can make that the selfe-same flesh of Christ can occupy diuers places at once and that yt be conteyned in no certayne place and that yt lacketh both the outward shape of flesh and proper manner of being c. And for beleeuinge of this he counteth vs madd-men as yow haue heard and so must he account also of necessity all those holy Fathers before mentioned who beleeued the same mystery as we do notwithstandinge the outward appearances of impossibility for comprehendinge wherof they fledd from sense and reason to faith and beleefe 14. And yet further then this the reader must vnderstand that for so much as the said reason and faith are not contradictory the one to the other but more eminent the one aboue the other as before hath byn shewed Catholiks do take vpon them to proue that no one of these difficultyes obiected by faithlesse Protestants is impossible or implieth contradiction in reason it selfe as by the ensuing considerations shall more particularly be declared notinge only to the reader by the way that yf the particular intrinsecall natures and essences of euery thing were cleerly knowen vnto vs â—s they are for example vnto Angells and other Saints that be in glory we should easily see what doth imply contradiction to the said natures and what doth not but for that God for our humility and greater meritt would haue vs not alwayes to see this therfore are we forced to ghesse at the same by way of discourse and reason and by one example to another as yow shall see in the ensuinge obseruations Fourth Obseruation How a body may be vvithout an ordinary naturall place §. 4. 15. One of the greatest difficultyes therfore obiected by the aduersary is that a true and naturall organicall body such as Christs is confessed to be in the Sacrament cannot be without the ordinary dimensions of a peculiar place which we deny in such sense as heere we shall declare For better vnderstandinge wherof is to be noted that three wayes a thinge may be in a place first naturally and ordinarily by extension and commensuration vnto the said place soe as euery part and part cell of the thinge placed do aunswere to each part of the place yt selfe which manner of being in place philosophers do call circumscriptiuely for that all places of the body so placed are so limited and circumscribed by the part of the place as neyther that body can be iâ— any other place nor that place admitt another body without penetratinge the one of the other which by ordinary course of nature is held for impossible 16. Another manner of being in place is more spirituall and hard to conceaue to witt when a thing is so in a place as the parts therof are not extended to the parts of the place as in the former example but yet that the whole thing is so defined and limited within the compasse of that whole place assigned thervnto as naturally yt cannot be in any other whilest yt is there as for example the soule of a man in the body thervnto assigned is so conteyned therin as yt is not elswhere and yet is it not so extended by commensuration as in the former example that one part of the soule aunswereth one part of the body and another another part but the whole soule which is indiuisible and hath no parts at all is wholy in the whole body and wholy in euery part and parcell therof which is a miraculous strange being yf yt be well considered notwithstanding naturall as all philosophers do graunt for that the whole soule of man is as wholy for example in the singar and foote as in the breast and head and yet is but one soule in all and nether many soules nor one soule diuided into parts And after the same manner is an Angell also in a place definitiuely and not circumscriptiuely that is to say wholy in the whole place which he occupieth wholy in euery part therof without multiplication or diuision in himselfe or extension vnto the parts of the place wherin yt is But for that the example of the soule is more familiar and euident to our sense and reason it doth better expresse the matter And yt is to be noted that yt doth somewhat imitate the being of God himselfe wholy and without diuision in all parts of the world and in all creatures therof without limitation change or multiplication but only yt differeth in this that the soule or an Angell being both creatures cannot be euery where as the creatour naturally is and he cannot be otherwise but yet by his diuine power the said creatures may be in diuers places at once as after shal be shewed 17. These two wayes then of being in a place as I haue said are naturall the first circumscriptiuely the second definitiuely But besides these two there is a third supernaturall and possible to Gods diuine omnipotency and not repugnant to reason yt selfe as after shal be shewed which is that one and the selfe-same thing may by Gods diuine power be placed in two different places at once that is to say that the selfe-same soule as yt is naturally wholy and entyrely in the head for example and in the foote so yt repugneth not to the same nature or essence of the soule to be putt in two different bodyes at once The like of an Angell in diuers places and the same also may be held of a naturall body ys God will haue yt so as in the next obseruation shal be proued And this way or manner of being in place for that the Cath. Church doth hould yt to be in the body of our Sauiour in the Sacrament is called by diuines a sacramentall being in place nor for that the true body is not really there as some hearinge the word Sacramentally vsed sometymes by the Fathers and Doctors do fondly apprehend but for that it is there after this speciall manner as we haue declared that is to say so as yt is also in other places at the same tyme. 18. Now then these three wayes or manners of being in place declared yt remayneth that we shew how yt is possible to Gods power and not repugnant to naturall reason that a true body which of his owne nature is in place only after the first manner of circumscription and commensuration or extension may by Gods power be in place also after the second and third way that is difinitiuely and Sacramentally without the first way of commensuration and extension to a place And first heere we shall shew the said possibility in the second way and then of the third in the ensuinge obseruation 19. The only cheefe ground or reason obiected by the heretiks why it may seeme to repugne or imply contradiction that a true organicall body togeather with his quantity such as Christs is in the Sacrament should be definitiuely without extension in place is for that yt appeareth contrary to the nature of
but one for that otherwise because yt is offered in many places there should be many Christs vvhich is not so but one and the selfe same Christ is in euery place when yt is offered here yt is whole Christ and there it is whole Christ and yet but one body for as euery where one body and not many bodyes are offered so is there also but one sacrifice c. In which places you see S. Chrysostome to hould to affirme that Christs true body without diuision or multiplication is offered vp in many places at once yea innumerable places yf we beleeue S. Gregory Nissen whose words are As Christs diuinity doth replenish the world and yet is but one so is his body consecrated in innumerable places and yet is but one body So he And do yow obserue that the Father saith not that Christs body is euery where as his diuinity is as the Lutherane Vbiquitaryes of Germany do absurdly affirme but that yt is in innumerable places by consecration 25. Well then these Fathers denyed not the reall presence as our Sacramentaryes do for that they conceaued not the reason how one body might be in diuers places at once but mounted by faith aboue reason asscribing the same to miracle and Gods omnipotency as yow haue heard and so do Catholiks at this day Heare the pious speach of a great learned man aboue 400. yeares gone Yow vvill say to me quoth he how can one and the selfe same body be at one tyme in diuers places c. Do not maruayle he that made the place made the body and the place for the body and the body in the place and vvhen he ordayned that one body should be in one place yt was as pleased him and yf he would he could haue made yt othervvise c. Thou hast seene only that vvhich he hath made and not that vvhich he can make and heerevpon dost maruayle when thou seest any other thinge then that which thou art accustomed to see but do thou thinke vpon the matter and yt will cease to be maruaylous or at leastwayes yt will not seeme to be incredible Thus he 26. But our diuines do go yet further shewinge that this is not impossible euen in nature yt selfe for God to performe as yow may perceaue by that we haue declared in the former obseruation For yf yt were repugnant and contradictory to the nature of a true body to be in diuers places at once this must be eyther in respect of the vnity therof for that yt should therby be diuided from yt selfe or multiplyed in yt selfe and so not be one but many bodyes or els secondly yt should be impossible to be in diuers places in respect of the quantity which a true body hath wherby yt should be limyted to some certayne space or place but neyther of these two difficultyes do impossibilitate the matter as now we shall declare 27. Not the first about vnity for that God being a substance indiuisible is euery where wholy and in euery one of his creatures and yet remayneth one still nor can be diuided or multiplyed which is so wonderfull a consideration as S. Augustine saith therof Miratur hoc mens humana quia non capit fortasse non credit Mans mynd doth wonder at this and for that yt conceaueth yt not perhaps yt doth not beleeue yt Some likenesse also of this admirable being is in an Angell which though it cannot be euery where at once as God is yet hath yt a wonderfull being in place notwithstanding as before hath byn touched being placed within any compasse or circuite as for example in a house or Church yt is wholy in all that space and wholy in euery part therof yet remayneth one and simple without diuision in himselfe which example is more euident also in our soule as before we haue declared for that the selfe-same soule in a body when yt is an infant and when yt is at his full grouth is wholy in the whole body wholy in euery part therof and yet is yt not multiplyed therby nor diuided Whereby is made manifest that yt repugneth not to the essence or vnity of any one substance to be in diuers places at once and this naturally but much more supernaturallye by the omnipotent power of God 28. There remayneth then the second difficulty about quantity or a body indued with quantity how yt is not letted therby to be in two places at once wherof we haue treated in the former obseruation shewinge how actuall locality by circumscription being but a secondary propriety following and flowing from the nature of quantity may by Gods power be separated from the same so as the said quantity may remayne with her true essence of hauinge distinct parts in yt selfe and yet no extensiue location or commensuration of place in which case yt repugneth no more for the selfe-same quantity to be in many places at once then yt doth vnto a spirituall substance without quantity such as is an Angell or the soule of man and consequently the substance of Christs body togeather with the quantity in this manner may by Gods power be put in many places at once as we see by course of nature it selfe that the substance of mans soule without quantity is put in many particular places of a mans body without diuision or multiplication remayninge still but one only soule as hath byn declared And this shall suffice for explication of this possibility how yt doth not imply contradiction and therefore is not impossible to God 29. Neyther do our diuines shew only that this is not impossible in our Sauiours body but further also that we do beleeue diuers other mysteryes of our faith as hard or harder then this yea much more impossible to sense and reason yf we consider well the difficultyes therof as the creation of the world of nothinge the mystery of the blessed Trinity the beleefe of Christs incarnation our resurrection and the like for yt is much harder by humayne reason and naturall philosophy to conceaue how the world could be created of nothinge and how one and the selfe-same nature can be wholy in three reall distinct persons without diuision or multiplication in yt selfe and how one person can be in two diuers distinct natures as yt is in our Sauiour and how one and the selfe-same thing being perished and corrupted may be raised againe with the selfe-same accidents that perished before These points I say and diuers others which both we and Protestants do confesse to be true are more harde and impossible in naturall reason then yt is to be beleeue that one body is in diuers places at once 30. Furthermore there be certayne familiar examples in nature yt selfe that do resemble somewhat the matter and may induce a man that is not obstinate and hath any meane capacity to conceaue somewhat of the possibility therof as when a great
confesse they must needs be heere in their proper subiect and substances of bread and wyne but all this is founded vpon a false ground for albeit naturally an accident cannot be but in a subiect yet supernaturally and by the power of God susteyninge yt and supplyinge the place of a naturall subiect yt may be as we do confesse on the contrary side by Christian faith that the humayne nature of Christ in the mystery of the incarnation hath not her proper subsistence in yt selfe which yet is as naturall to a substance to subsist in yt selfe as yt is to an accident to be susteyned by another but is susteyned by the diuine person of Christ. 35. And the reason of this concerninge accidents is that albeit the intrinsecall nature of an accident is to be vnperfect and to depend of another and therby to haue an aptitude to be in another yet the act therof may be separated by Gods power from the said nature as a thinge posterior and followinge from the said nature as we haue she wed before in the naturall propriety of quantity to haue commensuration of place and this to be true that this actuall inherence of accidents may be seuered from the essentiall aptitude thervnto without destroing the nature of the said accident many philosophers both Christian and heathen do affirme whose sentences you may see gathered by diuers learned men as well of ancient as of our tymes Sundry Fathers also are of opinion that this case happened de facto in the creation of the world when the light being made vpon the first day as the booke of Genesis recounteth which being but a quality and accident remayned without a subiect vnto the fourth day when the sonne and moone weare created And of this opinion expressely was S. Basill in his explication of the works of God in those six dayes And the same holdeth S. Iohn Damascene Procopius in his commentary vpon the first Chapter of Genesis and Saint Iustine in the explication of our faith 36. This then being so that these accidents of bread wyne may remaine by the power of God in the Sacrament without their proper subiects yt followeth to consider what actions they can haue And first yt is to be noted that whatsoeuer actions or operations are proper to them as accidents when they were in their proper subiects of bread and wyne before consecration the same they may haue afterwards when they conteyne the body and bloud of Christ without inherence therein for that God supplyeth all by his power which their said subiects or substances did performe when they were present So as the effects for example that the accidents of wine bread did worke in our senses before by mouinge our sight by their colours to see our tast by their sauour and other like effects the same do they performe also afterwards So as for example sake by drinkinge much consecrated wyne though there be no substance of wyne therin but only the proper accidents of wyne as heat smell and other qualityes and proprietyes of wyne may a man be incensed or distempered as much as yf the substance of wyne were there in deed for these are the proper actions and operations of the said accidents themselues but where the concurrāce of substance is necessary to any action as in nutrition generation or corruption of one substance into another there doth God supply the matter that is necessary to that action when the body of Christ doth cease to be there which is when those accidents of bread and wyne are corrupted and not otherwise As for example in the resurrection of our bodyes where euery body is to receaue his owne proper flesh againe which yt had in this life yf some one body hauinge eaten another body or parcell therof in this world and conuerted the same into his proper substance in this case I say almighty God must needs supply otherwise by his omnipotent power that part and matter of substance that wanteth in one of these two bodyes for that els one of them should be vnperfect and want part of his substance in the resurrection And after the like manner we say that when a consecrated hoast is eaten and afterward is turned into the naturall norishment of the eater which norishment requireth a materiall substance God doth supply that substance in that instant when the formes of bread and wyne perishinge the body of Christ ceaseth to be there 37. And this appertayneth to the prouidence of almighty God for supplying the defects of particular naturall causes when any thinge fayleth that is necessary for their naturall operations The very same also is to be obserued in generation and corruption as for example when the accidents of the consecrated host perishinge and some other substance should happen to be engendred thereof as wormes or the like there the body of Christ ceaseth to be when the said accidents do perish and for the new generation insuinge thereof God supplyeth fitt matter as in the example before alleaged of the resurrection of our bodyes wherof the one had eaten part of the other By which obseruation yt wil be easy afterward to dissolue many cauillations proceedinge eyther of ignorance heresie or both and obiected by Sacramentaryes against this mystery The eight Obseruation About the wordes Sacrament signe figure type commemoration memory c. §. 8. 38. For so much as the Sacramentaryes of our tyme did forsee that they should be forced to oppose themselues for defending their hereticall noueltye sagainst the whole streame of scriptures expositors fathers councells reasons practise antiquity and vniforme consent of the vnhole Christian vvorld they thought best to diuise certayne tearmes and distinctions which should serue them for euasions or gappes to runne out at when-soeuer they should be pressed by our arguments and these their shifts do consist principally in the fraudulent vse of these tearmes of Sacrament signe figure type commemoration memory sacramentally spiritually and the like Wherfore we thinke yt needfull to explane and declare in this place the natures vses and abuses of these words 39. First then a Sacrament according to the common definition asscribed to S. Augustine is a visible signe of an inuisible grace as in baptisme the externall washinge by water is the signe of the internall washing of the soule by grace So heere also in this Sacrament of the Eucharist the externall visible signe are the consecrated formes of bread and wyne as they conteyne the body of Christ the internall or inuisible grace signified is the inward nourishinge and seedinge of our soule And this is the first and cheefe manner how this Sacrament is a signe that is to say a signe of grace and not of Christs body absent as Protestants are wont most fondly and fraudulently to inferre 40. Secondly these externall formes and accidents of bread and wyne are also a signe of Christs body conteyned vnder them And in this sense
is the Eucharist called sometymes by the Fathers the signe of Christs body but of Christs body present as hath byn said and not absent Thirdly this Sacrament is a signe of Christ his death and passion and of the vnion of his mysticall body the Church with him For that as bread and wyne represented by these formes are made of many grains and many grapes so is Christs mysticall body consistinge of many members vnited to him so as by all these wayes may this Sacrament be called a signe to witt a signe of the inward grace and norishment of the soule obtayned therby a signe of Christs true body present a signe of Christ his death and mysticall body and yet do none of all these figures exclude the true reall being of his body in the Sacrament but do rather suppose the same 41. And the like may be said to the other words or tearmes of figure type commemoration or memory all which when they occurre are to be vnderstood in some of these senses without preiudice of the reality or truth of our Sauiours being in this Sacrament as for example this Sacrament is a forme type commemoration memory of Christs death on the Crosse and yet this excludeth not his reall-presence from hence As for example if a Prince hauing gayned in proper person a great singular victory should institute a sollemne triumph to be made euery yeare in memory therof some times should go in that triumph himselfe also yt might be truly said that this triumph is a figure type commemoration and memory of the other victory of the Prince yet is the Prince truly also in yt himselfe and so may be said in like manner of this matter of the Sacrament wherin Christ in differēt manner is a figure or type of himselfe And the like may be said of the dayly sacrifice also which sacrifice is a commemoration or memory of the other bloudy sacrifice once offered on the crosse and yet conteyneth the same reall body of our Sauiour which the other did after another manner And by this will the reader easily discouer diuers poore shifts fallacyes of our moderne heretiks especially of Ridley before named who as yow haue heard him professe was moued to leaue his ancient faith of the masse his practice therin for that in some certaine places for sooth of the Fathers he found that this sacrifice of the masse is called a commemoration of Christs passion a stronge argument no doubt to moue him to so great a resolution And so much of this 42. Now then are to be examined the other words sacramentally really and spiritually and as for the first the common sense and meaninge of schoole diuines is that diuised this word to signifie therby a peculiar manner of Christs supernaturall being in the Sacrament different from his naturall and circumscriptiue being in heauen and from the naturall being of an Angell definitiuely in a place wherof we haue spoken before So as when they say that Christ is sacramentally vnder the formes of bread and wyne they do not deny his true and reall being there in flesh the very selfe-same that is in heauen but he is there in another manner And this is the chiefe proper signification of the word sacramentally amongest schoole-men for which the word was inuented 43. But in the common vse and sense of our speach sacramentally signifieth that Christs body is there vnder a Sacrament or signe which are the formes of bread and wyne and not in his owne proper shape euen as an Angell when he appeareth in a body he may be said to appeare bodyly for that the body is the figure or forme vnder which he appeareth and conforme to this sense we are said to receyue Christ sacramentally when we receaue him truly and really but yet not in his proper forme but vnder another forme that is to say of bread and wyne wherby the fraudulent dealing of our moderne Sacramentaryes may appeare who deceauing the people with this word sacramentally do oppose yt to really and truly as though when any author saith that we receaue Christ sacramentally in the Eucharist yt were to be vnderstood that we did not receaue Christs body in deed and really but only a signe therof and by this they endeauour to delude all the places though neuer so euident of holy Fathers affirminge that Christs true flesh and body the very same that was borne of the virgin Mary and crucified for vs is receaued in the Sacrament these good fellowes aunswere that yt is true sacramentally which we also graunt yf sacramentally do not exclude really accordinge to the true signification of the word But yf by sacramentally they meane as they do that only a signe is receaued of Christs body in the Sacrament then is their deceyt manifest as yow see for that sacramentally hath no such signification at all amonge diuines but only is diuised amonge them for a shift 44. The like fraud they vse about the word spiritually which in the sense of holy Fathers being opposite to carnally and corporally in their ordinary materiall signification is by sectaryes also wrested as though yt were contrary to the word really so as whensoeuer they are forced to graunt Christs body to be spiritually in the Sacrament by which phrase the said ancient Fathers do meane only that he is not there after a carnall or common manner as he liued vpon earth they will haue yt vnderstood that he is there only by faith and not in deed really and substantially They abuse also the signification of the foresaid wordes carnally corporally which hauing a double sense the one that Christs body is naturally and really in the Sacrament the other that he is there after the externall being of other bodyes they deceytfully do take them now in one sense and now in another and alwayes oppose them to the word spiritually which in the former sense are not incompatible but may stand togeather though not in the later And for auoydinge of this equiuocation diuines do wish those two words carnally and corporally though true in the foresaid sense yet to be more sparingly vsed then the other words really and substantially that are equiualent in sense and lesse subiect to equiuocation and mistaking 45. Wherfore to conclude this obseruation all these words are to be noted and their true vse and signification remembred by him that will not be deluded by hereticall sleights and impostures in this high mystery but especially are to be obserued these three wherby our Sacramentaryes do most of all deceyue the vulgar people in their assertions and answers to our arguments to witt sacramentally spiritually and by faith as though they did exclude the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament which is most false for that in the true sense we admitt them all For example we graunt that Christ is sacramentally in this Sacrament both as sacramentally signifieth a distinct
exprobrations irrisions iests and scoffes at their aunsweringe before their ordinaryes 51. And heerin also they shewed their spiritt of derydinge and blaspheminge that which they vnderstood not to concurre with that of the pagans and Iewes against the whole body of Christian Religion and of auncient heretiks against the principall articles therof Of the pagans S. Augustine wryteth thus In ipsum Christum non crederemus si fides Christiana cachinnum metueret paganorum We should not beleeue in Christ himselfe yf Christian faith did feare the scoffinge of pagans S. Paul also wryteth both of Gentills and Iewes that the Crosse of Christ that is to say that God should be apprehended beaten wounded and crucified was to these a scandall and folly to the others though vnto the elect yt was the very wisdome power vertue of God himselfe We read also in the ghospell that the Saduces amongst the Iewes scoffed at the resurrection of bodyes by asking Christ a question of a woman that had seauen husbands whose wife she should be in the resurrection purposinge therby to haue inferred an absurdity against the said article to witt that eyther seauen men should haue striued for one woman or one woman haue byn wife of seauen men And the Marcionists infamous heretiks that tooke the same heresie from the Sadduces as also the Originists concurringe therin against the said beleefe of our resurrection went about to disgrace the same as both Tertullian and S. Hierome do testifie by certaine absurd indignityes which they imagined would ensue therof as for example that difference of sexes procreation mydwyues nurses priuyes and the like must needs be in heauen but the auncient Fathers answered them with the words of our Sauiour to the said Sadduces Erratis nescientes scripturam virtutem Dei. Yow do erre not knowinge the scriptures nor the power of God 52. And the same aunswere was giuen by Catholiks to the first Sacramentaryes that euer publikely appeared to witt the Berengarians aboue 500. yeares past who obiected the very same absurdityes that our hereriks do at this day as testifieth Guitmundus and Algerus that liued in that age and wrote against them they were aunswered I say that their error proceeded of not vnderstandinge the true meaning of scriptures nor the power of God which in the Sacrament conserueth his body without all leasion hurt indignity or inconuenience whatsoeuer happeneth vnto the formes vnder which his body is and that it is nothing so base and vnworthy a matter euen in our sense comon reason that Christ our Sauiour being impassible in the Sacrament should vnder another forme be said to fall on the ground to be burned to be eaten c. then in his owne proper forme when he was passible and sensible to ly in his mothers wombe or to cry and weepe in the cradle or to suffer hunger thirst and other humayne necessityes and to be whipped wounded and put to death all which indignityes supposing that he was the selfe-same God that created the world might seeme more absurd and improbable in common sense and reason then this of the Sacrament and so they did seeme to old heretiks who obiected and derided the same as the forsaid Marcionists that God should be in a womans belly and in a maunger and Nestorius the heretike that God should be two monethes old for example and two cubitts bigg and other such iests and scoffes as yow may read of them in Tertullian Theodoret Euagrius and other wryters 53. Wherfore to conclude this obseruation two points are to be noted in this whole matter First that many things that seeme to happen to Christ in these cases do not touch him indeed but only the externall formes of bread and wyne as when they are burned for example do putrifie or the like Christs body is not burned or putrified but ceaseth to be vnder them when the said formes or accidents are corrupted for that the substance of Christs body supplyinge the substance of bread is no longer there then the substance of bread would haue byn there yf yt had not ben conuerted into Christs body but yf bread had remayned yt would haue ceased by any kind of corruption as burninge putrifyinge or the like and so doth Christs body though in a different sort so that the substance of bread might by the said corruption be chaunged into some other substance which Christs body cannot be but only ceasseth to be there God supplyinge some other matter for production of that which is brought forth of new as in the former obseruation hath byn declared 54. The other point that those other conditions which by reason of the formes are asscribed vnto Christ his body in the Sacrament as to moue from place to place when the formes are moued to be seene touched eaten with our teeth and the like which are frequent phrases among the Fathers haue no inconuenience amonge them at all no more for example then when our soule is said to be moued with the motion of the body which soule notwithstandinge of his owne nature is not moueable so as an Angell being a spiritt may be handled seene or stroken in the body which he taketh to appeare in as is euident by the whole story of Tobias and other places of scripture which Angell of himselfe notwithstandinge is not capable of such thinges and finally Gods eternall diuinity and maiesty is present in all places things the most basest and horrible that can be diuised and yet suffereth no inconuenience therby For though he be for example in the dunghill yet he cannot be said to haue any euill smell therby neyther to be burned in the fire though the formes of bread and wyne be burned therin nor to putrifie though he be actually present in those things that rott and putrifie And by this may yow see the vayne calumniations of fond heretiks against the power of almighty God out of their senses and foolish imaginations The eleuenth Obseruation About the nature of a sacrifice as it is ordayned to different effectes and how that of the Crosse standeth vvith that of the masse §. 11. 55. The eleuenth and last obseruation shal be peculiarly about the last of the three questions proposed which is sacrifice of the masse notinge therin two ends offices or effects to be considered First that yt is ordayned ad cultum externum to an externall worshipp of God peculiar to himselfe in the highest degree of honour called by the Gretians Latria secondly ad propitiationem pro peccatis for pacifyinge of Gods wrath for sinnes and albeit both these effects may be in one and the selfe-same sacrifice and so we hould them to be in the sacrifice of the masse for that yt was ordayned by Christ as well for a perpetuall outward honour worshipp to be exhibited vnto God in the Christian Church vnto the worlds end as also for remission of sinnes by application of the meritt of
answered him well that S. Augustine spake expressely of the naturall being of bodyes accordinge to their ordinary externall dimensions and not how they might be by Gods supernaturall power and omnipotency 7. But aboue all others Philpott did keep reuell in the conuocation house about this argument against Maister Morgan Maister Harpesfield alleaginge diuers places of scripture for the same but little to the purpose God wooteth as that of S. Paul Christ is like vnto vs in all points except sinne And therfore said he as one of our bodyes cannot be at Paules and at VVestminster togeather so cannot Christ be in heauen and in the Sacrament But yt was told him that these words of S. Paul were true in S. Paules sense but yet that Christs body was vnlike also vnto vs besides sinne in diuers other points as for example in that he was begotten without the seed of man and that his body was inuisible when he would haue it soe and that he rose out of the sepulcher the same being shutt and diuers other like points which our ordinary naturall bodyes haue not though God of his omnipotency might giue the same to our bodyes also Then he alleaged the savinge of S. Peter in the Acts VVhome heauen must receaue vntill the consumation of the world Wherof he would inferre a necessity of Christs remayning in heauen vntill the day of iudgement Then Morgan laughed at this saith Fox Harpesfield stood vp and asked him how he vnderstood that place Oportet Episcopum esse vnius vxoris virum A Bishop must be the husband of one wife And whether this be of such necessity as he may not be without a wife one at least With which demaund Philpott was so entangled as he could not well go forward as there yow may see and refused to aunswere Maister Morgan as the prolocutor would haue had him 8. Well then this is the first and principall ground and bulwarke of all Sacramentary vnbeleefe in this article that Christs body cannot be by Gods omnipotent power in two places at once to witt both in heauen and in the Sacrament which we haue shewed before in our fourth fifth and sixt obseruations to be a fond and temerarious position whervnto we referre the reader to see the grounds more at large and heere only we shall say a word or two to the former eight arguments as they lye in order Yet first it shal be good for the reader to remember that which we haue noted before in the story of Melancthon who saith I had rather offer my selfe to death then to affirme as the Zuinglians do that Christes body cannot be but in one place at once But yet Peter Martyr Philpott Cranmer and their fellowes would dye and some of them also did dye for the contrary so as Saints of one Calendar do heere dye for contrary opinions one to the other But let vs answere the arguments 8. To the first we say concerning the minor proposition that a true naturall body naturally and by ordinary course of nature cannot be at one tyme but in one place and that meaneth S. Augustine ad Dardanum but supernaturally and by Gods ommpotent power that exceedeth nature yt repugneth not to be in diuers places at once yf God will haue yt so as in our fifth obseruation is proued To the second argument we say that euery true naturall body requireth one certaine place by ordinary course of nature and not otherwise To the third that soules and spiritts by their naturall course haue but one totall place wherin they may be said to be as one soule in one body and one Angell in the place that it pleaseth to occupye or to haue operation therin albeit yf we respect partiall places of the same body as head foote fingar and the like the selfe-same soule is wholy in diuers places at once which is no lesse wonderfull and incredible to our sense then for a bodily substance to be in two distinct places at once And the like is in the Angell who may occupy for example a whole house or towne for his totall place and yet be in euery particular and partiall place therof wholy and entyrely which is graunted both by all philosophers and diuynes though vulgar sense cannot apprehend yt 9. To the fourth may be answered the very same as to the former that the being of Angells in place definitiuely is like in all respects to that of the soule Read our fourth obseruation in the precedent Chapter To the fifth argument the aunswere is easy for we deny that whatsoeuer is in diuers places at once is God for that by his omnipotent power a creature may be yt is Gods priuiledge that he is euery where wholy and entyrely ex vi naturae diuinae by force of his diuine nature that is to say he is so euery-where as he cannot be but euery where which is not true eyther in a spiritt or in Christs body or in any other creature whatsoeuer for that all creatures as they haue limited natures so are they limited also in place and restrayned from vbiquity or being euery where which is proper and peculiar to almighty God alone so to speake of the body of Christ in particular yt is not euery-where and we detest both the Eutichian vbiquitaryes that held Christs body to be euery-where as confounded with his diuinity and no lesse the Lutheran vbiquitaryes of our dayes that hold Christs body to be euery where by reason of the coniunction with Christs diuinity the Catholike faith affirming only that Christs body though naturally it be but in one place yet by Gods omnipotency it may be in more 10. To the sixt argument we deny the Minor to witt that we destroy Christs humanity by grauntinge that yt may be in diuers places at once for that yt repugneth not to a humayne creature to be in more places then one by Gods omnipotency this we haue shewed more largely in our fifth obseruation To the seauenth we deny also the Minor that Christs body in the Sacrament is to be circumscribed or circumscriptiuely there as yt is in heauen The differences betweene three manners of being to witt circumscriptiuely definitiuely and sacramentally yow may see more at large declared in our fourth and fifth obseruations To the eight and last we say that the maior is to be vnderstood naturally and not supernaturally by diuine power to the Minor we aunswere that Christs body hath not externall dimensions in the Sacrament though yt haue in heauen and in the Sacrament yt hath only internall and inuisible quantity without extension to place wherof yow may read more in the fourth and fifth obseruations And this shal be sufficient for this first ground of philosophicall arguments Now will we passe to the second The second head or ground of Sacramentary argumentes drawen from contrary qualityes or quantityes c. §. 2. 11. This second ground is not
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
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
yt must needs be in these wherein authority learninge antiquity consent continuance vniuersality miracles and all other sorts of theologicall arguments both diuine humane do concurre and nothinge at all with the impugners but only selfe-will passion and malitious obstinacy as yow will better see afterward when yow come to examine their obiections 57. Furthermore yt is to be pondered what miserable men they were that first in our dayes against the whole army of God Church did presume to impugne this blessed sacrifice vpon such simple and fond reasons a◠before yow haue heard to witt Luther in Germany vpon the motiue laid downe vnto him by the diuell in his disputation with him recorded by himselfe in his wrytings and Nicolas Ridley in England vpon certayne places of the scripture and certayne testimonyes of Fathers to vse his owne words which made nothinge at all for his purpose as after most cleerly shall be shewed in due place and we may easily ghesse by that which hath byn alleaged before out of scriptures and Fathers for that scriptures cannot be contrary to scriptures nor are Fathers presumed to impugne Fathers in so great a point of faith as this is 58. Wherfore miserable twise miserable were these men that first vpon so small grounds aduentured to make so fatall a breach in Gods Church and thrise miserable were other who vpon these mens creditts ranne to aduenture both body and soule euerlastingly in pursuite of this breach and contradiction begunne as were the most of Fox his phantasticall Martyrs of the ruder and vnlearned sort who in all their examinations answers were most blasphemous in defiance and detestation of this blessed-Sacrament as yow haue seene in their historyes and therby did well shew that they were gouerned by his spiritt that aboue all honours doth enuy this that is done to almighty God as the highest and most pleasing to his diuine Maiestie of all others And so much for this point CERTAYNE OBSERVATIONS To be noted for better aunsweringe of hereticall Cauillations against these articles of the blessed Sacrament CHAP. III. HAVING exhibited a tast in the former Chapter of the many great and substantiall grounds which Catholike men haue to stand vpon in these high and diuine misteryes of Christs sacred body in the Sacrament and sacrifice and shewed in like manner that the faithlesse and infidious Sacramentary that wrangeleth against the same hath no one plaine place indeed eyther of scriptures or Fathers for his purpose but only certayne obiections founded for the most part vpon sense and humayne reason against faith and aunswered ordinarily by our schoolemen themselues that first obiected the same and out of whose books the heretiks stole them I haue thought yt best for more perspicuityes sake for helpinge their vnderstanding that are not exercised in matters aboue sense to set downe a few obseruations in this very beginninge wherby great light will grow to the reader for discouering whatsoeuer shall after be treated about this matter But yet before I enter into the obseruations themselues I would haue the reader consider two things first the inequality betweene our aduersaryes and vs in this case for that their arguments against these mysteryes being founded almost all in the appearance of comon sense as hath byn said the vnlearned reader is capable of the obiection but not of the solution which must be taken from matters aboue sense as presently yow shall see 2. The second point is that yf any of the old heretiks or heathen philosophers should rise againe at this day and bringe forth their arguments of sense humaine reason against such articles of our faith as in ould tyme they did impugne for both improbable and impossible in nature as namely the creation of the world out of nothinge three distinct persons of the blessed Trinity in one the selfe same substance two distinct natures in one person conioyned by the incarnation of Christ the resurrection of our putrifyed bodyes the selfe same substance qualityes quantityes other accidents such like points Against which I say yf ould philosophers heretiks should come forth againe in our dayes and propose such arguments as in their dayes they did which seeme inuincible and vnanswerable to common sense and humaine reason do yow not thinke that they should haue infinite people both men and weomen to follow them especially yf they were countenanced out with the authority of a potent Prince and Kingdome and suffered to speake their will as our men were that first impugned the reall presence and sacrifice in England and yet as the auncient Fathers in their tymes did not abandone these articles of faith for those difficultyes or appearance of impossibilityes no nor the common Cacholike people themselues that could not reach to the vnderstandinge therof so must not we do now though we could not aunswere in reason the aduersaryes arguments which yet by the ensuinge obseruations yow will easily be able to do And this for an entrance now to the obseruations themselues First Obseruation That vve are not in this mystery to follow our sense or Imagination §. 1. 3. The first obseruation is taken out of the ancient Fathers wrytings who treatinge of this mystery of Christs being in the Sacrament do expressely warne vs to beware that we iudge not of the matter according to sense or humayne imagination So saith S. Cyrill B. of Hierusalem whose words are Quamuis sensui hoc tibi suggerat c. Albeit externall sense do suggest vnto thee that this Sacrament is bread and wyne yet lett faith confirme thee to the contrary neyther do thou iudge by the tast knowinge most certainely that this bread which seemeth so vnto vs is not bread in deed notwithstandinge the tast doth iudge it to be bread but is the body of Christ and that the wyne which so appeareth to our sight by the sense of our tast is iudged to be wyne yet is it not wyne but the bloud of Christ. Thus hee neere thirteene hundred yeares gone And the like aduertisment giueth in the same matter S. Ambrose somewhat after him who hauing determined most cleerly the truth of the reall presence sayinge Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum vbi accesserit consecratio de pane sit corpus Christi This bread is bread before the words of the Sacrament be vttered by the Priest but when the consecration is added thervnto the bread is made the body of Christ He frameth an obiection of the senses in these words Fortèdicas aliud video c. Perhaps thou wilt say I see another thinge to witt bread and not the body of Christ and how then dost thou say that I receaue his body To which question S. Ambrose aunswereth at large alleaginge many other myracles wherein our senses are deceaued 4. The like obseruation hath S. Chrysostoine in sundry places talkinge of this mystery Credamus saith he vbique Deo nec repugnemus ei
etsi sensui cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur c. Let vs alwayes giue creditt to God nor let vs resist him albeit the thing seeme absurd to our sense and cogitation for our sense may easily be deceaued and therfore for so much as he hath said This is my body lett vs not doubt therof at all but beleeue him Saint Epiphanius standeth also vpon the same aduertisment reprehendinge them greuously yea condemninge them that dispute and frame their arguments from the testimony of their senses against the reall presence whose words he bringeth in thus Et videmus say they quod non aequale est c. We do see with our eyes that this which we do receaue in this Sacramēt to witt the host is neyther equall nor like the image of Christ in flesh nor to his inuisible deity nor to the formes or lineaments of his body for yt is of a round forme c. So they but S. Epiphanius his conclusion is against them thus qui non credit esseipsum verum excidit à gratia salute he that doth not beleeue Christ himselfe to be truly there vnder the round forme of bread that is giuen is fallen both from Gods grace and his owne saluation 5. And finally not to enlarge my selfe further in this behalfe Eusebius Emissenus or who els was the author of that excellent sermon de corpore Dominï concurreth also in this note against the iudgement of our senses sayinge Verè vnica persecta hostia side aestimanda non specie non exteriori consenda visu This only and perfect host is truly to be esteemed by faith and not to be iudged by the externall shape or veiw of our eyes Thus hee wherof S. Chrysostome giueth an example when he wryteth of this mystery O quot modò dicnns vellem formam speciem cius vellem vestimenta ipsa vellem calce amenta videre O how many are there videlicet of the simpler sort and not so grounded in faith that say I would I could see Christ his forme shape in the Sacrament I would see his apparell I would see his very shooes Thus said some in those dayes vpon simplicity perhappes but so say many more in our dayes vpon heresie and infidelity And truly yf we consider most of the arguments of all Fox his artificers or weomen Martyrs they were such as these heere mentioned deryded by S. Chrysostome and vpon these arguments went they to the stake Let your God in the Sacrament said Alice Driuer and her fellowes shedd some bloud and vve vvill beleeue The like cryed out many other simple rude people vve see bread we see wyne vve see a round cake we will neuer beleeue yt to be God except we see him worke some miracle What would S. Chrysostome thinke yow and other Fathers before mentioned haue said ' to these people yf they had heard them sound out such blasphemous cryes of infidelity and vnbeleefe in their dayes And so much for this first obseruation which is vsually to be found in all auncient Fathers wrytinges The second Obseruation That not only sense and common Imagination but neyther philosophicall reason is necessary to be followed in these mysteryes §. 2. 6. The second obseruation is much like to the first but passeth some degrees further and is taken out of the auncient Fathers aduertisments in like manner to witt that not only sense and sensuall imagination is not to be followed in these diuine mysteryes of our Sauiours body but neyther naturall or philosophicall reason it selfe is allwayes to be followed notwithstandinge yt reacheth farre higher then sense can attayne to which is proued first by the generall definition of faith vsed by S. Paul in his epistle to the Hebrues where yt is said to be argumentum rcrum non apparentium an argument or assent of things that do not appeare by reason which yet is more explicated by Saint Gregory when he saith sides non habet meritum vbi humana ratio praebet experimentum faith hath no meritt where humane reason doth yeld a proofe Saint Augustine also saith This is the praise of faith yf that which is beleeued be not seene for what great matter is it yf that be beleeued vvhich is euident And this is vniuersally in all points of our faith the beleefe wherof must not depend of the euidency of reason for then yt should be science as philosophers tearme yt and not faith which faith dependeth on the authority trust and creditt we giue to the reuealer which is God himselfe 7. But especially is this to be done in this high mystery of the blessed Sacrament of the Altar which is not only a mystery but a miracle also and such a miracle as requireth no lesse power then the omnipotency of God to performe the same Necessarium est said S. Chrysostome to his people of Antioch mysteriorum discere miraculum c. It is necessary for vs to learne this myracle of mysteryes what it is why it was giuen vs what vtility cometh therwith vnto vs the like And againe the same Father in his bookes of Priesthood descending to treat more in particular one point of this mystery which is how Christs body is at one tyme in many places he cryeth out O miraculum o Dei benignitatem O myracle o goodnesse of God! and why qui cum patre sursum sedet in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus petractatur he that sitteth aboue with his Father in that very instant of tyme is handled by all Priests hands And S. Cyprian to the same effect Panis quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natur a mutatus omnipotentia verbi sactuiest caro The bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples at the last supper being changed not in outward shew for yt appeareth bread still but in nature by the omnipotency of Gods word is made flesh 8. Thus thought and spake the ancient Fathers of this high mystery and myracle in the Sacrament And conforme to this they called vs alwayes from reason to faith from contention to humble beleefe when they treated therof for so wryteth among other auncient Fathers S. Hilary speakinge of this matter non est humano aut saeculi sensu in Dei rebus loquendum We must not talke of works of God accordinge to humayne and wordly reason c. touchinge the naturall verity of Christ in vs by this Sacrament that which we affirme except we haue learned yt of himselfe we do affirme the same folishly and impiously but he hath said my flesh is truly meate c. Vnto whome S. Ambrose agreeinge saith of the same mystery Quid hic quaeris natura ordinem c. Why seekest thou heere the order of nature touchinge the body of Christ in the Sacrament forsomuch as our Lord Iesus was borne of the Virgin beside the course of nature Heere
quantity to be without such extension but this ground Cath. Philosophers and diuines do easily ouerthrow shewinge that three things do agree to quantity or magnitude wherof the first is to be extended in yt selfe and to haue distinct partes one from the other among themselues though not euer visible or perceptible by our sense and this first point is so essentiall to quantity and magnitude as yt cannot be imagined separable so as it remaine quantity And therfore this is graunted to be in the body of our Sauiour in the Sacrament though our sense doth not comprehend yt The second property of quantity or magnitude proceedinge from this first is not only to haue partes distinct in themselues but to haue them extended also in place accordinge to the commensuration therof as in the first way of being in place we haue declared 20. And for that this second condition or propriety is later then the former ensueth therof yt is not so intrinsecall to the nature essence of quantity but that by Gods diuine power yt may be separated without destroyinge the said nature which our diuines do shew by examples of other thinges where God hath separated such secondary proprietyes without dissoluinge the natures as heatinge for example from fyre in the fornace of Babylon which heatinge notwithstandinge is as naturall to fyre as yt is to quantity to occupy place Christ also in S. Mathewes ghospell hauinge said to his disciples that yt was easier for a Camell to passe through the eye of a needle then for a rich-man to enter into the Kingedome of heauen and the Apostles wondringe therat and sayinge vvho then can be saued our Sauiour answered that that vvhich vvas impossible to men vvas possible to God which yet could not be possible but by separatinge from the camell all his naturall extension and commensuration of place Wherfore all the auncient Fathers vpon this place attributing this to myracle do affirme that by Gods diuine power yt may be done to witt that a camell remayninge in the nature of a camell may passe through a needles eye quid prohibet saith S. Gregory Nazianzen quo minus hoc siat si voluntas it a tulerit What letteth but that this of the camell may be done yf Gods will be to haue yt so Some Protestant will stepp forth and say that yt cannot be done for that the Camell should not in that case haue quantity and be organicall for so they say of our Sauiours body in the Sacrament but Nazianzen was of another opinion And so may yow read Origen S. Hierome S. Augustine S. Hilary S. Chrysostome and other Fathers in their commentaryes and expositions vpon this place of S. Mathewes ghospell 21. The third naturall condition or propriety of quantity proceedinge of this second is that for so much as by the forsaid second propriety the thinge placed doth fill vp the place which yt occupyeth euery part therof answeringe to euery part of the said place only and one place conteyne one body so as naturally yt is no lesse impossible for two bodyes to be in one place then for one body to be in many Yet notwithstanding supernaturally and by Gods omnipotent power both the one the other may be without implication or contradiction of the essence or nature of a true body The reason wherof is this for that this third propriety in quantity or magnitude flowinge of the second as hath byn said may much more easily be separated from the essence of the said quantity and body then the second and consequently the former being separable this is much more wherof our diuines do giue diuers most euident instances out of scripture yt selfe As for example out of S. Iohns Ghospell where twise yt is said that he came in to his disciples when the gates were shutt And in S. Mathew and S. Marke where yt is shewed how Christ after his resurrection came forth of the sepulcher the stone also being shutt and in his natiuity he came forth of his mothers wombe without violation of her virginity and in his assension he passed through all the heauens with his naturall body In all which myraculouse examples for so do the ancient Fathers hould and affirme them to be there must needs be penetration of bodyes or two bodyes in one place which is no lesse repugnant to the ordinary nature of quantity as hath byn said then for a body to be without certaine dimension of any place 22. Besides this our diuines do alleage the examples of the damned spirits miraculously tyed to certayne locall places in hell and that which is more maruelous that the damned soules being spiritts should suffer and be tormented by corporall fire wherof S. Augustine treateth at large lib. 21. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 1. 2. deinceps which is no lesse against the ordinary nature and propriety of spiritts to suffer corporally then yt is against the nature of a body to be after a certayne spirituall manner without his locall dimension by all which we may perceaue that although yt be aboue naturall reason that organicall bodyes should want these externall locall positions yet is yt not contrary or contradictory thervnto but subiect to Gods omnipotent power when and where yt pleaseth him to make yt so and consequently yt may be so also in the blessed Sacrament without destroyinge the nature of a true body as fondly Protestants do pretend 23. And heerby now falleth to the ground a whole mayne multitude of vayne arguments brought by Fox his Martyrs as after yow shall see against the reall presence all of them founded vpon this ground that a true organicall body cannot by Gods power be either without locall dimensions or in moe places then one at once The first of which two assertions hath now ben improued and the second shal be in the next ensuinge obseruation The fifth Obseruation How a body may be in diuers places at once §. 5. 24. As the weake faith and learninge of the Sacramentaryes of our tyme cannot reach to conccaue that a body can be without an externall place so much lesse can they comprehend that yt may be by Gods omnipotency placed in diuers places at once for that yt seemeth to their sense and humayne reason to be impossible but the ancient holy Fathers more wise and learned then our said Sectaryes tooke another course in this point which was to asscribe yt to miracle and to Gods infinite power which they could not by reason arriue vnto I might cyte diuers Fathers but one or two shall serue for all Omiracle saith S. Chrysostome o goodnes of God! that the same Christ who sitteth in heauen vvith his Father is conuersant at the selfe-same tyme in the hands of all that receaue him on earth And the same Father wrytinge of the same sacred body of our Sauiour as yt is a sacrifice saith Vnum est hoc sacrificium c. This sacrifice is
lookinge-glasse that represented but one face vnto yow when yt was whole being broken into many parts euery part will represent wholy the selfe-same face The voyce also of him that speaketh to a great multitude though yt be but one in yt selfe yet cometh yt wholy to euery mans eares which S. Augustine alleaged for a wonderfull thinge towards the prouinge of Gods being wholy euery-where Omne quod sonat saith he omnibus totum est singulis totum est All that soundeth is heard wholy of all and wholy of euery particular man And though these examples be not like in euery respect yet may they serue for a certayne induction to make vs comprehend the other wherof we now speake 31. Last of all Catholike diuines do not only shew the possibility of this point that our Sauiours body may be in diuers places at once as also that sundry other mysteryes of our faith are beleeued of more difficulty then this yf we regard common sense and reason but do shew also out of the scriptures themselues that Christ after his assension hath byn in more then one place at once as is manifest by that famous apparition of his to S. Paul recorded in the acts of the Apostles when he appeared vnto him in the way neere to Damasco inuironed with a great light and talked with him in such sort as both the light and words were seene and heard by his companions and many other apparitions to S. Peter himselfe testified by Egesippus and S. Ambrose to S. Anthony also testified by S. Gregory besides diuers others recorded by S. Paulinus Ioannes Diaconus and other authenticall wryters from whome except we will derogate all creditt and authority we may not doubt but that Christ remayninge still in heauen for so hould both we and Protestants togeather that he departed not from thence appeared also in diuers places of the earth to his Saints and consequently his body could be in diuers places at once wherby is broken and dissolued another squadron of arguments framed by the Sacramentaryes of our dayes to the simple people as though Christs reall body could not be in the Sacrament for that yt is in heauen wheras we affirme that both may be and stand togeather though in different manner for that in heauen he is circumscriptiuely and in the Sacrament sacramentally which tearmes we haue before declared The sixth Obseruation How Christes body in the Sacrament may be now vnder a greater forme now vnder a losse and the least that may be discerned §. 6. 32. By this also which is said may be conceaued how the sacred body of our Sauiour in the Sacramēt vnder the accidents of bread is sometymes in a greater visible quantity and sometymes in a lesse accordinge to the externall formes and accidents vnder which yt is yea and in the least part parcell of the consecrated host that is perceptible to our sense for that the said body being remoued by Gods omnipotent power from all locall extension it may be vnder a greater or smaller externall quantity without alteration of the body yt selfe as we see in the soule of man which is the selfe-same in the least part of the body wherin it is as in the greatest or in the whole body yea when the said body is changed or groweth from a lesser to a greater quantity as in an infant who after commeth to be a great man the selfe-same soule replenisheth the one and the other without grouth or diminution in yt selfe and so the body of Christ in a great host or a little or in any least part therof when yt is broken is wholy and the selfe-same body with the selfe-same internall organicall quantity which yt had vnder a great host And this point that the quantity of a substance may be increased or diminished externally in respect of place without alteratiō of the inward quantity or substāce is euident by many examples which we see dayly of rarefaction and condensation As for example when a gallon of water is put in a great vessell ouer the fire yt cometh by boylinge to fill the whole vessell that is capable of many gallons and yet as the inward substance is not increased so neyther the quantity in yt selfe and contrary wise when the said water is againe cooled it returneth to occupy as small a place as yt did at the beginninge and yet retayneth allwayes the selfe same both quantity and substance 33. By which example many other that may be alleaged some kind of notice may be gathered vnto our common sense and reason how the substance of Christs body in the Sacrament togeather with his internall quantity may by his omnipotent power be sometymes vnder a great externall quantity or extension in place sometymes vnder a lesser yea the least that by our senses may be perceaued and yet is Christs body wholy and entirely there accordinge in some proportion to the lookinge-glasse before mentioned which being broken into diuers small peeces each one representeth the whole visage seuerally which before was exhibited by the whole And so when any consecrated host is broken into many parts that which was cōteyned before in the whole host is now cōteyned wholy vnder euery particular parcell therof as yt was also before And to this effect are those words of S. Epiphanius before alleaged against them that said Videmus quod est aequale c. We see that the host receaued in the Sacrament is not equall or like to the figure of Christs body but is round c. Wherfore all the arguments of Fox his Martyrs that were founded on this improportion of the host to Christs naturall and externall quantity haue no ground at all but a little fraudulent shew and appearance of sensible improbability and yet were many of their cheefest arguments builded on this only foundation as yow haue seene readinge ouer their historyes before recyted and shall do more afterward when we come to examine their arguments seuerally and in the meanee space this shall suffice for an aduertisment about this obseruation The seauenth Obseruation How accidents may be without a subiect and of their operations in that case §. 7. 34. The seauenth obseruation may be about the accidents or formes of bread and wyne that do remayne by Gods omnipotent power without a subiect after the words of consecration as they did before in the substance of bread whervpon the more simple sort of Sacramentaryes following sense will needs argue that the substance also of bread wyne do remayne after the said consecration and those that be more learned do go about to proue the same by philosophicall reason for that the nature of an accident is to be in another as the nature of a substance is to be in yt selfe wherof ensueth that for so much as no accident can be in God as in a subiect neyther are they in Christs body as we also doe
this place whatsoeuer was obiected by the said Sacramentaryes of any moment in all the former disputations or other conferences colloquyes or examinations reducinge all for more perspicuityes sake vnto certaine heads or groundes in manner followinge The first head or ground of Sacramentary obiections for that yt seemeth impossible to them that Christes body can be in many places at once §. 1. 2. This is the first principall ground of all the Sacramentaryes vnbeleefe and out of which they draw the greatest squadron of all their arguments and obiections as presently yow shall see for that yt is a point very plausible to comon-sense and humayne reason that a naturall body naturally cannot be but in one place at once but he that shall read our obseruations in the precedeÌ„t Chapter where we haue shewed that not only supernaturally and by Gods omnipotent power yt may be done but that it comprehendeth not so much as any contradiction in nature it selfe and further shall consider that alboit Christs true and naturall body be in the Sacrament at many places at once yet not after a naturall manner but supernaturall and miraculous as euery where the ancient Fathers do admonish vs and we haue alleaged many of their admonitions before he I say that shall consider this will easily contemne and laughe at the vanity of so many Sacramentary arguments founded vpon this weake ground and principle only that a naturall body cannot be in more places then one at once which is true naturally that is to say by the ordinary course of nature but by the power of God that is aboue nature yt may be and this without an essentiall contradiction as I haue said in nature yt selfe 3. Well then now will I sett downe the whole squadron of arguments which out of this false principle or rather true principle misvnderstood Iohn Fox layeth foorth with great ostentation out of Peter Martyr his Oxford disputations which arguments are 8. in number and did seeme so insoluble vnto Fox his diuinity and philosophy as he putteth no answere at all giuen by the Catholike defendants to the same I shall deliuer them also in dialecticall forme as they ly in Fox this once togeather with his foolery of cytinge the moods and figures of sophistry in the margent to euery argument a thinge knowen to euery child that beginneth logique consequently is ridiculous to men of learninge though strange to the ignorant people that may imagine great secrets to ly hidden in those words of Disamis Darij Baroco Festino Bocardo and thinke that Iohn Fox doth go about to coniure vs his readers by settinge them downe but now to the arguments themselues 1. Argument 4. The true naturall body of Christ is placed in heauen Matth. 24. 26. Ioan. 12. 16. Act. 3. Colloss 3. The true naturall body of man can be but in one place at once where he is August ad Dardanum propter veri corporis modum saith he that is for the manner of a true body Ergo the true naturall body of Christ can be in noe place at once but in heauen where he is 2. Argument Euery true naturall body requireth one certayne place Christs body is a true naturall body Ergo. Christs body requireth one certayne place 3. Argument Augustine giueth not to the soule of Christ to be in more places at once then one Aug. ad Dardan Ergo. Much lesse yt is to be giuen to the body of Christ to be in more places at once then one 4. Argument The nature of Angells is not to be in diuers places but they are limited to occupy one certayne place at once Basil. dâ— spiritu sancto cap. 22. Ergo. The body of Christ being the true naturall body of man cannot fill diuers places at once 5. Argument Whatsoeuer is in many diuers places at once is God The body of Christ is not God but a creature Ergo. The body of Christ cannot be in more places togeather 6. Argument We must not so defend the diuinity of Christ as we destroy his humanity Yf we assigne more places to the body of Christ we destroy his humanity Ergo. We must not assigne to the body of Christ plurality of places 7. Argument Whatsoeuer thinge is circumscribed that is to say conteyned in the limitts of any peculiar place cannot be dispersed into more places at once The body of Christ is a thinge circumscribed Ergo the body of Christ is not dispersed into more places at one tyme. 8. Argument Euery quantity that is euery body hauing magnitude length and other dimensions is circumscribed in one peculiar place Cyrill de triuit lib. 2. The body of Christ hath his dimensions and is a quantity Ergo the body of Christ is circumscribed Aunswere 5. These are the doughty arguments which Fox affirmeth their great Patriarke Peter Martyr to haue alleaged against the reall-presence out of this first philosophicall ground that one body cannot be in many places at once Whervnto I might aunswere in the words of S. Augustine to such kind of men as measure Gods power by their owne imagination Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas behould with what kind of arguments the infirmity of man possessed by vanity doth contradict Gods omnipotency Yf yow read the fourth and fifth obseruations sett downe in the former Chapter yow will easily see both the infirmity and vanity of all these arguments how this great variety vpon one ground are but mâ—ncedmeats guised in diuers sorts and fashions by the art of Fox and Peter Martyrs cookery and yet are they held for great demonstrations and stronge fortresses of the Sacramentary faith or rather infidelity and vrged euery where by their followers 6. Iohn Rogers vsed the same argument in his defence before the Bishops as yow may see in Fox pag. 1251. Christ is corporally saith he in heauen only ergò not in the Sacrament where he vseth an equiuocation also in the word corporally for that we do not say that Christ is corporally in the Sacrament yf by corporally he meane not only really and substantially but also after a corporall manner accordinge to externall dimensions Thomas Tompkins the weauer of Shordich vseth the same argument against his Ordinary in like manner to witt that Christ body cannot be in the Sacrament for that yt is in heauen Fox pag. 1395. Maister Guest in his Cambridge disputations against Doctor Glyn leaned principally to this argument and B. Ridley his moderator or president of these disputations vrged a place of S. Augustine ad Dardanum to the same effect Tolle spatia corporibus nusquam erunt Take away the spaces from bodyes saith S. Austen and they shal be no where But D. Glyn defendant
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
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
sett downe in the second Chapter of this Treatise though many waighty they were or might be Wherfore to speake breifely somewhat therof and for more breuity and perspicuity to draw the matter to some kind of order and methode yow must note that of these ten disputations only foure were in tyme of Catholike gouernement as before I signified that is to say the six-dayes conference in the Conuocation-house in the beginninge of Q. Maryes raigne the three-dayes seuerall disputation at Oxford with Cranmer Ridley and Latymer some monethes after And as for the first in the Conuocation-house the Protestants only did dispute for three continuall dayes togeather to witt Phillips Haddon Cheyney Elmour and Philpott and seuerall Catholike men were appointed to aunswere them And when in the end the Protestants were required to aunswere according to promise in their turnes the Catholike opponents for other three dayes they refused yt all sauing Philpott vpon certayne conditions to be heard yet further but Doctor VVeston the prolocutor reiected him as a man fitter to be sent to bedlam saith Fox then to be admitted to disputation c. For that he both was vnlearned and a very madd man in deed Wherfore out of this disputation little or nothinge is offered about this article of reall-presence for that the Catholike party disputed not at all 2. And as for the other three dayes disputation in Oxford the last which was with Latymer was very little for that he fledd disputation as there yow shall see and the few arguments that were made against him were rather in proofe of the sacrifice of the masse so as most arguments were alleaged in the former two-dayes conflict against Cranmer and Ridley which presently we shall examine though vnder K. Edward also one day of the Cambridge disputations was allowed to Catholike opponents to propose their argumeÌ„ts Doctor Madew being defendant for the Protestants and Doctor Glyn Maister Langdall Maister Sedg-wicke opponents for the Catholiks to as out of these foure disputations we shall note breifely some Catholike arguments that were alleaged aduertisinge the reader first to consider with some attention the points ensuinge 3. First that we haue nothinge of these disputations their arguments or aunswers but only such as pleaseth Iohn Fox to deliuer and impart with vs which most euidently do appeare to be mangled and vnperfect in many places without head or foote coherence or consequence which must proceed eyther of purpose to make matters obscure and therby to bring the reader into doubt and confusion or of lacke of good information and that the former is more credible then the second may be gliessed by the variety of impertinent notes in the margent scoffes and iests in the text yt selfe often tymes putt in to deface the Catholike party and to giue creditt to his sectaryes And consequently what faith may be giuen to his narrations but only where they make against himselfe is easy to be seene especially in that himselfe coÌ„fesseth that Ridley wrote in prison his owne disputations after they were past the same we may presume of the rest and then no man can doubt but that they would putt downe their owne parts to their vttermost aduantage or at least-wise with the smallest losse that they could diuise 4. Secondly yt is to be considered of the precedent reader that must aduenture his soule euerlastingely by takinge one part or other in this controuersie heere in hand how much yt may import him to stand attent to the places and authorityes alleaged out of scriptures Fathers for the truth to consider them well reading them ouer againe and againe weighing the true meaning sense of the wryter and not how sleightly or cunningly they are or may be shifted of by any witty wrangler for so much as this may be done with any wrytinge or euidence neuer so manifest yf the defendant will list to cauill the reader be so inconsiderate or carelesse of his owne perill as to be delighted or abused therwith 5. Thirdly in the allegation of Fathers testimonyes which heere are to ensue yt is to be weighed not only what they say but also how they say what phrases and speaches they vse and to what end and whether yf they had byn of the Protestants Religion they would haue vsed those phrases or no more then Protestant wryters do themselues at this day especially so ordinarily and commonly as the said Fathers do they being men both learned wise and religious that well knew how to vtter their owne mynds meaning what is proper improper speach withall not being ignoraÌ„t how great inconueniences must ensue of improper speaches in matters of faith where men are bound to speake precisely and warily and on the other side is â—o be considered also yf they were of contrary opinions to the Protestants and of that faith which we affirme them to be in this point of the reall presence what more effectuall speaches could they haue vsed to expresse yt then they do callinge yt the true body the reall body the naturall body of our Sauiour the same body that he tooke of the blessed Virgin and gaue vpon the Crosse the body vvherby he is vnited vnto vs in humanity and denyinge it expressely to be bread after the vvords of consecration though yt seeme to be bread to our eyes tast and that we must not trust our senses therin but yeld to Gods omnipotency and beleeue that as he hath vvrought infinite other miracles so hath he done this that we must adore yt vvith the highest adoration and other like phrases which neyther Protestants can abide or euer do vse in their wrytinges nor could the Fathers yf they had byn expressely of our Religion as we say they were diuise words more significant proper or effectuall to expresse the truth of our Catholike faith then yf of purpose they had studyed for yt as no doubt they did So as yf the auncient Fathers did vnderstand what they spake and that they spake as they meant then are the Protestants in a pittifull plight whose saluation or damnation dependeth in this whether we must vnderstand them S. Paul and Christ himselfe literally as they spake or by a figure only so as yf they vsed no figure then is the Sacramentary opinion to be held for heresie 6. Fourthly is to be considered also in this matter as els-where we haue noted that when any one of these auncient Fathers in what age soeuer is found to vse these effectuall words for vttering his meaning about this high mystery of Christs being present in the Sacrament he is to be vnderstood to expresse not only his owne iudgement and beleefe therin but the iudgement also and beleefe of the whole Church of Christendome in that age for so much as any Doctor neither then nor after did note him for error or â—emerity in speakinge wrytinge as he did which no doubt
shewing out of the words of S. Ambrose that Ridleyes aunswere could not be true for that S. Ambrose said that after the consecration there is not the thinge that nature did forme but that which the blessing doth consecrate And that yf the benediction of Elias the Prophett could turne the nature of water how much more the benediction of Christ God man can do the same ergò there is a greater change in the natures then of common bread to become the Lords bread 12. To this reply there was no other aunswere giuen but that S. Ambrose his booke dâ— Sacramentis was not his Ridley affirmed that all the Fathers did say so which was a shamelesse lye in so great an auditory nor could he bringe forth so much as one Father that said so nor alleaged he any one argument to proue yt to be so and yf he had yet S. Ambrose repeatingâ— againe the very same sentence in his booke de initiandis is sufficient for the authority of the place but Glyn is made to passe away the matter with sylence sayinge VVell lett this passe c. And then goinge to other authorityes of Fathers ys â—â—yped of with like shifâ—â— as when he cyteth S. Cyprians words Panis non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Dei sit caro tâ—e bread by consecration being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of God made flesh they aunswere that by nature is vnderstood a naturall property or quality and by flesh a fleshly thinge or quality and not the substance so as the sense must be that bread is changed not in outward shape but into a naturall property of a fleshly thing c. And when Doctor Glyn replyed to ouerthrow this inuention out of S. Ambrose who affirmeth this chaÌ„ge of bread to be made into the flesh that was taken of the Virgin Mary ergò yt was not only into a fleshly thinge quality or property but into the true flesh of Christ Ridly gaue an aunswere that I vnderstand not nor himselfe I thinke but only that he must say somwhat in so great an audience and expectation or Fox vnderstood yt not that setteth it downe for these are his words 13. VVhen Doctor Glyn vrged the sayinge of S. Ambrose that bread is changed into the body taken from the virgin Mary that is to say saith he that by the word of God the thinge hath a being that yt had nâ—t before and we do consecrate the body that we may receaue the grace and power of the body of Christ in heauen by this Sacramentall body So he And doth any man vnderstand him or is his aunswere any thinge to the purpose for satisfyinge the Fathers S. Cyprian saith that the bread by the omnipotency of God is changed in nature and made flesh and S. Ambrose saith yt is the flesh taken from the Virgin and Ridley saith heere that yt hath a being vvhich yt had not before and that they do consecrate a sacramentall body of Christ therby to receaue the grace and power of Christs body in heauen but howsoeuer they do consecrate that body which is a strange word for Sacramentaryes to vse yet do they graunt that this Sacramentall body is but bread and how then can yt be flesh and flesh of the Virgin were not the Fathers ridiculous yf they vsed these equiuocations yea false and improper speaches 14. Well Doctor Glyn goeth foreward and alleageth S. Chrysostome vpon S. Mathewes ghospell where to persuade vs the truth of Christs body in the Sacrament he saith that we must beleeue Christs words in these mysteryes and not our senses for that our senses may be deceaued but Christ sayinge this is my body cannot deceaue vs and that he made vs one body with himselfe not through faith only but in very deed and further that the miracle which he wrought in his last supper he vvorketh dayly by his ministers c. Whervnto Ridley aunswered nothinge but these words Maister Doctor yow must vnderstand that in that place S. Chrysostome shewed that Christ deliuered vnto vs no sensible thinge in that supper So he Which notwithstanding is euidently false for he deliuered sensible bread wyne according to the Protestants faith and accordinge to outs the formes of bread and wyne which are also sensible and yf there were no sensible thinge then could there be no Sacrament which must conteyne a sensible signe And to refuâ—e this shift of Ridley Doctor Glyn obiected Theophilact expoundinge S. Chrysostome and vsinge the same words that he did to witt that the bread is transelemented and transformed He alleageth another place or two of S. Augustine togeather with S. Irenaeus To all which Rochester aunswereth resolutely VVell say what yow list yt is but a figuratiue speach as S. Iohn Baptist was said to be Elias for a property c. But who doth not see the absurdity of this euasion for so much as the meaning of Christ about Elias his spiritt in S. Iohn Baptist is euident nor euer went any auncient Fathers about to affirme or proue by arguments that S. Iohn Baptist was truly Elias in person himselfe expressely denyinge yt or that yt was meant literally as they do of the words of Christ in the Sacrament And this could not Ridley but see but that he was blinded in pride and passion for that otherwise he would neuer haue gone about to aunswere the Fathers by euident wranglinge so contrary to their owne sense and meaninge 15. After Doctor Glyn was putt to silence in this order succeded Maister Langdale Maister Sedgewicke and Maister Yonge but very breefely concerninge this article of the reall-presence not being permitted to speake more and the most part of the tyme trifled out also with courtesyes of speach the one to the other My good Lord good Maister Doctor pleaseth yt your good Lordshipp liketh yt your good Fathershipp honourable Father and the like ceremonyes for they durst do no other Ridley being then high commissionar yet Maister Langdale vrged a place of S. Chrysostome where he bringeth Christ savinge these words I vrould be your brother I tooke vpon me common flesh and bloud for your sakes and euen by the same things that I am ioyned to yow the very same I haue exhibited to yow againe meaninge in the Sacrament Wherof Maister Langdale inferred that seing Christ tooke vpon him true naturall flesh and not a figure of flesh only or remembrance therof therfore he gaue vs his true naturall flesh like man in the Sacrament and not a figure Wherto Ridley aunswereth in these words and no more VVe are not ioyned by naturall flesh but do receaue his flesk spiritually from aboue Which aunswere is not only contrary to the expresse words and meaning of S. Chrysostome in this place but of Christ himselfe also brought in heere by S. Chrysostome to vtter his meaninge as yow haue heard I tooke vpon me common flesh for
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
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
but what speach to witt that wherby all things were created the Lord commaunded and heauen was made the Lord coÌ„maunded earth was made the Lord coÌ„maunded the seas were made c. Vides ergò quà m operatorius sit sermo Christi si ergò tanta vis est in sermone Domini vt inciâ—â—rent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius erit â—â— sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Yow see therfore how working the speach of Christ is yf then there be so much force in the speach of our Lord as that those things which were not tooke their beginning therby how much more potent is the same speach in workinge that those things which were before be changed into another And presently he addeth the heauen was not the sea was not the earth was not but heare him speake he said the word and they were done he commaunded and they were â—â—eated Wherfore to answere yow I say that it was not the body of Christ before consecration but after coÌ„secration I say vnto thee that now yt is the body of Christ. So S. Ambrose 34. And heere now good reader I doubt not but yow see the fond euasion of Cranmer and Fox his aduocate cleerly refuted by S. Ambrose where they say that the speach or words of Christ worke not but Christ by the words as though there were a great diuersity in that point But now lett vs see how they will scamble ouer this authority of S. Ambrose that saith expressely both that the speach of Christ did worke potently and worke the conuersion of bread and wyne into flesh and bloud first Fox hath this note in the margent against S. Ambrose as though he had miscompared the words of creation with the words of the institution of the Sacrament The Lord Iesus saith Fox vsed not heere commaundement in the Sacrament as in creation for we read not Fiat hoc corpus meum as vve read Fiat lux c. Do yow see the mans subtile obseruation or rather simple sottish cauillation against so graue a Father The words Hoc est corpus meum this is my body imployeth somewhat more then Fiat corpus meum lett yt be my body for that yt signifieth the thinge done already which the other willeth to be done And so for this we will leaue Iohn Fox to striue with S. Ambrose about the vsinge or abusinge of scriptures alleaged by him And so much of Fox 35. But how doth Cranmer himselfe auoyd this plaine authority of S. Ambrose thinke yow Yow shall heare yt in his owne words for they are very few to so large an authority All these thinges saith he are common I say that God doth chiefly vvorke in the Sacraments Do yow see his breuity and obscurity but his meaning is that wheras before he had denyed for a shift that Christs words did worke but only Christ by his words a difference without a diuersity now seing S. Ambrose so plaine to the contrary in settinge forth the workinge of Christs words he seeketh another shift in this aunswere which is that albeit Christs words do worke in the Sacraments yet Christ chiefly as though any controuersy were in this or any man had denyed yt But what saith he to the mayne point wherin S. Ambrose affirmeth not only Christs vvords to be Operatoria vvorkingewords but that their worke is to make bread the true and naturall body of Christ after they be vttered by the Priest nothing truly in substance doth he aunswere herevnto but after his shifts he saith only that yt vvas called the body of Christ as the holy-ghost vvas called the doue and S. Iohn Baptist was called Elias which are but bare signes representations as euery one seeth hay he goeth againe presently from this which heere he had graunted that God worketh in the Sacraments For when Doctor Yonge vrged him thus Yf God worke in the Sacraments he worketh in this Sacrament of the Fucharist Cranmer aunswereth God worketh in his faithfull not in the Sacraments And thus he goeth forward grauntinge and denyinge turninge and wyndinge and yet poore miserable man he would not turne to the truth nor had grace to acknowledge the same laid before him but toyled himselfe in contradictions endeauouring to shift of most euident authorityes of ancient Fathers by impertinent interpretations As when Doctor Yonge vrged him with those cleere words of S. Ambrose Before the words of Christ be spoken the chalice is full of wyne and water but when the vvords of Christ haue vvrought their effect then is there made the bloud that redeemed the people Cranmer aunswered that the words of Christ wrought no otherwise in this SacrameÌ„t then in baptisme Ambrose said quoth he that the bloud is made that is the Sacrament of the bloud is made fit sanguis the bloud is made that is to say ostenditur sanguis the bloud is shewed forth there 36. These and such like vvere Cranmers sleights to ridd himselfe that day and yet did not Doctor Chadsey and VVeston leaue him for these starts but followed him close with other cleere places of S. Ambrose the one expounding the other As for example Fortè dicas c. Perhaps yow may say how are these things true I vvhich see the similitude do not see the truth of the bloud First of all I tould thee of the word of Christ vvhich so vvorketh that yt can change and turne the kinds ordayned of nature c. And againe in another place Ergo didicisti c. Therfore thou hast learned that of bread is made the body of Christ and that vvyne and vvater is putt into the cupp but by consecration of the heauenly vvord it is made bloud Sed fortè dices speciem sanguinis non videri sed habet similitudinem But perhaps yow will say that the shape or forme of bloud is not seene but yet it hath the similitude So S. Ambrose and for that he saith as yow see that albeit the bloud after consecration hath not the shew or forme of true bloud yet hath yt similitude for that the forme of wyne commeth neerest to the likenesse of bloud heerof Cranmer layinge hands could not be drawne from affirminge that S. Ambrose meaninge is that it is not true naturall bloud after the consecration but beareth a similitude only representation or â—ipe therof which is quite contrary to S. Ambrose his whole drift and discourse yf yow consider yt out of passion 37. After these bickerings about S. Ambrose were vrged against him by the two Doctors Chadsey and VVeston diuers other Fathers as Iustinus Martyr aboue 14. hundred yeares gone whoe in his Apology for Christians writeth that as by the word of God Iesus Christ our Sauiour being made flesh had both flesh and bloud for our saluation so are â—e taught that the meate consecrated by the vvord of prayer instituted by him vvherby our bloud and flesh are nourished by communion
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
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
duabus rebus constans terrena calesti which Ridley translateth thus Sacramentall bread consistinge of two natures earthly and heauenly But by Maister Ridleyes leaue Eucharistia in this place is fraudulently translated by him Sacramentall bread except he meane as we do and as Irenaeus did that yt was the body of Christ but called bread for that yt was made of bread For that Irenaeus in the very same place wryting against heretiks asketh this question Quomodo constabit eis eum panem in quo gratiae actae sint corpus esse Domini sui How shall yt be made euident to these heretiks that this bread in which thanks haue byn giuen is the body of their Lord Wherto he aunswered and proueth the same by diuers arguments so as no place of any Father could haue byn alleaged more against himselfe then this is by Ridley And as for that he saith that the Eucharist consisteth of two natures earth-ly and heauenly he meaneth euidently by the heauenly nature the true body of Christ and by the earthly nature the externall symbolls formes and accidents And so much of him 12. And the selfe-same thinge do meane both Theoderete and Gelasius heere also by him alleaged as vsinge the like phrases that the natures of bread and wyne do remayne which they vnderstand of the externall symbolls formes and accidents For as for the reall presence they do both of them affirme yt in the same places by Ridley alleaged And so this shall suffice for this place there being nothing els worthy aunsweringe And now yf yow consider what variety of plaine and perspicuous authorityes haue byn alleaged by vs before both out of the disputations and otherwise for confirmation of the Catholil beleefe of the reall presence and Transubstantiation yow will easily see what broken wares these bee which Protestants bringe forth to the contrary and how fondly this second ground of Ridleyes proofes is intituled by him the most certaine testimonyes of the auncient Catholike Fathers vvho after my iudgement saith he do sufficiently declare this matter And I will not greatly stand against him for that the mans iudgement being peruerted by heresie faction and ambition of those tymes any thinge would seeme sufficient to him to draw him to that byas whervnto himselfe inclyned And thus much of this article About the third Article of the Sacrifice of the Masse §. 2. 13. For that there was little or nothinge disputed of this third article eyther in Cambridge Oxford or London except only a little against Latymer as presently we shall see I haue thought best to betake me only to Ridleyes determination in this matter he beginneth the same thus Now in the later conclusion concerninge the sacrifice because yt dependeth vpon the first to witt of the reall-presence I will in few vvords declare vvhat I thinke for yf we once agree in that the vvhole controuersie in the other vvill soone be at an end Marke heere good reader that Ridley confesseth this controuersie of the sacrifice to depend of the reall-presence which reall-presence being so substantially proued before as yow haue heard little doubt can be made of this yet will Ridley tell vs what he thinketh a goodly ground for vs to hange our soules on which is that there is no sacrifice at all but that of Christ vpon the Crosse and he will tell vs also his grounds for so thinkinge Two things saith he there be vvhich do persuade me to vvitt certayne places of scripture and certayne testimonyes of the Fathers So he And as for scriptures he alleageth no one but out of the Epistle to the Hebrues that Christ entred once for all into the holy-place and obtayned for vs eternall redemption And againe That Christ vvas once offered to take away the sinnes of many And yet further that with one offeringe he made perfect for euer those that are sanctified And hauinge cyted these places he maketh this conclusion These scriptures do persuade me to beleeue that there is no other oblation of Christ albeit I am not ignorant there are many sacrifices but that vvhich vvas once made vpon the Crosse. 14. Heere now yow may see the force of a passionate iudgement and how little doth suffice to persuade a man to any heresie that is inclined thervnto of himselfe I would aske of Ridley heere how chaunceth yt that S. Chrysostome S. Basill S. Ambrose S. Cyrill S. Hierome S. Augustine and other Fathers cyted before so aboundantly and perspicuously affirming the dayly sacrifice of the masse and distin guishing betweene Cruentum incruentum sacrificium he bloudy sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse once offered vp for all And the selfe-same sacrifice dayly reiterated and offered againe in many places throughout the world after an vnbloudy manner how these Fathers I say had not byn persuaded as Ridley was by these places of scripture to deny the Sacrifice of the Masses had they not read thinke yow the Epistle to the Hebrewes or did they not vnderstand yt as well as Ridley and how then was Ridley persuaded and not they there reason is that which he touched before when he said after my iudgement c. For that he followed his owne iudgement blynded by his owne affection in this point against the masse and they followed not their owne iudgement but the vniuersall iudgement and beleefe of the Catholike Church in their dayes and so must Ridley giue vs leaue to follow them rather then him 15. As for his second motiue of certayne testimonyes of the Fathers yt is so weake and broken a thinge as he dareth not come forth with yt but only quoteth certayne places of Saint Augustine wherby he saith that the Christians keepe a memoriall of the sacrifice past and that Fulgentius in his booke de fide calleth the same a commemoration And these be all the Fathers and their authorityes which he alleageth for his second motiue wherby yow may see that he was moued by a little against the masse For we deny not but that the sacrifice of the masse is a commemoration also of the death passion and Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse and he that in steed of these impertinent citations out of S. Austen nothing at all to the purpose would lay downe on the contrary side all the cleere euident and effectuall places sentences discourses and asseuerations which this holy Father hath in profe and confirmation of the visible externall sacrifice of the masse wherin Christs sacred body the same that was offered on the Crosse is offered againe dayly both for quicke and dead by Christian Catholike Priests on the Altar might make a whole Treatise therof and I remitt the reader to Hieronymus Torrensis his collection called Confessio Augustiniana where throughout a 11. or 12. paragraphes he doth set downe large authorityes most plaine and euident out of the said Fathers works And yt is inough for vs at this tyme that Latymer being pressed
themselues do graunt that yf Christ be there really present yt cannot be denyed but that he is there also by Transubstantiation of bread into his body for so Father Latymer yf yow remember affirmed before in his disputations when he was said once to haue byn a Lutheran which Lutherans do hould both Christs body and bread to be togeather in the Sacrament he aunswered I say that he could neuer perceaue how Luther could defend his opinion without Transubstantiation that the Tygurynes being also Sacramentaryes did write a booke against him in this behalfe prouinge belike that in grauntinge the reall presence as he did he must needs graunt Transubstantiation also wherin they had great reason for that in truth the imagination of Luther and Lutherans that Christs body and bread doe stand togeather vnder the same formes and accidents and be receaued togeather being so different substances is a most grosse and fond imagination so as the Lutherans graunting the one denying the other are condemned of absurdity euen by the Zuinglians themselues as yow see and as we say also iustly 2. And on the other side we say in like manner as before hath byn noted that the Zuinglians and Caluinists and other Sacramentaryes denyinge wholy the said reall presence do in vayne wrangle about Transubstantiation For as he that should deny for example sake that any substance of gould were in a purse or any substance of wyne in a barrell should in vaine dispute whether the gold were there alone or togeather with some baser metall as siluer tynne or copper or whether the wyne were there alone or in company of water so in this controuersie yt is an idle disputation for Sacramentaryes to discusse whether the substance of Christs reall flesh be alone in the Sacrament or togeather with the substance of bread for so much as they deny yt to be there at all 3. Yet notwithstanding for that their cheefe altercation is about this point as by their disputations may appeare I shall breefely examine their grounds vvhich accordinge to B. Ridleyes ostentation vttered in Cambridge out of the diuinity chayre vnder King Edward the sixt as before yow haue heard are fiue in number sett forth in these vauntinge words The principall grounds or rather head-springs of this matter are specially fiue First the authority maiestie verity of holy scriptures the second the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient Catholike Fathers the third The definition of a Sacrament the fourth The abhominable heresie of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation The fifth the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith He ascended into heauen And then a little after he concludeth thus These be the reasons vvhich persuade me to enâ—lyne to this sentence and iudgement 4. Heere yow see the principall grounds or rather head springs that persuaded Ridley to inclyne or rather declyne for yet he seemed not fully setled in this article of beleefe And albeit these grounds may seeme to conteyne somewhat in shew and sound of words yet when the substance thereof commeth to be examined they are found to be idle and puffed vp with words indeed For first what authority maiesty and verity of scriptures doth this man bring forth trow you for confirmation of this his vaunt truly nothing in effect or of any shew or probability but only that yt is called bread and wyne in the scripture after the words of consecration For which purpose he hauinge alleaged the words of Christ I will not drinke heerafter of this fruite of the vyne vntill I do drinke yt new vvith yow in the kingdome of my Father he inferreth that the fruite of the vyne is wyne which we graunt vnto him do hould is called wyne by him after the consecration as his flesh after the words of consecration is called bread by S. Paul S. Luke and other Apostles affirming yt notwithstanding to be his owne true body and flesh but retayninge the name of bread for that yt was made of bread and was bread before as the serpent was called the rodd of Aaron for that yt was made of that rodd and not because yt was not a true serpent afterwards though yt were still called a rodd and to signifie this that bread conuerted into Christs flesh is not really bread afterward but the true flesh of Christ though yt retayne the former name of bread yt is not simply called bread but with some addition as bread of life bread of heauen this bread and the like And finally Christ himselfe doth expound what bread yt is in S. Iohns ghospell when he saith The bread that I shall giue yow is my flesh for the life of the vvorld 5. Heere then yow see that Ridleyes text of scripture I vvill not drinke hereafter of the fruite of the vyne vntill I drinke yt new vvith yow in the Kingdome of my Father doth not proue that yt was materiall wine which he dronke for that he should then drinke materiall wyne also in heauen And yet assoone as Ridley had brought forth this place as though he had done a great feate and fully performed his promise for proofe of the authority maiesty and verity of scripture he beginneth presently to excuse himselfe for that he hath no more store sayinge There be not many places of scripture that do confirme this thinge neyther is yt greatly materiall for yt is inough yf there be any one plaine testimony for the same Lo whervnto this vaunt of the authority maiesty and verity of holy scriptures is come to witt to one place vnderstood and interpreted after his owne meaninge alone against the vnderstandinge of all antiquity And though he go about afterwards to scrape togeather diuers other parings of scripture nothinge at all to the purpose as Yow shall not breake any bone of his Do yow this in my remembrance labour for the meate that perisheth not this is the worke of God that they beleeue in him whome he hath sent he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him and some other like places yet as yow see by his owne confession they are not plaine places and consequently his vauntinge of authority maiesty and verity of scriptures commeth to iust nothinge indeed but only to words and wynde Lett vs see what he bringeth for his other foure grounds and headsprings 6. The second is the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient Catholike Fathers This we shall examine afterwards when we haue considered of the other three yet may yow marke by the way that he vseth heere also the superlatiue degree of most certayne testimonyes which certainty of testimonyes yow shall find afterward to be like his maiesty of scriptures already alleaged Wherfore let vs see his third ground The third ground saith he is the nature of the Sacrament which consisteth in three things vnity nutrition and
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