coming with harnessed men, such a fear came among them, that a number of the Londoners, fearing lest they should be there entrapped and put to death, made out of the gate before her entering in. Furthermore note, that when she had ended her oration (which she seemed to have perfectly conned without book), Winchester, standing by her, when the oration was done, with great admiration cried to the people, “O how happy are we, to whom God hath given such a wise and learned prince,” etc.

    Two days after, which was the 3d of February, the lord Cobham was committed to the Tower, and master Wyat entered into Southwark, who, f orasmuch as he could not enter that way 155 into London, returning another way by Kingston with his army, came up through the streets into Ludgate, and returning thence was resisted at Temple-bar, and there yielded himself to sir Clement Parson, and so was brought by him to the court, and with him the residue of his army (for before, sir George Harpar, and almost half of his men ran away from him at Kingston-bridge) were also taken, and about a hundred killed, and they that were taken were had to prison, and a great many of them were hanged, and he himself afterward executed at the Tower-hill, and then quartered; whose head, after being set up upon Hay-hill, was thence stolen away, and great search made for the same: of which story ye shall hear more (the Lord willing) hereafter.

    The 12th day of February was beheaded the lady Jane, to whom was sent master Fecknam, alias Howman, from the queen, two days before her death, to commune with her, and to reduce her from the doctrine of Christ to queen Mary’s religion: the effect of which communication here followeth:

    THE COMUNICATION HAD BETWEEN THE LADY JANE AND FECKNAM156 . Fecknam: — “Madam, I lament your heavy case; and yet I doubt not, but that you bear out this sorrow of yours with a constant and patient mind.” \i\cf9 Jane: — “You are welcome unto me, sir, if your coming be to give christian exhortation. And as for my heavy case, I thank God, I do so little lament it, that rather I account the same for a more manifest declaration of God’s favor toward me, than ever he showed me at any time before. And therefore there is no cause why either you, or others which bear me good will, should lament or be grieved with this my case, being a thing so profitable for my soul’s health.” Fecknam: — “I am here come to you at this present, sent from the queen and her council, to instruct you in the true doctrine of the right faith: although I have so great confidence in you, that I shall have, I trust, little need to travail with you much therein.” Jane: — “Forsooth, I heartily thank the queen’s highness, which is not unmindful of her humble subject: and I hope, likewise, that you no less will do your duty therein both truly and faithfully, according to that you were sent for.” Fecknam: — “What is then required of a christian man?” Jane: — “That he should believe in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, three persons and one God.” Fecknam: — “What? Is there nothing else to be required or looked for in a christian, but to believe in him?” Jane: — “Yes, we must love him with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our mind, and our neighbor as ourself.” Fecknam: — “Why? then faith justifieth not, nor saveth not.” Jane: — “Yes verily, faith, as Paul saith, only justifieth.” Fecknam: — “Why? St. Paul saith, ‘If I have all faith without love, it is nothing.’” Jane: — “True it is; for how can I love him whom I trust not, or how can I trust him whom I love not? Faith and love go both together, and yet love is comprehended in faith.” Fecknam: — “How shall we love our neighbor?” Jane: — “To love our neighbor is to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and to give drink to the thirsty, and to do to him as we would do to ourselves.” Fecknam: — “Why? then it is necessary unto salvation to do good works also, and it is not sufficient only to believe.” Jane: — “ I deny that, and I affirm that faith only saveth: but it is meet for a christian, in token that he followeth his master Christ, to do good works; yet may we not say that they profit to our salvation. For when we have done all, yet we be unprofitable servants, and faith only in Christ’s blood saveth us.” Fecknam: — “How many sacraments are there?” Jane. — “Two: the one the sacrament of baptism, and the other the sacrament of the Lord’s supper.” Fecknam: — “No, there are seven.” Jane: — “By what scripture find you that?” Fecknam: — “Well, we will talk of that hereafter. But what is signified by your two sacraments?” Jane: — “By the sacrament of baptism I am washed with water and regenerated by the Spirit, and that washing is a token to me that I am the child of God. The sacrament of the Lord’s supper, offered unto me, is a sure seal and testimony that I am, by the blood of Christ, which he shed for me on the cross, made partaker of the everlasting kingdom.” Fecknam: — “Why? what do you receive in that sacrament? Do you not receive the very body and blood of Christ?” Jane: — “No surely, I do not so believe: I think, that at the supper I neither receive flesh nor blood, but bread and wine: which bread when it is broken, and the wine when it is drunken, put me in remembrance how that for my sins the body of Christ was broken, and his blood shed on the cross; and with that bread and wine I receive the benefits that come by the breaking of his body, and shedding of his blood, for our sins on the cross.” Fecknam: — “Why, doth not Christ speak these words, ‘Take, eat, this is my body?’ Require you any plainer words? Doth he not say, it is his body?” Jane: — “I grant, he saith so; and so he saith, ‘I am the vine, I am the door;’ but he is never the more for that, the door or the vine. Doth not St. Paul say, ‘He calleth things that are not, as though they were? (Romans 4) God forbid that I should say, that I eat the very natural body and blood of Christ: for then either I should pluck away my redemption, or else there were two bodies, or two Christs. One body was tormented on the cross, and if they did eat another body, then had he two bodies: or if his body were eaten, then was it not broken upon the cross; or if it were broken upon the cross, it was not eaten of his disciples.” Fecknam: — “Why, is it not as possible that Christ, by his power, could make his body both to be eaten and broken, and to be born of a virgin, as to walk upon the sea, having a body, and other such like miracles as he wrought by his power only?” Jane: — “Yes verily, if God would have done at his supper any miracle, he might have done so: but I say, that then he minded no work nor miracle, but only to break his body, and shed his blood on the cross for our sins. But I pray you to answer me to this one question:

    Where was Christ when he said, ‘Take, eat, this is my body?’ Was he not at the table, when he said so? He was at that time alive, and suffered not till the next day. What took he, but bread? what brake he, but bread? and what gave he, but bread? Look, what he took, he brake: and look, what he brake, he gave: and look, what he gave, they did eat: and yet all this while he himself was alive, and at supper before his disciples, or else they were deceived.” Fecknam: — “You ground your faith upon such authors as say and unsay both in a breath; and not upon the church, to whom ye ought to give credit.” Jane: — “No, I ground my faith on God’s word, and not upon the church. For if the church be a good church, the faith of the church must be tried by God’s word; and not God’s word by the church, neither yet my faith. Shall I believe the church because of antiquity, or shall I give credit to the church that taketh away from me the half part of the Lord’s supper, and will not let any man receive it in both kinds? which things, if they deny to us, then deny they to us part of our salvation.

    And I say, that it is an evil church, and not the spouse of Christ, but the spouse of the devil, that altereth the Lord’s supper, and both taketh from it, and addeth to it. To that church, say I, God will add plagues; and from that church will he take their part out of the book of life. Do they learn that of St. Paul, when he ministered to the Corinthians in both kinds? Shall I believe this church? God forbid!” Fecknam: — “That was done for a good intent of the church, to avoid a heresy that sprang on it.” Jane: — “Why, shall the church alter God’s will and ordinance, for good intent? How did king Saul? The Lord God defend!”

    With these and such like persuasions he would have had her lean to the church, but it would not be. There were many more things whereof they reasoned, but these were the chiefest.

    After this, Fecknam took his leave, saying, that he was sorry for her: “For I am sure,” quoth he, “that we two shall never meet.” Jane: — “True it is,” said she, “that we shall never meet, except God turn your heart; for I am assured, unless you repent and turn to God, you are in an evil case. And I pray God, in the bowels of his mercy, to send you his Holy Spirit; for he hath given you his great gift of utterance, if it pleased him also to open the eyes of your heart.” A LETTER OF THE LADY JANE, SENT UNTO HER FATHER.

    Father, although it hath pleased God to hasten my death by you, by whom my life should rather have been lengthened; yet can I so patiently take it, as I yield God more hearty thanks for shortening my woful days, than if all the world had been given unto my possession, with life lengthened at my own will. And albeit I am well assured of your impatient dolours, redoubled manifold, ways, both in bewailing your own woe, and especially, as I hear, my unfortunate state; yet, my dear father (if I may without offense rejoice in my own mishaps), meseems in this I may account myself blessed, that washing my hands with the innocency of my fact, my guiltless blood may cry before the Lord, Mercy to the innocent!

    And yet, though I must needs acknowledge, that being constrained, and, as you wot well enough, continually assayed, in taking upon me I seemed to consent, and therein grievously offended the queen and her laws: yet do I assuredly trust, that this my offense towards God is so much the less, (in that being in so royal estate as I was) mine enforced honor blended never with mine innocent heart. And thus, good father, I have opened unto you the state wherein I at present stand; whose death at hand, although to you perhaps it may seem right woful, to me there is nothing that can be more welcome, than from this vale of misery to aspire to that heavenly throne of all joy and pleasure with Christ our Savior. In whose steadfast faith (if it may be lawful for the daughter so to write to the father), 200 the Lord that hitherto hath strengthened you, so continue you, that at the last we may meet in heaven with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

    At what time her father was flourishing in freedom and prosperity in the time of king Edward, there belonged unto him a certain learned man, student and graduate of the university of Oxford; who, then, being chaplain to the said duke, and a sincere preacher (as he appeared) of the gospel, according to the doctrine of that time set forth and received, shortly after that the state of religion began to alter by queen Mary, altered also in his profession with the time, and of a protestant became a friend and defender of the pope’s proceedings. At whose sudden mutation and inconstant mutability, this christian lady being not a little aggrieved, and most of all lamenting the dangerous state of his soul, in sliding so away for fear from the way of truth, writeth her mind unto him in a sharp and vehement letter: which, as it appeareth to proceed of an earnest and zealous heart, so would God it might take such effect with him, as to reduce him to repentance, and to take better hold again for the health and wealth of this own soul. The copy of the letter is this as followeth.

    ANOTHER LETTER157 OF THE LADY JANE TO MASTER HARDING, Late Chaplain to the Duke of Suffolk her Father, and then fallen from the truth of God’s most Holy Word. So oft as I call to mind the dreadful and fearful saying of God, “That he which layeth hold upon the plough, and looketh back, is not meet for the kingdom of heaven;” (Luke 9) and, on the other side, the comfortable words of our Savior Christ to all those that, forsaking themselves, do follow him: I cannot but marvel at thee, and lament thy case, who seemed sometime to be the lively member of Christ, but now the deformed imp of the devil; sometime the beautiful temple of God, but now the stinking and filthy kennel of Satan; sometime the unspotted spouse of Christ, but now the unshamefaced paramour of Antichrist; sometime my faithful brother, but now a stranger and apostate; sometime a stout christian soldier, but now a cowardly runaway. Yea, when I consider these things, I cannot but speak to thee, and cry out upon thee, thou seed of Satan, and not of Judah, whom the devil hath deceived, the world hath beguiled, and the desire of life subverted, and made thee of a christian an infidel. Wherefore hast thou taken the testament of the Lord in thy mouth? Wherefore hast thou preached the law and the will of God to others? Wherefore hast thou instructed others to be strong in Christ, when thou thyself dost now so shamefully shrink, and so horribly abuse the Testament and law of the Lord? when thou thyself preachest, not to steal, yet most abominably stealest, not from men, but from God, and, committing most heinous sacrilege, robbest Christ thy Lord of his right members, thy body and soul; and choosest rather to live miserably with shame to the world, than to die, and gloriously with honor reign with Christ, in whom even in death is life? Why dost thou now show thyself most weak, when indeed thou oughtest to be most strong? The strength of a fort is unknown before the assault, but thou yieldest thy hold before any battery be made. O wretched and unhappy man, what art thou, but dust and ashes? and wilt thou resist thy Maker that fashioned thee and framed thee? Wilt thou now forsake Him, that called thee from the custom gathering, among the Romish antichristians, to be an ambassador and messenger of his eternal word? He that first framed thee, and since thy first creation and birth preserved thee, nourished and kept thee, yea, and inspired thee with the spirit of knowledge (I cannot say of grace), shall he not now possess thee?

    Darest thou deliver up thyself to another, being not thine own, but his? How canst thou, having knowledge, or how darest thou neglect the law of the Lord, and follow the vain traditions of men; and whereas thou hast been a public professor of his name, become now a defacer of his glory? Wilt thou refuse the true God, and worship the invention of man, the golden calf, the whore of Babylon, the Romish religion, the abominable idol, the most wicked mass? Wilt thou torment again, rend and tear the most precious body of our Savior Christ, with thy bodily and fleshly teeth? Wilt thou take upon thee to offer up any sacrifice unto God for our sins, considering that Christ offered up himself, as Paul saith, upon the cross, a lively sacrifice once for all? Can neither the punishment of the Israelites (which, for their idolatry, they so oft received), nor the terrible threatenings of the prophets, nor the curses of God’s own mouth, fear thee to honor any other god than him? Dost thou so regard Him, that spared not his dear and only Son for thee, so diminishing, yea, utterly extinguishing his glory, that thou wilt attribute the praise and honor due unto him to the idols, “which have mouths and speak not, eyes and see not, ears and hear not; which shall perish with them that made them?

    What saith the prophet Baruch, where he recited the epistle of Jeremy, written to the captive Jews? (Baruch 6) Did he not forewarn them that in Babylon they should see gods of gold, silver, wood, and stone borne upon men’s shoulders, to cast fear before the heathen? “But be not ye afraid of them,” saith Jeremy, nor do as other do. But when you see others worship them, say you in your hearts, It is thou, O Lord, that oughtest only to be worshipped; for, as for those gods, the carpenter framed them and polished them: yea, gilded be they, and said over with silver and vain things, and cannot speak. He showeth, moreover, the abuse of their deckings, how the priests took off their ornaments, and apparelled their women withal: how one holdeth a scepter, another a sword in his hand, and yet can they judge in no matter, nor defend themselves, much less any other, from either battle, or murder, nor yet from gnawing of worms, or any other evil thing.

    These, and such like words, speaketh Jeremy unto them, whereby he proveth them to be but vain things, and no gods. And at last he concludeth thus: “Confounded be all they that worship them.”

    They were warned by Jeremy, and thou as Jeremy hast warned others, and art warned thyself by many scriptures in many places.

    God saith, he is “a jealous God,” which will have all honor, glory, and worship given to him only. And Christ saith, in Luke 4 to Satan which tempted him, even to the same Beelzebub, the same devil, which hath prevailed against thee: “It is written,” saith he, “thou shalt honor the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matthew 4) These, and such like, do prohibit thee and all christians to worship any other god than that which was before all worlds, and laid the foundations both of heaven and earth. And wilt thou honor a detestable idol, invented by Romish popes, and the abominable college of crafty cardinals? Christ offered himself up once for all, and wilt thou offer him up again daily at thy pleasure? — But thou wilt say, thou doest it for a good intent. Oh sink of sin! Oh child of perdition. Dost thou dream therein of a good intent, where thy conscience beareth thee witness of God’s threatened wrath against thee? How did Saul? who for that he disobeyed the word of the Lord for a good intent, was thrown from his worldly and temporal kingdom. Shalt thou, then, that dost deface God’s honor, and rob him of his right, inherit the eternal and heavenly kingdom? Wilt thou, for a good intent, dishonor God, offend thy brother, and endanger thy soul, where-for Christ hath shed his most precious blood? Wilt thou, for a good intent, pluck Christ out of heaven, and make his death void, and deface the triumph of his cross by offering him up daily? Wilt thou, either for fear of death, or hope of life, deny and refuse thy God, who enriched thy poverty, healed thy infirmity, and yielded to thee his victory, if thou couldest have kept it? Dost thou not consider that the thread of thy life hangeth upon him that made thee, who can (as his will is) either twine it harder to last the longer, or untwine it again to break the sooner?

    Dost thou not then remember the saying of David, a notable king, to teach thee, a miserable wretch, in his hundred and fourth Psalm, where he saith thus: “When thou takest away thy Spirit, O Lord, from men, they die and are turned again to their dust; but when thou lettest thy breath go forth, they shall be made, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth.” Remember the saying of Christ in his gospel: “Whosoever seeketh to save his life, shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.” (Matthew 10) And in the same place, “Whosoever loveth father or mother above me, is not meet for me. He that will follow me, let him forsake himself and take up his cross, and follow me.” What cross? the cross of infamy and shame, of misery and poverty, of affliction and persecution, for his name’s sake. Let the oft falling of those heavenly showers pierce thy stony heart. Let the two-edged sword of God’s holy word shear asunder the sinews of worldly respects, even to the very marrow of thy carnal heart, that thou mayest once again forsake thyself, and embrace Christ. And, like as good subjects will not refuse to hazard all, in the defense of their earthly and temporal governor, so fly not like a white-livered milksop from the standing wherein thy chief captain Christ hath set thee in array of this life. “Viriliter age, confortetur cot tuum, sustine Dominum.” (Psalm 16) Fight manfully, come life, come death: the quarrel is God’s, and undoubtedly the victory is ours.

    But thou wilt say, “I will not break unity.” What? not the unity of Satan and his members? not the unity of darkness, the agreement of Antichrist and his adherents? Nay, thou deceivest thyself with a fond imagination of such a unity as is among the enemies of Christ.

    Were not the false prophets in a unity? Were not Joseph’s brethren and Jacob’s sons in a unity? Were not the heathen, as the Amalekites, the Perizites and Jebusites, in a unity? Were not the Scribes and Pharisees in a unity? Doth not king David testify, “Convenerunt in unum adversus Dominum?” Yea, thieves, murderers, conspirators, have their unity. But what unity? Tully saith of amity: “Amicitia non est, nisi inter bonos.” But mark, my friend (yea, friend, if thou be not God’s enemy); there is no unity but where Christ knitteth the knot among such as be his. Yea, be well assured, that where his truth is resident, there it is verified what he himself saith: “Non veni mittere pacem in terram, sod gladium,” etc. but to set one against another, the son against the father, and the daughter against the mother in law. Deceive not thyself, therefore, with the glittering and glorious name of Unity; for Antichrist hath his unity, yet not in deed, but in name. The agreement of ill men is not a unity but a conspiracy.

    Thou hast heard some threatenings, some cursings, and some admonitions, out of the Scripture, to those that love themselves above Christ. Thou hast heard, also, the sharp and biting words to those that deny him for love of life Saith he not, “He that denieth me before men, I will deny him before my Father in heaven?” (Matthew 10) And to the same effect writeth Paul, (Hebrews 6) “It is impossible,” saith he, “that they which were once lightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good word of God, if they fall and slide away, crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh, and making of him a mocking-stock, should be renewed again by repentance.” And again, saith he, “If we shall willingly sin, after we have received the knowledge of his truth, there is no oblation left for sin, but the terrible expectation of judgment, and fire which shall devour the adversaries.’ (Hebrews 10) Thus St. Paul writeth, and this thou readest; and dost thou not quake and tremble?

    Well, if these terrible and thundering threatenings cannot stir thee to cleave unto Christ, and forsake the world; yet let the sweet consolations and promises of the Scriptures, let the example of Christ and his apostles, [and of] holy martyrs and confessors encourage thee to take faster hold of Christ. Hearken what he saith: “Blessed are you when men revile you, and persecute you for my sake: rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you.” (Matthew 5) Hear what Isaiah the prophet saith: “Fear not the curse of men; be not afraid of their blasphemies; for worms and moths shall eat them up like cloth and wool: but my righteousness shall endure for ever, and my saving health from generation to generation. What art thou then,” saith he, “that fearest a mortal man, the child of man, which fadeth away like the flower, and forgettest the Lord that made thee, that spread out the heavens, and laid the foundation of the earth? I am the Lord thy God, that make the sea to rage, and be still, whose name is the Lord of Hosts: I shall put my word in thy mouth, and defend thee with the turning of a hand. (Isaiah 2) And our Savior Christ saith to his disciples, “They shall accuse you, and bring you before princes and rulers, for my name’s sake; and some of you they shall persecute and kill: but fear you not,” saith he, “nor care you what you shall say: for it is the Spirit of your Father, that speaketh within you.” (Luke 12) “Even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Lay up treasure for yourselves,” saith he, “where no thief cometh, nor moth corrupteth.” (Matthew 13) “Fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but fear him that hath power to destroy both soul and body.” (Matthew 10) “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15) Let these and suchlike consolations, taken out of the Scriptures, strengthen you to Godward: let not the examples of holy men and women go out of your mind, as Daniel and the rest of the prophets; of the three children; of Eleazar, that constant father; of the seven of the Maccabees’ children; of Paul, Stephen, and other apostles and holy martyrs in the beginning of the church, as of good Simeon, archbishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, 203 with infinite others under Sapor, the king of the Persians and Indians, who contemned all torments devised by the tyrants, for their Savior’s sake. Return, return again into Christ’s war, and, as becometh a faithful warrior, put on that armor that St. Paul teacheth to be most necessary for a christian man. (Ephesians 16) And, above all things, take to you the shield of faith, and be you provoked by Christ’s own example to withstand the devil, to forsake the world, and to become a true and faithful member of his mystical body, who spared not his own body for our sins.

    Throw down yourself with the fear of his threatened vengeance, for this so great and heinous an offense of apostasy: and comfort yourself, on the other part, with the mercy, blood, and promise of him that is ready to turn unto you, whensoever you turn unto him.

    Disdain not to come again with the lost son, seeing you have so wandered with him. Be not ashamed to turn again with him from the swill of strangers, to the delicates of your most benign and loving Father, acknowledging that you have sinned against heaven and earth: against heaven, by staining the glorious flame of God, and causing his most sincere and pure word to be evil spoken of through you: against earth, by offending so many of your weak brethren, to whom you have been a stumblingblock through your sudden sliding. Be not abashed to come home again with Mary, and weep bitterly with Peter, not only with shedding the tears of your bodily eyes, but also pouring out the streams of your heart — to wash away, out of the sight of God, the filth and mire of your offensive fall. Be not abashed to say with the publican, “Lord be merciful unto me a sinner.” (Luke 18) Remember the horrible history of Julian of old, and the lamentable case of Spira of late, whose case, methinks, should be yet so green in your remembrance, that, being. a thing of our time, you should fear the like inconvenience, seeing you are fallen into the like offense.

    Last of all, let the lively remembrance of the last day be always before your eyes, remembering the terror that such shall be in at that time, with the runagates and fugitives from Christ, which, setting more by the world than by heaven, more by their life than by him that gave them life, did shrink, yea did clean fall away, from him that forsook not them: and, contrariwise, the inestimable joys prepared for them, that fearing no peril, nor dreading death, have manfully fought, and victoriously, triumphed, over all power of darkness, over hell, death, and damnation, through their most redoubted captain, Christ, who now stretcheth out his arms to receive you, ready to fall upon your neck and kiss you, and, last of all, to feast you with the dainties and delicates of his own precious blood: which undoubtedly, if it might stand with his determinate purpose, he would not let to shed again, rather than you should be lost. To whom with the Father, and the Holy Ghost, be all honor praise, and glory everlasting. Amen. Be constant, be constant; fear not for any pain:

    Christ hath redeemed thee, and heaven is thy gain.

    A LETTER WRITTEN BY THE LADY JANE IN THE END OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK, THE WHICH SHE SENT UNTO HER SISTER THE LADY KATHERINE, THE NIGHT BEFORE SHE SUFFERED.

    I have here sent you, good sister Katherine, a book, which, although it be not outwardly trimmed with gold, yet inwardly it is more worth than precious stones. It is the book, dear sister, of the law of the Lord. It is his testament and last will, which he bequeathed unto us wretches; which shall lead you to the path of eternal joy: and, if you with a good mind read it, and with an earnest mind do purpose to follow it, it shall bring you to an immortal and everlasting life. It shall teach you to live, and learn you to die. It shall win you more than you should have gained by the possession of your woful father’s lands. For as if God had prospered him, you should have inherited his lands; so, if you apply diligently to this book, seeking to direct your life after it, you shall be an inheritor of such riches, as neither the covetous shall withdraw from you, neither thief shall steal, neither yet the moths corrupt. Desire with David, good sister, to understand the law of the Lord God. Live still to die, that you by death may purchase eternal life. And trust not that the tenderness of your age shall lengthen your life; for as soon (if God call) goeth the young as the old: and labor always to learn to die. Defy the world, deny the devil, and despise the flesh, and delight yourself only in the Lord.

    Be penitent for your sins, and yet despair not: be strong in faith, and yet presume not; and desire, with St. Paul, to be dissolved and to be with Christ, with whom even in death there is life. Be like the good servant, and even at midnight be waking, lest, when death cometh and stealeth upon you as a thief in the night, you be, with the evil servant, found sleeping; and lest, for lack of oil, you be found like the five foolish women; and like him that had not on the wedding garment, and then ye be cast out from the marriage.

    Rejoice in Christ, as I do. Follow the steps of your Master Christ, and take up your cross: lay your sins on his back, and always embrace him. And as touching my death, rejoice as I do, good sister, that I shall be delivered of this corruption, and put on incorruption. For I am assured, that I shall, for losing of a mortal life, win an immortal life, the which I pray God grant you, and send you of his grace to live in his fear, and to die in the true christian faith, from the which (in God’s name), I exhort you, that you never swerve, neither for hope of life, nor for fear of death. For if you will deny his truth for to lengthen your life, God will deny you, and yet shorten your days. And if you will cleave unto him, he will prolong your days, to your comfort and his glory: to the which glory God bring me now, and you hereafter, when it pleaseth him to call you. Fare you well, good sister, and put your only trust in God, who only must help you.

    Here followeth a certain effectual prayer, made by the lady Jane in the time of her trouble.

    A PRAYER OF THE LADY JANE.

    O Lord, thou God and Father of my life, hear me, poor and desolate woman, which flieth unto thee only, ill all troubles and miseries. Thou, O Lord, art the only defender and deliverer of those that put their trust in thee: and therefore I, being defiled with sin, encumbered with affliction, unquieted with troubles, wrapped in cares, overwhelmed with miseries, vexed with temptations, and grievously tormented with the long imprisonment of this vile mass of clay, my sinful body, do come unto thee,O merciful Savior, craving thy mercy and help, without the which so little hope of deliverance is left, that I may utterly despair of any liberty. Albeit it is expedient, that, seeing our life standeth upon trying, we should be visited sometime with some adversity, whereby we might both be tried whether we be of thy flock or no, and also know thee and ourselves the better: yet thou, that saidst thou wouldest not suffer us to be tempted above our power, be merciful unto me now, a miserable wretch, I beseech thee; who, with Solomon, do cry unto thee, humbly desiring thee, that I may neither be too much puffed up with prosperity, neither too much pressed down with adversity, lest I, being too full, should deny thee my God, or being too low brought, should despair, and blaspheme thee my Lord and Savior.

    O merciful God, consider my misery, best known unto thee; and be thou now unto me a strong tower of defense, I humbly require thee.

    Suffer me not to be tempted above my power, but either be thou a deliverer unto me out of this great misery, or else give me grace, patiently to bear thy heavy hand and sharp correction. It was thy right hand, that delivered the people of Israel out of the hands of Pharaoh, which for the space of four hundred years did oppress them, and keep them in bondage. Let it therefore, likewise, seem good to thy fatherly goodness, to deliver me, sorrowful wretch (for whom thy Son Christ shed his precious blood on the cross) out of this miserable captivity and bondage, wherein I am now. How long wilt thou be absent? for ever? O Lord, hast thou forgotten to be gracious, and hast thou shut up thy loving kindness in displeasure?

    Wilt thou be no more entreated? Is thy mercy clean gone for ever, and thy promise come utterly to an end for evermore? (Psalm 77) Why dost thou make so long tarrying? Shall I despair of thy mercy, O God? Far be that from me. I am thy workmanship, created in Christ Jesus. Give me grace, therefore, to tarry thy leisure, and patiently to bear thy works, assuredly knowing, that as thou canst, so thou wilt, deliver me, when it shall please thee, nothing doubting or mistrusting thy goodness towards me; for thou knowest better what is good for me than I do: therefore do with me in all things what thou wilt, and plague me what way thou wilt. Only, in the mean time, arm me, I beseech thee, with thy armor, that I may stand fast, my loins being girded about with verity, having on the breastplate of righteousness, and shod with the shoes prepared by the gospel of peace: above all things taking to me the shield of faith, wherewith I may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked; and taking the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is thy most holy word: praying always with all manner of prayer and supplication, (Ephesians 6) that I may refer myself wholly to thy will, abiding thy pleasure, and comforting myself in those troubles that it shall please thee to send me; seeing such troubles be profitable for me, and seeing I am assuredly persuaded that it cannot be but well, all that thou doest. Hear me, O merciful Father! for his sake, whom thou wouldest should be a sacrifice for my sins: to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost, be all honor and glory: Amen.

    After these things thus declared, it remaineth now, coming to the end of this virtuous lady, next to infer the manner of her execution, with the words and behavior of her at the time of her death.

    THE WORDS AND BEHAVIOUR OF THE LADY JANE UPON THE SCAFFOLD.

    These are the words that the lady Jane spake upon the scaffold, at the hour of her death. First, when she mounted upon the scaffold, she said to the people standing thereabout, “Good people, I am come hither to die, and by a law I am condemned to the same. The fact against the queen’s highness was unlawful, and the consenting thereunto by me: but, touching the procurement and desire thereof by me, or on my behalf, I do wash my hands thereof in innocency before God, and the face of you, good christian people, this day:” and therewith she wrung her hands, wherein she had her book. Then said she, “I pray you all, good christian people, to bear me witness that I die a true christian woman, and that I do look to be saved by no other mean, but only by the mercy of God, in the blood of his only Son Jesus Christ: and I confess, that when I did know the word of God, I neglected the same, loved myself and the world; and therefore this plague and punishment is happily and worthily happened unto me for my sins; and yet I thank God, that of his goodness he hath thus given me a time and respite to repent. And now, good people, while I am alive, I pray you assist me with your prayers.” And then, kneeling down, she turned her to Fecknam, saying: “Shall I say this psalm?” And he said, “Yea.” Then said she the psalm of “Miserere mei Deus” in English, in most devout manner, throughout to the end; and then she stood up, and gave her maiden, mistress Ellen, her gloves and handkerchief, and her book to master Bruges.

    And then she untied her gown, and the hangman pressed upon her to help her off with it; but she, desiring him to let her alone, turned towards her two gentlewomen, who helped her off therewith, and also with her frowes, paaft and neckerchief, giving to her a fair handkerchief to knit about her eyes.

    Then the hangman kneeled down and asked her forgiveness, whom she forgave most willingly. Then he willed her to stand upon the straw; which doing, she saw the block. Then she said, “I pray you dispatch me quickly.” Then she kneeled down, saying,” Will you take it off, before I lay me down?” And the hangman said, “No, madam.” Then tied she the handkerchief about her eyes, and feeling for the block, she said, “What shall I do? Where is it? Where is it?” One of the standers-by guiding her thereunto she laid her head down upon the block, and then stretched forth her body, and said, “Lord, into thy hands I commend my spirit;” and so finished her life, in the year of our Lord God 1554, the 12th day of February.

    Certain Verses, written by the said Lady Jane with a Pin. Non aliena putes homini, quae obtingere possunt:

    Sors hodierna mihi, tunc erit ilia tibi. *Do204 never think it strange, Though now I have misfortune, For if that fortune change, The same to thee may happen.* JANE DUDLEY.

    Deo juvante, nil nocet livor malus:

    Et non juvante, nil juvat labor gravis.

    Post tenebras spero lucem. *IfGod do help thee, Hate shall not hurt thee; If God do fail thee, Then shall not labor prevail thee.* Certain Epitaphs written in Commendation of the worthy Lady Jane Gray. De Jana Graia205 Johannis Parkhursti Carmen.

    Miraris Janam Graio sermone valere?

    Quo primum nata est tempore, Graia fuit.

    IN HISTORIAM JANAE. J. F. Tu quibus ista legas, incertum est, lector, ocellis:

    Ipse equidem siccis scribere non potui.

    DE JANA, D. LAURENTII HUMFREDI DECASTICHON. Jana jacet saevo non aequae vulnere mortis, Nobilis ingenio, sanguine, martyrio.

    Ingenium Latiis ornavit foemina musis, Foemina virgineo tota dicata choro.

    Sanguine clara fuit, regali stirpe creata, Ipsaque reginae nobilitata throno.

    Bis Graia est, pulchre Graiis nutrita camoenis, Et prisco Graium sanguine creta ducum.

    Bis martyr, sacrae fidei verissima testis, Atque vaans regni crimine, Jana jacet.

    Thus, the twelfth day of February, as I said, was beheaded the lady Jane, and with her, also, the lord Guilford her husband, one of the duke of Northumberland’s sons; two innocents in comparison of them that sat upon them. For they did but ignorantly accept that, which the others had willingly devised, and, by open proclamation, consented to take from others, and give to them.

    Touching the condemnation of this lady Jane, here is to be noted, that the judge Morgan, who gave the sentence of condemnation against her, shortly after he had condemned her, fell mad, and in his raving cried out; continually to have the lady Jane taken away from him; and so ended his life.

    And not long after the death of the lady Jane, upon the 23 rd 159 206 of the same month, was Henry duke of Suffolk also beheaded at the Tower-hill, the 6th day after his condemnation: about which time, also, were condemned for this conspiracy many gentlemen and yeomen, whereof some were executed at London, and some in the country. In the number of whom was also the lord Thomas Gray, brother to the said duke, being apprehended not long after in North Wales, and executed for the same. Sir Nicholas Throgmorton very hardly escaped, as ye shall hear (the Lord willing) in another place.

    The 24th of the same month, the year of our Lord 1554, Bonner, bishop of London, sent down a commission, directed to all the curates and pastors of his diocese, for the taking of the names of such as would not come the Lent following, to auricular confession, and to the receiving at Easter: the copy of which monition here followeth.

    A MONITION OF BONNER160 BISHOP OF LONDON Sent down to all and singular Curates of his Diocese, for the certifying of the Names of such as would not come in Lent to Confession, and receiving at Easter.

    Edmund, by the permission of God bishop of London, to all parsons, vicars, curates, and ministers of the church within the city and diocese of London, sendeth grace,peace, and mercy, in our Lord everlasting: Forasmuch as by the order of the ecclesiastical laws and constitutions of this realm, and the laudable usage and custom of the whole catholic church, by many hundred years agone, duly and devoutly observed and kept, all faithful people, being of lawful age and discretion, are bound once in the year at the least (except reasonable cause excuse them) to be confessed to their own proper curate, and to receive the sacrament of the altar, with due preparation and devotion. And forasmuch, also, as we be credibly informed, that sundry evil disposed and undevout persons, given to sensual pleasures and carnal appetites, following the lusts of their body, and neglecting utterly the health of their souls, do forbear to come to confession according to the said usage, and to receive the sacrament of the altar accordingly, giving thereby pernicious and evil example to the younger sort, to neglect and contemn the same:

    We, minding the reformation hereof for our own discharge, and desirous of good order to be kept, and good example to be given; do will and command you, by virtue hereof, that immediately upon the receipt of this our commandment, ye, and everyche of you, within your cure and charge, do use all your diligence and dexterity to declare the same, straitly charging and commanding all your parishioners, being of lawful age and discretion, to come before Easter next coming to confession, according to the said ordinance and usage, and with due preparation and devotion to receive the said sacrament of the altar; and that ye do note the names of all such as be not confessed unto you, and do [not] receive of you the said sacrament, certifying us or our chancellor or commissary thereof, before the 6th day of April next ensuing the date hereof: that so we, knowing thereby who did not so come to confession, and receive the sacrament accordingly, may proceed against them, as being persons culpable, and transgressors of the said ecclesiastical law and usage. Further, also, certifying us, or our said chancellor or commissary, before the day aforesaid, whether ye have your altars set up, chalice-book, vestments, and all things necessary for mass, and the administration of sacraments and sacramentals, with procession, and all other divine service prepared and in readiness, according to the order of the catholic church, and the virtuous and godly example of the queen’s majesty: and, if ye so have not, ye then, with the churchwardens, cause the same to be provided for, signifying by whose fault and negligence the same want or fault hath proceeded; and generally of the not coming of your parishioners to church, undue walking, talking, or using of themselves there unreverently [in] the time of divine service, and of all other open faults and misdemeanors; not omitting thus to do, and certify as before, as you will answer upon your peril for the contrary. Given at London the 24th of February, in the year of our Lord God 1554. March. — The next month following, which was the month of March, and the 4th day of the said month, there was a letter sent from the queen to Bonner bishop of London, with certain articles also annexed, to be put in speedy execution, containing as here Followeth.

    ARTICLES SENT161 FROM THE QUEEN TO THE BISHOP OF LONDON, BY HIM AND HIS OFFICERS At her Commandment, to be put in speedy execution, with her Letter to the said Bishop before prefixed, dated March 4.

    Right reverend father in God, right trusty and well beloved, we greet you well: And whereas heretofore in the time of the late reign of our most dearest brother king Edward the Sixth (whose soul God pardon), divers notable crimes, excesses, and faults, with sundry kinds of heresies, simony, advoutry, and other enormities have been committed within this our realm, and other our dominions, the same continuing yet hitherto in like disorder since the beginning of our reign, without any correction or reformation at all; and the people both of the laity and also of the clergy, and chiefly of the clergy, have been given to much insolency, and ungodly rule, greatly to the displeasure of Almighty God, and very much to our regret and evil contentation, and to no little slander of other christian realms, and in a manner to the subversion and clean defacing of this our realm: and remembering our duty to Almighty God to be, to foresee (as much as in us may be) that all virtue and godly living should be embraced, flourish, and increase; and therewith also, that all vice and ungodly behavior should be utterly banished and put away, or at the leastwise (so nigh as might be) so bridled and kept under, that godliness and honesty might have the over hand; understanding by very credible report and public fame, to our no small heaviness and discomfort, that within your diocese, as well in not exempted, as exempted places, the like disorder and evil behavior hath been done and used, like also to continue and increase, unless due provision be had and made to reform the same; which earnestly, in very deed, we do mind and intend to the uttermost, all the ways we can possible, trusting of God’s furtherance and help in that behalf: For these causes, and other most just considerations us moving, we send unto you certain articles of such special matter, as, among other things, be most necessary now to be put in execution by you and your officers, extending to the end by us desired, and the reformation aforesaid: wherein ye shall be charged with our special commandment, by these our letters, to the intent you and your officers may the more earnestly and boldly proceed thereunto, without fear of any presumption to be noted on your part, or danger to be incurred of any such our laws, as, by your doing of that is in the said articles contained, might any wise grieve you, whatsoever be threatened in any such case. And therefore we straitly charge and command you and your said officers, to proceed to the execution of the said articles, without all tract and delay, as ye will answer to the contrary.

    Given under our signet, at our palace of Westminster, the 4th day of March, the first year of our reign.

    ARTICLES SENT FROM THE QUEEN UNTO THE ORDINARY, AND BY HIM AND HIS OFFICERS, BY HER COMMANDMENT, TO BE PUT IN SPEEDY162 EXECUTION IN THE WHOLE DIOCESE.

    First, that every bishop and his officers, with all other having ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall, with all speed and diligence, and all manner of ways to them possible, put in execution all such canons and ecclesiastical laws, heretofore, in the time of king Henry the Eighth, used within this realm of England, and the dominions of the same, not being directly and expressly contrary to the laws and statutes of this realm. Item, That no bishop, or any his officer, or other person aforesaid, hereafter, in any of their ecclesiastical writings, in process, or other extrajudicial acts, do use to put in this clause or sentence, “Regia authoritate fulcitus.” Item, That no bishop, or any his officers, or other person aforesaid, do hereafter exact or demand, in the admission of any person to any ecclesiastical promotion, order, or office, any oath touching the primacy or succession, as of late, in few years passed, hath been accustomed and used. Item, That every bishop and his officers, with all other persons aforesaid, have a vigilant eye, and use special diligence and foresight, that no person be admitted or received to any ecclesiastical function, benefice, or office, being a sacramentary, infected or defamed with any notable kind of heresy, or other great crime, and that the said bishop do stay, and cause to be stayed, as much as lieth in him, that benefices and ecclesiastical promotions do not notably decay or take hinderance by passing or confirming of unreasonable leases. Item, That every bishop, and all other persons aforesaid, do diligently travail for the repressing of heresies and notable crimes, especially in the clergy, duly correcting and punishing the same. Item, That every bishop, and all the other persons aforesaid, do likewise travail for the condemning and repressing of corrupt and naughty opinions, unlawful books, ballads, and other pernicious and hurtful devices, engendering hatred amongst the people, and discord among the same. And that schoolmasters, preachers, and teachers, do exercise and use their offices and duties without teaching, preaching, or setting forth any evil and corrupt doctrine; and that, doing the contrary, they may be, by the bishop and his said officers, punished and removed. Item, that every bishop, and all the other persons aforesaid, proceeding summarily, and with all celerity and speed, may and shall deprive, or declare deprived, and remove, according to their learning and discretion, all such persons from their benefices and ecclesiastical promotions, who, contrary to the state of our 163 order, and the laudable custom of the church, have married and used women as their wives, or otherwise notably and slanderously disordered or abused themselves: sequestering also, during the said process, the fruits and profits of the said benefices and ecclesiastical promotions. Item, That the said bishop, and all other persons aforesaid, do use more lenity and clemency with such as have married, whose wives be dead, than with other, whose women do yet remain alive; and likewise such priests, as (with the consent of their wives or women) openly in the presence of the bishop do profess to abstain, to be used the more favorably. In which case, after penance effectually done, the bishop, according to his discretion and wisdom, may, upon just consideration, receive and admit them again to their former administration, so it be not in the same place; appointing them such a portion to live upon, to be paid out of their benefice whereof they be deprived, by discretion of the said bishop or his officer, as he shall think may be spared of the said benefice. Item, That every bishop, and all other persons aforesaid, do foresee that they suffer not any religious man, having solemnly professed chastity, to continue with his woman or wife; but that all such persons, after deprivation of their benefice or ecclesiastical promotion, be also divorced every one from his said woman, and due punishment otherwise taken for the offense therein. Item, That every bishop, and all other persons aforesaid, do take order and direction with the parishioners of every benefice where priests do want, to repair to the next parish for divine service, or to appoint for a convenient time, till other better provision may be made, one curate to serve “ alternis vicibus 164 ” in divers parishes, and to allot to the curate, for his labor, some portion of the benefice that he so serveth. Item, That all and all manner of processions of the church be used, frequented, and continued, after the old order of the church, in the Latin tongue. Item, That all such holy days and fasting days be observed and kept, as was observed and kept in the latter time of king Henry the Eighth. Item, That the laudable and honest ceremonies which were wont to be used, frequented, and observed in the church, be also hereafter frequented, used, and observed. Item, That children be christened by the priest, and confirmed by the bishop, as heretofore hath been accustomed and used. Item, Touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any orders, after the new sort and fashion of order: considering they were not ordered in very deed, the bishop of the diocese finding otherwise sufficiency and ability in those men, may supply that thing which wanted in them before; and then, according to his discretion, admit them to minister. Item, That by the bishop of the diocese a uniform doctrine be set forth by homilies, or otherwise, for the good instruction and teaching of all people; and that the said bishop, and other persons aforesaid, do compel the parishioners to come to their several churches, and there devoutly to hear divine service, as of reason they ought. Item, That they examine all schoolmasters and teachers of children; and, finding them suspect in any wise, to remove them, and place catholic men in their rooms, with a special commandment to instruct their children, so as they may be able to answer the priest at the mass, and so help the priest to mass, as hath been accustomed. Item, That the said bishop, and all other the persons aforesaid, have such regard, respect, and consideration of and for the settingforth of the premises, with all kind of virtue, godly living, and good example, with repressing also and keeping under of vice and unthriftiness, as they and everyche of them may be seen to favor the restitution of true religion; and also to make an honest account and reckoning of their office and cure, to the honor of God, our good contentation, and the profit of this our realm and dominions of the same.

    A like prescript also, with articles, was sent from the said queen Mary to the lord mayor of London, the 4th day of March, in the year abovesaid; which lord mayor, upon the same, directed his commandment to the aldermen, every one severally in his ward, containing as followeth:

    A PRESCRIPT165 OF THE LORD MAYOR TO THE ALDERMEN.

    On the queen our most gracious and most benign sovereign lady’s behalf, we most straitly charge and command you, that ye (the said aldermen) fail not personally to call before your own person, in such place within your said ward, as to you shall seem most convenient and meet, upon Wednesday next coming, which shall be the seventh day of this present month, at seven of the clock in the morning of the same day, all and every the householders both poor and rich of your said ward, and then and there openly and plainly, for your own discharge, and for the eschewing the perils that to you might otherwise be justly imputed and laid, do not only straitly admonish, charge, and command, in the queen our said sovereign lady’s name and behalf, all and every the said householders, that both in their own persons, and also their wives, children and servants, being of the age of twelve years and upwards, [all] and every of them, do, at all and every time and times from henceforth, and namely at the holy time of Easter, now approaching, honestly, quietly, obediently, and catholicly, use and behave themselves like good and faithful christian people, in all and every thing and things touching and concerning the true faith, profession, and religion of his catholic church, both according to the laws and precepts of Almighty God, and also their bounden duty of obedience towards our sovereign lady the queen, her laws and statutes, and her highness’s most good example and gracious proceeding according to the same, and according also to the right wholesome, charitable, and godly admonition, charge, and exhortation, lately set forth and given by the right reverend father in God the bishop of London, our diocesan and ordinary, to all the parsons, vicars, and curates, within his diocese: but, also, that they and every of them do truly, without delay, advertise you of the names and surnames of all and every person and persons, that they or any of them can or may at any time hereafter know, perceive, or understand, to transgress or offend in any point or article concerning the premises, at their utmost perils [and] that ye, immediately after such notice thereof, to you given, do forthwith advertise us thereof. Fail ye not thus to do with all circumspection and diligence, as ye will answer to our said most dread sovereign lady the queen for the contrary, at your like peril.

    Given at the Guildhall of the city of London, the 5th day of March, in the first year of the reign of our said sovereign lady the queen Blackwell.

    And likewise do you give to every of the said householders straitly in commandment, that they or their wives depart not out of the said city, until this holy time of Easter be past.

    About the same year and time, when Dr. Bonner set forth this prescript or monitory, there came from the queen another proclamation, against strangers and foreigners within this realm: the purpose and intent of which proclamation, because it chiefly and most specially concerned religion and doctrine, and the true professors thereof, I thought here to annex the tenor and manner of the same.

    A COPY OF THE QUEEN’S PROCLAMATION FOR THE DRIVING OUT OF THE REALM STRANGERS AND FOREIGNERS.

    The queen our sovereign lady, understanding that a multitude of evil disposed persons, being born out of her highness’s dominions in other sundry nations, flying from the obeisance of the princes and rulers under whom they be born (some for heresy; some for murder, treason, robbery; and some for other horrible crimes), be resorted into this her majesty’s realm, and here have made their demurrer, and yet be commorant and lingering, partly to eschew such condign punishment as their said horrible crimes deserve, and partly to dilate, plant, and sow the seeds of their malicious doctrine and lewd conversation among the good subjects of this her said realm, on purpose to infect her good subjects with the like, insomuch as (besides innumerable heresies, which divers of the same, being heretics, have preached and taught within her highness’s said realm) it is assuredly known unto her majesty, that not only their secret practices have not failed to stir, comfort, and aid, divers her highness’s subjects to this most unnatural rebellion against God and her grace, but also some others of them desist not still to practice with her people eftsoons to rebel: her majesty therefore, having (as afore is said) knowledge and intelligence hereof, hath for remedy herein determined, and most straitly chargeth and commandeth, that all and every such person or persons born out of her highness’s dominions, now commorant or resident within this realm, of whatsoever nation or country, being either preacher, printer, bookseller, or other artificer, or of whatsoever calling else, not being denizen or merchant known, using the trade of merchandise, or servant to such ambassadors as be liegers here from the princes and states joined in league with her grace, shall within twenty-four days of this proclamation, avoid the realm, upon pain of most grievous punishment by imprisonment, and forfeiture and confiscation of all their goods and movables; and also to be delivered unto their natural princes or rulers, against whose persons or laws they have offended. Giving to all mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, constables, and all other her ministers, officers, and good subjects, straitly also in charge, if they know any such person, not born in the queen’s highness’s dominions (except before excepted), that shall, after the time and day limited in the proclamation, tarry within this realm, that they shall apprehend the same person or persons, and commit him or them to ward, there to remain without bail or mainprize, till her grace’s pleasure, or her councils be signified unto them, for the further ordering of the said person or persons. And that if any of her said officers, after the said twenty-four days, apprehend, take, or know of any such, they shall, with all diligence, immediately certify her said council thereof, to the intent order may be forthwith given for their punishment accordingly.

    In the meanwhile, upon the proclamation before mentioned, not only the strangers in king Edward’s time received into the realm for religion (among whom was Peter Martyr, and John Alasco uncle to the king of Poland), but many Englishmen fled, some to Friesland, some to Cleveland, some to High Germany, where they were diversely scattered into divers companies and congregations, at Wesel, at Frankfort, Emden, Marburg, Strausborough, Basil, Arow, Zurich, Geneva, and other places; where, by the providence of God, they were all sustained, and there entertained with greater favor amongst strangers abroad, than they could be in their own country at home, well near to the number of 800 persons, students and others together.

    In the said month of March 167 , the lord Courtney earl of Devonshire, whom the queen, at her first entering, delivered out of the Tower, and lady Elizabeth also, the queen’s sister, were both in suspicion to have consented to Wyat’s conspiracy, and for the same, this March, were apprehended and committed to the Tower.

    Touching the imprisonment of which lady Elizabeth and the lord Courtney, thou shalt note here for thy learning, good reader! a politic point of practice in Stephen Gardiner bishop of Winchester, not unworthy to be considered. This Gardiner being always a capital enemy to the lady Elizabeth, and thinking now, by the occasion of master Wyat, to pick out some matter against the lord Courtney, and so in the end to entangle the lady Elizabeth, devised a pestilent practice of conveyance, as in the story here following may appear.

    The story is this. The same day that sir Thomas Wyat died, he desired the lieutenant to bring him to the presence of the lord Courtney; who there, before the lieutenant and the sheriffs kneeling down upon his knees, besought the lord Courtney to forgive him, for that he had falsely accused both the lady Elizabeth and him: and so, being brought from thence unto the scaffold to suffer there, openly (in the hearing of all the people) cleared the lady Elizabeth and the lord Courtney, to be free and innocent from all suspicion of that commotion. At which confession Dr. Weston, there standing by, cried to the people, saying: “Believe him not, good people! for he confessed otherwise before, unto the council.”

    After the execution done of sir Thomas Wyat, which was the eleventh day of April, word was brought immediately unto the lord mayor, sir Thomas White, a little before dinner, how master Wyat had cleared the lady Elizabeth and lord Courtney, and the words also which Dr. Weston spake unto the people; whereunto the lord mayor answering, “Is this true?” quoth he; — “said Weston so? In sooth, I never took him otherwise but for a knave.” Upon this the lord mayor sitting down to dinner (who dined the same day at the Bridgehouse), cometh in sir Martin Bowes with the recorder, newly come from the parliament-house, who, hearing of the mayor and sheriffs this report of Wyat’s confession, both upon the scaffold and also in the Tower, marvelled thereat, declaring how there was another tale, contrary to this, told the same day in the parliament-house, which was, that sir Thomas Wyat should desire the lord Courtney to confess the truth, so as he had done before.

    Upon this it followed not long after, that a certain prentice, dwelling in St.

    Laurence-lane, named Cut, as he was drinking with one Denham a plasterer, being one of queen Mary’s servants, amongst other talk made mention how sir Thomas Wyat had cleared the lady Elizabeth and the lord Courtney to be no consenters to his rising. These words being brought to Gardiner (by what means I know not) incontinent upon the same, sir Andrew Judd was sent by the said bishop unto the lord mayor, commanding him to bring the said prentice to the Star-chamber, who was accused of these words, that he should say, that Wyat was constrained by the council to accuse the lady Elizabeth and the lord Courtney. Which fellow, when he was come to the Star-chamber, the aforesaid Gardiner, letting pass other matters that were in hand, began to declare to the whole multitude, how miraculously Almighty God had brought the queen’s majesty to the crown, the whole realm in a manner being against her; and that he had brought this to pass for this singular intent and purpose, that this realm, being overwhelmed with heresies, she might reduce again the same unto the true catholic faith. And whereas she took the lady Elizabeth into her favor, and loved her so tenderly, and also the lord Courtney, who had long time been detained in prison, and by her was set at liberty, and received great benefits at her hands; and, notwithstanding all this, they had conspired most unnaturally and traitorously against her, with that heinous traitor Wyat, as by the confession of Wyat, said he, and the letters sent to and fro, may plainly appear: yet there were some in the city of London who reported, that Wyat was constrained by the council to accuse the lady Elizabeth and the lord Courtney, “and yet you, my lord mayor,” quoth he, “have not seen the same punished.” “The party is here,” said the lord mayor. “Take him with you,” said Gardiner, “and punish him according to his desert;” and said further, “My lord, take heed to your charge! The city of London is a whirlpool and sink of all evil rumors, where they be bred, and from thence spread into all parts of this realm.

    There stood by, the same time, the lord Chandos, who, being then lieutenant of the Tower, and now hearing the bishop thus speak, to sooth his tale came in with these words as followeth: “My lords,” quoth he, “this is a truth that I shall tell you. Being lieutenant of the Tower when Wyat suffered, he desired me to bring him to the lord Courtney; which when I had done, he fell down upon his knees before him in my presence, and desired him to confess the truth of himself, as he had done before, and to submit himself unto the queen’s majesty’s mercy.”

    And thus much I thought of this matter to declare, to the intent that the reader, perceiving the proceedings of the bishop in the premises, and comparing the same with the true testimony of Wyat himself, and with the testimony of the sheriffs, who were present the same time when sir Thomas Wyat asked the lord Courtney forgiveness, may the better judge of the whole case and matter for which the lady Elizabeth, and the lord Courtney were so long in trouble; of which her grace’s trouble, hereafter (God willing) more shall be said in the story of her life. In the mean time to let this matter stay, let us now pass further in our history.

    Not long after this, queen Mary, partly fearing the Londoners by occasion of Wyat’s conspiracy; partly perceiving most of the city, for religion’s sake, not greatly to favor her proceedings, to their displeasure and hinderance summoned a parliament to be holden at Oxford: as it were to gratify that city, where both the university, town, and country, had showed themselves very obedient, and forward, especially, in restoring popish religion. For this purpose great provision was made, as well by the queen’s officers, as by the townsmen and inhabitants of Oxford, and the country about. But the queen’s mind in short space changed, and the same parliament was holden at Westminster in April following. Then the queen, beside other things, proposed concerning her marriage to king Philip, and restoring of the pope’s supremacy: as touching her marriage, it was agreed upon; but the other request could not as then be obtained.

    The same time when this parliament was summoned, she also summoned a convocation 168 of bishops, and of the clergy, writing unto Bonner (whom she had made vicegerent in the stead of Cranmer, being then in the Tower) after the tenor and form of a new style, differing from the old style of king Henry and king Edward, as followeth.

    THE STYLE OF QUEEN MARY ALTERED, WRITING TO BONNER FOR THE SUMMONING169 OF A CONVOCATION.

    Maria Dei gratia, Angliae, Francine, et Hiberniae regina, fidel defensor, reverendo in Christo patri Edmundo Londinensi episcopo salutem. Licet nuper quibusdam arduis et urgentibus negotiis nos securitatem et defensionem ecclesiae Anglicanae, ac pacem et tranquillitatem, etc.

    Where note, good reader, concerning the altering and changing the queen’s style, the latter part thereof to be left out of her style, which is, “Ecclesiae Anglicanae et Hibernicae supremum caput;” because in this present parliament the supremacy being given away from the crown of England to the pope, thereupon this parcel of the title was also taken away. Likewise the said Bonner, giving his certificate upon the same, leaves out “auctoritate illustrissimae, etc. legitime suffultus:” which parcel, also, in the said parliament was repealed and taken away the same time.

    THE DIGNITY OF PRIESTS EXTOLLED BY BISHOP BONNER.

    In this aforesaid convocation, Bonner bishop of London, being vicegerent and president, as is said, made a certain exhortation or oration to the clergy (which was in this convocation, or much about the said time), wherein he seemeth to show a great piece of profound and deep learning, in setting forth the most incomparable and super-angelical order of priesthood, as may appear by this parcel or fragment of his aforesaid oration, being collected and gathered by some that stood by: which, as it came to our hands, so I thought to impart it to the reader, both for that the author of so worthy a work should not pass unknown, and partly, also, for that the estimation of this blessed order should lose nothing of its pre-eminence, but might be known in most ample perfection, so as it standeth above angels and kings, if it be true that Bonner saith.

    A PIECE OR FRAGMENT OF THE EXHORTATION IN PRAISE OF PRIESTHOOD, MADE BY BONNER BISHOP OF LONDON To them of the Convocation-house; copied out by them that stood by and heard him.

    Wherefore it is to be known, that priests and elders be worthy of all men to be worshipped for the dignity’s sake which they have of God, as in Matthew 16: Whatsoever ye shall loose upon earth,” etc. “and whatsoever ye shall bind,” etc. For a priest, by some means, is like Mary the Virgin, and is showed by three points. As the blessed Virgin, by five words, did conceive Christ, as it is said in Luke 1, 207 “Be it unto me according to thy word;” so the priest, by five words, doth make the very body of Christ. Even as immediately after the consent of Mary, Christ was all whole in her womb; so, immediately after the speaking of the words of consecration, the bread is substantiated into the very body of Christ. Secondly, as the Virgin carried Christ in her arms, and laid him in an ox-stall after his birth; even so the priest, after the consecration, doth lift up the body of Christ, and placeth it, and carrieth it, and handleth it with his hands. Thirdly, as the blessed Virgin was sanctified before she had conceived; so the priest, being ordained and anointed before he doth consecrate, because without orders he could consecrate nothing, therefore the layman cannot do that thing, although he be never so holy, and do speak the selfsame words of consecration. Therefore here is to be known, that the dignity of priests, by some means, passeth the dignity of angels 170 , because there is no power given to any of the angels to make the body of Christ. Whereby the least priest may do in earth, that which the greatest and highest angel in heaven cannot do; as St.

    Bernard saith, “O worshipful dignity of priests, in whose hands the Son of God is, as in the womb of the Virgin he was incarnate.”

    St. Augustine saith, that angels, in the consecration of the sacred host, do serve him; and the Lord of heaven descendeth to him.

    Whereupon St. Ambrose upon St. Luke saith, “Doubt thou not the angels to be where Christ is present upon the altar.” Wherefore priests are to be honored before all kings of the earth, princes, and nobles. For a priest is higher than a king, happier than an angel, maker of his Creator. Wherefore, etc.

    It was declared a little before, how Dr. Ridley was had from Framlingham to the Tower; where being in durance, and invited to the lieutenant’s table, he had certain talk or conference with secretary Bourn, master Fecknam, and others, concerning the controversies in religion; the sum whereof, as it was penned with his own hand, hereafter ensueth.

    THE SUM AND EFFECT OF THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DR. RIDLEY AND SECRETARY BOURN171 , WITH OTHERS, AT THE LIEUTENANT’S TABLE IN THE TOWER.

    Master Thomas of Bridges said at his brother master lieutenant’s board, “I pray you master doctors, for my learning, tell me what a heretic is.” Master secretary Bourn said, “I will tell you who is an heretic: he that stubbornly and stiffly maintaineth an untruth — he is an heretic.” “Ye mean, sir,” said I, “an untruth in matters of religion, and concerning our faith.” “Yea, that is true,” said he; and in this we were soon agreed. Then said master Fecknam, sitting at the head of the table (whom they called master dean of Paul’s), I will tell you by St. Augustine, who is an heretic; “Qui adulandi principibus vel lucri gratia falsas opiniones gignit vel sequitur, haereticus, est,”,saith St. Augustine. 208 And then he Englished the same. Sir, said I, I ween St. Augustine addeth the third member, which is, ‘vel vanae gloriae causa.’” “Ye say even true, master doctor,” said he. And thus far we did agree all three.

    Master Fecknam began again to say, “He that doth not believe that the Scripture affirmeth, but will obstinately maintain the contrary, he is ‘haereticus:’ as in the sacrament of the altar, Matthew doth affirm there to be Christ’s body, Mark doth affirm it, Luke affirmeth, Paul affirmeth, and none denieth it: therefore, to hold the contrary, it is heresy. It is the same body and flesh that was born of the Virgin. And this is confirmed by unity, antiquity, and universality. For none before Berengarius did ever doubt of this, and he was an heretic, as master doctor there knoweth full well: I do testify his own conscience,” said he. “Marry sir,” said master secretary, “master Fecknam hath spoken well. These be great matters, unity, antiquity, and universality. Do ye not think so, master doctor?” said he to me.

    Here, while I strained courtesy, and pretended as nothing to talk; said one of the commissioners, “Peradventure master Ridley doth agree with master Fecknam; and then there needs not much debating of the matter.” “Sir,” said I, “in some things I do and shall agree with him, and in some things which he hath spoken, to be plain, I do not agree with him at all. Masters,” said I, “ye be, as I understand, the queen’s commissioners here, and if ye have commission to examine me in those matters, I shall declare unto you plainly my faith; if ye have not, then I shall pray you either give me leave to speak my mind freely, or else to hold my peace. “There is none here,” said master secretary, “that doth not favor you:” and then every man showed what favor they bare towards me, and how glad they would be of an agreement. But as I strained to have license of them in plain words to speak my mind, so methought they granted me it but vix or aegre. Well, at the last I was content to take it for licensed, and so began to talk.

    To master Fecknam’s arguments of the manifold affirmation where no denial was, I answered, “As for the multitude of affirmations in Scripture, and where is one affirmation, all is one concerning the truth of the matter: for that any one of the evangelists spake, inspired by the Holy Ghost, was as true as that which is spoken of them all. It is as true that John saith of Christ, ‘Ego sum ostium ovium’ [i.e. ‘I am the door of the sheep’], as if all had said it. For it is not in Scripture as in witness of men, where the number is, credited more than one, because it is uncertain of whose spirit he doth speak. And where master Fecknam spake of so many affirming without any negation, etc., “Sir,” said I, “all they do affirm the thing which they meant. Now if ye take their words, and leave their meaning — then do they not affirm what ye take, but what they meant 172 . Sir,” said I, “if, in talk with you, I should so utter my mind in words, that ye, by the same, do and may plainly perceive my meaning, and could, if ye would be captious, cavil my words, and writhe them to another sense, I would think ye were no gentle companion to talk with, except ye would take my words as ye did perceive that I did mean.” “Marry,” quod master secretary, “he should else do you plain injury and wrong.”

    Master Fecknam, perceiving whereunto my talk went, “Why,” quod he, “what circumstances can ye show me, that shall move to think of any other sense, than as the words plainly say, Hoe est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur’ [‘This is my body which shall be betrayed for you’]?” “Sir,” said I, “even the next sentence that followeth, viz. ‘Hoe lucite in meam commemorationem’ [‘Do this in my remembrance].’

    And also by what reason ye say the bread is turned into Christ’s carnal body, I may say, that it is turned into his mystical body. For as that saith of it, “Hoc est corpus, quod pro vobis tradetur,’ so Paul, which spake by Christ’s Spirit, saith, ‘Unus panis et unum corpus multi sumus omnes, qui de uno pane participamus’ [i.e. ‘We, being many, are all but one bread and one body, inasmuch as we are partakers of one bread’]” “Here he calleth one bread, one loaf,” said master secretary. “Yea,” said I, “one loaf, one bread: all is one with me.” “But what say ye,” quod master secretary, “of the universality, antiquity, and unity, that master Fecknam did speak of?” “I ensure you,” said I, “I think them matters weighty, and to be considered well. As for unity, the truth is, before God, I do believe it and embrace it, so it be with verity, and joined to our Head, Christ, and such one as Paul speaketh, saying, ‘Una fides, unus Deus, unum baptisma’ [i.e. ‘One faith, one God, one baptism’].

    And for Antiquity, I am also persuaded to be true that Irenaeus saith, ‘Quod primum verum’ [i.e. ‘That which is first is true’]. In our religion Christ’s faith was first truly taught by Christ himself, by his apostles, and by many good men that from the beginning did succeed next unto them; and for this controversy of the sacrament, I am persuaded that those old writers, which wrote before the controversy and the usurping of the see of Rome, doth all agree, if they be well understanded, in this truth.” “I am glad to hear,” said master secretary, “that ye do so well esteem the doctors of the church.” “Now as for universality,” [said I,] “it may have two meanings; one to understand that to be universal, which from the beginning in all ages hath been allowed; another to understand universality [for] the multitude of our age, or of any other singular age.” “No, no,”‘ saith master secretary, “these three do always agree, and where there is one, there is all the rest.” And here he and I changed many words; and finally, to be short, in this matter we did not agree. “There was none,” quod master Fecknam, “before Berengarius, Wickliff, and Huss; and now, in our days, Carolostadius and O Ecolampadius. And Carolostadius saith, ‘Christ pointeth [to] his own body, and not the sacrament, and said it, Hoe est corpus meum.’ And Melancthon writeth to one Micronius (Miconius said I), and saith: ‘Nullam satis gravem rationem, invenire possum, propter quam a fide majorum in hac materia dissentim,’ 209 or like words.

    Thus when he had spoken at length, with many other words mo; “Sir,” said I, “it is certain that other before these have written of this matter, not by the way only, and ‘obiter,’ as doth for the most all the old writers, but even ‘ex professo,’ as their whole book entreateth of it alone; as Bertram.” “Bertram,” said master secretary, “what man was he? and when was he? 174 and how do ye know?” etc. with many questions. “Sir,” quod I, “I have read his book. He proponeth the same which is now in controversy, and answereth so directly, that no man may doubt but that he affirmeth, that the substance of bread remaineth still in the sacrament; and he wrote unto Carolus Magnus.” “Marry,” quod he, “mark, for there is a matter. He wrote,” quod he, “ad Henricum, and not ad Carolum; for no author maketh [any such] mention of Bertram.” “Yes,” quod I, “Trithemius in Catalogo illustrium Scriptorum speaketh of him.” — “ Thrithemius was but of late time 175 .” — “But he speaketh,” quod I, “of them that were of antiquity.” Here, after much talk of Bertram, “What authors have ye,” quod master secretary, “to make of the sacrament a figure?” “Sir,” quod I, “ye know, I think, that Tertullian 211 in plain words speaketh thus: ‘Hoc est corpus meum, id est, figura corporis mei.’ 212 And Gelasius 213 saith plainly, that ‘Substantia panis manet.’ 214 And origen 215 saith likewise, ‘Quod sanctificatur secundum materiam, ingreditur stomachum, et vadit in secessum.’ 216 This when I had Englished, master secretary said to me, “You know very well as any man,” etc. And here, if I would, I might have been set in a foolish paradise of his commendation of my learning, and “quod essem vir multae lectionis” [“that I was a man of much reading].” But this I would not take at his hand. He set me not up so high, but I brought myself as low again. And here was much ado. “As for Melancthon,” quod I, “that master Fecknam spake of, I marvel that ye will allege him, for we are more nigh an agreement here in England, than the opinion of Melancthon to you: for in this point we all agree here, that there is in the sacrament but one material substance; and Melancthon, as I ween, saith there is two.” “Ye say truth,” quod master secretary; “Melancthon’s opinion is so. But, I pray you, ye have read that the sacrament was in old time so reverenced, than [that?] how many were there that were forbidden to be present at the ministration thereof — “catechumeni,” quod he, “and many more.” “Truth, sir,” quod I, “there was called some ‘audientes,’ some ‘poenitentes,’ some ‘catechumeni,’ and some ‘energumeni,’ which was commanded to depart.”

    Now, quod he then; and how can ye then make but a figure or a sign of the sacrament, as that book, which is set forth in my lord of Canterbury’s name? I wis, ye can tell who made it. Did not ye make it?” And here was much murmuring of the rest, as though they would have given me the glory of the writing of the book 176 ; which yet there was said of some there, to contain most heinous heresy that ever was. “Master secretary,” quod I, “that book was made of a great learned man, and him which is able to do the like again. As for me, I ensure you (be not deceived in me), I was never able to do or write any such thing like. He passeth me, no less than the learned master his young scholar.”

    Now, here every man would have his saying, which I pass over, not much material for to tell. “But, sir,” quod I, “methinks it is not charitably done, to bear the people in hand, that any man do lightly esteem the sacrament, as to make of it but a figure; for that [but] maketh it 177 a bare figure without any more profit; which that book doth often deny, as appeareth to the reader most plain.” “Yes,” quod he, “that doth he.” “Sir, no,” quod I, “of a truth; and as for me, I ensure you I make no less of the sacrament than thus: I say, whosoever receiveth the sacrament, he receiveth therewith either life or death.” “No,” quod master secretary,.” Scripture saith not so.” “Sir,” quod I, “although not in the same sound of words, yet it doth in the same sense; and St. Augustine saith, in the sound of words also: for Paul saith, “The bread which we break, is it not the partaking or fellowship of the body of Christ?’ And St. Augustine, ‘Manduca vitam; bibe vitam.’” 217 Then said master Pope, “What can ye make of it, when ye say, ‘There is not the real body of Christ, which I do believe, etc.; and I pray God I may never believe other.’ How can it bring (as ye say) either life or death, when Christ’s body is not there?” “Sir,” quod I, “when ye hear God’s word truly preached, if ye do believe it, and abide in it, ye shall and do receive life withal; and if ye do not believe it, it doth bring unto you death: and yet Christ’s body is still in heaven, and not carnal — in every preacher’s mouth.” “I pray you tell me,” quod he, “how can you answer to this: ‘Quod pro vobis tradetur?’ 218 Was the figure of Christ’s body given for us?” “No sir, quod I, but the very body itself, whereof the sacrament is a sacramental figure.” “How say ye then,” quod he, “to ‘Quod pro vobis tradetur?’” “Forsooth,” quod I, “Tertullian’s exposition maketh it plain; for he saith, ‘Corpus est figura corporis.’ 220 Now put to ‘Quod pro vobis tradetur’ 221 and it agreeth exceeding well.” “In faith,” quod he, “I would give forty pound that ye were of a good opinion; for I ensure you, I have heard you, and had an affection to you.” “I thank you, master Pope, for your heart and mind; and ye know,” quod I, “I were a very fool if I would, in this matter, dissent from you, if that in my conscience the truth did not enforce me so to do.

    For I wis (as ye do perceive, I trow), it is somewhat out of my way, if I would esteem worldly gain.” “What say ye,” quod he, “to Cyprian? Doth he not say plainly, ‘Panis quem porrigebat Dominus, non effigie sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro?’” “True sir, so he doth say; and I answer even the same which once, by chance, I preached at Paul’s Cross in a sermon 178 , for the which I have been as unjustly and as untruly reported as any poor man hath been. For there I speaking of the sacrament, and inveighing against them that esteemed it no better than a piece of bread, I told even the same thing of ‘poenitentes,’ ‘audientes,’ ‘catechumeni,’ ‘energumeni,’ that I spake of before: and I bade them depart as unworthy to hear the mystery. And then I said to those that be ‘sancti,’ Cyprian the martyr shall tell you how it is that Christ calleth it, saying, ‘Panis est corpus, cibus, potus, caro’ 223 etc.; because that unto this material substance is given the property of the thing whereof it beareth the name.” And this place then took I to utter, as the time would then suffer, that material substance of bread did remain.

    Master Fecknam (which, as is reported to me, did belie me openly in the same matter at Paul’s Cross) heard all this my talk, as red as scarlet in his face, and herein answered me never one word. “You do know well,” quod master secretary, “that Origen and Tertullian were not catholic, but erred.” “Sir,” quod I, “there is none of all the doctors that are holden in all points, but are thought to have erred in some things. Sir, but I never heard that it was either laid to Origen’s charge or to Tertullian, that ever they were thought to have erred in this matter of the sacrament.” “What,” quod master Cholmley, late chief justice, “doth not Christ say plainly, that it is his very flesh, and his very blood, and we must needs eat him, or we can have no life?” “Sir,” quod I, “if you will hear how St. Augustine expoundeth that place, ye shall perceive that ye are in a wrong box.” And when I began to tell St.

    Augustine’s mind in his book “De Doctrina Christiana,” 224 “Yea, yea,” quod master secretary,” that is true; St. Augustine doth take it figuratively indeed.” “Forty years ago,” quod master Fecknam, “all was of one opinion in this matter.” “Forty years ago.” quod 1. “all held that the bishop of Rome was supreme head of the universal church.” “What then?” master Fecknam was beginning to say, etc.; but master secretary took the tale, and said, “That was but a positive law.” “A positive law?” quod I; “No sir, he would not have it so: for it is in his decrees, that he challenged it by Christ’s own word. For his decree saith: ‘Nullis synodicis constitutis, neque conciliis, sed viva voce Domini, praelata est ecclesia Romana omnibus ecclesiis in toto mundo; dicente Domino Petro Tu es Petrus,’ 225 etc. And in another [place] he entreateth, ‘Tu es Cephas, id est, caput.’” “Tush! it was not counted an article,” quod master secretary, “of our faith, which is to be believed under pain of damnation 179 .” “Yes,” said I, “if ye call that an article of our faith, which is to be believed under pain of damnation. For he saith, ‘Omnino definimus, declaramus, pronunciamus, omnem creaturam subesse Romano pontifici, de necessitate salutis.’” And here, when we spake of laws and decrees, master Cholmley thought himself much wronged, that he could not be suffered, the rest was so ready to speak. And then he up and told a long tale, what laws was of kings of England made against the bishop of Rome; and was vehement to tell how they alway of the clergy did fly to him. And here, because he seemed to speak of many things beside our purpose, whereof we spake before, he was answered of his own fellows, and I let them talk.

    Finally, we departed in peace, and master secretary promised in the end, that of their talk, there should come to me no harm. And after I had made my moan for lack of my books, he said, they were all once given him: “But sith he yet knoweth who hath them now, write me the names of such as ye would have, and I will speak for you the best I can.”

    Upon the articles above mentioned, and inquisition made upon the same, divers ministers were divorced from their wives. Amongst whom was one John Draper, and Joan Gold his wife, in the diocese of London, troubled and vexed for the same by Bonner bishop of London, who sent forth a commission, 228 with a process to sequester and separate them; enjoining also penance to the poor woman.

    Besides this John Draper, divers others, also, were divorced the same time against their wills; and some were contented, of their own unconstant accord, to be separated from their wives: as of Chichester one (who, because he soon recovered again, shall be here nameless), another named Edmund Alstone, another Alexander Bull; amongst whom also was Dr.

    Standish, with many others, whose names together, in the end of this story of queen Mary, we may peradventure, by God’s grace, in a general catalogue together comprehend.

    The 10th of March a letter was sent 180 to the lieutenant of the Tower, to deliver the bodies of master doctor Cranmer, the archbishop of Canterbury, master doctor Ridley, and master Latimer, to sir John Williams, to be conveyed by him unto Oxford.

    The 26th of March, there was a letter directed to sir Henry Doell, and one Foster, to attach the bodies of doctor Taylor, parson of Hadley, and of Henry Askew, and to send them up to the council.

    HOW THOMAS CRANMER ARCHBISHOP, BISHOP RIDLEY, AND MASTER LATIMER, WERE SENT DOWN TO OXFORD TO DISPUTE ; WITH THE ORDER AND MANNER, And all other circumstances unto the said disputation, and also to their condemnation, appertaining. About the 10th of March 182 230 ,Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, Ridley bishop of London, and Hugh Latimer bishop also some time of Worcester, were conveyed as prisoners from the Tower to Windsor; and after from thence to the university of Oxford, there to dispute with the divines and learned men of both the universities, Oxford and Cambridge, about the presence, substance, and sacrifice of the sacrament. The names of the university doctors and graduates appointed to dispute 183 against them, were these: of Oxford, Dr. Weston, prolocutor, Dr. Tresham, Dr. Cole, Dr.

    Oglethorpe, Dr. Pie, master Harpsfield, master Fecknam. Of Cambridge, Dr. Young, vice-chancellor, Dr. Glyn, Dr. Seton, Dr. Watson, Dr.

    Sedgewick, Dr. Atkinson, etc. The articles or questions 184 whereupon they should dispute were these:

    First , Whether the natural body of Christ be really in the sacrament, after the words spoken by the priest, or no?

    Secondly , Whether in the sacrament, alter the words of consecration, any other substance do remain, than the substance of the body and blood of Christ?

    Thirdly , Whether in the mass be a sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the quick and the dead?

    Touching the order and manner of all the things there done, with the notes, arguments, and all circumstances thereunto pertaining, to deduce the matter from the beginning, leaving out nothing (as near as we may) that shall seem necessary to be added: First, Here is to be understood, that upon Saturday the 7th day of April, the heads of the colleges in Cambridge being congregated together, letters coming down from Stephen Gardiner lord chancellor were read, with articles therewith annexed, that should be disputed upon at Oxford: the contents of which three articles are sufficiently expressed before. Whereupon, in the said congregation of the aforesaid university of Cambridge, there was granted first a grace in this form, proposed by the senior proctor: 231 “May it please you to have an instrument made, that the doctrine of these aforesaid articles is sound and catholic, and consonant with the verity of the right meaning faith; and that the same may be approved by your consent and voices?” Secondly, in the said congregation, another grace was given and granted, that Dr. Young being vice-chancellor, Dr. Glyn, Dr. Atkinson, Dr. Scot, and master Sedgewick, should go to Oxford to defend the said articles against Canterbury, London, and Latimer: also to have letters to the Oxford men, sealed with their common seal. Item, Another grace granted to master Sedgewick to be actual doctor, being thereupon immediately admitted. The aforesaid letters 185 , being then drawn out, the third day after (which was the 10th day of April) were read in the aforesaid congregation-house, and there sealed.

    Whereupon the next day after (the 11th of the said month) the aforesaid doctors, with the full grace of that university, set forward to Oxford: and coming thither the second day after (being Friday, the 13th of April), were all lodged at the Cross-inn, with one* Wakefield 186 232 ,* being some time servant to bishop Bonner.

    Anon after their coming, Dr. Crooke presented them with wine for their welcome; and, shortly after, two of the beadles came from the vicechancellor of Oxford, and presented the vice-chancellor of Cambridge with a dish of apples and a gallon of wine; after whom, next came master Pie and Fecknam to welcome them. Then, after consultation concerning the delivery of their letters, and instrument of grace (which was in Dr. Seton and Dr. Watson’s* chamber 187 232 *),they went all to Lincoln-college, to Dr.

    Weston the prolocutor, and to the vice-chancellor 188 Dr. Tresham; and there they delivered their letters, and declared what they had done touching “the articles, letters, and graces, *where they had a junkery, but sat not down 232 * Half an hour after eight they returned to their inn again: but first they concluded of a procession, sermon, and convocation, to be had the morrow following; and that the doctors of Cambridge should be incorporate in the university of Oxford, and likewise that the doctors of Oxford should be incorporate in the university of Cambridge. The same day the forenamed prisoners were dissevered, as was said afore 189 ; 233 Dr.

    Ridley to alderman Irish’s house, master Latimer to another, and Dr.

    Cranmer remained still in Bocardo:

    On Saturday, being the 14th of April, at eight of the clock, the aforesaid vice-chancellor of Cambridge, with the other doctors of the same university, repaired to Lincoln-college again, and found the prolocutor above in a chapel, with the company of the house singing Requiem mass, and tarried there until the end. Then they, consulting all together in the master’s lodging, about nine of the clock came all to the university church called St. Mary’s; and there, after a short consultation in a chapel, the vicechancellor, the prolocutor, etc. of Oxford, caused the vice-chancellor of Cambridge, and the rest of the doctors of that university to send for their scarlet * copes 190 , 234 * brought from Cambridge; save that doctors Seton and Watson borrowed of the Oxford men. And in this time, the regents in the congregation-house had granted all the Cambridge doctors their graces, to be incorporate there; and so they went up, and were admitted immediately, Dr. Oglethorpe presenting them, and the proctor reading the statute, and giving them their oaths.

    That done, they came all into the quier, and there held the convocation of the university, * being gremials 191 234 * They had mass of the Holy Ghost solemnly sung in prick-song 235 by the quier-men of Christ’s church. But first, the cause of the convocation was opened in English, partly by the vice-chancellor, and partly by the prolocutor, declaring that they were sent by the queen, and wherefore they were sent; and caused master Say, the register, openly to read the commission. That done, the vice-chancellor read Cambridge letters openly, and then concluded, that three notaries, master Say for the convocation, a beadle of Cambridge for that university, and one master White for Oxford, should testify of their doing; and then willed the said notaries to provide parchment:, that the whole assembly might subscribe to the articles, save those that had subscribed before in the convocation-house at London and Cambridge. And so the vice-chancellor began first; after him the rest of the Oxford men, as many as could in the mass time.

    The mass being done, they went in procession: First, The quier in their surplices followed the cross; then the first-year regents, and proctors; then the doctors of law, and their beadle before them; then the doctors of divinity of both universities intermingled, the divinity and art beadles going before them, the vice-chancellor and prolocutor going together. After them bachelors of divinity, “Regentes, et non regentes,” in their array; and last of all, the bachelors of law and art; after whom followed a great company of scholars and students not graduate. And thus they proceeded through the street to Christ’s church; and there the quier sung a psalm, and after that a collect was read. This done, departed the commissioners, doctors, and many other to Lincoln-college, where they dined with the mayor of the town, one alderman, four beadles, master Say, and the Cambridge notary.

    After dinner they went all again to St. Mary’s church; and there, after a short consultation in a chapel, all the commissioners came into the quier, and sat all on seats before the altar, to the number of thirty-three persons; and first they sent to the mayor, that he should bring in Dr. Cranmer, who, within a while, was brought to them with a great number of rusty bill-men.

    Thus the reverend archbishop, when he was brought before the commissioners, reverenced them with much humility, and stood with his staff in his hand, who notwithstanding, having a stool offered him, refused to sit. Then the prolocutor, sitting in the midst in a scarlet gown, began with a short preface or oration in praise of unity, and especially in the church of Christ; declaring withal his bringing up, and taking degrees in Cambridge, and also how he was promoted by king Henry, and had been his councillor and a catholic man, one of the same unity, and a member thereof in times past, but, of late years, did separate and cut off himself from it, by teaching and setting forth of erroneous doctrine, making every year a new faith: and therefore it pleased the queen’s grace, to send them of the convocation, and other learned men, to bring him to this unity again, if it might be. Then showed he him, how they of the convocation-house had agreed upon certain articles, whereunto they willed him to subscribe.

    The archbishop answered to the preface very wittily, modestly, and learnedly, showing that he was very glad of a unity, forasmuch as it was “The preserver of all commonwealths, as well of the heathen as of the christians:” and so he dilated the matter with one or two stories of the Romans’ commonwealth. Which thing when he had done, he said, that he was very glad to come to a unity, so that it were in Christ, and agreeable to his holy word.

    When he had thus spoken his full mind, the prolocutor caused the articles to be read unto him, and asked if he would grant and subscribe unto them.

    Then the bishop of Canterbury did read them over three or four times; and, touching the first, article, he asked what they meant by these terms, “Verum et naturale,” i.e.” True and natural.” “Do you not mean,” saith he, “Corpus organicum,” i.e. “A sensible body?” Some answered, “Idem quod natum est ex Virgine,” i.e. “The same that was born of the Virgin;” and so confusedly, some said one thing, some another.

    Then the bishop of Canterbury denied it utterly; and when he had looked upon the other two, he said, they were all false, and against God’s holy word: and therefore he would not agree, he said, in that unity with them.

    This done, the prolocutor, first willing him to write his mind of them that night 192 , said moreover, that he should dispute in them, and caused a copy of the articles to be delivered him, assigning him to answer thereunto on Monday next: and so charged the mayor with him again, to be had to Bocardo, where he was kept before; offering moreover unto him, to name what books he would occupy, and should have them brought unto him. the archbishop was greatly commended of every body for his modesty; insomuch that some masters of arts were seen to weep for him, who in judgment were contrary to him.

    Then was Dr. Ridley brought in, who, hearing the articles read unto him, answered without any delay, saying, they were all false; and said further, that they sprang out of a bitter and sour root. His answers were sharp, witty, and very learned. Then did they lay to his charge a sermon that he made when he was bishop of Rochester, wherein (they said) he spake with transubstantiation. He denied it utterly, and asked whether they could bring out any that heard him, which would say and affirm with them the same. They could bring no proof of it at all. After that, he was asked of one, whether he desired not my lord chancellor that now is, to stick to the mass, and other things? He said, that my lord would say no such things or words of him; for if he did, he reported not the truth of him.

    Then he was asked, whether he would dispute or no? He answered, that as long as God gave him life, he should not only have his heart, but also his mouth and pen to defend his truth: but he required time and books. They said, he could not, and that he should dispute on Thursday, and till that time he should have books. He said it was not reason, that he might not have his own books, and time, also, to look for his disputations. Then gave they him the articles, and bade him write his mind of them that night, and so did they command the mayor to have him from whence he came.

    Last of all came in master Latimer in like sort, with a kerchief, and two or three caps on his head, his spectacles hanging by a string at his breast, and a staff in his hand, and was set in a chair; for so was he suffered by the prolocutor. And after his denial of the articles, when he had Wednesday appointed for disputation, he alleged age, sickness, disuse, and lack of books, saying, that he was almost as meet to dispute, as to be a captain of Calais: but he would, he said, declare his mind either by writing or word, and would stand to all they could lay upon his back: complaining moreover, that he was permitted to have neither pen nor ink, nor yet any book but only the New Testament there in his hand, which, he said, he had read over seven times deliberately, and yet could not find the mass in it, neither the marrow-bones nor sinews of the same. At which words the commissioners were not a little offended; and Dr. Weston said, that he would make him grant that it had both marrow-bones 237 and sinews in the New Testament. To whom master Latimer said again, “That you will never do, master doctor:” and so, forthwith, they put him to silence; so that whereas he was desirous to tell what he meant by those terms, he could not be suffered. There was a very great press and throng of people, and one of the beadles swooned by reason thereof, and was carried into the vestry.

    After this, bringing home the prolocutor first, the Cambridge men, viz. Dr.

    Young, vice-chancellor, Seton, Glyn, Atkinson, Scot, Watson, and Sedgewick, went to the Cross-inn to supper. And this was on Saturday, being the 14th day of April.

    On Sunday after, master Harpsfield preached at St. Mary’s, the university church, at nine of the clock, where *divers of the doctors of both universities had their copes, and were* placed accordingly. After the sermon they went all to dinner to Magdalen-college, and there had a great dinner 193 238 They supped at Lincoln-college with the prolocutor, whither Dr. Cranmer sent answer of his mind upon the articles in writing 194 .

    On Monday, being the 16th of April, master Say and master White, notaries, went about in the morning to the colleges, to get subscriptions to the articles. And, about eight of the clock, the prolocutor, with all the doctors and the vice-chancellor, met together at Exeter-college; and so they went 195 into the schools. And when the vice-chancellor, the prolocutor, and doctors were placed, and four appointed to be “exceptores argumentorum” * set a table* in the midst, and four notaries sitting with them, Dr. Cranmer came to the answerer’s place, the mayor and aldermen sitting by him; and so the disputation *began, set a work* by the prolocutor with a *very* short “praeludium.” Dr. Chedsey began to argue first, and, *or* he left, the prolocutor divers times. Drs. Tresham, Oglethorpe, Marshal vice-chancellor 196 , Pie, Cole, and Harpsfleld did interrupt and press him with their arguments, so that every man said somewhat, as the prolocutor would suffer, disorderly; sometimes in Latin, sometimes in English 197 , so that three hours of the time were spent *or* the vice-chancellor of Cambridge began; who also was interrupted as before . 198 He began with three or four questions subtilely.

    Here the beadles had provided drink, and offered the answerer; but he refused with thanks. The prolocutor offered him, if he would make water or otherwise ease himself, he should. Thus the disputation continued until almost two of the clock, with this applausion audientium: “Vivit veritas.”

    Then were all the arguments, written by the four appointed, delivered into the hand of master Say, registrar; and as for the prisoner, he was had away by the mayor; and the doctors dined together at the University college.

    And thus much concerning the general order and manner of these disputations, with such circumstances as there happened, and things there done, as well before the disputation, and in the preparation thereof, as also in the time of their disputing. Now followeth to infer and declare the orations, arguments, and answers, used and brought forth in the said disputations on both parts.

    THE ARGUMENTS, REASONS, AND ALLEGATIONS USED IN THIS DISPUTATION.

    On Monday, Dr. Weston, with all the residue of the visitors, censors, and opponents, repairing to the divinity school, each one installed himself in his place. Dr. Cranmer, with a rout of rusty bills, was brought thither, and set in the answerer’s place, with the mayor and aldermen sitting by him; where Dr. Weston, prolocutor, apparelled in a scarlet gown after the custom of the university, began the disputation with this oration. His words in Latin, as he spake them, were these: “Convenistis hodie, fratres, profligaturi detestandam illam haeresin de veritate corporis Christi in sacramento,” etc., that is, “Ye are assembled hither, brethren, this day, to confound the detestable heresy of the verity of the body of Christ in the sacrament,” etc. At which words thus pronounced of the prolocutor unawares, divers of the learned men there present, considering and well weighing the words by him uttered, burst out into a great laughter, as though, even in the entrance of the disputations, he had betrayed himself and his religion, that termed the opinion of the verity of Christ’s body in the sacrament, a detestable heresy. The rest of his oration tended all to this effect, that it was not lawful by God’s word to call these questions into controversy: for such as doubted of the words of Christ, might well be thought to doubt both of the truth and power of God. Whereunto Dr. Cranmer, desiring license, answered in this wise. “We are assembled,” saith he, “to discuss these doubtful controversies, and to lay them open before the eyes of the world; whereof ye think it unlawful to dispute. It is indeed no reason,” saith he, “that we should dispute of that which is determined upon, before the truth be tried. But if these questions be not called into controversy, surely mine answer then is looked for in vain.”

    This was the sum and effect of his answer; and, this done, he prepared himself to disputation.

    Then Chedsey, the first opponent, began in this wise to dispute. “Reverend master doctor, these three conclusions are put forth unto us at present, to dispute upon; “First, in the sacrament of the altar is the natural body of Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and also his blood, present really under the forms of bread and wine, by virtue of God’s word pronounced by the priest. “Secondly, there remaineth no substance of bread and wine after the consecration, nor any other substance, but the substance of God and man. “Thirdly, the lively sacrifice of the church is in the mass propitiatory as well for the quick as the dead. “These be the conclusions propounded, whereupon this our present controversy doth rest. Now, to the end we might not doubt how you take the same, you have already given up unto us 199 your opinion thereof: I term it your opinion, in that it disagreeth from the catholic. Wherefore I thus argue: “Your opinion differeth from the Scripture: “Ergo, you are deceived.” Cranmer: — “I deny the antecedent.” Chedsey: — “Christ, when he instituted his last supper, spake to his disciples, ‘Take, eat: this is my body which shall be given for you.’ “But his true body was given for us: “Ergo, his true body is in the sacrament. [The right form of this argument is thus to be framed: “The same which was given for us is in the sacrament. “But his true body was given for us: “Ergo, his true body is in the sacrament.”] Cranmer: — “His true body is truly present to them that truly receive him: but spiritually. And so is it taken after a spiritual sort; for when he said, ‘This is my body,’ it is all one as if he had said, ‘This is the breaking of my body; this is the shedding of my blood.’ — As oft as you shall do this, it shall put you in remembrance of the breaking of my body, and the shedding of my blood; that as truly as you receive this sacrament, so truly shall you receive the benefit promised by receiving the same worthily.” Chedsey: — “Your opinion differeth from the church, which saith, that the true body is in the sacrament: “Ergo, your opinion therein is false.” Cranmer: — “I say and agree with the church, that the body of Christ is in the sacrament effectually, because the passion of Christ is effectual.” Chedsey: — “Christ when he spake these words, ‘This is my body,’ spake of the substance, but not of the effect.” Cranmer: — “I grant he spake of the substance, and not of the effect after a sort: and yet it is most true that the body of Christ is effectually in the sacrament. But I deny that he is there truly present in bread, or that under the bread is his organical body.”

    And because it should be to tedious (he said) to make discourse of the whole, he delivered up there his opinion thereof to Dr. Weston, written at large; with answers to every one of their three propositions, which he desired Dr. Weston, sitting there on high, to read openly to the people; which he promised to do. But it was not the first promise that such papists have broken.

    The copy of this writing, although it were not there read, yet the contents thereof we have drawn out as followeth.

    AN EXPLICATION OF CRANMER UPON THE AFORESAID CONCLUSIONS EXHIBITED IN WRITING.

    In the assertions of the church and of religion, trifling and new fangled novelties of words, so much as may be, are to be eschewed, whereof ariseth nothing but contention and brawling about words; and we must follow, so much as we may, the manner of speaking of the Scripture.

    In the first conclusion, if ye understand by this word “really” “re ipsa,” i.e. in very deed and effectually, so Christ by the grace and efficacy of his passion, is indeed and truly present to all his true and holy members.

    But if ye understand by this word “really” “corporaliter,” i.e. “corporally;” so that by the body of Christ is understood a natural body and organical 239 ; so, the first proposition doth vary, not only from the usual speech and phrase of Scripture, but also is clean contrary to the holy word of God, and christian profession: when as both the Scripture doth testify by these words, and also the catholic church hath professed from the beginning, — Christ to have left the world, and to sit at the right hand of the Father till he come to judgment.

    And likewise I answer to the second question; that is, that it swerveth from the accustomed manner and speech of Scripture.

    The third conclusion, as it is intricate and wrapped in all doubtful and ambiguous words, and differing also much from the true speech of the Scripture, so as the words thereof seem to import no open sense; is most contumelious against our only Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, and a violating of his precious blood, which, upon the altar of the cross, is the only sacrifice and oblation for the sins of all mankind. Chedsey: — “By this your interpretation which you have made upon the first conclusion, this I understand, — the body of Christ to be in the sacrament only by the way of participation: insomuch as we, communicating thereof, do participate the grace of Christ, so that you mean hereby only the effect thereof. But our conclusion standeth upon the substance, and not the efficacy only, which shall appear by the testimony both of Scriptures, and of all the fathers a thousand years after Christ. “And first (to begin with the Scripture), let us consider what is written in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and I Corinthians 11.

    Matthew saith, ‘As they sat at supper, Jesus took bread,’ etc. In Mark there is the same sense, although not the same words, who, also, for one part of the sacrament speaketh more plainly, ‘Jesus taking bread,’ etc. After the same sense also writeth Luke 22, ‘And when Jesus had taken bread,’ etc. ‘In the mouth of two or three witnesses,’ saith the Scripture, ‘standeth all truth.’ Here we have three witnesses together, that Christ said that to be his body, which was given for many; and that to be his blood, which should be shed for many: whereby is declared the substance, and not only the efficacy alone thereof. Ergo, it is not true that you say, there to be not the substance of his body, but the efficacy alone thereof.” Cranmer: — “Thus you gather upon mine answer, as though I did mean of the efficacy, and not of the substance of the body; but I mean of them both, as well of the efficacy as of the substance. And, forsomuch as all things come not readily to memory, to a man that shall speak extempore, therefore, for the more ample and fuller answer in this matter, this writing here I do exhibit.”

    A FURTHER EXPLICATION EXHIBITED BY CRANMER Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, at the time of his maundy — preparing himself to die for our cause, that he might redeem us from eternal death, forgive us all our sins, and cancel out the handwriting that was against us — that we, through ungrateful oblivion should not forget his death, therefore, at the time of his holy supper, did institute a perpetual memory of this his death, to be celebrated among christians in bread and wine, according as it is said: “Do this in remembrance of me;” and “So often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you shall show forth the Lord’s death, till he come.” (1Corinthians 11) And this remembrance or sacrament of his holy passion, that is, of his body slain, and blood shed, he would all christians to frequent and celebrate in bread and wine, according as he said, “Take eat, and drink ye all of this.” (Matthew 26) Therefore, whosoever, for man’s tradition, denieth the cup of Christ’s blood to laymen, they manifestly repugn against Christ, forbidding that which Christ commandeth to be done, and be like to those Scribes and Pharisees of whom the Lord spake: “Ye hypocrites, ye have rejected the commandments of God for your traditions. ‘Well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

    Without cause do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and precepts of men. (Matthew 15) The sacrament and mystical bread being broken and distributed after the institution of Christ, and the mystical wine being likewise taken and received, be not only sacraments of the flesh of Christ wounded for us, and of his bloodshedding, but also be most certain sacraments for us, and (as a man would say), seals of God’s promises and gifts, and also of that holy fellowship which we have with Christ and, all his members.

    Moreover, they be to us memorials of that heavenly food and nourishment, wherewith we are nourished unto eternal life, and the thirst of our boiling conscience [is] quenched; and finally, whereby the hearts of the faithful be replenished with unspeakable joy, and be corroborated and strengthened unto all works of godliness. “We are many,” saith St. Paul, “one bread, and one body, all we which do participate of one bread, and one cup.” (1 Corinthians 10) And Christ saith: “Eat ye; this is my body;” and, “Drink ye; this is my blood. (Matthew 26)” And, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. He that eateth me, shall also live for ever. Not as your fathers did eat manna in the desart, and are dead: he that eateth me, shall also live for ever.” (John 6) Thus, therefore, true bread and true wine remain still in the eucharist (until they be consumed of the faithful) to be signs, and as seals unto us annexed unto God’s promises, making us certain of God’s gifts towards us. Also Christ remaineth in them, and they in Christ, who eat his flesh, and drink his blood, as Christ himself hath promised: “They that eat my flesh, and drink my blood, abide in me, and I in them.” Moreover, he abideth also in them that worthily receive the outward sacrament; neither doth he depart so soon as the sacrament is consumed, but continually abideth, feeding and nourishing us so long as we remain bodies of that head, and members of the same. I acknowledge not here the natural body of Christ, which is only spiritual, unintelligible, and insensible, having no distinction of members and parts in it: but that body only I acknowledge and worship, which was born of the Virgin, which suffered for us, which is visible, palpable, and hath all the form, and shape, and parts, of the true natural body of man. Christ spake not these words of any uncertain substance, but of the certain substance of bread, which he then held in his hands, and showed his disciples, when he said, “Eat ye; this is my body:” and likewise of the cup, when he said, “Drink ye; this is my blood:” meaning verily of that bread, which by nature is usual and common with us, which is taken out of the fruit of the ground, compacted by the uniting of many grains together made by man, and by man’s hand brought to that visible shape, being of round compass, and with out all sense or life; which nourisheth the body, and strengtheneth the heart of man: of this same bread (I say) and not of any uncertain and wandering substance, the old fathers say that Christ spake these words, “Eat ye; this is my body.” And likewise also of the wine, which is the creature and fruit of the vine pressed out of many clusters of grapes, and maketh man’s heart merry, of the very same wine (I say) Christ spake, “Drink ye; this is my blood.”

    And so the old doctors do call this speaking of Christ tropical, figurative, analogical, allegorical; which they do interpret after this sort, that although the substance of bread and wine do remain, and be received of the faithful, yet, notwithstanding, Christ changed the appellation thereof, and called the bread by the name of his flesh, and the wine by the name of his blood; 241 “Not that it is so in very deed, but signified in a mystery.” So that we should consider, not what they be in their own nature, but what they import to us and signify; and should understand the sacrament not carnally, but spiritually; and should attend not to the visible nature of the sacraments, neither have respect only to the outward bread and cup, thinking to see there with our eyes no other things but only bread and wine: but that, lifting up our minds, we should look up to the blood of Christ with our faith; should touch him with our mind, and receive him with our inward man; and that being like eagles in this life, we should fly up into heaven in our hearts, where that Lamb is resident at the right hand of his Father, which taketh away the sins of the world; by whose stripes we are made whole; by whose passion we are filled at his table, and whose blood we, receiving out of his holy side, do live for ever, being made the guests of Christ; having him dwelling in us through the grace of his true nature, and, through the virtue and efficacy of his whole passion, being no less assured and certified, that we are fed spiritually unto eternal life by Christ’s flesh crucified, and by his blood shed, the true food of our minds, than that our bodies be fed with meat and drink in this life: and hereof this said mystical bread on the table of Christ, and the mystical wine, being administered and received after the institution of Christ, be to us a memorial, a pledge, a token, a sacrament, and a seal. And thereof it is that Christ saith not thus: “This is my body; eat ye:” but, after he had bidden them eat, then he said, “This is my body, which shall be given for you:” which is to mean, as though he should say, “In eating of this bread, consider you that this bread is no common thing, but a mystical matter; neither do you attend that which is set before your bodily eyes, but what feedeth you within. Consider and behold my body crucified for you; that eat and digest in your minds; chew you upon my passion; be fed with my death. This is the true meat; this is the drink that moisteneth, wherewith you — being truly fed and inebriate — shall live for ever. The bread and wine which be set before your eyes are only declarations of me, but I myself am the eternal food. Wherefore, whensoever at this my table you shall behold the sacraments, have not regard so much to them, as consider ye what I promise you by them; which is — myself to be meat for you of eternal life.”

    The only oblation of Christ (wherewith he offered himself to God the Father once to death upon the altar of the cross for our redemption) was of such efficacy, that there is no more need of any sacrifice for the redemption of the whole world; but all the sacrifices of the old law he took away, performing that in very deed, which they did signify and promise. Whosoever therefore shall fix the hope of his salvation in any other sacrifice, he falleth from the grace of Christ, and is contumelious against the blood of Christ. For “he was wounded for our transgressions, and was broken for our iniquities. All we like sheep have wandered astray.

    Every man hath turned after his own way, and the Lord hath laid all our iniquities upon him. (Isaiah 53) For he hath entered once for all into the holy place by the blood, not of goats or calves, but by his own blood, finding eternal redemption:” “And hath entered into heaven, to appear now in the sight of God for us: not to offer himself oftentimes (for so should he have suffered many times); but now hath he appeared once to put away sin, through his own oblation. And as it is appointed to all men once to die, so also Christ once was offered:” (Hebrews 9) ‘“Who, offering up one oblation for sins, sitteth now for ever on the right hand of God: for by one oblation hath he made perfect for ever those that be sanctified.” “For where is remission of sin (Hebrews 10), there is now no oblation for sin, but this only sacrifice of Christ.

    Whosoever shall seek any other sacrifice propitiatory for sin, maketh the sacrifice of Christ of no validity, force, or efficacy: for if it be sufficient to remit sins, what need is there of any other? for the necessity of another argueth and declareth this to be insufficient. Almighty God grant, that we may truly lean to one sacrifice of Christ, and that we to him again may repay our sacrifices of thanksgiving, of praise, of confessing his name, of true amendment, of repentance, of mercifulness towards our neighbors, and of all other good works of charity: for by such sacrifices we shall declare ourselves neither ungrateful to God, nor altogether unworthy of this holy sacrifice of Christ.

    And thus you have out of the testimonies of holy Scripture, and of the ancient doctors of the church, the true and sincere use of the Lord’s holy supper, and the fruit of the true sacrifice of Christ; which whosoever, through captious or wrested interpretations, or by men’s traditions, shall go about, otherwise than Christ ordained them, to alter or transubstantiate, he shall answer to Christ in the latter day, when he shall understand (but then too late), that he hath no participation with the body and blood of Christ, but that out of the supper of eternal life, he hath eaten and drunken eternal damnation to himself. Weston: — “Because we will not consume and spend the time in waste, this your writing which you exhibit, hereafter shall be read in this place. In the mean season let us now fall to the arguments.” Chedsey: — “The Scriptures in many places do affirm, that Christ gave his natural body: Matthew 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. Ergo, I do conclude that the natural body is in the sacrament.” Cranmer: — “To your argument I answer, If you understand by the body natural ‘organicum,’ that is, having such proportion and members as he had living here, then I answer negatively. Furthermore, concerning the evangelists thus I say and grant, that Christ took bread, and called it, his body.” Chedsey: — “The text of the Scripture maketh against you, for the circumstance thereto annexed doth teach us, not only there to be the body, but also teacheth us what manner of body it is, and saith, ‘The same body which shall be given.’ “That thing is here contained, that is given for us. “But the substance of bread is not given for us. “:Ergo, The substance of bread is not here contained.” Cranmer: — “I understand not yet what you mean by this word ‘contained.’ If ye mean ‘really,’ then I deny your major.” Chedsey: — “The major is the text of Scripture. He that denieth the major, denieth the Scripture: for the Scripture saith, ‘This is my body which is given for you.’” Cranmer: — “I grant he said it was his body which should be given, but he said it was not his body which is here contained; ‘but the body,’ saith he, ‘that shall be given for you.’ As though he should say, ‘This bread is the breaking of my body; and this cup is the shedding of my blood.’ What will ye say then? Is the bread the breaking of his body, and the cup the shedding of his blood really? If you say so, I deny it.” Chedsey: — “If you ask what is the thing therein contained; because his apostles should not doubt what body it was that should be given, he saith, ‘This is my body which shall be given for you, and my blood which shall be shed for many.’ Ergo, here is the same substance of the body, which the day after was given, and the same blood which was shed. And here I urge the Scripture, which teacheth that it was no fantastical, no reigned, no spiritual body, nor body in faith; but the substance of the body.” Cranmer: — “You must prove that it is contained: but Christ said not, ‘which is contained.’ He gave bread, and called that his body. I stick not in the words of the Scripture, but in your word, which is feigned and imagined of yourself.” Chedsey: — “When Christ took bread and brake it, what gave he?” Cranmer: — “He gave bread. The bread sacramentally, and his body spiritually, and the bread there he called his body.” Chedsey: — “This answer is against the Scripture, which saith, that he gave his body.” Cranmer: — “It did signify that which they did eat.” Chedsey: — “They did not eat the body as the Capernaites did understand it, but the selfsame body which was given for the sins of the world. Ergo, it was his body which should be given, and his blood which should be shed.” [In some other copies I find this argument to be made by Chedsey. “The same body is in the sacrament, which was given for us on the cross. “But bread was not given on the cross for us: “Ergo, Bread is not given in the sacrament.” Cranmer: — “I deny the major, which is, that the same natural body is given in the sacrament, which was given on the cross, except you understand it spiritually.” — And after, he denied also the argument as utterly nought, as he might well do, the major in the second figure being not universal.] When master Chedsey had put forth his argument, and prosecuted the same, and Dr. Cranmer answered as before is showed, Dr. Oglethorpe, one of those doctors which the prolocutor called “censores” (belike to be arbiters to order the disputations), said on this wise: Oglethorpe: — “You come in still with one evasion or starting hole to flee to. He urgeth the Scriptures, saying, that Christ gave his very body. You say, that he gave his body in bread. Quomodo praedicatur corpus? qualis est corpus? qualis est praedicatio? panis est corpus.” Cranmer: — “You should say, ‘Quale corpus.’ 242 I answer to the question: It is the same body which was born of the Virgin, was crucified, ascended; but tropically, and by a figure. And so I say, ‘Panis est corpus,’ is a figurative speech, speaking sacramentally; for it is a sacrament of his body. Oglethorpe: — “This word ‘body,’ being ‘praedicatum,’ doth signify substance. “But ‘substantia’ is not predicated denominatively. “Ergo, It is an essential predication; and so it is his true body, and not the figure of his body.” Cranmer: — “Substantia may be predicated denominatively in an allegory, or in a metaphor, or in a figurative locution.” Oglethorpe: — “It is not a likely thing, that Christ hath less care for his spouse the church, than a wise householder hath for his family, in making his will or testament.” Cranmer: — “Your reason is drawn out of the affairs of men, and not taken out of the holy Scriptures.” Oglethorpe: — “But no householder maketh his testament after that sort.” Cranmer: — “Yes, there are many that so do. For what matter is it, so it be understood and perceived? I say, Christ did use figurative speech in no place more than in his sacraments; and specially in this of his supper.” Oglethorpe: — “No man of purpose doth use tropes in his testament; for if he do, he deceiveth them that he comprehendeth in his testament: therefore Christ useth none here.” Cranmer: — “Yes, he may use them well enough. You know not what tropes are.” Oglethorpe: — “The good man of the house hath respect that his heirs, after his departure, may live in quiet and without brabling. “But they cannot be in quiet, if he do use tropes: “Therefore, I say, he useth no tropes.” Cranmer: — “I deny your minor.” Weston: — “Augustine, in his book entituled ‘De unitate Ecclesiae,’ chap. 10, 243 hath these words following: “‘What a thing is this, I pray you? When the last words of one lying upon his death-bed are heard, who is ready to go to his grave, no man saith, that he hath made a lie; and he is not accounted his heir, who regardeth not those words. How shall we then escape God’s wrath, if either not believing, or not regarding, we shall reject the last words both of the only Son of God, and also of our Lord and Savior, — both ascending into heaven, and beholding from thence, who despiseth, who observeth them not; and so shall come from thence to judge all men?’ “THE ARGUMENT IS THUS FORMED: “Whosoever saith that the testator lieth, is a wicked heir. “But whosoever saith that Christ spake by figures, saith that he did lie: “Ergo, Whosoever saith that Christ here spake by figures, is a wicked heir.” Cranmer: — “I deny the minor: as who say, it is necessary that he that useth to speak by tropes and figures, should lie in so doing.” Oglethorpe: — “Your judgment is disagreeing with all churches.” Cranmer: — “Nay, I disagree with the papistical church.” Oglethorpe: — “This you do, through the ignorance of logic.” Cranmer: — “Nay, this you say, through the ignorance of the doctors.” Weston: — “I will go plainly to work by Scriptures. What took he?” Cranmer: — “Bread.” Weston: — “What gave he?” Cranmer: — “Bread.” Weston: — “What brake he?” Cranmer: — “Bread.” Weston: — “What did he eat?” Cranmer: — “Bread.” Weston: — “He gave bread: therefore he gave not his body. “He gave not his body, therefore it is not his body verily, and in deed and in truth.” Cranmer: — “I deny the argument.” Cole: — “This argument holdeth, ‘a disparatis:’ 245 It is bread: ergo, it is not the body; and it is such an argument or reason as cannot be dissolved.” Cranmer: — “The like argument may be made. He is a rock: ergo, he is not Christ.” Cole: — “It is not alike.” Weston: — “He gave not his body indeed: ergo, it was not his body indeed.” Cranmer: — “He gave his death, his passion, and the sacrament of his passion. And, in very deed, setting the figure aside, formally it is not his body.” Weston: — “Why? then the Scripture is false.” Cranmer: — “Nay, the Scripture is most true.” Weston: — “This saith Chrysostome: 246 ‘Needful it is, dear friends, to tell you what the miracle of the mysteries, is, and wherefore it is given, and what profit there is of the thing. We are one body, and members of his flesh and of his bones. We that be in the mystery, let us follow the thing which was spoken. Wherefore, that we may become this thing, not only by love, but also that we may become one with that flesh indeed, that is brought to pass by this food which he gave unto us, minding to show his great good will that he hath towards us; and therefore he mixed himself with us, and united his own body with us, that we should be made all as one thing together, as a body joined and annexed to the head; for this is a token of most ardent and perfect love. And the same thing Job also, insinuating, said of his servants, of whom he was desired above measure, insomuch that they, showing their great desire toward him, said, Who shall give unto us to be filled with his flesh? Therefore also Christ did the same, who, to induce us into a greater love toward him, and to declare his desire towards us, did not only give himself to be seen of them that would, but also to be handled and eaten, and suffered us to fasten our teeth in his flesh, and to be united together, and so to fill all our desire. Like lions therefore, as breathing fire, let us go from that table, being made terrible to the devil, remembering our Head in our mind, and his charity which he showed unto us. For parents many times give their children to others to be fed, but I do not so (saith he), but feed you with mine own flesh, and set myself before you; desiring to make you all jolly people, and pretending to you great hope and expectation to look for things to come, who here give myself to you, but much more in the world to come. I am become your brother; I took flesh and blood for you. Again, my flesh and blood, by the which I am made your kinsman, I deliver unto you.’ Thus much out of Chrysostome. Out of which words I make this argument. “The same flesh whereby Christ is made our brother and kinsman, is given of Christ to us to be eaten. “Christ is made our brother and kinsman, by his true, natural, and organical flesh: “Ergo, His true, natural, and organical flesh, is given to us to be eaten.” Cranmer: — “I grant the consequence and the consequent.” Weston: — “Therefore we eat it with our mouth.” Cranmer: — “I deny it. We eat it through faith.” Weston: — “He gave us that same flesh to eat whereby he became our brother and kinsman. “But he became our brother and kinsman by his true, natural, and organical flesh: “Therefore he gave his true, natural, and organical flesh to be eaten.” Cranmer: — “I grant he took and gave the same true, natural, and organical flesh wherein he suffered; and yet he feedeth us spiritually, and that flesh is received spiritually.” Weston: — “He gave us the same flesh which,he took of the Virgin. “But he took not his true flesh of the Virgin spiritually, or in a figure. “Ergo, He gave his true natural flesh, not spiritually.” Cranmer: — “Christ gave to us his own natural flesh, the same wherein he suffered, but feedeth us spiritually.” Weston: — “Chrysostome is against you, where he saith, 248 ‘Let it come into thy remembrance with what honor thou art honored, and what table thou sittest at: for with the same thing we are nourished, which the angels do behold and tremble at; neither are they able to behold it without great fear, for the brightness which cometh thereof: and we be brought and compact into one heap or mass with him, being together one body of Christ, and one flesh with him. Who shall speak the powers of the Lord, and shall declare forth all his praises? What pastor hath ever nourished his sheep with his own members? Many mothers have put forth their infants after their birth to other nurses; which he would not do, but feedeth us with his own body, and conjoineth and uniteth us to himself.’ Whereupon I gather this argument: “Like as mothers nurse their children with milk, so Christ nourisheth us with his body. “But mothers do not nourish their, infants spiritually with their milk: “Therefore Christ doth not nourish those that be his spiritually, with his blood.” Cranmer: — “He gave us the wine for his blood.” Weston: — “If he gave the wine for his blood (as you say), then he gave less than mothers do give. “But Chrysostome affirmeth, that he gave more than mothers give: “Therefore he gave not the wine for his blood.” Cranmer: — “You pervert mine answer. He gave wine, yet the blood is considered therein. As for example: when he giveth baptism, we consider not the water, but the Holy Ghost, and remission of sins. We receive with the mouth the sacrament; but the thing and the matter of the sacrament we receive by faith.” Weston: — “When Christ said, ‘Eat ye,’ whether meant he by the mouth or by faith?” Cranmer: — “He meant, that we should receive the body by faith, the bread by the mouth.” Weston: — “Nay, the body by the mouth.” Cranmer: — “That I deny.” Weston: — “I prove it out of Chrysostome, writing upon the fiftieth Psalm: 250 ‘She that is a mother, shameth sometime to play the nurse. But Christ, our nurse, doth not so play with us.

    Therefore, instead of meat, he feedeth us with his own flesh; and instead of drink, he feedeth us with his own blood.’ Likewise, upon the 83d Homily, on Matthew 26, he saith: ‘For it shall not be enough for him to become man, and in the meanwhile to be whipped; but he doth bring us into one mass or lump with himself (as I may so call it); and maketh us his body, not by faith alone, but also in very deed.’” Cranmer: — “I grant, we make one nature with Christ. But that to be done with the mouth, I deny.” Weston: — “Chrysostome (2 Corinthians 13:Homil. 29) hath these words: 251 ‘No little honor is given to our mouth, receiving the body of the Lord.’” Cranmer: — “This I say, that Christ entereth into us both by our ears and by our eyes. With our mouth we receive the body of Christ, and tear it with our teeth, that is to say, the sacrament of the body of Christ. Wherefore I say and affirm, that the virtue of the sacrament is much: and therefore Chrysostome many times speaketh of sacraments no otherwise than of Christ himself; as I could prove, if I might have liberty to speak, by many places of Chrysostome, where he speaketh of the sacrament of the body of Christ.”

    With which word of the “sacrament of the body,” etc. Dr. Cole being highly offended, denied it to be the sacrament of the body of Christ, save only of the mystical body, which is the church. Cranmer: — “And why should we doubt to call it the sacrament of the body of Christ, offered upon the cross, seeing both Christ and the ancient fathers do so call it?” Cole: — “How gather you that of Chrysostome?” Cranmer: — “Chrysostome declareth himself thus: 252 ‘O miracle, O the good-will of God towards us, which sitteth above, at the right hand of the Father, and is holden in men’s hands at the sacrifice’s time, and is given to feed upon, to them that are desirous of him! And that is brought to pass by no subtilty or craft, but with the open and beholding eyes of all the standers-by.’ Thus you hear, Christ is seen here in earth every day; is touched, is torn with the teeth, that our tongue is red with his blood; which no man having any judgment will say or think to be spoken without trope or figure” Weston: — “What miracle is it, if it be not his body, and if he spake only of the sacrament, as though it were his body? But hearken what Chrysostome saith: 253 I show forth that thing on the earth unto thee, which is worthy the greatest honor. For like as in the palace of kings, neither the walls, nor the sumptuous bed, but the body of kings sitting under the cloth of estate, and royal seal; of majesty, is of all things else the most excellent: so is, in like manner, the King’s body in heaven, which is now set before us on earth. I show thee neither angels nor archangels, nor the heaven of heavens, but the very Lord and Master of all these things. Thou perceivest after what sort thou dost not only behold, but touchest; and not only touchest, but eatest, that which on the earth is the greatest and chiefest thing of all other; and when thou hast received the same, thou goest home: wherefore cleanse thy soul from all uncleanness.’ “Upon this, I conclude that the body of Christ is showed us upon the earth.” Cranmer: — “What! upon the earth? No man seeth Christ upon the earth: he is seen with the eyes of our mind, with faith and spirit.” Weston: — “I pray you, what it is that seemeth worthy highest honor on the earth? Is it the sacrament, or else the body of Christ? “ Cranmer: — “Chrysostome speaketh of the sacrament; and the body of Christ is showed forth in the sacrament.” Weston: — “Ergo, then the sacrament is worthy greatest honor.” Cranmer: — “I deny the argument.” Weston: — “That thing is showed forth, and is now the earth: ‘ostenditur et est,’ 254 which is worthy highest honor. “But only the body of Christ is worthy highest honor: “Ergo, The body of Christ is now on the earth.” Cranmer: — “I answer, the body of Christ to be on the earth, but so as in the sacrament, and as the Holy Ghost is in the water of baptism.” Weston: — “Chrysostome saith ‘ostendo,’ ‘I show forth, which noteth a substance to be present.” Cranmer: — “That is to be understood sacramentally.” Weston: — “He saith ‘ostendo in terra,’ ‘I show forth on earth;’ declaring also the place where.” Cranmer: — “That is to be understood figuratively.” Weston: — “He is showed forth, and is now on the earth, etc. as before.” Cranmer: — “Your major and conclusion are all one.” Weston: — “But the major is true: ergo, the conclusion also is true. “That thing is on the earth, which is worthy of most high honor. “But no figure is worthy of highest honor. “Ergo, That which is on the earth, is no figure.” Cranmer: — “I answer, that is true sacramentally.”

    Here Weston crieth to him, that he should answer to one part, bidding him repeat his words. Which when Cranmer went about to do, such was the noise and crying out in the school, that his mild voice could not be heard.

    For when he went about to declare to the people how the prolocutor did not well English the words of Chrysostome, using for “ostenditur in terra,” “he is showed forth on the earth,” “est in terra,” “he is on the earth,” whereas Chrysostome hath not “est” nor any such word of being on the earth, but only of showing, as the grace of the Holy Ghost in baptismo osteditur , i.e. is showed forth in baptism: and oftentimes he did inculcate this word “ostenditur.”

    Then the prolocutor, stretching forth his hand, set on the rude people to cry out at him, filling all the school with hissing, clapping of hands, and noise; calling him indoctum, imperitum , impudentem, i.e. unlearned, unskilful, impudent: which impudent and reproachful words this reverend man most patiently and meekly did abide, as one that had been inured with the suffering of such like reproaches. And when the prolocutor, not yet satisfied with this rude and unseemly demeanour, did urge and call upon him to answer the argument; then he bade the notary repeat his words again. Notary: — “That which is worthy most high honor, here I show forth to thee on earth. “The body of Christ is worthy highest honor: “Ergo, He showeth forth the body of Christ here on earth.” Cranmer: — “That is showed forth here on the earth, which may be seen, which may be touched, and which may be eaten: but these things be not true of the body.” Cole: — “Why should not these things be true of the body of Christ?” Cranmer: — “The major out of Chrysostome is true; meaning of the sacraments. For in the sacrament the true body of Christ, and not the figurative body, is set forth.’ Weston: — “Show me somewhat in earth worthy greatest honor.” Cranmer: — “I cannot, but in the sacrament only.” Weston: — “Ergo, The sacrament is worthy greatest honor.” Cranmer: — “So it is.” Judges: — “Let it be written.” Cranmer: — “I pray you let my answer be written likewise: I affirm, that the body of Christ is showed forth unto us. It is our faith that seeth Christ.’ Weston: — “Ostendo tibi,’ i.e. ‘I show it to thee,’ saith Chrysostome — not to thy faith.” Cranmer: — “He speaketh sacramentally.” Weston: — “Ergo, Chrysostome lieth. For he, speaking of showing, saith: ‘Ego Chrysostomus ostendo,’ i.e. ‘I Chrysostome do show.’ But he can show nothing sacramentally.” Chedsey: — “By force of argument we are brought to this point, that the body of Christ is proved to be on earth, not only sacramentally, but in very deed also, by this reason, that it is worthy highest honor. — The reason is indissoluble.” Cranmer: — “I never heard a more vain argument, and it is most vain; also it hath mine answer unto it.” Chedsey: — “Will you affirm, that it is absurd which Chrysostome saith, That the, body of Christ is touched? “I touch the body of Christ in the sacrament, as Thomas touched Christ. “Thomas touched Christ, and said, ‘Dominus meus, Deus meus,’ ‘my Lord, my God.’ “Ergo, That which he touched was the Lord, the God.” [This argument, as I received it out of the notary’s book, is not formal; but rather he should conclude in the third figure thus:

    As Thomas touched the body of Christ, so we touch it in the sacrament.

    Thomas touched the body of Christ corporally:

    Ergo, We touch the body of Christ corporally in the sacrament.] Cranmer: — “I deny your argument. He touched not God, but him which was God; neither is it sound doctrine to affirm that God is touched.” Chedsey: — “This is because of the union; so that God is said to be touched, when Christ, which is both God and man, is touched. “Tertullian saith, 258 ‘Let us consider as concerning the proper form of the christian man, what great prerogative this vain and foul substance of ours hath with God. Although it were sufficient to it, that no soul could ever get salvation unless it believe while it is in the flesh: so much the flesh availeth to salvation; by the which flesh it cometh, that whereas the soul so is linked unto God, it is the said flesh that causeth the soul to be linked: yet the flesh moreover is washed, that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed, that the soul may be defended: the flesh is shadowed by the imposition of hands, that the soul may be illuminated with the Spirit; the flesh doth eat the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fed of God. Whereupon I gather this argument: “The flesh eateth the body of Christ. “Ergo, The body of Christ is eaten with the mouth.” “Item Photius upon these words (1 Corinthians 11) ‘Reus erit corporls et sanguinis,’ 259 etc.: ‘Whereas he saith, Is guilty of the body and blood; this he declareth, that like as Judas betrayed him, and the Jews were fierce and spiteful against him; so do they dishonor him, who receive his holy body with their impure hands, and, as the Jews did hold him then, do now receive him with impure mouths. And whereas he often maketh mention of the body and blood of the Lord, he declareth, that it is not simply man that is sacrificed, but even the Lord himself, being the maker of all things, hereby (as it were) making them afraid.’ “Ergo (as it is hereby gathered), the body of Christ is touched with the hands.” Cranmer: — “You vouch two authors against me upon sundry things. First, I must answer Tertullian, and then the other.” Chedsey: — “They tend both to one meaning.” Cranmer: — “Unto Tertullian I answer (because our disputation is wandering and uncertain), that he calleth that the flesh, which is the sacrament. For although God work all things in us invisibly, beyond man’s reach, yet they are so manifest, that they may be seen, and perceived of every sense. Therefore he setteth forth baptism, unction, and, last of all, the supper of the Lord unto us, which he gave to signify his operation in us. The flesh liveth by the bread, but the soul is inwardly fed by Christ.” Weston: — “Stick to those words of Tertullian, 260 ‘The body eateth, that the soul may be fed.’” Chedsey: — “The flesh eateth the body of Christ, that the soul may be fed therewith.” Weston: — “Here you see two kinds of food, of the soul and of the body.” Chedsey: — “He saith, that not only the soul, but the flesh is also fed.” Cranmer: — “The soul is fed with the body of Christ, the body with the sacrament.” Chedsey: — “Is the soul fed with the body of Christ, and not with the sacrament.” Cranmer — “Read that which followeth, and you shall perceive, that by things external, an operation internal is understood.

    Inwardly we eat Christ’s body, and outwardly we eat the sacrament. So one thing is done outwardly, another inwardly. Like as in baptism the external element, whereby the body is washed, is one; the internal thing, whereby the soul is cleansed, is another.” Chedsey: — “The soul is fed by that which the body eateth. “But the soul is fed by the flesh of Christ: “Ergo, The body eateth the flesh of Christ.” Cranmer: — “We eat not one thing outwardly and inwardly.

    Inwardly we eat Christ’s body: outwardly we eat the sacrament.” Chedsey: — “I will repeat the argument. “The flesh eateth Christ’s body, that the soul may be fed therewith. “The soul is not fed with the sacrament, but with Christ’s body. “Ergo, The flesh eateth the body of Christ.” Cranmer: — “The sacrament is one thing, the matter of the sacrament is another. Outwardly we receive the sacrament; inwardly we eat the body of Christ.” Chedsey: — “I prove, that we receive that outwardly, wherewith the soul is fed. “The soul is fed with the body of Christ: “Ergo, We eat the body of Christ outwardly. “The flesh eateth Christ his body: “Ergo, The soul is fed therewith.” Cranmer: — “The flesh, I say, eateth the sacrament; it eateth not Christ’s body. For Tertullian speaketh of the sacrament; and the place hath not ‘inde,’ ‘ thereof,’ but ‘de Deo,’ ‘of God.’” Chedsey: — “What say you to Photius’s saying? ‘They which receive the body with impure hands, are guilty of the Lord’s blood, as Judas was.’” Weston: — “That which followeth in Tertullian doth take away your shift, where he saith, 262 ‘They cannot be separated in reward, whom one work joineth together.’ “But manducation, is the work, or labor: ergo, etc. “The form of this argument may be thus collected. “One work or labor joineth body and soul together. “Manducation is a work, or labor. “Ergo, One manducation joineth together both body and soul.

    To the major of which argument, 263 thus it may be answered, expounding the saying of Tertullian, ‘Una opera conjungit, sed non idem operandi modus.’ Again, ‘opera,’ here, in Tertullian, may be taken for temptations and afflictions.” Cranmer: — “Your authority, I suppose, is taken out of the book, ‘De Resurrectione carnis,’ i.e. ‘Of the resurrection of the flesh: ‘and the meaning thereof is this. Tertullian goeth about there to prove, that the flesh shall rise again, because it is joined together in one work with the soul. Through baptism in this world the body is washed, and the soul is washed: the body outwardly, the soul inwardly; the work is one. In this work they are joined, and he speaketh of signs.” Weston: — “He speaketh of eating in a sign: ergo, the reward is in a sign.” Cranmer: — “They are coupled in one work, namely, in the sacrament.” Weston: — “There are two works: ergo, there are two rewards. “If the work be in a figure: ergo, the reward is in a figure.” Cranmer: — “He speaketh not of two works. Two works are but one work. And yet he saith not, ‘quos una opera conjungit,’ i.e. ‘whom one work joineth together;’ but ‘opera,’ i.e. ‘a work:’ as in baptism the soul and body are joined in understanding.” Weston: — “The flesh and soul shall have one and the selfsame reward, because they have one work.” Cranmer: — “Because they be joined together in one work.” Tresham: — “Forasmuch as the reverend doctors here have impugned and overthrown your assertion and your answers sufficiently, I will fall to another matter, not altogether impertinent to the purpose, and that in few words, against a certain sequel of your opinion. The sequel is this: that between us and Christ there is no further conjunction, while we receive the eucharist, than a conjunction of the mind, or a spiritual conjunction, whereby we are united and knit unto Christ through faith and love. As for the presence of Christ concerning the substance, that you utterly deny. Whereupon, in very deed, you leave but a spiritual union and joining together of mind: howbeit you would seem to think otherwise, by your subtle answers.

    But I will declare, by manifest testimonies of the fathers, that this your sequel, which you account so sure, is far wide from the truth. And I will begin with St. Hilary, who is both an ancient and learned author.

    For, disputing against the Arians, in his eighth book of the Trinity, he saith, that this was their opinion; that the Father and the Son are conjoined only through unity of will. Whereupon Arius himself, when Scripture was alleged against him, did (as you do now) elude the right meaning of it by his false interpretations. But the catholic church hath always believed and ever maintained ‘That Christ is one with the Father in nature, and not by consent of will only.’ To the proof whereof, when the catholics vouched this testimony of John, 264 ‘The Father and I are one:’ the Arians answered, that ‘unum sumus’ was to be understood by the assent of their wills, and agreement of their minds; not by unity of their natures. Thus it happeneth now-a-days, where men do doubt of the sacrament. But Hilary, going on, and proving the natural conjunction between the Father and the Son a fortiori, questioneth with his adversaries after this manner: ‘I demand of them now, who will needs have the unity of will only between the Father and the Son, whether Christ be now in us truly by nature, or only by the agreement of wills. If,’ saith he, ‘the word be incarnate in very deed, and we receive at the Lord’s table the word made flesh, how then is he to be thought not to dwell in us naturally, who, being born man, hath both taken the nature of our flesh upon him, that is now inseparable, and hath also mingled that nature of his own flesh unto the nature of eternity, under the sacrament of his flesh, to be communicated unto us? ‘Thus much hath Hilary. Whereupon I ask of you this question, How Christ dwelleth now in us? — according to faith, or according to nature?” Cranmer: — “I say that Christ dwelleth verily in us carnally and naturally; for that he hath taken of the Virgin our flesh upon him, and because he hath communicated his nature unto us.” Tresham: — ”Bucer 265 referreth these words only to the eucharist, saying, ‘Christ doth exhibit all this unto us in his holy supper; and, according to the holy fathers,’ saith Bucer, ‘Christ liveth thereby in us, not only by faith and love, as absent, but naturally, corporally, and carnally. Wherefore he is not absent, neither are we joined to Christ only by a spiritual union (as you suppose), but also by a corporal and carnal union.” Cranmer: — “I know that master Bucer was a learned man. But your faith is in good case, which leaneth upon Bucer.” Tresham: — “I do not bring Bucer as a patron of our faith; but because he is a man of your sort, and yet bringeth this place of Hilary for that union which we have by the sacrament, and confesseth, that by it we are carnally united to Christ: whereas you think, we are joined by it only through faith and love.” Cranmer: — “I say that Christ was communicated unto us, not only by faith, but in very deed, also, when he was born of the Virgin. We have fellowship with Christ, when we are united in the unity of the church; when we are made flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones: and so we are united in the communion, in baptism, and in faith.” Tresham: — “I pray you, what fellowship have we with Christ, in that he is made man? Are not the Turks and Jews therein joined with him? For they are men as we are, and are joined with him in man’s nature, in that he was born of a woman. I speak now of a more near unity. We are made one with Christ by the communion, in a perfect unity.” Cranmer: — “We are made so, I grant: but we are made so also by baptism; and the unity in baptism is perfect.” Tresham: — “We are not made one by baptism in a perfect unity, as Hilary there speaketh, but by the communion, by which we are carnally made one; but not likewise by baptism: wherefore you understand not Hilary. You shall hear his words, which are these: ‘He had now declared afore the sacrament of his perfect union, saying; As the living Father sent me, so do I also live by the Father. And he that eateth my flesh, shall also live through me.’ And a little after that he writeth thus: ‘This truly is the cause of our life; that we have Christ dwelling by his flesh in us that are fleshly, which also by him shall live in such sort as he liveth by his Father.’ Wherefore of these words it is manifest, that we obtain this perfect unity by means of the sacrament, and that Christ by it is carnally united unto us.” Cranmer: — “Nay, Hilary in that same place doth teach, that it is done by baptism: and that doctrine is not to be suffered in the church, which teacheth, that we are not joined to Christ by baptism.” Weston: — “Repeat the argument.” Cranmer: — “You must first make an argument.” Tresham: — “It is made already, but it shall be made again in this form: “As Christ liveth by his Father, so they that eat Christ’s flesh, live by the same flesh. “But Christ liveth by the Father, not only by faith and love, but naturally.” “Ergo, We live not through the eating of Christ’s flesh, by faith and love only, but naturally.” Cranmer: — “We live by Christ, not only by faith and love, but eternally indeed.” Tresham: — “Nay, naturally; 266 I prove it thus: “As Christ liveth by the Father, so live we by his flesh eaten of us. “But Christ liveth not by his Father only by faith and love, but naturally. “Therefore we do not live by eating of Christ’s flesh only by faith and love (as you suppose), but naturally.” Cranmer: — “The minor is not true.” Tresham: — “This is the opinion of Arius — that Christ is united to his Father by conjunction of mind, and not naturally.” Cranmer: — “I say not so yet, neither do I think so: but I will tell you what I like not in your minor. You say, ‘that Christ doth not live by his Father only by faith and love: ‘but I say, that Christ liveth not at all by his faith.” Weston: — “Mark and consider well this word, ‘by faith,’ lest any occasion of cavilling be given.” Tresham: — “Let that word, ‘by faith,’ be omitted. Neither did I mean, that Christ liveth by his Father through faith. Yet the strength of the argument remaineth in force; for else Hilary doth not confute the Arians, except there be a greater conjunction between, us and Christ, when he is eaten of us, than only a spiritual conjunction. You do only grant a union. As for a carnal or natural union of the substance of flesh, by which we are joined more than spiritually, you do not grant. But our Lord Jesus give you a better mind, and show you the light of his truth, that you may return into the way of righteousness.” Weston: — “We came hither, to dispute, and not to pray.” Tresham: — “Is it not lawful to pray for them that err?” Weston: — “It is not lawful yet. — But proceed.” Tresham: — “Again, I reason thus: As Christ liveth by his Father, after the same manner do we live by the eating of his flesh.” “But Christ liveth not by his Father, only in unity of will, but naturally: “Ergo, We do not live when we eat the flesh of Christ, only by faith and unity of will, but naturally.” Cranmer: — “This is my faith, and it agreeth with the Scripture; Christ liveth by his Father naturally, and maketh us to live by himself indeed naturally, and that not only in the sacrament of the eucharist, but also in baptism. For infants, when they are baptized, do eat the flesh of Christ.” Weston: — “Answer either to the whole argument, or to the parts thereof. For this argument is strong, and cannot be dissolved.” Cranmer: — “This is the argument: “As Christ liveth by his Father, after the same manner do we live by his flesh, being eaten of us. “But Christ. liveth, by his Father not. only in unity, of will, but naturally. “Ergo, We, eating, his flesh, do not live only by faith and love, but naturally. “But the major Is false; namely, that, by the same manner we live by Christ, as he liveth by his Father.” Weston: — “Hilary saith, ‘after the same manner,’ upon these words, ‘He that eateth my flesh shall live by me.’ Ergo, Christ liveth by his Father, and, as he liveth by his Father, after the same manner we shall live by his flesh. Here you see, that Hilary saith, ‘ after the same manner.’” Cranmer: — “‘After the same manner,’ doth not signify alike in all things, but indeed and eternally: for so do we live by Christ, and Christ liveth by his Father. For in other respects Christ liveth otherwise by his Father, than we live by Christ.” Weston: — “He liveth by his Father naturally and eternally. “Ergo, We live by Christ naturally and eternally.” Cranmer: — “We do not live naturally, but by grace, if you take naturally for the manner of nature; as Christ hath eternal life of his Father, so have we of him.” Weston: — “I stick to this word ‘ naturally.’” Cranmer: — “I mean it, touching the truth of nature. For Christ liveth otherwise by his Father, than we live by Christ.” Weston: — “Hilary in his eighth book ‘de Trinitate,’ denieth it, when he saith, ‘He liveth therefore by his Father; and as he liveth by his Father, after the same manner we shall live by his flesh.’” Cranmer: — “We shall live after the same manner, as concerning the nature of the flesh of Christ: for as he hath of his Father the nature of eternity, so shall we have of him.” Weston: — “Answer unto the parts of the argument.” “As Christ liveth by his Father, after the same manner shall we live by his flesh. “But Christ doth not live by his Father only in unity of will, but naturally. “Ergo, We, eating of his flesh, do not live only by faith and love, but naturally.” Cranmer: — “I grant, as I said, we live by Christ naturally: but I never heard that Christ liveth with his Father in unity of will only.” Weston: — “Because it seemeth a marvel unto you, hear what Hilary saith: ‘These things are recited of us to this end, because the heretics, feigning a unity of will only between the Father and the Son, did use the example of our unity with God; as though we, being united to the Son, and by the Son to the Father, only by obedience and will of religion, had no propriety of the natural communion by the sacrament of the body and blood.’ “But answer to the argument, — Christ liveth by his Father naturally and eternally: therefore do we live by Christ naturally and eternally.” Cranmer: — “Cyril and Hilary do say, that Christ is united to us not only by will, but also by nature: he doth communicate to us his own nature, and so is Christ made one with us carnally and corporally, because he took our nature of the Virgin Mary. 268 And Hilary doth not say only that Christ is naturally in us, but that we also are naturally in him, and in the Father; that is, that we are partakers of their nature, which is eternity, or everlastingness. For as the Word, receiving our nature, did join it unto himself in unity of person, and did communicate unto that our nature, the nature of his eternity, that like as he, being the everlasting Word of the Father, had everlasting life of the Father; even so he gave the same nature to his flesh. Likewise also did he communicate with us the same nature of eternity, which he and the Father have, and that we should be one with them, not only in will and love, but that we should be also partakers of the nature of everlasting life.” Weston: — “Hilary, where he saith, ‘Christ communicated to us his nature,’ meaneth that not by his nativity, but by the sacrament.” Cranmer: — “He hath communicated to us his flesh by his nativity.” Weston: — “We have communicated to him our flesh 270 when he was born.” Cranmer: — “Nay, he communicated to us his flesh, when he was born, and that I will show you out of Cyril upon this place, ‘Et homo factus est.’” Weston: — “Ergo, Christ being born, gave us his flesh.” Cranmer: — “In his nativity he made us partakers of his flesh.” Weston: — “Write, sirs.” Cranmer: — “Yea, write.” Chedsey: — “This place of Hilary is so dark, that you were compelled to falsify it in your book, because you could not draw it to confirm your purpose: 272 ‘If Christ hath taken verily the flesh of our body, and the man that was verily born of the Virgin Mary is Christ, and also we receive under the true mystery the flesh of his body, by means whereof we shall be one (for the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us), how shall that be called the unity of will, when the natural property, brought to pass by the sacrament, is the sacrament, of unity.

    We must not speak in the sense of man, or of the world, in matters concerning God: neither must we perversely wrest any strange or wicked sense out of the wholesome meaning of the holy Scripture, through impudent and violent contention. Let us read those things that are written, and let us understand those things that we read, and then we shall perform the duty of perfect faith. For as touching that natural and true being of Christ in us, except we learn of him, we speak foolishly and ungodly that thing that we do speak. For he saith, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed: he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As touching the verity of his flesh and blood, there is left no place of doubt: for now, both by the testimony of the Lord, and also by our faith, it is verily flesh, and verily blood.’ — Here you have falsified Hilary, for you have set ‘vero sub mysterio,’ for ‘vere sub mysterio,’ ‘we receive truly under a mystery.’ Hilary thrice reporteth ‘vere sub mysterio,’ and you interpret it twice ‘vere sub mysterio,’ but, the third time, you have ‘vero’ for ‘vere . 205 ’” Cranmer: — “Assuredly I am not guilty of any deceit herein. It may be that the copy which I followed had ‘sub vero mysterio,’ i.e. under a true mystery; although touching the sense it differeth little. God, I call to witness, I have always hated falsifying, and if you had leisure and lust to hear false citations, I could recite unto you six hundred.” Weston: — “Here shall be showed you two copies of Hilary, 274 the one printed at Basil, the other at Paris.” Cranmer: — “I suppose that Dr. Smith’s book hath ‘vero.’” Weston: — “Here is Dr. Smith: let him answer for himself. — Master Smith, master Doctor, what say you for yourself? Speak, if you know it.”

    Here Dr. Smith, either for the truth in his book alleged 204 , or else astonished with Dr. Weston’s hasty calling, staid to answer: for he only put off his cap, and kept silence. Weston: — “But your own book, 275 printed by Wolf your own printer, hath ‘vero.’” Cranmer: — “That book is taken from me, which easily might have ended this controversy. I am sure the Book of Decrees hath ‘ vero.’” Cole: — “Now you admit the Book of Decrees, when it makes for you.” Cranmer: — “Touching the sense of the matter there is little difference. The change of one letter for another is but a small matter.” Weston: — “No? Yes; ‘pastor,’ as you know, signifieth a bishop, and ‘pistor,’ signifieth a baker. But ‘pastor’ shall be ‘pistor,’ a bishop shall be a baker, by this your change of one letter, if ‘vere’ and ‘vero’ do nothing change the sense.” Cranmer: — “ Let it be so 206 , that in, ‘pistor’ and ‘pastor’ one letter maketh some difference: yet let ‘pistor’ be either a baker or maker of bread, ye see here the change of a letter, and yet no great difference to be in the sense.” Young: — “This disputation is taken in hand, that the truth might appear. I perceive that I must go another way to work than I had thought. It is a common saying, ‘Against them that deny principles, we must not dispute.’ Therefore, that we may agree of the principles, I demand, whether there be any other body of Christ, than his instrumental body?” Cranmer: — “There is no natural body of Christ, but his organical body.” Young: — “Again I demand, whether sense and reason ought to give place to faith?” Cranmer: — “They ought.” Young: — “Thirdly, whether Christ be true in all his words?” Cranmer: — “Yea, he is most true, and truth itself.” Young: — “Fourthly, whether Christ, at his supper, minded to do that which he spake, or no?” Cranmer: — 277 “In saying he spake, but in saying he made not, but made the sacrament to his disciples.” Young: — “Answer according to the truth, Whether did Christ that as God and man, which he spake, when he said, ‘This is my body?’” Cranmer: — “This is a sophistical cavillation: go plainly to work.

    There is some deceit in these questions. You seek subtileness: leave your crafty fetches.” Young: — “I demand, whether Christ by these words wrought any thing or no?” Cranmer: — “He did institute the sacrament.” Young: — “But answer, whether did he work any thing?” Cranmer: — “He did work in instituting the sacrament.” Young: — “Now I have you; for before you said, it was a figurative speech. “But a figure worketh nothing: “Ergo, It is not a figurative speech. A liar ought to have a good memory.” Cranmer: — “I understood your sophistry before. You, by working, understand converting into the body of Christ: but Christ wrought the sacrament, not in converting, but in instituting.” Young: — “Woe be to them that make Christ a deceiver. Did he work any other thing than he spake, or the selfsame thing?” Cranmer: — “He wrought the sacrament, and by these words he signified the effect.” Young: — “A figurative speech is no working thing. “But the speech of Christ is working: “Ergo, It is not figurative.” Cranmer: — “It worketh by instituting, not by converting.” Young: — “The thing signified in the sacrament, is it not that sacrament? “Cranmer: — “It is; for the thing is ministered in a sign. He followeth the letter that taketh the thing for a sign. Augustine separateth the sacrament from the thing. ‘The sacrament,’ saith he, ‘is one, and the thing of the sacrament another.’” Weston: — “Stick to this argument. “It is a figurative speech. “Ergo, It worketh nothing.” Young: — “But the speech of Christ is a working thing: “Ergo, It is not figurative.” Cranmer: — “Oh how many crafts are in this argument? they are mere fallacies. I said not, that the words of Christ do work, but Christ himself; and he worketh by a figurative speech.” Weston: — “If a figure work, it maketh of bread the body of Christ.” Cranmer: — “A figurative speech worketh not.” Weston: — “A figurative speech, by your own confession, worketh nothing. “But the speech of Christ in the supper (as you grant) wrought somewhat. “Ergo, The speech of Christ in the supper, was not figurative.” Cranmer: — “I answer, these are mere sophisms. The speech doth not work, but Christ, by the speech, doth work the sacrament. I look for Scriptures at your hands, for they are the foundation of disputations. Young: — “Are not these words of Scripture, ‘This is my body? ‘The word of Christ is of strength; and by the Lord’s words the heavens were made. He said, ‘This is my body: ‘ergo, he made it.” Cranmer: — “He made the sacrament; and I deny your argument.” Young: — “If he wrought nothing, nothing is left there. He said, ‘This is my body.’ You say, contrary to the Scriptures, it is not the body of Christ; and fall from the faith. Cranmer: — “You interpret the Scriptures contrary to all the old writers, and feign a strange sense. Young: — “Ambrose saith: 279 Thou hast read of the works of all the world, that he spake the word, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created. Cannot the word of Christ, which made of nothing that which was not, change those things that are, into that they were not? for it is no less matter to give new things, than to change natures. But what use we arguments? let us use his own examples, and let us confirm the verity of the mystery by example of his incarnation.

    Did the use of nature go before, when the Lord Jesus was born of Mary? If you seek the order of nature, conception is wont to be made by a woman joined to a man. It is manifest therefore, that contrary to the order of nature, 280 a virgin did conceive: and this body that we make, is of the Virgin. What seekest thou here the order of nature in the body of Christ, when, against the order of nature, the Lord Jesus was conceived of a virgin? It was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified, and which was buried: therefore it is truly the sacrament of him. The Lord Jesus himself crieth, This is my body. Before the blessing of the heavenly words, it is named another kind: but, after the consecration, the body of Christ is signified. He calleth it his blood. Before consecration it is called another thing: after consecration it is called blood. And thou sayest, Amen; that is, It is true. That the mouth speaketh, let the inward mind confess: that the word soundeth, let the heart perceive.’ “The same Ambrose, in his fourth book of Sacraments, chap. 4, saith thus: 281 ‘This bread is bread before the words of the sacraments: when the consecration cometh to it, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Let us confirm this, therefore. How can that which is bread, by consecration be the body of Christ? by what words then is the consecration made, and by whose words? By the words of our Lord Jesus. For touching all other things that are said, praise is given to God, prayer is made for the people, for kings, and for the rest. When it cometh that the reverend sacrament must be made, then the priest useth not his own words, but the words of Christ: therefore the word of Christ maketh this sacrament. What word? That word, by which all things were made. ‘The Lord commanded, 281a and heaven was made: the Lord commanded, and the earth was made: the Lord commanded, and the seas were made: the Lord commanded, and all creatures were made. Dost thou not see then how strong in working the word of Christ is? If therefore so great strength be in the Lord’s word, that those things should begin to be, which were not before, how much the rather is it of strength to work, that these which were, should be changed into another thing?’ Ambrose saith, that the words are of strength to work.” Weston: — “You omit those words which follow, which make the sense of Ambrose plain: read them.” Young: 282 — “Heaven was not, the sea was not, the earth was not: but hear him that said, He spake the word, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created. Therefore, to answer thee, it was not the body of Christ before consecration: but after the consecration I say to thee, that now it is the body of Christ.’” Cranmer: — “All these things are common. I say, that God doth chiefly work in the sacraments.” Young: — “How doth he work?” Cranmer: — “By his power, as he doth in baptism.” Young: — “Nay, by the word he changeth thee bread into his body.

    This is the truth: acknowledge the truth; give place to the truth.” Cranmer: — “O glorious words! You are too full of words.” Young: — “Nay, O glorious truth! — You make no change at all.” Cranmer: — “Not so, but I make a great change; as, in them that are baptized, is there not a great change, when the child of the bondslave of the devil, is made the Son of God? So it is also in the sacrament of the supper, when he receiveth us into his protection and favor.” Young: — “If he work in the sacraments, he worketh in this sacrament.” Cranmer: — “God worketh in his faithful, not in the sacraments.” Weston: — “In the supper the words are directed to the bread; in baptism to the Spirit. He said not, the water is the Spirit, but of the bread he said. ‘This is my body.’” Cranmer: — “He called the Spirit a dove, when the Spirit descended in likeness of a dove.” Weston: — “ He doth not call the Spirit 207 a dove; but he saith, that he descended as a dove. He was seen in the likeness of a dove. As in baptism the words are directed to him that is baptized, so in the supper the words are directed unto the bread.” Cranmer: — “Nay it is written, ‘Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending.’ (John 1) He calleth that which descended, the Holy Spirit. And Augustine calleth the dove, the Spirit. Hear what Augustine saith in John 1 283 ‘What meant he by the dove, that is, by the Holy Ghost? forsooth to teach, who sent him.’” Young: — “He understandeth of the Spirit descending as a dove: the Spirit is invisible. If you mind to have the truth heard, let us proceed.

    Hear what Ambrose saith: 284 ‘You see what a working power the word of Christ hath. Therefore, if there be so great power in the Lord’s word, that those things which were not, begin to be, how much more of strength is it, to work that those things that were, should be changed into another thing?’ And in the fifth chapter, 285 ’ Before it is consecrated, it is bread: but, when the words of Christ come to it, it is the body of Christ.’ But, hear what he saith more: 286 ‘Take ye, eat ye; this is my body. Before the words of Christ, the cup is full of wine and water: when the words of Christ have wrought, there is made the blood of Christ which redeemed the people.’ What can be more plain?” Cranmer: — “Nay, what can be less to the purpose? The words are of strength to work in this sacrament, as they are in baptism.” Pie: — The words of Christ, as Ambrose saith, are of strength to work. What do they work? — Ambrose saith, ‘They make the blood which redeemed the people.’” “Ergo, The natural blood is made.” Cranmer: — “The sacrament of his blood is made. The words make the blood to them that receive it: not that the blood is in the cup, but in the receiver.” Pie: — There is made the blood which redeemed the people.” Cranmer: — “The blood is made; that is, the sacrament of the blood, by which he redeemed the people. Fit 208 , ‘it is made;’ that is to say, ‘ ostenditur 208 ,’ ‘it is showed forth there.’ And Ambrose saith, We receive in a similitude: ‘As thou hast received the similitude of his death, so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious blood.’” Weston: — “He saith, ‘in a similitude,’ because it is ministered under another likeness. 287 And this is the argument: “There is made the blood which redeemed the people. “But the natural blood redeemed the people: “Ergo, There is the natural blood of Christ. “You answer, that words make it blood to them that receive it; not that blood is in the cup, but because it is made blood to them that receive it. That all men may see how falsely you would avoid the fathers, hear what Ambrose saith in the sixth book and first chapter. 289 ‘Peradventure thou wilt say, How be they true? I, who see the similitude, do not see the truth of the blood. First of all I told thee of the word of Christ, which so worketh, that it can change and turn kinds ordained by nature. Afterward, when the disciples could not abide the words of Christ, but hearing that he gave his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink, they departed. Only Peter said, Thou hast the words of eternal life; whither should I go from thee? Lest therefore more should say this thing, as though there should be a certain horror of blood, and yet the grace of redemption should remain: therefore, in a similitude thou receivest the sacrament, but indeed thou obtainest the grace and power of his nature.’” Cranmer: — “These words of themselves are plain enough. [And he read this place again, ‘Thou receivest the sacrament for a similitude.’] But what is that he saith, Thou receivest for a similitude? I think he understandeth the sacrament to be the similitude of his blood . 209 ” Chedsey: — “That you may understand that truth dissenteth not from truth, to overthrow that which you say of that similitude, hear what Ambrose saith, in his fourth book of Sacraments: 290 ‘If the heavenly word did work in other things, doth it not work in the heavenly sacraments? Therefore thou hast learned, that of bread is made the body of Christ, and that wine and water is put into that cup; but, by consecration of the heavenly word, it is made blood. But thou wilt say peradventure, that the likeness of blood is not seen. But it hath a similitude. For as thou hast received the similitude of his death, so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious blood; 291 so that there is no horror of blood, and yet it worketh the price of redemption.

    Therefore thou hast learned, that that which thou receivest is the body of Christ.’” Cranmer: — “He speaketh of sacraments sacramentally. He calleth the sacraments by the names of the things; for he useth the signs for the things signified: and therefore the bread is not called bread, but his body, for the excellency and dignity of the thing signified by it. So doth Ambrose interpret himself, when he saith, 292 ‘For a type or figure whereof we receive the mystical cup of his blood, for the safeguard of our bodies and souls.’” Chedsey: — “A type? He calleth not the blood of Christ a type or sign: but the blood of bulls and goats in that respect was a type or sign.” Cranmer: — “This is new learning; you shall never read this among the fathers.” Chedsey: — “But Ambrose saith so.” Cranmer: — “He calleth the bread and the cup a type or sign of the blood of Christ, and of his benefit.” Weston: — “Ambrose understandeth it for a type of his benefit; that is, of redemption: not of the blood of Christ, but of his passion. The cup is the type or sign of his death, seeing it is his blood.” Cranmer: — “He saith most plainly that the cup is a type of Christ’s blood.” Chedsey: — “As Christ is truly and really incarnate, so is he truly and really in the sacrament. “But Christ is really and truly incarnate: “Ergo, The body of Christ is truly and really in the sacrament.” Cranmer: — “I deny the major.” Chedsey: — ”I prove the major out of Justin, in his second Apology, On tro>pon dia< lo>gou qeou~ sarkopoihqeirka kai< ai+ma uJper swthri>av hJmw~n e]cen ou[tw kai< thgou tou~ parj aujtou~ eujcaristhqei>san trofhrkev kata< metabolhfontai hJmw~n ejkei>nou tou~ sarkopoihqe>ntov Ihsou~ kai< sa>rka kai< ai+ma ejdida>cqhmen ei+nai Cranmer: — “This place hath been falsified by Mareus Constantius. 293 Justin meant nothing else but that the bread which nourishes us is called the body of Christ.” Chedsey: — “To the argument. As Christ is truly and naturally incarnate, etc. ut supra.” Cranmer: — ”I deny your major.” Chedsey: — ”The words of Justin are thus to be interpreted word for word: 294 As by the word of God, Jesus Christ our Savior, being made flesh, had both flesh and blood for our salvation: so we are taught, that the meat consecrated 295 by the word of prayer, instituted of him, whereby our blood and flesh are nourished by communion, 296 is the flesh and blood of the same Jesus which was made flesh,”etc. Cranmer: — “You have translated it well; but I deny your major.

    This is the sense of Justin: that the bread is called the body of Christ; and yet of that sanctified meat our bodies are nourished.” Chedsey: — “Nay, he saith, that of that sanctified meat both our bodies and souls are nourished.” Cranmer: — “He saith not so; but he saith that it nourisheth our flesh and blood: and how can that nourish the soul, that nourisheth the flesh and blood.” Cole: — “It feedeth the body by the soul.” Cranmer: — “Speak uprightly. Can that which is received by the soul and spirit be called the meat of the body?” Weston: — “Hear then what Irenaeus saith: 298 ‘This, the same cup which is a creature, he confirmed to he his body, by which he increaseth our bodies. When both the cup mixed, and the bread broken, hath joined to it the word ofGod, it is made the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is increased and consisteth.’ “The substance of our flesh is increased by the body and blood of Christ: “Ergo, Our body is nourished by the body and blood of Christ.” Cranmer: — “I deny your argument. He calleth it the flesh and blood, for the sacrament of the body and blood; as Tertullian also saith: 299 Our flesh is nourished with symbolical or sacramental bread; but our soul is nourished with the body of Christ.’” Weston: — “Look what he saith more: 300 ‘How do they say, that the flesh cannot receive the gift of God that is eternal life, which is nourished with the blood and body of Christ? That is in the fifth book, two leaves from the beginning.’” Cranmer: — “The body is nourished both with the sacrament, and with the body of Christ: with the sacrament to a temporal life; with the body of Christ to eternal life.” Chedsey: — “I cannot but be sorry when I see such a manifest lie in your writings. For whereas you translate 301 Justin on this fashion; that the bread, water, and wine, are not so to be taken in this sacrament, as common meats and drinks are wont to be taken of us, but are meats chosen out peculiarly for this; namely, for the giving of thanks, and therefore be called of the Greeks ‘eucharistia,’ that is, thanksgiving — they are called moreover the blood and body of Christ (so have you translated it) — the words of Justin are thus: ‘We are taught that the meat consecrated by the word of prayer, by the which our flesh and blood is nourished by communion, is the body and blood of the same Jesus who was made flesh.’” Cranmer: — “I did not translate it word for word, but only I gave the meaning: and I go nothing from his meaning.” Harpsfield: — “You remember, touching Justin, to whom this apology was written; namely, to a heathen man. The heathen thought that the Christians came to the church to worship bread: Justin answereth, that we come not to common bread, but as to, etc., as is said afore. Weigh the place well; it is right worthy to be noted: ‘Our flesh is nourished according to mutation.’” Cranmer: — “We ought not to consider the bare bread, but whosoever cometh to the sacrament eateth the true body of Christ.” Weston: — “You have corrupted Emissene; 303 for instead of ‘cibis satiandus,’ that is, ‘to be filled with meat,’ you have set ‘cibis satiandus spiritualibus,’ that is, ‘to be filled with spiritual meats.’” Cranmer: — “I have not corrupted it; for it is so in the decrees.” Weston: — “You have corrupted another place of Emissene; for you have omitted these words, ‘Mirare cure reverendum altare tibia spiritualibus satiandus ascendis: sacrum Dei tui corpus et sanguinem fide respice, honorem mirare, merito continge,’ etc. ‘Marvel thou when thou comest up to the reverend altar to be filled with spiritual meats: look in faith to the holy body and blood of thy God; marvel at his honor; worthily touch him.’” Cranmer: — “This book hath not that.” Weston: — “Also you have falsified this place by evil translating ‘Honora corpus Dei tui,’ i.e.‘Honor the body of thy God.’ You have translated it, ‘Honora eum qui est Deus tuus, i.e.’ Honor him which is thy God.’ Whereas Emissene hath not ‘honor him,’ but ‘honor the body of thy God.’ Cranmer: — “I have so translated him, and yet no less truly, thah not without a weighty cause; else it should not have been without danger, if I had translated it thus: ‘Honour the body of thy God; ‘ because of certain that (according to the error of the Anthropomorphites) dreamed that God had a body.” Weston: — “Nay, you most of all have brought the people into that error, who so long have taught that he sitteth at the right hand of God the Father; and counted me for a heretic, because I preached that God had no right hand.

    Then I will oppose you in the very articles of your faith. “Christ sitteth at the right hand of God the Father. “But God the Father hath no right hand: “Ergo, Where is Christ now?” Cranmer: — “I am not so ignorant a novice in the articles of my faith, but that I understand that to sit at the right hand of God, doth signify to be equal in the glory of the Father.” Weston: — “Now then take this argument. “Wheresoever God’s authority is, there is Christ’s body. “But God’s authority is in every place: “Ergo, What letteth the body of Christ to be in every place. — Moreover you have also corrupted Duns.” Cranmer: — “That is a great offense, I promise you.” Weston: — “For you have omitted ‘secundum apparentam,’ 305 i.e.‘as it appeareth: ‘whereas his words are these, ‘Et si quaeras quare voluit ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem hujus articuli, cum verba Scripturae possint salvari secundum intellectum facilem et veriorem, secundum apparentiam, de hoc articulo,’ etc.: that is, ‘If you demand why the church did choose this so hard an understanding of this article, whereas the words of Scripture may be salved after an easy and true understanding (as appeareth) of this article,’” etc. Cranmer: — “It is not so.” Weston: — “Also you have set forth a catechism 306 in the name of the synod of London, and yet there be fifty, who, witnessing that they were of the number of the convocation, never heard one word of this catechism.” Cranmer: — “I was ignorant of the setting to of that title; and as soon as I had knowledge thereof, I did not like it. Therefore, when I complained thereof to the council, it was answered me by them, that the book was so entitled, because it was set forth in the time of the convocation.” Weston: — “Moreover, you have in Duns translated ‘in Romana ecclesia,’ ‘pro ecclesia catholica:’ ‘in the church of Rome,’ ‘for the catholic church.’” Cranmer: — “Yea; but he meant the Romish church.” Weston: — “Moreover you have depraved St. Thomas, namely, where he hath these words: 307 Inasmuch as it is a sacrifice, it hath the power of satisfaction: but in satisfaction the affection of the offerer is more to be weighed, than the quantity of the oblation. Wherefore the Lord said, in Luke’s gospel, of the widow which offered two mites, that she cast in more than they all. Therefore, although this oblation of the quantity of itself will suffice to satisfy for all pain, yet it is made satisfactory to them for whom it is offered, or to the offerers, according to the quantity of their devotion, and not for all the pain.’

    You have thus turned it: 308 ‘That the sacrifice of the priest hath power of satisfaction,’ etc. And therefore in this place you have chopped in this word, ‘sacerdotis,’ ‘of the priest; ‘whereas, in the translation of all the New Testament, you have not set it but where Christ was put to death. And again, where St. Thomas hath ‘pro omni poena’ ‘for all pain,’ your book omitteth many things here 211 . Thus you see, brethren, the truth steadfast and invincible. You see, also, the craft and deceit of heretics. The truth may be pressed, but it cannot be oppressed: therefore cry altogether, ‘Vincit veritas,’ i.e. ‘ The truth overcometh 212 .’” This disordered disputation sometimes in Latin, sometimes in English, continued almost till two of the clock. Which being finished, and the arguments written and delivered to, the hands of master Say, the prisoner was had away by the mayor, and the doctors dined together at the University college.

    DISPUTATION AT OXFORD BETWEEN DR. SMITH, WITH HIS OTHER COLLEAGUES AND DOCTORS, AND BISHOP RIDLEY.

    The next day following, which was the 17th of April, was brought forth Dr. Ridley to dispute; against whom was set Dr. Smith 214 to be principal opponent. Touching which Dr. Smith, forsomuch as mention here happeneth of his name, first the reader is to be advertised what is to be attributed to his judgment in religion, who so oftentimes before had turned and returned 215 to and fro, grounded (as it seemeth) upon no firm conscience of doctrine, as both by his articles by him recanted may appear, and also by his own letter sent a little before in king Edward’s days to the archbishop of Canterbury from Scotland. Which letter I thought here to exhibit as a certain preface before his own arguments, or rather as a testimony against himself, whereby the reader may understand how devoutly he magnified them and their doctrine a little before, against whom he now disputeth so busily. Read I beseech thee his epistle and judge.

    THE TRUE COPY OF A CERTAIN EPISTLE OF DR. RICHARD SMITH TO DR. CRANMER, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, Declaring his Affection to the setting- forth of God’s sincere Word.

    Most honorable, I commend me unto your lordship, doing the same to understand, that I wrote letters to your grace in January last and the 10th day of February, declaring the causes of my sudden and unadvised departing from your grace over the sea; and desiring your good lordship, of your charity toward them that repent of their ill acts, to forgive me yourself all the wrong I did towards your grace, and to obtain in writing the king’s majesty’s pardon for me in all points concerning his laws: upon the receipt whereof I would return again home, and, within half a year (at the uttermost) afterward, write “De Sacerdotum Connubiis,” etc. a Latin book that should be a just satisfaction for any thing that I have written against the same. Reliquaque omnis dogmata vestra tum demum libentur amplexurum, ubi Deus mentem meam [ita persuadeat] ut ea citra conscientiae laesionem agnoscam, doceamque. I wrote not this that I want any good living here, but because mine absence out of the realm, is dishonor to the king’s highness and realm, and because I must needs (if I tarry here a quarter of a year longer) write an answer to your grace’s book of the sacrament, and also a book of common places against all the doctrine set forth by the king’s majesty, which I cannot do with a good conscience. Wherefore I beseech your grace help me home, as soon as you may conveniently, for God’s sake; and ye shall never, I trust in God, repent that fact.

    Ex urbe divi Andreas. 14. Feb. Rich. Smitheus.

    And thus much touching the forenamed Dr. Richard Smith, being set here (as is said) to dispute against bishop Ridley, who was brought now, the next day after the archbishop, to answer in the divinity school. Against whom also, besides Dr. Smith, disputed Dr. Weston, Dr. Tresham, Dr.

    Oglethorpe, Dr. Olyn, Dr. Seton, and Dr. Cole, master Ward, master Harpsfield, Dr. Watson, master Pie, master Harding, master Curton, master Feeknam: to all them he answered very learnedly. He made a preface to these questions, but they would not let him go forth in it, but caused him to make an end of the same, and said it was blasphemy. And some said, he drave off the time in ambiguous things, nothing to the purpose; and so they would not suffer him to say his mind. Dr. Smith could get nothing at his hand; insomuch that others did take his arguments and prosecuted them. He showed himself to be learned, and a great cleric.

    They could bring nothing, but he knew it as well as they.

    THE DISPUTATION BEGINNETH216 . Weston the prolocutor: — “Good christian people and brethren, we have begun this day our school, by God’s good speed I trust; and are entering into a controversy, whereof no question ought to be moved, concerning the verity of the body of our Lord Jesu Christ in the eucharist. Christ is true, who said the words. The words are true which he spake, yea, truth itself that cannot fail. Let us therefore pray unto God to send down unto us his holy Spirit, which is the true interpreter of his word; which may purge away errors, and give light, that verity may appear. Let us also ask leave and liberty of the church, to permit the truth received to be called this day in question, without any prejudice to the same. Your parts thereof shall be to implore the assistance of Almighty God, to pray for the prosperity of the queen’s majesty, and to give us quiet and attentive ears. Now go to your question.” Dr. Smith: — “This day, right learned master doctor, three questions are propounded, whereof no controversy among Christians ought to be moved, to wit; “First, Whether the natural body of Christ our Savior, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and offered for man’s redemption upon the cross, is verily and really in the sacrament by virtue of God’s word spoken by the priests, etc. “Secondly, Whether in the sacrament, after the words of consecration, be any other substance, etc. “Thirdly, Whether in the mass be a sacrifice propitiatory, etc. “Touching the which questions, although you have publicly, and apertly, professed your judgment and opinion on Saturday last; yet being not satisfied with that your answer, I will essay again to demand your sentence in the first question — whether the true body of Christ, after the words pronounced, be really in the eucharist, or else only the figure. In which matter I stand here now to hear your answer.” (The Preface or Protestation of Dr. Ridley before his Disputation.) “I received of you the other day, right worshipful master prolocutor, and ye my reverend masters, commissioners from the queen’s majesty and her honorable council, three propositions; whereunto ye commanded me to prepare against this day, what I thought good to answer concerning the same. “Now, whilst I weighed with myself how great a charge of the Lord’s flock was of late committed unto me, for the which I am certain I must once render an account to my Lord God (and that how soon, he knoweth), and that moreover, by the commandment of the apostle Peter, I ought to be ready alway to give a reason of the hope that is in me with meekness and reverence, unto every one that shall demand the same: besides this, considering my duty to the church of Christ, and to your worships, being commissioners by public authority; I determined with myself to obey your commandment, and so openly to declare unto you my mind touching the aforesaid propositions. And albeit plainly to confess unto you the truth in these things which ye now demand of me, I have thought otherwise in times past than now I do, yet (God I call to record unto my soul, I lie not) I have not altered my judgment, as now it is, either by constraint of any man or laws, either for the dread of any dangers of this world, either for any hope of commodity; but only for the love of the truth revealed unto me by the grace of God (as I am undoubtedly persuaded) in his holy word, and in the reading of the ancient fathers. “These things I do rather recite at this present, because it may happen to some of you hereafter, as in times past it hath done to me: I mean, if ye think otherwise of the matters propounded in these propositions than I now do, God may open them unto you in time to come. “But howsoever it shall be, I will in few words do that, which I think ye all look I should do; that is, as plainly as I can, I will declare my judgment herein. Howbeit of this I would ye were not ignorant, that I will not indeed wittingly and willingly speak in any point against God’s word, or dissent in any one jot from the same, or from the rules of faith, or christian religion: which rules that same most sacred word of God prescribeth to the church of Christ, whereunto I now and for ever submit myself, and all my doings.

    And because the matter I have now taken in hand is weighty, and ye all well know how unready I am to handle it accordingly, as well for lack of time, as also lack of books: therefore here I protest, that I will publicly this day require of you, that it may be lawful for me, concerning all mine answers, explications, and confirmations, to add or diminish whatsoever shall seem hereafter more convenient and meet for the purpose, through more sound judgment, better deliberation, and more exact trial of every particular thing. Having now, by the way of preface and protestation, spoken these few words, I will come to the answer of the propositions propounded unto me, and so to the most brief explication and confirmation of mine answers.” Weston: — “Reverend master doctor, concerning the lack of books, there is no cause why you should complain. What books soever you will name, you shall have them; 309 and as concerning the judgment of your answers to be had of yourself with further deliberation, it shall, I say, be lawful for you, until Sunday next, to add unto them what you shall think good yourself. My mind is, that we should use short arguments, lest we should make an infinite process of the thing.” Ridley: — “There is another thing besides, which I would gladly obtain at your hands. I perceive that you have writers and notaries here present. By all likelihood our disputations shall be published: I beseech you for God’s sake let me have liberty to speak my mind freely, and without interruption; not because I have determined to protract the time with a solemn preface, but lest it may appear that some be not satisfied. God wot I am no orator, nor have I learned rhetoric to set colors on the matter.” Weston: — “Among this whole company, it shall be permitted you to take two for your part.” Ridley : — “I will choose two, if there are any here with whom I were acquainted.” Weston: — “Here are two that master Cranmer had yesterday. Take them if it please you.” Ridley : — “I am content with them; I trust they are honest men.” THE FIRST PROPOSITION.

    In the sacrament of the altar, by the virtue of God’s word spoken of the priest, the natural body of Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, and his natural blood are really present under the forms of bread and wine. (The Answer of Dr. Ridley.) Ridley: — “In matters appertaining to God we may not speak according to the sense of man, nor of the world: therefore this proposition or conclusion is framed after another manner of phrase or kind of speech than the Scripture useth. Again, it is very obscure and dark, by means of sundry words of doubtful signification. And being taken in the sense which the schoolmen teach, and at this time the church of Rome doth defend, it is false and erroneous, and plain contrary to the doctrine which is according to godliness.” (The Explication.) Ridley: — “How far the diversity and newness of the phrase, in all this first proposition, is from the phrase of the holy Scripture, and that in every part almost, it is so plain and evident to any that is but meanly exercised in holy writ, that I need not now (especially in this company of learned men), to spend any time therein, except the same shall be required of me hereafter. “First, there is a double sense in these words ‘by virtue of God’s word’ for it is doubtful what word of God this is; whether it be that which is read in the evangelists, or in Paul, or any other. And if it be that which is in the evangelists, or in St. Paul, what that is. If it be in none of them, then how it may be known to be God’s word, and of such virtue that it should be able to work so great a matter. “Again there is a doubt of these words ‘of the priest,’ whether no man may be called a priest, but he which hath authority to make a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead; and how it may be proved that this authority was committed of God to any man, but to Christ alone. “It is likewise doubted, after what order the sacrificing priest shall be, whether after the order of Aaron, or else after the order of Melchizedek. For as far as I know, the holy Scripture doth allow no more.” Weston: — “Let this be sufficient.” Ridley: — “If we lack time at this present, there is time enough hereafter.” Weston: — “These are but evasions or starting holes: you consume the time in vain.” Ridley: — “I cannot start far from you: I am captive and bound.” Weston: — “Fall to it, my masters. Smith: — “That which you have spoken, may suffice at this present.” Ridley: — “Let me alone, I pray you; for I have not much to say behind.” Weston: — “Go forward.” Ridley: — “Moreover, there is ambiguity in this word ‘really,’ whether it be taken as the logicians term it, ‘transcendenter;’ that is, most generally: and so it may signify any manner of thing which belongeth to the body of Christ, by any means: after which sort we also grant Christ’s body to be really in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper (as in disputation, if occasion be given shall be declared), or whether it be taken to signify the very same thing, having body, life, and soul, which was assumed and taken of the word of God, into the unity of person. In which sense, since the body of Christ is really in heaven, because of the true manner of his body, it may not be said to be here in the earth. “There is yet a further doubtfulness in these words, ‘under the forms of bread and wine,’ whether the forms be there taken to signify the only accidental and outward shows of bread and wine; or therewithal the substantial natures thereof, which are to be seen by their qualities, and perceived by exterior senses. Now the error and falseness of the proposition after the sense of the Roman church and schoolmen, may hereby appear, in that they affirm the bread to be transubstantiated and changed into the flesh assumed of the word of God, and that (as they say) by virtue of the word, which they have devised by a certain number of words, and cannot be found in any of the evangelists, or in Paul; and so they gather that Christ’s body is really contained in the sacrament of the altar.

    Which position is grounded upon the foundation of the transubstantiation; which foundation is monstrous, against reason, and destroyeth the analogy or proportion of the sacraments: and therefore this proposition also, which is builded upon this rotten foundation, is false, erroneous, and to be counted as a detestable heresy of the sacramentaries.” Weston: — “We lose time.” Ridley: — “You shall have time enough.” Weston: — “Fall to reasoning. You shall have some other day for this matter.” Ridley: — “I have no more to say concerning my explication. If you will give me leave, and let me alone, I will but speak a word or two for my confirmation.” Weston: — “Go to; say on.” (The Confirmation of the aforesaid Answer.) Ridley: — “There ought no doctrine to be established in the church of God, which dissenteth from the word of God, from the rule of faith, and draweth with it many absurdities that cannot be avoided. “But this doctrine of the first proposition is such: “Ergo, It ought not to be established and maintained in the church of God. “The major or first part of my argument is plain, and the minor or second part is proved thus: “This doctrine maintaineth a real, corporal, and camm presence of Christ’s flesh, assumed and taken of the word, to be in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, and that not by virtue and grace only, but also by the whole essence and substance of the body and flesh of Christ. “But such a presence disagreeth from God’s word, from the rule of faith, and cannot but draw with it many absurdities: “Ergo, The second part is true. “The first part of this argument is manifest, and the second may yet further be confirmed thus:” — Weston: — “Thus you consume time, which might be better bestowed on other matters. Master opponent, I pray you to your arguments.” Smith: — “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 John 6, there be any mention made of the sacrament, or of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament?” Ridley: — “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.” Weston: — “Let him read on.” Ridley: — “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 monstrous miracles without necessity and authority of God’s word. “ Sixthly , it giveth occasion to the heretics who 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 part of mine argument is true.” (The Probation of the antecedent or former part of this Argument by the parts thereof.) “This carnal presence is contrary to the word of God, as appeareth, thus: — ‘I tell you the truth. It is profitable for you that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter shall not come unto you.’ (John 16) ‘Whom the heavens must receive until the time of restoring of all things which God hath spoken.’ (Acts 3) ‘The children of the bridegroom cannot mourn so long as the bridegroom is with them: but now is the time of mourning.’ (Matthew 9) ‘But I will see you again, and your hearts shall rejoice.’ (John 16) ‘I will come again and take you to myself.’ (John 14) ‘If they shall say unto you, Behold here is Christ, or there is Christ, believe them not: for wheresoever the dead carcase is, thither the eagles will resort.’ (Matthew 24) “It varieth from the articles of the faith: ‘He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, from whence (and not from any other place saith St. Augustine), he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead.’ “It destroyeth and taketh away the institution of the Lord’s supper, which was commanded only to be used and continued until the Lord himself should come. If therefore, he be now really present in the body of his flesh, then must the supper cease: for a remembrance is not of a thing present, but of a thing past and absent. And there is a difference between remembrance and presence, and, as one of the fathers saith, ‘A figure is in vain where the thing figured is present.’ “It maketh precious things common to profane and ungodly persons, and constraineth men to confess many absurdities. For it affirmeth, that whoremongers and murderers, yea, and (as some of them hold opinion) the wicked and faithless mice, rats, and dogs also, may receive the very real and corporal body of the Lord, wherein the fullness of the Spirit of light and grace dwelleth: contrary to the manifest words of Christ in six places and sentences of John 6. “It confirmeth also and maintaineth that beastly kind of cruelty of the ‘Anthropophagi,’ that is, the devourers of man’s flesh: for it is a more cruel thing to devour a quick man, than to slay him.” Pie: — He requireth time to speak blasphemies. Leave your blasphemies. Ridley: — “I had little thought to have had such reproachful words at your hands.” Weston: — “All is quiet. Go to your arguments, master doctor.” Ridley: — “I have not many things more to say.” Weston: — “You utter blasphemies with a most impudent face: leave off, I say, and get you to the argument.” Ridley: — “It forceth men to maintain many monstrous miracles, without any 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, instead 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, and worms breed there, some say that the substance of bread miraculously returneth again, and some deny it. 312 Others affirm, the real body of Christ goeth down into the stomach of the receivers, and 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 heaven, so soon as the forms of bread be bruised with the teeth. O works of miracles! Truly, and most truly, I see that fulfilled in these men, whereof St. Paul prophesied, ‘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.’ (2 Thessalonians 2) This gross presence hath brought forth that fond fantasy of concomitance, whereby is broken at this day and abrogated the commandment of the Lord for distributing of the Lord’s cup to the laity. “It giveth occasion to heretics to maintain and defend their errors; as to Marcion, who said that Christ had but a phantastical body; and to Eutiches, who 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, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius Emissene, Athanasins, Cyril, Epiphanius, Jerome, Chrysostome, Augustine, Vigilius, Fulgentius, Bertram, and other most ancient fathers. All those places, as I am sure I have read making for my purpose, so am I well assured 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 peril of my life, and loss of all that I may lose in this world. “But now, my brethren, think not, because I disallow that presence which the first proposition maintaineth (as a presence which I take to be forged, phantastical, and, beside the authority of God’s word, perniciously 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 the 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 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 and immortality. And this I hold with Cyprian. “I say also with St. Augustine, that we eat life and we drink life; with Emissene, 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 Hilary; 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 and 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 Chrysostome; grace and invisible verity, grace and society of the members of Christ’s body, with Augustine. “Finally, with Bertram (who 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 men, how far we are from 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.”

    THE SECOND PROPOSITION.

    After the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, neither any other substance, than the substance of God and man: (The Answer of Dr. Ridley.) Ridley: — “The second conclusion is manifestly false, directly against the word of God, the nature of the sacrament, and the most evident testimonies of the godly fathers; and it is the rotten foundation of the other two conclusions propounded by you, both of the first, and also of the third. I will not therefore now tarry upon any further explication of this answer, being contented with that which is already added afore, to the answer of the first proposition.” (The First Argument for the confirmation of this Answer.) “It is very plain by the word of God, that Christ did give bread unto his disciples, and called it his body. “But the substance of bread is another manner of substance than is the substance of Christ’s body, God and man: “Therefore, the conclusion is false. “The second part of mine argument is plain, and the first is proved thus: (The Second Argument.) “That which Christ did take, on the which he gave thanks, and the which he brake, he gave to his disciples, and called it his body. “But he took bread, gave thanks on bread, and brake bread: “Ergo, The first part is true. And it is confirmed with the authorities of the fathers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret, Cyril, Rabanus, and Bede: whose places I will take upon me to show most manifest in this behalf, if I may be suffered to have my books, as my request is. “Bread is the body of Christ: “Ergo, It is bread.” A tertio adjacente ad secundum adjacens cum verbi substantivi pura copula. (The Third Argument) “As the bread of the Lord’s table is Christ’s natural body, so is it his mystical body. “But it is not Christ’s mystical body by transubstantiation: “Ergo; It is not his natural body by transubstantiation.

    The second part of my argument is plain, and the first is proved thus: As Christ, who is the verity, spake of the bread, ‘This is my body which shall be betrayed for you,’ speaking there of his natural body: even so Paul, moved with the same Spirit of truth, said, ‘We, though we be many, yet are we all one bread and one body, which be partakers of one bread.’” (1 Corinthians 10) (The Fourth Argument.) “We may no more believe bread to be transubstantiate into the body of Christ, than the wine into his blood. “But the wine is not transubstantiate into his blood: “Ergo, Neither is that bread, therefore, transubstantiate into his body. 315 “The first part of this argument is manifest; and the second part is proved out of the authority of God’s word, in Matthew and Mark, ‘I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,’ etc. (Matthew 26, Mark 14) Now the fruit of the vine was wine, which Christ drank and gave to his disciples to drink. With this sentence agreeth plainly the place of Chrysostome on Matthew 22: as Cyprian doth also, affirming that there is no blood, if wine be not in the cup. (The Fifth Argument.) “The words of Christ spoken upon the cup and upon the bread, have like effect and working. “But the words spoken upon the cup, have not virtue to transubstantiate: “Ergo, It followeth, that the words spoken upon the bread, have no such virtue. “The second part of the argument is proved; because they would then transubstantiate the cup, or that which is in the cup, into the new testament. But neither of these things can be done, and very absurd it is to confess the same.” (The Sixth Argument.)

    The circumstances of the Scripture, the analogy and proportion of the sacraments, and the testimony of the faithful fathers, ought to rule us in taking the meaning of the holy Scripture touching the sacrament. “But the words of the Lord’s supper, the circumstances of the Scripture, the analogy of the sacraments, and the sayings of the fathers, do most effectually and plainly prove a figurative speech in the words of the Lord’s supper: “Ergo, A figurative sense and meaning is specially to be received in these words, ‘This is my body.’ “The circumstances of the Scripture: ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’ ‘As oft as ye shall eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, ye shall show forth the Lord’s death.’ ‘Let a man prove himself, and so eat of this bread, and drink of this cup.’ ‘They came together to break bread; and they continued in breaking of bread.’ ‘The bread which we break, etc.’ ‘For we being many, are all one bread and one body, etc.’ “The analogy of the sacraments is necessary: for if the sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of the things whereof they be sacraments, they could in no wise be sacraments. And this similitude in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper is taken three manner of ways: “The first consisteth in nourishing; as ye shall read in Rabanus, Cyprian, Augustine, Irenaeus, and, most plainly, in Bertram out of Isidore [Section 40]. “The second in the uniting and joining of many into one, as Cyprian teacheth. “The third is a similitude of unlike things, where, like as the bread is turned into one body; so we, by the right use of this sacrament, are turned through faith into the body of Christ. “The sayings of the fathers declare it to be a figurative speech, as it appeareth in Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostome, 317 Augustine, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory, Nazianzen, Hilary, and, most plainly of all, in Bertram. Moreover, the sayings and places of all the fathers, whose names I have before recited against the assertion of the first proposition, do quite overthrow transubstantiation: but of all other most evidently and plainly, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostome (to Caesarius the monk), Augustine (against Adamantus), Gelasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Chrysostome again one (Matthew 20.), Rabanus, Damascene, and Bertram. “Here, right worshipful master prolocutor and ye the rest of the commissioners, it may please you to understand, that I do not lean to these things only, which I have written in my former answers and confirmations, but that I have also, for the proof of that I have spoken, whatsoever Bertram, a man learned, of sound and upright judgment, and ever counted a catholic for these seven hundred years until this our age, hath written. His treatise, whosoever shall read and weigh, considering the time of the writer, his learning, godliness of life, the allegations of the ancient fathers, and his manifold and most grounded arguments, I cannot (doubtless) but much marvel, if he have any fear of God at all, how he can, with good conscience, speak against him in this matter of the sacrament.

    This Bertram was the first that pulled me by the ear, and that first brought me from the common error of the Romish church, and caused me to search more diligently and exactly both the Scriptures and the writings of the old ecclesiastical fathers in this matter. And this I protest before the face of God, who knoweth I lie not in the things I now speak.”

    THE THIRD PROPOSITION.

    In the mass is the lively sacrifice of the church, propitiable and available for the sins as well of quick as of the dead (The Answer of Dr. Ridley.) Ridley: — “I answer to this third proposition as I did to the first: and moreover I say, that being taken in such sense as the words seem to import, it is not only erroneous, but withal so much to the derogation and defacing of the death and passion of Christ, that I judge it may and ought most worthily to be counted wicked and blasphemous against the most precious blood of our Savior Christ.” (The Explication.) “Concerning the Romish mass which is used at this day, or the lively sacrifice thereof, propitiatory and available for the sins of the quick and the dead, the holy Scripture hath not so much as one syllable. “There is ambiguity also in the name of mass: what it signifieth, and whether at this day there be any such indeed, as the ancient fathers used; seeing that now there be neither catechists nor ‘poenitentes’ to be sent away. “Again, touching these words, ‘the lively sacrifice of the church,’ there is a doubt whether they are to be understood figuratively and sacramentally, for the sacrament of the lively sacrifice (after which sort we deny it not to be in the Lord’s supper), or properly and without any figure: after the which manner there was but one only sacrifice, and that once offered, namely, upon the altar of the cross. “Moreover, in these words ‘as well as,’ it may be doubted whether they be spoken in mockage; as men are wont to say in sport, of a foolish and ignorant person, that he is apt as well in conditions as in knowledge — being apt indeed in neither of them both. “There is also a doubt in the word ‘propitiable,’ whether it signify here, that which taketh away sin, or that which be made available for the taking away of sin; that is to say, whether it is to be taken in the active or in the passive signification. “Now the falseness of the proposition, after the meaning of the schoolmen and the Romish church, and impiety in that sense which the words seem to import, is this: that they, leaning to the foundation of their fond transubstantiation, would make the quick and lively body of Christ’s flesh (united and knit to the Divinity) to lie hid under the accidents, and outward shows of bread and wine; which is very false, as I have said afore: and they, building upon this foundation, do hold that the same body is offered unto God by the priest in his daily massings, to put away the sins of the quick and the dead; whereas, by the apostle to the Hebrews it is evident, that there is but one oblation, and one true and lively sacrifice of the church offered upon the altar of the cross, which was, is, and shall be for ever, the propitiation for the sins of the whole world: and where there is remission of the same, there is (saith the apostle) no more offering for sin.” (Arguments confirming his Answer.) “No sacrifice ought to be done, but where the priest is meet to offer the same. (Hebrews 5) “All other priests be unmeet to offer sacrifice propitiatory for sin, save only Christ: “Ergo, No other priests ought to sacrifice for sin, but Christ alone. “The second part of my argument is thus proved. “No honor in God’s church ought to be taken where a man is not called, as Aaron. “It is a great honor in God’s church to sacrifice for sin: “Ergo, No man ought to sacrifice for sin, but only they which are called. “But only Christ is called to that honor: “Ergo, No other priest but Christ ought to sacrifice for sin. That no man is called to this degree of honor but Christ alone, it is evident; for there are but two only orders of priesthood allowed in the word of God: namely, the order of Aaron, and the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 7) But now the order of Aaron is come to an end, by reason that it was unprofitable and weak; and of the order of Melchizedek there is but one priest alone, even Christ the Lord, who hath a priesthood that cannot pass to any other.” (Another Argument.) “That thing is in vain, and to no effect, where no necessity is, wherefore it is done. “To offer up any more sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and the dead there is no necessity, for Christ our Savior did that fully and perfectly once for all: “Ergo, To do the same in the mass it is in vain.” (Another Argument.) “After that eternal redemption is found and obtained, there needeth no more daily offering for the same. (Hebrews 9) “But Christ coming a high bishop, etc., found and obtained for us eternal redemption: “Ergo, There needeth now no more daily oblation for the sins of the quick and the dead.” (Another Argument.) “All remission of sins cometh only by shedding of blood. “In the mass there is no shedding of blood: “Ergo, In the mass there is no remission of sins: and so it followeth also that there is no propitiatory sacrifice.” (Another Argument.) “In the mass the passion of Christ is not in verity, but in a mystery representing the same: yea, even there where the Lord’s supper is duly ministered. “But where Christ suffereth not, there is he not offered in verity: for the apostle saith, ‘Not’ that he might offer up himself often times (for then must he have suffered often times since the beginning of the world). (Hebrews 9) Now where Christ is not offered there is no propitiatory sacrifice: “Ergo, In the mass there is no propitiatory, sacrifice’. ‘For Christ appeared once, in the latter end of the world, to put sin to flight by the offering up of himself. And as it is appointed to all men that they shall once die, and then cometh the judgment: even so Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many. And unto them that look for him, shall he appear again without sin unto salvation.” (Another Argument.) “Where there is any sacririce that can make the comers thereunto perfect, there ought men to cease from offering any more expiatory and propitiatory sacrifices. “But in the new testament there is one only sacrifice now already long since offered, which is able to make the comers thereto perfect for ever: “Ergo, In the new testament they ought to cease from offering any more propitiatory sacrifices.” (Sentences of the Scripture, alleged by Ridley, tending to the same end and purpose; out of which also may be gathered other manifest Arguments for more confirmation thereof.) “‘By the which will (saith the apostle) we are sanctified, by the offering up of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.’ (Hebrews 10) And in the same place, ‘But this man, after that he had offered one sacrifice for sin, sitteth for ever at the right hand of God,’ etc. ‘For with one offering hath he made perfect for ever them that are sanctified; ‘and, ‘By himself hath he purged our sins.’” “I beseech you to mark these words ‘by himself,’ the which, well weighed, will without doubt cease all controversy. The apostle plainly denieth any other sacrifice to remain for him, that treadeth under his feet the blood of the testament, by the which he was made holy. Christ will not be crucified again, he will not his death to be had in derision.” “‘He hath reconciled us in the body of his flesh.’” (Colossians 1) “Mark, I beseech you; he saith not, in the mystery of his body, but in the body of his flesh.” “‘If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins; not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.’ (1 John 2) “I know that all these places of the Scripture are avoided by two manner of subtle shifts: the one is by the distinction of the bloody and unbloody sacrifice, as though our unbloody sacrifice of the church were any other than the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, than a commemoration, a showing-forth, and a sacramental representation of that one only bloody sacrifice, offered up once for all. The other is, by depraving and wresting the sayings of the ancient fathers unto such a strange kind of sense as the fathers themselves indeed never meant. For what the meaning of the fathers was, it is evident by that which St. Augustine writeth in his epistle to Boniface, and in the eighty-third chapter of his ninth book against Faustus the Manichee, besides many other places; likewise by Eusebius Emissene, Cyprian, Chrysostome, Fulgentius, Bertram, and others, who do wholly concord and agree together in this unity in the Lord; that the redemption, once made in verity for the salvation of man, continueth in full effect for ever, and worketh without ceasing unto the end of the world; that the sacrifice once offered cannot be consumed; that the Lord’s death and passion is as effectual, the virtue of that blood once shed, as fresh at this day for the washing away of sins, as it was even the same day that it flowed out of the blessed side of our Savior: and finally, that the whole substance of our sacrifice, which is frequented of the church in the Lord’s supper, consisteth in prayers, praise, and giving of thanks, and in remembering and showing forth of that sacrifice once offered upon the altar of the cross; that the same might continually be had in reverence by mystery, which once only, and no more, was offered for the price of our redemption. “These are the things, right worshipful master prolocutor, and ye the rest of the commissioners, which I could presently prepare to the answering of your three aforesaid propositions, being destitute of all help in this shortness of time, sudden warning, and want of books: wherefore I appeal to my first protestation, most humbly desiring the help of the same (as much as may be) to be granted unto me. And because ye have lately given most unjust and cruel sentence against me, I do here appeal (so far forth as I may) to a more indifferent and just censure and judgment of some other superior, competent, and lawful judge, and that according to the approved state of the church of England. Howbeit, I confess, that I am ignorant what that is, at this present, through the trouble and alteration of the state of the realm. But if this appeal may not be granted to me upon earth, then do I fly (even as to my only refuge and alone haven of health) to the sentence of the eternal judge, that is, of the almighty God; to whose most merciful justice towards us, and most just mercifulness, I do wholly commit myself and all my cause, nothing at all despairing of the defense of mine Advocate and alone Savior Jesus Christ; to whom, with the everlasting Father, and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier of us all, be now and for ever all honor and glory, Amen.”

    Albeit this learned bishop was not suffered to read all that is above prefixed before the disputations, yet because he had it then ready, and offered it up to the prolocutor after the disputations and sentence pronounced; I thought here the place not unmeet to annex the same together with the rest. Now let us hear the arguments and answers between Dr. Smith and him. (Dr. Smith beginneth to oppose.) Smith: — “You have occasioned me to go otherwise to work with you, than 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 into 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 yourself upon those places.” Ridley: — “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 upon his ascension and his abiding there also.” Smith: — “Christ’s going up to heaven, and his abiding there, hinder not his real presence in the sacrament: ergo, you are deceived.” Ridley: — “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 Virgin, that presence being in heaven, cannot be on the earth also. But, if you mean a real presence, ‘secundum rem aliquam quae ad corpus Christi pertinet;’ i.e. 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.” Weston: — “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.” Ridley: — “Christ’s ascension and abiding in heaven cannot stand with his presence.” Smith: — “Christ appeared corporally and really on the earth, for all his ascension and continual abode in heaven unto the day of doom: ergo, his ascension and abiding in heaven, is no let to his real ‘presence in the sacrament.” Ridley: — “Master doctor, this argument is nothing worth. I do not so straitly 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.” Smith: — “Mark, I pray you, my masters, that be here diligently, 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.” Ridley: — “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.” Smith: — “Ergo, It is lawful for Christ, then, to be here present on the earth, when he will himself.” Ridley: — “Yea, when he will, it is lawful indeed.” Smith: — “Ergo, He, ascending into heaven, doth not restrain his real presence in the sacrament.” Ridley: — “I do not gainsay, but that it is lawful for him to appear on the earth when he will: but prove you that he will.” Smith: — “Then your answer dependeth upon the will of Christ, I perceive: therefore I will join again with you in that short argument: “Christ, albeit he doth alway abide in heaven after his ascension, was seen really and corporally on earth: “Ergo, Notwithstanding his ascension and continual sitting at the right hand of his Father, he may be really and corporally in the sacrament.” Ridley: — “If the notaries should so record your argument as you have framed it, you, peradventure, would be ashamed of it hereafter.” Smith: — “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.” Ridley: — “I grant the antecedent; but I deny the consequence.” Smith: — “Do you grant the antecedent? “Ridley: — “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,”etc. Smith: — ”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.” Ridley: — “Let us first agree about the continual sitting at the right hand of the Father.” Smith: — “Doth he so sit at the right hand of his Father, that he doth never forsake the same? “Ridley: — “Nay, I do not bind Christ in heaven so straitly. I see you go about to beguile me with your equivocations. Such equivocations are to be distinguished. 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 Austin saith: 322 ‘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.” Smith: — “In Acts 3 we read, that Christ shall sit perpetually at the right hand of God, unto the consummation of the world.” Weston: — “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 and the same natural Christ, after the verity and substance of his very body: ergo,” etc.: — Ridley: — “I deny the antecedent.” Weston: — “I prove it by two witnesses: First by Chrysostome: ‘Do we not offer every day? we do so indeed; but doing it for the remembrance of his death. And this offering is one, and not many. And how is it one, and not many, which was once offered in the holy place?

    This sacrifice is a pattern of that: the selfsame we always offer; not now as offering one lamb to-day, and another to-morrow, but always one and 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 Christs. 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 Chrysostome, there is one body both in heaven and earth.” Ridley: — “I remember the place well. These things make nothing against me.” Weston: — “One Christ is in all places; here full and there full.” Ridley: — “One Christ is in all places; but not one body in all places.” Weston: — “One body, saith Chrysostome.” Ridley: — “But not after the manner of bodily substance he is in all places, nor by circumscription of place. For ‘hic’ and ‘illic,’ ‘here’ and ‘there,’ in Chrysostome do assign no place; as Augustine saith, 324 ‘The Lord is above, but the truth of the Lord is in all places.’” Weston: — “You cannot so escape. He saith not the verity of Christ is one; but one Christ is in all places, both here and there.” Ridley: — “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.” Weston: — “Ergo, By your saying it is not Christ, but the sacrifice of Christ. But Chrysostome saith, ‘One body and one Christ is there; ‘and not one sacrifice.” Ridley: — “I say, that both Christ and the sacrifice of Christ are there: Christ by his spirit, grace, and verity; the sacrifice by signification. Thus I grant 325 with Chrysostome, 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 altar of the cross, of which host all our hosts are but sacramental examples. “And whereas you allege out of Chrysostome, 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 took, 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 Chrysostome 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.’” Weston: — “The second witness is Bernard, in a sermon that he made of the supper of the Lord. who saith: 326 ‘How cometh this to us, most gentle Jesus, that we, silly worms, 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, dost 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 divers places?” Ridley: — “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 the same aforesaid place by you alleged: but yet he followed in an age, when the doctrine of the holy supper was sore perverted.

    Notwithstanding yet I will so expound him, rather than reject him, that he shall make nothing for you at all. He saith, that we have Christ in a mystery, in a sacrament, under a veil or cover; but hereafter, shall have him without 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.” Weston: — “What do you call verity? He saith not the verity of Christ, but the verity of the body of Christ.” Ridley: — “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.” Weston: — “Christ is one and the same in divers places. I urge these words ‘in diversis locis,’ ‘in divers places; ‘and yet I am not satisfied.” Smith: — “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.” Ridley: — “If by perpetual sitting you mean the residence of his body in heaven, your reason containeth manifest contradiction.” Smith: — “These two have no contradiction in them at all, both to sit continually at his Father’s 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 the right hand of his Father: for so it is written, (Acts 5) ‘Heaven must needs receive him, unto the time of the restoring of all,’ etc. Secondly, he was also seen of Paul here corporally on earth.

    Wherefore these two do import, as ye see, no contradiction.” Ridley: — “What letteth but that Christ, if it please him, and when it pleaseth him, may be ill 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.” Smith: — “I will prove that he would appear in earth. He so would, and also did appear here in earth after his ascension: ergo,” etc. Ridley: — “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.” Smith: — “Christ hath been both in heaven and in earth all at one time: ergo, you are deceived in denying that.” Ridley: — “I do not utterly deny Christ here to have been seen in earth. Of uncertain things I speak uncertainly.” Smith: — “He was seen of Paul, as being born before his time, after his ascending up to heaven. (1 Corinthians 15) “But his vision was a corporal vision: “Ergo, He was seen corporally upon the earth after his ascending into heaven.” Ridley: — “He was seen really and corporally indeed: but whether being in heaven or earth, is a doubt: and of doubtful things we must judge doubtfully. Howbeit you must prove, that he was in heaven at the same time when he was corporally on earth.” Smith: — “I would know of you, whether this vision may enforce the resurrection of Christ.” Ridley: — “I account 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 argument 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.” Smith: — “Paul saw him as he was here conversant on earth, and not out of heaven, as you affirm.” Ridley: — “You run to the beginning again: that you take for granted, which you should have proved.” Smith: — “You make delays for the nonce.” Ridley: — “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.” Tresham: — “He was seen after such sort, as that he might be heard: ergo, he was corporally on the earth; or else how could he be heard?” Ridley: — “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.” Smith: — “As others saw him, so Paul saw him. “Other did see him visibly and corporally on earth: “Ergo. Paul saw him visibly and corporally on earth.” Ridley: — “I grant he was seen visibly and corporally: but yet have you not proved that he was seen in earth.” Smith: — “He was seen of him as of others. “But he was seen of others being on earth, and appeared visibly to them on earth; “Ergo, He was seen of Paul on earth.” Ridley: — “Your controversy is about ‘existens in terra,’ that is, being on earth: If ‘existere,’ ‘to be,’ be referred as unto the place, I deny that Christ after that sort was on 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 reveal or manifest himself to Paul, when Paul was rapt into the third heaven, I know that some contend about it; and 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.” Smith: — “ We have Egesippus and Linus against you 217 , which testify, that Christ appeared corporally on the earth to Peter after his ascension, 328 Peter, overcome with the requests and mournings of the people, which desired him to get him out of the city because of Nero’s lying in wait for him, began without company to convey himself away from thence: and when he was come to the gate, he seeth Christ come to meet him, and worshipping him, he said, ‘Master, whither walk you? ‘Christ answered, ‘I am come again to be crucified.’ Linus, writing of the passion of Peter, hath the selfsame story. St. 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? “Ridley: — “I said before, that the doctors in that matter did vary.” Smith: — “Do you think this story is not certain, being approved by so ancient and probable authority? “Ridley: — “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.” Smith: — “Such things as be certain, and approved of them, you do reject as things uncertain.” Ridley: — “ The story of Linus is not of so great authority 218 ; although I am not ignorant that Eusebius so writeth also, in the Story of the Church. 329 And yet I account 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 upon 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 Christkingdom, and his continual or everlasting equality with his Father in the glory of heaven.” Smith: — “Now, whereas you boast that your faith is the very faith of the ancient church, I will show here that it is not so, but that it doth directly strive against the faith of the old fathers: I will bring in Chrysostome for this point. 330 ‘Eliseus received the mantle, as a right great inheritance: for it was indeed a right excellent inheritance, and more precious than any gold beside. And the same was a double Elias: he was both Elias above, and Elias beneath. I know well you think that just man to be happy, and you would gladly be, every one of you, as he is. What will you then say, if I shall declare unto you a certain other thing, which all we that are endued with these holy mysteries do receive much more than that? Elias indeed left his mantle to his scholar: but the Son of God ascending did leave here his flesh unto us. Elias left it, putting off the same: but Christ both left it to us, and ascended also to heaven, having it with him.” Ridley: — “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 divers 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.’” Smith: — “Chrysostome saith: 332 ‘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 others have translated it, thus: ‘O miracle, O 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.’” Ridley: — “He that sitteth there, is there present in mystery, 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 wholesomely with the hand of the heart, and by inward drinking is received: but by the sacramental signification he is holden of all men.” Seton: — “ Where is then the miracle, if he be only present through his grace and mystery only?” Ridley: — “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 the force of that mystery. God grant we may every one of us understand his truth, and obey the same.” Smith: — “Chrysostome 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 mystery, and is with them through grace. Therefore while you deny that, you are altogether deceived, and stray far from the truth.” Harpsfield: — “The former place of Chrysostome 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 cloak or mantle, and the gift of prophecy to his scholar?” Ridley: — “Yes, surely; it is a great matter.” Harpsfield: — “Did not Elias then leave great grace?” Ridley: — “He did so.” Harpsfield: — “But Christ left a far greater grace than Elias: for he could not both leave his cloak and take it with him; Christ doth both in his flesh.” Ridley: — “I am well content to grant, that Christ left much greater things to us than Elias 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 and life of all them who shall be saved: which life Christ hath here left unto us, to be received by faith through the hearing of the word, and the right administration of the sacraments. This virtue and grace Chrysostome, after the phrase and manner of John the evangelist, calleth Christ’s flesh.” Harpsfield: — “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 mantle, and carried it not with him: Christ left his flesh behind him, and carried it with him also.” 333 Ridley: — “True it is, and I myself did affirm no less before. Now where you seem to speak many things, indeed you bring no new things at all. Let there be a comparison between grace and grace; then Christ gave the far greater grace, when he did insert or graft us into his flesh.” Harpsfield: — “If you will give me leave, I will ask you this question: If Chrysostome would have meant so, that Christ left his body in the eucharist, what plainer words think you, or more evident could he have used than these?” Ridley: — “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 eloquent man.

    Now he speaketh after the manner of other doctors, which of mystical matters speak mystically, and of sacraments sacramentally.” Harpsfield: — “The comparison lieth in this: That which was impossible to Elias, is possible with Christ.” Ridley: — “I grant it was possible to Christ, which was to the other impossible. Elias left his cloak: Christ both left his flesh and took it with him.” Harpsfield: — “Elias left behind him, and 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.” Ridley: — “He took up his flesh with him to heaven, and left here the communion of his flesh in earth.” Weston: — “You understand in the first place his flesh for very true flesh; and in the second place for grace, and communion of his flesh; and why do you not understand it in the second place also, for his true flesh? I will make it evident how blockish and gross your answer is.” Ridley: — “These be taunts and reproaches, not beseeming, as I think, the modesty of this school.” Weston: — “Elias left his cloak to his disciple: but the Son of God, going up to heaven, left his flesh. But Elias certainly left his cloak behind, and Christ likewise his flesh; and yet, ascending, he carried the same with him too. 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 Dr. 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 too unlearned.” Ridley: — “I am glad you speak in English. Surely, I wish that all the whole world might understand your reasons and my answers: 334a He left 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.” Weston: — “Ye judges, 334b what think you of this answer?” Judges : — “It is ridiculous, and a very fond answer.” Ridley: — “Well, I take your words patiently, for Christ’s cause.”

    Weston here citeth a place: 334c “We are sprinkled with the blood of Christ.” Ridley: — “Master doctor, it is the same blood, but yet spiritually received. And indeed all the prophets were sprinkled with the 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 the everlasting salvation.” Weston: — “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 divers places.’” 334d Ridley: — “The answer is soon made, that one Christ is here and in divers places: for God, according to his majesty, and according to his providence, as St. Austin saith, is everywhere with the godly, according to his indivisible and unspeakable grace. Or else, if ye would understand Bernard according to the corporal presence, how monstrous, or huge and giant-like a body would you then make Christ’s body to be, which should reach even from north to south, from west to east.” Weston: — “Nay, nay, you make a monstrous answer, and unlearned.” Ward: — “Before I come in with those reasons which I had purposed to bring against you, I am minded to come again to master doctor’s argument, by which you, being brought into the briers, seemed to doubt of Christ’s presence on the earth. To the proof of which matter I will bring nothing else, than that which was agreed upon in the catechism of the synod of London, set out not long ago by you.” 334e Ridley: — “Sir, I give you to wit, before you go any further, that I did set out no catechism.” Weston: — “Yes, you made me subscribe to it, when you were a bishop in your ruff.” Ridley: — “I compelled no man to subscribe.” Ward: — ”Yes, by the rood, you are the very author of that heresy.” Ridley: — ”I put forth no catechism.” Cole — “Did you never consent to the setting-out of those things which you allowed?” Ridley: — “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.” 334f Judges: — “The catechism is so set forth, as though the whole Convocationhouse had agreed to it. Cranmer said yesterday, that you made it.” 334g Ridley: — “I think surely, that he would not say so.” Ward: — “The catechism hath this clause: ‘Si visibiliter et in terra.’ ‘If visibly and on the earth.’” Ridley: — “I answer, that those articles were set out, I both witting and consenting to them. Mine own hand will testify the same, and master Cranmer put his hand to them likewise, and gave them to others afterward. Now, as for the place which you allege out of it, that may easily be expounded, and without any inconvenience.” Ward: — “Christ is the power and the virtue of his Father: ergo, he was not of so little strength, that he could not bring to pass whatsoever he would himself.” 334h Ridley: — “I grant.” Ward: — “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 instead of another.” Ridley: — “All this I grant.” Ward: — “Christ was likewise the very truth: ergo, he made and performed indeed that which he intended to make. And likewise it is, that he doth neither deceive, nor could be deceived, nor yet would go about to deceive others.” Weston: — “Hilary on Psalms 118, hath these words: 334i ‘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.’” Ward: — “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 made his testament.” Ridley: — “Christ is the very truth of the Father; and I perceive well to what scope you drive your reason. This is but a far-fetched compass of words. If that these words of Christ, ‘This is my body,’ which you mean, be rightly understood, they are most true.” Ward: — “He took, he brake, he gave, etc. What took he?” Ridley: — “Bread: his body.” Ward: — “What brake he?” Ridley: — “Bread.” Ward: — “What gave he?” Ridley: — “Bread.” Ward: — “Gave he bread made of wheat, and material bread?” Ridley: — “I know not whether he gave bread of wheat; but he gave true and material bread.” Ward: — “I will prove the contrary by Scriptures. “He delivered to them that which he bade them take. “But he bade not them take material bread, but his own body: “Ergo, He gave not material bread, but his own body.” 334j Ridley: — “I deny the minor. For he bade them take his body sacramentally in material bread: and after that sort it was both bread which he bade them take, because the substance was bread, and that it was also his body; because it was the sacrament of his body, for the sanctifying and the coming of the Holy Ghost, which is always assistant to those mysteries which were instituted of Christ, and lawfully administered.” Harpsfield: — “What is he that so saith, ‘By the coming unto of the Holy Spirit?’” Ridley: — “I have Theophylact 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 Theophylact, writing upon these words, ‘This is my body,’ showeth, that the body of the Lord is bread, which is sanctified on the altar.” Oglethorpe: — “That place of Theophylact maketh openly against you: for he saith in that place, that Christ said not, ‘This is the 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.’” Ridley: — “It is not a figure; that is to say, ‘Non tantum est figura;’ i.e. It is not only a figure of his body.” Weston: — “Where have you that word ‘tantum,’ ‘ only?’” Ridley: — “It is not in that place, but he hath it in another; and Augustine doth so speak many times, and other doctors more.”

    Here Weston, repeating the words of Theopbylact in English, said, “He saith, it is no figure, and you say, it is a figure.”And the same Theophylact saith moreover, that the conversing 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. Ridley : 337 — “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 Theophylact, 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 its place the corporal substance of Christ’s flesh. And whereas 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.” Weston: — “You put in ‘only,’ and that is one lie. And I tell you further: 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.’ Ridley: — “To take his words, and not his meaning, is to do injury to the author.” Harding: 338 — “No other doctor maketh more against you. For the word in Greek is metastoiceiou~tai ; which is in Latin ‘transelementatur,’ that is, turned from one element into another. And showing the cause why it is in form of bread, he saith, 339 ‘Because we are infirm, and abhor to eat the raw flesh, especially the flesh of man: therefore it appeareth bread, but it is flesh.’” Ridley: — “That word hath not that strength which you seem to give it. You strain it overmuch, and yet it maketh not so much for your purpose. For the same author hath in another place, hJmei~v metastoicei>oumeqa , that is, ‘We are trans-elemented, or transformed and changed, into the body of Christ:’ and so by that word, in such meaning as you speak of, I could prove as well that we are transformed indeed into the very body of Christ. Ward: — “Learned master doctor, thus you expound the place, ‘Hoc est corpus meum,’ i.e. ‘This is my body,’ that is, a figure of my body.” Ridley: — “Although I know there be that so expound it, yet that exposition is not full to express the whole.” Ward: — “My sheep hear my voice, and follow me. “But all the sheep of Christ hear his voice, ‘This is my body,’ without a figure: “Ergo, The voice of Christ here hath no figure.” Ridley: — “The sheep of Christ follow the voice of Christ, unless they be seduced and deceived through ignorance.” Ward: — “But the fathers took this place for no figurative speech.” Ridley: — “Yet they do all number this place among figurative and tropical speeches.” Ward: — Justin Martyr, in his second Apology 340 , hath thus: ouj gama tau~ta lamba>nomen ajll o\n tro>pon dia< lo>.gou qeou~ sarkopoihqeirka kai< ai+ma uJpeav hJmw~n e]scen, ou[twv kai< thgou tou~ parj aujtou~ eujcaristhqei~san trofhrkev kata< metabolhfontai hJmw~n ejkei>nou Tou~ sarkopoihqe>ntov Ihsou~ kai< sa>rka kai< ai+ma ejdida>cqhmen ei+nai “‘Neque vero haec pro pane potuve communi sumimus; imo quemadmodum verbo Dei Jesus Christus, Servator noster incarnatus, habuit pro salute nostra carnem et sanguinem: ita per orationem illius verbi consecratum hoc alimentum, quo sanguis et earnes nostrae per immutationem enutriuntur, ejusdem incarnati carnem et sanguinem esse sumus edocti.’ “This place Cranmer 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 and blood of the same Jesus incarnate.’ “Dr. 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 purposely to give thanks to God, and therefore be called Eucharistia, and he called the body and blood of Christ: and that it is lawful for none to eat and drink of them, but such as 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.’” Ridley: — “O good master doctor, go sincerely to work: I know that place, and I know how it is used.”

    Ward here repeated the place again out of Justin, ‘We are taught,’ etc. as above. Ridley: — “O what upright dealing is this! I have the selfsame place of Justin here copied out. You know yourself, who are skillful in Greek, how the words here be removed out of the right place; and that without any just cause.” Ward: — “I stand still upon mine argument. What say you?” Ridley: — “If you will, that I should answer to Justin, then you must hear. I have but one tongue, I cannot answer at once to you all.” Weston: — “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 altar: “Ergo, there is the very true flesh of Christ.” Ridley: — “If you speak of the very true flesh of Christ, after the substance of his flesh taken in the womb 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 and true meat of the soul, wherewith we are fed unto everlasting life, according to his saying, ‘My flesh is meat indeed,’ etc.” Ward: 344 — 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 against Marcion: 345 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 than 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?” Ridley: — “I suppose that the first he understood of the Judaical passover, and afterward of the eucharist.” Ward: — “Nay then Tertullian is against you, who saith:

    He desired to eat his passover.

    But the Judaical passover was not his, but strange from Christ:

    Ergo, He meant not of the Judaical passover.’” Ridley: — “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.” Ward: — -“What answer you then to Tertullian, who saith, ‘He desired to eat his own passover,’ and not the Jewish passover, which stood upon words without flesh?” Ridley: — “Tertullian may here dally in sense analogical. 346 I know that Cyprian hath these words: 347 ‘He began then to institute the holy eucharist, but both were Christ’s.’” Ward: — “Augustine on Psalm 46, writing upon these words, ‘Adorate scabellum pedum ejus;’ i.e. ‘Worship his footstool,’ etc. 348 : ‘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 find how, without impiety, the footstool of his feet may be worshipped. For he took earth of earth, in that he is flesh of earth, and because 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.’ “He gave to us his flesh to be eaten, the which he took of the earth, in which also here he walked, etc. “But he never gave his flesh to be eaten, but when he gave it at his supper, saying, ‘This is my body:’ “Ergo, in the eucharist he gave us his flesh.” Ridley: — “You do allege the place of Augustine upon Psalm 48, 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.” Smith: — “What if Augustine say, that Christ did not only give himself to us in a figure, but gave his own very flesh indeed and really?” Ridley: — “I never said that Christ gave only a figure of his body; for indeed he gave himself in a real communication, that is, he gave his flesh after a communication of his flesh.” (Here Weston read the place of Augustine in English, and afterward said, “Ye say Christ gave not his body, but a figure of his body.” Ridley: — “I say not so: I say, he gave his own body verily; but he gave it by a real, effectual, and spiritual communication.”

    After this, Dr. Glyn began to reason, who (notwithstanding master Ridley had always taken him for his old friend) made a very contumelious preface against him. This preface master Ridley, therefore, did the more take to heart, because it proceeded from him. Howbeit he thought, that Dr. Glyn’s mind was to serve the turn; for afterward he came to the house wherein master Ridley was kept, and, as far as master Ridley could call to remembrance, before Dr. Young and Dr. Oglethorpe he desired him to pardon his words. The which master Ridley did even from the very heart; and wished earnestly, that God would give not only to him, but unto all others, the true and evident knowledge of God’s evangelical sincerity, that, all offenses put apart, they, being perfectly and fully reconciled, might agree and meet together in the house of the heavenly Father. Glyn: — “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.” Ridley: — “This is a grievous contumely, that you call me a shifteraway of the Scripture, 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 aid ever receive and acknowledge the eucharist to be a sacrament of the body of Christ, yet not the body of Christ really, but the body of Christ by grace. Glyn: — “Then I ask this question: whether the catholic church hath ever or at any time been idolatrous?” Ridley: — “The church is the pillar and stay of the truth, that never yet hath been idolatrous in respect of the whole; but, peradventure, in respect of some part thereof, which sometimes may be seduced by evil pastors, and through ignorance” Glyn: — “That church ever hath worshipped the flesh of Christ in the eucharist. “But the church hath never been idolatrous: “Ergo, It hath alway judged the flesh of Christ to be in the eucharist.” Ridley: — “ 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 sacramentally 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 the 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 showed, and by a sacramental signification; but not by the corporal presence of the body of his flesh.” Glyn: — “Augustine against Faustus [saith,] 351 ‘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 adoration of the sacrament among the fathers; and Erasmus, 352 — in an epistle to the brethren of Low Germany, saith, that the worshipping of the sacrament was before Augustine and Cyprian.” Ridley: — “We do handle the signs reverently: but we worship the sacrament as a sacrament, not as a thing signified by the sacrament.” Glyn: — “What is the symbol or sacrament?” Ridley: — “Bread.” Glyn: — “Ergo, We worship bread.” Ridley: — “There is a deceit in this word ‘adoramus.’ We worship the symbols, when reverently we handle them. We worship Christ wheresoever we perceive his benefits: but we understand his benefits to be greatest in the sacrament.” Glyn: — “So I may fall down before the bench here, and worship Christ; and if any man ask me what I do, I may answer, I worship Christ.” Ridley: — “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.” Glyn: — “So was the faith of the primitive church.” Ridley: — “Would to God we would all follow the faith of that church.” Glyn: — “Think you that Christ hath now his church?” Ridley: — “I do so.” Glyn: — “But all the church adoreth Christ verily and really in the sacrament.” Ridley: — “You know yourself, that the eastern church would not acknowledge transubstantiation; as appeareth in the council of Florence.” Cole: — “That is false: for in the same they did acknowledge transubstantiation; although they would not entreat of that matter, for that they had not in their commission so to do.” Ridley: — “Nay, they would determine nothing of that matter, when the article was propounded unto them.” Cole: — “It was not because they did not acknowledge the same, but because they had no commission so to do.” Curtop: — “Reverend sir, I will prove and declare, that the body of Christ is truly and really in the eucharist: and whereas the holy fathers, both of the west and east church, have written both many things and no less manifest of the same matter, yet will I bring forth only Chrysostome. The place is this: “That which is in the cup, is the same that flowed from the side of Christ. “But true and pure blood did flow from the side of Christ: “Ergo, His true and pure blood is in the cup.” Ridley: — “It is his true blood which is in the chalice, I grant, and the same which sprang from the side of Christ. But how? It is blood indeed, but not after the same manner, after which manner it sprang from his side. For here is the blood, but by way of a sacrament. — Again I say, like as the bread of the sacrament and of thanksgiving 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 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 spiritual regeneration.” Curtop: — “The sacrament of the blood is not the blood.” Ridley: — “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 Curtop’s argument in English.) Weston: 356 — “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.” Ridley: — “The blood of Christ is in the chalice indeed, but not in the real presence but by grace, and in a sacrament.” Weston: — “That is very well. Then we have blood in the chalice.” Ridley: — “It is true; but by grace, and in a sacrament.” (Here the people hissed at him.) Ridley: — “O my masters! I take this for no judgment: I will stand to God’s judgment.” Watson: — “Good sir, 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 John 6 357 ‘He that eateth my flesh,’ etc., doth he signify in those words the eating of his true and natural flesh, or else of the bread and symbol?” Ridley: — “I understand that place of the very flesh of Christ to be eaten, but spiritually: and further 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 whoso eateth not spiritually, he eateth his own condetonation.” Watson: — “I ask then, whether the eucharist be a sacrament?” Ridley: — “The eucharist, taken for a sign or symbol, is a sacrament.” Watson: — “Is it instituted of God?” Ridley: — “It is instituted of God.” Watson: — “Where?” Ridley: — “In the supper.” Watson: — “With what words is it made a sacrament?” Ridley: — “By the words and deeds which Christ said and did, and commanded us to say and do the same.” Watson: — “It is a thing commonly received of all, that the sacraments of the new law give grace to them that worthily receive.” Ridley: — “True it is, that grace is given by the sacrament; but as by an instrument. The inward virtue and Christ give the grace through the sacrament.” Watson: — “What is a sacrament?” Ridley: — “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.” Watson: — “Ergo, Grace is given to the receivers.” Ridley: — “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 grafted in the head.” Watson: — “But there is difference between the mystical body, and natural body.” Ridley: — “There is, I grant you, a difference; but the head of them both is one.” Watson: — “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 the new testament.” Ridley: — “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 and drinketh his own damnation: even so he that eateth and drinketh worthily, eateth life, and drinketh life. 359 I grant also that there is no promise made to bread and wine. But inasmuch as they are sanctified, and made the sacraments of the body and 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.” Watson: — “If the substance of bread and wine do remain, then 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 the flesh and blood. ‘Qui manducat,’ (John 6) etc. “Ergo, The substance of bread and wine remaineth not.” Ridley: — “The promise undoubtedly is made to the flesh and blood, but the same is to be received in the sacrament through faith.” Watson: — “Every sacrament hath a promise of grace annexed unto it; but bread and wine have not a promise of grace annexed unto them: “Ergo, The bread and wine are not sacraments.” Ridley: — “True it is, every sacrament hath grace annexed unto it instrumentally. But there is divers 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.” Watson: — “This promise is made to the flesh and blood of Christ; and not to the bread and wine: “Ergo, The sacrament is not bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ.” Ridley: — “There is no promise made to him that taketh common 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.” Watson: — “Every sacrament of the new testament giveth grace, promised of God to those that worthily receive it.” Ridley: — “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 wine.” Watson: — “But this promise which is made, is not but to those that worthily receive the flesh and blood; not the bread and wine.” Ridley: — “That proposition of yours hath a divers understanding.

    There is no promise made to them 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.” Watson: — “Where is that promise made?” Ridley: — “The bread which we break, is it not a communication of the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 12) And we being many are one bread, one body of Christ.” Watson: — “What doth he mean by bread in that place?” Ridley: — “The bread of the Lord’s table, the communion of the body of Christ.” Watson: — “Hearken what Chrysostome saith upon that place: 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 the same. For we do not communicate by participation only and receiving, but also by couniting; for likewise as that body is co-united to Christ, so also we, by the same bread, are conjoined and united to him.” Ridley: — “Let Chrysostome 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.” Watson: — “‘All,’ saith Chrysostome, (1 Corinthians 10) ‘which sit together at one board, do communicate together of one true body. What do I call,’ saith he, ‘this communicating? We are all the selfsame 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.’

    Chrysostome doth interpret this place against you: ‘All we be one bread and one mystical body, which do participate together one bread of Christ.’” Ridley: — “All we be one mystical body, which do communicate of one Christ in bread, after the efficacy of regeneration, or quickening.” Watson: — “Of what manner of bread speaketh he?” Ridley: — “Of the bread of the Lord’s table.” Watson: — “Is not that bread one?” Ridley: — “It is one of the church being one; because one bread is set forth upon the table: and so of one bread all together do participate, which communicate at the table of the Lord.” Watson: — “See how absurdly you speak. Do you say, all which be from the beginning to the end of the world?” Ridley: — “All, I say, which at one table together have communicated in the mysteries might well so do. Albeit the heavenly and celestial bresd is likewise one also, whereof the sacramental bread is a mystery: the which being one, all we together do participate.” Watson: — “A perverse answer. Which all? Mean you all christian men?” Ridley: — “I do distribute this word ‘all;’ for all were wont together to communicate of the one bread divided into parts: all, I say, which were in one congregation, and which all did communicate together at one table.” Watson: — “What? Do you exclude then from the body of Christ all them which did not communicate, being present?” Fecknam: — “But Cyprian saith, 361 ‘Bread which no multitude doth consume: ‘which cannot be understood but only of the body of Christ.” Ridley: — “Also Cyprian in this place did speak of the true body of Christ, and not of material bread.” Fecknam: — “Nay, rather he did there entreat of the sacrament in that tractation ‘DeCoena Domini,’ writing upon the supper of the Lord.” Ridley: — “Truth it is, and I grant he entreateth there of the sacrament: but, also, he doth admix something therewithal of the spiritual manducation.” Smith: — “When the Lord saith, ‘This is my body,’ he useth no tropical speech: “Ergo, You are deceived.” Ridley: — “I deny your antecedent.” Smith: — “I bring here Augustine expounding these words, 362 ‘He was carried in his own hands. 363 How may this be understood to be done in man? For no man is carried in his own hands, but in the hands of other. How this may be understood of David after the 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, etc. Augustine here did not see how this place, after the letter, could be understood of David; because no man can carry himself in his own hands. ‘Therefore,’ saith he, ‘this place is to be understood 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.’” Ridley: — “I deny your argument, and I explicate the same. Austin could not find, after his own understanding, how this could be understood of David after the letter. Austin goeth here from others in this exposition, but I go not from him. But let this exposition of Austin be granted to you; although I know this place of Scripture be otherwise read of other men, after the verity of the Hebrew text, and it is also otherwise to be expounded. Yet, to grant to you this exposition of Austin, 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.” Smith: — “Ergo, It is true of Christ after the letter, that he was borne in his own hands.” Ridley: — “He was borne literally, and after that letter which was spoken of David: but not after the letter of these words, ‘Hoc est corpus meum.’” “I grant that St. Austin saith, that it is not found literally of David, that he carried himself in his own hands, and that it 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. St. Augustine’s meaning in 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, that overthrew Goliath the devil (that is, of Christ our Savior, the son of the Virgin), it may well be found literally, that he bare himself in his own hands after a certain manner, namely, in carrying the sacrament of himself. And note, that St, Austin hath these words, ‘quodam modo,’ ‘after a certain manner;’ which manifestly declare, how the doctor’s meaning is to be taken.” Smith: — “When then was he borne in his own hands: and after what letter?” Ridley: — “He was borne in the supper sacramentally, when he said, ‘This is my body.’” Smith: — “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.” Ridley: — “If Austin 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.” Smith: — “But he did bear himself in his own hands: “Ergo, He did not bear a figure only.” Ridley: — “He did bear himself, but in a sacrament: and Austin afterward addeth, ‘quodam modo,’ that is, ‘sacramentally.’” Smith: — “You understand not what Austin 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 you able to escape out of this labyrinth.”

    Dr. Weston repeated this place again in English: which done, then Dr.

    Tresham began thus to speak, moved (as it seemed to master Ridley) with great zeal; and desired that he might be in the stead of John Baptist, in converting the hearts of the fathers, and in reducing the said bishop 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. Tresham: — “God Almighty grant that it may be fulfilled in me, that was spoken by the prophet Malachi of John 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 nought by her.” Ridley: — “These bye words do pollute your school.” Tresham: — “If there were an Arian which had that subtle wit that you have, he might soon shift off the authority of the Scriptures and fathers.” Weston: — “Either dispute, or else hold your peace, I pray you.” Tresham: — “I bring a place here out of the council of Lateran, 366 the which council, representing the universal church, wherein were congregated three hundred bishops, and seventy metropolitans, besides a great multitude of others, decreed that bread and wine, by the power of God’s word, was transubstantiate into the body and blood of the Lord. Therefore whosoever saith contrary, cannot be a child of the church, but a heretic.” Ridley: — “Good sir, 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 friars were in that council, who were to the number of eight hundred.” One of the Scribes: — “What! will you deny then the authority of that council, for the multitude of those priors?” Ridley: — “No sir, 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 appear by the acts of that council, which was holden under Innocent the Third, 368 a man (if we believe the histories) most pernicious to the church and commonwealth of Christ.” Tresham: — “What! do you not receive the council of Lateran? “Whereupon he, with certain others, cried, “Scribite, scribite,” Write, write. Ridley: — “No sir, I receive not that council; ‘scribite, et rescribite,’ write, and write again.” Tresham: — “Evil men do eat the natural body of Christ: ergo, the true and natural body of Christ is on the altar.” Ridley: — “Evil men do eat the very true and natural body of Christ sacramentally, and no further; as St. Augustine saith. But good men do eat the very true body, both sacramentally, and spiritually by grace.” Tresham: — “I prove the contrary, by St. Augustine: ‘Sicut enim Judas, cui buccellulam Dominus tradidit, non malum accipiendo, sed male accipiendo peccavit,’ etc. 369 ‘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,’ etc. And a little after, 370 ‘Because some do not eat unto salvation, it followeth not, therefore, that it is not his body.’” Ridley: — “It is the body to them, that is, the sacrament of the body: and Judas took the sacrament of the Lord to his condemnation. Austin hath distinguished these things well in another place, 371 where he saith, 372 ‘The bread of the Lord, the bread the Lord. Evil men eat the bread of the Lord, but not the bread the Lord. But good men eat both the bread of the Lord, and bread the Lord.’” Weston: — “Paul saith, ‘the body,’ and you say, the sacrament of the body.” Ridley: — “Paul meaneth so indeed.” Watson: — “You understand it evil concerning the sign: for the fathers say, that evil men do eat him which descended from heaven.” Ridley: — “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. Weston: — “I bring Theophylact, which saith, that Judas did taste the body of the Lord. 374 ‘The Lord did show the cruelty of Judas, who, when he was rebuked, did not understand, and tasted the Lord’s flesh,’” etc. Ridley: — “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.” Weston: — “Chrysostome saith, that the same punishment remaineth to them which receive the body of the Lord unworthily, as to them which crucified him.” Ridley: — “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.” Watson: — “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: 375 ‘Let us not look a-low by the ground, upon the bread and the drink set before us, but, lifting up our mind, let us faithfully believe, there upon that holy table to be the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world, being sacrificed of the priests.’” Ridley: — “That council was collected out of ancient fathers; and is to me a great authority; for it saith 376 ‘that bread is set upon the altar, and having our minds lifted up, we must consider him which is in heaven.’

    The words of the council make for me.” Watson: — “Exaltata mente,’ ‘with a mind exalted:’ that is, not as brute beasts at the rack or manger, having an eye only upon the thing that is set before them, 377 ‘The Lamb of God lieth on the table,’ saith the council.” Ridley: — “The Lamb of God is in heaven, according to the verity of the body: and here he is with us in a mystery, according to his power; not corporally.” Watson: — “But the Lamb of God lieth on the table.” Ridley: — “It is a figurative speech; for in our mind we understand him which is in heaven.” Watson: — “But he lieth there, the Greek word is kei~tai .” Ridley: — “He lieth there; that is, he is there present: not corporally, but he lieth there by his operation.” Watson: — “He lieth; but his operation lieth not.” Ridley: — -“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 upon the table, as the reason of man would judge: but all things are here to be understood spiritually. 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 the Virgin Mary. And indeed the same canon 379 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 those things which are set before us; as who should say, what other things are they (as much as pertaineth to their true substance) than bread and wine? ‘But rather,’ saith the canon, ‘lifting up our minds into heaven, let us consider with faith the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world, sitting or lying upon the table.’ ‘For a lifted-up faith,’ saith he, ‘seeth him which sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, after the 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 mere prostrate with his members spread upon the table.’” Smith: — “ I bring another place out of the council of Nice 220 : ‘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 altar to be a figure.’ “Ergo, You are deceived.” Ridley: — “ This canon is not in the council of Nice 221 ; for I have read over this council many times.”

    Then came in another, whom master Ridley knew not, and said: “The universal church both of the Greeks and Latins, of the east and of the west, have agreed in the council of Florence uniformly in the doctrine of the sacrament; that in the sacrament of the altar there is the true and real body.” Ridley: — “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, 382 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, leavened, or unleavened bread.”

    Here cried out Dr. Cole, and said, they agreed together concerning transubstantiation of bread into the body of Christ. Master Ridley said that could not be.

    Here started up another unknown to master Ridley, but thought to be one of the scribes, who affirmed with him, that indeed 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 master Ridley answered again, saying, that he said the truth. Pie: — What say you to that council, where it is said, that the priest doth offer an unbloody sacrifice of the body of Christ?” Ridley: — “I say, it is well said, if it be rightly understood.” Pie: — But he offereth an unbloody sacrifice. Ridley: — “It is called unbloody, and is offered after a certain manner, and in a mystery, and as a representation of that bloody sacrifice; and he doth not lie, who saith Christ to be offered.” Weston: — “I, with one argument, will throw down to the ground your opinion, out of Chysostome, 383 and I will teach, not only a figure, and a sign or grace only, but the very same body, which was here conversant on the earth, to be in the eucharist. “We worship the selfsame body in the eucharist which the wise men did worship in the manger. “But that was his natural and real body, not spiritual: “Ergo, The real body of Christ is in the eucharist. “Again, the same Chrysostome saith, ‘We have not here the Lord in the manger, but on the altar. Here a woman holdeth him not in her hands, but a priest.’” Ridley: — “We worship, I confess, the same true Lord and Savior of the world, which the wise men worshipped in the manger; howbeit we do it in a mystery; and in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, and that in spiritual liberty, as saith St. Augustine 385 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, and is worshipped of the angels. For Christ is always assistant to his mysteries, as the said Augustine saith. And the Divine Majesty, as saith Cyprian, doth never absent itself from the divine mysteries; but this assistance and presence of Christ, as in baptism it is wholly spiritual, and by grace, and not by any corporal substance of the flesh: even so it is here in the Lord’s supper, being rightly and according to the word of God duly ministered.” Weston: — “That which the woman did hold in her womb, the same thing holdeth the priest.” Ridley: — “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 Chrysostome in English.) Ridley: — “I say that the author meant it spiritually.” (Weston here, dissolving the disputations, had these words: 386 “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 without foil.

    Therefore I beseech you all most earnestly to blow the morte 222 (and he began, and they followed) ‘Verity hath the victory,’ ‘Verity hath the victory.’“ THE DISPUTATION HAD AT OXFORD THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 1554, BETWEEN MASTER HUGH LATIMER, ANSWERER, AND MASTER SMITH, AND OTHER OPPOSERS. After these disputations of bishop Ridley ended, next was brought out master Hugh Latimer to dispute, upon Wednesday, which was the 18th day of April; which disputation began at eight of the clock, in such form as before: but it was most in English. For master Latimer, the answerer, alleged that he was out of use with the Latin, and unfit for that place.

    There replied unto him master Smith of Oriel college; Dr. Cartwright, master Harpsfield, and divers others, had snatches at him, and gave him bitter taunts. He escaped not hissings and scornful laughings, no more than they that went before him. He was very faint, and desired that he might not long tarry. He durst not drink for fear of vomiting. The disputation ended before eleven of the clock. Master Latimer was not suffered to read what he had (as he said) painfully written: but it was exhibited up, and the prolocutor read part thereof, and so proceeded unto the disputation. (The Preface of Weston unto the Disputation following.) Weston: — “Men and brethren! we are come together this day (by the help of God), to vanquish the strength of the arguments, and dispersed opinions of adversaries, against the truth of the real presence of the Lord’s body in the sacrament. And therefore, you father, if you have any thing to answer, I do admonish you that you answer in short and few words.” Latimer: — I pray you, good master prolocutor, do not exact that of me, which is not in me, I have not these twenty years much used the Latin tongue.” Weston: — “Take your ease, father.” Latimer: — “I thank you, sir,’ I am well; let me here protest, my, faith, for I am not able to dispute; and afterwards do your pleasure with me.”

    THE PROTESTATION OF MASTER HUGH LATIMER223 , GIVEN UP IN WRITING TO DR. WESTON.

    The conclusions whereunto I must answer are these:

    The first is, that in the sacrament of the altar, by the virtue of God’s word pronounced by the priest, there is really present the natural body of Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, under the kinds of the appearance of bread and wine: in like manner his blood.

    The second is, that after consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance, but the substance of God and man.

    The third is, that in the mass there is the lively sacrifice of the church, which is propitiable, as well for the sins of the quick, as of the dead.

    Concerning the first conclusion, me thinketh it is set forth with certain newfound terms that be obscure, and do not sound according to the speech of the Scripture. Howbeit, howsoever I understand it, this I do answer plainly, though not without peril — I answer, I say, that to the right celebration of the Lord’s supper there is no other presence of Christ required, than a spiritual presence: and this presence is sufficient for a christian man, as a presence by which we abide in Christ, and Christ abideth in us, to the obtaining of eternal life, if we persevere. And this same presence may be called most fitly a real presence; that is, a presence not feigned, but a true and a faithful presence: which thing I here rehearse, lest some sycophant or scorner should suppose me, with the Anabaptists, to make nothing else of the sacrament, but a naked and a bare sign. As for that which is feigned of many, concerning their corporal presence, I, for my part, take it but for a papistical invention; therefore think it utterly to be rejected.

    Concerning the second conclusion, I dare be bold to say, that it hath no stay or ground in God’s word, but is a thing invented and found out by man; and therefore to be taken as fond and false: and I had almost said, as the mother and nurse of the other errors. It were good for my lords and masters of the transubstantiation, to take heed lest they conspire with the Nestorians, for I do not see how they can avoid it.

    The third conclusion (as I do understand it) seemeth subtilely to sow sedition against the offering which Christ himself offered for us in his own proper person, according to that pithy place of Paul, where he saith, (Hebrews 1) “That Christ, his own self, hath made purgation of our sins. And afterward, That he might,” saith he, “be a merciful and faithful bishop, concerning those things which are to be done with God, for the taking-away of our sins.” So that the expiation or taking-away of our sins, may be thought rather to depend on this, that Christ was an offering bishop, than that he was offered, were it not that he was offered of himself: and therefore it is needless that he should be offered of any other. I will speak nothing of the wonderful presumption of man, to dare to attempt this thing without a manifest vocation, specially in that it tendeth to the overthrowing and making fruitless (if not wholly, yet partly) of the cross of Christ; for truly it is no base or mean thing to offer Christ. And therefore worthily a man may say to my lords and masters the offerers 224 , “By what authority do ye this, and who gave you this authority?” — Where? when? — “A man cannot,” saith the Baptist, “take anything except it be given him from above:” much less then may any man presume to usurp any honor, before he be thereto called. Again, “If any man sin,” saith St.

    John, “we have,” saith he, — (not a masser or offerer at home, which can sacrifice for us at mass; but “we have,” saith he,) “an advocate, Jesus Christ,” (1 John 2) which once offered himself long ago; of which offering the efficacy and effect is perdurable for ever, so that it is needless to have such offerers.

    What meaneth Paul, when he saith, “They that serve at the altar are partakers of the altar?” and so addeth, “So the Lord hath ordained, that they that preach the gospel, shall live of the gospel.” — Whereas he should have said, “The Lord hath ordained, that they that sacrifice at mass, should live of their sacrificing;” that there might be a living assigned to our sacrificers now, as was before Christ’s coming, to the Jewish priests. For now they have nothing to allege for their living, as they that be preachers have: So that it appeareth, the sacrificing priesthood is changed by God’s ordinance into a preaching priesthood; and the sacrificing priesthood should cease utterly, saving inasmuch as all christian men are sacrificing priests.

    The supper of the Lord was instituted to provoke us to thanksgiving for the offering which the Lord himself did offer for us, much rather than that our offerers should do there as they do. “Feed ,” saith Peter, “as much as ye may, the flock of Christ:” “nay, rather, let us sacrifice as much as we may, for the flock of Christ. If so be the matter be as now men make it, I can never wonder enough, that Peter would or could forget this office of sacrificing, which, at this day, is in such a price and estimation, that to feed is almost nothing with many. If thou cease from feeding the flock, how shalt thou be taken? Truly, catholic enough. But if thou cease from sacrificing and massing, how will that be taken? At the least, I warrant thee, thou shalt be called a heretic. And whence, I pray you, come these papistical judgments? except, perchance, they think a man feedeth the flock, in sacrificing for them: and then what needeth there any learned pastors? For no man is so foolish, but soon may he learn to sacrifice and mass it.

    Thus, lo! I have taken the more pains to write, because I refused to dispute, in consideration of my debility thereunto: that all men may know, how that I have so done not without great pains, having not any man to help me, as I have never before been debarred to have. Oh, sir! you may chance to live till you come to this age and weakness that I am of. I have spoken in my time before two kings more than once, two or three hours together 225 ; without interruption; but now, that I may speak the truth (by your leave), I could not be suffered to declare my mind before you, no, not by the space of a quarter of an hour, without snatches, revilings, checks, rebukes, taunts, such as I have not felt the like, in such an audience, all my life long.

    Surely it cannot be but a heinous offense that I have given. But what was it? Forsooth I had spoken of the four marrow-bones of the mass; the which kind of speaking I never read to be a sin against the Holy Ghost. I could not be allowed to show what I meant by my metaphor; but sir, now, by your favor, I will tell your mastership what I mean: — The first, is “the Popish consecration,” which hath been called a god’s body-making. The second, is “Transubstantiation.” The third, is “the Missal oblation.” The fourth, “Adoration.”

    These chief and principal portions, parts, and points, belonging or incident to the mass, and most esteemed and had in price in the same, I call “the mar-row-bones of the mass;” which indeed you, by force, might, and violence, intrude in sound of words in some of the Scripture, with racking and cramping, injuring and wronging the same: but else, indeed, plain out of the Scripture, as I am throughly persuaded; although in disputation I now could nothing do to persuade same to others, being both unapt to study, and also to make a show of my former study, in such readiness as should be requisite to the same.

    I have heard much talk of master doctor Weston to and fro in my time: but I never knew your person to my knowledge, till I came before you, as the queen’s majesty’s commissioner. I pray God send you so right judgment, as I perceive you have a great wit, the great learning, with many other qualities. God give you grace ever well to use them, and ever to have in remembrance, that he that dwelleth on high, looketh on the low things on the earth; and that there is no counsel against the Lord; and also that this world hath been, and yet is a tottering world. And yet again, that though we must obey the princes, yet that hath this limitation; namely, in the Lord. For whoso doth obey them against the Lord, they be most pernicious to them, and the greatest adversaries that they have; for they so procure God’s vengeance upon them, if God be only the ruler of things.

    There be some so corrupt in mind, the truth being taken from them, that they think gain to be godliness; great learned men, and yet men of no learning, but of railing, and raging about questions and strife of words. I call them men of no learning, because they know not Christ, how much else soever they know. And on this sort we are wont to call great learned clerks, being ignorant of Christ, unlearned men; for it is nothing but plain ignorance, to know anything without Christ: whereas whoso knoweth Christ, the same hath knowledge enough, although in other knowledge he be to seek. The apostle St. Paul confesseth of himself to the Corinthians, that he did know nothing but Jesus Christ crucified. Many men babble many things of Christ which yet know not Christ; but, pretending Christ, do craftily color and darken his glory. “Depart from such men,” saith the apostle St. Paul to Timothy.

    It is not out of the way to remember what St. Augustine saith. The place where, I now well remember not, except it be against the epistles of Petilian: 388 “Whosoever,” saith he, “teacheth anything necessarily to be believed, which is not contained in the Old and New Testament, the same is accursed.” Oh! beware of this curse if you be wise. I am much deceived if Basil have not such like words: “Whatsoever,” saith he, “is beside the Holy Scripture, if the same be taught as necessarily to be believed, that is sin.” Oh therefore take heed of this sin!

    There be some that speak many false things more probable, and more like to the truth, than the truth itself. Therefore Paul giveth a watchword: “Let no man,” saith he, “deceive you with probability and persuasions of words.” — “But what mean you,” saith one, “by this talk so far from the matter.? ” Well, I hope, good masters, you will suffer an old man a little to play the child, and to speak one thing twice. O Lord God! — you have changed the most holy communion into a private action; and you deny to the laity the Lord’s cup, contrary to Christ’s commandment. And you do blemish the annunciation of the Lord’s death till he come; for you have changed the common prayer, called the divine service, with the administration of the sacraments, from the vulgar and known language, into a strange tongue, contrary to the will of the Lord revealed in his word. God open the door of your heart, to see the things you should see herein! I would as fain obey my sovereign as any in this realm: but, in these things, I can never do it with an upright conscience. God be merciful unto us. Amen! Weston: — “Then refuse you to dispute? Will you here then subscribe? Latimer: — No, good master; I pray be good to an old man. You may, if it please God, be once old, 389 as I am: you may come to this age, and to this debility.” Weston: — “Ye said, upon Saturday last, that ye could not find the mass, nor the marrow-bones thereof in your book: but we will find a mass in that book.” Latimer: — No, good master doctor, ye cannot.” Weston: — “What find you then there?” Latimer: — Forsooth, a communion I find there.” Weston: — “Which communion? — the first or the last?” Latimer: — I find no great diversity in them; they are one slipper of the Lord: but I like the last very well.” Weston: — “Then the first was naught, belike.” Latimer: — I do not well remember wherein they differ.” Weston: — “Then cake-bread and 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;’ i.e. ‘after they had supped.’ For ye know that St. Paul findeth fault with the Corinthians, for that some of them were drunken at this supper; and ye know no man can be drunken at our communion.” Latimer: — The first was called ‘coena Judaica,’ i.e.‘The Jewish supper,’ when they did eat the paschal lamb together: the other was called ‘coena Dominica,’ i.e.’‘The Lord’s supper.’” Weston: — “That is false; for Chrysostome denieth that. 391 And St.

    Ambrose, on I Corinthians 10: saith, that 392 ‘the mystery of the sacrament, given as they were at supper, is not the supper of the Lord.’ And Gregory Nazianzen saith the same: 393 ‘Again he kept the holy feast of passover with his disciples in the dining 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 ajga>ph : 394 can you tell what that is? “ Latimer: — I understand no Greek: yet I think it meaneth charity.” Weston: — “Will you have all things 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?” Latimer: — Will you give me leave to turn my book: I find it in Corinthians 11:I trow these be his words: ‘probet autem seipsum homo,’ etc. — I pray you, good master, what gender is ‘ homo?’” Weston: — “Marry, the common gender.” Cole: — “It is in the Greek, oJ a]nqrwpov .” Harpsfield: — “It is ‘a]nhr ,’ that is, ‘vir.’” Latimer: — It is in my book of Erasmus’s translation, ‘probet seipsum homo.’” Fecknam: — “It is ‘probet seipsum’ indeed, and therefore it importeth the masculine gender.” Latimer: — What then? I trow when the woman touched Christ, he said, ‘Quis tetigit me?’ ‘Scio quod aliquis me tetigit;’ i.e.‘Who touched me?’ ‘I know that some man touched me.’” Weston: — “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 his institution kept.” Latimer: — “In the twelve apostles was represented the whole church, in which you will grant both men and women to be.” Weston: — “So through the whole heretically 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 minister (a minstrel, I may call him well enough) 395 should do it of necessity?” Latimer: — “A minister is a more fit name for that office; for the name of a priest importeth a sacrifice.” Weston: — “Well, remember that ye cannot find that a woman may receive by Scripture. Master opponent fall to it.” Smith: — “Because I perceive that this charge is laid upon my neck to dispute with you: to the end 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 indeed 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?” Latimer: — “I trust I have obtained of master prolocutor, that no man shall exact that thing of me, which is not in me. And I am sorry that this worshipful audience should be deceived of their expectation for my sake. I have given up my mind in writing to master prolocutor.” Smith: — “Whatsoever ye have given up, it shall be registered among the acts.” Latimer: — “Disputation requireth a good memory; ‘ast abolita est milli memoria:’ my memory is gone clean, and marvellously weakened, and never the better, I wis, for the prison.” Weston: — “How long have ye been in prison?” Latimer: — “These three quarters of this year.” Weston: — “And I was in prison six years.” Latimer: — “The more pity, sir.” Weston: — “How long have you been of this opinion?” Latimer: — “It is not long, sir, that I have been of this opinion.” Weston: — “The time hath been, when you said mass full devoutly.” Latimer: — “Yea, I cry God mercy heartily for it.” Weston: — “Where learned you this new fangleness?” Latimer: — “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 lord of Canterbury’s book 397 hath especially confirmed my judgment herein. If I could remember all therein contained, I would not fear to answer any man in this matter.” Tresham: — “There are in that book six hundred errors.” Weston: — “You were once a Lutheran.” Latimer: — “No, I was a papist: for I never could perceive how Luther could defend his opinion without transubstantiation. The Zurichers once did write a book against Luther, 398 and I oft desired God, that he might live so long to make them answer.” Weston: — “Luther in his book ‘De privata Missa,’ 399 said, that the devil reasoned with him, and persuaded him that the mass was not good. Whereof it may appear, that Luther said mass, and the devil dissuaded him from it.” Latimer: — “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.” Weston: — -“Do you believe this, as you have written?” Latimer: — “Yea, sir.” Weston: — “Then have you no faith.” Latimer: — “Then would I be sorry, sir.” Tresham: 400 — “It is written, ‘Except ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you.’ (John 6) Which when the Capernaites, and many of Christ’s disciples heard, they said, ‘This is a hard saying,’ etc. 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?” Latimer: — “I answer as Augustine understandeth: that Christ meant of the spiritual eating of his flesh.” Tresham: — “Of what flesh meant Christ? his true flesh, or no?” Latimer: — “Of his true flesh, spiritually to be eaten in the supper by faith, and not corporally.” Tresham: — “Of what flesh mean the Capernaites?” Latimer: — “Of his true flesh also; but to be taken with the mouth.” Tresham: — “ 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.” Latimer: — “I say, Christ understood it not of the bodily mouth, but of the mouth of the spirit, mind, and heart.” Tresham: — “I prove the contrary, that Christ understandeth it of the eating with the bodily mouth. For whereas custom is a right good mistress and interpreter of things, and whereas 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 been 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 John 6, of the eating with the mouth.” Latimer: — “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.” Tresham: — “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 deceiver, and had not 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 feign, it had not been an easy matter for him to have said: 402 ‘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 itself, 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 selfsame thing that the Capernaites did, I mean concerning the thing itself to be received with the mouth; videlicet, that his true flesh is truly to be eaten with the mouth.

    Moreover, forasmuch as you do expound for ‘corpus Christi’ ‘the body of Christ,’ ‘sacramentum corporis Christi’ ‘the sacrament of the body of Christ,’ and 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 Hilary: ‘Therefore, if Christ did truly take the flesh of our body upon him, and the same man be Christ indeed, which was born of Mary; then we also do receive under a mystery the flesh of his body indeed, 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 Hilary. Lo! here you see how manifestly these words confound your assertion. To be short, I myself have heard you preaching at Greenwich before king Henry the Eighth, 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, forasmuch 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 selfsame 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?” Latimer: — “Will you give me leave to speak?” Tresham: — “Speak Latin, I pray you; for ye can do it, if ye list, promptly enough.” Latimer: — “I cannot speak Latin so long and so largely. Master prolocutor hath given me leave to speak English. And as for the words of Hilary, 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.’” Smith: — “I will reduce the words of Hilary into the form of a syllogism. “Such as is the unity of our flesh with Christ’s flesh, such, yea greater, is the unity of Christ with the Father. “But the unity of Christ’s flesh with ours, is true and substantial: “Ergo, The unity of Christ with the Father, is true and substantial.” Latimer: — “I understand you not.” Seton: — “I know your learning well enough, and how subtle 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?’” Latimer: — “In these words, ‘Bibite ex hoc omnes;’ i.e.‘Drink ye all of this.’” Seton: — “Then we taste true blood.” Latimer: — “We do taste true blood, but spiritually; and this is enough.” Seton: — “Nay, the Old and New Testament in this do differ: 404 for the one doth command, and the other doth forbid, to drink blood.” Latimer: — “It is true as touching the matter; but not as touching the manner of the thing.” Seton: — “Then there is no difference between the drinking of blood in the New Testament, and that of the Old: for they also drank spiritually.” Latimer: — “And we drink spiritually, also; but a more precious blood.” Weston: — “Augustine, upon the 14th Psalm, saith: 405 ‘Drink boldly the blood which ye have poured out.’ — Ergo, it is blood.” Latimer: — “I never denied it, nor ever will I go from it, but that we drink the very blood of Christ indeed, but spiritually: for the same St.

    Augustine saith, 406 ‘Believe, and thou hast eaten.’” Weston: — “Nay, 407 ‘To believe, is not to drink or eat.’ You will not say, I pledge you, when I say, I believe in God.” Latimer: — “Is not ‘manducare,’ ‘to eat,’ in your learning put for ‘credere,’ ‘to believe?’” Weston: — “I remember my lord chancellor demanded master Hooper of these questions, whether ‘edere 408 ‘to eat,’ were ‘credere,’ ‘to believe;’ ‘and ‘altare,’ ‘an altar,’ were Christ, in all the Scripture, etc.: and he answered, ‘Yea.’ Then said my lord chancellor, ‘Why then, Habemus altare de quo non licet edere; 409 i.e. We have an altar of which it is not lawful to eat, is as much to say, as Habemus Christum, in quo non licet credere; i.e. We have a Christ, in whom we may not believe.’” Tresham: — “‘Believe, and thou hast eaten,’ is spoken of the spiritual eating.” Latimer: — “It is true, I do allow your saying; I take it so also.” Weston: — “We are commanded to drink blood in the new law. — Ergo, it is very blood.” Latimer: — “We drink blood, so as appertaineth to us to drink to our comfort, in sacramental wine. We drink blood sacramentally: he gave us his blood to drink spiritually: he went about to show, that as certain as we drink wine, so certainly we drink his blood spiritually.” Weston: — “Do not you seem to be a papist, which do bring in new words, not found in Scripture? Where find you that ‘sacramentaliter’ ‘sacramentally,’ in God’s book?” Latimer: — “It is necessarily gathered upon Scripture.” Weston: — “The Old Testament doth forbid the tasting of blood, but the new doth command it.” Latimer: — “It is true, not as touching the thing, but as touching the manner thereof.” Weston: — “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.” Latimer: — “It is commanded spiritually to be drunk. I grant it is blood drunk in the New Testament, but we receive it spiritually.” Pie: — “It was not forbidden spiritually in the old law.” Latimer: — “The substance of blood is drunk; but not in one manner.” Pie: — “It doth not require the same manner of drinking.” Latimer: — “It is the same thing, not the same manner. I have no more to say.” [Here Weston cited the place of Chrysostome, of Judas’s treason: 411 “O the madness of Judas! He made bargain with the Jews for thirty pence to sell Christ, and Christ offered him his blood, which he sold.”] Latimer: — “I grant he offered to Judas his blood, which he sold, but in a sacrament.” Weston: — “Because ye can defend your doctors no better, ye shall see what worshipful men ye hang upon, and one that hath been of your mind, shall dispute with you. — Master Cartwright, I pray you dispute.” Cartwright: — “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 sorry for it, and do confess myself to have erred· I acknowledge mine offense, and I wish and desire God, that you may also repent with me.” Latimer: — “Will you give me leave to tell what hath caused master doctor here to recant? It is ‘poena legis,’ ‘the pain of the law,’ which hath brought you back, and converted you, and many more; the which letteth many to confess God. And this is a great argument, there are few here can dissolve it.” Cartwright: — “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.” Latimer: — “The popish church hath erred, and doth err. I think for the space of six or seven hundred years, there was no mention 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 Canterbury’s book handleth that very well, and by him I could answer you, if I had him.” Cartwright: — “Linus and all the rest do confess the body of Christ to be in the sacrament: and St. Augustine also, upon Psalm 48, upon this place, ‘Adorate scabellum pedum,’ etc. granteth that it is to be worshipped.” Latimer: — “We do worship Christ in the heavens, and we do worship him in the sacrament: but the massing worship is not to be used.” Smith: — “Do you think that Cyril was of the ancient church?” Latimer: — “I do think so.” Smith: — “He saith, 414 ‘That Christ dwelleth in us corporally.’

    These be Cyril’s words of the mystical benediction.” Latimer: — “That ‘corporally’ hath another understanding than you do grossly take it.” [Here Smith repeateth these words of Cyril, 416 “By the communicating of the body of Christ, Christ dwelleth in us corporally.”] Latimer: — “The solution of this, is in my lord of Canterbury’s book.” Smith: — -“Cyril was no papist, and yet these be his words, ‘Christ dwelleth in us corporally: ‘but you say, he dwelleth in us spiritually.” Latimer: — “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 Canterbury’s book.” Weston: — “Because your learning is let out to farm, and shut up in my lord of Canterbury’s book, 417 I will recite unto you a place of St.

    Ambrose 418 where he saith, 419 ‘We see the chief priest coming unto us, and offering blood,’ etc. Likewise both Augustine on Psalm 38, and Chrysostome, concerning the incomprehensible nature of God, say, ‘Non solum homines, 420 etc.” Latimer: — “I am not ashamed to acknowledge mine ignorance; and these testimonies are more than I can bear away.” Weston: — “Then you must leave some behind you, for lack of carriage.” Latimer: — “But for Chrysostome he hath many figurative speeches, and emphatical locutions 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.” Weston: — “You shall hear Chrysostome again, upon Acts 9, ‘Quid dicis? Hostia in manibus sacerdotis 226 ,’ etc.: — He doth not call it a cup of wine.” Latimer: — “Ye have mine answer there with you in a paper: and yet he calleth it not, ‘propitiatorium sacrificium,’ that is, a propitiatory sacrifice.” Weston: — “You shall hear it to be so: and I bring another place of Chrysostome out of the same treatise, ‘Non temere ab apostolis est institutum,’ etc.” Latimer: — “He is too precious a thing for us to offer; he offereth himself.” Weston: — “Here, in another place of Chrysostome to the people of Antioch 421 and also to the Philippians he saith, ‘There should be a memory and sacrifice for the dead.’” Latimer: — “I do say, that the holy communion beareth the name of a sacrifice, because it is a sacrifice memorative.” Weston: — “How say you to the sacrifice of the dead?” Latimer: — “I say, that it needeth not, and it booteth not.” Weston: — “Augustine, in his Enchiridion saith, 422 ‘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 it the verity of Christ’s body, and praying for the dead. And it is said, that the same Augustine said mass for his mother 227 .” Latimer: — “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 than he bringeth Scripture for his proof, and agreeth with God’s word.” Weston: — “In the same place he proveth a propitiatory sacrifice, and that upon an altar; and no oyster-board.” Latimer: — “It is the Lord’s table, and no oyster-board. It may be called an altar, and so the doctors call it in many places: but there is no propitiatory sacrifice, but only Christ. The doctors might be deceived in some points, though not in all things. I believe them when they say well.” Cole: — “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.” Latimer: — “I am of their faith when they say well. I refer myself to my lord of Canterbury’s book wholly herein.” Smith: — “Then are not you of Chrysostome’s faith, nor of St.

    Augustine’s faith.” Latimer: — “I have said, when they say well, and bring Scripture for them. I am of their faith. And further, Augustine requireth not to be believed.” Weston: — “Origen, homily thirteen upon Leviticus — ” Latimer: — “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?” Weston: — “My vocation is at this time to dispute; otherwise I am a priest and my vocation is to offer.” Latimer: — “Where have you that authority given you to offer?” Weston: — “‘Hoc facite,’ 424 ‘Do this: ‘for ‘facite,’ in that place, is taken for ‘offerte,’ that is, ‘offer you.’” Latimer: — “Is ‘facere’ nothing but ‘sacrificare’ ‘to sacrifice?’ Why, then, no man must receive the sacrament but priests only: for there may none other offer but priests. — Ergo, there may none receive but priests.” Weston: — “Your argument is to be denied.” Latimer: — “Did Christ then offer himself at his supper?” 425 Pie: — “Yea, he offered himself for the whole world.” Latimer: — “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?” Weston: — “Forty year agone, whither could you have gone to have found your doctrine?’” Latimer: — “The more cause we have to thank God, that hath now sent the light into the world.” Weston: — “The light? nay light and lewd preachers; for you could not tell what you might have. Ye altered and changed so often your communions and altars; and all for this one end, to spoil and rob the church.” Latimer: — “These things pertain nothing to me; I must not answer other men’s deeds, but only for mine own.” Weston: — “Well, master Latimer, this is our intent, to will you well, and to exhort you to come to yourself, and remember, that without Noah’s 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 faggot. Remember what they have been which have set forth the same in this realm: a sort of flingbrains 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, 426 they will have no churches. A hovel 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 Hilary saith, ‘Annuas et menstruas de Deo fides facimus;’ that is, ‘We make every year and every month a faith.’ A runagate Scot 427 did take away the adoration or worshipping of Christ in the sacrament, by whose procurement that heresy was put into the last Communion- book: so much prevailed that one man’s authority at that time. You never agreed with the Zurichers, or the 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 faggot 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 feoffer’s hold. The queen’s grace is merciful, if ye will turn.” Latimer: — “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.” Weston — “Here you all see the weakness of heresy against the truth: he denieth all truth, and all the old fathers.”

    Here all good readers may see, how this glorious prolocutor triumpheth: but whether he hath the victory or no, that I suppose they have yet neither heard nor seen. — And give, that he had the victory, yet what great marvel was it, disputing as he did, “non sine suo Theseo,” 428 that is, not without his tippling cup standing at his elbow all the time of his disputation; not without a privy noting and smiling of them that beheld the matter, but especially at that time, when Dr. Ridley, disputing with one of the opponents, the said prolocutor took the cup, and holding it in his hand, said to the opponent, “Urge hoe, urge hoc; nam hoe facit pro nobis.” In which words, as he moved no little matter of laughter to the beholders thereof, so I thought here also not to leave the same unmentioned, somewhat also to delight the reader withal, after his tedious weariness in reading the story thereof.

    TO THE READER.

    And thus hast thou, loving reader, the whole action and stage of this doctorly disputation showed forth unto thee, against these three worthy confessors and martyrs of the Lord, wherein thou mayest behold the disordered usage of the university-men, the unmannerly manner of the school, the rude tumult of the multitude, the fierceness and interruption of the doctors, the full pith and ground of all their arguments, the censure of the judges, the railing language of the oblocutor, with his blast of triumph in the latter end, being both the actor, the moderator, and also judge himself. And what marvel then, if the courage of this victorious conqueror, having the law in his own hands, to do and say what him listed, would say for himself, “vicit veritas,” although he said never a true word, nor made ever a true conclusion almost, in all that disputation.

    It followed furthermore, after disputation of these three days being ended, that master Harpsfield, the next day after, which was the 19th of April, should dispute for his form, to be made doctor: to the which disputation the archbishop of Canterbury was brought forth, and permitted, among the rest, to utter an argument or two in defense of his cause; as in sequel hereof may appear.

    DISPUTATION OF MASTER HARPS FIELD, BACHELOR OF DIVINITY, ANSWERING FOR HIS FORM, TO BE MADE DOCTOR. Harpsfield: — “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 too, in the great contention of religion, to show the ready way whereby the Scriptures may be best understood: for the often 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, 429 but to give over our judgment unto the holy catholic church, which 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 divers heretics might prevail even against whole general councils. The Jews did greatly brag of the knowledge of the law, 430 and of the Savior that they waited for. But what availed it them? Notwithstanding, I know right well that divers places of the Scripture do much warn us of the often reading of the same, and what fruit doth thereby follow; as ‘Scrutamini,’ etc. ‘Search the Scriptures; for they do bear witness of me,’ etc. ‘Lex Domini,’ etc. ‘The law of the Lord is pure, able to turn souls;’ and that saying of St. Paul, ‘Omnis Scriptura,’ etc. ‘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 poets 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. St. Cyprian, never swerving from the catholic church, saith, ‘He that doth not acknowledge the church to be his mother, shall not have God to his Father.’

    Therefore it is true divinity, to be wise with the church, where Christ saith, ‘Nisi manducaveritis,’ etc. ‘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 wine, 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 431 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, master Harpsfield did, with many more words, set out: and hereupon Dr. Weston disputed against him. Weston: — “Christ’s real body is not in the sacrament: ergo, you are deceived.” Harpsfield: — “I deny the antecedent.” Weston: — ”John 16:‘Dico veritatem vobis,’ etc. ‘I speak the truth unto you: it behoveth me that I go away from you. For unless I do depart, that Comforter cannot come,’ etc. 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.” Harpsfield: — “He is verily gone, and yet remaineth here.” Weston: — “St. Augustine saith, that these words, ‘Ergo ero,’ etc. ‘I will be with you even to the end of the world,’ are accomplished, ‘secundum majestatem,’ ‘according to his majesty:’ ‘but ‘secundum praesentiam carnis non est hic;’ i.e. ‘by the presence of his flesh he is not here.’ The church hath him not in flesh, but by belief.” Harpsfield: — “We must diligently weigh, that there are two natures in Christ: the divine nature, and 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 divers after a divers manner. So, where 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.” Weston: — “He saith further, ‘Me autem non semper habebitis;’ ‘Ye shall not have me always with you,’ is to be understood in the flesh.” Harpsfield: — “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.” Weston: — “But what say you to this of Augustine, ‘Non est hic,’ ‘He is not here?’” Harpsfield: — “I do answer out of St. Augustine upon John, Tract. 25, upon these words, ‘Non videbitis me, vado ad Patrem,’ etc. ‘I go to the Father, ye shall not see me;’ that is, ‘such as I am now.’ Therefore I do deny the manner of his presence.” Weston: — “I will overthrow St. Augustine with St. Augustine; who saith this also, ‘Quomodo quis possit tenere Christum? fidem mitte, et tenuisti;’ i.e. ‘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.” Harpsfield: — “Indeed 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, St. Augustine speaketh of holding him by faith, as he is favorable unto us.” Weston: — “Nay, he speaketh there, how the fathers had him in the flesh, and teacheth that we have him not so in the 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, and is not here: he hath left us, and yet hath not forsaken us.’ ‘Hic est majestate, abiit carne;’ i.e. ‘He is here in majesty, and gone touching the flesh.’” Harpsfield: — “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 St.

    Augustine meaneth so. We have him, and have him not: we have him in receiving of him worthily, otherwise not.” Weston: — “Nay, ‘tenere 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.’” Harpsfield: — “The sense of Cyril is thus to be understood: the most true flesh of Christ is at the right hand of the Father. 437 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 showed why the fathers so spake. They did teach the great difference between the divine nature, and the human nature, as I have before said.” Weston: — “I will then prove, that he is not in the sacrament. Vigilius against the heretic Eutiches, upon these words, ‘Me autem non semper habebitis,’ 438 saith, ‘The Son of God, as touching his humanity, is gone from us, by his divinity he remaineth with us.’ And the same Vigilius, in his fourth book saith, ‘He that is in the heaven, is not in the earth;’ speaking of Christ.” Harpsfield: — “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 Vigilius said, that the human nature was taken up and ascended; which could not so have done, unless he 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.” Weston: — “Cyril saith, ‘Although he be absent from us in body, yet are we governed by his Spirit.’” Harpsfield: — “By these words he gave us a cheerfulness to aspire upwards, seeking thence our help: for as touching his conversation, he is not so in the sacrament as one meet to be lived withal. But let him not teach us, that he is not there to feed us; for after that sort he is there.” Weston: — “You have satisfied me with your answers, in doing the same learnedly, and catholicly. 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 this natural body is in heaven, it is not in the earth.” Harpsfield: — “I deny the major.” Weston: — “Fulgentius 441 saith, ‘Secundum humanam substantiam absens erat coelo, cum descendit de coelo.’ These are Fulgentius’s 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, either heaven or earth.’” After these words, not waiting Harpsfield’s answer, he offered master Cranmer to dispute; who began in this wise: Cranmer: — “I have heard you right learnedly and eloquently entreat of the dignity of the Scriptures, which I do both commend, and have marvelled thereat within myself. But whereas you refer the true sense and judgment of the Scriptures to the catholic church as judge thereof, you are much deceived; specially for that 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 conferring of places; seeing the Scriptures do so much commend the same, as well in divers 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, the schoolmen have spoken diversely of them, and do not agree therein among themselves. Wherefore, minding 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.” Harpsfield: — “He is there in such sort and manner, as he may be eaten.” Cranmer: — “My next question is, ‘Whether he hath his quantity and qualities, form, figure, and such like properties?’” Harpsfield: — “Are these your questions?” said master Harpsfield. “I may likewise ask you. ‘When Christ passed through the Virgin’s womb, an ruperit necne?’” When they had thus awhile contended, there were divers opinions in this matter. All the doctors fell in a buzzing, uncertain what to answer: some thought one way, some another; and thus master doctors could not agree.

    Then master Cranmer said thus: Cranmer: — “You put off 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?’” Tresham: — “No, he hath not all the quantities and qualities belonging to a body.” Smith: — “Stay you master Tresham: I will answer you master doctor, with the words of Damascene, ‘Transformatur panis,’ etc.: ‘The bread is transformed,’ etc.: — but if thou wilt inquire how, ‘Modus impossibilis,’ ‘The manner is impossible.’” Then two or three others added their answers to this question, somewhat doubtfully. A great hurly-burly was among them, some affirming one thing, and some another. Cranmer: — “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.” Harpsfield: — “These are vain questions, and it is not meet to spend the time on them.” Weston: — “Hear me a while: Lanfranc, some time bishop of Canterbury, doth answer in this wise unto Berengarius upon such like questions, 442 ‘They may be well believed, but never faithfully asked.’” Cranmer: — “If you think good to answer it, some of you declare it.” Harpsfield: — “He is there as pleaseth him to be there.” Cranmer: — “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 disputation’s sake, how you place him there, since you will have a natural body.”

    When again he was answered of divers at one time, some denying, it to be a “quantum,” some saying it to be “quantitativum,” some affirming it to have “modum quanti;” some denying it; some one thing, some another; — up starts Dr. Weston, and doughtily decided, as he thought, all the matter, saying, “It is ‘corpus quantum; sed non per modum quanti;’” i.e. “It is a body, having quantity; but not according to the manner of quantity.”

    Whereunto master Ward, a great sophister 228 , 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 either,: nor yet the best learned there. For it was said since, that far better learned than he, laid as good ear to him as they could, and yet could by no means perceive to what end all his talk tended: indeed he told a formal tale to clout up the matter.

    He was full of “quantum,” and “quantitativum.” 443 This that follows was, as it is thought, the effect; yet others think not. Howbeit we will rehearse the sum of his words, as it is thought he spake then. Ward: — “We must consider,” saith he, “that there are ‘duse positiones,’ two positions. The one standeth by the order of parts, 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 Predicaments, 444 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 quantitativo,’ as by an ensample: you can never bring heaven to a quantity. So I conclude that he is in the sacrament ‘quantum, sine modo quantitativo.’” These words he amplified very largely, and so high he climbed into the heavens with Duns’s ladder, and not with the Scriptures, that it is to be marvelled how he could come down again without falling. To whom master Cranmer said: — Cranmer: — “Then thus do I make my 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 quantity in both, and so put off the antecedent: but thus said master Harpsfield: Harpsfield: — “I deny your argument;” [though some would not have had him say so.] Cranmer: — “The argument is good. It standeth upon contradictories, which is the most sure hold.” Harpsfield: — “I deny that there are contradictions.” Cranmer: — “I thus prove it. “Habere modum quantitativum et non habere, sunt contradictoria. “Sed Christus in coelis, ut dicitis, habet modum quantitativum; in terra non habet: “Ergo, Duo sunt corpora ejus in quae cadunt haec contradictoria; nam in idem cadere non possunt.” Weston: — “I deny the minor.” Harpsfield: — “I answer that the major is not true. For ‘habere quantum, et non habere, non sunt contradictoria, nisi sic considerentur, ejusdem ad idem, eodem modo et simpliciter.’” Weston: — “I confirm the same: for one body may have ‘modum quantitativum,’ and not have; and ‘idem corpus’ was passible and impassible; one body may have wounds and not wounds.” Cranmer: — “This cannot be at one time.” Weston: — “The ensample of the potter doth prove that which I say; who of that which is clay now, maketh a pot or cup forthwith.” Cranmer: — “But I say again, that it is so; but at divers 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, and should have ‘modum quantitativum,’ and not have; which cannot be but by such argument as I have showed you.” Weston: — “But I say, Christ’s body was passible and not passible at one instant.” Seton: — “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? Cranmer: — “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?” Harpsfield: — “Yea, they do so, even as the sun doth shine upon king’s palaces, and on dung-heaps.” Cranmer: — “Then do I inquire, how long Christ tarrieth in the eater?” Harpsfield: — “These are curious questions, unmeet to be asked.” Cranmer: — “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.” Harpsfield: — “We know that the body of Christ is received to nourish the whole man, both body and soul: ‘eousque progreditur corpus quousque species.’” Cranmer: — “How long doth he abide in the body?” Seton: — “St. 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 whither he is conveyed.”

    Here master Tresham and one master 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. Harpsfield: — “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.” Cranmer: — “I say as I have said alway, 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? etc.: the Scripture answereth plainly, that Christ doth so long dwell in his people, as they are his members. Whereupon I make this argument. “They which eat the flesh of Christ, do dwell in him, and he in them. “But the wicked do not remain in him, nor he in them: “Ergo, The wicked do not eat his flesh, nor drink his blood.” Harpsfield: — “I will answer unto you as St. Augustine saith, not that howsoever a man doth eat, he eateth the body, but he that eateth after a certain manner.” Cranmer: — “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 John 6.” Harpsfield: — “In John 6 some things are to be referred to the godly, and some to the ungodly.” Cranmer: — “Whatsoever he doth entreat there of eating, doth pertain unto good men.” Harpsfield: — “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 eating, it may be so taken, I grant.” Cranmer: — “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?” Tresham: — “You must add, ‘Qui manducat digne,’ ‘He that eateth worthily.’” Cranmer: — “I speak of the same manner of eating that Christ speaketh of.” Weston: — “Augustine ‘ad Fratres in Eremo,” 449 sermon 28. ‘Est quidam manducandi modus;’ that is, ‘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.” Harpsfield: — “All things in John 6 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,’”etc. Cranmer: — “There is entreating of manna, both before and after.” Harpsfield: — “I will apply another answer. This argument hath a kind of poison in it, which must be thus bitten away: — That manna and this sacrament be not both one. Manna hath not its efficacy of itself, but of God.” Cranmer: — “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 and this sacrament, by your reason.” Harpsfield: — “When it is said, that they which did eat manna are dead, it is to be understood, that they did want the virtue of manna.” [If master 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.] Cranmer: — “They, then, which do eat either of them worthily, do live.” Harpsfield: — “They do