madnes to dispute against that which the whole Church throughout the world doth practice And he addeth in the same place though it be not coÌ„teined in the scriptures 36. Wherfore for Iohn Fox and his reuerenc maister Nicolas Ridley Peter Martyr and others to come out now with a dialogue or brauling altercation betweene custome and verity about the matter of the Sacrament and to seeke to sett them by the eares or make a diuorse betweene them for that custome had continueâ— from the beginning of our conuersion to that day without verity was a very simple and rediculous diuise worthy Iohn Fox his wiâ—â— and grauity for by this he confesseth in effect that custome and antiquity was against him wherof we in this matter do rightly also inferre verity I say in this matter concerninge Christian faith and beleefe receaued in the Church by custome and tradition of former ages which our sauiour Christ did promise to assist with his spiritt of truth whatsoeuer Fox or his fellowes may obiect or we admitt against Idolatry or other reprehensible customes of former tymes amongst the Iewes gentills nations contreyes and common-welthes different from the Christian Church all which had no such assurance of truth for beginninge and continuinge their customes as our Christian Church hath And so much of this feigned fight betweene custome and verity in Christian Religion whatsoeuer arguments of moment are alleaged in the combatt betweene them about the reall presence shal be afterward handled in their due places So as of this disputation and Martyn Bucers we shall make but one to witt the sixt Seauenth Disputation §. 7. 37. Hitherto are the publike disputations recorded by Fox to haue byn held by Protestants for establishinge and authorizinge their new religion vnder K. Edward and all within the compasse of one yeare to witt 1549. there ensue now foure other appointed some foure yeares after in the first of Q. Maryes raigne 1553. vvhich albeit they were vnder a Catholike gouernement yet were they for giuinge satisfaction only to Protestants of those dayes when Catholike Religion was to be restored to th' end that the other might see their owne leuity in changinge the same And the first of these disputations being the seauenth in order was held in the conuocation house at S. Paules Church in London begon as Fox saith vpon the 18. of October in the foresaid yeare and during for six dayes togeather The questions vvere the accustomed about the reall presence and Transubstantiation The manner of disputinge was not in forme or after any fashion of schoole but rather of proposinge doubts and answeringe the same for satisfaction of them that were not resolued and so much lesse then in the former was any thinge pursued to any point of triall Doctor VVeston deane of VVestminster was chosen prolocutor who protested in his preface as Fox saith that this conference vvas not held to call any points of Catholike Religion into doubt but to solue such scruples or doubts as any man might pretend to haue 38. This conuocation consisted for the greatest part of all those clergy-men that had borne rule in K. Edwards dayes exceptinge Cranmer Ridley Latymer and Rogers and I know not yf any other that were commytted before And the first point that was handled therin was about a certayne Caluinian Catechisme sett forth a little before vnder the name of that conuocation whervnto the prolocutor required subscriptions to testifie that yt was not sett forth by their consents meaninge as yt seemed therby to conuince Ridley or Crammer or both of false dealinge therin The second point was of subscribing to the reall presence whervnto all the whole house agreed saith Fox sauinge fiue or six to witt Maister Philips Deane of Rochester Maister Haddon Deane of Exceter Maister Philpott Archdeacon of VVinchester Maister Cheyney Archdeacon of Hereford Maister Elmour Archdeacon of Stow and one other whome he nameth not and by these were propounded all the doubts that were there discussed and as for the first two dayes there was nothinge done at all but a certaine communication The third day came the Lord great-master with the Earle of Deuonshire and diuers other noble men and Cheiney afterward Bishopp of Glocester who confessed the reall presence but not Transubstantiation proposed some doubts about the second point which we shall afterwards examine in their place The prolocutor appointed Doctor Moreman to aunswere him and the rest extempore wherby we may ghesse how substantiall a disputation yt was for that the defendant came nothinge at all prepared Phoâ—ipps also proposed some what about the reall presence Elmour and Haddon spake little vpon that day though the next day Elmour then Chaplaine to the Duke of Suffolke and after Bishopp of London read certayne authorityes but of a note-booke which he had gathered against the reall presence â—9 But of all other the most busy was Philpott both that day and the other followinge vauntinge and chalenginge the whole company to dispute Then quoth Philpott saith Fox I vvill speake playne English the Sacrament of the Altar which yee reckon to be all one with the masse is no Sacrament at all neyther is Christ any wise present in yt and this his sayinge he offered to proue before the vvhole house yf they listed to call him thervnto and before the Queens grace and her counsell and before the face of six of the best learned men of the house of the contrary opinion and refused none And yf I shall not be able quoth he to maintayne by Gods word that I haue said and confound those six which shall take vpon them to withstand me in this point let me be burned with as many sag gotts as be in London before the court-gates c. This was Philpotts vaunt and yet yf yee consider the poore arguments he brought forth in this conference which afterwards shal be discussed togeather with his fond answers that he gaue in his 15. or 16. seuerall examinations before the Bishopps of VVinchester London Chichester Bangor and others for so much payne was taken to saue him yow will say that his B. Gardiner had reason when he held him for more then halfe madd as in his story we haue related Consider also that his denying Christ to be present any wise in the Sacrament is much different from that yow heard Maister Perne affirme before by approbation of Maister Ridley the moderator that Christs body was truly wholy and verily in the Sacrament after a certayne propriety but these men must not be taken at their words 40. And finally the conclusion of all this conference with Philpott was that the prolocutor in the end seing him out of all reason to trouble the house layed two comaundements vpon him the first that he should not come thither any more vnlesse he came in gowne and typpett as the others came the second that he should not speake but
do beare Nay himselfe doth add a new consirmation when he saith that he which doth eate and drinke vnworthily this Sacrament reus erit â—orporis sanguinis Domini shal be guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. And againe Iuâ—cium sibi manducat bibit non dijudicans corpus Domini he doth eat drinke his owne iudgement not discerninge the body of our Lord Which inferreth the reall presence of Christes body which those whome the Apostle reprehendeth by the fact of their vnworthy receauing doe so behaue themselues as yf they did not discerne it to be present All which laid togeather the vniforme consent of expositors throughout the whole Christian world concurringe in the selfe-same sense and meaninge of all these scriptures about the reall presence of Christs true body in the Sacrament yow may imagine what a motiue yt is and ought to be to a Catholike man who desireth to beleeue and not to striue and contend And thus much for scriptures 17. There followeth the consideration of Fathers Doctors and Councells wherein as the Sacramentaryes of our tyme that pleased first to deny the reall presence had not one authority nor can produce any one at this day that expressely saith that Christs reall body is not in the Sacrament or that yt is only a figure signe or token therof though diuers impertinent peeces of some Fathers speaches they will now and then pretend to alleage so on the coÌ„trary side the Catholiks do behould for their comfort the whole ranks of ancient Fathers through euery age standinge with them in this vndoubted truth Yea not only affirming the same reall presence in most cleere and perspicuous words wherof yow may see whole books in Catholike wryters replenished with Fathers authorityes laid togeather out of euery age from Christ downe wards but that which is much more yeldinge reasons endeauoring to proue the same by manifest arguments theologicall demonstrations vsing therin such manner of speach and words as cannot possibly agree vnto the Protestants communion of bare bread and wyne with their symbolicall signification or representation only As for example where the Fathers do shew how Christs true flesh commeth to be in this SacrameÌ„t videlicet by the true conuersion of bread into his body and by that this body is made of bread and by that the substances of breat and vvyne be changed and other like speaches as may be seene in S. Ambrose 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. lib. 6. cap. 1. lib. de myst init cap. 9. Cypr. Serm. de Coena Chrysost. hom 83. in Matth. de proditione Iudae Cyrill Catec 4. Mystag Nissenus orat Catech. 37. and others 18. Secondly yt is an ordinary speach of the Fathers to cry out admyre the miracle that happeneth by the conuersion in this Sacrament ascribinge the same to the supreme omnipotencv of almighty God as yow may see in S. Chrysostome l. 3. de sacerdotio O miraculum c. S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. Iustinus Martyr Apolog. 2. sayinge that by the same omnipotency of God vvherby the vvord vvas made flesh the flesh of the vvord vvas made to be in the Eucharist which agreeth not to a Caluinian communion 19. Thirdly some of them do extoll and magnifie the exceeding loue charity of Christ towards vs aboue all other humane loue in that he feedeth vs with his owne flesh which no shephards did euer their sheepe or mothers their children which is the frequent speach of S. Chrysostome hom 83. in Matth. 45. in Ioan. hom 24. in ep 1. ad Cor. 2. homil 60. 61. ad Pop. Antioch And to the same effect S. Augustine ep 120. cap. 27. in Psal. 33. which speaches can no wayes agree to the Protestants supper 20. Fourthly diuers of the said Fathers do expressely teach that we do receaue Christ in the Sacrament not only by faith but truly really and corporally semetipsum nobis commiscet saith S. Chrysostome non side tantum sed reipsa Christ doth ioyne himselfe with vs in the Sacrament not only by faith but really And â—n another place he putteth this antithesis or opposition betwixt vs and the Magi that saw and beleeued in Christ lyinge in the manger that they could not carry him with them as we do now by receauinge him in the Sacrament and yet no doubt they beleeued in him and carryed him in faith as we do now to which effect S. Cyrill Alexand. saith Corporaliter nobis filius vnitur vt homo spiritualiter vt Deus Christ as a man is vnited vnto vs corporally by the Sacrament and spiritually as he is God Whervnto yow may add S. Hilary lib. 8. de Trinitate and Theodorus in the Councell of Ephesutom 6. Appendic 5. cap. 2. and others 21. Fiftly the Fathers do many tymes and in diuers places and vpon sundry occasions go about to proue the truth of other mysteryes and articles of our faith by this miracle of the being of Christs flesh and body in the Sacrament as S. Irenaeus for example doth proue Christs Father to be the God of the old sestament for that in his creatures he hath left vs his body bloud and in the same place he vseth the same argument for establishinge the article of the resurrection of out bodyes to witt that he that vouch safeth to nowrish vs with his owne body and bloud will not lett our bodyes remayne for euer in death corruption S. Chrysostome in like manner by the truth of his reall presence in the Sacrament doth confute them that denyed Christ to haue taken true flesh of the Virgin Mary which hardly would be proued by the Sacramentary supper of bread and wyne as euery man by himselfe will consider 22. Sixtly to pretermitt all other points handled to this effect by the said Fathers as that diuers of them do exclude expressely the name of figure or similitude from this Sacrament as S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 1. Damasc lib. 4. cap. 4. 14. Theophilact in Matth. 26. Others yeld reasons why Christ in the Sacrament would be really vnder the formes or accidents of bread and wyne to witt that our faith might be proued and exercised therby the horror of eating flesh bloud in their owne forme shape taken away and so the same S. Ambrose Ibid. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. Cyrill in cap. 22. Luc. apud D. Thom. in catena Others do persuade vs not to beleeue our senses that see only bread and wyne wherof we shall speake more in the obseruations following so S. Augustine serm de verbis Apost l. 3. de Trinit cap. 10. Others do proue this reall presence by the sacrifice affirminge the selfe same Christ to be offered now in our dayly sacrifice vpon the Altars of Christians after an vnbloudy manner which was offered once bloudely vpon the
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
of any moment and so ended that dayes disputation The next day he returned againe and would haue made a longe declamation against the reall presence but being restrayned he fell into such a rage and passion as twise the prolocutor said he was fitter for Bedlam then for disputation 37. After Philpott stood vp Maister Cheney Archdeacon of Hereford another of the six which did contradict the masse and reall presence in the Conuocation-house who was after made B. of Glocester being that tyme perhapps inclyned to Zuinglianisme though afterward he turned and became a Lutheran and so lyued and died in the late Queenes dayes There is extant to this man an eloquent epistle in Latyn of F. Edmund Campian who vnhappily had byn made Deacon by him but now being made a Catholike exhorted the Bishopp to leaue that whole ministry This mans argument against the reall presence being taken out of the common obiections of Catholike wryters and schoole-men was this that for so much as it is cleare by experience that by eatinge consecrated hosts for example a man may be nourished and that neyther Christs body nor the accidents and formes alone can be said to norish ergo besides these two there must be some other substance that nourisheth which seemeth can be no other but bread And the like argument may be made of consecrated wyne that also nourisheth And further in like manner he argued concerninge consecrated bread burned to ashes demaundinge wherof that is to say of what substance these ashes were made for so much as we hould no substance of bread to be therin and Fox would make vs beleeue that all the Catholiks there present could not aunswere that doubt and amongest others he saith of Doctor Harpesfield Then vvas Maister Harpesfield called in to see vvhat he could say in the matter vvho tould a fayre tale of the omnipotency of almighty God But Fox vnderstood not what Doctor Harpesfield said in that behalfe as may easily appeare by his fond relatinge therof We haue sett downe the aunswere to these and like obiections before in the 7. and 10. Obseruations and yt consisteth in this that in these naturall actions and substantiall changes of nutrition and generation wherin not only accidents are altered but new substances also are produced consequently according to nature that operation doth require not only accidents but also substantiall matter wherof to be produced God by his omnipotency doth supply that matter which is necessary to the new production of that substance eyther by nutrition or generation 38. And albeit the vnbeleefe of heretiks doth not reach to comprehend and acknowledge that God should do a myracle or action aboue nature euery tyme that this happeneth out yet can they not deny yt in other things As for example that euery tyme when any children are begotten throughout the world God immediatly createth new soules for them which needs must be thousands euery day yet none of our sectaryes will deny or scoffe at this or hold yt for absurd the like may be said of all the supernaturall effectes benefites which God bestoeth dayly hourly vpon vs in the Sacraments or otherwise 39. There remayne only some few places out of the Fathers to be explaned which were obiected in this article partly by Maister Grindall against Doctor Glyn and partly also by Peter Martyr in the end of his Oxford-disputation but related by Fox in the question of Transubstantiation not of the reall-presence though properly they appertayne to this as now yow will see The first place is out of Tertullian against Marcion the heretike where he hath these words saith Fox This is my body that is to say this is the signe of my body Whervnto I answere that Fox dealeth heere like a Fox in cytinge these words so cuttedly for that Tertullian in this very place as in many others doth most effectually not only say but proue also that bread is turned into Christs true body after the words of consecration and so do the Magdeburgians affirme expressely of him his words are these Christ takinge bread and distributinge the same vnto his disciples made yt his body sayinge this is my body that is the figure of my body and immediatly followeth Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus but yt had not byn the figure of Christs body yf his body had not byn a true body or truly their present In which words Tertullian affirmeth two things yf yow marke him First that Christ made bread his true body then that bread had byn a figure of his body in the old Testament which could not be yf his body were not a true body but a phantasticall body as Marcion did wickedly teach for that a phantasticall body hath no figure And this much for the true literall sense of Tertullian in this place who goinge about to shew that Christ did fullfill all the figures of the old Testament consequently was sonne of the God of the old Testament which Marcionists did deny fullfilled also the figure wherin bread presignified his true body to come by makinge bread his body sayinge this bread that was the figure of my body in the old Testament is now my true body in the new and so doth the truth succeed the figure And this to be the true literall sense and scope of Tertullian in this place as before I haue said euery man may see plainly that will read the place 40. The other places are taken out of diuers other Fathers who some tymes do call the Sacrament a figure or signe representation or similitude of Christs body death passion bloud as S. Augustine in Psalm 2. Christ gaue a figure of his body and lib. cont Adamant cap. 12. he did not doubt to say this is my body when he gaue a figure of his body And S. Hierome Christ represented vnto vs his body And S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. As thou hast receaued the similitude of his death so drinkest thou the similitude of his pretious bloud These places I say and some other the like that may be obiected are to be vnderstood in the like sense as those places of Saint Paul are wherin Christ is called by him a figure Figura substantiae Patris A figure of the substance of his Father Heb. 1. And againe Imago Dei An Image of God Colloss 1. And further yet Habitu inuentus vt homo Appearinge in the likenes of a man Philipp 2. All which places as they do not take from Christ that he was the true substance of his Father or true God or true man in deed though out of euery one of these places some particular heresies haue byn framed by auncient heretiks against his diuinity or humanity so do not the forsaid phrases sometymes vsed by the auncient Fathers callinge the Sacrament a figure signe representation or similitude of Christs body exclude the truth or reality therof for
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
manner now he saith yt is true touching the manner and not touchinge the thinge so as yf the thinge and matter be all one as yt is he speaketh contraryes Whervpon Doctor VVeston opened the whole argument to the people in English and the absurdity of his answere but Latymer replyed againe and againe that true bloud vvas commaunded spiritually to be dronken in the new Testament Whervnto one Doctor Pye replyed and obiected that yt was not forbidden to be dronken spiritually in the old law for that saith he they drinke spiritually Christs bloud in the old law ergò the drinkinge therof in the new must be more then only spirituall To this Latymer aunswered the substance of bloud is dronken but not in one manner So as heere yow see he graunteth also the substance of bloud to be dronken though in a different manner from that of the old Testament But being pressed by the said Doctor Pye that we require not the same manner of drinkinge bloud in the new law which was forbidden in the old but only that yt is as really and truly bloud as the other was his finall aunswere and resolution is this It is the same thinge but not the same manner I haue no more to say Heere then is his last detertermination and consider I pray yow the substance therof yf yt be the same thinge then must yt needs be really and truly bloud for this is the thinge or matter wherof the question is for that otherwayes we know that the bloud forbidden in the old Testament is meant the bloud of beasts and the bloud commaunded in the new is meant of the bloud of Christ So as in this Latymer cannot graunt them to be one thinge but only in the reallity and truth of bloud that is as the one is true and reall bloud of beasts so is the other true and reall bloud of Christ which yf he graunt as heere in words he doth then cannot the different manner of drinkinge the same alter the substance of the thinge yt selfe or yf yt do then is yt false that yt is the same thinge and so euery way is ould Latymer taken but lett vs passe foreward 69. Doctor VVeston to confirme the reallity of Christs bloud receaued in the Sacrament alleaged another place of S. Chrysostome where talkinge of Iudas he saith Christus ei sangninem quem vendidit offerebat Christ gaue him in the Sacrament to witt to Iudas the bloud which he had sould Can any thinge be playner spoken Latymer answered he gaue to Iudas his bloud in a Sacrament and by this thinketh he hath said some what to the purpose wheras indeed he saith nothinge For we say also that he gaue him his bloud in a Sacrament as we say that we giue wyne in a cuppe but this excludeth not the reality of the bloud no more then the giuinge in a cupp or vnder a veyle taketh away the true reality of the wyne yet is this the common hole for Sacramentaryes to runne out at when they are pressed for both they and we do agree that Christs bloud is giuen in the Sacrament vnder a signe sacramentally and the like phrases but the difference betweene vs is that we by this do not exclude the truth reality of the thing therin conteyned as they do therby delude both themselues and others speakinge in such sort as they cannot be vnderstood but only that a man may easily vnderstand that they seeke therby euasions and wayes to slipp out at 70. I passe ouer diuers other authorityes of Fathers alleaged by the Doctors as those words of S. Cyrill Per communionem corporis Christi habitat in nobis Christus corporaliter By the communion of Christs body he dwelleth in vs corporally ergò not spiritually only and by faith Latymer aunswered first that corporally hath another vnderstandinge then yow do grossely take yt And then being pressed againe he said The solution of this is in my Lord of Canterburyes booke So he But Fox not contented as it seemeth with this aunswere putteth downe a larger though without an author wherby we may conceaue yt to be his owne Corporally saith he is to be taken heere in the same sense that S. Paul saith the fullnes of diuinity to duuell corporally in Christ that is not lighty nor accidentally but perfectly substantially c. Which answere yf Fox will stand vnto we are agreed for we require no more but that Christ by the communion of his body in the Sacrament doth dwell perfectly and substantially in vs for that importeth also really as the fullnesse of diuinity is really in Christ incarnate and not by vnion only of will as the Arrians said and as our Sacramentaryes do talke of Christs vnion only by faith in vs. And lett the reader note by the way Iohn Fox his witt deepe diuinity who knowinge not what he saith graunteth by this example more then we require for he graunteth the same substantiall vnity to be betweene Christ and our soule which is betweene Christs diuinity and his humanity which is false ours being accidentall and separable the other substantiall inseparable for that yt is hypostaticall But these thinges Iohn had not learned and so we pardon him and do returne to Latymer againe who being vrged hardly by Doctor Smith about Saint Cyrills words that Christ by communion of his body in the Sacrament dwelleth corporally in vs ergò not only spiritually by faith he aunswered I say both that he dwelleth in vs spiritually and corporally spiritually by faith and corporally by takinge our flesh vpon him for I remember that I haue read this in my Lord of Canterburyes booke Heere now yow see another shift different from that of Fox authorised by my L. of Canterburyes booke but shaken of by S. Cyrills booke which saith expressely as yow haue heard that Christ dwelleth in vs corporally by the communion of his body in the Sacrament and talketh not of the incarnation 71. Wherfore Doctor VVeston seing that more could not be had of Latymer in this point he passed to another matter which was to deale with him about the Sacrifice of che masse In scoffinge against which Latymers grace or disgrace rather and sinne did principally consist and so alleaginge many auncient Fathers authorityes against him for this purpose and reading the places at length hauing the books there present Latymer was quickly dryuen to a non-plus as may appeare by Fox his owne narration though he setteth yt downe like a Fox indeed suppressinge all the particulars of the said places but only the names of the authors and the first words of the texts and not them also in all And then toucheth he the aunswers of Latymer and the Catholike Doctors replyes so brokenly and confusedly as may easily shew that he would declyne the tempest of that combatt from Latymers shoulders and not haue the matter vnderstood insinuatinge only some 8. or 9. authorityes alleaged for proofe of
mynds haue trifled but it is truly the very body and bloud of our Sauiour indeed And finally the whole generall Councell of Nice the second aboue 800. yeares past hath these words do yow read as longe as yow vvill yow shall neuer find Christ or his Apostles or the Fathers to haue called the vnhloudy sacrifice of Christ offered by the Priest an image or representation but the very body and bloud of Christ it selfe And could the auncient Fathers speake more effectually properly or cleerly then this 85. And yet he that will examine and weigh their sayings a man exactly shall find them to speake in a certaine manner more effectually for that they did study as we haue said how to vtter their meaninge with emphasie S. Hilary vseth this kind of argument yf the word of God were truly made flesh then do we truly receaue his flesh in the Lords supper and therby he is to be steemed to dwell in vs naturally S. Cyrill proueth not only a spirituall but a naturall and bodily vnion to be betweene vs and Christ by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament Theodorete doth proue that Christ tooke flesh of the blessed Virgin and ascended vp with the same and holdeth the same there by that he giueth to vs his true flesh in the Sacrament for that otherwayes he could not giue vs his true flesh to eate yf his owne flesh were not true seeing that he gaue the same that he carryed vp and retayneth in heauen S. Irenaeus S. Iustine S. Chrysostome do proue not only this but the resurrection also of our bodyes by the truth of Christs flesh in the Sacracrament for that our flesh ioyninge with his flesh which is immortall ours shal be immortall also And the same Saint Irenaeus also doth proue further that the great God of the ould Testament creator of heauen and earth was Christs Father for proofe wherof he alleageth this reason that Christ in the Sacrament did fullfill the figures of the old Testament that in particular wherin bread was a figure of his flesh which he fulfilled saith Irenaeus makinge yt his flesh indeed 86. I passe ouer many other formes of speaches no lesse effectuall which doe easily declare the Fathers mynds and meaninges in this point as that of Optatus Mileuitanus who accused the Donatists of sacriledge horrible wickednesse for hauinge broken downe Catholike Altars wheron the body and bloud of Christ had byn borne VVhat is so sacrilegious saith he as to breake downe scrape and remoue the Altars of God on vvhich your selues haue sometymes offered and the members of Christ haue byn borne c. VVhat is an Altar but the seate of the body and bloud of Christ and this monstrous villany of yours is doubled for that yow haue broken also the chalices vvhich did beare the bloud of Christ himselfe So he And is there any Protestant that will speake thus at this day or doth not this reprehension agree fully to Protestants that haue broken downe more Altars and chalices then euer the Donatists did Saint Leo the first saith that the truth of Christs true body and bloud in the Sacrament was so notorious in his dayes vt nec ab insantium linguis taceretur That very infants did professe the same And in the same sermon he saith that the body of Christ is so receaued by vs in the Sacrament vt in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transeamus that we should passe into his flesh who by his incarnation is made our flesh Saint Chrysostome in many places of his works doth vse such deuout reâ—orent and significant speaches of that which is conteyned in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread wyne after consecration as no doubt can be of his meaninge whereof yow haue heard diuers points before in the disputations as that it deserued the highest honour in earth that he did shew it lyinge vpon the Altar that the Angells descended at the tyme of consecration and did adore Christ there present vvith tremblinge and seare and durst not looke vpon him for the Maiestie of his presence And other such speaches which is conforme to that before cyted in the disputation out of the Councell of Nice Credamus iaecere in illa mensa sacra agnum Det à Sacerdotibus sacriâ—icatum Let vs beleeue to lye on that holy table the lambe of God sacrificed by Priests And is there any Protestant that will speake thus 87. But aboue all the rest are those speaches which before I said to tend to a certeyne exaggeration as that our flesh is turned into his flesh by receauinge the blessed Sacrament that our flesh is nourished by his and that of two fleshes there is made but one flesh Whervnto do appertayne not only those former phrases which already yow haue heard of the naturall and corporall vnity which the Fathers do so often inculcate to be betweene Christ and vs by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament that we are brought therby into one masse or substance of flesh with him but many other like significant manners for vtteringe their mynds as that of S. Chrysostome he nourisheth vs vvith his owne body and doth ioyne and conglutinate our flesh to his And againe That by his body giuen vs in the Sacrament Se nobis commiscuit in vnum nobiscum redegit He hath mixt himselfe to vs and brought himselfe and vs into one body and flesh And yet further he doth permitt himselfe not only to be handled by vs but also to be eaten and our teeth to be fastened vpon his flesh and vs to be filled with the same flesh which is the greatest point of loue saith Saint Chrysostome that possible can be imagined So he And conforme to this S. Cyrill of Alexandriae vttereth himselfe after another sort for he vseth the example of leuen which Saint Paul doth touch in his epistle to the Corinthians when he saith that a little leuen doth leuen a whole bach euen so saith S. Cyrill the flesh of Christ ioyned to our flesh doth leuen or pearse through it and conuert it into it selfe And in another place he vseth this similitude that as vvhen yow take a peece of vvax melted at the fire and do droppe the same vpon another peece of vvax these two vvaxes are made one so by the communication of Christs body and bloud vnto vs he is in vs and we in him 88. Another auncient Father also vpon the point of 1200. yeares gone had this similitude As wine saith he is mixed vvith him that drinketh the same in such sort as the wine is in him and he in the wine so is the bloud of Christ mixed also vvith him that drinketh the same in the Sacrament And S. Irenaeus Tertullian S. Iustinus Martyr all of them elder then this man do vse commonly this phrase of nourishinge and feedinge our flesh by the flesh