Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	according_a	judge_v	law_n	4,033	5	5.2533	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19563	An aunsvvere by the Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury, primate of all England and metropolitane, vnto a craftie and sophisticall cauillation, deuised by Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law, late Byshop of Winchester agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament, of the body and bloud of our sauiour Iesu Christ Wherein is also, as occasion serueth, aunswered such places of the booke of Doct. Richard Smith, as may seeme any thyng worthy the aunsweryng. Here is also the true copy of the booke written, and in open court deliuered, by D. Stephen Gardiner ...; Answer of the Most Reverend Father in God Thomas Archebyshop of Canterburye, primate of all Englande and metropolitane unto a crafty and sophisticall cavillation devised by Stephen Gardiner doctour of law, late byshop of Winchester, agaynst the trewe and godly doctrine of the moste holy sacrament of the body and bloud of our saviour Jesu Christe	Cranmer, Thomas, 1489-1556.; Cranmer, Thomas, 1489-1556. Defence of the true and catholike doctrine of the sacrament of the body and bloud of our saviour Christ. Selections.; Gardiner, Stephen, 1483?-1555. Explication and assertion of the true catholique fayth, touchyng the moost blessed sacrament of the aulter.; Foxe, John, 1516-1587. Actes and monuments.	1580 (1580)	STC 5992; ESTC S107277	634,332	462

subiectes but they must seeke it at a straungers hands in a straunge land the like whereof I thinke was neuer seene I would haue wished to haue had some meaner aduersaryes I thinke that death shall not greeue me much more then to haue my most dread and most gratious soueraygne Lord and Lady to whom vnder God I do owe all obedience to be mine accusers in iudgement within their owne realme before any straunger and outward power But forasmuch as in the time of the Prince of most famous memory King Henry the 8. your graces father I was sworne neuer to consent that the byshop of Rome should haue or exercise any authoritie or iurisdiction in this realme of England therefore least I should allow his authority contrary to mine oth I refused to make aunswere to the Byshop of Gloucester sitting here in iudgemēt by the Popes authority least I should runne into periury An other cause why I refused the popes authority is this that his authority as he claimeth it repugneth to the crowne imperiall of this realme and to the lawes of the same which euery true subiect is bound to defend Fyrst for that the Pope sayth that all manner of power aswell temporall as spirituall is geuen first to him of God and that the temporall power he geueth vnto Emperours and Kinges to vse it vnder him but so as it be alwayes at his cōmaundement becke But contrary to this clayme the Emperial crowne and iurisdiction temporall of this Realme is taken immediately from God to be vsed vnder him onely and is subiect vnto none but to God alone Moreouer the imperiall lawes and customes of this realme the king in his Coronation and all Iustices when they receiue their offices be sworne and all the whole realme is bound to defend and maintayne But contrary hereunto the pope by his authority maketh voyd and commaundeth to blot out of our bookes all lawes and customes being repugnant to his lawes and declareth accursed all rulers and gouernours all the makers writers executors of such lawes or customes as it appeareth by many of the Popes lawes whereof one or two I shall rehearse In the decrees distin x. is written thus Constitutione contra canones decreta praesulum Romanorum vel bonos mores nullius sunt momenti That is the constitutions or statutes enacted agaynst the Canons and decrees of the Bishops of Rome or their good customes are of none effect Also Extra de sententia excommunicationis merit Excōmunicamus omnes hareticos vtriusque sexus quocumque nomine censeantur fautores receptatores defensores eorum nec non qui de catero sernari fecerint statuta edita consuetudines contra ecclesia libertatem nisiea de capitularibus suis intra duos menses post huiusmodi publicationem sentencia fecerint amoueri Item excōmunicamus statutarios scriptores statutorum ipsorum nec non potestates consules rectores consiliarios locorum vbi de catero huiusmodi statuta consuetudines edita fuerint velseruatae nec non illos qui secundum ea praesumpserint iudicarem vel in publicam formam scribere iudicata That is to say we excōmunicate all heretickes of both sexes what name so euer they be called by and their fauourers and receptours and defenders and also them that shall hereafter cause to be obserued statutes and customes made agaynst the liberty of the Church except they cause the same to be put out of their bookes or recordes within two monethes after the publication of this sentence Also we excommunicate the statute makers and writers of those statutes and also the potestates consuls gouernors and counsellors of places where such statutes and customes shall be made or kept and also those that shall presume to geue iudgement according to them or put into publike forme of writing the maners so iudged Now by these lawes if the Byshop of Romes authority which be claymeth by God bee lawfull of your graces lawes and customes of your Realme being contrary to the Popes lawes be naught and aswell your maiesty as your iudges iustices and all other executors of the same stand accursed among heretickes which God forbid And yet this curse can neuer be auoyded if the Pope haue such power as he claymeth vntil such times as the lawes and customes of this Realme beyng contrary to his lawes bee taken away and blotted out of the law bookes And although there bee many lawes of this Realme contrary to the lawes of Rome yet I named but a few as to conuict a Clarke before any temporall Iudge of this Realme for debt felony murther or for any other crime which Clarkes by the Popes lawes be so exempt from the Kynges lawes that they can be no where sued but before their Ordinary Also the pope by his lawes may geue all byshoprickes and benefices sprituall which by the lawes of this Realme can be geuen but onely by the Kinges and other patrones of the same except they fall into the lapse By the Popes lawes ius patronatus shal be sued onely before the ecclesiasticall iudge but by the lawes of this realme it shall be sued before the temporall iudge and to be short the lawes of this realme do agree with the Popes lawes like fire and water And yet the Kinges of this Realme haue prouided for their lawes by the premunire so that if any man haue let the excution of the lawes of this Realme by any authority from the sea of Rome he falleth into the premunire But to meete with this the popes haue prouided for their lawes by cursing For whosoeuer letteth the Popes lawes to haue full course within this realme by the Popes power standeth accursed So that the popes power treadeth all the lawes and customes of this Realme vnder his feete cursing all that execute them vntill such time as they geue place vnto his lawes But it may be said that notwithstanding all the popes decrees yet we do execute still the lawes and customes of this Realme Nay not all quietly without interruption of the Pope And where we do execute them yet we do it vniustly if the popes power be of force and for the same we stand excommunicate and shall doe vntill we leaue the execution of our owne lawes and customes Thus we be wel recōciled to Rome allowing such authority wherby the Realme standeth accursed before God if the Pope haue any such authority These thinges as I suppose were not fully opened in the parliament house when the popes authority was receiued agayne within this Realme for if they had I do not beleue that either the King or Queenes maiesty or the nobles of this Realme or the commons of the same would euer haue consented to receiue agayne such a forrayne authority so iniurious hurtfull and preiudiciall aswel to the crowne as to the lawes and customes and state of this realme as whereby they must needes acknowledge themselues to

occasions men haue erred in reading the old fathers and wisheth that they which haue folowed Berengarius in error would also folow him in repentance I will not reader encombre thée with mo wordes of Erasmus Peter Martyr of Oxford taken for no Papist in a treatise he made of late of the Sacrament which is now translated into Englishe sheweth how as touching the real presence of Christes body it is not only the sentence of the papistes but of other also whom the sayd Peter neuerthelesse doth with as many shiftes and lyes as he may impugne for that point as well as he doth the Papistes for transubstantiation but yet he doth not as this author doth impute that fayth of the reall presence of Christs body and bloud to the only Papistes Wherupon Reader here I ioyne with the author an issue that the faith of the reall and substantiall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament is not the deuise of Papistes or their faith only as this author doth considerately slaunder it to be and desire therfore that according to Salamons iudgement this may serue for a note and marke to geue sentence for the true mother of the child For what should this mean so without shame openly and vntruely to call this fayth papishe but only with the enuious word of Papist to ouermatche the truth Caunterbury THis explication of the true catholicke fayth noteth to the Reader certayn euident manifest vntruthes vttered by me as he sayth which I also pray thee good reader to note for this intent that thou mayst take the rest of my sayinges for true which he noteth not for false doubtles they should not haue escaped noting as wel as the other if they had bin vntrue as he sayth the other be And if I can proue these thinges also true whichhe noteth for manyfest and euident vntruthes then mee thinketh it is reason that all my sayinges should be allowed for true if those be proued true which only be reiected as vntrue But this vntruth is to be noted in him generally that he either ignorantly mistaketh or willingly misreporteth almost all that I say But now note good Reader the euident and manyfest vntruthes which I vtter as he sayth The first is that the faith of the reall presence is the fayth of the papistes An other is that these word●s my flesh is verely meate I doe translate thus My flesh is very meate An other is that I handle not sincerely the words of S. Augustine speaking of the eating of Christes body The fourth is that by these wordes this is my body Christ intēdeth not to make the bread his body but to signifie that such as receiue that worthely be members of Christes body These be the haynous and manifest errors which I haue vttered As touching the first that the faith of the real and substancial presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament is the faith of the papistes this is no vntruth but a most certain truth For you confesse your selfe and defend in this booke that it is your faith and so do likewise all the papistes And here I will make an issue with you that the papistes beleeue the reall corporall and naturall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament Aunswere me directly without colour whether it be so or not If they beleeue not so then they beleeue as I doe for I beleeue not so and then let them openly confesse that my belief is true And if they beleeue so then say I true when I say that it is the papistes faith And then is my saying no manifest vntruth but a meere truth so the verdict in the issue passeth vpon my side by your own confession And here the Reader may note well that once again you be faine to flye for succor vnto M. Luther Bucer Ionas Melancthon Aepinus whose names were wonte to be so hatefull vnto you that you coulde neuer with patience abide the hearing of them yet their sayinges helpe you nothing at all For although these men in this many other thinges haue in times past and yet peraduenture some doe the vayle of olde darcknes not cleerly in euery point remoued from their eyes agree with the papistes in part of this matter yet they agree not in the wholl and therfore it is true neuerthelesse that this fayth which you teache is the Papistes faith For if you would conclude that this is not the Papistes faith because Luther Bucer other beleue in many things as the papists do thē by the same reasō you may conclude that the papists beleeue not that Christ was borne crucified dyed rose again ascended into heauē which things Luther Bucer the other cōstantly doth taught beleeued and yet the faith of the real presēce may be called rather the fayth of the papists then of the other not only because the papists do so beleue but specially for that the papists were the first authors and inuentors of that faith and haue been the chief spreaders abroad of it and were the cause that other were blinded with the same error But here may the Reader note one thing by the way that it is a foule cloute that you would refuse to wipe your nose withal when you take such men to proue your matter whom you haue hetherto accounted moste vile and filthy heretickes And yet now you be glad to flye to them for succour whom you take for Gods enemyes and to whom you haue euer had a singular hatred You pretende that you stay your selfe vpon auncyent wryters And why runne you now to such men for ayde as be not onely new but also as you thinke be euill and corrupt in iudgement And to such as thinke you by your writinges and doinges as ranke a Papiste as is any at Rome And yet not one of these new men whom you alleadge doe throughlye agree with your doctrine either in transubstantiation or in carnall eating and drinking of Christes flesh and bloud or in the sacrifice of Christ in the masse nor yet throughlye in the reall presence For they affirme not suche a grosse presence of Christes body as expelleth the substance of bread and is made by conuersion therof into the substance of Christes body and is eaten with the mouth And yet if they did the auncyent authors that were next vnto Christs time whom I haue alleadged may not geue place vnto these new men in this matter although they were men of excellent learning and iudgement how so euer it liketh you to accept them But I may conclude that your faith in the Sacrament is popish vntill such time as you can proue that your doctrine of transubstantiation and of the real presence was vniuersally receaued and beleeued before the bishops of Rome defined and determined the same And when you haue prooued that then will I graunt that in your first note you haue conuinced me of an euident

presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament so I trust to shew this author ouerseene in the article of transubstantiation For enter wherunto first I say this that albeit the word Transubstantiation was first spoken of by publique authority in that assemble of learned men of Christendome in a generall counsaile where the Bishop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older and beleued before vpon the true vnderstanding of Christes wordes and was in that counsayle confessed not for the authority of the Bishop of Rome but for the authority of truth being the article such as toucheth not the authority of the Bishop of Rome but the true doctrine of Christes mistery and therfore in this realme the authority of Rome cessing was also confessed for a truth by all the clergy of this realme in an open counsayle specially discussed and though the hardenes of the law that by parliament was established of that and other articles hath bene repelled yet that doctriue was neuer hitherto by any publique counsayle or any thing set forth by authority empayred that I haue hard wherfore me thinketh this author should not improue it by the name of the Bishop of Rome seing we read how truth was vttered by Balsaam and Caiphas also and S. Paule teacheth the Philippenses that whither it be by contention or enuy so Christ be preached the person should not empayre the opening of truth if it be truth which Luther in deed would not alow for truth impugning the article of Transubstantiation not meaning therby as this author doth to empayre the truth of the very presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament of the aniter as is afore sayd in the discussion of which truth of Transubstantiation I for my part should be speciall defended by two meanes wherwith to auoyd the enuious name of Papist One is that Zuinglius himselfe who was no Papist as is well knowen nor good christen man as some sayd neither sayth playnly writing to Luther in the matter of the Sacrament it must nedes be true that if the body of Christ be really in the Sacrament there is of necessity Transubstantiation also Wherfore seing by Luthers trauayle who fauored not the Byshops of Rome neither and also by euidence of the truth most certayne and manifest it appeareth that according to the true catholqiue sayth Christ is really present in the sacrament it is now by Zuinglius iudgement a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is Transubstantiatiō also which shal be one meane of purgation that I defend not Transubstantiation as depending of the Bishop of Romes determination which was not his absolutely but of a necessity of the truth howsoeuer it liketh Duns or Gabriell to write in it whose sayinges this author vseth for his pleasure An other defence is that this author himselfe sayth that it is ouer great an absurdity to say that bread insensible with many other termes that he addeth should be the body of Christ and therfore I thinke that the is that is to say the inward nature and essence of that Christ deliuered in his supper to be eaten and dronken was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wine and therfore can well agree with this author that the bread of wheate is not the body of Christ nor the body of Christ made of it as of a matter which considerations will enforce him that beleueth the truth of the presence of the substaunce of Christes body as the true catholique ●ayth teacheth to assent to Transubstantiation not as determined by the church of Rome but as a consequent of truth beleued in the mistery of the Sacrament which Transubstantiation how this author would impugne I will without quarell of enuious wordes consider and with true opening of his handeling the matter doubt not to make the reader to see that he fighteth agaynst the truth I will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes This is my body which wordes I heard this Author if he be the same that is named once reherse more seriously in a solemne and open audience to the conuiction and condemnation as followed of one that erroniously mayntayned agaynst the sacrament the same that this author calleth now the catholique fayth Caunterbury IN this booke which answereth to my second booke rather with taunting wordes then with matter I will answere the chief poyntes of your intent and not contend with you in scolding but will geue you place therin First I charge none with the name of papistes but that be well worthy therof For I charge not the hearers but the teachers not the learners but the inuenters of the vntrue doctrine of Transubstantiation not the kinges faythfull subiects but the Popes darlinges whose fayth and belefe hangeth of his onely mouth And I call it their doctrine not onely bycause they teach it but bycause they made it and were the first fynders of it And as in the third booke concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament you haue not shewed myne ignorance or wilfulnes but your owne so do you now much more in the matter of Transubstantiation Which word say you albeit the same was fyrst spoken of in the generall counsell where the Byshop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older Here at the first brunt you confesse that the name of Transubstantiation was giuen at the counsell So that either the matter was not before as it was not in deed or at the least it was before a namelesse child as you do graunt vntill the holy father Innocent the thyrd which begat it assembled a company of his frendes as godfathers to name the child And by what authority the counsayle defined the matter of Transubstantiation it may easely appeare For authority of scripture haue they none nor none they do alleadge And what the authority of the Pope was there all men may see being present in the same no lesse then .800 Abbottes and Priours who were all the Popes owne chyldren of him created and begotten And as for the confession of all the clergy of this Realme in an open counsell the authority of Rome ceasing you speake here a manifest vntruth wittingly agaynst your conscience For you know very well and if you will denie it there be enough yet aliue can testify that diuers of the clergy being of most godly liuing learning and iudgement neuer consented to the articles which you speake of And what meruayle was it that those articles notwithstanding diuers learned men repugning passed by the most voyces of the Parliament seing that although the authority of Rome was then newely ceased yet the darkenes and blindnes of errours and ignoraunte that came from Rome still remayned and ouershadowed so this Realme that a great number of the Parliament had not yet theyr eyes opened to see the truth And yet how that matter was enforced

no whit darkened by any thing this Author hath brought As for naturall operation is not in all mens iudgements as this Author taketh it who semeth to repute it for an inconuenience to say that the accidents of wine do sower and ware viniger But vlpian a man of notable learning is not afrayd to write in the law In venditionibus de contrahenda emptione in the Pandeas that of wine and viniger there is prope eadem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in manner one substance wherin he sheweth him selfe farre agaynst this Authors skill which I put for an example to shew that naturall operations haue had in naturall mens iudgements diuers considerations one sometime repugnant to an other and yet the Authors of both opinions called Philosophers all Among which some thought for example they spake wisely that estemed all thing to alter as swiftly as the water runneth in the streme and thought therfore no man could vtter a word being the same man in the end of the word that he was when he began to speake and vsed a similitude Like as a man standing in one place can not touch the same one water twise in a running streame no more can a man be touched the same man twise but he altereth as swiftely as both the streame These were laughed to skorne yet they thought themselues wise in naturall speculation Aristotle that is much estemed and worthely fansied a first matter in all thinges to be one in which consideration he semeth to be as extreame in a stay as the other fond Philosophers were in mouing By which two extremeties I condemne not naturall speculation wherwith I thinke God pleased for man to meruayle in contemplation of his inferiour workes and to tame his rash wit in the inexplicable variety of it but to vse it so as to make it an open aduersary to religion it is me semeth without all purpose The doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not teach no earthly thing to remayne in the Sacrament but contrarywise that the visible forme of bread and wine is there as the visible figure of the Sacrament and to be the same in greatnes in thicknes in wayght in sauor in tast in propriety also to corrupt putrifie and nourish as it did before and yet the substance of those visible creatures to be conuerted into the substance as Emissene sayth of the body of Christ. And here will reason do seruice is sayth to say if there be a conuersion in deede as fayth teacheth and none of the accidents be conuerted then the substance is conuerted for in euery thing all is substance and accidents but the accidents be not chaunged and yet a change there is it must nedes be then that substance is changed Which deduction reason will make and so agree with Transubstantiatiō in conuenient due seruice And thus I haue gotten reasons good will whatsoeuer this author sayth and from the ground of fayth haue by reason deduced such a conclusion to proue transubstantiation as vnles he destroy the true fayth of the presence of Christes very body which he can not must nedes be allowed And as for naturall operation of putrifying engendring wormes burning and such experiences which being the substance of bread absent this Author thincketh can not be so when he hath thought throughly he can of his thought conclude it onely to be a meruayle and it be so as agaynst the common rules of philosophy wherin as me semeth it were a nearer way as we be admonished to leaue searching of how of the worke of God in the mistery of Christes presence being that the celestiall parte of the sacrament so not to search how in the experience of the operation of nature of the visible earthly part of the Sacrament When God sent Manna in desert the people saw many meruayles in it besides the common operation of nature and yet they neuer troubled them selues with howe 's And as one very well writeth it is consonant that as there is a great miracle in the worke of God to make there present the substance of the body of Christ to likewise to knowledge the miracle in the absence of the substance of bread and both the heauenly and earthly part of the sacramēt to be miraculous and so many miracles to be ioyned together in one agreeth with the excelency of the Sacrament As for the obiections this Author maketh in this matter be such as he findeth in those scholasticall writers that discusse as they may or labour thereaboute wherwith to satisfie idle imaginations and to make learned men prompt and ready to say sumwhat to these trifles whose arguments this author taketh for his principall foundation For playne resolution and auoyding wherof if I would now for my parte bring forth their solutions and answers there were a part of schole Theologie so brought into English to no great prayse of eyther of out learninges but our vayne labour to set abrode other mens trauayles to trouble rude wittes with matter not necessary and by such vnreuerent disputing and alteration to hinder the truth Finally all that this Author reherseth of absurdity repugneth in his estimation onely is the conclusion of philosophie which should nothing moue the humble simplicite of sayth in a christen man who meruayleth at Gods workes and reputeth them true although he can not comprehend the wayes and meanes of them Caunterbury HEre in the beginning of this chapiter it is a strange thing to me that you should thinke strangenes in my saying that naturall reason and operation ioyned to Gods word should be of great moment to confirme any truth not that they adde any authority to Gods word but that they helpe our infirmity as the sacraments do to Gods promises which promises in themselues be most certayne and true For did not the eating and drincking of Christ his laboring and sweating his agony and pangs of death confirme the true fayth of his incarnation And did not his eating with the Apostles confirme and stablish their fayth of his resurrection Dyd not the sight of Christ and feeling of his woundes induce Thomas to beleue that Christ was risen When neyther the report of the deuout woman nor yet of the Apostles which did see him could cause him to beleue Christes resurrection And when they tooke our Sauiour Christ for a spirite did not he cause them by their sight and feeling of his flesh and bones to beleue that he was very man and no spirite as they phantasied Which sensible profes were so farre from derogation of fayth that they were a sure establishment therof Wherfore if your vnderstanding can not reach this doctrine it is indede very slender in godly thynges And as for my reason of vacuum you haue not yet answered thereto for nature suffereth not any place to be without some substance which by meanes of his quantity filleth the place And quantity without substance to fill any place is so fare from the rulers of nature that by order of