MarginaliaAnno 1549.bread, it remayning bread still? And if you thinke to finde it, I pray you shewe me here, whether that bodye that hee gaue with materiall bread, were his true bodye or not? If not, then it was phantasticall  

, if it were his true body (as you doe graunt) then must there needes be two very true bodyes in one place together.   Now that it was his verye true body and bloud, it is certayne by the playne wordes   of the text saying thus. Which is betrayed or geuen, and which is shedde for you, and for many. But I will let all this passe ouer, and I do requyre of you this one question whether that the sacramentes of the old law, and of þ^e new law be all one?

[Back to Top]

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

MarginaliaThe Sacraments of the old law and new law, how they differ.Glin. I doe perceiue your aunswere very well, then further to our purpose, was Christ then after the same maner in the bread that came from heauen.  

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

[Back to Top]

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

Glin. No may? S. Austen (de ciuitate Dei) witnesseth that the Ethnikes, and Paynims  

doe esteme the Christians to worship and adore the gods of wheat and barly called Cæres, and the God of wyne called Bacchus. And agayne S. Austen saith thus. Lo no man eateth of that bread except he first adore and worship it.

[Back to Top]

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

Glin. Yea mayster Doctor, thinke you so? And why not also of his blessed body in the sacrament? Seing that he saith it is there, MarginaliaMath. 26. Marc.this is my body, which is geuen for you, sayth he. More playnely he needed not to speake for the reall presēce of his blessed body, being both able & willing to verify his word. For if a cunning Lapidary should say to you or me thys is a true right diamōd, a perfecte carbuncle, saphyre, emrode  

or any such precious stone, we would beleue him, though we were ignorant of theyr natures. MarginaliaReal presence defēded by the Papistes.Wherefore we ought much more to beleue our Sauiour Christ God, and man, in that he sayth: this is my body. And why then ought we not to honor it in the sacrament. Or how many bodies hath Christ, seeing you do graunt his body in heauen to be honored, but not his body here in the sacrament.

[Back to Top]

Madew. Forsooth he hath but one very body, & no moe  

, but the same is sacramentally in the sacrament, and substancially in heauen, here by fayth, and there in deed.

MarginaliaArgument.Glin. Well yet once agayne to you thus. The very true body of Christ is to be honored, but the same very true body is in the Sacrament, ergo the body of Christ in the sacrament is to bee honored.

MarginaliaByshop Ridley replyeth.Rochester. Welbeloued frendes and brethren in our sauior Christ  

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

[Back to Top]

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

MarginaliaChrist worketh otherwise in Baptisme. then the Sacramental bread.Rochester. Christ is present after an other sort in baptism, then in this sacrament, for in that he purgeth and washeth the infant from all kinde of sinne, but  

here he doth feed spirituallye the receiuer in fayth, with all the merites of hys blessed death and passion. And yet he is in heauen still really and substancially. As for example. The kinges Maiesty our Lord and maister is but in one place, wheresoeuer that his royall person is abiding for the time, and yet hys mighty power, and authoritye is euery where in his realmes and dominions. So Christes reall person is onely in heauen subauncially placed, but his migh is in all thinges created effectually. For Christes flesh may be vnderstanded for the power, or inward might of his flesh.  

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaObiect.Glin. If it please your fatherhood, S. Ambrose and S. Austen do say, that before the consecratiō, it is but very bread, and after the consecration it is called the verye bodye of Christ.

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

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

[Back to Top]

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

Rochester. So say all the fathers.

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

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

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

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