point from the beginninge which are recorded by Catholike wiyters of our dayes from age to age and one only alleageth thirty and two that wrote heereof before the Councell of Lateran and are ouerlong to be recited in this place only they may be reduced for more perspicuitie to two heads the one of such as deny the substance of bread to remayne after the words of consecration the other of such as do expressely auouch a conuersion of bread into Christs body 27. Of the first sort that deny bread to remaine is S. Cyrill Bishop of Hierusalem whose words are hoc sciens ac pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem etiamsi gusts panem esse sentiat c. Thou knowing and being certayne of this that the bread which we see is not bread not withstanding it tast as bread and the wyne which we see not to be wyne but the bloud of Christ though to the taste still see me to be wyne And S. Gregory Nissen Panis iste panis est in initio communis c. This bread at the beginninge is comon bread but when yt is consecrated yt is called and is indeed the body of Christ. Againe Eusebius Antequant consecrentur c. Before consecration there is the substance of bread and wyne but after the words of Christ yt is his body and bloud All which do exclude as yow see bread after consecration And to the same effect S. Ambrose Panis hic panis est ante verba Sacramentorum sed vbi accesserit consecratio de pane sit â—aro Christi This bread before the words of the Sacraments is bread but after the consecration of bread is made the flesh of Christ. And S. Chrysostome treating of this mistery asketh this question and aunswereth the same Num â—ides panem num vinum absit ne sic cogites Dost thou see bread dost thou see wyne heere God forbidd thinke no such matter And to this same effect many others might be cyted but yt would grow to ouergreat prolixity 28. The second sort of testimonyes that do affirme conuersion and change of bread into the body of Christ are many more yf we would stand vpon their allegation and in place of all might stand S. Ambrose whose faith was the generall faith of Christendome in his â—ayes he doth not only oftentymes repeat that by the words of Christ vttered by the Priest vpon the bread the nature substance therof is changed into the body and bloud of Christ but proueth the same by examples of all the miraculous mutations conuersions recorded in the old and new Testament Prebemus saith he non hoc esse quod natura formanit sed quod benedictio consecrauit maiorémque vim esse benedictionis quam naturae quia benedictione etiam ipsa natura mutatur Lett vs proue then by all these other miracles that this which is in the Sacrament is not that which nature did frame vsed bread and wyne but that which the blessinge hath consecrated and that the force of blessinge is greater then the force of nature for that nature herselfe is changed by blessinge And againe Si tantum valuit sermo Eliae vt ignem de coelo depoueret non valebit sermo Christi â—t species mutet elementorum Yf the speach of Elyas was of such force as yt could bring downe fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ in the Sacrament be able to change the natures of the elemeÌ„ts videlicet as I said before of bread and wyne And yet further Yow haue read that in the creation of the world God said and thinges were made he commaunded and they were created that speach then of Christ vvhich of nothinge created that which was not before shall yt not be able to exchaunge those thinges that are into other thinges vvhich they vvere not before sor yt is no lesse to giue new natures to things then to chaunge natures but rather more c. 29. Thus reasoneth that graue and holy Doctor to whome we might adioyne many more both before and after him as namely S. Cyprian in his sermon of the supper of our Lord Panis iste quem c. This bread which Christ gaue vnto his disciples being change not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of the word made flesh S. Cyrill Bishop of Hierusalem proueth the same by example of the miraculous turning of water into wine at the marriage of Cane in Galeley aquam mutauit in vinum saith he c. Christ turned water into wyne by his only will and is he not worthy to be beleeued quod vinum in sanguinem transmutauit that he did chaunge wyne into his bloud For yf at bodily marriages he did worke so wonderfull a miracle why shall not we confesse that he gaue his body and bloud in the Sacrament to the children of the spouse wherfore with all certainty let vs receaue the body and bloud of Christ for vnder the forme of bread is giuen vnto vs his body and vnder the forme of wyne his bloud Thus hee of this miraculous chaunge wherof Saint Chrysostome treatinge also vpon S. Mathew wryteth thus Nos ministrorum locum tenemus qui verò sanctificat immutat ipse est We that are Priests should but the place of his ministers in this great chaunge for he who doth sanctifie all and maketh the chaunge is Christ himselfe To like effect wryteth Eusebius Emissenus quando benedicendae c. When the creatures of bread and wyne are layd vpon the Altar to be blessed before they are consecrated by the inuocation of the holy Ghost there is present the substance of bread and wyne but after the words of Christ there is Christs body and bloud And what maruayle yf he that could create all by his word posset creata conuertere could conuert and chaunge those thinges that he had created into other natures 30. I might alleage many other Fathers to this effect but my purpose in this place doth not permitt yt this shal be sufficient for a tast that the doctrine of conuersion or chaunge of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ which is the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not new at the tyme of the Councell of Lateran but was vnderstood and held euer before by the cheefe Fathers of the Catholike Church yea and determined also by two Councells at Rome and the first therof generall wherin was present our Lansrancus vpon the yeare of Christ 1060. vnder Pope Nicolas the second and the other 19. yeares after vnder Pope Gregory the seauenth both of them aboue an hundred yeares before the Councell of Lateran wherin notwithstanding is declared expressely this doctrine of the chaunge of bread wyne into the body and bloud of our Sauiour albeit not vnder the name of Transubstantiation and yt is proued expressely out of the words of
of Nouember ended vpon the 14. of December 1547. there was an act made with this title An act against such persons as shall vnreuerently speake against the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ c. Wherin magnificent words are spoken of this Sacrament and all those greatly reprehended that in their sermons preachings readings taâ—ks rymes songes playes or gestures did name and call yt â—y such vile and vnseemely words saith the Statute is Christian eares did abhorre to heare yt rehearsed and this was the the first spiritt of that Caluinian humor in England misliked by Cranmer and the rest at that tyme but soone after allowed well by Iohn Fox in such of his Martyrs as call yt wormes-meate idoll and the like 4. And finally this party so much preuayled with them that gouerned as not longe after that is to say in the second parlament be gone the 4. of Nouember 1548. and ended the 14. of March 1549. they gott their new communion booke to be admitted wherin their new doctrine also against the reall presence was conteyned and then Peter Martyr who as in his story we haue shewed was sent to Oxford before with indiffereÌ„cy to teach what should be ordeyned him from higher powers in that parlament hauing expected all the lent long whilst the parlament endured what would be decreed about this point and finding himselfe in straytes for that he was come to the place of S. Paul to the Corinthians where he must needs declare himselfe receauinge now aduertisment of the new decree did not only accomodate himselfe to teach and preach the same doctrine presently which yet the other friar his companion Martyn Bucer would not doe in Cambridge but also was content vpon request order from the Councell to defend the same in publike disputations for better authorizinge yt through the whole body of the realme This then was the occasion of this first publike disputation to giue some countenance and creditt to the new receaued opinion and paradox of Zuinglius Occolampadius and Carolstadius three schollers of Luther himselfe against the reall presence which as often yow haue heard before Luther did condemne for damnable heresie and them for heretiks that mayntayned yt 5. The questions chosen by Peter Martyr were three First about Transubstantiation whether after the words of consecration the bread and wyne be turned into the body and bloud of Christ. The second about the reall presence whether the body and bloud of Christ be carnally and corporally for so are his words in the bread and wyne or otherwise vnder the kinds of bread and wyne The third was whether the body and bloud of Christ be vnited to bread Sacramentally But of this last question Fox relateth nothing that yt was eyther handled or touched in this disputation About the former two this manifest fraud was vsed that wheras the first about Transubstantiation dependeth of the second of the reall presence it should haue byn handled in the second place and not in the first as heere yt is for cleerer conceauing whereof the Reader must note that the mayne controuersie betweene the Sacramentaryes vs is about the reall presence to witt whether the true body of Christ be really and substantially in the Sacrament after the words of consecration which we do hould affirmatiuely and so doth Luther also then supposing that it is so there followeth a second question de modo essendi of the manner of Christs being there to witt whether yt be there togeather with bread or without bread or whether the bread be anihilated by the ptesence of Christs body or whether yt be turned into the very substance of Christs body as we haue shewed out of Scotus and Durand before in the discussion of Plessis Mornay his Triall and euery one of these opinions about the manner of Christs being there do presuppose the reall presence denyed by the Sacramen taryes So as to dispute first about this particular manner of Christ his being there by Transubstantiation before yt be discussed whether he be really there or noe ys to sett the cart before the horse and the foote before the head 6. And yet for that they do persuade themselues that they haue some more shifts or shewes of probability against Transubstantiation then against the reall presence or can delude better our arguments in the simple peoples eyes they alwayes runne to this leaue the other And it is as if the question being first whether gold were in a purse then whether yt were there alone or els togeather with ledd tynne or some such baser mettall some wrangeler would first dispute the second question before the first or as if two demauÌ„ds being propounded first whether in such a vessell where watter was knowne to be before there be wine put in and secondly whether this wine haue turned that water into it selfe or noe or that water wine do remaine togeather and that one would pretermit the first questioÌ„ to witt whether wine be really truly there or no and cauil only about the second vvhether the vvater be turned into wine or remaine togeather with the wine In which cases yow see first that this manner of dealinge were preposterous and impertinent wrangling but especially yf the wrangler did deny expressely that there was any gold at all in the purse or wine in the vessell for then yt were too too much folly for him to dispute the secondary questions whether the said gold were there alone or with other mettalles or whether the wine had coÌ„uerted the water into it selfe or no for yf neither gold nor wine be really there preseÌ„t then is there no place for the secoÌ„d dispute at all And so fareth it in our coÌ„trouersy of the reall presence of Christs body For if the said body be not really substaÌ„tially in the SacrameÌ„t at all as the Zuinglians Caluinists do hould then is it impertineÌ„t for them to dispute the second question whether it be there without bread or with bread or whether bread be turned into it or no by TraÌ„substaÌ„tiation for so much as they suppose it not to be there at all only Luther Lutherans may haue coÌ„trouersy with Catholiks about the maÌ„ner how it is there seing they beleeue it to be there in deed but ZuingliaÌ„s Caluinists caÌ„not but only about the first question whether it be there or noe which question notwithstanding for so much as they fly and runne alwayes to the second as we haue shewed notorious it is that they runne froÌ„ the purpose shew theÌ„selues not only wraÌ„glers but also deceauers seeking to dazell the eyes of the simple in this behalfe as in this first disputation at Oxford Peter Martyr begon with Transubstantiation and was much longer therein then in the controuersie of the reall presence 7. And in the second disputation of B. Ridley in Cambridge two only questions being proposed the
but one for that otherwise because yt is offered in many places there should be many Christs vvhich is not so but one and the selfe same Christ is in euery place when yt is offered here yt is whole Christ and there it is whole Christ and yet but one body for as euery where one body and not many bodyes are offered so is there also but one sacrifice c. In which places you see S. Chrysostome to hould to affirme that Christs true body without diuision or multiplication is offered vp in many places at once yea innumerable places yf we beleeue S. Gregory Nissen whose words are As Christs diuinity doth replenish the world and yet is but one so is his body consecrated in innumerable places and yet is but one body So he And do yow obserue that the Father saith not that Christs body is euery where as his diuinity is as the Lutherane Vbiquitaryes of Germany do absurdly affirme but that yt is in innumerable places by consecration 25. Well then these Fathers denyed not the reall presence as our Sacramentaryes do for that they conceaued not the reason how one body might be in diuers places at once but mounted by faith aboue reason asscribing the same to miracle and Gods omnipotency as yow haue heard and so do Catholiks at this day Heare the pious speach of a great learned man aboue 400. yeares gone Yow vvill say to me quoth he how can one and the selfe same body be at one tyme in diuers places c. Do not maruayle he that made the place made the body and the place for the body and the body in the place and vvhen he ordayned that one body should be in one place yt was as pleased him and yf he would he could haue made yt othervvise c. Thou hast seene only that vvhich he hath made and not that vvhich he can make and heerevpon dost maruayle when thou seest any other thinge then that which thou art accustomed to see but do thou thinke vpon the matter and yt will cease to be maruaylous or at leastwayes yt will not seeme to be incredible Thus he 26. But our diuines do go yet further shewinge that this is not impossible euen in nature yt selfe for God to performe as yow may perceaue by that we haue declared in the former obseruation For yf yt were repugnant and contradictory to the nature of a true body to be in diuers places at once this must be eyther in respect of the vnity therof for that yt should therby be diuided from yt selfe or multiplyed in yt selfe and so not be one but many bodyes or els secondly yt should be impossible to be in diuers places in respect of the quantity which a true body hath wherby yt should be limyted to some certayne space or place but neyther of these two difficultyes do impossibilitate the matter as now we shall declare 27. Not the first about vnity for that God being a substance indiuisible is euery where wholy and in euery one of his creatures and yet remayneth one still nor can be diuided or multiplyed which is so wonderfull a consideration as S. Augustine saith therof Miratur hoc mens humana quia non capit fortasse non credit Mans mynd doth wonder at this and for that yt conceaueth yt not perhaps yt doth not beleeue yt Some likenesse also of this admirable being is in an Angell which though it cannot be euery where at once as God is yet hath yt a wonderfull being in place notwithstanding as before hath byn touched being placed within any compasse or circuite as for example in a house or Church yt is wholy in all that space and wholy in euery part therof yet remayneth one and simple without diuision in himselfe which example is more euident also in our soule as before we haue declared for that the selfe-same soule in a body when yt is an infant and when yt is at his full grouth is wholy in the whole body wholy in euery part therof and yet is yt not multiplyed therby nor diuided Whereby is made manifest that yt repugneth not to the essence or vnity of any one substance to be in diuers places at once and this naturally but much more supernaturallye by the omnipotent power of God 28. There remayneth then the second difficulty about quantity or a body indued with quantity how yt is not letted therby to be in two places at once wherof we haue treated in the former obseruation shewinge how actuall locality by circumscription being but a secondary propriety following and flowing from the nature of quantity may by Gods power be separated from the same so as the said quantity may remayne with her true essence of hauinge distinct parts in yt selfe and yet no extensiue location or commensuration of place in which case yt repugneth no more for the selfe-same quantity to be in many places at once then yt doth vnto a spirituall substance without quantity such as is an Angell or the soule of man and consequently the substance of Christs body togeather with the quantity in this manner may by Gods power be put in many places at once as we see by course of nature it selfe that the substance of mans soule without quantity is put in many particular places of a mans body without diuision or multiplication remayninge still but one only soule as hath byn declared And this shall suffice for explication of this possibility how yt doth not imply contradiction and therefore is not impossible to God 29. Neyther do our diuines shew only that this is not impossible in our Sauiours body but further also that we do beleeue diuers other mysteryes of our faith as hard or harder then this yea much more impossible to sense and reason yf we consider well the difficultyes therof as the creation of the world of nothinge the mystery of the blessed Trinity the beleefe of Christs incarnation our resurrection and the like for yt is much harder by humayne reason and naturall philosophy to conceaue how the world could be created of nothinge and how one and the selfe-same nature can be wholy in three reall distinct persons without diuision or multiplication in yt selfe and how one person can be in two diuers distinct natures as yt is in our Sauiour and how one and the selfe-same thing being perished and corrupted may be raised againe with the selfe-same accidents that perished before These points I say and diuers others which both we and Protestants do confesse to be true are more harde and impossible in naturall reason then yt is to be beleeue that one body is in diuers places at once 30. Furthermore there be certayne familiar examples in nature yt selfe that do resemble somewhat the matter and may induce a man that is not obstinate and hath any meane capacity to conceaue somewhat of the possibility therof as when a great
much different from the former for both of them are founded on sense and humayne reason and heere I will not conioyne all the arguments togeather as before I did but set them downe seuerally as Fox recordeth them out of Peter Martyrs disputation 1. Argument Yf Christ had giuen his body substantially and carnally in the supper then was that body eyther passible or impassible But neyther can yow say that body to be passible or impassible which he gaue at supper not passible for that S. Austen denyeth yt Psalm 98. not impassible for that Christ saith This is my body vvhich shal be giuen for yow Ergo he did not giue his body substantially at supper Annswere 12. And this same argument vsed others after Peter Martyr as Pilkilton against Doctor Glym alleageth the same place of S. Austen as yow may see in Fox pag. 1259. But the matter is easily answered for that the minor or second proposition is cleerly false for that Christs body giuen in the supper though yt were the same in substance that was giuen on the Crosse the next day after yet was yt deliuered at the supper in another manner to witt in manner impassible vnder the formes of bread and wyne so as according to the being which yt hath in the Sacrament no naturall cause could exercise any action vpon yt though being the selfe same which was to dye vpon the Crosse yt is also passible euen as now in heauen it is visible in the Sacrament inuisible though one the selfe same body now in both places glorious and immortall this meaneth expressely S. Austen in the place alleaged whose words cited by Fox are Yow are not to eate this body that yow see nor to drinke the bloud that they are to shedd who shall crucifie me Which words being spoken to them that were scandalized at his speach about the eatinge of his body do shew that we are in deed to eate his true flesh in the Sacrament but not after that carnall manner which they imagined carnaliter cogitauerunt saith S. Austen in the same place putauerunt quod praecisurus esset Dominus particulas quasdam de corpore suo daturus â—â—is They imagined carnally and thought that Christ vvould haue cutt of certayne peeces of his body and giuen vnto them which grosse imagination our Sauiour refuteth by tellinge them that they should eat his true body but in another forme of bread and wyne 13. And yet that yt is the selfe-same body the selfe-same bloud the same Doctor and Father affirmeth expressely both in this and many other places Verè magnus Dominus c. he is in deed a great God that hath giuen to eat his owne body in which he suffered so many and great thinges for vs. And againe talkinge of his tormentors Ipsum sanguinem quem per insaniam fuderunt per gratiam biberunt The selfe-same bloud which by fury they shee l by grace they dronke And yet further of the same Quousque biberent sanguinem quem fuderunt mercy left them not vntill they beleeuinge him came to drinke the bloud which they had shedd And finally in another place Vt eius iam sanguinem nossent bibere credentes quem fuderant saeuientes that comminge to beleeue in him they might learne to drinke that bloud which in their cruelty they shee l And last of all in another place explaninge his owne faith and the beleefe of all Christians in this behalfe he saith against heretiks of his tyme Mediatoreâ— Dei c. We do with faithfull hart and mouth receaue the mediator of God and man Christ Iesus giuing vnto vs his flesh to be eaten and bloud to be dronken though yt may seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to stea the same and to drinke mans bloud then to snedd the same Consider heere the speach of Saint Augustine whether it may agree to the eatinge of a signe of Christs body or bloud what horror is there in that And thus much to this first argument 2. Argument Bodyes organicall without quantity be no bodyes The Popes doctrine maketh the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be without quantity Ergo the Popes doctrine maketh the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be no body Aunswere 14. We graunt that bodyes organicall without all quantity are no bodyes but Catholike doctrine doth not teach that Christs body in the Sacrament is without all quantity but only without externall quantity aunswering to locall extension and commensuration of place which repugneth not to the nature of quantity as before is declared at large in the fourth obseruation of the precedent Chapter wherby yow may see both the vanity of this argument as also the notorious folly ignorance of Fox who by occasion of this argument of an organicall body vrged by Cranmer in Oxford against Maister Harpesfield when he proceeded Bachler of diuinity bringeth in a whole commedy of vayne diuises how all the learned Catholike men of that vniuersity were astonished at the very propoundinge of this graue doubt to witt VVhether Christ hath his quantity quality forme figure and such like propertyes in the Sacrament All the Doctors saith Fox fell in a buzzinge vncertayne what to aunswere some thought one way some another and thus Maister Doctors could not agree And in the margent he hath this note The Rabbyns could not agree amongst themselues and then he prosecuteth the matter for a whole columne or page togeather makinge Doctor Tressam to say one thinge Doctor Smith another Harpesfield another VVeston another M. VVard philosophy-reader another whose philosophicall discourse about the nature of quantity Fox not vnderstandinge neyther the other that were present as he affirmeth concludeth thus Maister VVard amplified so largely his words so high he clymed into the heauens with Duns ladder and not with the scriptures that yt is to be maruayled how he could come downe againe without falling So Iohn according to his skill but Maister VVard and the rest that vnderstood philosophy knew well inough what he said and yow may easily conceaue his meaninge as also the truth of the thinge yt selfe by readinge my former obseruation for I thinke yt not conuenient to repeate the same againe heere 3. Argument All thinges which may be diuided haue quantity The body in the Popes Sacrament is diuided into three parts Ergo the body in the Popes Sacrament hath quantity which is against their owne doctrine Aunswere 15. We deny that it is against our doctrine that Christs body in the Sacrament hath inward quantity but only externall and locall We deny also that Christs body is diuided into three parts in the Sacrament or into any part at all for it is indiuisible only the formes of bread are diuided And this is the ignorance of the framer of this argument that vnderstandeth not what he
which was good they being euill-men perished accordingely 22. The other places cyted in the margent I pretermitt for breuity sake to sett downe at large this being knowne to be the generall Catholike sentence of all auncient holy Fathers concerninge Iudas and other euill-men that they receaue Christ but to their owne damnation and the sentence of S. Paul before cyted is so cleere and euident as no reasonable doubt can be made therof And when Fox doth heere alleage certayne places of S. Cyprian and S. Augustine affirminge that the eatinge of Christ is dwellinge in him and he in vs and that those that dwell not in him do not eat him yt is to be vnderstood of spirituall and fruitfull eatinge of Christs body which agreeth only to good men and not to euill which euill do only receaue sacramentally the body and bloud of Christ as before we haue said and more at large is doclared in our ninth obseruation yea the very words alleaged heere of S. Augustine by simple Iohn Fox that discerneth not what maketh for him what against him do plainly teach vs this distinction For that S. Augustine vpon those words of Christ in S. Iohns ghospell he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him inferreth presently these words Christ sieweth what yt is not sacramentally but indeed to eat his body and drinke his bloud vvhich is when a man so dwelleth in Christ that Christ dwelleth in him 23. So he Which words are euidently meant by S. Augustine of the fruitfull eating of Christs body to our Saluation which may be said in effect the only true eatinge therof as he may be said truly to eat and feed of his meate that profiteth and nourisheth therby but he that taketh no good but rather hurt by that he eateth may be said truly and in effect not to feed in comparison of the other that profiteth by eatinge though he deuoure the meate sett before him and so yt is in the blessed Sacrament where the euill doe eat Sacramento tenus as S. Augustine saith that is sacramentally only and without fruite not that they receaue not Christs body but that they receaue yt without fruite to their damnation which distinction is founded in the scriptures not only out of the place of S. Paul before alleaged to the Corinthians but out of Christs owne words in sundry places of the ghospell as that of S. Mathew Venit filius hominis dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis The sonne of man came to giue his life for the redemption of many wheras indeed he gaue yt for all but for that not all but many should receaue fruite therby yt is said to haue byn giuen fruitfully only for many and not all And againe in the same Euangelist This is my bloud of the new Testament that shal be shedd for many that is to say fruitfully and to their saluation but sufficiently for all and so in like manner all men good and badd do eate Christ in the Sacrament but euill-men sacramentally only without the spirituall effect therof but good men both spiritually and sacramentally togeather 24. And to this end appertayne also those words of S. Augustine alleaged by Bradford Ridley and others that wicked-men edunt panem Domini non panem Domini they eat the Lords bread but not the bread that is the Lords that is to say they eat not the bread that bringeth vnto them the true effect and fruite of the Lords body which is grace spirit and life euerlasting though they eat the body it selfe which is called the bread of our Lord only in this sense that it hath no fruite nor vitall operation but rather the contrary 3. Argument Yf the wicked and infidells do receaue the body of Christ they receaue him by sense reason or faith But they receaue him neyther with sense reason or faith for that the body of Christ is not sensible nor the mystery is accordinge to reason nor do infidells beleeue Ergo. Wicked-men receaue in no wise the body of Christ. Aunswere 25. This argument is as wise as the maker for first we do not alwayes ioyne wicked-men and infidels togeather as he seemeth to suppose for that an infidell their case in receauinge being different when he receaueth the Sacrament not knowinge or beleeuinge yt to be the body of Christ he receaueth yt only materially no otherwise then doth a beast or senselesse-man without incurringe new sinne therby wicked-men receaue yt to their damnation for that knowinge and beleeuinge yt to be the body of Christ or at leastwise ought to do they do not discerne or receaue yt with the worthynesse of preparation which they should do and as for sense reason though Christs body be not sensible yet are the formes of bread vnder which yt is present and receaued sensible for that they haue their sensible tast coulour smell and other like accidents and though the mystery yt selfe stand not vpon humayne reason yet are there many reasons both humayne and diuyne which may induce Christians to beleeue the truth therof euen accordinge to the rule of reason yt selfe which reasons we call arguments of credibility So as in this Sacrament though yt stand not vpon sense or reason yet in receauinge therof is there fraude both in sense and reason which is sufficient to shew the vanity of him that vrgeth it now shall we passe to the last argument of Peter Marty◠though drawen from another ground 4. Argument The holy Ghost could not come yf the body of Christ were really present for that he saith Ioan. 16. vnlesse I go from yow the holy ghost shall not come But that the holy-ghost is come yt is most certayne Ergo yt cannot be that Christ himselfe should be heere really present Aunswere 26. First neyther Fox nor his Martyr can deny but that the holy-ghost was also in the world whilst Christ was bodyly present for that yt descended visibly vpon him in the forme of a doue and after he gaue the same to his disciples sayinge accipite spiritum sanctum receaue ye the holy-ghost wherby is manifest that there is no repugnance why Christs bodyly presence may not stand togeather with the presence of the holy-ghost Wherfore the meaninge of those other words Ioan. 16. that except Christ departed the holy-ghost should not come must needs be that so long as Christ remayned vpon earth visibly as a Doctor teacher externall guide of his disciples Church so longe the holy-ghost should not come in such aboundance of grace to direct the Church eyther visibly as he did at pentecost or inuisibly as after he did But this impugneth nothing the presence of Christ in the Sacramēt where he is inuisibly to feed our soules not as a Doctor to teach preach as in his bodily conuersation vpon earth he was for this he asscribeth to the holy-ghost
that there is as well signum figura rei praesentis quam absentis A signe or figure of things present as well as of things absent as for an example a firkyn of wyne hanged vp for a signe at a Tauerne dore that there is wyne to be sould is both a sygne of wyne and yet conteyneth and exhibiteth the thinge yt selfe And so yt is in the Sacrament which by his nature being a signe figure or representation doth both represent and exhibitt signifieth and conteyneth the body of our Sauiour 41. And as it should be an hereticall cauill to argue out of the said places of S. Paul as the old heretiks did that Christ is called a figure of the substance of his Father and the Image of God or the similitude of man ergo he is not of the reall substance with his Father nor really God nor truly man so is it as hereticall to argue as our Sacramentaryes do that Tertullian Augustine some other Fathers do sometymes call the Sacrament a similitude figure signe or remembrance of Christs body his death and passion as in deed yt is for that otherwise yt should not be a Sacrament ergo yt is not his true body that is conteyned therin especially seing the same Fathers do in the selfe-same places whence these obiections are deduced expressely cleerly expound themselues affirming Christs true reall body to be in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wyne as for example Saint Ambrose heere obiected in the fourth booke de Sacramentis cap. 4. doth expressely and at large proue the reall-presence as exactly as any Catholike can wryte at this day sayinge that before the words of consecration yt is bread but after yt is the body of Christ. And againe Before the vvords of Christ be vttered the chalice is full of vvyne and water but when the words of Christ haue vvrought their effect then is made that bloud which redeemed the people And yet further Christ Iesus doth testifie vnto vs that vve receaue his body bloud and shall we doubt of his testimony Which words being so plaine and euident for the truth of Catholike beleefe lett the reader consider how vaine and fond a thing yt is for the Protestants to obiect out of the selfe-same place that vve receaue the similitude of his death and drinke the similitude of his pretious bloud for that we deny not but the body of Christ in the Sacrament is a representation and similitude of his death on the Crosse and that the bloud which we drinke in the Sacrament vnder the forme of wine is a representation and similitude of the sheddinge of Christs bloud in his passion But this letteth not but that it is the selfe-same body bloud though yt be receaued in a different manner as it letteth not but that Christ is true God though he be said to be the Image of God as before yow haue heard 42. There remayneth then only to be aunswered that speach of S. Augustine obiected in these disputations Quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly beleeue and thou hast eaten Whervnto I answere that this speach of S. Augustine and some other like that are found in him and some other Fathers of the spirituall eatinge of Christ by faith do not exclude the reall presence as we haue shewed before in our nynth obseruation It is spoken against them that come with a base and grosse imagination to receaue this diuine foode as if yt were a corporall refection and not spirituall wheras indeed faith charity are those vertues that giue the life vnto this eatinge faith in beleeuinge Christs words to be true as S. Ambrose in the place before cyted saith and therby assuringe our selues Christs true body to be there and charity in preparing our selues worthily by examinations of our conscience that we do not receaue our owne damnation as S. Paul doth threat And this is the true spirituall eatinge of Christs body by faith but yet truly and really as the said Fathers do expound vnto vs whose sentences more at large yow shall see examined in the Chapter followinge 43. These then being all in effect or at least wayes the most principall arguments that I find obiected by our English Sacramentaryes in the forsaid ten disputations against the article of Christs true reall being in the Sacrament you may consider with admiration and pitty how feeble grounds those vnfortunate men had that vvere first dealers in that affaire wheron to change their faith and religion from that of the Christian world from tyme out of mynd before them and to enter into a new sect and labyrinth of opinions contradicted amonge themselues and accursed by him that was their first guide to lead them into new pathes to witt Luther himselfe and yet to stand so obstinately with such immoueable pertinacy therin as to offer their bodyes to temporall fire and their soules to the euident perill of eternall damnation for the same but this is the ordinary enchauntement of heresie founded on pride selfe iudgement and selfe-will as both by holy scriptures and auncient Fathers we are admonished 44. One thinge also is greatly heere to be noted by the carefull reader vpon consideration of these arguments to and fro how vncertayne a thing yt is for particular men whether learned or vnlearned but especially the ignorant to ground themselues their faith vpon their owne or other mens disputations which with euery little shew of reason to and fro may alter theire iudgement or apprehension and in how miserable a case Christian men were yf their faith wherof dependeth their saluation or damnation should hange vpon such vncertayne meanes as these are that God had left no other more sure or certaine way then this for men to be resolued of the truth as we see he hath by his visible Church that cannot erre yet thought we good to examine this way of disputatiōs also and the arguments therof vsed by Protestants against the truth But now followeth a larger more important examen of the Catholike arguments alleaged by our men against them in this article of the reall-presence And what kind of aunswers they framed to the same wherby thou wilt be greatly confirmed good reader yf I be not much deceaued in the opinion of their weaknesse and vntruth of their cause VVHAT CATHOLIKE ARGVMENTS VVere alleaged in these disputations for the reall-presence and how they were aunswered or shifted of by the Protestants CHAP. V. AS I haue briefly touched in the former Chapter the reasons and arguments alleaged for the Sacramentary opinions against the reall-presence so now I do not deeme yt amisse to runne ouer in like manner some of the Catholike arguments that were alleaged against them though neyther tyme nor place will permitt to recyte them all which the discreett reader may easily imagine by the grounds and heads therof
shewing out of the words of S. Ambrose that Ridleyes aunswere could not be true for that S. Ambrose said that after the consecration there is not the thinge that nature did forme but that which the blessing doth consecrate And that yf the benediction of Elias the Prophett could turne the nature of water how much more the benediction of Christ God man can do the same ergò there is a greater change in the natures then of common bread to become the Lords bread 12. To this reply there was no other aunswere giuen but that S. Ambrose his booke dâ— Sacramentis was not his Ridley affirmed that all the Fathers did say so which was a shamelesse lye in so great an auditory nor could he bringe forth so much as one Father that said so nor alleaged he any one argument to proue yt to be so and yf he had yet S. Ambrose repeatingâ— againe the very same sentence in his booke de initiandis is sufficient for the authority of the place but Glyn is made to passe away the matter with sylence sayinge VVell lett this passe c. And then goinge to other authorityes of Fathers ys â—â—yped of with like shifâ—â— as when he cyteth S. Cyprians words Panis non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Dei sit caro tâ—e bread by consecration being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of God made flesh they aunswere that by nature is vnderstood a naturall property or quality and by flesh a fleshly thinge or quality and not the substance so as the sense must be that bread is changed not in outward shape but into a naturall property of a fleshly thing c. And when Doctor Glyn replyed to ouerthrow this inuention out of S. Ambrose who affirmeth this chaÌ„ge of bread to be made into the flesh that was taken of the Virgin Mary ergò yt was not only into a fleshly thinge quality or property but into the true flesh of Christ Ridly gaue an aunswere that I vnderstand not nor himselfe I thinke but only that he must say somwhat in so great an audience and expectation or Fox vnderstood yt not that setteth it downe for these are his words 13. VVhen Doctor Glyn vrged the sayinge of S. Ambrose that bread is changed into the body taken from the virgin Mary that is to say saith he that by the word of God the thinge hath a being that yt had nâ—t before and we do consecrate the body that we may receaue the grace and power of the body of Christ in heauen by this Sacramentall body So he And doth any man vnderstand him or is his aunswere any thinge to the purpose for satisfyinge the Fathers S. Cyprian saith that the bread by the omnipotency of God is changed in nature and made flesh and S. Ambrose saith yt is the flesh taken from the Virgin and Ridley saith heere that yt hath a being vvhich yt had not before and that they do consecrate a sacramentall body of Christ therby to receaue the grace and power of Christs body in heauen but howsoeuer they do consecrate that body which is a strange word for Sacramentaryes to vse yet do they graunt that this Sacramentall body is but bread and how then can yt be flesh and flesh of the Virgin were not the Fathers ridiculous yf they vsed these equiuocations yea false and improper speaches 14. Well Doctor Glyn goeth foreward and alleageth S. Chrysostome vpon S. Mathewes ghospell where to persuade vs the truth of Christs body in the Sacrament he saith that we must beleeue Christs words in these mysteryes and not our senses for that our senses may be deceaued but Christ sayinge this is my body cannot deceaue vs and that he made vs one body with himselfe not through faith only but in very deed and further that the miracle which he wrought in his last supper he vvorketh dayly by his ministers c. Whervnto Ridley aunswered nothinge but these words Maister Doctor yow must vnderstand that in that place S. Chrysostome shewed that Christ deliuered vnto vs no sensible thinge in that supper So he Which notwithstanding is euidently false for he deliuered sensible bread wyne according to the Protestants faith and accordinge to outs the formes of bread and wyne which are also sensible and yf there were no sensible thinge then could there be no Sacrament which must conteyne a sensible signe And to refuâ—e this shift of Ridley Doctor Glyn obiected Theophilact expoundinge S. Chrysostome and vsinge the same words that he did to witt that the bread is transelemented and transformed He alleageth another place or two of S. Augustine togeather with S. Irenaeus To all which Rochester aunswereth resolutely VVell say what yow list yt is but a figuratiue speach as S. Iohn Baptist was said to be Elias for a property c. But who doth not see the absurdity of this euasion for so much as the meaning of Christ about Elias his spiritt in S. Iohn Baptist is euident nor euer went any auncient Fathers about to affirme or proue by arguments that S. Iohn Baptist was truly Elias in person himselfe expressely denyinge yt or that yt was meant literally as they do of the words of Christ in the Sacrament And this could not Ridley but see but that he was blinded in pride and passion for that otherwise he would neuer haue gone about to aunswere the Fathers by euident wranglinge so contrary to their owne sense and meaninge 15. After Doctor Glyn was putt to silence in this order succeded Maister Langdale Maister Sedgewicke and Maister Yonge but very breefely concerninge this article of the reall-presence not being permitted to speake more and the most part of the tyme trifled out also with courtesyes of speach the one to the other My good Lord good Maister Doctor pleaseth yt your good Lordshipp liketh yt your good Fathershipp honourable Father and the like ceremonyes for they durst do no other Ridley being then high commissionar yet Maister Langdale vrged a place of S. Chrysostome where he bringeth Christ savinge these words I vrould be your brother I tooke vpon me common flesh and bloud for your sakes and euen by the same things that I am ioyned to yow the very same I haue exhibited to yow againe meaninge in the Sacrament Wherof Maister Langdale inferred that seing Christ tooke vpon him true naturall flesh and not a figure of flesh only or remembrance therof therfore he gaue vs his true naturall flesh like man in the Sacrament and not a figure Wherto Ridley aunswereth in these words and no more VVe are not ioyned by naturall flesh but do receaue his flesk spiritually from aboue Which aunswere is not only contrary to the expresse words and meaning of S. Chrysostome in this place but of Christ himselfe also brought in heere by S. Chrysostome to vtter his meaninge as yow haue heard I tooke vpon me common flesh for
your sakes and by the same things that I am ioyned to yow the very same I haue exhibited vnto yow againe Where yow see that he saith he gaue the very same in the Sacrament which he had taken vpon him for our sakes and that by the same he was ioyned to vs againe and now Maister Ridley saith that vve are not ioyned to him by naturall flesh These be contraryes which of two shall we beleeue Christ and S. Chrysostome expoundinge him or Ridley against them both 16. Maister Sedg-wicke disputed next but hath not halfe a columne or page allowed to the settinge downe of his whole disputation yet he vrginge diuers reasons in that little tyme out of the scriptures why the Sacrament of the Altar cannot be in the new law by a figure but must needs be the fullfillinge of old figures and consequently the true and reall body of Christ he brought Maister Ridley within the compasse of a dozen lines to giue two aunswers one plaine contrary to another as his words do import for this is the first I do graunt yt to be Christs true body and flesh by a property of the nature assumpted to the God head and we do really eate and drinke his flesh and bloud after a certaine reall property His second aunswere is in these words It is nothinge but a figure or token of the true body of Christ as it is said of S. Iohn Baptist he is Elias not that he vvas so indeed or in person but in property and vertue he represented Elias So he And now lett any man with iudgement examine these two aunswers For in the first he graunâ—eth at least wayes a true reall property of Christs flesh assumpted to his Godhead to be in their bread wherby we do really eate his flesh and drinke his bloud And in the second he saith yt is nothinge but a figure and consequently excludeth all reall property for that a figure hath no reallity or reall property but only representeth and is a token of the body as himselfe saith which is euident also by his owne example for that S. Iohn Baptist had no reall property of Elias in him but only a similitude of his spiritt and vertue And so these people whilst they would seeme to say somewhat do speake contradictoryes amonge themselues 17. There followed Maister Yonge who as breefly as the other touched some few places of the Fathers though they be not quoted where they say that our bodyes are nourished in the Sacrament by Christs flesh and that truly we drinke his bloud therin and that for auoyding the horror of drinking mans bloud Christ had condescended to our infirmityes and giuen yt to vs vnder the formes of wyne and other like speaches which in any reasonable mans sense must needs import more then a figure of his body and bloud or a spirituall being there only by grace for so much as by grace he is also in Baptisme and other Sacraments finally he vrged againe the place of S. Cyprian That the bread being changed not in shape but in nature vvas by the omnipotency of the vvord made flesh Wherto Ridley aunswered againe in these words Cyprian there doth take this vvord nature for a property of nature and not for the naturall substance To which euasion Maister Yonge replyeth this is a strange acception that I haue not read in any authors before this tyme. And so with this he was glad to giue ouer saith Fox and askinge pardon for that he had done said I am contented and do most humbly beseech your good Lordshipp to pardon me of my great rudenesse c. Belike this rudenesse was for that he had said that vt was a strange acception of S. Cyprians words to take change in nature for change into a property of nature and flesh for a fleshely thinge or quality as before yovv haue heard and that this should aunswere S. Cyprians intention for lett vs heare the application Bread in the Sacrament being changed not in shape but in nature saith S. Cyprian by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh that is to say as Ridley will haue yt bread being changed not in shape but in a property of nature is made a fleshely thinge or fleshely quality What is this or what sense can it haue what property of fleshely nature doth your communion bread receaue or what reall property of bread doth it leese by this change mencyoned by S. Cyprian We say to witt S. Cyprian that our bread retayning the outward shape doth leese his naturall substance and becommeth Christs flesh what naturall property of bread doth yours leese And againe What fleshely thinge or quality doth yt receaue by the omnipotency of the word in consecration And is not this ridiculous or doth Ridley vnderstand this his riddle But lett vs passe to the next disputation vnder Q. Mary where we shall see matters handled otherwise and arguments followed to better effect and issue Out of the first Oxford-disputation in the beginninge of Q Maryes raigne wherin D. Cranmer late Archbishopp of Canterbury was defendant for the Protestant party vpon the 16. of Aprill anno 1554. §. 2. 18. When as the Doctors were sett in the diuinity schoole and foure appointed to be exceptores argumentorum saith Fox sett at a Table in the middest therof togeather with foure other notaryes sittinge with them and certayne other appointed for iudges another manner of indifferency then was vsed in King Edwards dayes vnder B. Ridley in that disputation at Cambridge Doctor Cranmer was brought in and placed before them all to answere and defend his Sacramentary opinion giuen vp the day before in wrytinge concerninge the article of the reall presence Fox according to his custome noteth diuers graue circumstances as amonge others that the beedle had prouided drinke and offered the aunswerer but he refused vvith thanks He telleth in like manner that Doctor VVeston the prolocutor offered him diuers courtesyes for his body yf he should need which I omitt for that they are homely against which Doctor VVeston notwithstanding he afterwards stormeth and maketh a great inuectiue for his rudenes and in particular for that he had as Fox saith his Theseus by him that is to say a cuppe of wyne at his elbow whervnto Fox ascribeth the gayninge of the victory sayinge yt vvas no maruayle though he gott the victory in this disputation he disputinge as he did non sine suo Theseo that is not without his â—plingcupp So Fox And yet further that he holding the said cuppe at one tyme in his hand and hearinge an argument made by another that liked him said vrge hoc nam hoâ— facit pro nobis vrge this vrge this for this maketh for vs. Thus pleased it Iohn Fox to be pleasant with Doctor VVeston but when yow shall see as presently yow shall how he vrged Iohn Fox his three Martyrs and rammes of his flocke for so els-where he calleth
againe vpon the 50. Psalme Pro â—bo carne propria nos pascit pro potu sanguinem suum nobis propinat In steed of meat he feedeth vs with his owne flesh and in steed of drinke he giueth vnto vs to drinke his owne bloud And againe homil 83. in Matth. Non side tantum sed reipsa nos corpus suum effecit c. Not only by faith but in deed he hath made vs his body And finally for that yt was denyed expressely Saint Chrysostome to meane that we receaued Christs body with our corporall mouth Doctor VVeston vrged these words of Saint Chrysostome Non vulgarem honorem consecutum est os nostrum excipiens corpus dominicum Our month hath gotten no small honour in that yt receaueth the body of our Lord. 24. But all this will not serue for still Cranmer aunswered by his former sleight thus VVith our mouth vve receaue the body of Christ and teare it vvith our teeth that is to say the Sacrament of the body of Christ. Do yow see the euasion And what may not be shifted of in this order doth any minister in England vse to speake thus oâ— his communion-bread as S. Chrysostome in the place alleaged of the Sacrament after the words of consecration or do any of the auncient Fathers wryte so reuerently of the water of baptisme which they would haue done and ought to haue done yf Christs body be no otherwise present in this Sacrament then the holy-Ghost is in that water as Cranmer oftentymes affirmeth and namely some few lynes after the foresaid places alleaged But Doctor VVeston seing him to decline all the forsaid authorityes by this ordinary shift of the words spiritually and sacramentally vrged him by another way out of the same Chrysostome concerninge the honour due to Christs body vpon earth quod summo honore dignum est id tibi in terra ostendo c. I do shew thee vpon earth that which is worthy of highest honour not Angells not Archangells nor the highest heauens but I shew vnto thee the Lord of all these things himselfe Consider how thou dost not only behould heere on earth that which is the greatest and highest of all things but dost touch the same also not only touchest him but dost eat the same and hauinge receaued him returnest home 25. Thus S. Chrysostome Out of which place Doctor VVeston vrged him eagerly excludinge all figures and eatinge of Christs body absent by faith for that S. Chrysostome saith not only Ostendo tibi I do shew vnto thee that which is worthy of highest honour aboue Angells and Archangells but ostendo tibi in terra I shew yt to thee heere vpon earth which signifieth the presence of a substance wherto this highest honour is to be done and that this thinge is seene touched eaten in the Church which cannot be a figure nor the sacramentall bread for that highest honour is not due to them nor can vt be Christ absent only in heauen for S. Chrysostome saith I snew it thee heere on earth c. To all which pressinges when Doctor Cranmer had no other thing in effect to aunswere but these phrases often repeated that it is to be vnderstood sacramentally and I aunswere that it is true sacramentally c. The hearers fell to cry out and hisse at him clappinge their hands saith Fox and callinge him indoctum imperitum impudentem vnlearned vnskillfull impudent And Fox to help out Cranmer in this matter besides all other excuses maketh this learned glosse in the margent vpon S. Chrysostomes words Ostendo tibi in terra c. I do shew vnto thee vpon earth what is worthiest of highest honour to witt Christs body The body of Christ saith Fox is shewed forth vnto vs heere on earth diuers vvayes as in readinge scriptures hearinge sermons and Sacraments and yet neyther scriptures nor sermons nor Sacraments are to be worshipped c. So he which is as iust as Germans lippes And I would askeâ— this poore glossist what maketh this note to the purpose of S. Chrysostome for neyther doth he speake of the different wayes wherby Christs body may be shewed forth vpon earth but saith that himselfe did shew yt in the Sacrament vpon the Altar to all that would see it Nor doth he say that the meanes or wayes wherby Christs body is shewed are worthy greatest honour or worshipp but that the thinge that is shewed forth is worthy of highest honour And how then standeth Fox his glosse with this sense or whervnto serueth it but only to shew these wreched-mens obstinacy that one way or other will breake through when they are hedged in by the Fathers authorityes most plaine and manifest 26. After this assault giuen by Doctor VVeston the first opponent Doctor Chadsey returned to deale with Cranmer againe by issue of talke came to vrge these words of Tertullian Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt animade deo saginetur Our flesh is fedd with the body and bloud of Christ to the end that our soule may be fatted with God which is as much to say that our mouth doth eate the body of Christ and our mynd therby receaueth the spirituall fruite therof Out of which words D. VVeston â—vrged that seing our flesh eateth the body of Christ which cannot eat but by the mouth Christs body is really eaten and receaued by our mouth which so often by Cranmer hath byn denyed but now his words are Vnto Tertullian I aunswere that he calleth that the flesh vvhich is the Sacrament Of which aunswere I cannot vnderstand what meaninge yt hath except Fox do erâ—e in settinge yt downe for yf the flesh be the Sacrament then must the Sacrament feed on the body and bloud of Christ accordinge to Tertullian which is absurd But â— suspect that Cranmers meaninge was that the body of Christ was called the Sacrament for so he expoundeth himselfe afterward when he saith The flesh liueth by the bread but the soule is inwardly fedd br Christ so as when Tertullian saith our flesh is fedd by Christs body and bloud he would haue him to meane that our flesh eateth the Sacramentall bread and wyne that signifieth or figureth Christs body and bloud our soule feedeth on the true body of Christ by faith but both Doctor Chadsey Doctor VVeston refuted this shift presently by the words immediatly ensuinge in Tertullian Non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniungit Our body and soule cannot be separated in the reward whome the same worke doth conioyne togeather and he meaneth euidently by the same worke or operation the same eatinge of Christs body Wherfore yf the one that is the soule doth eat Christs true body as Cranmer confesseth then the other which is our flesh eateth also the same body as Tertullian saith and for that Doctor VVeston liked well this argument out of Tertullian and said
did vse the example of our vnity vvith God as though we being vnited to the sonne and by the sonne to the Father only by obedience and vvill of Religion had no propriety of the naturall coniunction by the Sacrament of the body and bloud Lo heere yt is accoumpted a point of Arrianisme by S. Hilary to hould that we are vnited to Christ only by obedience and will of Relilion and not by propriety of naturall communion with him by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament of his body and bloud Whervpon Doctor VVeston vrged often and earnestly that not only by faith but by the nature of his flesh in the Sacrament we are conioyned not spiritually only and by grace but naturally and corporally Whervnto Cranmers aunswere was in these words I graunt that Cyrill and Hilary do say that Christ is vnited to vs not only by vvill but also by nature he is made one with vs carnally and corporally because he tooke our nature of the Virgin Mary c. Do yow see his runninge from the Sacrament to the natiuity but heare out the end VVest Hilary where he saith Christ communicated to vs his nature meaneth not by his natiuity but by the Sacrament Cran. Nay he communicated to vs his flesh by his natiuity VVest We communicated to him our flesh when he was borne Cran. Nay he communicated to vs his flesh when he was borne that I will shew yow out of Cyrill VVest ergò Christ being borne gaue vs his flesh Cran. In his natiuity he made vs partakers of his flesh VVest Wryte syrs Cranm. Yea wryte And so ended this Encounter brought as yow see to two absurdityes on Cranmers side the one that where S. Hilary speaketh of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ he flyeth still to the incarnation the other that he saith Christ to haue imparted his flesh to vs in the incarnation wherin he tooke ours Wherfore Doctor Chadsey seing the matter in this state interrupted them by accusing Cranmer to haue corrupted this place of S. Hilary in his booke against the reall presence translatinge these words Nos verè sub mysterio carnenâ—corporis sui sumimus we receaue vnder the true mystery the flesh of his body wheras he should haue said VVe do receaue truly vnder a mystory or Sacrament the flesh of his body vvhich â—raud Cranmer could by no other wayes auoid but by sayinge that his booke had Vero and not verè which Iohn Fox saith was a small fault and yet yow see yt altereth all the sense as yf a man shauld say Pistor for Pastor 31. The next conflict to this was betweene Doctor Yonge and Doctor Cranmer wherin Yonge accusinge him first for denyinge of principles and consequently that they could hardly go forward with any fruitfull disputation except they agreed vpon certayne grounds he made sundry demaunds vnto him as first whether there were any other naturally true body of Christ but his organicall or instrumentall body Item whether sense and reason ought not to giue place in this mystery to faith Further whether Christ be true in his words whether he mynded to do that which he spake at his last supper And finally whether his words were effectuall and wrought any thinge or noe To all which Doctor Cranmer aunswered affirmatiuely graunting that the said words of Christ did worke the institution of the Sacrament whervnto Doctor Yonge replyed that a figuratiue speach wrought nothinge ergò yt was not a figuratiue speach when he said Hoâ—â—st corpus meum And albeit D. Cranmer sought bâ— two or three struglinges to slipp from this inference sayinge that yt was sophistry yet both Doctor Yonge and Doctor VVeston who came in still at his turne said sticke to this argument It is a figuratiue speach ergo yt vvorketh nothinge that quickely they brought Doctor Cranmer in plaine words to graunt that a figuratiue speach worketh nothinge Wherof they inferred the contrary againe on the other side A figuratiue speach say they vvorketh nothing by your confession but the speach of Christ in the supper as yow now graunted vvrought somewhat to witt the institution of the Sacrament ergo the speach of Christ in the supper vvas not figuratiue which is the ouerthrow of the foundation of all sacramentall buildinge 32. And heere yow must note by the way that Fox doth not crowne the head of this syllogisme with any Baroco or Bocardo in the margent as he is commonly wont to do with the rest for that yt pleased him not Wherfore â—o leaue him we shall passe to Doctor Cranmer himselfe whose aunswere yow shall heare in his owne words I aunswere saith he that these are meere sophismes for speach doth not vvorke but Christ by speach doth worke the Sacrament I looke for scriptures at your hands for they are the foundation of â—isputations So he And yow may see by this his speach that he was entangled and would gladly be ridde of that he had graunted for that both the maior and minor propositions were of his owne grauntinge and the sillogisme good both in moode and forme though the conclusion troubled both him and Fox and the refuge whervnto both of them do runne in this necessity the one in the text the other in the margent is very fond sayingeâ— that not the speach of Ghrist but Christ did vvorke as though any man would say that a speach worketh but by the vertue of the speaker and consequently yf Christ do worke by a figuratiue speach then doth a figuratiue speach worke by his power and vertue and so waâ— yt fondy graunted by Cranmer before that the figuratiue speach of Christ in institutinge the Sacrament for of that was the question did not worke and yt is a simple euasion now to runne from Christs speach to Christ himselfe as though there could be a diuersity euery man may see these are but euasions 33. But now further Doctor Yonge refuted largely this assertion that Christs speach worketh not out of diuers and sundry plaine testimonyes oâ— the Fathers which there openly he caused to be read and namely S. Ambrose as well in hiâ— booke de initiandis as de Sacramentis where he handleth this matter of purpose to proue that the speach of Christ in the Sacrament to witâ— hoc est corpus meum did worke conuert breaâ— and wyne into flesh and bloud and prouetâ— the same by many other exaÌ„ples of scriptures Sermo Christi saith he 〈◊〉 nihilo facere â—nd non erat non potâ—st ea quâ— sunt in id mutare quae â—n erant The speach of Christ which was able to make of nothing that which was not before shall yt not be able to change those things that were before into things that are not And to the same effect in his booke de Sacramentis Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum Qui sermo nempè is c. Therfore the speach of Christ doth make this Sacrament
but what speach to witt that wherby all things were created the Lord commaunded and heauen was made the Lord coÌ„maunded earth was made the Lord coÌ„maunded the seas were made c. Vides ergò quà m operatorius sit sermo Christi si ergò tanta vis est in sermone Domini vt inciâ—â—rent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius erit â—â— sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Yow see therfore how working the speach of Christ is yf then there be so much force in the speach of our Lord as that those things which were not tooke their beginning therby how much more potent is the same speach in workinge that those things which were before be changed into another And presently he addeth the heauen was not the sea was not the earth was not but heare him speake he said the word and they were done he commaunded and they were â—â—eated Wherfore to answere yow I say that it was not the body of Christ before consecration but after coÌ„secration I say vnto thee that now yt is the body of Christ. So S. Ambrose 34. And heere now good reader I doubt not but yow see the fond euasion of Cranmer and Fox his aduocate cleerly refuted by S. Ambrose where they say that the speach or words of Christ worke not but Christ by the words as though there were a great diuersity in that point But now lett vs see how they will scamble ouer this authority of S. Ambrose that saith expressely both that the speach of Christ did worke potently and worke the conuersion of bread and wyne into flesh and bloud first Fox hath this note in the margent against S. Ambrose as though he had miscompared the words of creation with the words of the institution of the Sacrament The Lord Iesus saith Fox vsed not heere commaundement in the Sacrament as in creation for we read not Fiat hoc corpus meum as vve read Fiat lux c. Do yow see the mans subtile obseruation or rather simple sottish cauillation against so graue a Father The words Hoc est corpus meum this is my body imployeth somewhat more then Fiat corpus meum lett yt be my body for that yt signifieth the thinge done already which the other willeth to be done And so for this we will leaue Iohn Fox to striue with S. Ambrose about the vsinge or abusinge of scriptures alleaged by him And so much of Fox 35. But how doth Cranmer himselfe auoyd this plaine authority of S. Ambrose thinke yow Yow shall heare yt in his owne words for they are very few to so large an authority All these thinges saith he are common I say that God doth chiefly vvorke in the Sacraments Do yow see his breuity and obscurity but his meaning is that wheras before he had denyed for a shift that Christs words did worke but only Christ by his words a difference without a diuersity now seing S. Ambrose so plaine to the contrary in settinge forth the workinge of Christs words he seeketh another shift in this aunswere which is that albeit Christs words do worke in the Sacraments yet Christ chiefly as though any controuersy were in this or any man had denyed yt But what saith he to the mayne point wherin S. Ambrose affirmeth not only Christs vvords to be Operatoria vvorkingewords but that their worke is to make bread the true and naturall body of Christ after they be vttered by the Priest nothing truly in substance doth he aunswere herevnto but after his shifts he saith only that yt vvas called the body of Christ as the holy-ghost vvas called the doue and S. Iohn Baptist was called Elias which are but bare signes representations as euery one seeth hay he goeth againe presently from this which heere he had graunted that God worketh in the Sacraments For when Doctor Yonge vrged him thus Yf God worke in the Sacraments he worketh in this Sacrament of the Fucharist Cranmer aunswereth God worketh in his faithfull not in the Sacraments And thus he goeth forward grauntinge and denyinge turninge and wyndinge and yet poore miserable man he would not turne to the truth nor had grace to acknowledge the same laid before him but toyled himselfe in contradictions endeauouring to shift of most euident authorityes of ancient Fathers by impertinent interpretations As when Doctor Yonge vrged him with those cleere words of S. Ambrose Before the words of Christ be spoken the chalice is full of wyne and water but when the vvords of Christ haue vvrought their effect then is there made the bloud that redeemed the people Cranmer aunswered that the words of Christ wrought no otherwise in this SacrameÌ„t then in baptisme Ambrose said quoth he that the bloud is made that is the Sacrament of the bloud is made fit sanguis the bloud is made that is to say ostenditur sanguis the bloud is shewed forth there 36. These and such like vvere Cranmers sleights to ridd himselfe that day and yet did not Doctor Chadsey and VVeston leaue him for these starts but followed him close with other cleere places of S. Ambrose the one expounding the other As for example Fortè dicas c. Perhaps yow may say how are these things true I vvhich see the similitude do not see the truth of the bloud First of all I tould thee of the word of Christ vvhich so vvorketh that yt can change and turne the kinds ordayned of nature c. And againe in another place Ergo didicisti c. Therfore thou hast learned that of bread is made the body of Christ and that vvyne and vvater is putt into the cupp but by consecration of the heauenly vvord it is made bloud Sed fortè dices speciem sanguinis non videri sed habet similitudinem But perhaps yow will say that the shape or forme of bloud is not seene but yet it hath the similitude So S. Ambrose and for that he saith as yow see that albeit the bloud after consecration hath not the shew or forme of true bloud yet hath yt similitude for that the forme of wyne commeth neerest to the likenesse of bloud heerof Cranmer layinge hands could not be drawne from affirminge that S. Ambrose meaninge is that it is not true naturall bloud after the consecration but beareth a similitude only representation or â—ipe therof which is quite contrary to S. Ambrose his whole drift and discourse yf yow consider yt out of passion 37. After these bickerings about S. Ambrose were vrged against him by the two Doctors Chadsey and VVeston diuers other Fathers as Iustinus Martyr aboue 14. hundred yeares gone whoe in his Apology for Christians writeth that as by the word of God Iesus Christ our Sauiour being made flesh had both flesh and bloud for our saluation so are â—e taught that the meate consecrated by the vvord of prayer instituted by him vvherby our bloud and flesh are nourished by communion
is the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus that was made flesh Out of which place they vrged that as Christ is truly and really incarnate so is he truly and really in the Sacrament accordinge to S. Iustinus and that our flesh and bloud is nourished by that communion and consequently in Saint Iustinus tyme yt was not held that Christs body was receaued only by faith 38. The words of Saint Irenaeus were vrged in like manner he being another Martyr of the same age with S. Iustine who wryteth thus Eum calicem qui est ex creatura suum corpus confirmauit ex quo nostra auget corpora c. This is the cupp which being a creature he confirmed to be his body by which he encreaseth our bodyes when both the cupp mixed the bread broken hath ioyned to yt the word of God yt is made the Eucharist of the body bloud of Christ of which the substance of our flesh is encreased and consisteth By which words the said Doctors proued that the flesh and bloud of Christ was otherwise held by S. Irenaeus to be in the Sacrament and receaued by vs than only by faith seing our bodyes also are nourished therwith yea the very substance of our flesh is encreased and consisteth therby as his words are To all which Cranmer had no other aunswere but his old shift that the Sacrament of the body and bloud vvas called the flesh and bloud of Christ though really yt be not And from this he could not be drawne And so finally the tyme drawinge late they vrged him there publikely with certayne falsityes vsed in his booke against the reall presence and besides those that had byn obiected before as for example Doctor Chadsey obiected a manifest corruption in translatinge the foresaid place of S. Iustine which Cranmer excused no otherwise but that he translated not Iustine word for word but only gaue the meaninge but the other as also Doctor Harpesfield shewed that he peruerted the whole meaninge and so yt is euident to him that readeth Iustine 39. Doctor VVeston obiected a place corrupted in Emissenus by putting in the word spiritualibus Cranmer aunswered that yt was so in the decrees Doctor VVeston replyed that he had left out diuers lynes of purpose vvhich made against him in Emissenus for the reall presence Cranmer aunswereth this booke hath not that VVeston obiected another place falsified where for Honora corpus Dei tui honour the body of thy God to witt of Christ Cranmer had translated yt thus honour him vvhich is thy God Wherto he answered that he did it not without a weighty cause that men should not thinke that God had a body Doctor VVeston obiected also that alleaginge a sentence out of Scotus he had left out a clause that made much to the purpose in the matter handled to witt secundum apparentiam as may appeare Cranmer answered iestingly that is a great offence I promise yow Another place in like manner was obiected as peruerted by him in Scotus words as also one or two in S. Thomas Aquinas wherto I find no aunswere but disputation is broken vp with this cry of the auditory in fauour of the Catholike party vicit veritas the truth hath had the victory and with this we shall also end this first disputation against Cranmer hauinge byn forced to be longer then we purposed at the beginninge therfore we shal be so much the shorter yf it may be in that which ensueth with Ridley and Latymer Out of the Disputation with D. Ridley in the same dininity-schoole at Oxford the next day after Cranmer to witt the 17. of Aprill 1554. §. 3. 40. The next day followinge saith Fox was brought forth Doctor Ridley to defend in the same questions of the râ—all presence Transubstantiation and Sacrifice against whome Doctor Smith was the first and principall opponent for which cause Fox before he beginneth to relate the combatt maketh a particular inuectiue against him for that he had byn vnconstant in Religion the simple fellow not consideringe that yf yt had byn true yet that the same might be obiected with much more reason against these his cheefe champions Cranmer Ridley and Latymer that had byn Catholike Priests for many yeares togeather But Fox his great anger against Doctor Smith was â—on that he pressed hardly B. Ridley in his disputation and so did Doctor VVeston also as after yow shall see for that vpon all occasions he came in with Vrge hoc vrge hoc but for the rest Ridley vvas most courteously vsed by them both and offered to haue his opinions taken in wrytinge and that he should haue space till saturday after to consider of them and that vvhat bookes soeuer he vvould demaund should be deliuered to him and that he might choose any two of the whole company to be his seuerall notaryes and he tooke Maister Iohn Iewell afterward made B. of Salisbury by Q. Elizabeth and Maister Gilbert Monson that had byn notaryes vnto B. Cranmer the day before 41 But the greatest difference and difficulty fell out for that Ridley hauing brought thither with him his opinion and large explication thereof already wrytten would needs read the same openly to the whole auditory which was penned in such bitter spitefull blasphemous termes with such abhominable scoffes and raylinge contemptuous speach against the sacred mysteryes and the vse therof as the commissionars were often-tymes forced to interrupt him and commaund him to sylence or to begin disputation neyther wherof would he do but with an obstinate face go foreward in readinge his declarations whervpon Doctor VVeston callinge vnto him said as Fox relateth Yow vtter blasphemyes vvith an impudent face Wherfore finally they made him breake of promisinge that they would read ponder all themselues not being conuenient to infect mens eares with publike readinge therof but that he might defend the fame as occasion should be offered in his answers and disputations 42. The first argument brought against him by Doctor Smith was for ouerthrowinge that principall foundation of the Sacramentary heresieâ— Christs body is inheauen ergò yt is not in the Sacrament Wherof yow haue heard often before for that both Peter Martyr alleaged yt as a cheefe fortresse of their faith though Philipp Melancthon that is a Calendar-saint togeather with Peter Martyr as before yow haue heard did say that he had rather offer himselfe vp to death then to affirme vvith the Sacramentaryes that Christs body cannot be but in one place at once And this was a principall ground also of Iohn Lambert burned for Sacramentary opinions vnder K. Henry the eyght against whome Doctor Cranmer then Archbishopp of Canterbury was the first and cheefest disputer after the King and specially tooke vpon him to confute this reason of Lambert as vayne and false and contrary to scripture as before yow haue heard in the story of Lambert And the same reasons and arguments which Cranmer
Sacrament vvhich is spoken of the thing of the Sacrament At which aunswere D. VVeston being moued as yt seemed argued in English saith Fox thus That vvhich is in the chalice is the same that flowed out of Christs side but there came out very true bloud ergò there is very true bloud in the chalice Ridley The bloud of Christ is in the chalice in deed but not in the reall presence but by grace and in a Sacrament Weston That is very vvell then vve haue bloud in the chalice Ridley Yt is true but by grace and in a Sacrament and heere the people hissed at him saith Fox wherat Ridley said O my maisters I take this for no iudgement I will stand to Gods iudgement This was his last refuge and further then this nothinge could be had at his hands 58. There rose vp after this Doctor VVatson who after a long altercation with Ridley whether after consecration the Sacrament might be called true bread Ridley alleaged this place of S. Paul The bread which we breake is yt not a communication of the body of Christ As though yt had made for him But VVatson brought S. Chrysostomes expositioÌ„ Quare non dixit participationeÌ„ c. VVherfore did not S. Paul say heere that yt is the participation of Christs body but the communication because he would signify some greater matter that he vvould declare a great conuenience betwene the same for that vve do not communicate by participation only receauing but by co-vniting or vnion for euen as the body is co-vnited to Christ so also are we by the same bread conioyned and vnited to him Out of which place of S. Chrysostome yt appeareth euidently that his beleâ—fe was that as his body and flesh was really vnited to his person so are we vnto him in flesh by eatinge the same in the Sacrament which is another manner of vnion then by faith and generall only But to this lett vs heare Ridleyes aunswere in his owne words Ridleye Let Chrysostome haue his manner of speakinge and his sentence yf yt be true I reiect yt not but lett yt not be preiudiciall to me to name yt bread So he And thus was S. Chrysostome shifted of neyther admitted nor fully reiected but if he spake truly then was he to be credited which was a courteous kind of reiection for Ridley would haue the reader beleeue that he spake not truly And so much for him 59. And so when nothinge more could be gotten by Doctor VVatson from Maister Ridley in this argument Doctor Smith stepped in to him againe and vrged a place of S. Augustine vpon the thirty and third Psalme Ferebatur in manibus suis c. He was carryed in his owne hands applyed by S. Austen to Christ his words are Hoc quo modo fieri possit in homine quis intelligat Who can vnderstand how this can be done by a man for that no man is borne by his owne hands but by other mens hands neyther can vve find how this was fullfilled literally in K. Dauid but by Christ we find it fullfilled for that Christ was borne in his owne hands when he said this is my body for he did become that body in his owne hands c. And againe in another sermon vpon the same place he repeateth againe the very same thinge sayinge How vvas Christ borne in his owne hands for that vvhen he did commend vnto vs his body and bloud he tooke into his hands that vvhich the faithfull knew and so he bare himselfe after a certayne manner vvhen he said this is my body Out of which places appeareth euidently that S. Augustine beleeued that Christ after the words of consecration vttered did beare his owne body in his hands and that this in his iudgement was so miraculous a thinge as neyther King Dauid nor any other mortall man could do yt but only Christ which yet is not so in a figure for euery man may beare a figure of his owne body in his hands and furthermore yt is cleere by these authorityes and by those words nôrunt fideles that this was the beleefe by all faithfull people of S. Austens tyme. Which argument being much vrged against Maister Ridley both by Doctor Smith and others he sought to declyne the force therof dyuers-wayes as saying first that S. Augustine vvent from others in this exposition but yet named none and then that this place of scripture vvas read otherwise of other men accordinge to the hebrew text other like euasions which yet proue not as yow see but that Saint Austen was of this opinion and beleefe himselfe which is the question in this place and after all this he passed to his ordinary refuge that Christ bare himselfe sacramentally only and not othervvise layinge hands for some shew of reason vpon the word quodammodò vsed in the second place by S. Austen that is after a certayne manner And when it was replied to him that S. Austen vsed that word to shew the different manner of his being in the Sacrament and out of the Sacrament but that otherwayes all parts and circumstances of S. Austens speach do shew that he beleeued Christ to haue holden really and truly his owne body and flesh in his hands they could gett no other aunswere from him but this He did beare himselfe but in a Sacrament Wherat men maruaylinge Doctor Smith said Yow are holden fast nor are ye able to escape out of this labyrinth And then began Doctor Tressam to pray for him with a sollemne prayer which being ended he said Yf there were an Arrian heere that had this subtile witt that yow haue he might soone shift of the scriptures and Fathers as yow doe Wherat Doctor VVeston seeming vnwilling that tyme should be spent in prayinge and not in disputinge said eyther dispute or hould your peace I pray yow And with this they passed to another disputation vvhether euill men do receaue the true body of Christ or not But S. Austens authority of bearinge himselfe in his hands gatt no other solution but that Christ bare himselfe in his hands that is the figure or representation of himselfe which neither Dauid nor other mortall man could do At which absurdity most of the audience did laugh 60. But concerninge the other questions vvhether euâ—ll men do receaue Christ Doctor Tressam brought two or three places out of S. Austen concerninge Iudas that he eat the true body of Christ as the other Apostles did and then againe of wicked men in generall Quia aliquis non ad salutem manducat non ideò non est corpus because some do not eate to saluation yt followeth not therfore that yt is not his body but to all this Maister Ridley aunswered by his former shift that yt is the body to them that is the Sacrament of the body Do yow see the fond euasion there was no doubt or question whether euill-men did eat the Sacrament
this is my body c. And so did he beare himselfe in his owne hands vvhich vvas prophesied of Dauid but fulfilled only by Christ in that Supper 81. These are the particularityes vsed by the Fathers for declaring what body they meane and can there be any more effectuall speaches then these but yet harken further Thou must know and hold for most certaine saith S. Cyrill that this vvhich seemeth to be bread is not bread but Christs body though the tast doth iudge it bread And againe the same Father Vnder the forme or shew of bread is giuen to thee the body of Christ vnder the forme or snape of wine is giuen to thee the bloud of Christ c. And S. Chrysostome to the same effect VVe must not beleeue our senses eaysie to be beguiled c. VVe must simply and vvithout all ambyguity beleeue the vvords of Christ sayinge This is my body c. O how many say now adayes I vvould see him I vvould behould his visage his vestments c. But he doth more then this for he giueth himselfe not only to be seene but to be touched also handled and eaten by thee Nor only do the Fathers affirme so asseuerantly that yt is the true naturall body of Christ though yt appeare bread in forme and shape and that we must not beleeue our senses heerin but do deny expressely that yt is bread after the words of consecration wherof yow heard longe discourses before out of S. Ambrose in his books de sacramentis and de initiandis Before the words of consecration it is bread saith he but after consecration de pane sit caro Christi of bread yt is made the flesh of Christ And note the word fit yt is made And againe Before the words of Christ be vttered in the consecration the chalice is full of vvine and vvater but vvhen the vvords of Christ haue vvrought their effect ibi sanguis efficitur qui redemit plebem there is made the bloud that redeemed the people And marke in like manner the word efficitur is made and consider whether any thinge can be spoken more plainly 83. But yet the Fathers cease not heere but do passe much further to inculcate the truth of this matter reprehending sharply all doubt suspition or ambiguity which the weaknesse of our flesh or infection of heresie may suggest in this matter S. Cyrill reasoneth thus VVheras Christ hath said of the bread this is my body vvho vvill dare to doubt therof and vvheras he hath said of the wine this is my bloud vvho vvill doubt or say yt is not his bloud he once turned vvater into vvine in Cana of Galiley by his only will which wine is like vnto bloud and shall vve not thinke him vvorthy to be beleeued vvhen he saith that he hath changed vvine into his bloud So he And S. Ambrose to the same effect Our Lord Iesus Christ doth iestifie vnto vs that we do receaue his body and bloud and may we doubt of his creditt or testimony And the other Saint Cyrill of Alexandria saith to the same effect that in this mystery we should not so much as aske quomodo how yt can be done Iudaicum enim verbum est saith he aeterm supplicij causa For ye is a Iewish word and cause of euerlastinge torment And before them both Saint Hilary left wrytten this exhortation These things saith he that are wrytten lett vs read and those things that vve reade lett vs vnderstand and so vve shall perfectly performe the duty of true saith for that these points vvhich vve affirme of the naturall verity of Christs being in vs. exceptive learne them of Christ himselfe we affirme them wickedly and foolishly c. VVherfore vvheras he saith my sâ—eâ—h is truly meat and my bloud is truly drinke there is no place left to vs of doubting concerning the truth of Christs body bloud for that both by the affirmation of Christ himselfe and by our owne beleefe there is in the Sacrament the flesh truly and the bloud truly of our Sauiour 83. So great S. Hilary and Eusebiuâ— Emissenus bringeth in Christ our Sauiour speakinge in these words For so much as my flesh is truly meat and my bloud is truly drinke leit all doubt fullnes of in fideliâ—y depart for so much as he vvho is the author of the gift is vvittnesse also of the truth therof And S. Leo to the same effect Nothinge at all is to be doubted of the truth of Christâ— body and bloud in the Sacrament c. And those do in vaine aunswere amen when they receaue yt if they dispute against that vvhich is affirmed And finally S. Epâ—pâ—anius concludeth thus He that beleeueth it not to be the very body of Christ in the Sacrament is fallen from grace and saluation 84. And by this we may see the earnestnesse of the Fathers in vrginge the beleefe of Christs true flesh and bloud in the Sacrament But they cease not heere but do preuent and exclude all shifts of Sacramentaryes which by Gods holy spiritt they forsaw euen in those auncient dayes affirminge that not by faith only or in â—igure or image or spiritually alone Christs flesh is to be eaten by vs but really substantially and corporally Not only by faith saith S. Chrysâ—stome but in very deed he maketh vs his body reducing vs as yt were into one masse or substance vvith himselfe And Saint Cyrill Not only by saith and charity are we spiritually conioyned to Christ by his flesh in the Sacrament but corporally also by communication of the same flesh And S. Chrysostome againe Not only by loue but in very deed are we conuerted into his flesh by eatinge the same And Saint Cyrill againe VVe receauinge in the Sacrament corporally and substantially the sonne of God vnited naturally to his Father we are clarified glorified therby and made partakers of his supreme nature Thus they Whervnto for more explication addeth Theophilact VVhen Christ said This is my body he shewed that it vvas his very body in deed and not any figure correspondent thervnto for he said not this is the figure of my body but this is my body by vvhich vvords the bread is transformed by an vnspeakable operation though to vs it seeme still bread And againe in another place Behould that the bread vvhich is eaten by vs in the mysteryes is not only a figuration of Christs flesh but the very flesh indeed for Christ said not that the bread vvhich I shall giue yow is the figure of my flesh but my very flesh indeed for that the bread is transformed by secrett vvords into the flesh And another Father more auncient then he aboue twelue hundred yeares past handlinge those words of Christ This is my body saith It is not the figure of Christs body and bloud vt quidam stupida mente nugati sunt as some blockish
mynds haue trifled but it is truly the very body and bloud of our Sauiour indeed And finally the whole generall Councell of Nice the second aboue 800. yeares past hath these words do yow read as longe as yow vvill yow shall neuer find Christ or his Apostles or the Fathers to haue called the vnhloudy sacrifice of Christ offered by the Priest an image or representation but the very body and bloud of Christ it selfe And could the auncient Fathers speake more effectually properly or cleerly then this 85. And yet he that will examine and weigh their sayings a man exactly shall find them to speake in a certaine manner more effectually for that they did study as we haue said how to vtter their meaninge with emphasie S. Hilary vseth this kind of argument yf the word of God were truly made flesh then do we truly receaue his flesh in the Lords supper and therby he is to be steemed to dwell in vs naturally S. Cyrill proueth not only a spirituall but a naturall and bodily vnion to be betweene vs and Christ by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament Theodorete doth proue that Christ tooke flesh of the blessed Virgin and ascended vp with the same and holdeth the same there by that he giueth to vs his true flesh in the Sacrament for that otherwayes he could not giue vs his true flesh to eate yf his owne flesh were not true seeing that he gaue the same that he carryed vp and retayneth in heauen S. Irenaeus S. Iustine S. Chrysostome do proue not only this but the resurrection also of our bodyes by the truth of Christs flesh in the Sacracrament for that our flesh ioyninge with his flesh which is immortall ours shal be immortall also And the same Saint Irenaeus also doth proue further that the great God of the ould Testament creator of heauen and earth was Christs Father for proofe wherof he alleageth this reason that Christ in the Sacrament did fullfill the figures of the old Testament that in particular wherin bread was a figure of his flesh which he fulfilled saith Irenaeus makinge yt his flesh indeed 86. I passe ouer many other formes of speaches no lesse effectuall which doe easily declare the Fathers mynds and meaninges in this point as that of Optatus Mileuitanus who accused the Donatists of sacriledge horrible wickednesse for hauinge broken downe Catholike Altars wheron the body and bloud of Christ had byn borne VVhat is so sacrilegious saith he as to breake downe scrape and remoue the Altars of God on vvhich your selues haue sometymes offered and the members of Christ haue byn borne c. VVhat is an Altar but the seate of the body and bloud of Christ and this monstrous villany of yours is doubled for that yow haue broken also the chalices vvhich did beare the bloud of Christ himselfe So he And is there any Protestant that will speake thus at this day or doth not this reprehension agree fully to Protestants that haue broken downe more Altars and chalices then euer the Donatists did Saint Leo the first saith that the truth of Christs true body and bloud in the Sacrament was so notorious in his dayes vt nec ab insantium linguis taceretur That very infants did professe the same And in the same sermon he saith that the body of Christ is so receaued by vs in the Sacrament vt in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transeamus that we should passe into his flesh who by his incarnation is made our flesh Saint Chrysostome in many places of his works doth vse such deuout reâ—orent and significant speaches of that which is conteyned in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread wyne after consecration as no doubt can be of his meaninge whereof yow haue heard diuers points before in the disputations as that it deserued the highest honour in earth that he did shew it lyinge vpon the Altar that the Angells descended at the tyme of consecration and did adore Christ there present vvith tremblinge and seare and durst not looke vpon him for the Maiestie of his presence And other such speaches which is conforme to that before cyted in the disputation out of the Councell of Nice Credamus iaecere in illa mensa sacra agnum Det à Sacerdotibus sacriâ—icatum Let vs beleeue to lye on that holy table the lambe of God sacrificed by Priests And is there any Protestant that will speake thus 87. But aboue all the rest are those speaches which before I said to tend to a certeyne exaggeration as that our flesh is turned into his flesh by receauinge the blessed Sacrament that our flesh is nourished by his and that of two fleshes there is made but one flesh Whervnto do appertayne not only those former phrases which already yow haue heard of the naturall and corporall vnity which the Fathers do so often inculcate to be betweene Christ and vs by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament that we are brought therby into one masse or substance of flesh with him but many other like significant manners for vtteringe their mynds as that of S. Chrysostome he nourisheth vs vvith his owne body and doth ioyne and conglutinate our flesh to his And againe That by his body giuen vs in the Sacrament Se nobis commiscuit in vnum nobiscum redegit He hath mixt himselfe to vs and brought himselfe and vs into one body and flesh And yet further he doth permitt himselfe not only to be handled by vs but also to be eaten and our teeth to be fastened vpon his flesh and vs to be filled with the same flesh which is the greatest point of loue saith Saint Chrysostome that possible can be imagined So he And conforme to this S. Cyrill of Alexandriae vttereth himselfe after another sort for he vseth the example of leuen which Saint Paul doth touch in his epistle to the Corinthians when he saith that a little leuen doth leuen a whole bach euen so saith S. Cyrill the flesh of Christ ioyned to our flesh doth leuen or pearse through it and conuert it into it selfe And in another place he vseth this similitude that as vvhen yow take a peece of vvax melted at the fire and do droppe the same vpon another peece of vvax these two vvaxes are made one so by the communication of Christs body and bloud vnto vs he is in vs and we in him 88. Another auncient Father also vpon the point of 1200. yeares gone had this similitude As wine saith he is mixed vvith him that drinketh the same in such sort as the wine is in him and he in the wine so is the bloud of Christ mixed also vvith him that drinketh the same in the Sacrament And S. Irenaeus Tertullian S. Iustinus Martyr all of them elder then this man do vse commonly this phrase of nourishinge and feedinge our flesh by the flesh
conuersion And then he explaneth himselfe thus that as in bread one loafe is made of many graynes so signifieth this Sacrament that we are all one mysticall body in Christ. And againe As bread nourisheth our body so doth the body of Christ nourish our soule And thirdly As bread is turned into our substance so are vve turned into Christs substance All vvhich three effects cannot be signified saith he by this Sacrament yf there be Transubstantiation and no nature of bread left and therfore there can be no Transubstantiation 7. This is Maister Ridleyes deepe diuinity about the nature of this Sacrament but yf yow reade that which we haue noted before in our eyght obseruation concerninge the true definition and nature of a Sacrament in deed yow will see that this was great simplicity in him though accordinge to his hereticall groūd that the Sacramēts doe not giue grace to leaue out the principall effect signified in the Sacrament which is grace for that a Sacrament is defined A visible signe of inuisible grace receaued therby This Sacrament also is a signe of Christs body there present vnder the formes of bread and wyne yet deny we not but that these other three effects also of vnity nutrition and conuersion may be signified therby as in like manner the death and passion of our Sauiour wherof this Sacrament is a memoriall and commemoration neyther doth the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ lett or take away these significations for so much as to make this Sacrament there is taken bread and wyne which naturally doth signifie these effects of vnion nutrition and conuersion which Ridley heere mentioneth though yt be not necessary that the substance of the said bread and wyne should still remayne but only there formes and accidents which do signifie and are signes to our senses as much as yf the substances themselues of bread and wyne were present As for example the brasen serpent did as much represent and was a signe of Christ in respect of the analogie betwene Christ and a true serpent as yf he had had the substance of à true serpent whereof he had but only the forme and shape and so are the outward formes of bread and wyne after the words of consecration sufficient to represent vnto vs the Analogy that is betweene feedinge the body and feedinge the soule vnity of graines and vnity of Christs mysticall body which is his Church 8. And thus much of Ridleyes third ground which impugneth Transubstantiation which ground as yow see is so weake and feeble as he that shall build theron is like to come to a miserable ruyne of his owne saluation But much more ridiculous is his fourth ground vttered in these words The fourth ground saith he is the abhominable heresie of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation Thus he saith in his position but lett vs heare him afterward in his probation which is not much larger then his proposition for thus he wryteth They vvhich say that Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist do take from him the verity of mans nature Eutiches graunted the diuyne nature in Christ but his humayne nature he denyed And is not this a goodly proofe of so great a charge Nay is not this a goodly ground and head-springe of proofes Consider I pray yow how these matters do hange togeather Eutiches heresy was as yow may see in the letters of Saint Leo the first and in the Councell of Calcedon that Christs flesh being ioyned to his diuinity was turned into the same and so not two distinct natures remayned but one only made of them both And how doth this heresie I pray yow follow of our doctrine of Transuostantiation Eutiches said that the diuine and humayne natures in Christ were confounded togeather and of two made but one we say that they remayne distinct and do condemne Eutiches for his opinion and by our Church he was first accursed and anathematized for the same Eutiches said Christs humayne nature was turned into his diuine we say only that bread and wyne is turned into Christs flesh and bloud what likenesse hath this with Eutiches heresie But saith Ridley vve do take from Christ the verity of mans nature This is a fiction and foolish calumniation as before yow haue heard and consequently deserueth no further refutation 9. The fifth ground is saith he the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith He ascended into heauen This ground yf yow remember hath byn ouerthrowne before and abandoned by Ridley himselfe in his Oxford-disputation where he graunted that he did not so straitly tye Christ vp in heauen to vse his owne words but that he may come downe on earth at his pleasure And againe in another place of the said disputation VVhat letteth but that Christ yf yt please him and vvhen yt pleaseth him may be in heauen and in earth c. And yet further to Doctor Smith that asked him this question Doth he so sitt at the right hand of his Father that he doth neuer foresake the same Ridley aunswered Nay I do not bynd Christ in heauen so straitly By which aunsweres yow see that this whole principall ground and head-springe of Ridleyes arguments against Transubstantiation is quite ouerthrowne For yf Christ in flesh after his ascension may be also on earth when he will as Ridley heere graunteth then is it not against the article of our Creed He ascended into heauen to beleeue that not withstandinge his ascension he may be also on earth in the Sacrament And albeit Ridley do cyte heere certayne places of S. Augustine that do seeme to say that Christ after his ascension is no more conuersant amonge vs vpon earth yet that is not to be vnderstood of his being in the Sacrament which is a spirituall manner of being but of his corporall manner of conuersation as he liued visibly among his disciples before his ascension And this is sufficient for discussion of this fifth ground wherof the cheefe particulars haue byn handled in diuers places before 10. Now then will we returne to his second ground againe of the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient Catholike Fathers And first he alleagath Saint Dionysius Areopagita for that in some places of his works he callerh yt bread And the like of Saint Ignatius to the Philadelphians which we deny not for S. Paul also calleth yt so as before we haue shewed but yet such bread as in the same place he declareth to be the true body of Christ sayinge that he vvhich receaueth yt vnworthily shal be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ addinge for his reason non dijudicans corpus Domini for not discerninge the body of our Lord there present And so S. Ignatius in the very selfe-same place saith that yt is the flesh and bloud of Christ as yow may read in that Epistle 11. After these he citeth Irenaeus whose words are Eucharistia ex
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
about to delude as he had done other former places by sayinge that Chrysostomes meaninge was that he left his flesh vpon earth not really and substantially but to be receaued after a spirituall communication by grace addinge this example as we also quoth he by hearing the ghospell and by faith So as by this aunswere we haue Christs flesh no otherwise present by meanes of the Sacrament then we haue him present by hearinge the ghospell or by beleeuinge in him which is to euacuate wholy the speach comparison of S. Chrysostome Wherfore to ouerthrow this shift Doctor Smith alleaged another plaine place of the same Chrysostome in confirmation of this where he saith O miraculum ô Dei benignitatem qui sur sum sedet tempore sacrificis hominum mantbus continetur c. O miracle o goodnesse of God! that he which sitteth aboue is conteyned in mens hands in the tyme of the sacrifice But all this would not serue for he auoâ—ded this as he had done the other sayinge he that sitteth there to witt in heauen is heere present in mystery and by grace and is holden of the godly c. And finally though there were diuers boutes in this matter yet could nothinge be gotten more 51. But to this sense Doctor Smith Doctor Seton Doctor Harpesfield and Doctor VVeston vrged him much about the place asking him where was the miracle yf Christ left his flesh heere only in mystery and by faith how could the comparison stand betweene Helias and Christ for Christ must do more then Elias Elias left his mantle and could not carry yt vp with him Christ not only left his flesh but carryed vp the same ergò he left the same that he carryed vp c. But he carryed vp his true and naturall flesh ergò he left the same to all which he aunswered againe He tooke vp his flesh vvith him to heauen and left heere the communion of his flesh on earth With which shiftinge aunswere Doctor VVeston being moued began after his fashion to vrge the matter earnestly sayinge yow vnderstand in the first place his flesh for very true flesh and in the second place for grace and communion of his flesh I will make yt euident how blockish and grosse your aunswere is As Elias left his cloke saith S. Chrysostome so the sonne of God left his flesh but Elias left his true substantiall cloke ergò Christ left his true substantiall flesh and heerin he spake in English Ridly I am glad yow speake in English and surely I vvould vvish all the vvorld might vnderstand your reasons and my answers Reliquit nobis carnem Christ left vnto vs his flesh This yow vnderstand of flesh and I vnderstand of grace he carryed his flesh to heauen and left behind him the communion of his flesh vnto vs. Weston Yee iudges vvhat thinke yow of this aunswere Iudges Iudges It is a ridiculous and very fond aunswere Ridley vvell I vvill take your vvords patiently for Christs sake 52. And this was the end of the controuersy about this place of S. Chrysostome to witt that we must take grace for flesh and when Christ is said to haue left his flesh heere with vs we must vnderstand his grace Yet Doctor VVeston alleaged also another place out of the same Father where he saith Spargimur c. VVe are sprinkeled vvith the very selfe-same bloud that Christ carryed vp vvith him c. Whervnto Ridley answered after his fashion yt is the same bloud but spiritually receaued Then vrged he Sainâ— Bernards words againe the selfe-same Christ is present vvholy in diuers places euen from the vvest to the east from the north to the south c. Wherto Ridley aunswered that God accordinge to his Maiestie and prouidence as S. Augustine saith is euery-where with the faithfull and so must Bernard be expounded Do yow see this exposition Read Saint Bernards words before sett downe and yow shall see that he speaketh of Christ as sittinge in heauen and yet present vvholy in the Priests hands c. And not of his Maiestie prouidence wherby he is euery-where as before hath byn declared So as this is not to expound but to confound the Fathers and I thinke verily that Ridley was much troubled when he gaue such impertinent aunswers and expositions 53. And with this would I passe ouer this whole strife about Saint Chrysostomes places of Elias but that I must let yow know that there had byn some yeares before a great styrre and altercation in the conuocation-house about the same for that Philpott hearinge that place alleaged against him as his fashion was vaunted wounderfully that this being the Papists cheefe and principall foundation he would so beat them from yt and as Fox addeth giue such a plucke at yt as yt should neuer sorue their turne more and when yt came to the triall he said that he had two wayes to beate them from it The first was that Christ goinge vp to heauen carryed his owne flesh with him and eâ—t the same behind him in that he left vs behind him that are flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones This is the first blow and plucke wherby yow see that Christs progatiue is plucked also for Helias as well as he left his flesh behind him in this sense for he was of our flesh and Philpott also left his flesh behind him in vs though his owne were burned in Smith-field And finally S. Chrysostome speaketh expressely of the Sacrament of the Altar sayinge that therein Christ left his flesh but he did not leaue all mankynd in that Sacrament wherefore this first plucke is to small purpose But lett vs see his second 54. The second is that Christ saith he lest his flesh in the mysteryes that is sacramentally and that this mysticall flesh Christ leaueth as well in the Sacrament of baptisme as in the sacramentall bread wine So he Wherin yf yow marke he giueth not only the ordinary old plucke of other Sacramentaryes to the verity of Christs flesh makinge that mysticall which S. Chrysostome speaketh expressely of the naturall flesh left by him and therby plucketh out of ioint all Saint Chrysostomes whole meaninge and discourse but giueth a new plucke also to the whole Sacrament of the Eucharist affirminge Christs flesh to be as much in baptisme as in the other consequently that both Saint Chrysostome and other Fathers do in vayne trouble themselues with so much extollinge the excellency of the Eucharist for hauinge Christs flesh in yt for that the water of baptisme hath the same so yow see the whole Sacrament plucked vp by these pluckes of Philpott and yet saith Fox that he did sâ—rewdly shake our reall presence by giuinge such a plucke to one of our cheefe foundations Yow see how one of these men do flatter the other 55. Next to this entred one Maister VVard to dispute that had byn Philpotts reader and seing D. Ridley to haue
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
in his booke de priuata missa testifieth that the diuell reasoned vvith him and persuaded him that the masse vvas not good vvherby yt appeareth that Luther said masse and the diuell dissuaded him from yt Latimer I do not take in hand heere to desend Luthers sayings or doings ys he vvere heere he vvould desend himselfe vvell inough I trow So Latymer leauinge Luther to himselfe but Fox will needs defend him with this marginall note sayinge In that booke the diuell doth not dissuade him so much from sayinge masse as to bring him to desperation for sayinge masse such temptations many tymes happen to good men 65. And will yow consider the grauity and verity of this note first he saith that the diuell did not so much dissuade him from sayinge masse as to bringe him to desperation then somewhat he did dissuade him though not so much as to the other which I beleeue for that the one was his damnation and his leauinge of masse was but the way to yt Secondly yf the diuell did endeauour to bringe Luther to desperation for sayinge of masse he must needs persuade him first that the masse was naught as yf he would draw a man to desperation for vsing almes deeds he must first persuade him that almes-deeds are naught and wicked and as wise a man as he should shew himselfe that at the diuells persuasion will beleeue that almes-deeds were naught and leaue the same so were Luther Latymer as wise to beleeue this suggestion of the diuell against the masse And where Fox saith that such temptations of the diuell do happen many tymes to good-men I graunt yt but not that euer any good man did yeld therevnto or iudge a thinge euill for that the diuell did say yt was naught but rather to the contrary his impugnation of yt is alwayes a signe that the thing is good and pleasinge to almighty God whose aduersary the diuell is yea the greater his impugnation is the better must we presume the thing to be and consequently when he would make the masse to seeme so heynous a thinge to Luther as that he should be damned for sayinge the same yt is a good proofe that the masse is an excellent thing displeaseth the diuell and that Luther and his followers leauing to say masse do please much the diuell in followinge his suggestion therin as good and obedient children to so holy a ghostly Father and so to him we leaue them 66. There followeth that albeit Latymer was loath to dispute yet some few arguments were cast forth against him but all in English for so he would haue yt And first Maister Doctor Tressam alleaged an authority of Saint Hilary affirminge a naturall vnity to be in vs with Christ by eatinge his flesh Which place for that yt was alleaged before against his fellowes I will not stand much vpon yt but only note this mans euasion Latymer I can not speake Latyn so longe c. But as for the words saith he of Hilary I thinke they make not so much for yow but he that should answere the Doctors had not neede to be in my case but should haue them in a readyness and know their purpose Melancthon saith that yf the Doctors had forseene that they should haue byn so taken in this controuersie they vvould haue vvrytten more plainly This was his answere and more then this yow shall not find and in this there is a notable imposture of an old deceauer for that Melancthon being of opposite opinion to him in this article and wrytinge a whole worke of the Doctors sentences for proofe of the reall-presence against the Sacramentaryes as in his life we haue shewed what he speaketh of this mystakinge the Fathers and Doctors he speaketh expressely of the Sacramentaryes and not of those that defend the reall-presence which he also being a Lutheran defended and affirmeth plainly that all the Fathers are of the same opinion though yf they had foreseene that such heretiks as are the Sacramentaryes would haue risen vp and haue wrested their words and meaning as yow haue heard both Cranmer Ridley and Latymer to haue done they would haue spoken more plainly in the controuersie though hardly they could haue spoken more cleerly against them And by this first entrance yow may marke the plaine dealinge of old Father Latymer 67. Doctor Seaton Vice-chauncelour of Cambridge seing these sleights of the old fellow beginneth thus with him I know your learninge vvoll inough and how subtile yow be I will vse a few vvords vvith yow out of S. Cyprian vvho saith that the old Testament doth forbidd the drinkinge of bloud and the new Testament doth commaund the drinkinge of bloud Out of which words he framed this argument That yt vvas true and reall bloud vvhich the old Testament forbadd to drinke ergò yt is true and reall bloud vvhich the new Testament commaundeth to drinke for that otherwise the antithesis or opposition of the two TestameÌ„ts in this point can not hold yf the one forbidd the true drinking of true and reall bloud and the other commaundeth the figuratiue drinking of spirituall bloud by faith for that these things are opposite and that the Iewes also in the old â—estament did drinke Christs bloud by faith c. To which argument Latymer aunswered nothinge in effect but this vve do tast true bloud but spiritually and this is inough And then proueth he the same by those words of S. Augustine before aunswered by vs crede manducusti beleeue thou hast eaten as though the words credere and edere were all one in the scriptures Whervpon Doctor VVeston recyted a story that passed betwene Maister Hooper and B. Gardener for when Hooper would needs hould that to cate was to beleue and that an Altar signified Christ in the scriptures B. Gardener inferred ergò when S. Paul saith to the Hebrewes that vve haue an Altar vvherof the Ieuwes must not eat the sense is vve haue Christ in whome the Iewes must not beleeue And after this he retourneâ— to presse Latymer strongly againe vpon this place of S. Cyprian sayinge that is comusaunded in the new Testament vvhich is forbidden in the ould but true bloud vvas forbidden in the old ergò true bloud also is commaunded to be drunken in the new Whervnto Latymer aunsweringe twise vttered two contraryes for first his words are It is true as touchinge the matter but not as touchinge the manner of the thinge where he graunteth as yow see that true bloud is meant in both Testament but the manner of drinkinge is different which also we graunt teach but heare his second aunswere vpon the other instance 68. Weston The old Testament doth forbidd the tastinge of bloud but the new doth commaund yt Latymer It is true not as touchinge the thinge but as touchinge the manner therof Before he said yt is true touchinge the matter but not touchinge the
manner now he saith yt is true touching the manner and not touchinge the thinge so as yf the thinge and matter be all one as yt is he speaketh contraryes Whervpon Doctor VVeston opened the whole argument to the people in English and the absurdity of his answere but Latymer replyed againe and againe that true bloud vvas commaunded spiritually to be dronken in the new Testament Whervnto one Doctor Pye replyed and obiected that yt was not forbidden to be dronken spiritually in the old law for that saith he they drinke spiritually Christs bloud in the old law ergò the drinkinge therof in the new must be more then only spirituall To this Latymer aunswered the substance of bloud is dronken but not in one manner So as heere yow see he graunteth also the substance of bloud to be dronken though in a different manner from that of the old Testament But being pressed by the said Doctor Pye that we require not the same manner of drinkinge bloud in the new law which was forbidden in the old but only that yt is as really and truly bloud as the other was his finall aunswere and resolution is this It is the same thinge but not the same manner I haue no more to say Heere then is his last detertermination and consider I pray yow the substance therof yf yt be the same thinge then must yt needs be really and truly bloud for this is the thinge or matter wherof the question is for that otherwayes we know that the bloud forbidden in the old Testament is meant the bloud of beasts and the bloud commaunded in the new is meant of the bloud of Christ So as in this Latymer cannot graunt them to be one thinge but only in the reallity and truth of bloud that is as the one is true and reall bloud of beasts so is the other true and reall bloud of Christ which yf he graunt as heere in words he doth then cannot the different manner of drinkinge the same alter the substance of the thinge yt selfe or yf yt do then is yt false that yt is the same thinge and so euery way is ould Latymer taken but lett vs passe foreward 69. Doctor VVeston to confirme the reallity of Christs bloud receaued in the Sacrament alleaged another place of S. Chrysostome where talkinge of Iudas he saith Christus ei sangninem quem vendidit offerebat Christ gaue him in the Sacrament to witt to Iudas the bloud which he had sould Can any thinge be playner spoken Latymer answered he gaue to Iudas his bloud in a Sacrament and by this thinketh he hath said some what to the purpose wheras indeed he saith nothinge For we say also that he gaue him his bloud in a Sacrament as we say that we giue wyne in a cuppe but this excludeth not the reality of the bloud no more then the giuinge in a cupp or vnder a veyle taketh away the true reality of the wyne yet is this the common hole for Sacramentaryes to runne out at when they are pressed for both they and we do agree that Christs bloud is giuen in the Sacrament vnder a signe sacramentally and the like phrases but the difference betweene vs is that we by this do not exclude the truth reality of the thing therin conteyned as they do therby delude both themselues and others speakinge in such sort as they cannot be vnderstood but only that a man may easily vnderstand that they seeke therby euasions and wayes to slipp out at 70. I passe ouer diuers other authorityes of Fathers alleaged by the Doctors as those words of S. Cyrill Per communionem corporis Christi habitat in nobis Christus corporaliter By the communion of Christs body he dwelleth in vs corporally ergò not spiritually only and by faith Latymer aunswered first that corporally hath another vnderstandinge then yow do grossely take yt And then being pressed againe he said The solution of this is in my Lord of Canterburyes booke So he But Fox not contented as it seemeth with this aunswere putteth downe a larger though without an author wherby we may conceaue yt to be his owne Corporally saith he is to be taken heere in the same sense that S. Paul saith the fullnes of diuinity to duuell corporally in Christ that is not lighty nor accidentally but perfectly substantially c. Which answere yf Fox will stand vnto we are agreed for we require no more but that Christ by the communion of his body in the Sacrament doth dwell perfectly and substantially in vs for that importeth also really as the fullnesse of diuinity is really in Christ incarnate and not by vnion only of will as the Arrians said and as our Sacramentaryes do talke of Christs vnion only by faith in vs. And lett the reader note by the way Iohn Fox his witt deepe diuinity who knowinge not what he saith graunteth by this example more then we require for he graunteth the same substantiall vnity to be betweene Christ and our soule which is betweene Christs diuinity and his humanity which is false ours being accidentall and separable the other substantiall inseparable for that yt is hypostaticall But these thinges Iohn had not learned and so we pardon him and do returne to Latymer againe who being vrged hardly by Doctor Smith about Saint Cyrills words that Christ by communion of his body in the Sacrament dwelleth corporally in vs ergò not only spiritually by faith he aunswered I say both that he dwelleth in vs spiritually and corporally spiritually by faith and corporally by takinge our flesh vpon him for I remember that I haue read this in my Lord of Canterburyes booke Heere now yow see another shift different from that of Fox authorised by my L. of Canterburyes booke but shaken of by S. Cyrills booke which saith expressely as yow haue heard that Christ dwelleth in vs corporally by the communion of his body in the Sacrament and talketh not of the incarnation 71. Wherfore Doctor VVeston seing that more could not be had of Latymer in this point he passed to another matter which was to deale with him about the Sacrifice of che masse In scoffinge against which Latymers grace or disgrace rather and sinne did principally consist and so alleaginge many auncient Fathers authorityes against him for this purpose and reading the places at length hauing the books there present Latymer was quickly dryuen to a non-plus as may appeare by Fox his owne narration though he setteth yt downe like a Fox indeed suppressinge all the particulars of the said places but only the names of the authors and the first words of the texts and not them also in all And then toucheth he the aunswers of Latymer and the Catholike Doctors replyes so brokenly and confusedly as may easily shew that he would declyne the tempest of that combatt from Latymers shoulders and not haue the matter vnderstood insinuatinge only some 8. or 9. authorityes alleaged for proofe of
themselues do graunt that yf Christ be there really present yt cannot be denyed but that he is there also by Transubstantiation of bread into his body for so Father Latymer yf yow remember affirmed before in his disputations when he was said once to haue byn a Lutheran which Lutherans do hould both Christs body and bread to be togeather in the Sacrament he aunswered I say that he could neuer perceaue how Luther could defend his opinion without Transubstantiation that the Tygurynes being also Sacramentaryes did write a booke against him in this behalfe prouinge belike that in grauntinge the reall presence as he did he must needs graunt Transubstantiation also wherin they had great reason for that in truth the imagination of Luther and Lutherans that Christs body and bread doe stand togeather vnder the same formes and accidents and be receaued togeather being so different substances is a most grosse and fond imagination so as the Lutherans graunting the one denying the other are condemned of absurdity euen by the Zuinglians themselues as yow see and as we say also iustly 2. And on the other side we say in like manner as before hath byn noted that the Zuinglians and Caluinists and other Sacramentaryes denyinge wholy the said reall presence do in vayne wrangle about Transubstantiation For as he that should deny for example sake that any substance of gould were in a purse or any substance of wyne in a barrell should in vaine dispute whether the gold were there alone or togeather with some baser metall as siluer tynne or copper or whether the wyne were there alone or in company of water so in this controuersie yt is an idle disputation for Sacramentaryes to discusse whether the substance of Christs reall flesh be alone in the Sacrament or togeather with the substance of bread for so much as they deny yt to be there at all 3. Yet notwithstanding for that their cheefe altercation is about this point as by their disputations may appeare I shall breefely examine their grounds vvhich accordinge to B. Ridleyes ostentation vttered in Cambridge out of the diuinity chayre vnder King Edward the sixt as before yow haue heard are fiue in number sett forth in these vauntinge words The principall grounds or rather head-springs of this matter are specially fiue First the authority maiestie verity of holy scriptures the second the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient Catholike Fathers the third The definition of a Sacrament the fourth The abhominable heresie of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation The fifth the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith He ascended into heauen And then a little after he concludeth thus These be the reasons vvhich persuade me to enâ—lyne to this sentence and iudgement 4. Heere yow see the principall grounds or rather head springs that persuaded Ridley to inclyne or rather declyne for yet he seemed not fully setled in this article of beleefe And albeit these grounds may seeme to conteyne somewhat in shew and sound of words yet when the substance thereof commeth to be examined they are found to be idle and puffed vp with words indeed For first what authority maiesty and verity of scriptures doth this man bring forth trow you for confirmation of this his vaunt truly nothing in effect or of any shew or probability but only that yt is called bread and wyne in the scripture after the words of consecration For which purpose he hauinge alleaged the words of Christ I will not drinke heerafter of this fruite of the vyne vntill I do drinke yt new vvith yow in the kingdome of my Father he inferreth that the fruite of the vyne is wyne which we graunt vnto him do hould is called wyne by him after the consecration as his flesh after the words of consecration is called bread by S. Paul S. Luke and other Apostles affirming yt notwithstanding to be his owne true body and flesh but retayninge the name of bread for that yt was made of bread and was bread before as the serpent was called the rodd of Aaron for that yt was made of that rodd and not because yt was not a true serpent afterwards though yt were still called a rodd and to signifie this that bread conuerted into Christs flesh is not really bread afterward but the true flesh of Christ though yt retayne the former name of bread yt is not simply called bread but with some addition as bread of life bread of heauen this bread and the like And finally Christ himselfe doth expound what bread yt is in S. Iohns ghospell when he saith The bread that I shall giue yow is my flesh for the life of the vvorld 5. Heere then yow see that Ridleyes text of scripture I vvill not drinke hereafter of the fruite of the vyne vntill I drinke yt new vvith yow in the Kingdome of my Father doth not proue that yt was materiall wine which he dronke for that he should then drinke materiall wyne also in heauen And yet assoone as Ridley had brought forth this place as though he had done a great feate and fully performed his promise for proofe of the authority maiesty and verity of scripture he beginneth presently to excuse himselfe for that he hath no more store sayinge There be not many places of scripture that do confirme this thinge neyther is yt greatly materiall for yt is inough yf there be any one plaine testimony for the same Lo whervnto this vaunt of the authority maiesty and verity of holy scriptures is come to witt to one place vnderstood and interpreted after his owne meaninge alone against the vnderstandinge of all antiquity And though he go about afterwards to scrape togeather diuers other parings of scripture nothinge at all to the purpose as Yow shall not breake any bone of his Do yow this in my remembrance labour for the meate that perisheth not this is the worke of God that they beleeue in him whome he hath sent he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him and some other like places yet as yow see by his owne confession they are not plaine places and consequently his vauntinge of authority maiesty and verity of scriptures commeth to iust nothinge indeed but only to words and wynde Lett vs see what he bringeth for his other foure grounds and headsprings 6. The second is the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient Catholike Fathers This we shall examine afterwards when we haue considered of the other three yet may yow marke by the way that he vseth heere also the superlatiue degree of most certayne testimonyes which certainty of testimonyes yow shall find afterward to be like his maiesty of scriptures already alleaged Wherfore let vs see his third ground The third ground saith he is the nature of the Sacrament which consisteth in three things vnity nutrition and