MarginaliaThe talke of Nic. Sheterden with the Archdeacon and Commissary about the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ.FIrst, the Archdeacō and Commissary affirmed that the very bare wordes of CHRIST whē he sayd: this is my body, did chaunge the substaūce, without any other interpretatiō or spirituall meanyng of þ^e wordes.

Shet. Then belike when CHRIST sayd: this cup is my bloud, the substaunce of the cup was chaunged into his bloud, without any other meanyng, and so the cup was chaunged, and not the wyne.

Arch. Not so, for when CHRIST sayd: this cup is my bloud, he ment not the cup, but the wyne in the cup.MarginaliaThe Romish catholikes can not deny a figuratiue speach in the cup, and yet will not graunt the same in the bread.

Shet. If CHRIST spake one thing, and ment another, then the bare wordes did not chaunge the substaunce: but there must be a meaning sought as well of the bread, as of the cup.

Arch. There must be a meaning sought of þ^e cup, otherwise then the wordes stand. But of the bread it must bee vnderstand onely as it standeth, without any other meanyng.

Shet. Then do ye make one halfe of CHRISTES institution a figure, or borowed speach, and the other halfe a playne speach,  

Commentary     Close

Sheterden is accusing Harpsfield of understanding the sacrament of the altar both literally and figuratively at the same time.

Arch. CHRIST ment the wine, and not the cup, though he sayd: this cup is my bloud.

Shet. Then shewe me whether the wordes which the Priestes do speake ouer the cup, do chaūge the substaunce, or whether the minde of the Priest doth it?

Arch. The mynde of the Priest doth it, and not the wordes.MarginaliaIf the minde and not the wordes of the Priest doth it: how then is it, that Duns and his fellowes say, that the wordes be the forme and formall cause onely that maketh the Sacrament?

Shet. If the mynd of the Priest doth it, and not the wordes, if the Priest then do mind his harlot, or any other vaine thing, that thing so minded was there made, and so the people do worshyp the Priestes harlot in stede of CHRISTES bloud: and againe none of the people can tell whē it is CHRISTES bloud, or whē it is not, seyng the matter standeth in the minde of the Priest. For no man can tell what the Priest meaneth, but him selfe: and so are they euer in daunger of committing Idolatry.

Then was the Archdeacon somwhat moued,  

Commentary     Close

I.e., somewhat angered.

MarginaliaCollins the Commissary taketh the matter in hand.Commis. Your Argument is much agaynst your selfe: for ye graunt that the bread is a figure of CHRISTS body: but the cup can be no figure of his bloud, nor yet his very bloud: and therfore CHRIST did not meane the cup, but the wyne in the cup.

Shet. My argument is not agaynst me at all: for I do not speake it to proue that the cup is his bloud, nor the figure of his bloud, but to proue that þ^e bare wordes beyng spoken of the Priest, doe not chaunge the substaunce no more of the bread, then they do chaunge the cup into bloud.

Commis. It could not be spoken of the cup, when he sayd: this cup is my bloud, but he ment the wyne in the cup.

Shet. Then it remaineth for you to aunswere my question to the Archdeacon, that is, whether the mind of the Priest, when hee speaketh ouer the cup, doth chaunge it into bloud, or the bare wordes.

Commis. Both together doth it, the wordes and the minde of the Priest together: yea, the intent and the wordes together doth it.

Shet. If the wordes & intent together doe chaunge the substaunce, MarginaliaThe Commissary brought to an absurditie.yet must the cup be his bloud, and not the wyne, for as much the wordes are: this cup is my bloud, and the intent ye say was the wyne: or els the wordes take none effect, but the intent onely.

After, the Commissary in his chamber sayd: it was the intent of the Priest before he went to Masse, with

out the wordes: for if the Priest did intende to do as holy Church had ordeined, then the intēt made the Sacrament to take effect.

Shet. If the Sacramentes take effect of the intent of the Priest, and not of Gods word, MarginaliaThe intent of the priest maketh not the Sacrament.then many Parishes hauyng a Priest that intendeth not well, are vtterly deceiued, both in Baptising and also worshipping that thing to bee God which is but bread, because for lacke of the Priestes intent the wordes doe take none effect in it: so that by this, it is euer doubtfull whether they worship CHRIST or bread, because it is doubtfull what the Priestes do intend.

Commis. Then the Commissary would proue to me, that CHRISTES manhode was in two places at one tyme,MarginaliaChristes body whether it may be in 2. places at once. by these wordes of CHRIST in Iohn the. iij. Chapter, where hee saith: no man ascendeth vp to heauen, but hee that came downe from heauen, that is to say, the sonne of mā, which is in heauen. By this he would proue that CHRIST was then in heauen and in earth also, naturally and bodily.

Shet. This place and other must needes be vnderstand for the vnitie of persons: in that CHRIST was God and man, and yet the matter must be referred to the Godhead, or els ye must fall into great errour.

Commis. That is not so: for it was spoken of the manhode of CHRIST, for as much as he sayth the sonne of man which is in heauen.

MarginaliaThe Commissary brought to an other inconuenience.Shet. If ye will needes vnderstand it to be spoken of CHRISTES manhode, then must ye fall into the errour of the Anabaptistes, which deny that CHRIST tooke flesh of the Virgine: for if there be no body ascended vp but that which came down, where is thē his incarnatiō? for thē he brought his body downe with him.

Commis. Lo how ye seeke an errour in me, and yet see not how ye erre your selfe. For it can not be spoken of the Godhead except ye graunt that God is passible, for God can not come downe because he is not passible.

Shet. If that were a good argument, that God could not come down because he is not passible: then it might be sayd by the like argumēt that God could not sit, and then heauen is not his seat, and then say as some do that God hath no right hand for CHRIST to sit at.

Commis. Then the Commissary affirmed playnly that it was true, God had no right hand in deede.

Shet. Oh what a spoyle of CHRISTES Religiō will this be, MarginaliaIf God can not come down, then Christ were not God, for Christ came from heauen.that because we can not tel how God came downe, therfore we shall say, that he came not down at all, and because we can not tell what maner of hand he hath, to say that he hath no hand at all: & then he cā not reach the vtmost part of the sea. O miserie: at length it will come to passe, that God can not sit, and then how can heauen be his seate, and if heauen be not his seate then there is no heauen: and then at length I doubt ye will say there is no God, or els no other God, but such as the heathen Gods are, which can not go nor feele.

Commis. Why? doth not the Scripture say that God is a spirite, and what hand can a spirite haue?

Shet. Truth it is, God is a spirite, and therfore is worshipped in spirite & truth: and as he is a spirite, so hath he a spirituall power, so hath he a spirituall seate, a spirituall hand,MarginaliaGods hand is spirituall. and a spiritual sword: which we shall feele if we go this way to worke, as we begin. Because we know not what hand God hath: therfore if we say hee hath none, then it may as well be sayd there is no CHRIST.

Then the Commissary sayd he would talke no more with me, and so departed: and also the Cōmissary was compelled to graunt, that CHRISTES Testament was broken, and his institution was chaunged from that he left it: but he sayd they had power so to do.

MarginaliaDeclaration of the first examination of Sheterden, after the law was established.BEcause I know ye will desire to heare frō me some certeinty of my state: I was called before the Suf-