otherwise occupied, doth not behold or thinke vpon, euen so our outward man, dothe dygest the bread, and void it into the draught, but the inward man, doth neither tast or thinke of it, being wholy addicte vnto him which is declared by the same. Whervpon the saide Chrisostome a litle before dooth admonishe vs verye wel in these woordes. All misteries sayeth he, are to be considered with the inwarde eyes, That is to say: spiritually. MarginaliaObiection.But here they dyd obiect, that, that was not Chrisostomes meaning, but that he did declare by that example, that there did remain nother bread nor wine. MarginaliaThanswerI answeared that was false, for the example that he taketh, tendeth to no other purpose, then to call away our spirituall eies from the beholding of visible thinges, and to transport them another way, as if the thinges that were sene, were of no force. Therfore he draweth awaye oure mindes from the consideration of these things, and planteth it vpon him, which is signified by those misteries, and that the very wordes which followed, suffyciently declared this to be the true meaning of the author. Wheras he commaundeth vs to consider all thinges with oure inward eies, that is to say: spiritually. 

But whether Chrisostoms words do tend either to this or that sence, yet do they indifferently make on our part againste oure aduersaries, which way so euer we vnderstād them. MarginaliaThobiectiō of Chrisostome auoided by a Dilemma.For, if he say that the bread and wine do remain, we haue no further to trauaile, but if he meane cōtrariwise that it doth not remain, but that the natures of the bread and wine are aultered, then are the breade and wine falslye named sacramentes and misteries, whyche are said in no place to be in the nature of things. For that which is in no place, how can it be a sacrament or supply the roume of a misterye? Finally if he speake oneli of forms and shapes (as we call them) it is most certen that they do continually remain, and that the substance of the body is not consumed in anye place, wherfore it must necessarily follow the woordes of Chrisostome to be vnderstanded, in such sence as I haue declared.

[Back to Top]

Here peraduenture many would meruaile, that for so muche as the matter touchinge the substaunce of the Sacrament, beinge seperate from the Articles of faithe, and bindeth no mā of necessity, either vnto saluation or dampnation, whether he beleue it or not, but rather that it may be left indifferently vnto all men, frely to iudge either on thone part or thother, according to his owne minde, so that neyther part doo contempne or despise other, but that loue and charity be stil holden and kept in this dissention of opinions: What the cause is whi I would therfore willingly suffer death. The cause why I die is this, for that I cannot agre with the deuines, and other hed prelates, thatit shuld be necessarily determined to be an article of faith, and that we should beleue vnder pain of dampnation, the substance of the bread and wyne to be chaunged into the bodye and bloud of our sauioure Iesus Christ, the form and shape only not being chaunged. Whyche thing if it were most true (as they shall neuer be able to proue it by anye authoritye of the scripture or doctoures) yet shall they not also bryng to passe, that, that doctrin were it neuer so true, shuld be holden for a necessary article of the faith. For there are many thinges both in the scriptures and other places, whiche we are not bound of necessitye to beleue as an article of faith. For so it is true that I was a prisoner and in bondes when that I wrote these thinges, but for all that I will not holde it as an article of faith, but that you may also without daūger or dampnation, either beleue it or thincke the contrary. 

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThre causes why he so styflye styck in the matter of þ^e sacramēt, although beyng not necessary to saluatyon.But the cause why I cannot affirme the doctrine of transubstantiation, dyuers reasones doo lead me thervnto. First, that I do plainly see it to be false and vaine, and not to be groūded vpon any reason, eyther of the scriptures, or of approued doctors.

[Back to Top]

Secondly, that by my exāple I wold not be an author vnto Christians to admit any thing as faithe, more then the necessarye poyntes of their Crede, wherin the whole sum of our saluatiō doth cōsist, specialli such things þ^e belefe wherof haue no certen argument of autoritye or reason. I added moreouer, that their church as they call it, hath no such power and autority, that it either ought or may binde vs vnder the pearill of our soules to the beleuing of any such Articles.

[Back to Top]

Thirdly, because I will not for the fauor of our deuines or priestes, be preiudiciall in thys poynt vnto so manye nations of Germaines, Heluesianes and other, which all together reiecting the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ, are all of the same opinion that I am, as well those which take Luthers part, as those which hold wyth Oecolampadius, which thinges stāding in thys case, I suppose there is no man of any vpryght conscience, whych will not allow the reason of my death, whiche I am put vnto for this only cause, that I do not thinke transubstantiation although it were true in deede, to be establyshed for an Article of Faithe. And thys hetherto as touchinge the Artycles and whole disputation of Ihon Frith, whych was done wythall moderation and vpryghtnesse. But when as no reason wold preuail against the force and crueltye of these furious foes, the xx. day of Iune, in the yeare of oure Lorde 1533. He was broughte before the byshops of London, Winchester, and Lincolne, who sytting in Powles vpon Fridaye, the xx. daye of

[Back to Top]