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
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
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
Mary with whome ioyned M. VVhitehead M. Grindall M. Horne M. Sandes M. Ghest M. Elmour and M. Iewell all freshly come from beyond the seas who all except some one or two were soone after for their good demeritts made Bishopps and accommodated by thrustinge out the other in reward of this disputation wherin notwithstanding there was not one argument made nor solution giuen but only an ostentation sought to effectuate that with some colour which otherwise was determined before and lacked but a pretence for that the Queene and those that were nearest about her hauinge determined to make a change of Religion thought they should do yt best and most iustifiable yf they promised some name of disputation wherin the Catholiks had byn satisfied or vanquished to which end there were so many shifts partialityes and diuises vsed and so many iniuryes offered to the Bishops of the Catholike party as they thought good vpon the second dayes meetinge to passe on no further except more reason or indifferency vvere vsed towards them 45. For first in this disputation summoned denounced throughout the whole realme by order of the Queene and Councell Syr Nicolas Bacon lately made Lord Keeper tooke vpon him to be president and cheefe moderator whome all men knew to be one of the greatest aduersaryes to Catholike Religion that was in England violent in condition and vtterly ignorant in matters of diuinity Secondly the questions appointed to be disputed on were not chosen nor assigned by the said Bishopps but by the same Syr Nicolas and his adherents in the name of the Councell at the instance or pleasure of the Protestant new pretenders wherof when the Bishopps complayned the Lord Keeper answered the questions are neyther of their to witt the Protestants propoundinge nor of your diuise but offered indifferently to â—ow both 46. The questions were three first vvhether yt were against Godsword and the custome of the primitiue Church to vse a tongue vnknowne to the people in common prayer and administration of Sacraments The second vvhether euery Church had authority to appoint take away and change ceremonyes and Ecclesiasticall rites so the same be to edification Thirdly whether yt can be proued by the word of God that there is offered vp in the masse a sacrifice propitiatory for the quicke and the dead VVhich questions vvere to be handled saith Fox in the presence of the Queenes Councell Nobility and other of the parlament house for the better satisfaction and enablinge of their iudgements to treat and conclude of such lawes as might depend heerevpon By which words you may easily conceaue what the drift of this pretended disputation was and how guilefully these questions were chosen and sett downe yf yow marke their words and sense especially the former two which only or principally were to be handled and how impertinent these questions were to the great moment of the whole matter and sequele that was to ensue therof which was no lesse then the vniuersall change of the whole body of Catholike Religion throughout the realme 47. This then was the first hereticall fraud in appointinge this disputation and the questions to be disputed but they were many more and greater in the prosecution therof for first the Catholike cleargy lackinge their cheife head which was the Archbishopp of Canterbury lately dead the other Archbishopp of Yorke to witt Doctor Heath was entertayned with feyre words for a time to effectuate with his brethren what the Protestant party of the Conncell should thinke expedient whervpon he being Chancelour yet in name though the effect of his office was giuen to Syr Nicolas Bacon vnder the little of Lord Keeper he was brought into the place of disputation and sate in his roome amongst other Councellours togeather with the Duke of Norfolke other of the nobility as one of them and rather against the Bishops then for them though no doubt the good man meant yt not so then was yt appointed to the said Catholike Bishopps by the Archbishopp in name of the Councell only two dayes before their meetinge at the conference for so complayneth the Bishop of Lincolne in the second dayes meetinge that both they to witt the Bishops should begin to say what they could for themselues the Protestant preachers should answere them And secondly that the conference should be in English and not in Latyn and thirdly that yt should not be by way of arguinge or disputinge but only of speach or readinge yt out of some booke or paper All which three points seeminge indignityes to the Bishopps they complayned greeuously therof at their first publike meetinge which was in VVestminster Church vpon the last of March 1559. being friday and Bishop VVhite of VVinchester being the first to speake for his side said that they were ready to dispute argue but had not their wrytinge ready to be read there but would do it at their next meeting yet for giuinge some satisfaction Doctor Cole extempore alleaged some breife reasons concerninge the former questions or propositions reseruinge the rest vnto their fuller booke or wrytinge 48. But heerevpon presently the Protestant preachers came out with their booke or inuectiue against Latyn seruice fraught with a vayne shew of many allegations Scriptures Fathers Councells and Constitutions of Emperors sounding as it might seeme somewhat to their party though nothing at all in truth yf yow examine them as they ly in Fox himselfe but with this ostentation they sought to get the applause of the people heerby well declared that they had more then two dayes warninge to prepare themselues and albeit when this was done the Bishops offered to refute all the same cleerely at the next metinge yet could they not be heard or permitted as presently we shall shew but that this must needs stand for the whole resolution in the first questioÌ„ And Fox like one of his kind seeketh to preuent the matter in these words The same being reade to witt the wryting of the Protestant party vvith some likelyhood as it seemed that the same was much allow able to the audience certayne of the Bishopps began to say contrary to their former aunswere that they had now much more to say in this matter vvherin although they might vvell haue byn reprehended yet for auoydinge of any more mistakinge and that they should vtter all they had to say yt was ordered that vpon munday followinge the Bishopps should bringe their mynd and reasons in vvryting to the second assertion and to the last also ys they could and first read the same and that done the other part should bring likewise theirs c. 49. Lo heere the indifferency that was vsed the Bishopps are accused of cauillation that they offered to aunswere in wrytinge to the Protestants libell which is not only denyed them but yt is ordayned also that after other two dayes they should bringe in whatsoeuer they haue to say
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
againe exhibited and confirmed and this not by exposition of their owne heads only as sectaryes do but by intendement and interpretation of the grauest and most ancient Fathers that haue liued in the Church of God from age to age who vnderstood so the said figures and foreshewinges of the old Testament As for example the bread and wine misteriously offered to almighty God by Melchisedeck King and Priest who bare the type of our Sauiour Gen. 14. Psalm 109. Heb. 7. The shew-bread amonge the Iewes that only could be eaten by them that were sanctified Exod. 40. c. Reg. 21. The bread sent miraculously by an Angell to Elias whereby he was so strengthened as he trauayled 40. dayes without eating by vertue only of that bread These three sorts of bread to haue byn expresse figures of this Sacrament and of the trew flesh of Christ therein conteined do testifie by one consent all the ancient Fathers as S. Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. Clem. Alexand. lib. 4. Strom. Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 3. Hier in cap. 1. ad Titum Chrysost. hom 35. in Gen. August lib. 2. cont litteras Petii cap. 37. Cyrill Catechesi 4. Mystag Arnobius Eusebius Gregorius and many others 14. Three other figures there are not expressed in the forme of bread but in other things more excellēt then bread as the paschall lambe Exod. 12. Leuit. 23. The bloud of the Testament described Exod. 24. Heb. 9. And fulfilled by Christ Luc. 22. when he said This cupp is the new Testament in my bloud and againe This is my bloud of the new Testament Matth. 26. The manna also sent by God from heauen was an expresse figure of this Sacrament as appeareth by the words of our Sauiour Ioan. 6. and of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. Out of all which figures is inferred that for so much as there must be great difference betweene the figure and the thing prefigured no lesse yf we beleeue S. Paul then betweene a shaddow the body whose shaddow yt is yt cannot be imagined by any probability that this Sacrament exhibited by Christ in performance of those figures should be only creatures of bread and wine as Sacramentaryes do imagine for then should the figures be eyther equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured yt selfe for who will not confesse but that bread for bread Elias his bread made by the Angell that gaue him strength to walke 40. dayes vpon the vertue therof was equall to our English-ministers Communion-bread and that the manna was much better 15. And yf they will say for an euasion as they do that their bread is not common bread but such bread as being eaten and receaued by faith worketh the effect of Christs body in them and bringeth them his grace we answeare that so did these figures and Sacraments also of the ould Testament being receaued by faith in Christ to come as the ancient Father and Preachers receaued them And for so much as Protestants do further hould that there is no difference betweene the vertue efficacy of those old Sacramēts and ours which we deny yt must needs follow that both we they agreeinge that the Fathers of the old Testament beleeued in the same Christ to come that we do now being come their figures and shaddowes must be as good as our truth in the Sacrament that was prefigured if it remaine bread still after Christs institution and consecration But Catholike Fathers did vnderstand the matter farre otherwise and to alleage one for all for that he spake in the sense of all in those dayes Saint Hierome talking of one of those forsaid figures to witt of the shew-bread and comparinge yt with the thinge figured and by Christ exhibited saith thus Tantum interest c. There is so much difference betweene the shew-bread and the body of Christ figured therby as there is difference betweene the shaddow and the body whose shaddow yt is and betweene an Image and the truth which the Image representeth betweene certaine shapes of things to come and the things themselues prefigured by those shapes And thus much of figures presignifications of the old Testament 16. In the new Testament as hath byn said are conteyned both the promise of our Sauiour to fullfill these figures with the truth of his flesh which he would giue to be eaten in the Sacrament as also the exhibition and performance therof afterward the very night before his passion with a miraculous confirmation of the same by S. Paul vpon conference had therin with Christ himselfe after his blessed assension The promise is conteyned in the sixt Chapter of S. Iohns ghospell where our Sauiour foretelleth expressely that he would giue his flesh to vs to be eaten for that except vve did eat the same vve could not be saued that his flesh vvas truly meat and his bloud truly drinke and that his flesh that he would giue vs to eat vvas the same that vvas to be giuen for the life of the world All which speaches of our Sauiour expounded vnto vs in this sense for the reall presence of his flesh in the Sacrament by the vniuersall agreeinge consent of auncient Fathers must needs make great impression in the hart of a faithfull Christian man especially the performance of this promise ensuing soone after vvhen Christ being to depart out of this world and to make his last will and Testament exhibited that which heere he promised takinge bread brake and distributed the same sayinge this is my body that shal be deliuered for yow which words are recorded by three seuerall Euangelists and that with such significant and venerable circumstances on our Sauiours behalfe of feruent prayer washinge his Apostles feet protestation of his excessiue loue and other deuout and most heauenly speaches in that nearnesse to his passion as well declared the exceeding greatnesse of the mistery which he was to institute whervnto if we add that excellent cleare cōfirmation of S. Paul who for resoluing doubts as it seemed had conference with Christ himselfe after his ascension for before he could not he being no Christian when Christ ascended the matter will be more euident His words are these to the Corinth Ego enim accepi à Domino quod tradidi vobis c. For I haue receaued from our Lord himselfe that which I haue deliuered vnto yow about the Sacrament and do yow note the word for importinge a reason why he ought specially to be beleeued in this affayre for so much as he had receaued the resolution of the doubt frō Christ himselfe And then he setteth downe the very same words againe of the Institution of this Sacrament that were vsed by Christ before his passion without alteration or new exposition which is morally most certayne that he would haue added for clearinge all doubts yf there had byn any other sense to haue byn gathered of them then the plaine words themselues
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
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
yow see he compareth this mystery and myracle of Christs being in the Sacrament with the myracle of his incarnation myraculous byrth of the blessed Virgin The very same iudgement held S. Ephrem equall in antiquity to S. Ambrose Quid scrutaris inscrutabilia c. What dost thou search after thinges vnsearcheable Yf thou examine these thinges curiously thou wilt seeme not to be faithfull but curious be faithfull and simple and so participate the immaculate body of thy Lord beleeuinge most certaynely that thou dost eat the very whole lambe yt selfe c. So he 9. Saint Augustine also in many places doth beat earnestly against this standing vpon reason in matters of faith but especially in his epistle to Volutianus sayinge Quae sibi quisque fatilia c. The thinges which each man esteemeth easy for him to conceaue though he cannot make them he is content to beleeue them but all that is aboue his capacity he holdeth for false and feigned And againe Si ratio quaeritur non erit mirabile yf yow seeke reason for euery thinge yt will not be maruelous Demus Deum aliquid posse quod nos fateamur inuestigare non posse Lett vs graunt that God can do somewhat wherof we cannot seeke out the reason in talibus rebus tota ratio facti est potentia facientis in such matters all the reason that can be alleaged for the fact or for that which is done is the power of the doer And in another place the same Father hauinge spoken of the blessed Sacrament and how Christ our Sauiour is therein sub aliena specie vnder another forme of bread and wyne as the Angells also appeare vnto vs vnder assumpted bodyes he concludeth thus Mihi autem omnino vtile est c. It is very profitable for me to remember my owne feeble forces to warne my brethren that they also be myndfull of theirs to the end that our humayne infirmity do not passe further in search of these mysteryes then is safe for vs to do So blessed S. Augustine 10. And finally S. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria handlinge those words of the faithlesse Capharnaites Ioan. 6. How can he giue his flesh to be eaten c. reprehendeth greatly such curious inquisition sayinge Numquam in tam sublimibus rebus illud quomodo aut cogitemus aut proferamus In so high matters as these of the Sacrament let vs neuer thinke or alleage this word quomodo that is how yt can be And in this manner did the ancient Fathers proceed about this mystery by way of faith and humble submission of their iudgements and vnderstandings and not by feeding their imagination with probability of humayne reason against faith as the sectaryes of our tyme do yea and placinge so much confidence therin as they were content to dy for the same as after yow will see by experience when we come to handle their arguments in particular wherof the greater part yea almost all relyed eyther vpon common sense or some little shew of humayne reason And thus much for the second obseruation Third Obseruation That reason is not contrary to faith but inferior vnto it §. 3. 11. The third obseruation may be that though yt is iustly accoumpted a fault of folly pride heresie or infidelity by the foresaid Fathers to stand too much vpon sense reason in these mysteryes which do surpasse them both yet are they not contrary to reason for that one truth cannot be contrary to another and God is the author of both lightes the one as a lower the other as a more high and eminent light so as though this lower cannot reach to discouer that which the higher doth disclose comprehend yet is not this extinguished or violated by the other but rather perfected and strengthened Reason reacheth only to thinges that are probable in nature faith ascendeth to all that is possible and not only possible to man but euen to God himselfe which so farre exceedeth both the power and vnderstanding of man as S. Paul speaking but of one point only of our faith which is the ioyes of heauen saith that the hart of man could not comprize the same 12. And yet yf we would enter into the search of what is possible to Gods power and omnipotency the scripture in few words setteth yt downe Non est impossibile apud Deum omne verbum there is nothinge impossible to God which is as much to say that all thinges are possible And againe our Sauiour speaking to his Father said Omnia tibi possibilia sunt All things are to thee possible And yf we would require examples the creation of the heauens and of all things both in vnder them will minister thousands whervnto humayne reason cannot reach And S. Iohn Baptist gaue an example to the Iewes that God of stones is able to raise vp children to Abraham but this also is nothing in respect of Gods infinite and incomprehensible omnipotency which is aboue the reach of our vnderstandinge 13. No limitation then at all is to be layd to Gods almighty power but that he may do whatsoeuer he please except only one accordinge to diuines which is that the thinge do not imply contradiction in yt selfe as that yt should be and not be at once which is impossible or that yt should import any imperfection or impotency in God as to synne or dye which are effects rather of want of power then of omnipotency And in this do the more learned Protestants also agree in word with vs sayinge that yf yt were cleere that God would haue yt so or had said yt that of bread should be made his flesh and that one substance should be turned into the other they would graunt that he could do yt by his omnipotency Thus they say in words to auoid the odious note of infidelity or limiting Gods power but when they come to the point indeed they found all their greatest arguments vpon the impossibility thereof as though God could not do yt And so shall yow see afterwards when we come to discusse their strongest arguments And their great Grand-father Iohn VVikliffe or rather VVicked-beleefe as VValsingham calleth him did absolutely deny that God was able to do yt as Thomas VValden testifieth out of his owne wrytings And Iohn Caluyn his scholler in this point calleth vs madd-men for that we beleeue that God was able to make bread his flesh in the Sacrament and yet not to haue the externall forme nature and propriety of flesh Insane saith he quid à Dei potentia postulas vt carnem faciat simul esse non esse carnem Thou madd-man how dost thou demaund of the power of God that he should make flesh to be flesh and not flesh at one tyme But how doth Caluyn proue thinke yow that our beleefe of the Sacrament implyeth this contradiction of flesh and no flesh Forsooth to vse his words for that we graunt that God
shewing out of the words of S. Ambrose that Ridleyes aunswere could not be true for that S. Ambrose said that after the consecration there is not the thinge that nature did forme but that which the blessing doth consecrate And that yf the benediction of Elias the Prophett could turne the nature of water how much more the benediction of Christ God man can do the same ergò there is a greater change in the natures then of common bread to become the Lords bread 12. To this reply there was no other aunswere giuen but that S. Ambrose his booke dâ— Sacramentis was not his Ridley affirmed that all the Fathers did say so which was a shamelesse lye in so great an auditory nor could he bringe forth so much as one Father that said so nor alleaged he any one argument to proue yt to be so and yf he had yet S. Ambrose repeatingâ— againe the very same sentence in his booke de initiandis is sufficient for the authority of the place but Glyn is made to passe away the matter with sylence sayinge VVell lett this passe c. And then goinge to other authorityes of Fathers ys â—â—yped of with like shifâ—â— as when he cyteth S. Cyprians words Panis non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Dei sit caro tâ—e bread by consecration being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of God made flesh they aunswere that by nature is vnderstood a naturall property or quality and by flesh a fleshly thinge or quality and not the substance so as the sense must be that bread is changed not in outward shape but into a naturall property of a fleshly thing c. And when Doctor Glyn replyed to ouerthrow this inuention out of S. Ambrose who affirmeth this chaÌ„ge of bread to be made into the flesh that was taken of the Virgin Mary ergò yt was not only into a fleshly thinge quality or property but into the true flesh of Christ Ridly gaue an aunswere that I vnderstand not nor himselfe I thinke but only that he must say somwhat in so great an audience and expectation or Fox vnderstood yt not that setteth it downe for these are his words 13. VVhen Doctor Glyn vrged the sayinge of S. Ambrose that bread is changed into the body taken from the virgin Mary that is to say saith he that by the word of God the thinge hath a being that yt had nâ—t before and we do consecrate the body that we may receaue the grace and power of the body of Christ in heauen by this Sacramentall body So he And doth any man vnderstand him or is his aunswere any thinge to the purpose for satisfyinge the Fathers S. Cyprian saith that the bread by the omnipotency of God is changed in nature and made flesh and S. Ambrose saith yt is the flesh taken from the Virgin and Ridley saith heere that yt hath a being vvhich yt had not before and that they do consecrate a sacramentall body of Christ therby to receaue the grace and power of Christs body in heauen but howsoeuer they do consecrate that body which is a strange word for Sacramentaryes to vse yet do they graunt that this Sacramentall body is but bread and how then can yt be flesh and flesh of the Virgin were not the Fathers ridiculous yf they vsed these equiuocations yea false and improper speaches 14. Well Doctor Glyn goeth foreward and alleageth S. Chrysostome vpon S. Mathewes ghospell where to persuade vs the truth of Christs body in the Sacrament he saith that we must beleeue Christs words in these mysteryes and not our senses for that our senses may be deceaued but Christ sayinge this is my body cannot deceaue vs and that he made vs one body with himselfe not through faith only but in very deed and further that the miracle which he wrought in his last supper he vvorketh dayly by his ministers c. Whervnto Ridley aunswered nothinge but these words Maister Doctor yow must vnderstand that in that place S. Chrysostome shewed that Christ deliuered vnto vs no sensible thinge in that supper So he Which notwithstanding is euidently false for he deliuered sensible bread wyne according to the Protestants faith and accordinge to outs the formes of bread and wyne which are also sensible and yf there were no sensible thinge then could there be no Sacrament which must conteyne a sensible signe And to refuâ—e this shift of Ridley Doctor Glyn obiected Theophilact expoundinge S. Chrysostome and vsinge the same words that he did to witt that the bread is transelemented and transformed He alleageth another place or two of S. Augustine togeather with S. Irenaeus To all which Rochester aunswereth resolutely VVell say what yow list yt is but a figuratiue speach as S. Iohn Baptist was said to be Elias for a property c. But who doth not see the absurdity of this euasion for so much as the meaning of Christ about Elias his spiritt in S. Iohn Baptist is euident nor euer went any auncient Fathers about to affirme or proue by arguments that S. Iohn Baptist was truly Elias in person himselfe expressely denyinge yt or that yt was meant literally as they do of the words of Christ in the Sacrament And this could not Ridley but see but that he was blinded in pride and passion for that otherwise he would neuer haue gone about to aunswere the Fathers by euident wranglinge so contrary to their owne sense and meaninge 15. After Doctor Glyn was putt to silence in this order succeded Maister Langdale Maister Sedgewicke and Maister Yonge but very breefely concerninge this article of the reall-presence not being permitted to speake more and the most part of the tyme trifled out also with courtesyes of speach the one to the other My good Lord good Maister Doctor pleaseth yt your good Lordshipp liketh yt your good Fathershipp honourable Father and the like ceremonyes for they durst do no other Ridley being then high commissionar yet Maister Langdale vrged a place of S. Chrysostome where he bringeth Christ savinge these words I vrould be your brother I tooke vpon me common flesh and bloud for your sakes and euen by the same things that I am ioyned to yow the very same I haue exhibited to yow againe meaninge in the Sacrament Wherof Maister Langdale inferred that seing Christ tooke vpon him true naturall flesh and not a figure of flesh only or remembrance therof therfore he gaue vs his true naturall flesh like man in the Sacrament and not a figure Wherto Ridley aunswereth in these words and no more VVe are not ioyned by naturall flesh but do receaue his flesk spiritually from aboue Which aunswere is not only contrary to the expresse words and meaning of S. Chrysostome in this place but of Christ himselfe also brought in heere by S. Chrysostome to vtter his meaninge as yow haue heard I tooke vpon me common flesh for
gall vttered in the preface therof against this disputation concludeth the same with these passionate words as they are in Fox 77. Thus vvas ended the most glorious disputation of the most holy Fathers Sacrificers Doctors and Maisters vvho fought most manfully for their God and Gods for their faith and felicity for their countrey and kitchen for their beuty and belly vvith triumphant applauses and famous of the vvhole vniuersity So hee And by this yow may know the man and how much his words are to be credited yow hauing considered what hath byn laid downe before by Fox his owne report touching the substance of the disputation and authorityes of Fathers alleaged and examined and shifted of though in the forme of scholasticall disputation and vrging arguments yt may be there were some disorders yet that maketh not so much to the purpose how arguments were vrged against them as how they were aunswered by them and yet could not the disorder be so great as it was vnder Ridley himselfe in the Cambridge-disputation as is most euident to the reader by Fox his owne relation who as before I haue noted is alwayes to be presumed to relate the worst for vs and the best for himselfe in all these actions 78. Wherfore yt is not a little to be considered what was the difference in substance or substantiall proofes brought forth in the Cambridge Protestant-disputations vnder K. Edward and these Oxford Catholike-disputations vnder Q. Mary and whether Doctor Ridley that was moderator of those or Doctor VVeston prolocutor in these did best vrge or solue arguments against their aduersaryes for that this consideration and comparison only will giue a great light to discerne also the difference of the causes therin defended One thinge also more is greatly in my opinion to be weighed in this matter which is that the said auncient Fathers hauinge to persuade so high and hard a mystery as this is that Christs true and naturall flesh and bloud are really vnder the formes of bread and wyne by vertue of the Priests consecration they were forced to vse all the manner of most significant speaches which they could diuise to expresse the same and to beate yt into the peoples heads and mynds though contrary to their senses and common reason and therby to fly from the opposite heresie and infidelity of our Sacramentaryes lurkinge naturally in the harts of flesh and bloud and of sensuall people but synce that tyme by Sathans incytation broached and brought forth publikely into the world For meetinge wherwith the holy prouidence of almighty God was that the forsaid Fathers should by all sorts of most significant speaches phrases as hath byn said so cleerly lay open their meanings in this matter as no reasonable man can doubt therof and not only this but also that they should vse certaine exaggerations the better to explane themselues such as they are wont to do in other controuersies also when they would vehemently oppose themselues against any error or heresie as by the examples of Saint Augustine against the Pelagians in behalfe of Grace and against the Manichees in the defence of Free-will And of S. Hierome against Iouinian for the priuiledge of Virginity aboue marriage and other like questions wherin the said Fathers to make themselues the better vnderstood do vse sometymes such exaggeratiue speaches as they may seeme to inclyne somewhat to the other extreme which indeed they do not but do shew therby their feruour in defence of the truth and hatred of the heresie which they impugne 79. And the like may be obserued in this article of the reall-presence of Christs sacred body in the Sacrament of the Altar which being a mystery of most high importance and hardest to be beleeued as aboue humayne sense and reason and therfore called by them the myracle of mysteryes yt was necessary for them I say to vse as many effectuall wayes as they possible could for persuadinge the said truth vnto the people and for preuenting the distrustfull cogitations and suggestions both of humayne infirmity and diabolicall infidelity against the receaued faith and truth of this article and so they did not only vsinge most cleere plaine effectuall and significant manner of expounding themselues and their meaninge but many such exaggerations also as must needs make vs see the desire they had to be rightly and fully vnderstood therein For better consideration of which point being of singular moment as hath byn said the reader shall haue a little patience whilst I detayne my selfe somewhat longer then I meant to haue done in layinge forth the same before him 80. And first of all concerninge the effectuall speaches for vtteringe the truth of their beleefe in this article yow haue heard much in the former disputation and heere we shall repeat some points againe which in effect are that wheras the said Fathers founded themselues ordinaryly vpon those speaches of our Sauiour This is my body vvhich shal be giuen for yow my flesh is truly meate and my bloud is truly drinke The bread vvhich I shall giue yow is my flesh for the life of the vvorld and other like sentences of our Sauiour the Fathers do not only vrge all the circumstances heere specified or signified to proue yt to be the true naturall and substantiall body of Christ as that yt was to be giuen for vs the next day after Christs words were spoken that yt was to be giuen for the life of the whole world that yt was truly meate and truly Christs flesh but do adde also diuers other circumstances of much efficacy to confirme the same affirminge the same more in particular that it is the very same body which was borne of the blessed Virgin the very same body that suffered on the Crosse corpus affixum verberatum crucifixum cruentatum lanceae vulneratum saith S. Chrysostome the selfe-same body that was nayled beaten crucisied blouded wounded with a speare is receaued by vs in the Sacrament Whervnto S. Austen addeth this particularity that yt is the selfe-same body that walked heere amonge vs vpon earth As he vvalked heere in flesh saith he amonge vs so the very selfe same flesh doth he giue to be eaten and therfore no man eateth that flesh but first adoreth at and Hisichius addeth that he gaue the selfe-same body vvherof the Angell Gabriell said to the Virgin Mary that it should be conceaued of the holy Ghost And yet further yt is the same body saith S. Chrysostome that the Magi or learned men did adore in the manger But thou dost see him saith he not in the manger but in the Altar not in the armes of a vvoman but in the hands of a Priest The very same flesh saith S. Austen againe that sate at the table in the last supper and vvashed his disciples seet The very same I say did Christ giue with his owne hands to his disciples vvhen he said take eate
this is my body c. And so did he beare himselfe in his owne hands vvhich vvas prophesied of Dauid but fulfilled only by Christ in that Supper 81. These are the particularityes vsed by the Fathers for declaring what body they meane and can there be any more effectuall speaches then these but yet harken further Thou must know and hold for most certaine saith S. Cyrill that this vvhich seemeth to be bread is not bread but Christs body though the tast doth iudge it bread And againe the same Father Vnder the forme or shew of bread is giuen to thee the body of Christ vnder the forme or snape of wine is giuen to thee the bloud of Christ c. And S. Chrysostome to the same effect VVe must not beleeue our senses eaysie to be beguiled c. VVe must simply and vvithout all ambyguity beleeue the vvords of Christ sayinge This is my body c. O how many say now adayes I vvould see him I vvould behould his visage his vestments c. But he doth more then this for he giueth himselfe not only to be seene but to be touched also handled and eaten by thee Nor only do the Fathers affirme so asseuerantly that yt is the true naturall body of Christ though yt appeare bread in forme and shape and that we must not beleeue our senses heerin but do deny expressely that yt is bread after the words of consecration wherof yow heard longe discourses before out of S. Ambrose in his books de sacramentis and de initiandis Before the words of consecration it is bread saith he but after consecration de pane sit caro Christi of bread yt is made the flesh of Christ And note the word fit yt is made And againe Before the words of Christ be vttered in the consecration the chalice is full of vvine and vvater but vvhen the vvords of Christ haue vvrought their effect ibi sanguis efficitur qui redemit plebem there is made the bloud that redeemed the people And marke in like manner the word efficitur is made and consider whether any thinge can be spoken more plainly 83. But yet the Fathers cease not heere but do passe much further to inculcate the truth of this matter reprehending sharply all doubt suspition or ambiguity which the weaknesse of our flesh or infection of heresie may suggest in this matter S. Cyrill reasoneth thus VVheras Christ hath said of the bread this is my body vvho vvill dare to doubt therof and vvheras he hath said of the wine this is my bloud vvho vvill doubt or say yt is not his bloud he once turned vvater into vvine in Cana of Galiley by his only will which wine is like vnto bloud and shall vve not thinke him vvorthy to be beleeued vvhen he saith that he hath changed vvine into his bloud So he And S. Ambrose to the same effect Our Lord Iesus Christ doth iestifie vnto vs that we do receaue his body and bloud and may we doubt of his creditt or testimony And the other Saint Cyrill of Alexandria saith to the same effect that in this mystery we should not so much as aske quomodo how yt can be done Iudaicum enim verbum est saith he aeterm supplicij causa For ye is a Iewish word and cause of euerlastinge torment And before them both Saint Hilary left wrytten this exhortation These things saith he that are wrytten lett vs read and those things that vve reade lett vs vnderstand and so vve shall perfectly performe the duty of true saith for that these points vvhich vve affirme of the naturall verity of Christs being in vs. exceptive learne them of Christ himselfe we affirme them wickedly and foolishly c. VVherfore vvheras he saith my sâ—eâ—h is truly meat and my bloud is truly drinke there is no place left to vs of doubting concerning the truth of Christs body bloud for that both by the affirmation of Christ himselfe and by our owne beleefe there is in the Sacrament the flesh truly and the bloud truly of our Sauiour 83. So great S. Hilary and Eusebiuâ— Emissenus bringeth in Christ our Sauiour speakinge in these words For so much as my flesh is truly meat and my bloud is truly drinke leit all doubt fullnes of in fideliâ—y depart for so much as he vvho is the author of the gift is vvittnesse also of the truth therof And S. Leo to the same effect Nothinge at all is to be doubted of the truth of Christâ— body and bloud in the Sacrament c. And those do in vaine aunswere amen when they receaue yt if they dispute against that vvhich is affirmed And finally S. Epâ—pâ—anius concludeth thus He that beleeueth it not to be the very body of Christ in the Sacrament is fallen from grace and saluation 84. And by this we may see the earnestnesse of the Fathers in vrginge the beleefe of Christs true flesh and bloud in the Sacrament But they cease not heere but do preuent and exclude all shifts of Sacramentaryes which by Gods holy spiritt they forsaw euen in those auncient dayes affirminge that not by faith only or in â—igure or image or spiritually alone Christs flesh is to be eaten by vs but really substantially and corporally Not only by faith saith S. Chrysâ—stome but in very deed he maketh vs his body reducing vs as yt were into one masse or substance vvith himselfe And Saint Cyrill Not only by saith and charity are we spiritually conioyned to Christ by his flesh in the Sacrament but corporally also by communication of the same flesh And S. Chrysostome againe Not only by loue but in very deed are we conuerted into his flesh by eatinge the same And Saint Cyrill againe VVe receauinge in the Sacrament corporally and substantially the sonne of God vnited naturally to his Father we are clarified glorified therby and made partakers of his supreme nature Thus they Whervnto for more explication addeth Theophilact VVhen Christ said This is my body he shewed that it vvas his very body in deed and not any figure correspondent thervnto for he said not this is the figure of my body but this is my body by vvhich vvords the bread is transformed by an vnspeakable operation though to vs it seeme still bread And againe in another place Behould that the bread vvhich is eaten by vs in the mysteryes is not only a figuration of Christs flesh but the very flesh indeed for Christ said not that the bread vvhich I shall giue yow is the figure of my flesh but my very flesh indeed for that the bread is transformed by secrett vvords into the flesh And another Father more auncient then he aboue twelue hundred yeares past handlinge those words of Christ This is my body saith It is not the figure of Christs body and bloud vt quidam stupida mente nugati sunt as some blockish
of Christ. How do they affirme saith S. Irenaeus against certayne heretiks that denied the resurrection that our flesh shall come to corruption and not receaue life againe vvhich is nourished by the body and bloud of Christ And againe Ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia Of which body and bloud of Christ the substance of our flesh is encreased and consisteth And Tertullian caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur c. Our flesh doth feed on the body and bloud of Christ. And marke that he saith the flesh and not only the soule And Iustine in his second Apology to the Emperour Antoninus talkinge of the Sacrament saith it is cibus quo sanguis carnesque nostrae aluntur The meat wherwith our bloud and flesh is fedd and to this manner of speach appertayne those sayings of S. Chrysostome Altare meum cruentum sanguine my Altar that is made redd with bloud Where he speaketh in the person of Christ. And againe to him that had receaued the Sacrament dignus es habitus qui eius carnes lingua tangeres Thou are made worthy to touch with thy tongue the flesh of Christ And yet further in another place Thou seest Christ sacrificed in the Altar the Priest attendinge to his sacrifice and powring out prayers the multitude of people receauinge the Sacrament praetioso illo sanguine intingi rubefieri To be died and made read with that pretious bloud All which speaches and many more that for breuity I pretermitt though they tend to a certayne exaggeration as hath byn said yet do they plainly declare the sense iudgement and beleefe of the Fathers in this article and so albeit literally and in rigour they be not in all respects verified yet need we no better arguments to certifie vs of the Fathers meaninges then these to witt how farre they were of from the Protestants opinions in this mystery 89. And truly yf we would now put downe heere on the contrary side the Prorestants assertions and their cold manner of speaches in this behalfe and compare them with this vehemency of the Fathers we should presently see a wonderfull difference I will touch some few only conteyned in this booke First they say and yt is a common refuge of Cranmer and the rest in this disputation as you haue heard that their communion-bread is Christs true body as S. Iohn Baptist was true Elias Item That yt is Christs body as the doue was the holy-ghost Item That the body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament of the Altar no otherwise then yt is in baptisme Item That infants when they be baptized do eate the body of Christ also Item That Christs body is in the Sacracrament as when two or three are gathered togeather in his name Item That the body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament as yt is eaten when wee read scriptures or heare sermons Item That the breakinge of Christs body is nothinge but the breaking of the scriptures to the people And these are the common phrases of all lightly For I lett passe many particular assertions of some much more cold and contemptible then these wherby yow may easily seâ— the difference of estimation reuerence respect and beleefe betweene them and the auncient Fathers 90. And on the other side he that will consider the great care and warynesse which the said Fathers did vse in speakinge properly and exactly as well in other mysteryes articles of our faith as in this shall easily see that they could not fall into such excesse of speach with open reprehension contradiction of others yf their meaninge had not byn euident and the doctrine Catholike and generally receaued which they endeauoured to inculcate by these speaches for so much as we are taught by all antiquity that there was such exact rigour vsed in this behalfe in those dayes that a word or sillable could not be spoken amisse without present note or checke And S. Hierome saith that sometymes for one only vvord heretiks haue byn cast out of the Church And Saint Basill being intreated and vrged by a Gouernour of Constantius the Arrian Emperour to accomodate himselfe in manner of speach only about two words homiousion and homousion which are not said the gouernour found in scripture he answered him noe that for one Sillable he vvould offer his life yf it vvere need And the like exactnesse did the ancieÌ„t Fathers of the CouÌ„cell of Ephesus shew afterwards in standinge so resolutely for the word Deipara mother of God against Nestorius refusing the vse of the other word Christipara mother of Christ though the one the other of the words refused to witt homiousion Christipara in their senses are true but for that some hereticall meaninge might lurke therin they were refused 91. And to conclude yf antiquity was so carefull and vigilant to exclude dangerous incommodious speaches in other articles how much more would yt haue byn in this also of the reall presence yf the said Fathers speaches before rehearsed had not byn true as in the Protestants sense they cannot be but must needs tend to most dangerous error of misbeleefe and idolatry And consequently there is no doubt but that they would haue byn reproued by other Fathers yf the Protestants opinions had byn then receaued for truth And this shall suffice for this Chapter OF THE TVVO OTHER ARTICLES ABOVT Transubstantiation and the Sacrament what passed in this Disputation CHAP. VI. HAVINGE handled more largely then was purposed at the beginninge so much as apperteyneth to the first article of the reall-presence as the ground and foundation of the other two I meane to be very breefe concerninge the rest as well for that in the Oxforddisputations there was scarse any thinge handled therof but only some demonstrations out of the Fathers alleaged to Latymer which he as yow haue heard could not aunswere about the third and last point as also for that whatsoeuer was treated therof in the disputations at Cambridge and in the Conuocation house especially about Transubstantiation hath byn aunswered for the most part in our former treatise about the reall presence And albeit it was some art of the Sacramentaryes in the beginninge of these controuersies vnder K. Edward to runne from the discussion of the principall point as more cleerly against them vnto the question of Transubstantiation for that might seeme to yeld them some more shew of matter or obiections to cauill at as before we haue declared yet when the matter commeth to examination they haue as little for them in this as in the other or rather lesse for that the other to witt the reall-presence or being of Christ really and substantially present in the Sacrament hauinge byn so euidently proued against them as before yow haue seene this other of Transubstantiation being but modus essenâ—i the manner how Christ is there little importeth them nay