doubted so much in grauntinge and denyinge Christs body to haue appeared vpon earth as in the former disputations of Doctor Smith yow haue partly heard though much be omitted for breuityes sake he began to vrge him againe in that point alleaginge against him the authority of a Catechisme sett forth by himselfe in the name of the whole conuocation-house in K. Edwards dayes where the selfe-same point is graunted which heere he denyed but Ridley for two or three abouts would not yeld that the Catechisme was his though the iudges said that Cranmer had confessed the matter the day before and Maister VVard auouched to his face that he being Bishop of London in his ruffe compelled him to subscribe thervnto yet at length he confessed that both he and Cranmer had approued the same vnder their hands that the place alleaged against him might easily be expounded without any incōuenience and so they slydd away from that matter and a place of Theophilact came in question where he wryteth that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament of the Altar non dixit hoc est figura corporis mei sed hoc est corpus meum he said not that this is the figure of my body but this is my body which authority Ridley wiped of by sayinge his meaninge to be that yt was not only a figure of his body Wherevnto Doctor VVeston replyd that this only was one lye put in by him for that Theophilact had no such word nor could yt stand with his sense for that he did not make the opposition betweene figure and only but betweene the body and figure sayinge yt vvas his body and not a figure of his body And for proofe of this another place of Theophilact was alleaged vpon Saint Iohn where his words are quoniam infirmi sumus c. for that vve are infirme and abhorre to eate raw-flesh especially the flesh of man therefore yt appeared bread but is flesh what can be more plaine and perspicuous then this and yet do I not find any annswere to haue byn giuen by Doctor Ridley to this place but that he passed to another matter to expound the word Transelemented vsed by Theophilact And I passe ouer diuers other places as that of Tertullian acceptum panem corpus suum illud fecit he takinge bread made yt his body and that of Iustinus Martyr sayinge That Christs flesh in the Sacrament is the same that vvas taken of the blessed Virgin And that of S. Augustine vpon the Psalme that he gaue vs to eat the selfe same flesh wherin he vvalked vpon earth All which places being obiected before to Cranmer and read both then now out of the authors themselues by Doctor VVeston that had the books by him were no otherwise aunswered heere then by the same shifts which Cranmer had auoyded them before yt appearinge euidently that they had agreed vpon certayne distinctions and common euasions wherby to delude all the Fathers authorityes that might be brought against them though they were neuer so cleere or pregnant for the purpose 56. It followeth that by order of disputation the turne came to Doctor Glyn to dispute against Doctor Ridley who made saith Fox a very contumelious preface against him vvhich Ridley tooke the more to heart for that he had allwayes taken him to be his frend And albeit Fox doth not sett downe the same preface yet by Doctor Glyns entrance to his argument a man may see that the cheefe point was in reprehendinge him for deludinge and shiftinge of both scriptures and fathers so shamfully as he had heard him do for he saith I see that yow euade or shift away all scriptures fathers And Ridley answered this is a greeuous contumely that yow call me a shifter c. And finally Doctor Glyn endeauored to draw him to yeld to the Catholike Church which being the piller of truth could not be thought to haue fallen to such Idolatry as for many ages to haue worshipped erroneously bread and wyne for the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist and for proofe therof he alleaged Saint Augustine against Faustin the Manichec where he saith that this vse of adoring Christs body in the Sacrament was so auncient and publike as some pagans did thinke that Christians did adore Ceres and Bacchu◠the Gods of bread and wyne He alleaged also Erasmus authority who affirmeth that this worshipping and adoration of the Sacrament of the Altar was in vse before the tyme of S. Augustins and S. Cyprian which is not so in the Sacrament of Baptisme though Ridley affirme there is as much the flesh of Christ as in the other and consequently there is some speciall cause in the Eucharist aboue other Sacraments To which two authorityes I find nothinge aunswered particularly as neyther to Erasmus but to the thing it selfe Ridley aunswered VVe do handle the signes reuerently c. And againe There is a deceyt in this word Adoramus we adore for vve vvorshipp the symbolls vvhen reuerently vve handle them vve vvorshipp vvhersoeuer vve perccaue benefitts Whervnto Doctor Glyn aunswered So I might fall downe before the bench heere and worshipp Christ therin c. For a bench also is a beneficiall creature to them that sitt on yt But for all this no further satisfaction could be had but that all the adoe which the Fathers do make about the highest honour in earth to be giuen to the Sacrament of the Altar comes to no more by these mens interpretations but that the signes of bread and vvyne must be reuerently handled Christ absent must be vvorshipped therein as in other thinges vvherin vve perceaue or receaue his benefitts vvhich indeed are all his creatures made ordayned for our profitt for by them all we perceaue receaue Christs benefitts So as all these great admirations of the Fathers about the honour worshipp adoration due to this Sacrament come to no more in effect but that vve must reuerence Christ therin as in other his beneficiall creatures and vvorshipp the symboll of bread and wyne as much as you do the water in baptisme vvhich yet neuer any of the Fathers said was to be adored by vs as they do of the Eucharist though Baptisme be a most necessary and profitable Sacrament 57. Then disputed one Doctor Curtopp alleaginge a place out of S. Chrysostome affirminge that which is in the cupp or chalice to be the same bloud after the words of consecration that flowed from the side of Christ wherof he inferred that true and naturall bloud did flow from the side of Christ ergò true and naturall bloud was in the chalice To this Ridley answered in effect after his ould fashion that yt was true bloud that is to say the Sacrament of his bloud Curtopp The Sacrament of the bloud is not the bloud Ridley The Sacrament of the bloud is the bloud and that is attributed to the
true throughout England wherein concurred also the vvhole Christian vvorld abroad from the tyme before by me prefixed of our first conuersion and more euen from the Apostles dayes neyther could any tyme be appointed or memory brought forth when how or by whome the said doctrines had their beginnings in England or els where which accordinge to S. Augustines rule and diuers particular demonstrations layd downe by vs before in the first part of the Treatise of three Conuersions doth euidently couuince that they came from Christ and his Apostles themselues vvhich ought to be sufficient though no other proofes of Scriptures Fathers Doctors and Councells could be shewed in particular for the same as may be almost infinite and some yow shall heare a little after in this Chapter 4. And as for the second question of Transubstantiation though yt be but a certayne appendix of the first about the manner how Christ is really in the Sacrament as before hath byn shewed was not so particularly declared and defined by the Church in this very tearme of Transubstantiation vntill some 400. yeares gone in the generall Councell of Lateran as neyther the doctrine of homusion or consubstantiality was vntill 300. yeares after Christ in the Councell of Nice neyther the dignity of theotoces wherby the blessed Virgin is called the Mother of God vntill the Councell of Ephesus aboue 400. yeares after Christ yet was the same doctrine euer true before from the beginninge and vttered by the Fathers in other equiualent words speaches of changes and Transmutations of natures conuersions of substances and the like and when there had not byn such other euident proofes extant for the truth therof yet the consent and agreement of so great and vniuersall a Councell of Christendome as the said Lateran was wherin both the Greeke and Latyn Church agreed and after great and longe searche by readinge disputinge prayinge conferringe of Scriptures and Fathers and other such meanes concluded this doctrine to be truth Yf there had byn I say nothinge els for English Catholiks to rest vpon in this point but the generall consent and agreement of so learned holy and venerable an assembly yt might iustly seeme sufficient in the sight of an indifferent or reasonable man to weygh and ouerweygh against the particular iudgements of all the innouators of any age to the contrary and so no maruayle though they stood so earnest against that innouation this being the state of the controuersie on their part 5. But now for the Protestants the state of their question was farre different For first wheras Martyn Luther about the 9. or 10. yeare of K. Henryes raigne had begon some noueltyes about the second and third question of Transubstantiation and Sacrifice holding still the first of the reall presence for firme and that three of his first schollers Oecolampadius Carolstadius and Zuinglius full sore against his will takinge occasion of his innouations had added others of their owne about the said first question denyinge the reall presnce though in different sorts and that after them againe Iohn Caluyn a French-man had diuised a third manner of beleefe therin not a little different from them all about the said doctrine both affirminge denyinge the reall presence in different manner and sound of words yt seemed good to our English Protestants at that tyme or the more part therof to choose the last and newest opinion of all and to establish yt by parlament banishinge ther vpon the ould faith that euer vntill that day had byn held and beleeued in our countrey as well by themselues as others 6. And thus came in the first new Religion â—nto England by some shew of publike authority which being sett forth with so great applause and ostentation both of publike disputations colloquyes conferences lectures preachings exposition of scriptures and consent of Parlament as yow haue heard did partly by this outward shew and ostentation of authority partly by the pleasinge face of â—ouelty yt selfe and sweet freedome that yt brought from all former Ecclesiasticall discipline so infect and enchaunt the harts iudgements affections of diuers of the common people and some also of the learned but the â—ighter and more licentious sort as afterward vvhen Q. Mary came to take accoumpt and vvould recall them againe to the station vvhich they had forsaken they chose rather of â—ride and obstinacy to suffer any thinge yea â—o dye and go to the fire then to renounce these new fancyes once fastened vpon them â—nto which pertinacity the fame of the forsaid Protestants disputations did not a little animate them for that yt was giuen out generally and so doth Fox stand stiffely in the same that the Sacramentaryes had the vpper hand in all as well against the Lutherans in the first question of reall presence as against the Catholiks in that and all the rest vvhich bragg how vayne yt was will appeare after when we come to examine their arguments in particular 7. But yet before we come to that two other points seeme expedient to be performed for better direction of the readers vnderstandinge in these high misteryes of our faith the first to see what sure grounds the Catholiks had and haue at this day to stand firme and immoueable in their old beleefe about these articles notwithstandinge any plausible or deceytfull arguments of sense and reason that may be brought against them secondly certayne obseruations wherby the force or rather fraud of hereticall obiections may be discouered which so beguyled many simple people in Q. Maryes dayes and made them runne headlonge to their perdition the first of these points I shall handle in this Chapter the second in the next that followeth Catholike groundes of these three articles and first of the reall presence §. 1. 8. The first ground that Catholike men haue of these and all other misteryes of Christian faith that are aboue the reach of common sense and reason is the authority of the Catholike Church by which they were taught the same as points of faith reuealed from God And this is such a ground as we see by experience that the most part of people of what Religion soeuer being yonge or vnlearned can yeld no other reason in effect why they beleeue this or that article of theire faith but for that they receaued the same from their Church and teachers therof being not able themselues to searche out any other grounde therof yea the most learned of all from their infancy tooke all vpon this assurance only of their Church which Church yf they held to be of infallible authority so as she can neither be deceaued nor deceaue as we do of the Catholike then should they rest firme sure in their opinion vpon this ground but yf they hould that all Churches may erre and bringe into error both in doctrine and manners as yow haue heard Martyn Bucer hold before in his Cambridge conclusions and most
sectaryes of our tyme do follow him in that assertion then can they haue no ground or certainty this way but each man and woman must seeke other grounds and proofes and stand vpon their owne iudgements for triall of the same which how well the most part of people can do being eyther yonge simple vnlearned or otherwayes so busyed in other matters as they cannot attend thervnto euery man of meane discretion will consider and consequently they must needs be said both to liue and dye vvithout any ground of their faith at all but proper opinion and so perish euerlastingely 9. The famous Doctor S. Augustine handleth this matter in a speciall booke to his frend Honoratus deceaued by the Manichies as himselfe also sometymes had byn and he intituleth his booke De vtilitate credendi of the profitt that commeth to a man by beleeuing the Church and points of faith therin taught without demaundinge reason or proofe therof which the Manichies derided and said that they required nothinge to be beleeued of their followers but that which first should be proued to them by good proofe and reason and not depend only of mens creditt but the holy Father scorneth this hereticall bragg and oftentation of theirs and commendeth highly the contrary custome of simple beleeuinge vpon the creditt of the Catholike Church for that otherwise infinite people should haue no faith at all and exhorteth his frend Honoratus to take the same course first to beleeue and after to seeke the reason His discourse is this Fac nos nunc primum quaerere cuinam Religioni animas nostras c. Suppose that we now first of all did seeke vnto what Religion we should commit our soules to be purged and rectified without all doubt we must begin with the Catholike Church for that she is the most eminent now in the world there being more Christians in her at this day then in any other Church of Iewes and Gentills put togeather And albeit amongst these Christians there may be sects and heresies and all of them would seeme to be Catholiks and do call others besides themselues heretiks yet all graunt that yf we consider the whole body of the world there is one Church amongst the rest more eminent then all other more plentifull in number as they which know her do affirme more sincere also in truth but as concerninge truth we shall dispute more afterward now yt is sufficient for them that desire to learne that there is a Catholike Church which is one in yt selfe whervnto diuers heretiks do feigne and diuise diuers names wheras they and their sects are called by peculiar names which themselues cannot deny wherby all men that are indifferent not letted by passion may vnderstand vnto what Church the name Catholike which all parts desire pretend is to be giuen 10. Thus S. Augustine teachinge his frend how he might both know and beleeue the Catholike Church and all that shee taught simply and without asking reason or proofe And as for knowing and discerning her from all other Churches that may pretend to be Catholike we heare his marks that she is more eminent vniuersall greater in number and in possession of the name Catholike The second that she may be beleeued securely and cannot deceaue nor be deceaued in matters of faith he proueth elswhere concluding finally in this place Si iam satis tibi iactatus videris c. Yf thou dost seeme to thy selfe now to haue byn sufficiently tossed vp and downe amonge sectaryes and wouldst putt an end to these labours and tormoyles follow the way of Cath. discipline which hath flowen downe vnto vs from Christ by his Apostles and is to flow from vs to our posterity 11. This then is the iudgement and direction of S. Augustine that a man should for his first ground in matters of faith looke vnto the beleefe of the greatest most eminent Church of Christendome that hath endured longest embraceth most people hath come downe from our fore-fathers with the name of Catholike not only among her owne professors but euen among her enemyes Iewes infidells and heretiks and so is termed held by them in their common speach as the said Father in diuers others places declareth at large Which rule of direction yf we will follow about these three articles of faith now proposed the reall presence Transubstantiation and Sacrifice of the masse yt is easily seene what ground we haue for their beleefe in this kind of proofe so highly esteemed by S. Augustine which is the authority of the vniuersall Cath. Church For that when Luther and his followers began to oppose themselues in our dayes no man can deny but that our beleefe in these articles was generally receaued ouer all Christendome as well Asia and Africa where so euer Christians be as Europe and so vpward tyme out of mynd neither can any beginning be assigned to these doctrines in the Cath. Church but only a certayne definition and determination of some Councells about the name of Transubstantiation as after shal be declared 12. Now then hauinge found out this first ground which S. Augustine and other Fathers do make so great accoumpt of which is the authority and beleefe of that Church that generally is called Catholike Yf we passe further and see what grounds this Church had or hath to admytt the same which yet is not needfull or possible to all sortes of men for that only can be done by the learneder sort we shall find that she hath such grounds as may conuince any man that is not obstinate and indurate to the contrary And first to begin with the article of the reall presence what ground proofe or Theologicall demonstration can there bee which the Cath. Church hath not for her beleefe in that high mistery which as it was to be one of the cheefest most sacred and admirable of Christian Religion so was yt meet that yt should be confirmed by all the principall wayes that any article of faith could or can be confirmed that is to say both by scriptures of the ould and new Testament and the true exposition therof by auncient Fathers that liued before this controuersie began with Sacramentaryeâ— by authority and tradition of the Apostles and their successors by testimony of auncient Fathers from age to age by consent and agreement practise and vse of the vniuersall Church by the concourse and approbation of almighty God with euident and infinite miracles by confession of the aduersaryes and other such generall heads of arguments which Catholike diuines do produce for this truth for iustifyinge the Churches faith therin 13. And out of the scriptures their demonstration is not single or of one sort only but in diuers manners as to the height and dignity of so diuine and venerable a mystery was conuenient For that out of the ould Testament they shew how yt was prefigured and prophesied and in the new both promised
Altar of the Crosse as more largely shal be shewed so S. Chrysostome hom 17. ad Haebr 2. â—â— 2. ad Tim. Greg. lib. 4. dial c. 58. Nissenus orat 1. â—â— pascha c. All these considerations I say and many others that may be taken out of the Fathers wrytinges I do for breuityes sake lett passe in this place though most euidently they do declare the said Fathers plaine meaninge and beleefe in this article and cannot any way be applyed to the new Communion of Protestants but by manifest impropriety and deâ—ortion 23. And therfore I will end only with one consideration more very ordinary with the said Fathers which is the diuine reuerence honour and adoration that in all ages the said Fathers haue giuen vnto the blessed SacrameÌ„t whose authorityes were ouerlong heere to recyte in particular The sayinge of S. Austen is knowne Nemo manducat nisi prius adorauerit no man eateth the Sacrament but first adoreth the same and S. Chrysostome Adora manduca adore yt and receaue yt And Theodoret to the same effect Et creduntur adorantur quòd easint quae creduntur They are beleeued and adored the flesh and bloud of Christ for that they are in deed the things they are beleeued to be And to speake nothinge of many other Fathers sayings to this effect S. Chrysostome his large discourses about this matter may serue for all who wryteth that at the tyme of consecration and sacrifice the very Angells come downe and vvith tremblinge do adore Christ their Lord therin present vvhich he vvould neuer haue vvrytten yâ— bread and wyne were only there present 24. By all these wayes meanes then may easily be seene what the auncient Fathers in their ages did thinke speake and beleeue of this high admirable mistery of Christs real presence in the Sacrament And albeit ther were no Councells about this matter for the space of a thousand yeares after Christ the cause therof was that in all that space no on man euer openly contradicted the same atleast after the tyme of S. Ignatius vntill Berengaâ—rius for yf any man had done yt we may seâ— by the foresaid Fathers speaches who must haue byn the chiefe in these Councells what their determination would haue byn against them and when the said Berengarius had once broached this Sacramentary heresy the whole Christian world rose vp presently against the same as against a blasphemous nouelty and ten seuerall Councells condemned the same as in the former Chapter hath byn declared 25. Wherfore the Catholikes hauinge with them all these warrants of truth by scriptures fathers councells tradition of antiquity vniforme consent of all Christian nations both Greeke Latyn Asian African other countreyes embracing the name faith of Christ and that no beginninge or entrance can be shewed of this doctrine in the said Church nor any contradiction against yt when yt first entred as on the coÌ„trary side the first of spring of the other togeather with the place author tyme manner occasion resistance condemnation and other like circumstances are and may be authentically shewed prooued and conuinced yea that the very face of Christendome from tyme out of mynd by their â—hurches altars offerings adoration and manner of diuine seruice admittted euery where without contradiction doubt or question do testifie the same the truth moreouer therof being confirmed by so infinite conâ—ourse of manifest miracles recorded by such authors as no man with piety can doubt of their creditt the Catholiks I say hauinge all his mayne cloud of wittnesses to vse the Apostles â—ords for the testimony of this truth and being practized and accustomed in the beleefe â—â—erof for so many ages togeather without â—â—terruption and seing moreouer that Luther â—â—mselfe and all the learned of his side that were open professed enemyes in other things to the Catholike beleefe yet in this protested the truth to be so euident as they durst not impugne it nay held the first impugners therof for damnable heretiks addinge also heerevnto that Zuinglius the first chiefe author confesseth himselfe to haue byn moued thervnto by a certayne extrauagant spiritt which he saith he knew not whether yt was blacke or white All these things I say laid togeather and the liues and manners considered of them that haue held the one the other faith that is to say the infinite Saints of the one side whome the Protestants themselues do not deny to haue byn Saints and the qualityes and conditions of the others that first began or since haue defended the new Sacramentary opinions lett the discreet reader iudge whether the Catholiks of England had reason to stand fast in their old beleefe against the innouations of our new Sacramentary Protestants in K. Edwards dayes And the like shall yow see in the other articles that ensue of Transubstantiation and Sacrifice dependinge of this first of the reall presence as before yow haue heard But much more will yow be confirmed in all this when yow shall haue read ouer the disputations followinge and seene the triflinge arguments of the Sacramentaryes in these so weighty important articles of our beleefe and the ridiculous euasions where with they seeke to auovd or delude the graue tistimonyes of scriptures and Fathers before mentioned For therby wil be seene that they seeke not truth in deed with a good and sincere conscience feare of Gods iudgements but only to escape and entertayne talke for continuaunce of their faction which ought to be marked by the reader yf he loue his soule And thus much for the grounds of the reall-presence Groundes of Transubstantiation §. 2. 26. Touchinge the second question about Transubstantiation though yt be lesse principall then the former of the reall-presence for that yt conteyneth but the particular manner how Christ is really in the Sacrament consequently not so necessary to be disputed of with Sacramentaryes that deny Christ to be there really at all as before hath byn noted â—et shall we briefely discouer the principall â—rounds wheron Catholiks do stand in this â—eceaued doctrine of the Church against Lutherans especially who grauntinge the said â—â—all presence do hold that bread is there togeather with our Sauiours body which Catholiks for many reasons do hould to be absurd â—nd albeit the word Transubstantiation particular declaration therof was not so expresseâ— sett downe in the Church vntill some 400. â—cares gone in the generall Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocentius the third as the word Trinity Homousion or Consubstantiality and cleere exposition therof was not vntill the Councell of Nice 300. yeares after Christ yet was the truth of this doctrine held euer before in effect and substance though in different words to witt mutation transinutation conuersion of bread into the body of Christ transelementation and the like which is proued by the perpetuall consent of doctrine vttered by the ancient Fathers in this
Zuinglians Caluinists Anabaptists Trinitarians and the like chalenged by the said Church of disobedience and do all appeale ioyntly and seuerally from her to only scriptures praysinge highly the sufficiency and excellency therof and refusinge all other meanes eyther of tradition or ancient exposition for vnderstandinge of the sense and true meaninge And when we alleadge the Catholike Doctors and Pastors of euery age as spirituall Gouernours and Conselors vnder God in the Church for explaninge his diuine will and meaninge in this behalfe they refuse all and only will be interpreters and expositors themselues and this not only against the Catho Church which they ought to obay but one sect also against another for their particular opinions and diuersityes which by this meanes are made irreconciliable and indeterminable as experience teacheth vs. For when I pray yow will Luther Zuinglius or their followers come to any accord eyther with vs or amongst themselues by only canonicall scriptures expounded after each partyes particular spiritt iudgement and affection The like I may aske of Anabaptists Arrians English Protestants and Puritans or of any other Sectaryes that yow can name vnto me which neuer agreed by this way nor euer will And this is the first paradox of Martyn Bucer that only scriptures are sufficient to teach euery man 32. The second is yet worse yf worse may be to witt that there is no Church on earth which erreth not as well in faith as manners Which yf yt be so then erreth also in faith the true Church of Christ and is a lyinge Church and may lead vs into error and heresie And of this yt followeth againe that we can haue no certainty of any thinge in this life and that almighty God doth damne vs very vniustly for heresie wherinto we may be brought by his true Church and spouse which on the other side he hath commaunded vs to heare and obay vnder payne of damnation yt followeth also that S. Paul did falsely call the Church the pillar and firmament of truth for as much as yt may both deceaue and be deceaued Christs promise also was false when he assured his Church that he would be with her by his spiritt of truth vnto the worlds end and that the gates of hell should not prevaile against her All these absurdityes impossibilityes and impietyes do follow of this second paradox besides infinite others which any meane capacity may deduce of himselfe 33. The third paradox also is no lesse monstrous to common sense and reason then the two former to witt that vvhatsoeuer good worke any man doth or may seeme to doe before iustification a sinne and prouoketh Gods wrath But I would aske this new opiniatour or paradox-defender how he would answere to that of Exodus where yt is said of the Egyptian mid-wyues â— infidells no doubt quia timuerunt obstetrices Deum aedificauit illis domos God gaue them aboundant children for that vpon feare of offendinge almighty God they disobayed their King Pharao in sauinge the Hebrues children doth God vse to reward sinne or to prayse that which prouoketh his wrath Againe the Prophett Ezechiell sheweth vs how God did temporally reward Nabuchodonozor and his army with the spoyle of Egypt for that they had serued him faithfully in chastizinge of Tyrus And S. Hierome vpon that place hath these words By that Nabuchodonosor receaued this reward for his good worke we learne that gentills also yf they do any good thinge shall not leese their reward at Gods hands and how can God be said to reward that which offendeth him The Prophet Daniell also to the same Nabuchodonosor an infidell gaue this counsell peccata tua eleemosymis redime redeeme thy synnes with almes which he would neuer haue done yf yt had byn a synne prouoked Gods wrath to giue almes or to performe any such other morall vertue before iustification especially being styrred holpen thervnto by Gods especiall help which may be before iustification as Martyn Bucer in this paradox supposeth And lastly not to stand any longer in this which is of it selfe so euident I would aske friar Martyn whether Cornelius the centurion being yet a gentile did sinne and prouoke Gods wrath in prayinge and giuinge almes before his conuersion Yf he say yea as needs he must accordinge to his doctrine the text of scripture is against him for the Angell said vnto him Thy prayers and almes deeds haue ascended vp and haue byn called into remembrance in the sight of God Vpon which words S. Augustine in diuers of his works doth call the said almes-deeds of Cornelius before he beleeued in Christ Iustice and the gifts of God which he would neuer haue done yf they had byn synnes and prouoked Gods wrath as this new-fangled friar hath taken vpon him to defend 34. And this shal be sufficient for this sixt disputation of Martyn Bucer which is fiue tymes as much as Fox setteth downe of the same for that he relateth only the time and place of the said dispute togeather with the conclusions afore mentioned that Sedgewicke Yonge and â—erne were opponents to Bucer therin but all the rest he remitteth to a larger discourse at another tyme supplyinge the breuity of this Bucerian disputation with another dispute betweene custome and verity which he calleth A fruitfull dialogue gathered out saith Fox â—f the Tractations of Peter Martyr and other authors â—â— a certayne reuerend person of this realme teachinge all men not to measure Religion by custome but to try custome by truth c. â—5 And this was another diuise of those â—ayes of Innouations and noueltyes to dazell â—â—mple mens eyes as though Custome and Veriâ—â— the handmayd and maistresse were so fallen out that one impugned the other could not agree or stand togeather any longer and consequently custome and antiquity must needs â—ue place to nouelty the fraud and folly of which diuise may in very few words be disâ—ouered and their true frendshipp and agreement easily be declared yea their in separable â—â—herence to be such as in our case of the conâ—â—ouersie about the reall presence for in this â—â—int they are made to braule and full out they cannot possibly be separated For yf verity in this matter haue not antiquity and custome with yt yt is nouelty and by consequence not verity at all And on the otherside custome in points of Christian faith and beleefe yf yt be generall and of long tyme for otherwise yt cannot properly be called custome in the subiect we handle may not possibly be found in our Christian Church without verity for that otherwise the whole Church should vniuersally admitt a falsity continue yt by custome which to imagine were folly and madnesse yea most insolenâ— madnes yf vve beleeue S. Augustine whose words are Disputare contra id quod tota per orbeâ— frequentat Ecclesia insolentissimae insaniae est It is a most insolent
contrary And wheras I do vse the words of externall true and proper sacrifise yow must remember therby the fraud of these new heretiks who as before about the reall presence did go about to delude all the sayings of holy Fathers and other testimonyes of Antiquity that spake of Christs reall being in the Sacrament by running to the words spiritually sacramentaly by faith and the like so heere fyndinge the whole torrent and streame of Christian antiquity to stand for this Christian sacrifice to mention reuerence auouch the same these fellowes for auoydinge their authorityes do runne from the proper externall sacrifice wherof we treate vnto the internall and inuisible sacrifice of the mynd wherof K. Dauid saith that a contrite spiritt is a sacrifice to God And when this cannot serue they run also to improper and metaphoricall externe sacrifices such as are mortification of the body Rom. 12. sacrifice of thankesgeuinge Psalm 49. Sacrifice of almes deedes Hebr. 13. and other such good works which by a certayne analogy or proportion with the nature of proper sacrifices are called also sacrifice in scriptures by the Fathers but improperly To these then do our Protestants runne when they are pressed with the authorityes of auncient Fathers that name the vse of Christian sacrifice in the Church and will needs make vs beleeue that the Fathers ment not properly of any true visible or externall sacrifice but eyther of inward or inuisible sacrifice of the hart mynd and good desire or els of outward metaphoricall sacrifice of pious and vertuous workes 35. But all these are fraudulent shifts to ouerthrow one truth by another For as we do not deny but that there is an inward and inuisible sacrifice of our mynd in dedicatinge of our selues to God and to the subiection of his Maiestie without which the externall sacrifice is little worth to him that offereth the same And as we graunt that all good works be sacrifices in a certayne sort by some similitude they haue with true proper sacrifices for that they are offered vp to God in his honour yet do we say that this is from our purpose in this place who talke of a true proper externall sacrifice offered vp to God after a peculiar sacred rite or ceremonyes by peculiar men deputed to this office in acknowledgement of Gods diuine power maiestie and dominion ouer vs protestation of our due subiection vnto him such as were the externall sacrifices in the law of nature offered vp by patriarks and heads of familyes and by Priests of Aarons order vnder the law of Moyses and by Christ and his Priests accordinge to the order of Melchisedech in the new law and for so much as both the internall metaphoricall sacrifices before mentioned of good affection desires and holy works are not peculiar to any law but were lawfull and needfull vnder all lawes and in all tymes and require no particular kind of men or ministers to offer them but may be offered vp by any man or woman whatsoeuer therfore do we exclude all these from the name of the sacrifice which heere is meant by our description and comprehendeth as yow see an externall visible oblation made by him or them who are peculiarly deputed by God to this office which are Priests So as when soeuer our aduersaryes do slipp from this proper signification of a sacrifice to the other eyther internall or metaphoricall which may be offeted by all sorts of people and therevpon do say that all men are Priests they runne as vow see quite from the purpose as they do also for examples sake when to auoyd the necessity of externall fastinge they runne to the internall fastinge of the mynd sayinge that true fastinge is to fast from sinne which as we deny not in that sense of spirituall fastinge so is it notwithstandinge a plaine shift and runninge from the purpose and cannot stand with many places of the scripture which must needs be vnderstood of the externall fast as when Christ is said by the Euangelists to haue fasted 40. dayes togeather and S. Paul affirmeth that he and his fellow Apostles fasted frequently It cannot be vnderstood I say of fastinge only those tymes from sinne for that Christ fasted alwayes from sinne without exception and so do all good men both fast and facrisice also by offeringe vp good desires and pious actions to almighty God dayly and hourely without distinction of men or tymes 36. But this is not the proper visible externall sacrifice which heere we meane which was instituted by God as peculiar to Christian people vnder the law of the ghospell for an externall worshipp vnto him besides the internall and testification of their inward subiection loue and piety towards him which sacrifice comming in place of all others that went before both in the law of nature and of Moyses that prefigured and foresignified the same and being but one and singular insteed of them all and their great variety is to be esteemed so much more excellent then they all as the law of the ghospell is more excellent then those lawes and truth aboue shaddowes the sacred body of Christ God and man himselfe to be preferred before the bodyes of beasts byrds and other such creatures vvhich vvere but signes and figures of this 37. And in this sense do both scriptures fathers councells and all holy Christian antiquity speake and treat of this most diuine venerable and dreadfull sacrifice wherof as of the highest and most principall mystery and treasure left by our Sauiour in his Church there are so many testimonyes as before hath byn signifyed that yt shall not be possible for me in this place and with the breuity which is necessary to alleage the least part therof yet some few generall heads shall I touch which the learned reader may see more dilated by diuers Catholike wryters of our dayes and he that hath not commodity or tyme to do that may geue a ghesse by that which heere I shall sett downe 38. First then for that this holy sacrifice of the Christian Church was so principally intended by almighty God for the new law as hath byn said many things were sett downe by the holy Ghost in the old Testament both prefiguringe and prophecyinge the same as first the sacrifice of the King and Priest Melchisedech in bread and wyne Gen. 14. which all the auncient Fathers by generall consent do apply to the sacrifice vsed now in the Christian Church and yt were ouerlong to alleage their particular authorityes lett S. Augustine speake for all Primum apparuit saith he sacrificium Melchisedech quod à Christianis nunc offertur Deo toto orbe terrarum The first sacrifice appeared in Melchisedech which now is offered to God by Christians throughout all the world And in another place Vident nunc tale sacrificium offerri Deo toto orbe terrarum Christians do see the like sacrifice to that of
Melchisedech to be offered to God ouer all the World And all the other sacrifices signes and oblations mentioned before as prefiguringe the reall presence of Christs sacred body and true flesh in the Sacrament are applied by the selfe same Fathers whome before we haue named to the prefiguration also of this diuine sacrifice conteyninge the selfe same thinge which the Sacrament doth but in a different sort in respect of diuers ends the one as yt is receaued by the communicants the other as yt is offered vnto God the Father 39. After these prefigurations there follow the predictions of Prophetts as that of Esay 19. and 66. where is forteold the reiection of the Aaronicall priesthood and sacrifice and a new promised vnder the Christians The prophesy of Daniell also where it is foretould that in the last age of the law of grace by the comminge of Antichrist iuge sacrificium that is the dayly sacrifice shall cease Of this I say is inferred by the ancient Fathers that vntill Antichrists comminge there shal be a perpetuall and dayly sacrifice amonge Christians which is most of all confirmed by the prophesie of Malachias in these words Ad vos ò sacerdotes c. To yow ò priests that despise my name and do offer vpon my Altar polluted bread and do sacrifice the beasts that are blind lame and weake I haue no more likinge of yow saith the lord of hosts and I will not receaue at your hands any gifts for that from the east to the west my name is great amonge the gentills and they do sacrifice vnto me in euery place and do offer vnto my name a pure oblation for that my name is great amonge the gentills saith the lord of hostes Out of which place the Fathers do shew first that heere the priesthood and sacrifice of Aaron was to be reiected a new priesthood and sacrifice accordinge to the order of Melchisedech erected amongst the gentills wherby ordinarily are vnderstood the Christian people conuerted chiefly from gentility who were to succeed in their place and that with such certainty as the present tense is put for the future accordinge to the manner of prophesies and the Antithesis or opposition betweene the two sacrifices the one reiected the other promised doth make the matter more plaine for that as the Iewes sacrifice could not be offered but in one place to witt in the Temple of Hierusalem so shall the Christian sacrifice be offered vp in omni loco that is euery where without respect of places from the east to the west The Iewish sacrifices were many and of diuers sorts but the Christian sacrifice that should succeed in place therof was to be but one The Iewish sacrifices were polluted not so much in respect of great quantity of beasts bloud powred out therin and for that they offered defectuous beasts as for the wickednesse of them that offered the same but the Christian sacrifice was to be cleane vnspotted not only in respect of the vnbloudy manner wherin yt was to be offered vnder the formes of bread and wyne but especially for the excellency of the thinge yt selfe offered being the most pretious body of Christ himselfe and for that the demeritt of the offerer cannot take away the worth of the offeringe 40. These circumstances then considered and that the heretikes heere cannot runne to their shift of inward and inuisible sacrifices for that these could not be vnderstood by the Prophett as new sacrifices that should succeede to the ould for that these were alwayes in vse with good men duringe the tyme of the old sacrifice also and were lawfull yea commaunded in all tymes to witt to haue inward piety and deuotion giue almes and the like these things I say considered togeather with the expositions of holy Fathers as well vpon these as vpon other places of the old Testament there can be no probable doubt but that this externall sacrifice of the Christian was prophesyed by the holy Ghost longe before the comminge of Christ. 41. Secondly the same is proued out of diuers places of the new Testament And first out of S. Iohns ghospell where as our Sauiour promised in mysterious words the institution of this blessed sacrifice as before hath byn seene so also did he signifie that this sacrifice should succeed in steed of all sacrifices that went before For wheras the Samaritan woman at the well speakinge of the schisme betweene the Iewes Samaritans about adoring in the Temple of Ierusalem and in the hill Garizim of Samaria which word of adoringe must needs in that place signifie sacrifycinge as yt doth also in other places of scripture as Gen. 22. Act. 8. and els where for that the controuersie betweene the Iewes and Samaritans was about the vse of sacrificing as the highest externall act of adoration our Sauiour aunswereth to her question that the houre was now come when neyther in that hill of Samaria nor in Ierusalem they should adore that is to say vse any more sacrifice but that a new adoration in spiritt and truth should succeed the former which adoration being vnderstood of sacrifice as the circumstance both of the place and matter do enforce yt followeth that Christ did heere promise a new sacrifice that should be spirituall and true spirituall both in comparison of the bloudy sacrifice that went before for that the consecration of Christs holy body in this sacrifice is made by speciall worke and operation of the holy Ghost true also and in truth it may iustly be said to bee for that yt is the fullfillinge of all precedent sacrifices and the truth of all former figures 42. There ensue the places of Saint Mathew S. Marke S. Luke and S. Paul about the institution and first celebration of this vnbloudy sacrifice of Christ in his last supper where yf we admitt that which all the circumstances of the places themselues do plainly insinuate or rather inforce the continuall exposition and tradition of the auncient Church doth teach vs to witt that Christ our Sauiour hauinge consecrated his sacred body did offer the same vnto his Father as a most gratefull sacrifice in his last supper then must yt follow that the words hoc facite in meant commemorationem do this in remembrance of me implyed a precept not only of receauinge and communicatinge the body of Christ but to offer vp the selfe same also to God in sacrifice after the example of Christ himselfe which is that we call the sacrifice of the masse to proue that th' Apostles vnderstood these words I meane do this in remembrance of me so and in this sense not only the most ancient Fathers as hath byn said do testifie the same but the ancient liturgies or ritualls also of the Apostles and their schollers as namely of S. Iames S. Clement and S. Dionysius Areopagita do make the matter manifest concerning the Apostles practise in this behalfe to witt that they
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
the propitiatory sacrifice wheras more then 8. or 9. score might haue byn cyted to that effect And finally though Latymer muttered out two or three particular aunswers heere and there sayinge that S. Chrysostome had Emphaticall locutions and the like yet his last rest was sett vpon this that the Doctors might be deceaued in some points though not in all things Wherof Fox well allowinge maketh this scoffinge comment in the margent Doctores legendi sunt cum venia the Doctors are to be read with pardon which can haue no other sense but that eyther we must pardon them when they speake not truth or we must aske pardon of them not to beleeue them when we mislike them for other sense I cannot make of this comentary 27. Doctor Cole replyed is it not a shame for an old man to lye yow say yow are of the old Fathers faith Latymer I am of their faith vvhen they say well I referre my selfe to my Lord of Caterburyes booke wholy herin Doctor Smith Then yow are not of S. Chrysostomes faith nor S. Augustines faith Latymer I haue said vvhen they say vvell and bring scriptures for them I am of their faith and further Augustine requireth not to be beleeued c. Weston Forty yeares gone vvhether could yow haue gone to haue found your doctrine Latym The more cause we haue to thanke God now that hath sent the light into the vvorld Weston The light ney light and lewd preachers c. remember vvhat they haue bin that haue bin the beginners of your doctrine none but a few flyinge Apostataes runninge out of Germany c. remember vvhat they haue bin that haue sett forth the same in this realme a sort of flyinge braines and light heads which vvere neuer constant in any one thinge vvhich vvas well seene in the often alteringe of their communion-booke and turninge their table one day vvest and another day east they gott them a tankerd and one saith I drinke and am thankefull the more ioy of thee saith another c. Yow neuer agreed vvith the â—igurynes of Germanie or vvith your selues your stubburnesse is of vaine glory and vve all see by your owne confession how little cause yow haue to be stubburne your learninge is in feoffers hold the Queenes grace is mercifull if yow vvill returne Latymer Yow shall haue no hope in me to returne And thus ended that disputation 74. And heere Iohn Fox is very angry with Doctor VVeston for this speach and for reuenge therof maketh this note in the margent Blasphemous lyes of Doctor VVeston sittinge in the chaire of pestilence and then presently he maketh the narration of him which before we haue related about Vrge hoc vrge hoc and in the margent he hath this other Notandum vrge hoc quod VVeston vvith his beere-pott in his hand which notwithstandinge is more modest then yf yt had byn a wyne-pott And I maruayle much why the wisdome of Fox should obiect this beer-pott so often eagerly against Doctor VVeston seeing his owne great chaire which is yet kept for a relique of his holines in London by the sisters hath two places made on both sides therof the one for the Candlesticke the other for the ale-pott and nutmegges which Father Fox is said to haue loued well and so do his wrytings also shew yet no Catholike man I thinke hath euer obiected the same vnto him before this as he doth the beer-pott to Doctor VVeston But these are trifles Lett vs passe to more serious considerations The Conclusion with some Considerations theron §. 5. 75. By the re-view then of these three dayes disputations a coniecture may be made how matters did passe then and how they stand at this day betwixt vs and Protestants in these articles of controuersie Yow haue heard before the great vaunts that Doctor Ridley made in his disputations at Cambridge vnder K. Edward how euidently forsooth and apparently the truth stood with him and his fellowes this vpon siue principall grounds and head-springs as he calleth them vvhich are the Maiestie and verity of scriptures the most certaine testimony of the ancient Fathers the definition of a Sacrament the abâ—ominable heresie of Eutiches and the most sure beleese of the article of our faith He ascended vp to heauen B. Cranmer also after that againe in the beginninge of Q. Maryes raigne settinge forth a certayne vauntinge schedell which Fox called a Purgation of Thomas Archbishopp Cranmer hath this chalenge therin I vvith Peter Martyr saith he and other foure or fiue vvhich I shall choose vvill by Gods grace take vpon vs to desend all the doctrine and Religion sett â—orth by our soueraigne Lord K. Edward the sixth to be more pure and accordinge to Gods word then any other that hath bin vsed in England these thousand yeares so that Gods vvord may be iudge and that the reasons and proofes of both parts may be sett out in vvrytinge to the entent as well that all the world may examine and iudge theron as that no man shall start backe from his vvrytingâ— 76. Thus he And now yow haue seene more or lesse by the former disputation how he his fellow Ridley were able to performe their bragges and though yow haue seene them brought to the exigents which before hath appeared yet yf yow will beleeue them or Iohn Fox their Chronicler settinge forth their Acts and Monuments they were so farre of from being conquered as the aduerse part was rather putt to the foyle for that they could say nothinge in effect against them And for example Fox wryteth of Doctor VVeston who most of all other vrged them with many good arguments as yow haue heard that not only he had his Theseus there by him to help him out to witt his beere-pott but moreouer that he said neuer a true word nor made neuer a true conclusion almost in that disputation Which how true or false yt is the reader himselfe may be iudge that hath pervsed ouer the same in this our review And the very like in effect wryteth B Cranmer in a certayne letter of his to the Councell vpon the 23. of Aprill 1554. immediatly after the disputation ended complayninge greatly of the disorder iniquity therin vsed which yet by that we haue examined before out of their owne words I meane set downe in Fox his penne being bent wholy to their fauour there could not be great iniquity or inequality the combatt consistinge in discussinge authorityes of auncient Fathers but yt is the nature of this people as alwayes to be contentious so euer to be clamourous and neuer satisfied except they haue their will but especially to wryte and speake both contemptuously and partially yow shall heare how Malster Ridley relateth the euent of this disputation for that hauinge sett downe his owne disputations and aunswers in the prison and this with the greatest aduantage yow must imagine that he could diuise after much
to aduenture vpon so great a change in beleefe as this was after so many yeares being a Priest and Catholike Bishopp and offeringe sacrifice after the manner of the Catholike Church from the first day of our contreyes conuersion vnto th' end of K. Henryes raigne His motiues were as yow heare certayne places of the scripture which were only taken out of the Epistle to the Hebrues talkinge of Christs bloudy sacrifice on the crosse which was but one certayne places of the Fathers to witt two or three misvnderstood out of S. Augustine and one out of Fulgentius all which notwithstandinge proue nothinge for his purpose as after yow shall see declared in their place and turne And the selfe same Fathers haue so many other cleere places to the contrary as we will desire no better iudges for proofe of our Catholike cause then yf Ridley would remitt himselfe to these two Fathers iudgements by him cyted against vs for that both of them do professe themselues to be Priests and to offer externall sacrifice vpon the Altar as our Priests do now 27. Consider then how wise and constant a man Ridley was to leaue his ancient faith so generally receaued throughout all Christendome in his dayes and so many yeares practised by himselfe vpon two such motiues as are certayne places of scripture misvnderstood by himselfe and certayne testimonyes of Fathers that seemed to him to haue some difficulty Which Ieuity vvas so displeasaunt vnto almighty God as by the effects we see that wheras at the beginning he seemed to doubt vpon these two motiues leauinge other men to iudge therof he became by little and little to be so obstinately blinded at length therin as albeit some foure or fiue yeares after he were openly conuicted in disputations at Oxford as by his answers yow shall afterwards see yet was he content to burne for the same which was the highest degree of calamity that could fall vpon him in body and soule And thus much of him and his determination for the present Sixt Disputation §. 6. 28. In all the former disputations both at Oxford and Cambridge yow shall find nothinge of friar Martyn Bucer no not so much as that he is once named in all these conflicts about the blessed Sacrament And yet yow must remember that he was principall reader of diuinity in Cambridge at this tyme as Peter Martyr was in Oxford and therfore as the first place was giuen to the said Peter in Oxford so yt is likely that the same would haue byn to Martyn in Cambridge yf they had found him so pliable to their hands in his opinions about the Sacrament as the other was but in no case would he be induced as yet to accommadate himselfe therin and therfore had he not any part allowed him in this comedy eyther of defendant opponent disputer counselour moderator assistant or other office or imployment nay yt is thought that he incurred so great disgrace about this matter as he could willingly haue departed the realme againe as Bernardinus Ochinus vpon such like discontentment did from London had not the necessity of his woman and other impediments of pouerty letted him not knowinge well whither to goe as being expulsed from Argentina at his comming to England as before we haue shewed in the story of his life 29. Wherfore resoluinge himselfe at length to passe ouer this mortification and to giue our English Protestants some satisfaction though not in the points which they desired he thought it good after Ridleyes departure to defend certayne other paradoxes which Fox recordeth in these words Ouer and besides these disputations aboue mentioned other disputations vvere holden in Cambridge shortly after by Martyn Bucer vpon these conclusions followinge First that the canonicall bookes of scripture alone do sufficiently teach the regenerate all things necessary belonginge to saluation Secondly there is no Church on earth that erreth not as well in faith as in manners Thirdly we are so iustified freely of God that before our iustification yt is sinne and prouoketh Gods wrath against vs whatsoeuer good worke we seeme to do Then being iustifyed we do good works 30. These were Bucers conclusions which well I may call paradoxes for that euen in the common sense iudgement of euery meane capacity the falsity and absurdity therof is apparant For as touchinge the first though we graunt that the diuine books of scripture yf they were fewer then they are respectinge Gods holy prouidence are sufficient to teach both regenerate and not regenerate that beleeue the verity therof the true way of saluation and that the said diuine prouidence hath doth and will so prouide that albeit some parts of these we now haue should be lost as diuers others before haue byn yet should the remnant still be sufficient to that purpose with such other supplyes of Gods assistance as he would send yet to say as this man doth that the canonicall bookes of scripture alone do sufficiently teach all things belonginge to saluation yf by alone he will exclude all other helpes of tradition antiquity testimony of the Church interpretation of the Fathers direction of generall Councells and other like aydes yt is a most absurd paradox for neyther can we know which bookes are to be held canonicall nor what they teach truly sincerely nor what may be deduced out of them yf we remoue the former helpes And the case is as yf one of the Kings of our countrey goinge abroad as some did to Hierusalem or other forrayne warres and intending to be longe absent should leaue with his Councellors for their better gouernement certayne lawes wrytten with his owne hand other directions by word of mouth how to proceed interprett and vse them commaunding all men to obay them and that some troublesome people after many yeares continuance in their gouernement should appeale from them to the Kings wrytten lawes only prayinge the sufficiency therof for better colouâ—inge their pretence and suinge that yt were â— blott vnto the said lawes and to the Kings wisdome that made them to acknowledge any insufficiency at all in them for perfect direction of the common welth which lawes â—et themselues would expound as pleased them best for their owne purposes â—1 In this case who seeth not whervnto this practise tendeth and for what causes so great prayses are giuen to the sufficiency of these lawes vsed to make the praisers iudges of all and to exempt them from all controlment of others And the very same is seene in the other case of the scriptures which being written by the spiritt and fingar of God himselfe and deliuered vnto vs by the Church whose commission also and authority in the same scriptures is sett downe byndinge vs vnder dlamnation to heare her from age to age as the pillar and firmament of truth there stepp vp togeather diuers sorts of sectarves in all ages of this of ours Lutherans