A14347:78
A discourse or treatise of Peter Martyr Vermilla Floor[n]tine, the public reader of divinity…A discourse or traictise of Petur Martyr Vermilla Flore[n]tine, the publyque reader of diuinitee…
A discourse or treatise of Peter Martyr Vermilla Floor[n]tine, the public reader of divinity in the University of Oxford wherein he openly declared his whole and determinate judgement concerning the sacrament of the Lords supper in the said University.A discourse or traictise of Petur Martyr Vermilla Flore[n]tine, the publyque reader of diuinitee in the Vniuersitee of Oxford wherein he openly declared his whole and determinate iudgemente concernynge the sacrament of the Lordes supper in the sayde Vniuersitee.
London: printed by Robert Stoughton i.e. E. Whitchurch for Nicolas Udall, 1550London: printed by Robert Stoughton i.e. E. Whitchurch for Nycolas Udall, 1550
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Some men hold that Christs body is really joined with the signs and the material stuff of the Sacrament,1 that is to wit: with the substances of bread and wine remaining still in the Sacrament. And that sort of men do thus argue against transubstantiation • What excellency (say they) or privilege hath the accidents of bread, that is to say, the whiteness, the roundness, or the taste. &c. that they can be joined with Christs dodye, and the substance and nature of bread may not so? Or what dignity and privilege have the accidents of the bread, which same privilege may not or ought not• even aswell be attributed and granted to the substance and nature of the breade• And if it so be, that the accidents may remain still, why than may not also the substance of bread remain aswell? Yea, & many of the old fathers ⟨p. xix⟩and writers do suppose, that the bread doeth remain in deed, yea and they do thereof take a similitude to show that both the natures, that is to were, the nature of man, and the nature of god, do verily & truly remain in Christ, and so remain, that the one passeth not into the other. The minds and verdicts of which ancient writers w• shall here ensuing bring in, as shall appertain, •che in their due places.
Some men holde that Christes bodye is reallye ioyned with the signes and the materiall stuffe of the Sacramente,1 that is to wete: with the substaunces of bread and wyne remayning still in the Sacramente. And that sorte of men dooe thus argue againste transubstanciacion • What excellencie (saye thei) or priuilege hath the accidentes of breade, that is to saye, the whitenesse, the roundenesse, or the taste. &c. that thei can bee ioyned with Christes dodye, and the substaunce and nature of breade maie not so? Or what dignitee and priuilege haue the accidentes of the bread, which same priuelege maie not or ought not• euen aswell be attributed and graunted to the substaunce and nature of the breade And if it so be, that the accidentes maie remaine still, why than maie not also the substaunce of bread remaine aswell? Yea, & many of the olde fathers