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
do beare Nay himselfe doth add a new consirmation when he saith that he which doth eate and drinke vnworthily this Sacrament reus erit â—orporis sanguinis Domini shal be guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. And againe Iuâ—cium sibi manducat bibit non dijudicans corpus Domini he doth eat drinke his owne iudgement not discerninge the body of our Lord Which inferreth the reall presence of Christes body which those whome the Apostle reprehendeth by the fact of their vnworthy receauing doe so behaue themselues as yf they did not discerne it to be present All which laid togeather the vniforme consent of expositors throughout the whole Christian world concurringe in the selfe-same sense and meaninge of all these scriptures about the reall presence of Christs true body in the Sacrament yow may imagine what a motiue yt is and ought to be to a Catholike man who desireth to beleeue and not to striue and contend And thus much for scriptures 17. There followeth the consideration of Fathers Doctors and Councells wherein as the Sacramentaryes of our tyme that pleased first to deny the reall presence had not one authority nor can produce any one at this day that expressely saith that Christs reall body is not in the Sacrament or that yt is only a figure signe or token therof though diuers impertinent peeces of some Fathers speaches they will now and then pretend to alleage so on the coÌ„trary side the Catholiks do behould for their comfort the whole ranks of ancient Fathers through euery age standinge with them in this vndoubted truth Yea not only affirming the same reall presence in most cleere and perspicuous words wherof yow may see whole books in Catholike wryters replenished with Fathers authorityes laid togeather out of euery age from Christ downe wards but that which is much more yeldinge reasons endeauoring to proue the same by manifest arguments theologicall demonstrations vsing therin such manner of speach and words as cannot possibly agree vnto the Protestants communion of bare bread and wyne with their symbolicall signification or representation only As for example where the Fathers do shew how Christs true flesh commeth to be in this SacrameÌ„t videlicet by the true conuersion of bread into his body and by that this body is made of bread and by that the substances of breat and vvyne be changed and other like speaches as may be seene in S. Ambrose 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. lib. 6. cap. 1. lib. de myst init cap. 9. Cypr. Serm. de Coena Chrysost. hom 83. in Matth. de proditione Iudae Cyrill Catec 4. Mystag Nissenus orat Catech. 37. and others 18. Secondly yt is an ordinary speach of the Fathers to cry out admyre the miracle that happeneth by the conuersion in this Sacrament ascribinge the same to the supreme omnipotencv of almighty God as yow may see in S. Chrysostome l. 3. de sacerdotio O miraculum c. S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. Iustinus Martyr Apolog. 2. sayinge that by the same omnipotency of God vvherby the vvord vvas made flesh the flesh of the vvord vvas made to be in the Eucharist which agreeth not to a Caluinian communion 19. Thirdly some of them do extoll and magnifie the exceeding loue charity of Christ towards vs aboue all other humane loue in that he feedeth vs with his owne flesh which no shephards did euer their sheepe or mothers their children which is the frequent speach of S. Chrysostome hom 83. in Matth. 45. in Ioan. hom 24. in ep 1. ad Cor. 2. homil 60. 61. ad Pop. Antioch And to the same effect S. Augustine ep 120. cap. 27. in Psal. 33. which speaches can no wayes agree to the Protestants supper 20. Fourthly diuers of the said Fathers do expressely teach that we do receaue Christ in the Sacrament not only by faith but truly really and corporally semetipsum nobis commiscet saith S. Chrysostome non side tantum sed reipsa Christ doth ioyne himselfe with vs in the Sacrament not only by faith but really And â—n another place he putteth this antithesis or opposition betwixt vs and the Magi that saw and beleeued in Christ lyinge in the manger that they could not carry him with them as we do now by receauinge him in the Sacrament and yet no doubt they beleeued in him and carryed him in faith as we do now to which effect S. Cyrill Alexand. saith Corporaliter nobis filius vnitur vt homo spiritualiter vt Deus Christ as a man is vnited vnto vs corporally by the Sacrament and spiritually as he is God Whervnto yow may add S. Hilary lib. 8. de Trinitate and Theodorus in the Councell of Ephesutom 6. Appendic 5. cap. 2. and others 21. Fiftly the Fathers do many tymes and in diuers places and vpon sundry occasions go about to proue the truth of other mysteryes and articles of our faith by this miracle of the being of Christs flesh and body in the Sacrament as S. Irenaeus for example doth proue Christs Father to be the God of the old sestament for that in his creatures he hath left vs his body bloud and in the same place he vseth the same argument for establishinge the article of the resurrection of out bodyes to witt that he that vouch safeth to nowrish vs with his owne body and bloud will not lett our bodyes remayne for euer in death corruption S. Chrysostome in like manner by the truth of his reall presence in the Sacrament doth confute them that denyed Christ to haue taken true flesh of the Virgin Mary which hardly would be proued by the Sacramentary supper of bread and wyne as euery man by himselfe will consider 22. Sixtly to pretermitt all other points handled to this effect by the said Fathers as that diuers of them do exclude expressely the name of figure or similitude from this Sacrament as S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 1. Damasc lib. 4. cap. 4. 14. Theophilact in Matth. 26. Others yeld reasons why Christ in the Sacrament would be really vnder the formes or accidents of bread and wyne to witt that our faith might be proued and exercised therby the horror of eating flesh bloud in their owne forme shape taken away and so the same S. Ambrose Ibid. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. Cyrill in cap. 22. Luc. apud D. Thom. in catena Others do persuade vs not to beleeue our senses that see only bread and wyne wherof we shall speake more in the obseruations following so S. Augustine serm de verbis Apost l. 3. de Trinit cap. 10. Others do proue this reall presence by the sacrifice affirminge the selfe same Christ to be offered now in our dayly sacrifice vpon the Altars of Christians after an vnbloudy manner which was offered once bloudely vpon the
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
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
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
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
fro vvhat shall vve thinke of the vnlearned and ignorant people that cannot vnderstand that is argued and much lesse iudge therof and yet vpon the creditt of such disputations do aduenture their foules as yovv haue seene by many lamentable examples before in both meÌ„ vveomen that vpon the fame creditt of these English disputations heere sett dovvne by Fox partlie vnder K. Edward partlie vnder Queene Mary and vpon the probabilitie of some fond and broken arguments vsed therin for the Protestants side as somevvhat apparant plausible to their senses capacity haue not only stood therein most arrognatly against their Bishopps and learned Pastors by open disputatioÌ„s in their Courts and Consistoryes but haue runne also to the fire for the same vvherof Allerton Tankerfield Crashfield Fortune and others before mentioned being but Cooks Carpenters and Coblars by occupation yea vveomen also as Anne Alebright Alice Potkins Ioan Lashford Alice Dryuer and others may be ridiculous but lamentable examples 16. Neither is this a nevv or strange thinge that hereticall vveomen should grovv to such insolency as to stand in disputation vvith the learnedst Bishops of the Catholike side for that vve read it recorded in Ecclesiasticall historyes aboue 12. hundred yeares gone to vvitt vpon the yeare of Christ 403. that a certayne vvillfull vvoman of the citty of Antioch named Iulia infected vvith the abhominable heresie of the Manichees and feruent therein came vnto the citty of Gaza vvherof S. Porphyrius a holy learned man vvas Bishop beginning there to peruert diuers Christians being for the same reprehended by the Bishopp she contemned him yea chalenged him to open disputatioÌ„ vvhich the good man admittinge she behaued herselfe so insolently therein as vvas intolerable So as vvhen he had suffered her a great vvhile to alleage her blasphemous arguments could by no meanes reduce her or make her harken to the truth he fell from disputation to vse another meane turning himselfe to God sayinge O Eternall God vvhich hast created all thinges and art only eternall hauinge no beginninge or endinge vvho art glorified in the blessed Trinitie strike this vvomans tongue and stopp her mouth that she speake no more blasphemyes against thee VVhich vvords being vttered Iulia began to stammer and to change countenance fallinge into an extasis and so leesing her voyce remained dumme vntill she died vvhich vvas soone after vvherat tvvo men and tvvo vveomen that came vvith her fell dovvne at the Bishopps feete as kinge pardon and vvere conuerted as vvere diuers gentills also by the same miracle 17. And this vvas the conclusion of that disputation and though it pleased not almightie God to vse the like miracles externallie in Qu. Maryes dayes for the repressinge of those insoleÌ„t vveomen that disputed so malepartlie and vttered so manie blasphemous speaches against the soueraigne misterie of Christs reall presence in the Sacrament yet can there be no great doubt but that invvardlie he vsed the same or no lesse iustice vnto them especiallie seing he suffered them to go to the fire all vvithout repentance and so to perish both bodilie and ghostlie temporallie add eternallie And for that in recytinge their storyes before sett dovvne intendinge all breuitie possible I could not conuenientlie lay forth their seuerall arguments in disputation as neyther of those that vvere their maisters and inducers to this maddnes I haue thought good heere to examine all togeather in this Re-vievv vvhereby yovv shall see vvhat grounds they had of so great an enterprise and of so obstinate a prosecution therof And this shall suffice by vvay of Preface Novv vvill vve passe to the recytall of the said disputations OF TEN PVBLIKE DISPVTATIONS Recounted by Iohn Fox to haue byn held in England About Controuersies in Religion especially concerning the blessed Sacrament of the Altar within the space of 4. yeares at two seuerall changes of Religion vnder K Edward and Queene Mary Besides many other more particular held in Bishops Consistoryes and other places about the same matters CHAP. I. Novv then to come more neere to the matter yt selfe we are breefly to recount the forsaid ten disputations or publike meetinges and conferences that after the change of the outward face of Catholike Religion in England were held in our countrey within the space only of 4. or 5. yeares and the effects that ensued thereof which in great part were not vnlike to the successe of all those disputations meetings conferences colloquies and other attempts of triall before mentioned to haue ben with little profitt of agreement made in Germany Polony France and other places amongst the Protestants of this age since the beginning of their new ghospell the causes and reasons wherof haue in part ben touched by vs in our precedent preface and shall better appeare afterward by the examination of these ten publike disputatioÌ„s from which as from generall storehouses or head schooles were borrowed the armour arguments for these other lesser bickerings of particular Foxian Martyrs which they had with their Bishops Prelates Pastors at their examinations arraignemeÌ„ts vpon the confidence pride wherof they were induced to offer themselues most obstinately pittifully vnto the fire as in th'exameÌ„ of Iohn Fox his Calendar you haue seene aboundantly declared First Disputation §. 1. 2. Wherfore to recount the particulars as breifely as we may the first publike disputation of these ten wherof we now are to treat was held at Oxford against the reall presence of the blessed body bloud of our Sauiour in the Sacrament of the Altar by Peter Martyr an Italian Apostata friar vpon the yeare of Christ as Fox setteth it downe 1549. which was the third of K. Edward the sixt his raigne about the moneth of Iune for he expresseth not the very day and the cheife moderator or iudge in this disputation was D. Cox Chancelourat that tyme of the vniuersity but after vnder Q. Elizabeth was B. of Ely and his assistents were Henry B. of Lincolne D. Haynes deane of Exceter M. Richard Marison Esquier and Christophor Neâ—â—son Doctor of Cyuill law all comissionars saith Fox of the Kings Maiestie sent downe for this effect to authorize the disputations 3. For better vnderstandinge wherof yow must note that albeit K. Edward had raigned now more then full two yeares and that the protector Seymer and some others of his humour would haue had change of doctrine established euen at the beginninge about the point of the blessed Sacrament yet could they not obtayne it in ParlameÌ„t partly for that the farre greater part of the realme was yet against it but especially for that it was not yet resolued by the Archbishopp Cranmer himselfe of whome if you remember Iohn Fox doth complaine in one place vnder K. Henry that good Cranmer had not yet a full feelinge of that doctrine Whervpon we see that in the first parlament of K. Edwards tyme begon vpon the 4.
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 any moment and so ended that dayes disputation The next day he returned againe and would haue made a longe declamation against the reall presence but being restrayned he fell into such a rage and passion as twise the prolocutor said he was fitter for Bedlam then for disputation 37. After Philpott stood vp Maister Cheney Archdeacon of Hereford another of the six which did contradict the masse and reall presence in the Conuocation-house who was after made B. of Glocester being that tyme perhapps inclyned to Zuinglianisme though afterward he turned and became a Lutheran and so lyued and died in the late Queenes dayes There is extant to this man an eloquent epistle in Latyn of F. Edmund Campian who vnhappily had byn made Deacon by him but now being made a Catholike exhorted the Bishopp to leaue that whole ministry This mans argument against the reall presence being taken out of the common obiections of Catholike wryters and schoole-men was this that for so much as it is cleare by experience that by eatinge consecrated hosts for example a man may be nourished and that neyther Christs body nor the accidents and formes alone can be said to norish ergo besides these two there must be some other substance that nourisheth which seemeth can be no other but bread And the like argument may be made of consecrated wyne that also nourisheth And further in like manner he argued concerninge consecrated bread burned to ashes demaundinge wherof that is to say of what substance these ashes were made for so much as we hould no substance of bread to be therin and Fox would make vs beleeue that all the Catholiks there present could not aunswere that doubt and amongest others he saith of Doctor Harpesfield Then vvas Maister Harpesfield called in to see vvhat he could say in the matter vvho tould a fayre tale of the omnipotency of almighty God But Fox vnderstood not what Doctor Harpesfield said in that behalfe as may easily appeare by his fond relatinge therof We haue sett downe the aunswere to these and like obiections before in the 7. and 10. Obseruations and yt consisteth in this that in these naturall actions and substantiall changes of nutrition and generation wherin not only accidents are altered but new substances also are produced consequently according to nature that operation doth require not only accidents but also substantiall matter wherof to be produced God by his omnipotency doth supply that matter which is necessary to the new production of that substance eyther by nutrition or generation 38. And albeit the vnbeleefe of heretiks doth not reach to comprehend and acknowledge that God should do a myracle or action aboue nature euery tyme that this happeneth out yet can they not deny yt in other things As for example that euery tyme when any children are begotten throughout the world God immediatly createth new soules for them which needs must be thousands euery day yet none of our sectaryes will deny or scoffe at this or hold yt for absurd the like may be said of all the supernaturall effectes benefites which God bestoeth dayly hourly vpon vs in the Sacraments or otherwise 39. There remayne only some few places out of the Fathers to be explaned which were obiected in this article partly by Maister Grindall against Doctor Glyn and partly also by Peter Martyr in the end of his Oxford-disputation but related by Fox in the question of Transubstantiation not of the reall-presence though properly they appertayne to this as now yow will see The first place is out of Tertullian against Marcion the heretike where he hath these words saith Fox This is my body that is to say this is the signe of my body Whervnto I answere that Fox dealeth heere like a Fox in cytinge these words so cuttedly for that Tertullian in this very place as in many others doth most effectually not only say but proue also that bread is turned into Christs true body after the words of consecration and so do the Magdeburgians affirme expressely of him his words are these Christ takinge bread and distributinge the same vnto his disciples made yt his body sayinge this is my body that is the figure of my body and immediatly followeth Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus but yt had not byn the figure of Christs body yf his body had not byn a true body or truly their present In which words Tertullian affirmeth two things yf yow marke him First that Christ made bread his true body then that bread had byn a figure of his body in the old Testament which could not be yf his body were not a true body but a phantasticall body as Marcion did wickedly teach for that a phantasticall body hath no figure And this much for the true literall sense of Tertullian in this place who goinge about to shew that Christ did fullfill all the figures of the old Testament consequently was sonne of the God of the old Testament which Marcionists did deny fullfilled also the figure wherin bread presignified his true body to come by makinge bread his body sayinge this bread that was the figure of my body in the old Testament is now my true body in the new and so doth the truth succeed the figure And this to be the true literall sense and scope of Tertullian in this place as before I haue said euery man may see plainly that will read the place 40. The other places are taken out of diuers other Fathers who some tymes do call the Sacrament a figure or signe representation or similitude of Christs body death passion bloud as S. Augustine in Psalm 2. Christ gaue a figure of his body and lib. cont Adamant cap. 12. he did not doubt to say this is my body when he gaue a figure of his body And S. Hierome Christ represented vnto vs his body And S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. As thou hast receaued the similitude of his death so drinkest thou the similitude of his pretious bloud These places I say and some other the like that may be obiected are to be vnderstood in the like sense as those places of Saint Paul are wherin Christ is called by him a figure Figura substantiae Patris A figure of the substance of his Father Heb. 1. And againe Imago Dei An Image of God Colloss 1. And further yet Habitu inuentus vt homo Appearinge in the likenes of a man Philipp 2. All which places as they do not take from Christ that he was the true substance of his Father or true God or true man in deed though out of euery one of these places some particular heresies haue byn framed by auncient heretiks against his diuinity or humanity so do not the forsaid phrases sometymes vsed by the auncient Fathers callinge the Sacrament a figure signe representation or similitude of Christs body exclude the truth or reality therof for
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
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
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
gall vttered in the preface therof against this disputation concludeth the same with these passionate words as they are in Fox 77. Thus vvas ended the most glorious disputation of the most holy Fathers Sacrificers Doctors and Maisters vvho fought most manfully for their God and Gods for their faith and felicity for their countrey and kitchen for their beuty and belly vvith triumphant applauses and famous of the vvhole vniuersity So hee And by this yow may know the man and how much his words are to be credited yow hauing considered what hath byn laid downe before by Fox his owne report touching the substance of the disputation and authorityes of Fathers alleaged and examined and shifted of though in the forme of scholasticall disputation and vrging arguments yt may be there were some disorders yet that maketh not so much to the purpose how arguments were vrged against them as how they were aunswered by them and yet could not the disorder be so great as it was vnder Ridley himselfe in the Cambridge-disputation as is most euident to the reader by Fox his owne relation who as before I haue noted is alwayes to be presumed to relate the worst for vs and the best for himselfe in all these actions 78. Wherfore yt is not a little to be considered what was the difference in substance or substantiall proofes brought forth in the Cambridge Protestant-disputations vnder K. Edward and these Oxford Catholike-disputations vnder Q. Mary and whether Doctor Ridley that was moderator of those or Doctor VVeston prolocutor in these did best vrge or solue arguments against their aduersaryes for that this consideration and comparison only will giue a great light to discerne also the difference of the causes therin defended One thinge also more is greatly in my opinion to be weighed in this matter which is that the said auncient Fathers hauinge to persuade so high and hard a mystery as this is that Christs true and naturall flesh and bloud are really vnder the formes of bread and wyne by vertue of the Priests consecration they were forced to vse all the manner of most significant speaches which they could diuise to expresse the same and to beate yt into the peoples heads and mynds though contrary to their senses and common reason and therby to fly from the opposite heresie and infidelity of our Sacramentaryes lurkinge naturally in the harts of flesh and bloud and of sensuall people but synce that tyme by Sathans incytation broached and brought forth publikely into the world For meetinge wherwith the holy prouidence of almighty God was that the forsaid Fathers should by all sorts of most significant speaches phrases as hath byn said so cleerly lay open their meanings in this matter as no reasonable man can doubt therof and not only this but also that they should vse certaine exaggerations the better to explane themselues such as they are wont to do in other controuersies also when they would vehemently oppose themselues against any error or heresie as by the examples of Saint Augustine against the Pelagians in behalfe of Grace and against the Manichees in the defence of Free-will And of S. Hierome against Iouinian for the priuiledge of Virginity aboue marriage and other like questions wherin the said Fathers to make themselues the better vnderstood do vse sometymes such exaggeratiue speaches as they may seeme to inclyne somewhat to the other extreme which indeed they do not but do shew therby their feruour in defence of the truth and hatred of the heresie which they impugne 79. And the like may be obserued in this article of the reall-presence of Christs sacred body in the Sacrament of the Altar which being a mystery of most high importance and hardest to be beleeued as aboue humayne sense and reason and therfore called by them the myracle of mysteryes yt was necessary for them I say to vse as many effectuall wayes as they possible could for persuadinge the said truth vnto the people and for preuenting the distrustfull cogitations and suggestions both of humayne infirmity and diabolicall infidelity against the receaued faith and truth of this article and so they did not only vsinge most cleere plaine effectuall and significant manner of expounding themselues and their meaninge but many such exaggerations also as must needs make vs see the desire they had to be rightly and fully vnderstood therein For better consideration of which point being of singular moment as hath byn said the reader shall haue a little patience whilst I detayne my selfe somewhat longer then I meant to haue done in layinge forth the same before him 80. And first of all concerninge the effectuall speaches for vtteringe the truth of their beleefe in this article yow haue heard much in the former disputation and heere we shall repeat some points againe which in effect are that wheras the said Fathers founded themselues ordinaryly vpon those speaches of our Sauiour This is my body vvhich shal be giuen for yow my flesh is truly meate and my bloud is truly drinke The bread vvhich I shall giue yow is my flesh for the life of the vvorld and other like sentences of our Sauiour the Fathers do not only vrge all the circumstances heere specified or signified to proue yt to be the true naturall and substantiall body of Christ as that yt was to be giuen for vs the next day after Christs words were spoken that yt was to be giuen for the life of the whole world that yt was truly meate and truly Christs flesh but do adde also diuers other circumstances of much efficacy to confirme the same affirminge the same more in particular that it is the very same body which was borne of the blessed Virgin the very same body that suffered on the Crosse corpus affixum verberatum crucifixum cruentatum lanceae vulneratum saith S. Chrysostome the selfe-same body that was nayled beaten crucisied blouded wounded with a speare is receaued by vs in the Sacrament Whervnto S. Austen addeth this particularity that yt is the selfe-same body that walked heere amonge vs vpon earth As he vvalked heere in flesh saith he amonge vs so the very selfe same flesh doth he giue to be eaten and therfore no man eateth that flesh but first adoreth at and Hisichius addeth that he gaue the selfe-same body vvherof the Angell Gabriell said to the Virgin Mary that it should be conceaued of the holy Ghost And yet further yt is the same body saith S. Chrysostome that the Magi or learned men did adore in the manger But thou dost see him saith he not in the manger but in the Altar not in the armes of a vvoman but in the hands of a Priest The very same flesh saith S. Austen againe that sate at the table in the last supper and vvashed his disciples seet The very same I say did Christ giue with his owne hands to his disciples vvhen he said take eate
6. de oper sex dieâ—um Damascen l. 2. cap. 7. Of the actiuity of accidents being seperated from their substance The vvord SacrameÌ„t explicated The other vvords of tipe figure c. explicated Note this example Tvvo significatioÌ„s of the vvord sacramentally and both against the Sacramentaryes 1. 2. VVhat the vvord spiritually signifieth in this mystery Our heretiks cauill like to that of the Arrians Concil Trâ— dent sess 13. Canâ—â— D. Them 3. part q. 80. art 1. 1. Cor. 11. Aug. l. 5. de â—apt cap. 8. Aug. epist. 162. in psalm 10. Aug. tract 25. in Ioan. Aug. ep 49. q. â— 1. Cor. 8. Matth. 22. Tertul l. de resur caro â—â—ter in ep ad Pamachiâ—m Matth. 11. Guitmundus lib 2. Algerus leb 2 cont Berengarium Tert lib. do carn Christs Theod. l. 4. haeret faehul Euagr. l. 1. hist. c. 2. Notethese tvvo examples The first effect of sacrifice The secoÌ„d effect of sacrifice vvith 3. degrees therof Tvvo thinges to be considered Di a It is graunted sa b It is true naturally mis. c But ye may be supernaturally Da d That is by course of nature ri e True j. f True naturally g It is true according â—â— the ordinary nature of a soule h The one and the other may be by Gods omnipoteÌ„cy i True according to their ordinary course of nature k Christ in the SacrameÌ„t filleth no place Ba l This is falle for Fox his soule vvas in his foote and head and yet not God ro co m Naturally Fe sti n This is false no. Fe o This graunted sti p It is true de facto in heaueÌ„ but not in the SacrameÌ„t no. q True as it is circuscribed Da r True naturally but not supernaturally ri s True though a body is 〈…〉 quaÌ„tity but a substance that hath quantity j. t Non soquitur Aug. l. 21 de Ciuit. Dâ—â— cap. â—1 Philâ— of his styire in the conuocation house about this argument Fox pag. 1288. 1. Tim. Melancth Epistola ad Martâ—â—um 〈◊〉 To the first argument To the second To the third To the fourth To the fifth To the sixt To the seauenth To the eyght Ba ro co S. Augustines sentence of drinkinge Christs bloud Aug. in exposit Isalm 33. In Psalm â—5 Tract 31. in Ioan. De vtilâ—t paenit c. 1. Lib. 2. contra aduers. leg proph c. 9. Fe a VVithouâ— all quantity ri b Not vvithout all quantity â— Fox paâ— 1327. A Comicall diuise of Iohn Fox Fox ibid. Da ri a False foolish j. Ee ri a False nor are these properly qualityes â— * Suâ—ra mâ—â—se decembri Fe a It is denyed â—i b And the like follovveth of the reall presence vvithout TransubstantiatioÌ„ son Ca a True fruitfully â—es b FruiÌ„tefully they hâ—ue not tres 1. Cor. 12. Cypr. sorâ—â— de lapsis Aug â— cont Fulgent Donatist cap 6. lib. 2. cont Petâ—lian cap 11. in psalm 10. serm 11 de verbis Domini 1. de adulter conâ—â—g c. 17. trast 50. in Ioan. Aug. l 2â— de Cuâ—t des cap. 31. Ican 6. * Non Sacrament tenus Matth. 20. Math. ibid. Box pag. 1466. â—a â—â— â—â— Bo See this argument vrged by Causton Higbed and other Foxian Marâ—yrs pag. 1400. c. car do Ioan. 20. Ioan. 16. 7. Fox pag. 11â—1 * Meâ—sâ— Decemâ—r First obiection Fox pag. 1400. Zuingl l. da verâ— fals Religcap de Euchar The auâ—svvere Aug. Cyril in Ioan. Ioan. 6. a Lib. 3. in â—p ad Rom. cap â— b Serm. de Caena Dom. c Onâ—â—es d â—â—hunc e locum 6. loan M. Guests argument against the reall presence Fox pag. 1258. col 2. num 80. Gâ—n 2. D. Perne Fox paâ— 1261. col 1. num 8. Guests second argument Fox pag. 1259. Lib. primo Generat lib. 3. Phys. Pilkintonâ— second argument Pilkintons third argument Pilkintons fourth argument Ioan. 12. Ioan. 17. M. Philips his argument Fox pag. 1283. Matth. 11. Iean 12. Aug. tract 50. in loan Tract 70 in leaâ—o Aug. ibid. Pag. 1283. in margine Fox pag. 12. 4. â—l 2. num 10. Philâ—otts first argument Fox pag. 1287. 1288. The aunsvvere to M. Cheneyes argument about mitrition generatioÌ„ Certayne places of Fathers explaned Fox pag. 1250. col 2. Tert. lib. 4 cont Marcion c. 40. Magd. câ—nt 2. cap. 4. Ould hetetikes haue framed some particular heresies out of the Fathers by their misvnderstandinge their meaning Ambr. l. 4. de Sacraâ—â— cap. 4. S. Ambrose expoundeth himselfe against the ProtestaÌ„ts Aug. tract 25. in Ioan. The conclusion of this chapter The miserable case of sectaryes vvith out any sure ground to Icane vnto Disputation in the conuocatioÌ„ house Fox pag. 1287. col 2. num 30. Philpott First point to be obserued The secoÌ„d point to be obserued The third point considerable The 4. point of note D. Glyâ—â—e his first discourse Ioan. 6. Ibidem Ioan. 1. The Ievves equall to vs by the sacramentary doctrine Ioan. 6. Fox pag. 1253. AdoratioÌ„ of the Sacrament Aug in Psalm 98. Chrysost. hom 60. ad Pop Antioch Psalm 9â— S. Ambrose and S. Austen handsomely shifted of D. Glyns reply Fox pag. 1254. A strange shiftinge of the authorityes of Fathers Fox paâ— 1â—54 col â— num 3. Fox pag. 1254. S. Chrysostome shifted of Matth. 11. Hovv S. Iohn Baptist vvas Elyas Ioan. 1. Langdale disputeth Fox pag. 1256. col 1. num 43. Fox ibid. M. Sedgewicke his disputatâ—â—n M. Ridley his ovvne contradiction Fox ibid. M. Yonges disputation The confutation of â— after Ridiâ—yes euasion about Saint Cyprian Fox pag. 1300. Fox pag. 1326. Matth. 2â— Marc 14. Luc. 22. Fox pag. 1 302. col 1. num 70. â— Chadsoys first argument Sup. cap. 3. The secoÌ„d argumeÌ„t Fox pag. 1302. Aug 1. â—â— vnitat Ecil cap. 10. 3. Argument Chrysost. hom 61. ad Pop. Antiâ—ch Fox pag. 1303 col 2. num 1. 4. Argument or reply In Psal. 50. Chrysost. hom 38. in Matth. Fox pag. 1303. Chrysost. hom 29. in 2. Cor. 13. Fox pag. 1233. col 1. 〈◊〉 74. 5. Argument Chrysost. hom 34. D. VVeston doth vrgâ— eagerly vrgo hec vrgo hâ—c Fox pag. 1233. 6. Argument D. Chadsey Tertull. l. de resâ—â—â—ct carneâ— c. 8. Cranmers shifting of Tertulliâ—â— Tert. ibid. Fox pag. 2305. 7. Argument out of S. Hilary D. Tressaâ— Ioâ—n 6. Fox pag. 1306. Hilar. l. 8. do Trunt Bucer l. cont Abrincensem Fox pag. 1306. Hilar. ibid. Fox ibid. D. Yonge disputeth Fox pag. 1307. col 2. num 30. Fox angry vvith a syllogisme Amb. de eâ— qui initiantur Ambr. l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. S. Ambrose most cleere against Cranmer and Fâ—x S. Ambrose corrected by Fox Hovv Cranmer shifteth of Saint Ambrose Fox pag. 1308 col 1. num 7â— Ambr. l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. Ambr. l. 6. de Sacram. cap. 1. The testimony of S. Iustine examined Iustin. Apol. 2. Iren. lib. 5. cap. 2. cont haeres Diuers corruptioÌ„s obiected to Cranmer Fox pag.