much different from the former for both of them are founded on sense and humayne reason and heere I will not conioyne all the arguments togeather as before I did but set them downe seuerally as Fox recordeth them out of Peter Martyrs disputation 1. Argument Yf Christ had giuen his body substantially and carnally in the supper then was that body eyther passible or impassible But neyther can yow say that body to be passible or impassible which he gaue at supper not passible for that S. Austen denyeth yt Psalm 98. not impassible for that Christ saith This is my body vvhich shal be giuen for yow Ergo he did not giue his body substantially at supper Annswere 12. And this same argument vsed others after Peter Martyr as Pilkilton against Doctor Glym alleageth the same place of S. Austen as yow may see in Fox pag. 1259. But the matter is easily answered for that the minor or second proposition is cleerly false for that Christs body giuen in the supper though yt were the same in substance that was giuen on the Crosse the next day after yet was yt deliuered at the supper in another manner to witt in manner impassible vnder the formes of bread and wyne so as according to the being which yt hath in the Sacrament no naturall cause could exercise any action vpon yt though being the selfe same which was to dye vpon the Crosse yt is also passible euen as now in heauen it is visible in the Sacrament inuisible though one the selfe same body now in both places glorious and immortall this meaneth expressely S. Austen in the place alleaged whose words cited by Fox are Yow are not to eate this body that yow see nor to drinke the bloud that they are to shedd who shall crucifie me Which words being spoken to them that were scandalized at his speach about the eatinge of his body do shew that we are in deed to eate his true flesh in the Sacrament but not after that carnall manner which they imagined carnaliter cogitauerunt saith S. Austen in the same place putauerunt quod praecisurus esset Dominus particulas quasdam de corpore suo daturus â—â—is They imagined carnally and thought that Christ vvould haue cutt of certayne peeces of his body and giuen vnto them which grosse imagination our Sauiour refuteth by tellinge them that they should eat his true body but in another forme of bread and wyne 13. And yet that yt is the selfe-same body the selfe-same bloud the same Doctor and Father affirmeth expressely both in this and many other places Verè magnus Dominus c. he is in deed a great God that hath giuen to eat his owne body in which he suffered so many and great thinges for vs. And againe talkinge of his tormentors Ipsum sanguinem quem per insaniam fuderunt per gratiam biberunt The selfe-same bloud which by fury they shee l by grace they dronke And yet further of the same Quousque biberent sanguinem quem fuderunt mercy left them not vntill they beleeuinge him came to drinke the bloud which they had shedd And finally in another place Vt eius iam sanguinem nossent bibere credentes quem fuderant saeuientes that comminge to beleeue in him they might learne to drinke that bloud which in their cruelty they shee l And last of all in another place explaninge his owne faith and the beleefe of all Christians in this behalfe he saith against heretiks of his tyme Mediatoreâ— Dei c. We do with faithfull hart and mouth receaue the mediator of God and man Christ Iesus giuing vnto vs his flesh to be eaten and bloud to be dronken though yt may seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to stea the same and to drinke mans bloud then to snedd the same Consider heere the speach of Saint Augustine whether it may agree to the eatinge of a signe of Christs body or bloud what horror is there in that And thus much to this first argument 2. Argument Bodyes organicall without quantity be no bodyes The Popes doctrine maketh the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be without quantity Ergo the Popes doctrine maketh the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be no body Aunswere 14. We graunt that bodyes organicall without all quantity are no bodyes but Catholike doctrine doth not teach that Christs body in the Sacrament is without all quantity but only without externall quantity aunswering to locall extension and commensuration of place which repugneth not to the nature of quantity as before is declared at large in the fourth obseruation of the precedent Chapter wherby yow may see both the vanity of this argument as also the notorious folly ignorance of Fox who by occasion of this argument of an organicall body vrged by Cranmer in Oxford against Maister Harpesfield when he proceeded Bachler of diuinity bringeth in a whole commedy of vayne diuises how all the learned Catholike men of that vniuersity were astonished at the very propoundinge of this graue doubt to witt VVhether Christ hath his quantity quality forme figure and such like propertyes in the Sacrament All the Doctors saith Fox fell in a buzzinge vncertayne what to aunswere some thought one way some another and thus Maister Doctors could not agree And in the margent he hath this note The Rabbyns could not agree amongst themselues and then he prosecuteth the matter for a whole columne or page togeather makinge Doctor Tressam to say one thinge Doctor Smith another Harpesfield another VVeston another M. VVard philosophy-reader another whose philosophicall discourse about the nature of quantity Fox not vnderstandinge neyther the other that were present as he affirmeth concludeth thus Maister VVard amplified so largely his words so high he clymed into the heauens with Duns ladder and not with the scriptures that yt is to be maruayled how he could come downe againe without falling So Iohn according to his skill but Maister VVard and the rest that vnderstood philosophy knew well inough what he said and yow may easily conceaue his meaninge as also the truth of the thinge yt selfe by readinge my former obseruation for I thinke yt not conuenient to repeate the same againe heere 3. Argument All thinges which may be diuided haue quantity The body in the Popes Sacrament is diuided into three parts Ergo the body in the Popes Sacrament hath quantity which is against their owne doctrine Aunswere 15. We deny that it is against our doctrine that Christs body in the Sacrament hath inward quantity but only externall and locall We deny also that Christs body is diuided into three parts in the Sacrament or into any part at all for it is indiuisible only the formes of bread are diuided And this is the ignorance of the framer of this argument that vnderstandeth not what he
mynds haue trifled but it is truly the very body and bloud of our Sauiour indeed And finally the whole generall Councell of Nice the second aboue 800. yeares past hath these words do yow read as longe as yow vvill yow shall neuer find Christ or his Apostles or the Fathers to haue called the vnhloudy sacrifice of Christ offered by the Priest an image or representation but the very body and bloud of Christ it selfe And could the auncient Fathers speake more effectually properly or cleerly then this 85. And yet he that will examine and weigh their sayings a man exactly shall find them to speake in a certaine manner more effectually for that they did study as we haue said how to vtter their meaninge with emphasie S. Hilary vseth this kind of argument yf the word of God were truly made flesh then do we truly receaue his flesh in the Lords supper and therby he is to be steemed to dwell in vs naturally S. Cyrill proueth not only a spirituall but a naturall and bodily vnion to be betweene vs and Christ by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament Theodorete doth proue that Christ tooke flesh of the blessed Virgin and ascended vp with the same and holdeth the same there by that he giueth to vs his true flesh in the Sacrament for that otherwayes he could not giue vs his true flesh to eate yf his owne flesh were not true seeing that he gaue the same that he carryed vp and retayneth in heauen S. Irenaeus S. Iustine S. Chrysostome do proue not only this but the resurrection also of our bodyes by the truth of Christs flesh in the Sacracrament for that our flesh ioyninge with his flesh which is immortall ours shal be immortall also And the same Saint Irenaeus also doth proue further that the great God of the ould Testament creator of heauen and earth was Christs Father for proofe wherof he alleageth this reason that Christ in the Sacrament did fullfill the figures of the old Testament that in particular wherin bread was a figure of his flesh which he fulfilled saith Irenaeus makinge yt his flesh indeed 86. I passe ouer many other formes of speaches no lesse effectuall which doe easily declare the Fathers mynds and meaninges in this point as that of Optatus Mileuitanus who accused the Donatists of sacriledge horrible wickednesse for hauinge broken downe Catholike Altars wheron the body and bloud of Christ had byn borne VVhat is so sacrilegious saith he as to breake downe scrape and remoue the Altars of God on vvhich your selues haue sometymes offered and the members of Christ haue byn borne c. VVhat is an Altar but the seate of the body and bloud of Christ and this monstrous villany of yours is doubled for that yow haue broken also the chalices vvhich did beare the bloud of Christ himselfe So he And is there any Protestant that will speake thus at this day or doth not this reprehension agree fully to Protestants that haue broken downe more Altars and chalices then euer the Donatists did Saint Leo the first saith that the truth of Christs true body and bloud in the Sacrament was so notorious in his dayes vt nec ab insantium linguis taceretur That very infants did professe the same And in the same sermon he saith that the body of Christ is so receaued by vs in the Sacrament vt in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transeamus that we should passe into his flesh who by his incarnation is made our flesh Saint Chrysostome in many places of his works doth vse such deuout reâ—orent and significant speaches of that which is conteyned in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread wyne after consecration as no doubt can be of his meaninge whereof yow haue heard diuers points before in the disputations as that it deserued the highest honour in earth that he did shew it lyinge vpon the Altar that the Angells descended at the tyme of consecration and did adore Christ there present vvith tremblinge and seare and durst not looke vpon him for the Maiestie of his presence And other such speaches which is conforme to that before cyted in the disputation out of the Councell of Nice Credamus iaecere in illa mensa sacra agnum Det à Sacerdotibus sacriâ—icatum Let vs beleeue to lye on that holy table the lambe of God sacrificed by Priests And is there any Protestant that will speake thus 87. But aboue all the rest are those speaches which before I said to tend to a certeyne exaggeration as that our flesh is turned into his flesh by receauinge the blessed Sacrament that our flesh is nourished by his and that of two fleshes there is made but one flesh Whervnto do appertayne not only those former phrases which already yow haue heard of the naturall and corporall vnity which the Fathers do so often inculcate to be betweene Christ and vs by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament that we are brought therby into one masse or substance of flesh with him but many other like significant manners for vtteringe their mynds as that of S. Chrysostome he nourisheth vs vvith his owne body and doth ioyne and conglutinate our flesh to his And againe That by his body giuen vs in the Sacrament Se nobis commiscuit in vnum nobiscum redegit He hath mixt himselfe to vs and brought himselfe and vs into one body and flesh And yet further he doth permitt himselfe not only to be handled by vs but also to be eaten and our teeth to be fastened vpon his flesh and vs to be filled with the same flesh which is the greatest point of loue saith Saint Chrysostome that possible can be imagined So he And conforme to this S. Cyrill of Alexandriae vttereth himselfe after another sort for he vseth the example of leuen which Saint Paul doth touch in his epistle to the Corinthians when he saith that a little leuen doth leuen a whole bach euen so saith S. Cyrill the flesh of Christ ioyned to our flesh doth leuen or pearse through it and conuert it into it selfe And in another place he vseth this similitude that as vvhen yow take a peece of vvax melted at the fire and do droppe the same vpon another peece of vvax these two vvaxes are made one so by the communication of Christs body and bloud vnto vs he is in vs and we in him 88. Another auncient Father also vpon the point of 1200. yeares gone had this similitude As wine saith he is mixed vvith him that drinketh the same in such sort as the wine is in him and he in the wine so is the bloud of Christ mixed also vvith him that drinketh the same in the Sacrament And S. Irenaeus Tertullian S. Iustinus Martyr all of them elder then this man do vse commonly this phrase of nourishinge and feedinge our flesh by the flesh
of Nouember ended vpon the 14. of December 1547. there was an act made with this title An act against such persons as shall vnreuerently speake against the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ c. Wherin magnificent words are spoken of this Sacrament and all those greatly reprehended that in their sermons preachings readings taâ—ks rymes songes playes or gestures did name and call yt â—y such vile and vnseemely words saith the Statute is Christian eares did abhorre to heare yt rehearsed and this was the the first spiritt of that Caluinian humor in England misliked by Cranmer and the rest at that tyme but soone after allowed well by Iohn Fox in such of his Martyrs as call yt wormes-meate idoll and the like 4. And finally this party so much preuayled with them that gouerned as not longe after that is to say in the second parlament be gone the 4. of Nouember 1548. and ended the 14. of March 1549. they gott their new communion booke to be admitted wherin their new doctrine also against the reall presence was conteyned and then Peter Martyr who as in his story we haue shewed was sent to Oxford before with indiffereÌ„cy to teach what should be ordeyned him from higher powers in that parlament hauing expected all the lent long whilst the parlament endured what would be decreed about this point and finding himselfe in straytes for that he was come to the place of S. Paul to the Corinthians where he must needs declare himselfe receauinge now aduertisment of the new decree did not only accomodate himselfe to teach and preach the same doctrine presently which yet the other friar his companion Martyn Bucer would not doe in Cambridge but also was content vpon request order from the Councell to defend the same in publike disputations for better authorizinge yt through the whole body of the realme This then was the occasion of this first publike disputation to giue some countenance and creditt to the new receaued opinion and paradox of Zuinglius Occolampadius and Carolstadius three schollers of Luther himselfe against the reall presence which as often yow haue heard before Luther did condemne for damnable heresie and them for heretiks that mayntayned yt 5. The questions chosen by Peter Martyr were three First about Transubstantiation whether after the words of consecration the bread and wyne be turned into the body and bloud of Christ. The second about the reall presence whether the body and bloud of Christ be carnally and corporally for so are his words in the bread and wyne or otherwise vnder the kinds of bread and wyne The third was whether the body and bloud of Christ be vnited to bread Sacramentally But of this last question Fox relateth nothing that yt was eyther handled or touched in this disputation About the former two this manifest fraud was vsed that wheras the first about Transubstantiation dependeth of the second of the reall presence it should haue byn handled in the second place and not in the first as heere yt is for cleerer conceauing whereof the Reader must note that the mayne controuersie betweene the Sacramentaryes vs is about the reall presence to witt whether the true body of Christ be really and substantially in the Sacrament after the words of consecration which we do hould affirmatiuely and so doth Luther also then supposing that it is so there followeth a second question de modo essendi of the manner of Christs being there to witt whether yt be there togeather with bread or without bread or whether the bread be anihilated by the ptesence of Christs body or whether yt be turned into the very substance of Christs body as we haue shewed out of Scotus and Durand before in the discussion of Plessis Mornay his Triall and euery one of these opinions about the manner of Christs being there do presuppose the reall presence denyed by the Sacramen taryes So as to dispute first about this particular manner of Christ his being there by Transubstantiation before yt be discussed whether he be really there or noe ys to sett the cart before the horse and the foote before the head 6. And yet for that they do persuade themselues that they haue some more shifts or shewes of probability against Transubstantiation then against the reall presence or can delude better our arguments in the simple peoples eyes they alwayes runne to this leaue the other And it is as if the question being first whether gold were in a purse then whether yt were there alone or els togeather with ledd tynne or some such baser mettall some wrangeler would first dispute the second question before the first or as if two demauÌ„ds being propounded first whether in such a vessell where watter was knowne to be before there be wine put in and secondly whether this wine haue turned that water into it selfe or noe or that water wine do remaine togeather and that one would pretermit the first questioÌ„ to witt whether wine be really truly there or no and cauil only about the second vvhether the vvater be turned into wine or remaine togeather with the wine In which cases yow see first that this manner of dealinge were preposterous and impertinent wrangling but especially yf the wrangler did deny expressely that there was any gold at all in the purse or wine in the vessell for then yt were too too much folly for him to dispute the secondary questions whether the said gold were there alone or with other mettalles or whether the wine had coÌ„uerted the water into it selfe or no for yf neither gold nor wine be really there preseÌ„t then is there no place for the secoÌ„d dispute at all And so fareth it in our coÌ„trouersy of the reall presence of Christs body For if the said body be not really substaÌ„tially in the SacrameÌ„t at all as the Zuinglians Caluinists do hould then is it impertineÌ„t for them to dispute the second question whether it be there without bread or with bread or whether bread be turned into it or no by TraÌ„substaÌ„tiation for so much as they suppose it not to be there at all only Luther Lutherans may haue coÌ„trouersy with Catholiks about the maÌ„ner how it is there seing they beleeue it to be there in deed but ZuingliaÌ„s Caluinists caÌ„not but only about the first question whether it be there or noe which question notwithstanding for so much as they fly and runne alwayes to the second as we haue shewed notorious it is that they runne froÌ„ the purpose shew theÌ„selues not only wraÌ„glers but also deceauers seeking to dazell the eyes of the simple in this behalfe as in this first disputation at Oxford Peter Martyr begon with Transubstantiation and was much longer therein then in the controuersie of the reall presence 7. And in the second disputation of B. Ridley in Cambridge two only questions being proposed the
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
point from the beginninge which are recorded by Catholike wiyters of our dayes from age to age and one only alleageth thirty and two that wrote heereof before the Councell of Lateran and are ouerlong to be recited in this place only they may be reduced for more perspicuitie to two heads the one of such as deny the substance of bread to remayne after the words of consecration the other of such as do expressely auouch a conuersion of bread into Christs body 27. Of the first sort that deny bread to remaine is S. Cyrill Bishop of Hierusalem whose words are hoc sciens ac pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem etiamsi gusts panem esse sentiat c. Thou knowing and being certayne of this that the bread which we see is not bread not withstanding it tast as bread and the wyne which we see not to be wyne but the bloud of Christ though to the taste still see me to be wyne And S. Gregory Nissen Panis iste panis est in initio communis c. This bread at the beginninge is comon bread but when yt is consecrated yt is called and is indeed the body of Christ. Againe Eusebius Antequant consecrentur c. Before consecration there is the substance of bread and wyne but after the words of Christ yt is his body and bloud All which do exclude as yow see bread after consecration And to the same effect S. Ambrose Panis hic panis est ante verba Sacramentorum sed vbi accesserit consecratio de pane sit â—aro Christi This bread before the words of the Sacraments is bread but after the consecration of bread is made the flesh of Christ. And S. Chrysostome treating of this mistery asketh this question and aunswereth the same Num â—ides panem num vinum absit ne sic cogites Dost thou see bread dost thou see wyne heere God forbidd thinke no such matter And to this same effect many others might be cyted but yt would grow to ouergreat prolixity 28. The second sort of testimonyes that do affirme conuersion and change of bread into the body of Christ are many more yf we would stand vpon their allegation and in place of all might stand S. Ambrose whose faith was the generall faith of Christendome in his â—ayes he doth not only oftentymes repeat that by the words of Christ vttered by the Priest vpon the bread the nature substance therof is changed into the body and bloud of Christ but proueth the same by examples of all the miraculous mutations conuersions recorded in the old and new Testament Prebemus saith he non hoc esse quod natura formanit sed quod benedictio consecrauit maiorémque vim esse benedictionis quam naturae quia benedictione etiam ipsa natura mutatur Lett vs proue then by all these other miracles that this which is in the Sacrament is not that which nature did frame vsed bread and wyne but that which the blessinge hath consecrated and that the force of blessinge is greater then the force of nature for that nature herselfe is changed by blessinge And againe Si tantum valuit sermo Eliae vt ignem de coelo depoueret non valebit sermo Christi â—t species mutet elementorum Yf the speach of Elyas was of such force as yt could bring downe fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ in the Sacrament be able to change the natures of the elemeÌ„ts videlicet as I said before of bread and wyne And yet further Yow haue read that in the creation of the world God said and thinges were made he commaunded and they were created that speach then of Christ vvhich of nothinge created that which was not before shall yt not be able to exchaunge those thinges that are into other thinges vvhich they vvere not before sor yt is no lesse to giue new natures to things then to chaunge natures but rather more c. 29. Thus reasoneth that graue and holy Doctor to whome we might adioyne many more both before and after him as namely S. Cyprian in his sermon of the supper of our Lord Panis iste quem c. This bread which Christ gaue vnto his disciples being change not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of the word made flesh S. Cyrill Bishop of Hierusalem proueth the same by example of the miraculous turning of water into wine at the marriage of Cane in Galeley aquam mutauit in vinum saith he c. Christ turned water into wyne by his only will and is he not worthy to be beleeued quod vinum in sanguinem transmutauit that he did chaunge wyne into his bloud For yf at bodily marriages he did worke so wonderfull a miracle why shall not we confesse that he gaue his body and bloud in the Sacrament to the children of the spouse wherfore with all certainty let vs receaue the body and bloud of Christ for vnder the forme of bread is giuen vnto vs his body and vnder the forme of wyne his bloud Thus hee of this miraculous chaunge wherof Saint Chrysostome treatinge also vpon S. Mathew wryteth thus Nos ministrorum locum tenemus qui verò sanctificat immutat ipse est We that are Priests should but the place of his ministers in this great chaunge for he who doth sanctifie all and maketh the chaunge is Christ himselfe To like effect wryteth Eusebius Emissenus quando benedicendae c. When the creatures of bread and wyne are layd vpon the Altar to be blessed before they are consecrated by the inuocation of the holy Ghost there is present the substance of bread and wyne but after the words of Christ there is Christs body and bloud And what maruayle yf he that could create all by his word posset creata conuertere could conuert and chaunge those thinges that he had created into other natures 30. I might alleage many other Fathers to this effect but my purpose in this place doth not permitt yt this shal be sufficient for a tast that the doctrine of conuersion or chaunge of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ which is the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not new at the tyme of the Councell of Lateran but was vnderstood and held euer before by the cheefe Fathers of the Catholike Church yea and determined also by two Councells at Rome and the first therof generall wherin was present our Lansrancus vpon the yeare of Christ 1060. vnder Pope Nicolas the second and the other 19. yeares after vnder Pope Gregory the seauenth both of them aboue an hundred yeares before the Councell of Lateran wherin notwithstanding is declared expressely this doctrine of the chaunge of bread wyne into the body and bloud of our Sauiour albeit not vnder the name of Transubstantiation and yt is proued expressely out of the words of
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
saith for it is ridiculous to affirme that when the consecrated host is diuided into three partes that Christs body is diuided also which is no more true then when a mans fingar is cutt of wherin the soule was wholy before that she is also diuided therwith 4. Argument No naturall body can receaue in yt selfe at one tyme contrary or diuers qualityes Vigil cont Eutich lib. 4. To be in one place locall and in another place not locall in one place with quantity and in another place without quantity in one place circumscript in another place incircumscript is for a naturall body to receaue contrary qualityes Ergo they cannot be said to be in Christs body Aunswere 16. To the first proposition of this argument I say that the sentence of Vigilius alleaged by Fox in this place is nothinge to his purpose For that Vigilius dealinge against the heretike Eutiches that would haue Christs humanity confounded with his diuinity saith as Fox alleageth him These two things are diuers and sarre vnlike that is to say to be conteyned in a place and to be euery where for the word is euery where but the slesh is not euery-where Which sentence of Vigilius maketh against Iohn Fox his frends and some of his Saints also the vbiquitaryes that hold Christs body to be euery where as his diuinity is of which heresie yow haue heard before Melancthon to be accused by Coliander one of his owne sect but Catholiks do not hold this vbiquity of Christs body but that yt may be circumscribed in a certayne place and so yt is de facto in heauen though otherwise by Gods omnipotency the same body may be and is in diuers places which this sentence of Vigilius nothing impugneth and consequently is nothing to the purpose 17. To the second or minor proposition I say that Fox is a simple fellow when he calleth contrary qualityes to haue quantity locall and not locall circumscript and vncircumscript wheras these do appertayne to the predicaments of quantity and vbi rather then to quality and are not so contrary or opposite to themselues but that in diuers respects they may be in one and the selfe-same thinge as Christ is locally in heauen and not locally in the Sacrament with visible and externall quantity in heauen but with internall and inuisible in the Sacrament The third head or ground of Sacramentary arguments concerninge the receauinge and receauers of the Sacrament §. 3. 18. Another company or squadron of arguments against the reall-presence though lesse then the former is framed by our Sacramentaryes against the reall-presence concerning the receauers or manner of receauinge the same Yow shall heare them as Fox layeth them downe 1. Argument The wicked receaue not the body of Christ. The wicked do receaue the body of Christ yf Transubstantiation be graunted Ergo. Transubstantiation is not to be graunted in the Sacrament Aunswere 19. Do yow see a wise argument and why leapeth Fox thinke yow from the reall presence to Transubstantiation but that he is weary of the former controuersie for that Transubstantiation hath a proper place very largely afterward so as heere yt is wholy impertinent And further yf yow consider the matter rightly yow will see that the same followeth as well of the reall-presence as of Transubstantiation for yf Christ be truly and really in the Sacrament eyther with bread or without bread then whosoeuer receaueth the said Sacramēt must needs receaue also Christs body Wherfore this skipp of Fox from reall presence to Transubstantiation was needles and helpeth him nothinge besides that the whole argument is foolish for that his Maior or first proposition that wicked men receaue not the body of Christ is wholy denyed by vs and not proued by him but presumed and how fondly yt is done shall appeare presently in our aunswere to his other arguments of this kind and the whole matter is discussed more at large in our ninth precedent obseruation 2. Argument To eat Christ is for a man to haue Christ dwelling and abiding in him Cyprian de Cana Domini Aug. lib. de ciuit Dei 21. cap. 15. The wicked haue not Christ dwellinge in them Ergo the wicked eat not the body of Christ. Aunswere 20. The whole aunswere of this argument is sett downe more at large in our foresaid ninth obseruation where yt is shewed that there are three manners of receauinge Christ sacramentally only spiritually only and both sacramentally and spiritually and that euill men do receaue him ater the first manner only that is to say they receaue Christs true body in the Sacrament but not the spirituall fruite therof which S. Paul expresseth most cleerly when he saith that an euill-man receauinge the Sacrament Iudicium sibi manducat non dijudicans corpus Domini Doth eat his owne iudgement and condemnation not discerninge or respectinge the body of Christ which he eateth And this is the assertion of all holy Fathers after him to witt that vvicked-men do eate the body of Christ but not the fruite and namely the two heere cited by Fox to the contrary S. Cyprian and S. Augustine do expressely hold the same For that S. Cyprian vpon these words of th' Apostle making an inuectiue against them that receaue Christs body vnworthily saith Antequam expiantur delicta ante exhomologesin factam criminis ante purgatam conscientiam sacrificio manu sacerdotis c. Before their sinnes be clensed before they haue made confession of their faults and before their conscience be purged by the sacrifice and hand of the Priest this was the preparation to receaue worthily in S. Cyprians tyme they do presume to receaue the body of Christ. Wherof the holy Father inferred Spretis his omnibus atque contempt is vis infortur corporieius sanguini These due preparations being contemned violence is offered by them to the body and bloud of Christ which he would neuer haue said yf those wicked-men had not receaued the body and bloud of Christ at all as Protestants do hould 21. S. Augustine is frequent also and earnest in this matter Corpus Domini saith he sanguis Domini nihilominùs er at illis quibus c. It was no lesse the body and bloud of Christ vnto those wicked-men to whome the Apostle said he that eateth vnworthily eateth drinketh his iudgement then yt was to the good And the same Father in diuers places affirmeth that aswell Iudas receaued the true body of Christ as the rest of the Apostles though yt were to his owne damnation Nam Iudas proditor bonum corpus saith he Symon magus bonum baptisma ◠Christo accepit sed quia bono benè non sunt vsi mali malè vtendo deleti sunt For that Iudas the Traytor also receaued the good body of Christ and Symon Magus the good baptisme of Christ but for that they vsed not well that
which was good they being euill-men perished accordingely 22. The other places cyted in the margent I pretermitt for breuity sake to sett downe at large this being knowne to be the generall Catholike sentence of all auncient holy Fathers concerninge Iudas and other euill-men that they receaue Christ but to their owne damnation and the sentence of S. Paul before cyted is so cleere and euident as no reasonable doubt can be made therof And when Fox doth heere alleage certayne places of S. Cyprian and S. Augustine affirminge that the eatinge of Christ is dwellinge in him and he in vs and that those that dwell not in him do not eat him yt is to be vnderstood of spirituall and fruitfull eatinge of Christs body which agreeth only to good men and not to euill which euill do only receaue sacramentally the body and bloud of Christ as before we haue said and more at large is doclared in our ninth obseruation yea the very words alleaged heere of S. Augustine by simple Iohn Fox that discerneth not what maketh for him what against him do plainly teach vs this distinction For that S. Augustine vpon those words of Christ in S. Iohns ghospell he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him inferreth presently these words Christ sieweth what yt is not sacramentally but indeed to eat his body and drinke his bloud vvhich is when a man so dwelleth in Christ that Christ dwelleth in him 23. So he Which words are euidently meant by S. Augustine of the fruitfull eating of Christs body to our Saluation which may be said in effect the only true eatinge therof as he may be said truly to eat and feed of his meate that profiteth and nourisheth therby but he that taketh no good but rather hurt by that he eateth may be said truly and in effect not to feed in comparison of the other that profiteth by eatinge though he deuoure the meate sett before him and so yt is in the blessed Sacrament where the euill doe eat Sacramento tenus as S. Augustine saith that is sacramentally only and without fruite not that they receaue not Christs body but that they receaue yt without fruite to their damnation which distinction is founded in the scriptures not only out of the place of S. Paul before alleaged to the Corinthians but out of Christs owne words in sundry places of the ghospell as that of S. Mathew Venit filius hominis dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis The sonne of man came to giue his life for the redemption of many wheras indeed he gaue yt for all but for that not all but many should receaue fruite therby yt is said to haue byn giuen fruitfully only for many and not all And againe in the same Euangelist This is my bloud of the new Testament that shal be shedd for many that is to say fruitfully and to their saluation but sufficiently for all and so in like manner all men good and badd do eate Christ in the Sacrament but euill-men sacramentally only without the spirituall effect therof but good men both spiritually and sacramentally togeather 24. And to this end appertayne also those words of S. Augustine alleaged by Bradford Ridley and others that wicked-men edunt panem Domini non panem Domini they eat the Lords bread but not the bread that is the Lords that is to say they eat not the bread that bringeth vnto them the true effect and fruite of the Lords body which is grace spirit and life euerlasting though they eat the body it selfe which is called the bread of our Lord only in this sense that it hath no fruite nor vitall operation but rather the contrary 3. Argument Yf the wicked and infidells do receaue the body of Christ they receaue him by sense reason or faith But they receaue him neyther with sense reason or faith for that the body of Christ is not sensible nor the mystery is accordinge to reason nor do infidells beleeue Ergo. Wicked-men receaue in no wise the body of Christ. Aunswere 25. This argument is as wise as the maker for first we do not alwayes ioyne wicked-men and infidels togeather as he seemeth to suppose for that an infidell their case in receauinge being different when he receaueth the Sacrament not knowinge or beleeuinge yt to be the body of Christ he receaueth yt only materially no otherwise then doth a beast or senselesse-man without incurringe new sinne therby wicked-men receaue yt to their damnation for that knowinge and beleeuinge yt to be the body of Christ or at leastwise ought to do they do not discerne or receaue yt with the worthynesse of preparation which they should do and as for sense reason though Christs body be not sensible yet are the formes of bread vnder which yt is present and receaued sensible for that they haue their sensible tast coulour smell and other like accidents and though the mystery yt selfe stand not vpon humayne reason yet are there many reasons both humayne and diuyne which may induce Christians to beleeue the truth therof euen accordinge to the rule of reason yt selfe which reasons we call arguments of credibility So as in this Sacrament though yt stand not vpon sense or reason yet in receauinge therof is there fraude both in sense and reason which is sufficient to shew the vanity of him that vrgeth it now shall we passe to the last argument of Peter Marty◠though drawen from another ground 4. Argument The holy Ghost could not come yf the body of Christ were really present for that he saith Ioan. 16. vnlesse I go from yow the holy ghost shall not come But that the holy-ghost is come yt is most certayne Ergo yt cannot be that Christ himselfe should be heere really present Aunswere 26. First neyther Fox nor his Martyr can deny but that the holy-ghost was also in the world whilst Christ was bodyly present for that yt descended visibly vpon him in the forme of a doue and after he gaue the same to his disciples sayinge accipite spiritum sanctum receaue ye the holy-ghost wherby is manifest that there is no repugnance why Christs bodyly presence may not stand togeather with the presence of the holy-ghost Wherfore the meaninge of those other words Ioan. 16. that except Christ departed the holy-ghost should not come must needs be that so long as Christ remayned vpon earth visibly as a Doctor teacher externall guide of his disciples Church so longe the holy-ghost should not come in such aboundance of grace to direct the Church eyther visibly as he did at pentecost or inuisibly as after he did But this impugneth nothing the presence of Christ in the Sacramēt where he is inuisibly to feed our soules not as a Doctor to teach preach as in his bodily conuersation vpon earth he was for this he asscribeth to the holy-ghost
of any moment and so ended that dayes disputation The next day he returned againe and would haue made a longe declamation against the reall presence but being restrayned he fell into such a rage and passion as twise the prolocutor said he was fitter for Bedlam then for disputation 37. After Philpott stood vp Maister Cheney Archdeacon of Hereford another of the six which did contradict the masse and reall presence in the Conuocation-house who was after made B. of Glocester being that tyme perhapps inclyned to Zuinglianisme though afterward he turned and became a Lutheran and so lyued and died in the late Queenes dayes There is extant to this man an eloquent epistle in Latyn of F. Edmund Campian who vnhappily had byn made Deacon by him but now being made a Catholike exhorted the Bishopp to leaue that whole ministry This mans argument against the reall presence being taken out of the common obiections of Catholike wryters and schoole-men was this that for so much as it is cleare by experience that by eatinge consecrated hosts for example a man may be nourished and that neyther Christs body nor the accidents and formes alone can be said to norish ergo besides these two there must be some other substance that nourisheth which seemeth can be no other but bread And the like argument may be made of consecrated wyne that also nourisheth And further in like manner he argued concerninge consecrated bread burned to ashes demaundinge wherof that is to say of what substance these ashes were made for so much as we hould no substance of bread to be therin and Fox would make vs beleeue that all the Catholiks there present could not aunswere that doubt and amongest others he saith of Doctor Harpesfield Then vvas Maister Harpesfield called in to see vvhat he could say in the matter vvho tould a fayre tale of the omnipotency of almighty God But Fox vnderstood not what Doctor Harpesfield said in that behalfe as may easily appeare by his fond relatinge therof We haue sett downe the aunswere to these and like obiections before in the 7. and 10. Obseruations and yt consisteth in this that in these naturall actions and substantiall changes of nutrition and generation wherin not only accidents are altered but new substances also are produced consequently according to nature that operation doth require not only accidents but also substantiall matter wherof to be produced God by his omnipotency doth supply that matter which is necessary to the new production of that substance eyther by nutrition or generation 38. And albeit the vnbeleefe of heretiks doth not reach to comprehend and acknowledge that God should do a myracle or action aboue nature euery tyme that this happeneth out yet can they not deny yt in other things As for example that euery tyme when any children are begotten throughout the world God immediatly createth new soules for them which needs must be thousands euery day yet none of our sectaryes will deny or scoffe at this or hold yt for absurd the like may be said of all the supernaturall effectes benefites which God bestoeth dayly hourly vpon vs in the Sacraments or otherwise 39. There remayne only some few places out of the Fathers to be explaned which were obiected in this article partly by Maister Grindall against Doctor Glyn and partly also by Peter Martyr in the end of his Oxford-disputation but related by Fox in the question of Transubstantiation not of the reall-presence though properly they appertayne to this as now yow will see The first place is out of Tertullian against Marcion the heretike where he hath these words saith Fox This is my body that is to say this is the signe of my body Whervnto I answere that Fox dealeth heere like a Fox in cytinge these words so cuttedly for that Tertullian in this very place as in many others doth most effectually not only say but proue also that bread is turned into Christs true body after the words of consecration and so do the Magdeburgians affirme expressely of him his words are these Christ takinge bread and distributinge the same vnto his disciples made yt his body sayinge this is my body that is the figure of my body and immediatly followeth Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus but yt had not byn the figure of Christs body yf his body had not byn a true body or truly their present In which words Tertullian affirmeth two things yf yow marke him First that Christ made bread his true body then that bread had byn a figure of his body in the old Testament which could not be yf his body were not a true body but a phantasticall body as Marcion did wickedly teach for that a phantasticall body hath no figure And this much for the true literall sense of Tertullian in this place who goinge about to shew that Christ did fullfill all the figures of the old Testament consequently was sonne of the God of the old Testament which Marcionists did deny fullfilled also the figure wherin bread presignified his true body to come by makinge bread his body sayinge this bread that was the figure of my body in the old Testament is now my true body in the new and so doth the truth succeed the figure And this to be the true literall sense and scope of Tertullian in this place as before I haue said euery man may see plainly that will read the place 40. The other places are taken out of diuers other Fathers who some tymes do call the Sacrament a figure or signe representation or similitude of Christs body death passion bloud as S. Augustine in Psalm 2. Christ gaue a figure of his body and lib. cont Adamant cap. 12. he did not doubt to say this is my body when he gaue a figure of his body And S. Hierome Christ represented vnto vs his body And S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. As thou hast receaued the similitude of his death so drinkest thou the similitude of his pretious bloud These places I say and some other the like that may be obiected are to be vnderstood in the like sense as those places of Saint Paul are wherin Christ is called by him a figure Figura substantiae Patris A figure of the substance of his Father Heb. 1. And againe Imago Dei An Image of God Colloss 1. And further yet Habitu inuentus vt homo Appearinge in the likenes of a man Philipp 2. All which places as they do not take from Christ that he was the true substance of his Father or true God or true man in deed though out of euery one of these places some particular heresies haue byn framed by auncient heretiks against his diuinity or humanity so do not the forsaid phrases sometymes vsed by the auncient Fathers callinge the Sacrament a figure signe representation or similitude of Christs body exclude the truth or reality therof for
that there is as well signum figura rei praesentis quam absentis A signe or figure of things present as well as of things absent as for an example a firkyn of wyne hanged vp for a signe at a Tauerne dore that there is wyne to be sould is both a sygne of wyne and yet conteyneth and exhibiteth the thinge yt selfe And so yt is in the Sacrament which by his nature being a signe figure or representation doth both represent and exhibitt signifieth and conteyneth the body of our Sauiour 41. And as it should be an hereticall cauill to argue out of the said places of S. Paul as the old heretiks did that Christ is called a figure of the substance of his Father and the Image of God or the similitude of man ergo he is not of the reall substance with his Father nor really God nor truly man so is it as hereticall to argue as our Sacramentaryes do that Tertullian Augustine some other Fathers do sometymes call the Sacrament a similitude figure signe or remembrance of Christs body his death and passion as in deed yt is for that otherwise yt should not be a Sacrament ergo yt is not his true body that is conteyned therin especially seing the same Fathers do in the selfe-same places whence these obiections are deduced expressely cleerly expound themselues affirming Christs true reall body to be in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wyne as for example Saint Ambrose heere obiected in the fourth booke de Sacramentis cap. 4. doth expressely and at large proue the reall-presence as exactly as any Catholike can wryte at this day sayinge that before the words of consecration yt is bread but after yt is the body of Christ. And againe Before the vvords of Christ be vttered the chalice is full of vvyne and water but when the words of Christ haue vvrought their effect then is made that bloud which redeemed the people And yet further Christ Iesus doth testifie vnto vs that vve receaue his body bloud and shall we doubt of his testimony Which words being so plaine and euident for the truth of Catholike beleefe lett the reader consider how vaine and fond a thing yt is for the Protestants to obiect out of the selfe-same place that vve receaue the similitude of his death and drinke the similitude of his pretious bloud for that we deny not but the body of Christ in the Sacrament is a representation and similitude of his death on the Crosse and that the bloud which we drinke in the Sacrament vnder the forme of wine is a representation and similitude of the sheddinge of Christs bloud in his passion But this letteth not but that it is the selfe-same body bloud though yt be receaued in a different manner as it letteth not but that Christ is true God though he be said to be the Image of God as before yow haue heard 42. There remayneth then only to be aunswered that speach of S. Augustine obiected in these disputations Quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly beleeue and thou hast eaten Whervnto I answere that this speach of S. Augustine and some other like that are found in him and some other Fathers of the spirituall eatinge of Christ by faith do not exclude the reall presence as we haue shewed before in our nynth obseruation It is spoken against them that come with a base and grosse imagination to receaue this diuine foode as if yt were a corporall refection and not spirituall wheras indeed faith charity are those vertues that giue the life vnto this eatinge faith in beleeuinge Christs words to be true as S. Ambrose in the place before cyted saith and therby assuringe our selues Christs true body to be there and charity in preparing our selues worthily by examinations of our conscience that we do not receaue our owne damnation as S. Paul doth threat And this is the true spirituall eatinge of Christs body by faith but yet truly and really as the said Fathers do expound vnto vs whose sentences more at large yow shall see examined in the Chapter followinge 43. These then being all in effect or at least wayes the most principall arguments that I find obiected by our English Sacramentaryes in the forsaid ten disputations against the article of Christs true reall being in the Sacrament you may consider with admiration and pitty how feeble grounds those vnfortunate men had that vvere first dealers in that affaire wheron to change their faith and religion from that of the Christian world from tyme out of mynd before them and to enter into a new sect and labyrinth of opinions contradicted amonge themselues and accursed by him that was their first guide to lead them into new pathes to witt Luther himselfe and yet to stand so obstinately with such immoueable pertinacy therin as to offer their bodyes to temporall fire and their soules to the euident perill of eternall damnation for the same but this is the ordinary enchauntement of heresie founded on pride selfe iudgement and selfe-will as both by holy scriptures and auncient Fathers we are admonished 44. One thinge also is greatly heere to be noted by the carefull reader vpon consideration of these arguments to and fro how vncertayne a thing yt is for particular men whether learned or vnlearned but especially the ignorant to ground themselues their faith vpon their owne or other mens disputations which with euery little shew of reason to and fro may alter theire iudgement or apprehension and in how miserable a case Christian men were yf their faith wherof dependeth their saluation or damnation should hange vpon such vncertayne meanes as these are that God had left no other more sure or certaine way then this for men to be resolued of the truth as we see he hath by his visible Church that cannot erre yet thought we good to examine this way of disputatiōs also and the arguments therof vsed by Protestants against the truth But now followeth a larger more important examen of the Catholike arguments alleaged by our men against them in this article of the reall-presence And what kind of aunswers they framed to the same wherby thou wilt be greatly confirmed good reader yf I be not much deceaued in the opinion of their weaknesse and vntruth of their cause VVHAT CATHOLIKE ARGVMENTS VVere alleaged in these disputations for the reall-presence and how they were aunswered or shifted of by the Protestants CHAP. V. AS I haue briefly touched in the former Chapter the reasons and arguments alleaged for the Sacramentary opinions against the reall-presence so now I do not deeme yt amisse to runne ouer in like manner some of the Catholike arguments that were alleaged against them though neyther tyme nor place will permitt to recyte them all which the discreett reader may easily imagine by the grounds and heads therof
your sakes and by the same things that I am ioyned to yow the very same I haue exhibited vnto yow againe Where yow see that he saith he gaue the very same in the Sacrament which he had taken vpon him for our sakes and that by the same he was ioyned to vs againe and now Maister Ridley saith that vve are not ioyned to him by naturall flesh These be contraryes which of two shall we beleeue Christ and S. Chrysostome expoundinge him or Ridley against them both 16. Maister Sedg-wicke disputed next but hath not halfe a columne or page allowed to the settinge downe of his whole disputation yet he vrginge diuers reasons in that little tyme out of the scriptures why the Sacrament of the Altar cannot be in the new law by a figure but must needs be the fullfillinge of old figures and consequently the true and reall body of Christ he brought Maister Ridley within the compasse of a dozen lines to giue two aunswers one plaine contrary to another as his words do import for this is the first I do graunt yt to be Christs true body and flesh by a property of the nature assumpted to the God head and we do really eate and drinke his flesh and bloud after a certaine reall property His second aunswere is in these words It is nothinge but a figure or token of the true body of Christ as it is said of S. Iohn Baptist he is Elias not that he vvas so indeed or in person but in property and vertue he represented Elias So he And now lett any man with iudgement examine these two aunswers For in the first he graunâ—eth at least wayes a true reall property of Christs flesh assumpted to his Godhead to be in their bread wherby we do really eate his flesh and drinke his bloud And in the second he saith yt is nothinge but a figure and consequently excludeth all reall property for that a figure hath no reallity or reall property but only representeth and is a token of the body as himselfe saith which is euident also by his owne example for that S. Iohn Baptist had no reall property of Elias in him but only a similitude of his spiritt and vertue And so these people whilst they would seeme to say somewhat do speake contradictoryes amonge themselues 17. There followed Maister Yonge who as breefly as the other touched some few places of the Fathers though they be not quoted where they say that our bodyes are nourished in the Sacrament by Christs flesh and that truly we drinke his bloud therin and that for auoyding the horror of drinking mans bloud Christ had condescended to our infirmityes and giuen yt to vs vnder the formes of wyne and other like speaches which in any reasonable mans sense must needs import more then a figure of his body and bloud or a spirituall being there only by grace for so much as by grace he is also in Baptisme and other Sacraments finally he vrged againe the place of S. Cyprian That the bread being changed not in shape but in nature vvas by the omnipotency of the vvord made flesh Wherto Ridley aunswered againe in these words Cyprian there doth take this vvord nature for a property of nature and not for the naturall substance To which euasion Maister Yonge replyeth this is a strange acception that I haue not read in any authors before this tyme. And so with this he was glad to giue ouer saith Fox and askinge pardon for that he had done said I am contented and do most humbly beseech your good Lordshipp to pardon me of my great rudenesse c. Belike this rudenesse was for that he had said that vt was a strange acception of S. Cyprians words to take change in nature for change into a property of nature and flesh for a fleshely thinge or quality as before yovv haue heard and that this should aunswere S. Cyprians intention for lett vs heare the application Bread in the Sacrament being changed not in shape but in nature saith S. Cyprian by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh that is to say as Ridley will haue yt bread being changed not in shape but in a property of nature is made a fleshely thinge or fleshely quality What is this or what sense can it haue what property of fleshely nature doth your communion bread receaue or what reall property of bread doth it leese by this change mencyoned by S. Cyprian We say to witt S. Cyprian that our bread retayning the outward shape doth leese his naturall substance and becommeth Christs flesh what naturall property of bread doth yours leese And againe What fleshely thinge or quality doth yt receaue by the omnipotency of the word in consecration And is not this ridiculous or doth Ridley vnderstand this his riddle But lett vs passe to the next disputation vnder Q. Mary where we shall see matters handled otherwise and arguments followed to better effect and issue Out of the first Oxford-disputation in the beginninge of Q Maryes raigne wherin D. Cranmer late Archbishopp of Canterbury was defendant for the Protestant party vpon the 16. of Aprill anno 1554. §. 2. 18. When as the Doctors were sett in the diuinity schoole and foure appointed to be exceptores argumentorum saith Fox sett at a Table in the middest therof togeather with foure other notaryes sittinge with them and certayne other appointed for iudges another manner of indifferency then was vsed in King Edwards dayes vnder B. Ridley in that disputation at Cambridge Doctor Cranmer was brought in and placed before them all to answere and defend his Sacramentary opinion giuen vp the day before in wrytinge concerninge the article of the reall presence Fox according to his custome noteth diuers graue circumstances as amonge others that the beedle had prouided drinke and offered the aunswerer but he refused vvith thanks He telleth in like manner that Doctor VVeston the prolocutor offered him diuers courtesyes for his body yf he should need which I omitt for that they are homely against which Doctor VVeston notwithstanding he afterwards stormeth and maketh a great inuectiue for his rudenes and in particular for that he had as Fox saith his Theseus by him that is to say a cuppe of wyne at his elbow whervnto Fox ascribeth the gayninge of the victory sayinge yt vvas no maruayle though he gott the victory in this disputation he disputinge as he did non sine suo Theseo that is not without his â—plingcupp So Fox And yet further that he holding the said cuppe at one tyme in his hand and hearinge an argument made by another that liked him said vrge hoc nam hoâ— facit pro nobis vrge this vrge this for this maketh for vs. Thus pleased it Iohn Fox to be pleasant with Doctor VVeston but when yow shall see as presently yow shall how he vrged Iohn Fox his three Martyrs and rammes of his flocke for so els-where he calleth
againe vpon the 50. Psalme Pro â—bo carne propria nos pascit pro potu sanguinem suum nobis propinat In steed of meat he feedeth vs with his owne flesh and in steed of drinke he giueth vnto vs to drinke his owne bloud And againe homil 83. in Matth. Non side tantum sed reipsa nos corpus suum effecit c. Not only by faith but in deed he hath made vs his body And finally for that yt was denyed expressely Saint Chrysostome to meane that we receaued Christs body with our corporall mouth Doctor VVeston vrged these words of Saint Chrysostome Non vulgarem honorem consecutum est os nostrum excipiens corpus dominicum Our month hath gotten no small honour in that yt receaueth the body of our Lord. 24. But all this will not serue for still Cranmer aunswered by his former sleight thus VVith our mouth vve receaue the body of Christ and teare it vvith our teeth that is to say the Sacrament of the body of Christ. Do yow see the euasion And what may not be shifted of in this order doth any minister in England vse to speake thus oâ— his communion-bread as S. Chrysostome in the place alleaged of the Sacrament after the words of consecration or do any of the auncient Fathers wryte so reuerently of the water of baptisme which they would haue done and ought to haue done yf Christs body be no otherwise present in this Sacrament then the holy-Ghost is in that water as Cranmer oftentymes affirmeth and namely some few lynes after the foresaid places alleaged But Doctor VVeston seing him to decline all the forsaid authorityes by this ordinary shift of the words spiritually and sacramentally vrged him by another way out of the same Chrysostome concerninge the honour due to Christs body vpon earth quod summo honore dignum est id tibi in terra ostendo c. I do shew thee vpon earth that which is worthy of highest honour not Angells not Archangells nor the highest heauens but I shew vnto thee the Lord of all these things himselfe Consider how thou dost not only behould heere on earth that which is the greatest and highest of all things but dost touch the same also not only touchest him but dost eat the same and hauinge receaued him returnest home 25. Thus S. Chrysostome Out of which place Doctor VVeston vrged him eagerly excludinge all figures and eatinge of Christs body absent by faith for that S. Chrysostome saith not only Ostendo tibi I do shew vnto thee that which is worthy of highest honour aboue Angells and Archangells but ostendo tibi in terra I shew yt to thee heere vpon earth which signifieth the presence of a substance wherto this highest honour is to be done and that this thinge is seene touched eaten in the Church which cannot be a figure nor the sacramentall bread for that highest honour is not due to them nor can vt be Christ absent only in heauen for S. Chrysostome saith I snew it thee heere on earth c. To all which pressinges when Doctor Cranmer had no other thing in effect to aunswere but these phrases often repeated that it is to be vnderstood sacramentally and I aunswere that it is true sacramentally c. The hearers fell to cry out and hisse at him clappinge their hands saith Fox and callinge him indoctum imperitum impudentem vnlearned vnskillfull impudent And Fox to help out Cranmer in this matter besides all other excuses maketh this learned glosse in the margent vpon S. Chrysostomes words Ostendo tibi in terra c. I do shew vnto thee vpon earth what is worthiest of highest honour to witt Christs body The body of Christ saith Fox is shewed forth vnto vs heere on earth diuers vvayes as in readinge scriptures hearinge sermons and Sacraments and yet neyther scriptures nor sermons nor Sacraments are to be worshipped c. So he which is as iust as Germans lippes And I would askeâ— this poore glossist what maketh this note to the purpose of S. Chrysostome for neyther doth he speake of the different wayes wherby Christs body may be shewed forth vpon earth but saith that himselfe did shew yt in the Sacrament vpon the Altar to all that would see it Nor doth he say that the meanes or wayes wherby Christs body is shewed are worthy greatest honour or worshipp but that the thinge that is shewed forth is worthy of highest honour And how then standeth Fox his glosse with this sense or whervnto serueth it but only to shew these wreched-mens obstinacy that one way or other will breake through when they are hedged in by the Fathers authorityes most plaine and manifest 26. After this assault giuen by Doctor VVeston the first opponent Doctor Chadsey returned to deale with Cranmer againe by issue of talke came to vrge these words of Tertullian Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt animade deo saginetur Our flesh is fedd with the body and bloud of Christ to the end that our soule may be fatted with God which is as much to say that our mouth doth eate the body of Christ and our mynd therby receaueth the spirituall fruite therof Out of which words D. VVeston â—vrged that seing our flesh eateth the body of Christ which cannot eat but by the mouth Christs body is really eaten and receaued by our mouth which so often by Cranmer hath byn denyed but now his words are Vnto Tertullian I aunswere that he calleth that the flesh vvhich is the Sacrament Of which aunswere I cannot vnderstand what meaninge yt hath except Fox do erâ—e in settinge yt downe for yf the flesh be the Sacrament then must the Sacrament feed on the body and bloud of Christ accordinge to Tertullian which is absurd But â— suspect that Cranmers meaninge was that the body of Christ was called the Sacrament for so he expoundeth himselfe afterward when he saith The flesh liueth by the bread but the soule is inwardly fedd br Christ so as when Tertullian saith our flesh is fedd by Christs body and bloud he would haue him to meane that our flesh eateth the Sacramentall bread and wyne that signifieth or figureth Christs body and bloud our soule feedeth on the true body of Christ by faith but both Doctor Chadsey Doctor VVeston refuted this shift presently by the words immediatly ensuinge in Tertullian Non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniungit Our body and soule cannot be separated in the reward whome the same worke doth conioyne togeather and he meaneth euidently by the same worke or operation the same eatinge of Christs body Wherfore yf the one that is the soule doth eat Christs true body as Cranmer confesseth then the other which is our flesh eateth also the same body as Tertullian saith and for that Doctor VVeston liked well this argument out of Tertullian and said
did vse the example of our vnity vvith God as though we being vnited to the sonne and by the sonne to the Father only by obedience and vvill of Religion had no propriety of the naturall coniunction by the Sacrament of the body and bloud Lo heere yt is accoumpted a point of Arrianisme by S. Hilary to hould that we are vnited to Christ only by obedience and will of Relilion and not by propriety of naturall communion with him by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament of his body and bloud Whervpon Doctor VVeston vrged often and earnestly that not only by faith but by the nature of his flesh in the Sacrament we are conioyned not spiritually only and by grace but naturally and corporally Whervnto Cranmers aunswere was in these words I graunt that Cyrill and Hilary do say that Christ is vnited to vs not only by vvill but also by nature he is made one with vs carnally and corporally because he tooke our nature of the Virgin Mary c. Do yow see his runninge from the Sacrament to the natiuity but heare out the end VVest Hilary where he saith Christ communicated to vs his nature meaneth not by his natiuity but by the Sacrament Cran. Nay he communicated to vs his flesh by his natiuity VVest We communicated to him our flesh when he was borne Cran. Nay he communicated to vs his flesh when he was borne that I will shew yow out of Cyrill VVest ergò Christ being borne gaue vs his flesh Cran. In his natiuity he made vs partakers of his flesh VVest Wryte syrs Cranm. Yea wryte And so ended this Encounter brought as yow see to two absurdityes on Cranmers side the one that where S. Hilary speaketh of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ he flyeth still to the incarnation the other that he saith Christ to haue imparted his flesh to vs in the incarnation wherin he tooke ours Wherfore Doctor Chadsey seing the matter in this state interrupted them by accusing Cranmer to haue corrupted this place of S. Hilary in his booke against the reall presence translatinge these words Nos verè sub mysterio carnenâ—corporis sui sumimus we receaue vnder the true mystery the flesh of his body wheras he should haue said VVe do receaue truly vnder a mystory or Sacrament the flesh of his body vvhich â—raud Cranmer could by no other wayes auoid but by sayinge that his booke had Vero and not verè which Iohn Fox saith was a small fault and yet yow see yt altereth all the sense as yf a man shauld say Pistor for Pastor 31. The next conflict to this was betweene Doctor Yonge and Doctor Cranmer wherin Yonge accusinge him first for denyinge of principles and consequently that they could hardly go forward with any fruitfull disputation except they agreed vpon certayne grounds he made sundry demaunds vnto him as first whether there were any other naturally true body of Christ but his organicall or instrumentall body Item whether sense and reason ought not to giue place in this mystery to faith Further whether Christ be true in his words whether he mynded to do that which he spake at his last supper And finally whether his words were effectuall and wrought any thinge or noe To all which Doctor Cranmer aunswered affirmatiuely graunting that the said words of Christ did worke the institution of the Sacrament whervnto Doctor Yonge replyed that a figuratiue speach wrought nothinge ergò yt was not a figuratiue speach when he said Hoâ—â—st corpus meum And albeit D. Cranmer sought bâ— two or three struglinges to slipp from this inference sayinge that yt was sophistry yet both Doctor Yonge and Doctor VVeston who came in still at his turne said sticke to this argument It is a figuratiue speach ergo yt vvorketh nothinge that quickely they brought Doctor Cranmer in plaine words to graunt that a figuratiue speach worketh nothinge Wherof they inferred the contrary againe on the other side A figuratiue speach say they vvorketh nothing by your confession but the speach of Christ in the supper as yow now graunted vvrought somewhat to witt the institution of the Sacrament ergo the speach of Christ in the supper vvas not figuratiue which is the ouerthrow of the foundation of all sacramentall buildinge 32. And heere yow must note by the way that Fox doth not crowne the head of this syllogisme with any Baroco or Bocardo in the margent as he is commonly wont to do with the rest for that yt pleased him not Wherfore â—o leaue him we shall passe to Doctor Cranmer himselfe whose aunswere yow shall heare in his owne words I aunswere saith he that these are meere sophismes for speach doth not vvorke but Christ by speach doth worke the Sacrament I looke for scriptures at your hands for they are the foundation of â—isputations So he And yow may see by this his speach that he was entangled and would gladly be ridde of that he had graunted for that both the maior and minor propositions were of his owne grauntinge and the sillogisme good both in moode and forme though the conclusion troubled both him and Fox and the refuge whervnto both of them do runne in this necessity the one in the text the other in the margent is very fond sayingeâ— that not the speach of Ghrist but Christ did vvorke as though any man would say that a speach worketh but by the vertue of the speaker and consequently yf Christ do worke by a figuratiue speach then doth a figuratiue speach worke by his power and vertue and so waâ— yt fondy graunted by Cranmer before that the figuratiue speach of Christ in institutinge the Sacrament for of that was the question did not worke and yt is a simple euasion now to runne from Christs speach to Christ himselfe as though there could be a diuersity euery man may see these are but euasions 33. But now further Doctor Yonge refuted largely this assertion that Christs speach worketh not out of diuers and sundry plaine testimonyes oâ— the Fathers which there openly he caused to be read and namely S. Ambrose as well in hiâ— booke de initiandis as de Sacramentis where he handleth this matter of purpose to proue that the speach of Christ in the Sacrament to witâ— hoc est corpus meum did worke conuert breaâ— and wyne into flesh and bloud and prouetâ— the same by many other exaÌ„ples of scriptures Sermo Christi saith he 〈◊〉 nihilo facere â—nd non erat non potâ—st ea quâ— sunt in id mutare quae â—n erant The speach of Christ which was able to make of nothing that which was not before shall yt not be able to change those things that were before into things that are not And to the same effect in his booke de Sacramentis Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum Qui sermo nempè is c. Therfore the speach of Christ doth make this Sacrament
is the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus that was made flesh Out of which place they vrged that as Christ is truly and really incarnate so is he truly and really in the Sacrament accordinge to S. Iustinus and that our flesh and bloud is nourished by that communion and consequently in Saint Iustinus tyme yt was not held that Christs body was receaued only by faith 38. The words of Saint Irenaeus were vrged in like manner he being another Martyr of the same age with S. Iustine who wryteth thus Eum calicem qui est ex creatura suum corpus confirmauit ex quo nostra auget corpora c. This is the cupp which being a creature he confirmed to be his body by which he encreaseth our bodyes when both the cupp mixed the bread broken hath ioyned to yt the word of God yt is made the Eucharist of the body bloud of Christ of which the substance of our flesh is encreased and consisteth By which words the said Doctors proued that the flesh and bloud of Christ was otherwise held by S. Irenaeus to be in the Sacrament and receaued by vs than only by faith seing our bodyes also are nourished therwith yea the very substance of our flesh is encreased and consisteth therby as his words are To all which Cranmer had no other aunswere but his old shift that the Sacrament of the body and bloud vvas called the flesh and bloud of Christ though really yt be not And from this he could not be drawne And so finally the tyme drawinge late they vrged him there publikely with certayne falsityes vsed in his booke against the reall presence and besides those that had byn obiected before as for example Doctor Chadsey obiected a manifest corruption in translatinge the foresaid place of S. Iustine which Cranmer excused no otherwise but that he translated not Iustine word for word but only gaue the meaninge but the other as also Doctor Harpesfield shewed that he peruerted the whole meaninge and so yt is euident to him that readeth Iustine 39. Doctor VVeston obiected a place corrupted in Emissenus by putting in the word spiritualibus Cranmer aunswered that yt was so in the decrees Doctor VVeston replyed that he had left out diuers lynes of purpose vvhich made against him in Emissenus for the reall presence Cranmer aunswereth this booke hath not that VVeston obiected another place falsified where for Honora corpus Dei tui honour the body of thy God to witt of Christ Cranmer had translated yt thus honour him vvhich is thy God Wherto he answered that he did it not without a weighty cause that men should not thinke that God had a body Doctor VVeston obiected also that alleaginge a sentence out of Scotus he had left out a clause that made much to the purpose in the matter handled to witt secundum apparentiam as may appeare Cranmer answered iestingly that is a great offence I promise yow Another place in like manner was obiected as peruerted by him in Scotus words as also one or two in S. Thomas Aquinas wherto I find no aunswere but disputation is broken vp with this cry of the auditory in fauour of the Catholike party vicit veritas the truth hath had the victory and with this we shall also end this first disputation against Cranmer hauinge byn forced to be longer then we purposed at the beginninge therfore we shal be so much the shorter yf it may be in that which ensueth with Ridley and Latymer Out of the Disputation with D. Ridley in the same dininity-schoole at Oxford the next day after Cranmer to witt the 17. of Aprill 1554. §. 3. 40. The next day followinge saith Fox was brought forth Doctor Ridley to defend in the same questions of the râ—all presence Transubstantiation and Sacrifice against whome Doctor Smith was the first and principall opponent for which cause Fox before he beginneth to relate the combatt maketh a particular inuectiue against him for that he had byn vnconstant in Religion the simple fellow not consideringe that yf yt had byn true yet that the same might be obiected with much more reason against these his cheefe champions Cranmer Ridley and Latymer that had byn Catholike Priests for many yeares togeather But Fox his great anger against Doctor Smith was â—on that he pressed hardly B. Ridley in his disputation and so did Doctor VVeston also as after yow shall see for that vpon all occasions he came in with Vrge hoc vrge hoc but for the rest Ridley vvas most courteously vsed by them both and offered to haue his opinions taken in wrytinge and that he should haue space till saturday after to consider of them and that vvhat bookes soeuer he vvould demaund should be deliuered to him and that he might choose any two of the whole company to be his seuerall notaryes and he tooke Maister Iohn Iewell afterward made B. of Salisbury by Q. Elizabeth and Maister Gilbert Monson that had byn notaryes vnto B. Cranmer the day before 41 But the greatest difference and difficulty fell out for that Ridley hauing brought thither with him his opinion and large explication thereof already wrytten would needs read the same openly to the whole auditory which was penned in such bitter spitefull blasphemous termes with such abhominable scoffes and raylinge contemptuous speach against the sacred mysteryes and the vse therof as the commissionars were often-tymes forced to interrupt him and commaund him to sylence or to begin disputation neyther wherof would he do but with an obstinate face go foreward in readinge his declarations whervpon Doctor VVeston callinge vnto him said as Fox relateth Yow vtter blasphemyes vvith an impudent face Wherfore finally they made him breake of promisinge that they would read ponder all themselues not being conuenient to infect mens eares with publike readinge therof but that he might defend the fame as occasion should be offered in his answers and disputations 42. The first argument brought against him by Doctor Smith was for ouerthrowinge that principall foundation of the Sacramentary heresieâ— Christs body is inheauen ergò yt is not in the Sacrament Wherof yow haue heard often before for that both Peter Martyr alleaged yt as a cheefe fortresse of their faith though Philipp Melancthon that is a Calendar-saint togeather with Peter Martyr as before yow haue heard did say that he had rather offer himselfe vp to death then to affirme vvith the Sacramentaryes that Christs body cannot be but in one place at once And this was a principall ground also of Iohn Lambert burned for Sacramentary opinions vnder K. Henry the eyght against whome Doctor Cranmer then Archbishopp of Canterbury was the first and cheefest disputer after the King and specially tooke vpon him to confute this reason of Lambert as vayne and false and contrary to scripture as before yow haue heard in the story of Lambert And the same reasons and arguments which Cranmer
doubted so much in grauntinge and denyinge Christs body to haue appeared vpon earth as in the former disputations of Doctor Smith yow haue partly heard though much be omitted for breuityes sake he began to vrge him againe in that point alleaginge against him the authority of a Catechisme sett forth by himselfe in the name of the whole conuocation-house in K. Edwards dayes where the selfe-same point is graunted which heere he denyed but Ridley for two or three abouts would not yeld that the Catechisme was his though the iudges said that Cranmer had confessed the matter the day before and Maister VVard auouched to his face that he being Bishop of London in his ruffe compelled him to subscribe thervnto yet at length he confessed that both he and Cranmer had approued the same vnder their hands that the place alleaged against him might easily be expounded without any incōuenience and so they slydd away from that matter and a place of Theophilact came in question where he wryteth that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament of the Altar non dixit hoc est figura corporis mei sed hoc est corpus meum he said not that this is the figure of my body but this is my body which authority Ridley wiped of by sayinge his meaninge to be that yt was not only a figure of his body Wherevnto Doctor VVeston replyd that this only was one lye put in by him for that Theophilact had no such word nor could yt stand with his sense for that he did not make the opposition betweene figure and only but betweene the body and figure sayinge yt vvas his body and not a figure of his body And for proofe of this another place of Theophilact was alleaged vpon Saint Iohn where his words are quoniam infirmi sumus c. for that vve are infirme and abhorre to eate raw-flesh especially the flesh of man therefore yt appeared bread but is flesh what can be more plaine and perspicuous then this and yet do I not find any annswere to haue byn giuen by Doctor Ridley to this place but that he passed to another matter to expound the word Transelemented vsed by Theophilact And I passe ouer diuers other places as that of Tertullian acceptum panem corpus suum illud fecit he takinge bread made yt his body and that of Iustinus Martyr sayinge That Christs flesh in the Sacrament is the same that vvas taken of the blessed Virgin And that of S. Augustine vpon the Psalme that he gaue vs to eat the selfe same flesh wherin he vvalked vpon earth All which places being obiected before to Cranmer and read both then now out of the authors themselues by Doctor VVeston that had the books by him were no otherwise aunswered heere then by the same shifts which Cranmer had auoyded them before yt appearinge euidently that they had agreed vpon certayne distinctions and common euasions wherby to delude all the Fathers authorityes that might be brought against them though they were neuer so cleere or pregnant for the purpose 56. It followeth that by order of disputation the turne came to Doctor Glyn to dispute against Doctor Ridley who made saith Fox a very contumelious preface against him vvhich Ridley tooke the more to heart for that he had allwayes taken him to be his frend And albeit Fox doth not sett downe the same preface yet by Doctor Glyns entrance to his argument a man may see that the cheefe point was in reprehendinge him for deludinge and shiftinge of both scriptures and fathers so shamfully as he had heard him do for he saith I see that yow euade or shift away all scriptures fathers And Ridley answered this is a greeuous contumely that yow call me a shifter c. And finally Doctor Glyn endeauored to draw him to yeld to the Catholike Church which being the piller of truth could not be thought to haue fallen to such Idolatry as for many ages to haue worshipped erroneously bread and wyne for the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist and for proofe therof he alleaged Saint Augustine against Faustin the Manichec where he saith that this vse of adoring Christs body in the Sacrament was so auncient and publike as some pagans did thinke that Christians did adore Ceres and Bacchu◠the Gods of bread and wyne He alleaged also Erasmus authority who affirmeth that this worshipping and adoration of the Sacrament of the Altar was in vse before the tyme of S. Augustins and S. Cyprian which is not so in the Sacrament of Baptisme though Ridley affirme there is as much the flesh of Christ as in the other and consequently there is some speciall cause in the Eucharist aboue other Sacraments To which two authorityes I find nothinge aunswered particularly as neyther to Erasmus but to the thing it selfe Ridley aunswered VVe do handle the signes reuerently c. And againe There is a deceyt in this word Adoramus we adore for vve vvorshipp the symbolls vvhen reuerently vve handle them vve vvorshipp vvhersoeuer vve perccaue benefitts Whervnto Doctor Glyn aunswered So I might fall downe before the bench heere and worshipp Christ therin c. For a bench also is a beneficiall creature to them that sitt on yt But for all this no further satisfaction could be had but that all the adoe which the Fathers do make about the highest honour in earth to be giuen to the Sacrament of the Altar comes to no more by these mens interpretations but that the signes of bread and vvyne must be reuerently handled Christ absent must be vvorshipped therein as in other thinges vvherin vve perceaue or receaue his benefitts vvhich indeed are all his creatures made ordayned for our profitt for by them all we perceaue receaue Christs benefitts So as all these great admirations of the Fathers about the honour worshipp adoration due to this Sacrament come to no more in effect but that vve must reuerence Christ therin as in other his beneficiall creatures and vvorshipp the symboll of bread and wyne as much as you do the water in baptisme vvhich yet neuer any of the Fathers said was to be adored by vs as they do of the Eucharist though Baptisme be a most necessary and profitable Sacrament 57. Then disputed one Doctor Curtopp alleaginge a place out of S. Chrysostome affirminge that which is in the cupp or chalice to be the same bloud after the words of consecration that flowed from the side of Christ wherof he inferred that true and naturall bloud did flow from the side of Christ ergò true and naturall bloud was in the chalice To this Ridley answered in effect after his ould fashion that yt was true bloud that is to say the Sacrament of his bloud Curtopp The Sacrament of the bloud is not the bloud Ridley The Sacrament of the bloud is the bloud and that is attributed to the
Sacrament vvhich is spoken of the thing of the Sacrament At which aunswere D. VVeston being moued as yt seemed argued in English saith Fox thus That vvhich is in the chalice is the same that flowed out of Christs side but there came out very true bloud ergò there is very true bloud in the chalice Ridley The bloud of Christ is in the chalice in deed but not in the reall presence but by grace and in a Sacrament Weston That is very vvell then vve haue bloud in the chalice Ridley Yt is true but by grace and in a Sacrament and heere the people hissed at him saith Fox wherat Ridley said O my maisters I take this for no iudgement I will stand to Gods iudgement This was his last refuge and further then this nothinge could be had at his hands 58. There rose vp after this Doctor VVatson who after a long altercation with Ridley whether after consecration the Sacrament might be called true bread Ridley alleaged this place of S. Paul The bread which we breake is yt not a communication of the body of Christ As though yt had made for him But VVatson brought S. Chrysostomes expositioÌ„ Quare non dixit participationeÌ„ c. VVherfore did not S. Paul say heere that yt is the participation of Christs body but the communication because he would signify some greater matter that he vvould declare a great conuenience betwene the same for that vve do not communicate by participation only receauing but by co-vniting or vnion for euen as the body is co-vnited to Christ so also are we by the same bread conioyned and vnited to him Out of which place of S. Chrysostome yt appeareth euidently that his beleâ—fe was that as his body and flesh was really vnited to his person so are we vnto him in flesh by eatinge the same in the Sacrament which is another manner of vnion then by faith and generall only But to this lett vs heare Ridleyes aunswere in his owne words Ridleye Let Chrysostome haue his manner of speakinge and his sentence yf yt be true I reiect yt not but lett yt not be preiudiciall to me to name yt bread So he And thus was S. Chrysostome shifted of neyther admitted nor fully reiected but if he spake truly then was he to be credited which was a courteous kind of reiection for Ridley would haue the reader beleeue that he spake not truly And so much for him 59. And so when nothinge more could be gotten by Doctor VVatson from Maister Ridley in this argument Doctor Smith stepped in to him againe and vrged a place of S. Augustine vpon the thirty and third Psalme Ferebatur in manibus suis c. He was carryed in his owne hands applyed by S. Austen to Christ his words are Hoc quo modo fieri possit in homine quis intelligat Who can vnderstand how this can be done by a man for that no man is borne by his owne hands but by other mens hands neyther can vve find how this was fullfilled literally in K. Dauid but by Christ we find it fullfilled for that Christ was borne in his owne hands when he said this is my body for he did become that body in his owne hands c. And againe in another sermon vpon the same place he repeateth againe the very same thinge sayinge How vvas Christ borne in his owne hands for that vvhen he did commend vnto vs his body and bloud he tooke into his hands that vvhich the faithfull knew and so he bare himselfe after a certayne manner vvhen he said this is my body Out of which places appeareth euidently that S. Augustine beleeued that Christ after the words of consecration vttered did beare his owne body in his hands and that this in his iudgement was so miraculous a thinge as neyther King Dauid nor any other mortall man could do yt but only Christ which yet is not so in a figure for euery man may beare a figure of his owne body in his hands and furthermore yt is cleere by these authorityes and by those words nôrunt fideles that this was the beleefe by all faithfull people of S. Austens tyme. Which argument being much vrged against Maister Ridley both by Doctor Smith and others he sought to declyne the force therof dyuers-wayes as saying first that S. Augustine vvent from others in this exposition but yet named none and then that this place of scripture vvas read otherwise of other men accordinge to the hebrew text other like euasions which yet proue not as yow see but that Saint Austen was of this opinion and beleefe himselfe which is the question in this place and after all this he passed to his ordinary refuge that Christ bare himselfe sacramentally only and not othervvise layinge hands for some shew of reason vpon the word quodammodò vsed in the second place by S. Austen that is after a certayne manner And when it was replied to him that S. Austen vsed that word to shew the different manner of his being in the Sacrament and out of the Sacrament but that otherwayes all parts and circumstances of S. Austens speach do shew that he beleeued Christ to haue holden really and truly his owne body and flesh in his hands they could gett no other aunswere from him but this He did beare himselfe but in a Sacrament Wherat men maruaylinge Doctor Smith said Yow are holden fast nor are ye able to escape out of this labyrinth And then began Doctor Tressam to pray for him with a sollemne prayer which being ended he said Yf there were an Arrian heere that had this subtile witt that yow haue he might soone shift of the scriptures and Fathers as yow doe Wherat Doctor VVeston seeming vnwilling that tyme should be spent in prayinge and not in disputinge said eyther dispute or hould your peace I pray yow And with this they passed to another disputation vvhether euill men do receaue the true body of Christ or not But S. Austens authority of bearinge himselfe in his hands gatt no other solution but that Christ bare himselfe in his hands that is the figure or representation of himselfe which neither Dauid nor other mortall man could do At which absurdity most of the audience did laugh 60. But concerninge the other questions vvhether euâ—ll men do receaue Christ Doctor Tressam brought two or three places out of S. Austen concerninge Iudas that he eat the true body of Christ as the other Apostles did and then againe of wicked men in generall Quia aliquis non ad salutem manducat non ideò non est corpus because some do not eate to saluation yt followeth not therfore that yt is not his body but to all this Maister Ridley aunswered by his former shift that yt is the body to them that is the Sacrament of the body Do yow see the fond euasion there was no doubt or question whether euill-men did eat the Sacrament
gall vttered in the preface therof against this disputation concludeth the same with these passionate words as they are in Fox 77. Thus vvas ended the most glorious disputation of the most holy Fathers Sacrificers Doctors and Maisters vvho fought most manfully for their God and Gods for their faith and felicity for their countrey and kitchen for their beuty and belly vvith triumphant applauses and famous of the vvhole vniuersity So hee And by this yow may know the man and how much his words are to be credited yow hauing considered what hath byn laid downe before by Fox his owne report touching the substance of the disputation and authorityes of Fathers alleaged and examined and shifted of though in the forme of scholasticall disputation and vrging arguments yt may be there were some disorders yet that maketh not so much to the purpose how arguments were vrged against them as how they were aunswered by them and yet could not the disorder be so great as it was vnder Ridley himselfe in the Cambridge-disputation as is most euident to the reader by Fox his owne relation who as before I haue noted is alwayes to be presumed to relate the worst for vs and the best for himselfe in all these actions 78. Wherfore yt is not a little to be considered what was the difference in substance or substantiall proofes brought forth in the Cambridge Protestant-disputations vnder K. Edward and these Oxford Catholike-disputations vnder Q. Mary and whether Doctor Ridley that was moderator of those or Doctor VVeston prolocutor in these did best vrge or solue arguments against their aduersaryes for that this consideration and comparison only will giue a great light to discerne also the difference of the causes therin defended One thinge also more is greatly in my opinion to be weighed in this matter which is that the said auncient Fathers hauinge to persuade so high and hard a mystery as this is that Christs true and naturall flesh and bloud are really vnder the formes of bread and wyne by vertue of the Priests consecration they were forced to vse all the manner of most significant speaches which they could diuise to expresse the same and to beate yt into the peoples heads and mynds though contrary to their senses and common reason and therby to fly from the opposite heresie and infidelity of our Sacramentaryes lurkinge naturally in the harts of flesh and bloud and of sensuall people but synce that tyme by Sathans incytation broached and brought forth publikely into the world For meetinge wherwith the holy prouidence of almighty God was that the forsaid Fathers should by all sorts of most significant speaches phrases as hath byn said so cleerly lay open their meanings in this matter as no reasonable man can doubt therof and not only this but also that they should vse certaine exaggerations the better to explane themselues such as they are wont to do in other controuersies also when they would vehemently oppose themselues against any error or heresie as by the examples of Saint Augustine against the Pelagians in behalfe of Grace and against the Manichees in the defence of Free-will And of S. Hierome against Iouinian for the priuiledge of Virginity aboue marriage and other like questions wherin the said Fathers to make themselues the better vnderstood do vse sometymes such exaggeratiue speaches as they may seeme to inclyne somewhat to the other extreme which indeed they do not but do shew therby their feruour in defence of the truth and hatred of the heresie which they impugne 79. And the like may be obserued in this article of the reall-presence of Christs sacred body in the Sacrament of the Altar which being a mystery of most high importance and hardest to be beleeued as aboue humayne sense and reason and therfore called by them the myracle of mysteryes yt was necessary for them I say to vse as many effectuall wayes as they possible could for persuadinge the said truth vnto the people and for preuenting the distrustfull cogitations and suggestions both of humayne infirmity and diabolicall infidelity against the receaued faith and truth of this article and so they did not only vsinge most cleere plaine effectuall and significant manner of expounding themselues and their meaninge but many such exaggerations also as must needs make vs see the desire they had to be rightly and fully vnderstood therein For better consideration of which point being of singular moment as hath byn said the reader shall haue a little patience whilst I detayne my selfe somewhat longer then I meant to haue done in layinge forth the same before him 80. And first of all concerninge the effectuall speaches for vtteringe the truth of their beleefe in this article yow haue heard much in the former disputation and heere we shall repeat some points againe which in effect are that wheras the said Fathers founded themselues ordinaryly vpon those speaches of our Sauiour This is my body vvhich shal be giuen for yow my flesh is truly meate and my bloud is truly drinke The bread vvhich I shall giue yow is my flesh for the life of the vvorld and other like sentences of our Sauiour the Fathers do not only vrge all the circumstances heere specified or signified to proue yt to be the true naturall and substantiall body of Christ as that yt was to be giuen for vs the next day after Christs words were spoken that yt was to be giuen for the life of the whole world that yt was truly meate and truly Christs flesh but do adde also diuers other circumstances of much efficacy to confirme the same affirminge the same more in particular that it is the very same body which was borne of the blessed Virgin the very same body that suffered on the Crosse corpus affixum verberatum crucifixum cruentatum lanceae vulneratum saith S. Chrysostome the selfe-same body that was nayled beaten crucisied blouded wounded with a speare is receaued by vs in the Sacrament Whervnto S. Austen addeth this particularity that yt is the selfe-same body that walked heere amonge vs vpon earth As he vvalked heere in flesh saith he amonge vs so the very selfe same flesh doth he giue to be eaten and therfore no man eateth that flesh but first adoreth at and Hisichius addeth that he gaue the selfe-same body vvherof the Angell Gabriell said to the Virgin Mary that it should be conceaued of the holy Ghost And yet further yt is the same body saith S. Chrysostome that the Magi or learned men did adore in the manger But thou dost see him saith he not in the manger but in the Altar not in the armes of a vvoman but in the hands of a Priest The very same flesh saith S. Austen againe that sate at the table in the last supper and vvashed his disciples seet The very same I say did Christ giue with his owne hands to his disciples vvhen he said take eate
this is my body c. And so did he beare himselfe in his owne hands vvhich vvas prophesied of Dauid but fulfilled only by Christ in that Supper 81. These are the particularityes vsed by the Fathers for declaring what body they meane and can there be any more effectuall speaches then these but yet harken further Thou must know and hold for most certaine saith S. Cyrill that this vvhich seemeth to be bread is not bread but Christs body though the tast doth iudge it bread And againe the same Father Vnder the forme or shew of bread is giuen to thee the body of Christ vnder the forme or snape of wine is giuen to thee the bloud of Christ c. And S. Chrysostome to the same effect VVe must not beleeue our senses eaysie to be beguiled c. VVe must simply and vvithout all ambyguity beleeue the vvords of Christ sayinge This is my body c. O how many say now adayes I vvould see him I vvould behould his visage his vestments c. But he doth more then this for he giueth himselfe not only to be seene but to be touched also handled and eaten by thee Nor only do the Fathers affirme so asseuerantly that yt is the true naturall body of Christ though yt appeare bread in forme and shape and that we must not beleeue our senses heerin but do deny expressely that yt is bread after the words of consecration wherof yow heard longe discourses before out of S. Ambrose in his books de sacramentis and de initiandis Before the words of consecration it is bread saith he but after consecration de pane sit caro Christi of bread yt is made the flesh of Christ And note the word fit yt is made And againe Before the words of Christ be vttered in the consecration the chalice is full of vvine and vvater but vvhen the vvords of Christ haue vvrought their effect ibi sanguis efficitur qui redemit plebem there is made the bloud that redeemed the people And marke in like manner the word efficitur is made and consider whether any thinge can be spoken more plainly 83. But yet the Fathers cease not heere but do passe much further to inculcate the truth of this matter reprehending sharply all doubt suspition or ambiguity which the weaknesse of our flesh or infection of heresie may suggest in this matter S. Cyrill reasoneth thus VVheras Christ hath said of the bread this is my body vvho vvill dare to doubt therof and vvheras he hath said of the wine this is my bloud vvho vvill doubt or say yt is not his bloud he once turned vvater into vvine in Cana of Galiley by his only will which wine is like vnto bloud and shall vve not thinke him vvorthy to be beleeued vvhen he saith that he hath changed vvine into his bloud So he And S. Ambrose to the same effect Our Lord Iesus Christ doth iestifie vnto vs that we do receaue his body and bloud and may we doubt of his creditt or testimony And the other Saint Cyrill of Alexandria saith to the same effect that in this mystery we should not so much as aske quomodo how yt can be done Iudaicum enim verbum est saith he aeterm supplicij causa For ye is a Iewish word and cause of euerlastinge torment And before them both Saint Hilary left wrytten this exhortation These things saith he that are wrytten lett vs read and those things that vve reade lett vs vnderstand and so vve shall perfectly performe the duty of true saith for that these points vvhich vve affirme of the naturall verity of Christs being in vs. exceptive learne them of Christ himselfe we affirme them wickedly and foolishly c. VVherfore vvheras he saith my sâ—eâ—h is truly meat and my bloud is truly drinke there is no place left to vs of doubting concerning the truth of Christs body bloud for that both by the affirmation of Christ himselfe and by our owne beleefe there is in the Sacrament the flesh truly and the bloud truly of our Sauiour 83. So great S. Hilary and Eusebiuâ— Emissenus bringeth in Christ our Sauiour speakinge in these words For so much as my flesh is truly meat and my bloud is truly drinke leit all doubt fullnes of in fideliâ—y depart for so much as he vvho is the author of the gift is vvittnesse also of the truth therof And S. Leo to the same effect Nothinge at all is to be doubted of the truth of Christâ— body and bloud in the Sacrament c. And those do in vaine aunswere amen when they receaue yt if they dispute against that vvhich is affirmed And finally S. Epâ—pâ—anius concludeth thus He that beleeueth it not to be the very body of Christ in the Sacrament is fallen from grace and saluation 84. And by this we may see the earnestnesse of the Fathers in vrginge the beleefe of Christs true flesh and bloud in the Sacrament But they cease not heere but do preuent and exclude all shifts of Sacramentaryes which by Gods holy spiritt they forsaw euen in those auncient dayes affirminge that not by faith only or in â—igure or image or spiritually alone Christs flesh is to be eaten by vs but really substantially and corporally Not only by faith saith S. Chrysâ—stome but in very deed he maketh vs his body reducing vs as yt were into one masse or substance vvith himselfe And Saint Cyrill Not only by saith and charity are we spiritually conioyned to Christ by his flesh in the Sacrament but corporally also by communication of the same flesh And S. Chrysostome againe Not only by loue but in very deed are we conuerted into his flesh by eatinge the same And Saint Cyrill againe VVe receauinge in the Sacrament corporally and substantially the sonne of God vnited naturally to his Father we are clarified glorified therby and made partakers of his supreme nature Thus they Whervnto for more explication addeth Theophilact VVhen Christ said This is my body he shewed that it vvas his very body in deed and not any figure correspondent thervnto for he said not this is the figure of my body but this is my body by vvhich vvords the bread is transformed by an vnspeakable operation though to vs it seeme still bread And againe in another place Behould that the bread vvhich is eaten by vs in the mysteryes is not only a figuration of Christs flesh but the very flesh indeed for Christ said not that the bread vvhich I shall giue yow is the figure of my flesh but my very flesh indeed for that the bread is transformed by secrett vvords into the flesh And another Father more auncient then he aboue twelue hundred yeares past handlinge those words of Christ This is my body saith It is not the figure of Christs body and bloud vt quidam stupida mente nugati sunt as some blockish
of Christ. How do they affirme saith S. Irenaeus against certayne heretiks that denied the resurrection that our flesh shall come to corruption and not receaue life againe vvhich is nourished by the body and bloud of Christ And againe Ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia Of which body and bloud of Christ the substance of our flesh is encreased and consisteth And Tertullian caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur c. Our flesh doth feed on the body and bloud of Christ. And marke that he saith the flesh and not only the soule And Iustine in his second Apology to the Emperour Antoninus talkinge of the Sacrament saith it is cibus quo sanguis carnesque nostrae aluntur The meat wherwith our bloud and flesh is fedd and to this manner of speach appertayne those sayings of S. Chrysostome Altare meum cruentum sanguine my Altar that is made redd with bloud Where he speaketh in the person of Christ. And againe to him that had receaued the Sacrament dignus es habitus qui eius carnes lingua tangeres Thou are made worthy to touch with thy tongue the flesh of Christ And yet further in another place Thou seest Christ sacrificed in the Altar the Priest attendinge to his sacrifice and powring out prayers the multitude of people receauinge the Sacrament praetioso illo sanguine intingi rubefieri To be died and made read with that pretious bloud All which speaches and many more that for breuity I pretermitt though they tend to a certayne exaggeration as hath byn said yet do they plainly declare the sense iudgement and beleefe of the Fathers in this article and so albeit literally and in rigour they be not in all respects verified yet need we no better arguments to certifie vs of the Fathers meaninges then these to witt how farre they were of from the Protestants opinions in this mystery 89. And truly yf we would now put downe heere on the contrary side the Prorestants assertions and their cold manner of speaches in this behalfe and compare them with this vehemency of the Fathers we should presently see a wonderfull difference I will touch some few only conteyned in this booke First they say and yt is a common refuge of Cranmer and the rest in this disputation as you haue heard that their communion-bread is Christs true body as S. Iohn Baptist was true Elias Item That yt is Christs body as the doue was the holy-ghost Item That the body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament of the Altar no otherwise then yt is in baptisme Item That infants when they be baptized do eate the body of Christ also Item That Christs body is in the Sacracrament as when two or three are gathered togeather in his name Item That the body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament as yt is eaten when wee read scriptures or heare sermons Item That the breakinge of Christs body is nothinge but the breaking of the scriptures to the people And these are the common phrases of all lightly For I lett passe many particular assertions of some much more cold and contemptible then these wherby yow may easily seâ— the difference of estimation reuerence respect and beleefe betweene them and the auncient Fathers 90. And on the other side he that will consider the great care and warynesse which the said Fathers did vse in speakinge properly and exactly as well in other mysteryes articles of our faith as in this shall easily see that they could not fall into such excesse of speach with open reprehension contradiction of others yf their meaninge had not byn euident and the doctrine Catholike and generally receaued which they endeauoured to inculcate by these speaches for so much as we are taught by all antiquity that there was such exact rigour vsed in this behalfe in those dayes that a word or sillable could not be spoken amisse without present note or checke And S. Hierome saith that sometymes for one only vvord heretiks haue byn cast out of the Church And Saint Basill being intreated and vrged by a Gouernour of Constantius the Arrian Emperour to accomodate himselfe in manner of speach only about two words homiousion and homousion which are not said the gouernour found in scripture he answered him noe that for one Sillable he vvould offer his life yf it vvere need And the like exactnesse did the ancieÌ„t Fathers of the CouÌ„cell of Ephesus shew afterwards in standinge so resolutely for the word Deipara mother of God against Nestorius refusing the vse of the other word Christipara mother of Christ though the one the other of the words refused to witt homiousion Christipara in their senses are true but for that some hereticall meaninge might lurke therin they were refused 91. And to conclude yf antiquity was so carefull and vigilant to exclude dangerous incommodious speaches in other articles how much more would yt haue byn in this also of the reall presence yf the said Fathers speaches before rehearsed had not byn true as in the Protestants sense they cannot be but must needs tend to most dangerous error of misbeleefe and idolatry And consequently there is no doubt but that they would haue byn reproued by other Fathers yf the Protestants opinions had byn then receaued for truth And this shall suffice for this Chapter OF THE TVVO OTHER ARTICLES ABOVT Transubstantiation and the Sacrament what passed in this Disputation CHAP. VI. HAVINGE handled more largely then was purposed at the beginninge so much as apperteyneth to the first article of the reall-presence as the ground and foundation of the other two I meane to be very breefe concerninge the rest as well for that in the Oxforddisputations there was scarse any thinge handled therof but only some demonstrations out of the Fathers alleaged to Latymer which he as yow haue heard could not aunswere about the third and last point as also for that whatsoeuer was treated therof in the disputations at Cambridge and in the Conuocation house especially about Transubstantiation hath byn aunswered for the most part in our former treatise about the reall presence And albeit it was some art of the Sacramentaryes in the beginninge of these controuersies vnder K. Edward to runne from the discussion of the principall point as more cleerly against them vnto the question of Transubstantiation for that might seeme to yeld them some more shew of matter or obiections to cauill at as before we haue declared yet when the matter commeth to examination they haue as little for them in this as in the other or rather lesse for that the other to witt the reall-presence or being of Christ really and substantially present in the Sacrament hauinge byn so euidently proued against them as before yow haue seene this other of Transubstantiation being but modus essenâ—i the manner how Christ is there little importeth them nay
conuersion And then he explaneth himselfe thus that as in bread one loafe is made of many graynes so signifieth this Sacrament that we are all one mysticall body in Christ. And againe As bread nourisheth our body so doth the body of Christ nourish our soule And thirdly As bread is turned into our substance so are vve turned into Christs substance All vvhich three effects cannot be signified saith he by this Sacrament yf there be Transubstantiation and no nature of bread left and therfore there can be no Transubstantiation 7. This is Maister Ridleyes deepe diuinity about the nature of this Sacrament but yf yow reade that which we haue noted before in our eyght obseruation concerninge the true definition and nature of a Sacrament in deed yow will see that this was great simplicity in him though accordinge to his hereticall groūd that the Sacramēts doe not giue grace to leaue out the principall effect signified in the Sacrament which is grace for that a Sacrament is defined A visible signe of inuisible grace receaued therby This Sacrament also is a signe of Christs body there present vnder the formes of bread and wyne yet deny we not but that these other three effects also of vnity nutrition and conuersion may be signified therby as in like manner the death and passion of our Sauiour wherof this Sacrament is a memoriall and commemoration neyther doth the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ lett or take away these significations for so much as to make this Sacrament there is taken bread and wyne which naturally doth signifie these effects of vnion nutrition and conuersion which Ridley heere mentioneth though yt be not necessary that the substance of the said bread and wyne should still remayne but only there formes and accidents which do signifie and are signes to our senses as much as yf the substances themselues of bread and wyne were present As for example the brasen serpent did as much represent and was a signe of Christ in respect of the analogie betwene Christ and a true serpent as yf he had had the substance of à true serpent whereof he had but only the forme and shape and so are the outward formes of bread and wyne after the words of consecration sufficient to represent vnto vs the Analogy that is betweene feedinge the body and feedinge the soule vnity of graines and vnity of Christs mysticall body which is his Church 8. And thus much of Ridleyes third ground which impugneth Transubstantiation which ground as yow see is so weake and feeble as he that shall build theron is like to come to a miserable ruyne of his owne saluation But much more ridiculous is his fourth ground vttered in these words The fourth ground saith he is the abhominable heresie of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation Thus he saith in his position but lett vs heare him afterward in his probation which is not much larger then his proposition for thus he wryteth They vvhich say that Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist do take from him the verity of mans nature Eutiches graunted the diuyne nature in Christ but his humayne nature he denyed And is not this a goodly proofe of so great a charge Nay is not this a goodly ground and head-springe of proofes Consider I pray yow how these matters do hange togeather Eutiches heresy was as yow may see in the letters of Saint Leo the first and in the Councell of Calcedon that Christs flesh being ioyned to his diuinity was turned into the same and so not two distinct natures remayned but one only made of them both And how doth this heresie I pray yow follow of our doctrine of Transuostantiation Eutiches said that the diuine and humayne natures in Christ were confounded togeather and of two made but one we say that they remayne distinct and do condemne Eutiches for his opinion and by our Church he was first accursed and anathematized for the same Eutiches said Christs humayne nature was turned into his diuine we say only that bread and wyne is turned into Christs flesh and bloud what likenesse hath this with Eutiches heresie But saith Ridley vve do take from Christ the verity of mans nature This is a fiction and foolish calumniation as before yow haue heard and consequently deserueth no further refutation 9. The fifth ground is saith he the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith He ascended into heauen This ground yf yow remember hath byn ouerthrowne before and abandoned by Ridley himselfe in his Oxford-disputation where he graunted that he did not so straitly tye Christ vp in heauen to vse his owne words but that he may come downe on earth at his pleasure And againe in another place of the said disputation VVhat letteth but that Christ yf yt please him and vvhen yt pleaseth him may be in heauen and in earth c. And yet further to Doctor Smith that asked him this question Doth he so sitt at the right hand of his Father that he doth neuer foresake the same Ridley aunswered Nay I do not bynd Christ in heauen so straitly By which aunsweres yow see that this whole principall ground and head-springe of Ridleyes arguments against Transubstantiation is quite ouerthrowne For yf Christ in flesh after his ascension may be also on earth when he will as Ridley heere graunteth then is it not against the article of our Creed He ascended into heauen to beleeue that not withstandinge his ascension he may be also on earth in the Sacrament And albeit Ridley do cyte heere certayne places of S. Augustine that do seeme to say that Christ after his ascension is no more conuersant amonge vs vpon earth yet that is not to be vnderstood of his being in the Sacrament which is a spirituall manner of being but of his corporall manner of conuersation as he liued visibly among his disciples before his ascension And this is sufficient for discussion of this fifth ground wherof the cheefe particulars haue byn handled in diuers places before 10. Now then will we returne to his second ground againe of the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient Catholike Fathers And first he alleagath Saint Dionysius Areopagita for that in some places of his works he callerh yt bread And the like of Saint Ignatius to the Philadelphians which we deny not for S. Paul also calleth yt so as before we haue shewed but yet such bread as in the same place he declareth to be the true body of Christ sayinge that he vvhich receaueth yt vnworthily shal be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ addinge for his reason non dijudicans corpus Domini for not discerninge the body of our Lord there present And so S. Ignatius in the very selfe-same place saith that yt is the flesh and bloud of Christ as yow may read in that Epistle 11. After these he citeth Irenaeus whose words are Eucharistia ex
Christs institution This is my body which can haue no other probable exposition but that the bread is chaunged into his body And so yt is expounded by all the forsaid Fathers and others that before this controuersie fell out interpreted the same words of our Sauiour 31. These grounds then had the English Catholiks in K. Edwards dayes to stand in the defence of this doctrine that is to say the cleere words of scripture so vnderstood by all antiquity togeather with the assertions and asseuerations of all the Fathers the determination of Councells presently vpon the controuersie first moued and namely of that great famous Lateran Councell wherin concurred both the Greeke and Latyn Church there being present the Greeke patriarks of Constantinople and Hierusalem 70. metropolitan Archbishops and aboue a thousand and two hundred other Fathers of diuers states degrees compare this with a meeting of some twenty or thirty ministers impugninge the same All which hauinge disputed the matter and considered as well by scripture and by ancient tradition of the Fathers and vniuersall Cath. Church what had byn held before did with full agreement determine declare this matter accursinge whosoeuer should from that tyme foreward deny that doctrine of Transubstantiation Which decree of that Councell being receaued generally vvithout contradiction throughout the Christian world hath byn confirmed by seauen other Councells since that tyme as before we haue shewed And let the discreet reader vveigh vvith himselfe vvhich party hath more security for yt selfe eyther the Catholike that followed all this authority consent of antiquity or our new Protestants that vpon fresh imaginations of their owne heads diuised a new doctrine contrary to all this antiquity And thus much of this article for a tast of that which may be alleaged for yt Groundes for the sacrifice of the masse §. 2. 32. The third question proposed to be handled in the foresaid disputations was about the sacrifice of the masse to witt whether the selfe-same body of our Lord whose reall presence is proued in the first question be not only a Sacrament in the Christian Church as yt is receaued vnder a signe of bread and wyne by the Priest and communicants but a sacrifice also as yt is offered to God the Father by the Priest vpon the Altar and whether this externall and visible sacrifice be appointed by Christ to be iterated and dayly frequented in the Church vnto the worlds end and this both for an externall worshipp peculiar to Christians whereby they are distinguished from all other people as also for propitiation of sinnes by applyinge the meritt and vertue of the other bloudy sacrifice of our Sauiour on the Crosse once offered for all and euer auayleable as S. Paul at large declareth in his epistle to the Hebrewes for sanctifyinge the redeemed this then being the question and this being a doctrine so generally receaued throughout the Christian world both in the Greeke Latin AEthiopian Armenian and other Christian Churches as there was no doubt or question therof when Luther and his ofspring began yt fell out in England that vnder the child King Edward his raigne name authority that the L. Seymour protect our and his followers with some few Priests that were weary of massinge and desirous of marriage but cheefly Cranmer and Ridley Hooper Latymer and others bad heads of the cleargy in those dayes tooke vpon them to pull downe this publike vse of sacrifice and afterward to examine and call in question the doctrine therof At which chaunge and suddayne innouation neuer seene in England before from the first day that Christian Religion entred vnder the Apostles as all the realiues and contreyes round about remayned astonished so diuers notwithstanding of the lighter sort enclyned to noueltyes applauded to them followed their diuise others more prudent and respectiue to their owne saluation consideringe that there went more in this matter then the pleasure and fancyes of a few particular men stood constant in that which before they had receaued and that which generally they saw and knew to be in vse throughout all Christendome without cōtradiction which could not be by S. Austens rule but that yt must needs come downe from the Apostles themselues for so much as all opposite doctrine to that which was first planted by them receaued from them could neuer be so generally admitted without contradiction 33. Wherfore entringe into due consideration of this matter whilst all the ruffe ran the other way for 5. or 6. yeares space vnder that King Child and those other little tyrants that bare sway and one destroyed the other by Gods iust iudgement vnder him These good men the Catholikes I meane fell to search what grounds they had or might find out for this so receaued a doctrine practise as this of the masse and sacrifice was And first they found that wheras the first insult of heretiks was against the very name of the masse as a new diuised thinge without reason or signification they found I say that it was a very ancient and vsuall word for the externall sacrifice of Christians vpon the Altar in the Latyn Church for twelue hundred yeares past and downeward in place wherof the Grecians haue vsed the word Liturgie Synaxis and the like and this vse is not only to be shewed by the testimonyes of particular Fathers as Saint Ambrose S. Augustine S. Leo S. Gregory Victor Vticensis Cassianus and other but by whole Councells also as by that of Rome vnder Pope Siluester the first of 275. Bishops held almost 1300. yeares gone the second fourth of Carthage held the next age after and the Councell of Agatha in France the same age the Councell of Ilerdum and Valentia in Spaine and of Orleance in France all aboue 1000. yeares gone which was sufficient matter against the vanyty of heretiks that condemned the name the words for example of S. Ambrose sayinge Missam facere coepi orare in oblatione Deum I began to say masse and to pray to God in the oblation of the sacrifice and those of S. Austen In lectione quae nobis ad missas legenda est audituri sumus We shall heare or this matter more in the lesson which is to be read vnto vs at masse These speaches I say this practise of so ould learned holy Priests as these and their fellowes were did preuayle more with the grauer sort of English people then the lightnesse inconstancy of Cranmer Ridley and such other licentious Priests as for liberty fell to Apostasie 34. And this for the name of the masse But for the nature and substance therof which conteyneth the externall true and proper sacrifice of the Christian Church they found such store of euident proofes and most graue authorityes as might stay confirme and satisfie any mans mynd that were not willfully bent to the