MarginaliaAnno 1549.there did meane of a naturall property, and not of fleshlye substance. And cōtrariwise in the rod of Aarō, where both the substance, and also the property was changed.

Glin. Holy S. Ambrose sayth, MarginaliaAmbrosethe body there made by the mighty power of Gods worde, is a bodye of the Vyrgyne Mary.

Rochest. That is to say, that by the word of God the thing hath a being, that it had not before, and we doe consecrate the body that we may receiue the grace and power of þ^e body of Christ in heauen by this sacramentall body.

Glin. By your pacience (my Lorde) if it bee a bodye of the Vyrgyne as Saynt Ambrose sayth, which we do consecrate as ministers by Gods holy word, then must it needes be more then a sacramentall, or spirituall bodye: yea a very body of Christ in deed, yea the same that is still in heauen without all mouing from place to place, vnspeakably, and farre passing our naturall reason, which is in this mistery so captiuate, that it cannot conceiue how it is there, without a liuely fayth to Gods word. But let this passe: You do graunt that this breade doth quicken or geue lyfe, which if it doe, then it is not a naturall bread, but a supersubstanciall bread.  

[Back to Top]

Rochester. So doth the effectuall, and liuely word of god, which for that it nourisheth the soule, it doth geue life, for the diuine essence infudeth it selfe vnspeakably into þ^e faithfull receiuer of the sacrament.

Glin. How then say you to holy MarginaliaDamascene.Damascene  

a Greeke authour, who as one Tritenius sayth florished one thowsand yeares past, he sayth thus. The bodye that is of the holye Virgine Mary is ioyned to the Diuinitye after the consecration in veritye, and in deede, not so as the body once assumpted into heauen, and sitteth on the Fathers ryghte hand, doth remoue from thence, and commeth downe at the consecration time, but that the same breade and wyne are substauncially transumpted into the verye bodye and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. If (sayth he) thou doest not know the maner how it is brought to passe, let it be enough to thee to beleue, that it is done by the operation of the holy Ghost, and we do know no more but that the lyuing word of God is working, and almighty, but the very maner how, is inscrutable to vs, and no great maruell sayth he, for we cannot well expresse howe the materiall bread, wine, or water are transumpted naturally into the same body and bloud of the receiuer, and he become an other body, then they were before. So sayth this great ancient Clarke, also this shewbread with wine and water, are chaunged by the comming of the holy Ghost into christes body and bloud, and they be not two bodies there, but very one (of Christ) and the same.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaDamascene expounded.Rochester. First I denye (Mayster Doctour) that Damascene was one thowsande yeares past, secondarily that hee is not to be holden as an auncient father, for that he mainteyneth in his workes euill and damnable doctrine, as the worshipping of images, and such like.  

Thyrdly I say that in deede God by his holy spirit is the worker of that, whiche is done in the sacrament. MarginaliaA spirituall mutation of the bread and wine, but no mutation of the substance.Also I graunt that there is a mutation of the common bread and wine spiritually into the Lordes breade and wine, by the sanctifying of them in the Lordes word. But I denye that there is any mutation of the substaunces   , for there is no other chaunge there indeed, then there is in vs, which when we do receiue the sacrament worthely, then are we chaunged into Christes body, bones and bloud, not in nature, but spiritually, and by grace, much like as Isaias saw the burning cole, euen so we see not there the very simple bread, as it was be fore the consecration, for an vnion cannot be but of two very thinges. Wherefore if we be ioyned to Christ receyuing the sacrament, then there is no adnihilation of bread, which is, whē it is reduced to nothing as it is in your fained transubstantiation.

[Back to Top]

Glin. So I perceiue you would haue me to graunt, that the Sacrament is but a figure, which Theophilactus doeth deny.

MarginaliaTheophilact. expounded.Rochester. You say trueth, he denyeth it deed to be a figure, but he meaneth that it is not onely a figure.

Glin. Whereas Saynt Paule sayth that we being manye are one bread, he speaketh not, nor meaneth one materiall bread, as you do here, ergo he speaketh of a heauenly bread. And holy Chrysostome vpon Mathew sayth, that the paschall Lambe was a figure,MarginaliaThe paschall Lambe a figure. but the mistery is the veryty: For the Disciples would not haue bene offended to haue dronken a figure of Christes bloud being well accustomed to figures. For Christ did not institute a figure for a figure but the cleare verity in stead of the figure, as Saynt Iohn sayth, grace and verity was geuen by Christ. Doest thou see bread? (sayth Chrisostome) doth it auoyd or passe as other meates do which we receiue? God forbid, ergo. &c.

[Back to Top]

Madew. That auncient Clarke Origene vpon the 15. of S.Mathew sayth thus, as touching that which is materiall in the Sacrament, it descendeth, and issueth out as other nutrimentes doe.MarginaliaThe materiall partes of the Sacramēt issue out as other meates doe. But as concerning that which is celestiall, it doth not so.

[Back to Top]

Glin. Chrisostome homile. 83. vpō Mathew sayth, that we cannot be deceiued of Christes wordes, but our naturall sences may be deceiued in this poynt very soone and easely: his sayd wordes cannot be false, but our sences be many time beguiled of theyr iudgementes. Because therefore that Christ sayd this is my body, let vs not at any hand doubte (sayth he) but let vs beleue it, and well perceiue it with the eyes of our vnderstanding. And within a litle after in that place, he sayth thus. It was not enough that he was become man, and afterwardes to be scourged for vs but also he did reduce, and bring vs to be as one body with him, not thorow fayth onely, but in very deed also he maketh vs his body. And after that, he sayth that these works are not of mannes power: But the same thinges that hee wrought in his last supper, he nowe worketh also by his precept to his right minister, and we doe occupy the place of the same ministers, but hee it is that doth sanctify, and transumpt the creatures, he performeth still the same.

[Back to Top]

Rochester. M. Doctour you must vnderstand that in that place S. Chrisostome sheweth vs that Christ deliuered to vs no sensible thing at his last supper.

Glin. Honourable syr by your pacience, I graunt that hee gaue to his Disciples no sensible thing in substaunce, but a thing insensible, his owne precious body, and bloud vnder the onely kindes of creatures. And truely (as it seemeth) Theophilactus best knew the meaning of Chrisostome, because all authors accept him as a faythfull interpreter of him. And he hath these same playne words, transelemented, and transformed. Also Theophilactus Alexandrinus super Marcum, Cyrillus, and Saynt Augustine sayth that before the consecration it is breade, but afterwardes it is Christes very body. In like maner S. Augustine vpon 33. Psalme. sayth, that in his last supper Christ did beare himselfe in his owne handes. Now euery man may beare the figure of his body in his owne hands, but S. Austen saith it there for a miracle. Ireneus in his fift booke is of the same minde. And Saynt Augustine sayth I doe remember my wordes. &c. The law and figures were by Moises, but the verity and body came by Christ.

[Back to Top]

Rochester. Well, say what you list, it is but a figuratiue speach, like to this if you will receiue, and vnderstand he is Elias  

for a property, but indeede he was not Elias, but Iohn the Baptist. And so in this place Christ called it his body, when it was very bread. But better then the cōmon breade, because it was sanctified by the woorde of Christ.  

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaTwo things noted in M. Madewes position.RIght worshipfull Mayster Doctor by your pacience I haue noted two thinges that you affirmed in youre position euen nowe before this honourable audience, the which as me seemeth, are not consonant to the trueth of Gods worde. The first is as touching Christes sayinge I will not from hence forth drinke any more of the fruite of the Vyne, vntill I drinke it newe with you. &c.  

Whyche place of the Scripture you dyd (as I thinke) vnderstand, and interprete as though nothing els remayned after the consecration, but very wyne still. Whereof I doe not a little maruell. Seeyng that, that most famous Clarke Erasmus   whose authoritye and sentence you refuse at this present onely, yet neuerthelesse he is very worthy in thys matter of farre better estimation amongest learned men. Wherefore I trust I shall not offend to alledge him before this learned and honourable auditorye, he playnely affirmeth that for all his great laboure in searching the Scriptures, he coulde neuer finde either in the Euangelistes or yet in the Apostolicall doctrine, that it might be, or was called wyne, after the consecration.MarginaliaThe saying of Erasmus of the Lordes Supper. And therefore I cannot but maruell, if the thing be so open and playne, as in your declaration you seeme to make it, that such a profoūd Clarke as he was, coulde not finde it out. For that sayde place he intreated of in his paraphrases, in his annotations, and in others of his lucubrations   , and yet he playnely denyeth that same very thing to be found of him, whiche you here openly affirmed, that it is wine, or may be so called after the consecration duely performed by a right minister. I beseeche you not to be offended, though I credite not your saying in this so weightye a matter of Christian religion, as I do his.

[Back to Top]

Madew. No forsooth, I will not be offended one iote with