sectaryes of our tyme do follow him in that assertion then can they haue no ground or certainty this way but each man and woman must seeke other grounds and proofes and stand vpon their owne iudgements for triall of the same which how well the most part of people can do being eyther yonge simple vnlearned or otherwayes so busyed in other matters as they cannot attend thervnto euery man of meane discretion will consider and consequently they must needs be said both to liue and dye vvithout any ground of their faith at all but proper opinion and so perish euerlastingely 9. The famous Doctor S. Augustine handleth this matter in a speciall booke to his frend Honoratus deceaued by the Manichies as himselfe also sometymes had byn and he intituleth his booke De vtilitate credendi of the profitt that commeth to a man by beleeuing the Church and points of faith therin taught without demaundinge reason or proofe therof which the Manichies derided and said that they required nothinge to be beleeued of their followers but that which first should be proued to them by good proofe and reason and not depend only of mens creditt but the holy Father scorneth this hereticall bragg and oftentation of theirs and commendeth highly the contrary custome of simple beleeuinge vpon the creditt of the Catholike Church for that otherwise infinite people should haue no faith at all and exhorteth his frend Honoratus to take the same course first to beleeue and after to seeke the reason His discourse is this Fac nos nunc primum quaerere cuinam Religioni animas nostras c. Suppose that we now first of all did seeke vnto what Religion we should commit our soules to be purged and rectified without all doubt we must begin with the Catholike Church for that she is the most eminent now in the world there being more Christians in her at this day then in any other Church of Iewes and Gentills put togeather And albeit amongst these Christians there may be sects and heresies and all of them would seeme to be Catholiks and do call others besides themselues heretiks yet all graunt that yf we consider the whole body of the world there is one Church amongst the rest more eminent then all other more plentifull in number as they which know her do affirme more sincere also in truth but as concerninge truth we shall dispute more afterward now yt is sufficient for them that desire to learne that there is a Catholike Church which is one in yt selfe whervnto diuers heretiks do feigne and diuise diuers names wheras they and their sects are called by peculiar names which themselues cannot deny wherby all men that are indifferent not letted by passion may vnderstand vnto what Church the name Catholike which all parts desire pretend is to be giuen 10. Thus S. Augustine teachinge his frend how he might both know and beleeue the Catholike Church and all that shee taught simply and without asking reason or proofe And as for knowing and discerning her from all other Churches that may pretend to be Catholike we heare his marks that she is more eminent vniuersall greater in number and in possession of the name Catholike The second that she may be beleeued securely and cannot deceaue nor be deceaued in matters of faith he proueth elswhere concluding finally in this place Si iam satis tibi iactatus videris c. Yf thou dost seeme to thy selfe now to haue byn sufficiently tossed vp and downe amonge sectaryes and wouldst putt an end to these labours and tormoyles follow the way of Cath. discipline which hath flowen downe vnto vs from Christ by his Apostles and is to flow from vs to our posterity 11. This then is the iudgement and direction of S. Augustine that a man should for his first ground in matters of faith looke vnto the beleefe of the greatest most eminent Church of Christendome that hath endured longest embraceth most people hath come downe from our fore-fathers with the name of Catholike not only among her owne professors but euen among her enemyes Iewes infidells and heretiks and so is termed held by them in their common speach as the said Father in diuers others places declareth at large Which rule of direction yf we will follow about these three articles of faith now proposed the reall presence Transubstantiation and Sacrifice of the masse yt is easily seene what ground we haue for their beleefe in this kind of proofe so highly esteemed by S. Augustine which is the authority of the vniuersall Cath. Church For that when Luther and his followers began to oppose themselues in our dayes no man can deny but that our beleefe in these articles was generally receaued ouer all Christendome as well Asia and Africa where so euer Christians be as Europe and so vpward tyme out of mynd neither can any beginning be assigned to these doctrines in the Cath. Church but only a certayne definition and determination of some Councells about the name of Transubstantiation as after shal be declared 12. Now then hauinge found out this first ground which S. Augustine and other Fathers do make so great accoumpt of which is the authority and beleefe of that Church that generally is called Catholike Yf we passe further and see what grounds this Church had or hath to admytt the same which yet is not needfull or possible to all sortes of men for that only can be done by the learneder sort we shall find that she hath such grounds as may conuince any man that is not obstinate and indurate to the contrary And first to begin with the article of the reall presence what ground proofe or Theologicall demonstration can there bee which the Cath. Church hath not for her beleefe in that high mistery which as it was to be one of the cheefest most sacred and admirable of Christian Religion so was yt meet that yt should be confirmed by all the principall wayes that any article of faith could or can be confirmed that is to say both by scriptures of the ould and new Testament and the true exposition therof by auncient Fathers that liued before this controuersie began with Sacramentaryeâ— by authority and tradition of the Apostles and their successors by testimony of auncient Fathers from age to age by consent and agreement practise and vse of the vniuersall Church by the concourse and approbation of almighty God with euident and infinite miracles by confession of the aduersaryes and other such generall heads of arguments which Catholike diuines do produce for this truth for iustifyinge the Churches faith therin 13. And out of the scriptures their demonstration is not single or of one sort only but in diuers manners as to the height and dignity of so diuine and venerable a mystery was conuenient For that out of the ould Testament they shew how yt was prefigured and prophesied and in the new both promised
do beare Nay himselfe doth add a new consirmation when he saith that he which doth eate and drinke vnworthily this Sacrament reus erit â—orporis sanguinis Domini shal be guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. And againe Iuâ—cium sibi manducat bibit non dijudicans corpus Domini he doth eat drinke his owne iudgement not discerninge the body of our Lord Which inferreth the reall presence of Christes body which those whome the Apostle reprehendeth by the fact of their vnworthy receauing doe so behaue themselues as yf they did not discerne it to be present All which laid togeather the vniforme consent of expositors throughout the whole Christian world concurringe in the selfe-same sense and meaninge of all these scriptures about the reall presence of Christs true body in the Sacrament yow may imagine what a motiue yt is and ought to be to a Catholike man who desireth to beleeue and not to striue and contend And thus much for scriptures 17. There followeth the consideration of Fathers Doctors and Councells wherein as the Sacramentaryes of our tyme that pleased first to deny the reall presence had not one authority nor can produce any one at this day that expressely saith that Christs reall body is not in the Sacrament or that yt is only a figure signe or token therof though diuers impertinent peeces of some Fathers speaches they will now and then pretend to alleage so on the coÌ„trary side the Catholiks do behould for their comfort the whole ranks of ancient Fathers through euery age standinge with them in this vndoubted truth Yea not only affirming the same reall presence in most cleere and perspicuous words wherof yow may see whole books in Catholike wryters replenished with Fathers authorityes laid togeather out of euery age from Christ downe wards but that which is much more yeldinge reasons endeauoring to proue the same by manifest arguments theologicall demonstrations vsing therin such manner of speach and words as cannot possibly agree vnto the Protestants communion of bare bread and wyne with their symbolicall signification or representation only As for example where the Fathers do shew how Christs true flesh commeth to be in this SacrameÌ„t videlicet by the true conuersion of bread into his body and by that this body is made of bread and by that the substances of breat and vvyne be changed and other like speaches as may be seene in S. Ambrose 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. lib. 6. cap. 1. lib. de myst init cap. 9. Cypr. Serm. de Coena Chrysost. hom 83. in Matth. de proditione Iudae Cyrill Catec 4. Mystag Nissenus orat Catech. 37. and others 18. Secondly yt is an ordinary speach of the Fathers to cry out admyre the miracle that happeneth by the conuersion in this Sacrament ascribinge the same to the supreme omnipotencv of almighty God as yow may see in S. Chrysostome l. 3. de sacerdotio O miraculum c. S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. Iustinus Martyr Apolog. 2. sayinge that by the same omnipotency of God vvherby the vvord vvas made flesh the flesh of the vvord vvas made to be in the Eucharist which agreeth not to a Caluinian communion 19. Thirdly some of them do extoll and magnifie the exceeding loue charity of Christ towards vs aboue all other humane loue in that he feedeth vs with his owne flesh which no shephards did euer their sheepe or mothers their children which is the frequent speach of S. Chrysostome hom 83. in Matth. 45. in Ioan. hom 24. in ep 1. ad Cor. 2. homil 60. 61. ad Pop. Antioch And to the same effect S. Augustine ep 120. cap. 27. in Psal. 33. which speaches can no wayes agree to the Protestants supper 20. Fourthly diuers of the said Fathers do expressely teach that we do receaue Christ in the Sacrament not only by faith but truly really and corporally semetipsum nobis commiscet saith S. Chrysostome non side tantum sed reipsa Christ doth ioyne himselfe with vs in the Sacrament not only by faith but really And â—n another place he putteth this antithesis or opposition betwixt vs and the Magi that saw and beleeued in Christ lyinge in the manger that they could not carry him with them as we do now by receauinge him in the Sacrament and yet no doubt they beleeued in him and carryed him in faith as we do now to which effect S. Cyrill Alexand. saith Corporaliter nobis filius vnitur vt homo spiritualiter vt Deus Christ as a man is vnited vnto vs corporally by the Sacrament and spiritually as he is God Whervnto yow may add S. Hilary lib. 8. de Trinitate and Theodorus in the Councell of Ephesutom 6. Appendic 5. cap. 2. and others 21. Fiftly the Fathers do many tymes and in diuers places and vpon sundry occasions go about to proue the truth of other mysteryes and articles of our faith by this miracle of the being of Christs flesh and body in the Sacrament as S. Irenaeus for example doth proue Christs Father to be the God of the old sestament for that in his creatures he hath left vs his body bloud and in the same place he vseth the same argument for establishinge the article of the resurrection of out bodyes to witt that he that vouch safeth to nowrish vs with his owne body and bloud will not lett our bodyes remayne for euer in death corruption S. Chrysostome in like manner by the truth of his reall presence in the Sacrament doth confute them that denyed Christ to haue taken true flesh of the Virgin Mary which hardly would be proued by the Sacramentary supper of bread and wyne as euery man by himselfe will consider 22. Sixtly to pretermitt all other points handled to this effect by the said Fathers as that diuers of them do exclude expressely the name of figure or similitude from this Sacrament as S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 1. Damasc lib. 4. cap. 4. 14. Theophilact in Matth. 26. Others yeld reasons why Christ in the Sacrament would be really vnder the formes or accidents of bread and wyne to witt that our faith might be proued and exercised therby the horror of eating flesh bloud in their owne forme shape taken away and so the same S. Ambrose Ibid. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. Cyrill in cap. 22. Luc. apud D. Thom. in catena Others do persuade vs not to beleeue our senses that see only bread and wyne wherof we shall speake more in the obseruations following so S. Augustine serm de verbis Apost l. 3. de Trinit cap. 10. Others do proue this reall presence by the sacrifice affirminge the selfe same Christ to be offered now in our dayly sacrifice vpon the Altars of Christians after an vnbloudy manner which was offered once bloudely vpon the
I said not but that we sacrifised to God in the memoryes of Martyrs which we most frequently vse to do after that only rite which God in the manifestation of the new Testament hath comaunded vs to sacrifice vnto him 47. By all which testimonyes is euident that the Church of God in the first foure ages after the Apostles did both offer an externall sacrifice which was the same that Christ had offered before and this after a peculiar rite insinuated by Christ to the Apostles and deliuered by them to their posterity which peculiar rite is more expressed in the liturgies before mentioned and that all this is done by the authority and example of Christ himselfe in his last supper and by tradition of the Apostles which is inough to settle any pious mans conscience Now then thirdly wheras I should by order passe to the consideration of ancient Fathers sayings testimonyes about this matter they are so many and copious as I should be prolix and weary to the reader in producing so many as may be alleaged no one article or mystery of our faith being so often handled or inculcated by them as this of the Church sacrifice For better comprehendinge wherof I shall as for the mystery of the reall presence before heere note only vnto thee certayne generall heads whervnto the said Fathers testimonyes may be reduced as first that euery where in their wrytings speakinge of this oblation made in the masse they vse the words sacrificium hostia victima offerre immolare sacrificare all which are words that peculiarly and properly do signify sacrifice which is certayne that the said Fathers would neuer so comonly haue vsed no more then the Protestants do vse them now of their supper if they had meant no otherwise then the Protestants do for other Sacraments as Baptisme for example they do not call eyther sacrifice host or victime nor that the act of Baptizinge is offerringe immolation or sacrifice as they do the act of celebratinge masse wherof you may read all the Fathers generally as S. Hyppolitus Martyr Orat. de Antichrist S. Ambrose in psalm 38. Nissen orat de resurrect Chrysost. hom 24. in 1. Cor. hom 17. in epist ad Hebraeos Cyrill lib. de adorat Aug. l. 2. quaest Euang. q. 8. l. 4. de Trinit cap. 14. 48. The second head is of those authorityes that do compare this Christian sacrifice with the sacrifices of the Iewes affirminge the one to be of the flesh of beasts spotted the other of the pure and immaculate flesh of Christ which they would neuer haue done in like manner yf they had not meant properly of true externall sacrifices offered by Christians in the new law wherof yow may see at large Tertullian lib. contr Iudaeos cap. 1. Iustin. in Triph. Chrysost. in psalm 95. Cyprian lib. de vnitat Ecclesiae Ambros. in cap. 1. Lucae Nazianz. orat 2. de paschat Aug. lib. 17. de Ciuitat Dei cap. 20. S. Leo. serm de passion and many others 49. The third head is of those authorityes that compare this dayly sacrifice of the Christian Church offered in euery place throughout the world with the only sacrifice of Christ offered once for all vpon the Crosse wherin for differēce sake they vse the words cruentum incruentum sacrificium that is bloudy and vnbloudy sacrifice for distinguishinge the māner of the oblatiō the one vpon the Crosse the other vpon many Altars in the Church at once till the worlds end otherwise holding the thing it selfe offered to be the very same in th' one other sacrifice See S. Chrysost. hom 24. in 1. Cor. hom 2. ad 2. Tim. Cyprian lib. 2. ep 3. Ambros. in psalm 38. Nissen orat 1. de resurrect Aug. lib. 3. cont Donatist cap. 19. lib. 20. contr Faust. cap. 21. Isichius in Leuit. cap. 8. and others 50. The fourth head is of those that affirme this our dayly sacrifice to be propitiatory both for the liue and dead as well those that are absent as present and that for both these sorts of people yt ought and was accustomed to be offered in their dayes which doth euidently proue yt a true sacrifice for that a Sacrament only doth profitt only those that do communicate and receaue the same and no Protestant will say that their communion is offered vp for those that are absent quicke or dead as the ancient Fathers do euery where say that our host Eucharist was offered vp in their dayes and consequently they held yt not only for a Sacrament but also for a sacrifice whereof yow may see S. Chrysostome hom 79. ad Pop. Antiochen where he saith yt was offered for Bishopps and Gouernours of the Church hom 72. in Matth. for sicke men lib. 6. de Sacerdotio for the dead For which effect see S. Augustine lib. 22. de ciuit cap. 8. in Enchirid. cap. 110. lib. 9. Confess cap. 12. where he professeth to haue offered sacrifice of the masse for his mother S. Monica 51. The fifth head is of those places wherin the Fathers do vse the words Altar Priests and Priesthood as proper peculiar and appropriated to true sacrifices For as the Protestants of our tymes do not vse these words for that they hould not their supper to be a sacrifice but rather do fly them though neuer so much vsed by the said Fathers and in place therof do vse the words table minister mynistry and other such like of their new Religion so neyther would the Fathers haue vsed the same words yf they had had the same meaning that Protestants haue For that well knew the said Fathers how to expresse their meaninge in proper words and therfore when they say that Altars amonge Christians are sedes corporis Christi the seats of the body of Christ and that in their dayes Christians did adgeniculare aris Dei knele downe at the Altars of God quod obsculabantur altaria that they kissed the Altars and that the office of Christian Priests is to sacrifice vpon the said Altars yt is euident what they meant to him that will vnderstand them wherof more may be read in S. Cyprian lib. 1. ep 9. Euseb. lib. 1. demonstr Euang. cap. 6. Athan. in vita Anton. Nazianz. orat in Gorgon Nissen lib. de baptisimo Chrysost. hom 53. ad Pop. Antioch hom 20. in 2. Cor. Hieron lib. cont Vigilant dial cont Lucifer Aug. lib. 8. cap. vlt. and others 52. The sixt consideration out of the Fathers may be their lyturgyes or forme of diuine seruice or masse for offeringe of this sacrifice in those dayes of which sort of liturgyes there are extant vnto this day diuers as that of S. Iames the Apostle S. Clement scholler and successor of S. Peter of S. Basill S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose which albeit in all particular forme of prayer do not agree with our forme and canon of masse at this
manner of Christs being there from that in heauen and as yt signifieth his being there vnder a Sacrament or signe but yet really we graunt also that he is there spiritually that is to say after a spirituall and not corporall circumscriptiue manner yet truly and really We graunt further that he is in the Sacrament by faith for that we do not see him but apprehend him present by faith but yet truly and really and not in faith and beleefe only And by this yow may perceaue our Sacramentaryes manner of disputinge iust like the Arrians of old tyme and of our dayes who seeke to enacuate all places alleaged for the vnity and equality of Christ with his Father by one only distinction of will and nature So as when Christ said for example Ioan. 6. my Father and I are one yt is true said they they are one in will loue but not in nature thus they deluded all that could be brought for naturall vnity except only the authority and contrary beleefe of the vniuersall Church wherby at last they were ouerborne 46. And the very same course held the Sacramentaryes of our dayes for whatsoeuer plaine and perspicuous places you bring them out of antiquity affirminge the true naturall substantiall body of our Sauiour to be in the Sacrament they will shift of all presently by one of these three words yt is true sacramentally yt is true spiritually and yt is true by faith only as though these could not stand with really or truly and heere of shall yow haue store of examples afterward in the aunswerings of Doctor Perne Cranmer Ridley and Latymer for the Sacramentary party to our arguments taken out of the ancient Fathers For when the said Fathers do auouch that Christ our Sauiours true naturall body is in the Sacrament they answere yt is true sacramentally and thinke they haue defended themselues manfully therby and when in other places the same Fathers do professe that the very same flesh that was borne of the virgin Mary and cruicified for vs is there they aunswere yt is true spiritually and by faith but not really And thus they do euacuate and delude all that can be alleaged But yf they cannot shew as they cannot any one Father that tooke or vsed the words sacramentally spiritually or by faith in this sense as opposite to really and truly in this mystery then is it euident this to be but a shift of their owne inuention to escape therby And so much of this obseruation The nynth Obseruation How Christ is receaued of euill men in the Sacrament and of good men both in and out of the same §. 9. 47. It followeth vpon the former declaration of the words sacrament signe and the rest that we explane in this place a certayne distinction insinuated by the ancient Fathers and touched in the Councell of Trent of three sorts of receauinge and eatinge Christ by this Sacrament First sacramentally alone the second spiritually only the third both sacramentally and spiritually togeather An example of the first is when euill men do receaue the Sacrament vnworthily for that these men thought they receaue the very Sacrament to witt the true body of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wyne yet do they not receaue the true spirituall effect therof which is grace and nourishment of their soule and of these doth S. Paul speake expressely to the Corinthians when he saith He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily videlicet the Sacrament doth eat and drinke iudgement to himselfe not discerninge the body of our Lord. And in this sense do the auncient Fathers vpon this place expound the Apostle as yow may see in the commentaryes of Saint Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Anselme and other expositors both Greeke and Latyn and S. Austen in many places of his works doth expressely shew the same alleaginge this text of the Apostle for proofe therof Corpus Domini saith he sanguis Domini nihilominus erat illus quibus dicebat Apostolus c. It was notwithstanding the body bloud of our Lord which they tooke to whome the Apostle said he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation And to the same effect he saith in diuers other places that Iudas receaued the very selfe-same body of Christ that the other Apostles did and the same affirmeth S. Chrysostome in his homily intituled of the Treason of Iudas generally it is the vniforme opinion of all the auncient Fathers whensoeuer any occasion is giuen to speake or treat therof 48. The second manner of receauing Christ by this Sacrament is tearmed spiritually only for that without sacramentall receauinge of Christs body and bloud a man may in some case receaue the spirituall fruite or effect therof as yf he had receaued the same really and this eyther with relation to the Sacrament videlicet when a man hath a desire to receaue yt actually but cannot or without reference thervnto when by faith and grace good men do communicate with Christ and participate the fruite of his passion In which sense of spirituall communion or eating Christ S. Austen wryteth vpon S. Iohns ghospell Crede manducasti beleeue and thou hast eaten And to the same effect do our Fathers often speake when they treat of this spirituall metaphoricall eating only without relation to the Sacramet which manner of speaches the Sacramentaryes of our dayes do seeke to abuse as though there were no other eatinge of Christ in the Sacrament but by faith alone which is furthest of from the said Fathers meaninge though sometymes they had occasion to speake in that manner 49. The third member of our former diuision is to eat Christ both sacramentally and spiritually as all good Christians do when with due preparation disposition they receaue both the outward Sacrament and inward grace and fruite therof by obseruation of which threefold manner of receauing many obiections and hereticall cauillations will easily afterward be discerned And so much for this The tenth Obseruation Touchinge indignityes and inconueniences obiected by Sacramentaryes against vs in holdinge the Reall presence §. 10. 50. As by the former obiections of naturall impossibilityes yow haue heard this soueraigne mystery impugned both by the learneder sort of old and new heretiks so do the more simple ignorant insist insult most vpon certayne inconueniences indignityes and absurdityes as to them do appeare As for example that Christ in the Sacrament should be eaten with mens teeth go into the belly not only of men weomen but also of beasts yf they should deuoure yt that yt may putrifie be burned cast and fall into base and vnworthy places be troden vnder mens feet with the like which is a kind of argument plausible at the first sight vnto vulgar apprehensions and such as seemed to moue principally the most part of Iohn Fox his artificers and spinster-martyrs as may appeare by their rude clamours and grosse obiections
shewing out of the words of S. Ambrose that Ridleyes aunswere could not be true for that S. Ambrose said that after the consecration there is not the thinge that nature did forme but that which the blessing doth consecrate And that yf the benediction of Elias the Prophett could turne the nature of water how much more the benediction of Christ God man can do the same ergò there is a greater change in the natures then of common bread to become the Lords bread 12. To this reply there was no other aunswere giuen but that S. Ambrose his booke dâ— Sacramentis was not his Ridley affirmed that all the Fathers did say so which was a shamelesse lye in so great an auditory nor could he bringe forth so much as one Father that said so nor alleaged he any one argument to proue yt to be so and yf he had yet S. Ambrose repeatingâ— againe the very same sentence in his booke de initiandis is sufficient for the authority of the place but Glyn is made to passe away the matter with sylence sayinge VVell lett this passe c. And then goinge to other authorityes of Fathers ys â—â—yped of with like shifâ—â— as when he cyteth S. Cyprians words Panis non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Dei sit caro tâ—e bread by consecration being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of God made flesh they aunswere that by nature is vnderstood a naturall property or quality and by flesh a fleshly thinge or quality and not the substance so as the sense must be that bread is changed not in outward shape but into a naturall property of a fleshly thing c. And when Doctor Glyn replyed to ouerthrow this inuention out of S. Ambrose who affirmeth this chaÌ„ge of bread to be made into the flesh that was taken of the Virgin Mary ergò yt was not only into a fleshly thinge quality or property but into the true flesh of Christ Ridly gaue an aunswere that I vnderstand not nor himselfe I thinke but only that he must say somwhat in so great an audience and expectation or Fox vnderstood yt not that setteth it downe for these are his words 13. VVhen Doctor Glyn vrged the sayinge of S. Ambrose that bread is changed into the body taken from the virgin Mary that is to say saith he that by the word of God the thinge hath a being that yt had nâ—t before and we do consecrate the body that we may receaue the grace and power of the body of Christ in heauen by this Sacramentall body So he And doth any man vnderstand him or is his aunswere any thinge to the purpose for satisfyinge the Fathers S. Cyprian saith that the bread by the omnipotency of God is changed in nature and made flesh and S. Ambrose saith yt is the flesh taken from the Virgin and Ridley saith heere that yt hath a being vvhich yt had not before and that they do consecrate a sacramentall body of Christ therby to receaue the grace and power of Christs body in heauen but howsoeuer they do consecrate that body which is a strange word for Sacramentaryes to vse yet do they graunt that this Sacramentall body is but bread and how then can yt be flesh and flesh of the Virgin were not the Fathers ridiculous yf they vsed these equiuocations yea false and improper speaches 14. Well Doctor Glyn goeth foreward and alleageth S. Chrysostome vpon S. Mathewes ghospell where to persuade vs the truth of Christs body in the Sacrament he saith that we must beleeue Christs words in these mysteryes and not our senses for that our senses may be deceaued but Christ sayinge this is my body cannot deceaue vs and that he made vs one body with himselfe not through faith only but in very deed and further that the miracle which he wrought in his last supper he vvorketh dayly by his ministers c. Whervnto Ridley aunswered nothinge but these words Maister Doctor yow must vnderstand that in that place S. Chrysostome shewed that Christ deliuered vnto vs no sensible thinge in that supper So he Which notwithstanding is euidently false for he deliuered sensible bread wyne according to the Protestants faith and accordinge to outs the formes of bread and wyne which are also sensible and yf there were no sensible thinge then could there be no Sacrament which must conteyne a sensible signe And to refuâ—e this shift of Ridley Doctor Glyn obiected Theophilact expoundinge S. Chrysostome and vsinge the same words that he did to witt that the bread is transelemented and transformed He alleageth another place or two of S. Augustine togeather with S. Irenaeus To all which Rochester aunswereth resolutely VVell say what yow list yt is but a figuratiue speach as S. Iohn Baptist was said to be Elias for a property c. But who doth not see the absurdity of this euasion for so much as the meaning of Christ about Elias his spiritt in S. Iohn Baptist is euident nor euer went any auncient Fathers about to affirme or proue by arguments that S. Iohn Baptist was truly Elias in person himselfe expressely denyinge yt or that yt was meant literally as they do of the words of Christ in the Sacrament And this could not Ridley but see but that he was blinded in pride and passion for that otherwise he would neuer haue gone about to aunswere the Fathers by euident wranglinge so contrary to their owne sense and meaninge 15. After Doctor Glyn was putt to silence in this order succeded Maister Langdale Maister Sedgewicke and Maister Yonge but very breefely concerninge this article of the reall-presence not being permitted to speake more and the most part of the tyme trifled out also with courtesyes of speach the one to the other My good Lord good Maister Doctor pleaseth yt your good Lordshipp liketh yt your good Fathershipp honourable Father and the like ceremonyes for they durst do no other Ridley being then high commissionar yet Maister Langdale vrged a place of S. Chrysostome where he bringeth Christ savinge these words I vrould be your brother I tooke vpon me common flesh and bloud for your sakes and euen by the same things that I am ioyned to yow the very same I haue exhibited to yow againe meaninge in the Sacrament Wherof Maister Langdale inferred that seing Christ tooke vpon him true naturall flesh and not a figure of flesh only or remembrance therof therfore he gaue vs his true naturall flesh like man in the Sacrament and not a figure Wherto Ridley aunswereth in these words and no more VVe are not ioyned by naturall flesh but do receaue his flesk spiritually from aboue Which aunswere is not only contrary to the expresse words and meaning of S. Chrysostome in this place but of Christ himselfe also brought in heere by S. Chrysostome to vtter his meaninge as yow haue heard I tooke vpon me common flesh for
to Doctor Chadsey sticke to those words of Tertullian as Fox affirmeth yt is like that the foresaid tale of vrge vrge feigned of him was meant at this tyme. But yf yt were the reader may easily see that he had more to vrge against his aduersary than a port at his elbow and so shall yow see by that which is to ensue wherfore lett vs passe yet somewhat further in this combatt 27. Doctor Cranmer hauinge breathed a little vpon the former sharp on-sett of Chadsey and VVeston one Doctor Tressam began very grauely and moderately to vrge a new argument and discourse which seemed very important and after yt was vrged did more straine and presse the defendant then any thinge before disputed The argument was founded vpon a place of S. Hilary in his eight booke de trinitate against the Arrians which both for the great at authority and antiquity of the Father and cleernes of his words and reason seemed to all there present to conuince nor could Doctor Cranmer any way handsomely ridd himselfe of this place but by his ordinary shiftinge interpretation as ptesently shal be seene Doctor Tressam his discourse was this that wheras the like controuersie for diuers points had byn betweene the old Catholiks and Arrians in Saint Billaryes tyme as now is betweene vs and Doctor Cranmer and his fellowes the Catholiks houldinge in that controuersie the vnion of Christ with his Father to be in nature and substance and the Arrians in will only and affection Whatsoeuer authorityes the said Catholiks alleaged out of scriptures or auncient Fathers for the naturall vnion betweene Christ and his Father I and my Father are one Such other places the Arrians shifted of by sayinge that is true in vvill but not in nature yt is true in loue and affection but not in substance euen as our Sacramentaryes do now when we alleage neuer so cleere authorityes for the true reall nature and substantiall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and therby of his reall vnion also with vs by eatinge the same they delude all with sayinge only yt is true by grace and not by nature yt is true by faith but noâ— in substance yt is true figuratiuely and sacramentally but not really yt is true in a signe by a trope after a certaine manner of speach yt is true spiritually and by a naturall property but not indeed substantially and such aunswers but all these shifts saith Doctor Tressam did S. Hilary cutt of so longe agoe for that he proueth the true naturall coniunction of Christ with his Father by our true naturall coniunction with him by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament so as except we deny the true essentiall reall and substantiall vnity of Christ with his Father we cannot accordinge to S. Hilary deny the true reall and substantiall vnity of vs with Christ by receauing his true naturall flesh in the Sacrament 28. The place of S. Hilary is in his 8. booke of the blessed Trinity against the Arrians as hath byn said where he expoundeth these words of Christ in S. Iohns ghospell As the liuing Father sent me so do I also liue by the Father and be that eateth my flesh shall also liue throw me vpon which words of our Sauiour S. Hilary saith This truly is the cause of our life that vve haue Christ dwellinge by his flesh in vs that are fleshye vvhich also by him shall liue in such sort aâ— he liueth by his Father Of which was inferred that Christ dwelled in vs in flesh by the Sacrament and not only in spiritt For better declaration wherof D. Tressam before the allegation of these words alleageth a larger discourse of the same S. Hilary against the said Arrians vpon this point in these words I demaund of them now saith Hillary who will needs haue the vnity of will only betweene the Father and the sonne vvhether Christ be now in vs truly by nature or only by the agreement of vvilles yf the vvord be incarnate in very deed and vve receaue at the Lords table the vvord made flesh how then is he to be thought not to dwell in vs naturally c. Out of which words of S. Hilary Doctor Tressam vrged that Christs flesh was not only imparted vnto vs in faith and spiritt but also really and naturally according to S. Hilary and that as his coniunction was naturall with his Father and not in will and loue only so is his coniunction with vs in flesh truly naturall substantiall and reall and not only in spiritt and faith For more confirmation wherof Doctor Tressam alleaged also the words of Martyn Bucer their late Protestant-reader in Cambridge who wryteth that according to the holy Fathers meaning Christ dwelleth in vs by the body giuen in the Sacrament not only by faith and loue as absent but naturally corporally and carnally c. To which authority of Bucer Doctor Cranmer gaue no other answere but this iest I know that Maister Bucer saith he was a learned man but your faith is in good case which leaneth vpon Bucer c. 29. But he could not so easily shake of the autority of Hilary but was hardly pressed therwith as yow may see readinge ouer the place yt selfe of this disputation as also by that his aduocate Iohn Eox is constrayned to make sundry large notes and glosses in the margent to help him out For Doctor Tressam vrged that we are not only vnited to Christ by faith and spiritt but carnally also Whervnto Cranmer seekinge an euasion answereth I say that Christ was communicated vnto vs not only by faith but in very deed also vvhen he vvas borne of the Virgin Behould the shift we talke of Christ imparted to vs in the Sacrament and so doth Hillary he answereth that Christ was imparted to vs in the incarnation and yet yf yow consider our flesh was then rather imparted to him then his to vs. And againe Turks and Infidells haue as much coniunction with him by the incarnation as we for that they are men the flesh that he tooke was common to all So as heere yow see nothing but euasions sought for and Doctor Tressam perceauing that he could gett no more of him to the purpose fell to pray for him but Doctor VVeston followed the argument much further as there yow may see for yt is ouerlonge to be alleaged heere The principall point is that S. Hilary auoweth That our coniunction with Christ is not only by will affection and faith but naturall also and reall by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament as himselfe is naturally vnited to his Father and not only by will And when Doctor Cranmer sought many holes to runne out at VVeston presseth him againe with other words of S. Hilary explicatinge himselfe which are these 30. These things saith he are recited of vs to this end because heretiks feigninge a vnity of vvill only betweene the Father and the sonne
or externall forme for euery man doth eat that when they receaue but the question was and is of the true body and therfore when Saint Austen speaketh of this body yt is madnes to vnderstand yt of any other thinge then the reall body But lett vs heare what was replyed Doctor VVeston said I bringe Theophilact against yow Iudas saith he gustauit carnem Domini Iudas did eate or tast the flesh of Christ. Ridley That is the Sacrament of the Lords flesh Doctor VVatson replyed out of the Councell of Nice Exaltata mente fideliter credamus iacere in illa sacramensa agnum Dei tollentem peccata mundi a sacerdotibus sacrificatum Let vs faithfully beleeue with an exalted mynd that there lyeth in the holy table the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world which is sacrificed by the Priests Ridley That Councell vvas collected out of auncient Fathers and is to me of great authority c. the vvords make for me the lambe of God is in heauen accordinge to the verity of the body and heere he is with vs in a mystery accordinge to his power not corporally Watson But the lambe of God lyeth on the table Ridley Yt is a figuratiue speach for in our mynd vve vnderstand him vvhich is in heauen Watson But he lyeth there the Greeke vvord is KEÃŽTA Ridley He lyeth there that is he is there present not corporally but he lyeth there in his operation c. And by this yow may see to what purpose yt was to dispute with this man for that God by his power and operation is euery where and in euery creature And yf Christ be no otherwise heere but by his power and operation as in baptisme what an impertinency is this of the Councell of Nice to vse so many and significant words that vve must faithfully beleeue vvith a high mynd and courage against sense and reason that the lambe of God lyeth on the table sacrificed by Priests and the like Is there any Protestant that speaketh thus or can the like words be verified in the Protestants communion of signes figures representations and symbolls 61. Lastly to skipp ouer diuers other things Doctor VVeston pressed him with two other places of S. Chrysostome so cleere as nothinge can be spoken more cleerer The first is in these words vve vvorshipp the selfeâ— same body in the Eâ—charist vvhich the vvise men did vvorshipp in the manger And then againe vve haue not heere the Lord in the manger but on the Altar heere a vvoman holdeth him not in her hands but a Priest These are the words Let vs heare his answere Ridley I graunt the Priest holdeth the same thinge but after another manner She did hold the naturall body the Priest holdeth the mystery of the body So hee And Fox wryteth in the margent The sâ—me thinge but the manner diuerse But who seeth not that our contention is about the thing and not the manner for we teach also that the manner of Christs being in the Sacrament is different from the manner of his being in heauen but the thinge really is all one And so yf Ridley do graunt the same thinge to be holden by the Priest hands which the blessed virgin held in her hands as heere yow see him graunt in words then the controuersie betweene vs and him is ended But presently he leapeth from his graunt againe sayinge she did hold the naturall body and the Priest holdeth the mystery of the body which are different things and not only different manners of holdinge Wherefore Doctor VVeston repeatinge againe this argument out of S. Chrysostome to the multitude in English saith Iohn Fox and consideringe the manner of Ridleyes aunsweringe and that nothinge more could be had of him he dissolued the disputation in these words Videtis praefracti hominis animunt gloriosum vafrum inconstantem c. Yow see the stubborne vauntinge deceytfull and inconstant mynd of this man And with this Encomion departed Doctor Ridley to his prison againe and the other Doctors each man to their owne lodginges Out of the Disputations with M. Hugh Latimer togeather with the conclusion of the whole triall in this article §. 4. 64. Vpon the third day being wednesday the 18. of Aprill was brought forth Maister Hugh Latymer to aunswere as the former had done but the disputation was much more shorter then the other and in English for Maister Latymer saith Fox alleaged that he vvas out of vse vvith Latyn and vnfitt for that place He gaue vp his confession about the three articles in wrytinge after the imitation of Cranmer and Ridley full of scoffes and bitter taunts as his veyne was and rested most vpon the masse and the foure marrow-bones therof for so blasphemously he called them which were forsooth consecration transubstantiation oblation and adoration of all which yow haue heard the ancient Fathers speaches before how different they are from these of Latymer as was also their spiritt 63. The first entrance to talke betwene Maister Latymer and the Doctors was for that he sayinge in his wrytinge that nothinge was to be receaued concerning the SacrameÌ„t which was not expressely sett downe in the institution of Christ Doctor VVeston inferred that then weomen must not receaue the communion for that no expresse mention is made in scripture of their receauinge and when Latymer aunswered that S. Paul said Probet autem seipsum homo which signifieth said he both men and weomen yt was replyed that in Greeke yt was anthropos that was proper to man c. Then Doctor VVeston asked him how longe he had byn of this opinion he said about some seauen yeares he being more then seauenty of age and that my L. of Canterburyes booke had specially confirmed his iudgement therin And yf quoth he I could remember all therin conteyned I vvould not feare to aunswere any man in this matter So he And many tymes after he ran still to this booke of Cranmer My Lord of Canterburyes booke saith he to an argument of Doctor Cartwright handleth this very vvell and by him could I aunswere yow yf I had him And againe in another place to another argument The solution of this saith he is in my Lord of Canterbury his booke And yet further to another I remember I haue read this in my Lord of Canterburyes booke Wherto Doctor Tressam aunswered that there are in that booke six hundred lyes but Latymer replyed nothinge c. 64. Then said Doctor VVeston Yow vvere once a Lutheran Latimer No I vvas a Papist for I could neuer perceaue how Luther could desend his opinion vvithout transubstantiation The Tygurines once did vvryte a booke against Luther and I oft desired God that he might liue so longe as to make them aunswere So he wherby is seene that he fauoured Luther more then the Tygurines at that tyme for that he would haue had them aunswered But Doctor VVeston said further Luther
in his booke de priuata missa testifieth that the diuell reasoned vvith him and persuaded him that the masse vvas not good vvherby yt appeareth that Luther said masse and the diuell dissuaded him from yt Latimer I do not take in hand heere to desend Luthers sayings or doings ys he vvere heere he vvould desend himselfe vvell inough I trow So Latymer leauinge Luther to himselfe but Fox will needs defend him with this marginall note sayinge In that booke the diuell doth not dissuade him so much from sayinge masse as to bring him to desperation for sayinge masse such temptations many tymes happen to good men 65. And will yow consider the grauity and verity of this note first he saith that the diuell did not so much dissuade him from sayinge masse as to bringe him to desperation then somewhat he did dissuade him though not so much as to the other which I beleeue for that the one was his damnation and his leauinge of masse was but the way to yt Secondly yf the diuell did endeauour to bringe Luther to desperation for sayinge of masse he must needs persuade him first that the masse was naught as yf he would draw a man to desperation for vsing almes deeds he must first persuade him that almes-deeds are naught and wicked and as wise a man as he should shew himselfe that at the diuells persuasion will beleeue that almes-deeds were naught and leaue the same so were Luther Latymer as wise to beleeue this suggestion of the diuell against the masse And where Fox saith that such temptations of the diuell do happen many tymes to good-men I graunt yt but not that euer any good man did yeld therevnto or iudge a thinge euill for that the diuell did say yt was naught but rather to the contrary his impugnation of yt is alwayes a signe that the thing is good and pleasinge to almighty God whose aduersary the diuell is yea the greater his impugnation is the better must we presume the thing to be and consequently when he would make the masse to seeme so heynous a thinge to Luther as that he should be damned for sayinge the same yt is a good proofe that the masse is an excellent thing displeaseth the diuell and that Luther and his followers leauing to say masse do please much the diuell in followinge his suggestion therin as good and obedient children to so holy a ghostly Father and so to him we leaue them 66. There followeth that albeit Latymer was loath to dispute yet some few arguments were cast forth against him but all in English for so he would haue yt And first Maister Doctor Tressam alleaged an authority of Saint Hilary affirminge a naturall vnity to be in vs with Christ by eatinge his flesh Which place for that yt was alleaged before against his fellowes I will not stand much vpon yt but only note this mans euasion Latymer I can not speake Latyn so longe c. But as for the words saith he of Hilary I thinke they make not so much for yow but he that should answere the Doctors had not neede to be in my case but should haue them in a readyness and know their purpose Melancthon saith that yf the Doctors had forseene that they should haue byn so taken in this controuersie they vvould haue vvrytten more plainly This was his answere and more then this yow shall not find and in this there is a notable imposture of an old deceauer for that Melancthon being of opposite opinion to him in this article and wrytinge a whole worke of the Doctors sentences for proofe of the reall-presence against the Sacramentaryes as in his life we haue shewed what he speaketh of this mystakinge the Fathers and Doctors he speaketh expressely of the Sacramentaryes and not of those that defend the reall-presence which he also being a Lutheran defended and affirmeth plainly that all the Fathers are of the same opinion though yf they had foreseene that such heretiks as are the Sacramentaryes would haue risen vp and haue wrested their words and meaning as yow haue heard both Cranmer Ridley and Latymer to haue done they would haue spoken more plainly in the controuersie though hardly they could haue spoken more cleerly against them And by this first entrance yow may marke the plaine dealinge of old Father Latymer 67. Doctor Seaton Vice-chauncelour of Cambridge seing these sleights of the old fellow beginneth thus with him I know your learninge vvoll inough and how subtile yow be I will vse a few vvords vvith yow out of S. Cyprian vvho saith that the old Testament doth forbidd the drinkinge of bloud and the new Testament doth commaund the drinkinge of bloud Out of which words he framed this argument That yt vvas true and reall bloud vvhich the old Testament forbadd to drinke ergò yt is true and reall bloud vvhich the new Testament commaundeth to drinke for that otherwise the antithesis or opposition of the two TestameÌ„ts in this point can not hold yf the one forbidd the true drinking of true and reall bloud and the other commaundeth the figuratiue drinking of spirituall bloud by faith for that these things are opposite and that the Iewes also in the old â—estament did drinke Christs bloud by faith c. To which argument Latymer aunswered nothinge in effect but this vve do tast true bloud but spiritually and this is inough And then proueth he the same by those words of S. Augustine before aunswered by vs crede manducusti beleeue thou hast eaten as though the words credere and edere were all one in the scriptures Whervpon Doctor VVeston recyted a story that passed betwene Maister Hooper and B. Gardener for when Hooper would needs hould that to cate was to beleue and that an Altar signified Christ in the scriptures B. Gardener inferred ergò when S. Paul saith to the Hebrewes that vve haue an Altar vvherof the Ieuwes must not eat the sense is vve haue Christ in whome the Iewes must not beleeue And after this he retourneâ— to presse Latymer strongly againe vpon this place of S. Cyprian sayinge that is comusaunded in the new Testament vvhich is forbidden in the ould but true bloud vvas forbidden in the old ergò true bloud also is commaunded to be drunken in the new Whervnto Latymer aunsweringe twise vttered two contraryes for first his words are It is true as touchinge the matter but not as touchinge the manner of the thinge where he graunteth as yow see that true bloud is meant in both Testament but the manner of drinkinge is different which also we graunt teach but heare his second aunswere vpon the other instance 68. Weston The old Testament doth forbidd the tastinge of bloud but the new doth commaund yt Latymer It is true not as touchinge the thinge but as touchinge the manner therof Before he said yt is true touchinge the matter but not touchinge the
themselues do graunt that yf Christ be there really present yt cannot be denyed but that he is there also by Transubstantiation of bread into his body for so Father Latymer yf yow remember affirmed before in his disputations when he was said once to haue byn a Lutheran which Lutherans do hould both Christs body and bread to be togeather in the Sacrament he aunswered I say that he could neuer perceaue how Luther could defend his opinion without Transubstantiation that the Tygurynes being also Sacramentaryes did write a booke against him in this behalfe prouinge belike that in grauntinge the reall presence as he did he must needs graunt Transubstantiation also wherin they had great reason for that in truth the imagination of Luther and Lutherans that Christs body and bread doe stand togeather vnder the same formes and accidents and be receaued togeather being so different substances is a most grosse and fond imagination so as the Lutherans graunting the one denying the other are condemned of absurdity euen by the Zuinglians themselues as yow see and as we say also iustly 2. And on the other side we say in like manner as before hath byn noted that the Zuinglians and Caluinists and other Sacramentaryes denyinge wholy the said reall presence do in vayne wrangle about Transubstantiation For as he that should deny for example sake that any substance of gould were in a purse or any substance of wyne in a barrell should in vaine dispute whether the gold were there alone or togeather with some baser metall as siluer tynne or copper or whether the wyne were there alone or in company of water so in this controuersie yt is an idle disputation for Sacramentaryes to discusse whether the substance of Christs reall flesh be alone in the Sacrament or togeather with the substance of bread for so much as they deny yt to be there at all 3. Yet notwithstanding for that their cheefe altercation is about this point as by their disputations may appeare I shall breefely examine their grounds vvhich accordinge to B. Ridleyes ostentation vttered in Cambridge out of the diuinity chayre vnder King Edward the sixt as before yow haue heard are fiue in number sett forth in these vauntinge words The principall grounds or rather head-springs of this matter are specially fiue First the authority maiestie verity of holy scriptures the second the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient Catholike Fathers the third The definition of a Sacrament the fourth The abhominable heresie of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation The fifth the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith He ascended into heauen And then a little after he concludeth thus These be the reasons vvhich persuade me to enâ—lyne to this sentence and iudgement 4. Heere yow see the principall grounds or rather head springs that persuaded Ridley to inclyne or rather declyne for yet he seemed not fully setled in this article of beleefe And albeit these grounds may seeme to conteyne somewhat in shew and sound of words yet when the substance thereof commeth to be examined they are found to be idle and puffed vp with words indeed For first what authority maiesty and verity of scriptures doth this man bring forth trow you for confirmation of this his vaunt truly nothing in effect or of any shew or probability but only that yt is called bread and wyne in the scripture after the words of consecration For which purpose he hauinge alleaged the words of Christ I will not drinke heerafter of this fruite of the vyne vntill I do drinke yt new vvith yow in the kingdome of my Father he inferreth that the fruite of the vyne is wyne which we graunt vnto him do hould is called wyne by him after the consecration as his flesh after the words of consecration is called bread by S. Paul S. Luke and other Apostles affirming yt notwithstanding to be his owne true body and flesh but retayninge the name of bread for that yt was made of bread and was bread before as the serpent was called the rodd of Aaron for that yt was made of that rodd and not because yt was not a true serpent afterwards though yt were still called a rodd and to signifie this that bread conuerted into Christs flesh is not really bread afterward but the true flesh of Christ though yt retayne the former name of bread yt is not simply called bread but with some addition as bread of life bread of heauen this bread and the like And finally Christ himselfe doth expound what bread yt is in S. Iohns ghospell when he saith The bread that I shall giue yow is my flesh for the life of the vvorld 5. Heere then yow see that Ridleyes text of scripture I vvill not drinke hereafter of the fruite of the vyne vntill I drinke yt new vvith yow in the Kingdome of my Father doth not proue that yt was materiall wine which he dronke for that he should then drinke materiall wyne also in heauen And yet assoone as Ridley had brought forth this place as though he had done a great feate and fully performed his promise for proofe of the authority maiesty and verity of scripture he beginneth presently to excuse himselfe for that he hath no more store sayinge There be not many places of scripture that do confirme this thinge neyther is yt greatly materiall for yt is inough yf there be any one plaine testimony for the same Lo whervnto this vaunt of the authority maiesty and verity of holy scriptures is come to witt to one place vnderstood and interpreted after his owne meaninge alone against the vnderstandinge of all antiquity And though he go about afterwards to scrape togeather diuers other parings of scripture nothinge at all to the purpose as Yow shall not breake any bone of his Do yow this in my remembrance labour for the meate that perisheth not this is the worke of God that they beleeue in him whome he hath sent he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him and some other like places yet as yow see by his owne confession they are not plaine places and consequently his vauntinge of authority maiesty and verity of scriptures commeth to iust nothinge indeed but only to words and wynde Lett vs see what he bringeth for his other foure grounds and headsprings 6. The second is the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient Catholike Fathers This we shall examine afterwards when we haue considered of the other three yet may yow marke by the way that he vseth heere also the superlatiue degree of most certayne testimonyes which certainty of testimonyes yow shall find afterward to be like his maiesty of scriptures already alleaged Wherfore let vs see his third ground The third ground saith he is the nature of the Sacrament which consisteth in three things vnity nutrition and