wicked and naughty people,  

which is cleane contrary to that place of sauiour Christ, where he sayth: Whosoeuer eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Nowe it is plaine, that euill persons dwell not in Christ, nor Christ in them, wherefore they receiue not his body therin at all. For S. Austine tract. 8. super Iohannem saith, that it is but bread which is seene after the Consecration, Ergo, the substance of bread is there still. 2. The seconde inconuenience that groweth heereof, is the fonde and superstitious reseruation of the sacrament in pixes, boxes, and such like,   with vaine tabernacles ouer the alter, where oftentimes it did putrifie for all their foolish honour, which began in Honorius daies the third Bishop of Rome of that name, which corruption declareth it to be but onely bread, say all Papists what they list. 3. The third inconuenience that must needes follow Transubstantiation, is adoration, which is too plaine Idolatry   , as the Papists do know themselues if they list, but they are so stiffenecked, that they will not know it, and so both haue, and yet also will keepe the world in blindnes still if they might be suffered. But to be short with you, euen as we are chaunged into Christ by receiuing the sacrament, so is the bread chaunged into the body of Christ. But our substance is not chaunged into Christes substance, Ergo, the substance of the bread is not changed into Christes body. And to be shorte and playne with you (most honourable audience) the whole vniuersall world hath bene, and yet is sore deceaued and deluded about the estimation of this Sacrament. Therefore this is most true, when we do receaue the sayd Sacrament worthely, then are we ioyned by faith spiritualy to Christ our sauiour. And thus much haue I said in this first matter.

[Back to Top]

IN this conclusion, I will be muche shorter, and more compendious then in the first. In consideration whereof, you shall vnderstande, that the same is a very godly, and true catholique proposition. For to offer Christ, and to exhibite the same, is all one thing, for in that that he is offered, he is set foorth for to eate, there is no difference at all betweene the maker of the sacrifice, or offerer, and the thing that was offered, which both were one Christ. The Lorde did commaund saying, Do this in remembraunce of me, hee made mention of the remembrance only, wherefore it can be none other sacrifice, but only that. The Apostle doth declare the maner of the thing doing, saying thus: He tooke bread in his hands, he blessed it, he brake it, and gaue it to his disciples. What gaue he to them? forsooth bread, which was the sacrament, and not his body. No earthly creature nor heauenly, did euer offer vp Christ at any time, but he himselfe once for all, vpon the crosse, Ergo, he can not, nor ought not to be offered many times, and often, though that Pighius with all the blinde rabble of the Papists say the contrary.  

For truely in this point especially they knowe not what they say, being so led by the old pharisaicall blindnes. But to the purpose. You shall vnderstand good auditors, that the pure and cleane oblation and sacrifice spokē of by the Prophet Malachy   , is nothing else, then deuoute, and faithfull prayer, and thankesgiuing, as Tertullian sayth in his third booke contra Marcionem expounding the Psalme, where it is sayd thus: The sacrifice of laude, and prayse shall honor mee. So doth S. Hierome, Irenæus, and S. Austen say also vppon Malachy. Where also they denie that Christ is essencially in the sacrament. Yea and S. Austen Epistola 95. ad Paulinum witnesseth, that the mortifying of our earthly members is our true sacrifice that be Christians. And all the aunciente Fathers do call praiers by the name of sacrifices   . And for this purpose, whosoeuer list to reade that most excellente and famous Clarke Zwinglius ca. 18. de articulis, shall finde the same confirmed of him by most grounded reasons, whatsoeuer the Papists do barke against it. Thus I haue declared my mind in both matters now disputable. And if my further declaration be required through the vehemency of argumentes, I will performe the same in my aunswering thereunto.

[Back to Top]

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

Glin. Notwithstanding right worshipfull Maister Doctor, that you haue so exquisitely declared your mind and opinion in euery of these matters now in contention before this honorable and learned audience, and also though iust occasion be ministred to me infringe your positions in both conclusions, yet I will not inuade the same as now indirectly with contrarions and vaine wordes to occupie the small time which is appointed vs for the triall of the same, but we will go forthwith to the thing it selfe, whych conteineth in it matter ynough . It is but folly to vse many wordes where fewe will serue our purpose, as sayeth the maister of the Sentences  

. All words may signifie at pleasure and commonly there bee moe thinges then vocables, like as sometimes there was variance amongst learned men of the vnitie of two substances in one personage of Christ God and Man. So is there now in our dayes variance of Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ. Wherefore I do require you first to shew me heare openly what the said Transubstantiation is, that we go not from the thing it selfe, which is our first and chiefest ground.

[Back to Top]

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

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

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

Glin. Well, yet I pray you shew me what thing Christ did demonstrate and shew foorth by that article of the newter gender, where he said, This is my body. What did he appoint in that article this?  

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

[Back to Top]