lookinge-glasse that represented but one face vnto yow when yt was whole being broken into many parts euery part will represent wholy the selfe-same face The voyce also of him that speaketh to a great multitude though yt be but one in yt selfe yet cometh yt wholy to euery mans eares which S. Augustine alleaged for a wonderfull thinge towards the prouinge of Gods being wholy euery-where Omne quod sonat saith he omnibus totum est singulis totum est All that soundeth is heard wholy of all and wholy of euery particular man And though these examples be not like in euery respect yet may they serue for a certayne induction to make vs comprehend the other wherof we now speake 31. Last of all Catholike diuines do not only shew the possibility of this point that our Sauiours body may be in diuers places at once as also that sundry other mysteryes of our faith are beleeued of more difficulty then this yf we regard common sense and reason but do shew also out of the scriptures themselues that Christ after his assension hath byn in more then one place at once as is manifest by that famous apparition of his to S. Paul recorded in the acts of the Apostles when he appeared vnto him in the way neere to Damasco inuironed with a great light and talked with him in such sort as both the light and words were seene and heard by his companions and many other apparitions to S. Peter himselfe testified by Egesippus and S. Ambrose to S. Anthony also testified by S. Gregory besides diuers others recorded by S. Paulinus Ioannes Diaconus and other authenticall wryters from whome except we will derogate all creditt and authority we may not doubt but that Christ remayninge still in heauen for so hould both we and Protestants togeather that he departed not from thence appeared also in diuers places of the earth to his Saints and consequently his body could be in diuers places at once wherby is broken and dissolued another squadron of arguments framed by the Sacramentaryes of our dayes to the simple people as though Christs reall body could not be in the Sacrament for that yt is in heauen wheras we affirme that both may be and stand togeather though in different manner for that in heauen he is circumscriptiuely and in the Sacrament sacramentally which tearmes we haue before declared The sixth Obseruation How Christes body in the Sacrament may be now vnder a greater forme now vnder a losse and the least that may be discerned §. 6. 32. By this also which is said may be conceaued how the sacred body of our Sauiour in the Sacramēt vnder the accidents of bread is sometymes in a greater visible quantity and sometymes in a lesse accordinge to the externall formes and accidents vnder which yt is yea and in the least part parcell of the consecrated host that is perceptible to our sense for that the said body being remoued by Gods omnipotent power from all locall extension it may be vnder a greater or smaller externall quantity without alteration of the body yt selfe as we see in the soule of man which is the selfe-same in the least part of the body wherin it is as in the greatest or in the whole body yea when the said body is changed or groweth from a lesser to a greater quantity as in an infant who after commeth to be a great man the selfe-same soule replenisheth the one and the other without grouth or diminution in yt selfe and so the body of Christ in a great host or a little or in any least part therof when yt is broken is wholy and the selfe-same body with the selfe-same internall organicall quantity which yt had vnder a great host And this point that the quantity of a substance may be increased or diminished externally in respect of place without alteratiō of the inward quantity or substāce is euident by many examples which we see dayly of rarefaction and condensation As for example when a gallon of water is put in a great vessell ouer the fire yt cometh by boylinge to fill the whole vessell that is capable of many gallons and yet as the inward substance is not increased so neyther the quantity in yt selfe and contrary wise when the said water is againe cooled it returneth to occupy as small a place as yt did at the beginninge and yet retayneth allwayes the selfe same both quantity and substance 33. By which example many other that may be alleaged some kind of notice may be gathered vnto our common sense and reason how the substance of Christs body in the Sacrament togeather with his internall quantity may by his omnipotent power be sometymes vnder a great externall quantity or extension in place sometymes vnder a lesser yea the least that by our senses may be perceaued and yet is Christs body wholy and entirely there accordinge in some proportion to the lookinge-glasse before mentioned which being broken into diuers small peeces each one representeth the whole visage seuerally which before was exhibited by the whole And so when any consecrated host is broken into many parts that which was cōteyned before in the whole host is now cōteyned wholy vnder euery particular parcell therof as yt was also before And to this effect are those words of S. Epiphanius before alleaged against them that said Videmus quod est aequale c. We see that the host receaued in the Sacrament is not equall or like to the figure of Christs body but is round c. Wherfore all the arguments of Fox his Martyrs that were founded on this improportion of the host to Christs naturall and externall quantity haue no ground at all but a little fraudulent shew and appearance of sensible improbability and yet were many of their cheefest arguments builded on this only foundation as yow haue seene readinge ouer their historyes before recyted and shall do more afterward when we come to examine their arguments seuerally and in the meanee space this shall suffice for an aduertisment about this obseruation The seauenth Obseruation How accidents may be without a subiect and of their operations in that case §. 7. 34. The seauenth obseruation may be about the accidents or formes of bread and wyne that do remayne by Gods omnipotent power without a subiect after the words of consecration as they did before in the substance of bread whervpon the more simple sort of Sacramentaryes following sense will needs argue that the substance also of bread wyne do remayne after the said consecration and those that be more learned do go about to proue the same by philosophicall reason for that the nature of an accident is to be in another as the nature of a substance is to be in yt selfe wherof ensueth that for so much as no accident can be in God as in a subiect neyther are they in Christs body as we also doe
vsed against Lambert out of the scriptures doth Doctor Smith vse now against Ridley to witt that Christ appeared corporally and really on earth after his assension to S. Paul and others ergò his being in heauen is no lâ—t to his reall presence in the Sacrament The antecedent he proued out of the Acts of the Apostles and S. Paules Epistles where yt is shewed that Christ appeared vnto him after his assension but Ridley did not aunswere this argument as Lambert and other Sacramentaryes before him had done denyinge that Christ appeared corporally and really vpon earth but rather that his voyce was heard from heauen but he said that Christ left heauen for a tyme and came downe I do not saith he so straitly tye Christ vp to heauen that he may not come into earth at his pleasure howbeit I do affirme that yt is not possible for him to be in earth and heauen at one tyme. So hee whervnto Doctor Smith replyed ergò yt is lawfull for Christ to be heere present on earth vvhen he will Ridley Yea when he will yt is lawfull Smith Ergò his ascendinge to heauen doth not restrayne his reall presence in the Sacrament Ridley I do not gainsay but that yt is lawfull for him to appeare on earth when he will but proue yow that he will 43. Lo heere another starting hole but yet first yow see the great Sacramentary bullwarke so much stood vpon by others that Christ is in heauen at the right hand of God and that the heauens must receaue him vntill the day of iudgement and consequently cannot be vpon earth or in the Sacrament is quite forsaken by Ridley grauntinge that this argument proueth nothinge he is ascended to heauen ergò he is not on earth for he may leaue heauen and come downe accordinge to Ridley Yea Ridleyes owne principall ground is forsaken by him for that among his fiue principall grounds and headsprings for so he calleth them sett downe by him in his Cambridge disputation vvhy he did inclyne to this sentence and iudgement for then he was but inclininge the last was yf yow remember the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith he ascended into heauen which now yow see may stand without this doctrine Secondly wheras he denyeth that Christ will depart from heauen at any tyme sayinge proue yow yf he vvill yet very soone after being pressed by Doctor Smith out of the scriptures that Christ after his assension vvas seene visibly really and corporally vpon earth he answered in these words I graunt the antecedent that is Christ did appeare on earth Smith Do you graunt the antecedent Ridley Yea I graunt the antecedent because I know that there be certayne ancient Fathers of that opinion Heere yow see that Ridley by grauntinge this antecedent to witt that Christ after his assension did appeare really and corporally vpon earth eyther doth contradict himselfe when he denyed before that Christ would euer come out of heauen notwithstandinge he could or els he must graunt that Christ appeared vpon earth against his will or without his owne will which were a greater absurdity then any of the other 44. And furthermore he contradicteth himselfe againe in that he said a little before that Christ may leaue heauen and come downe into earth vvhen he vvill For being asked by Doctor Smith this question Doth Christ so sitt at the right hand of his Father that he doth neuer foresake the same Ridley answereth in these words Yf yow vnderstand his sitting to be after a corporall manner of sitting so is he alwayes permanent in heauen Which yf yt be true then is that false which before he said that Christs body is not so tyed to heauen but that he may come downe into the earth vvhen he vvill And much more false is yt that Christ did really and corporally appeare vpon earth to Saint Paul and others as a little before he graunted so as by these yow may see the briars wherinto Ridley was driuen about this argument 45. The third point to be noted in these inconstant speaches of Ridley is that yt is not possible for Christs body to be in heauen and earth at one tyme and yet when we vrge them with impiety for laying impossibilityes to Gods omnipotency they will presently runne to that answere as Ridley also afterward doth that they dispute not what God can do but what he vvill do Wherfore to returne to our disputation when Doctor VVeston heard him talke of this impossibility that Christ yf he would appeare in earth must leaue heauen he tooke vpon him to conuince this falsity out of two authorityes the one of S. Chrysostome the other of S. Bernard S Chrysostome his place is vpon the Epistle to the Hebrues talkinge of the dayly externall sacrifice of Christians offered throughout the world in many churches at once saith thus vna est haec oblatio non multae c. this oblation we offer is one and not many and how is it one and not many which being once offered vp in sancto sanctorum to witt vpon the Crosse notwithstandinge is offered by vs dayly This sacrifice which dayly we offer is a paterne of that once offered on the Crosse and alwayes we offer the selfe-same not offeringe now one lambe and to morrow another but alwayes the selfe-same wherfore heere is but one sacrifice for that otherwayes by this meanes yf there be many sacrifices in many places there should be many Christs which is not so but one Christ in all places qui hic plenius illic plenus vnum corpus which Christ is fully heere and fully there being but one body c. 46. Out of which place Doctor VVeston did vrge B. Ridley very straitly who first would seeme to make light of the place sayinge these things make nothinge against me but VVeston vrged how say yow then one Christ is in all places heere fully and there fully Ridley One Christ is in all places but not one body is in all places c. And this euasion pleaseth so much Iohn Fox as he wryteth in the margent one Christ but not one body in all places as though Christ could be separated from his body or as though S. Chrysostome did not expressely talke of one body Heere Christ fully and there Christ fully one body and the very next words of Chrysostome immediatly followinge are these euen as then Christ offered in many places is one body and not many bodyes so is the sacrifice also but one But lett vs heare Doctor VVeston vrge the same Weston One body saith Chrysostome Ridley But not after the maner of bodily substance he is in all places not by circumscription of places for hic illic heere and there in Chrysostome do assigne no place as Augustine saith Sursum est Dominus vbique est veritas Domini The Lord is aboue but the truth of the Lord is in all places Weston Yow cannot so
them in these disputations not with the cuppe but with substantiall graue and learned arguments yow will not maruaile that he is so angry with him for in very deed he brought them alwayes to the greatest exigents of any other and more then all the rest togeather Now then lett vs passe to the disputation 19. Doctor Chadsay was the first that disputed against Cranmer beginninge with the institution of Christs Sacrament recorded by S. Mathew Marke and Luke shewinge out of them by diuers plaine clauses and circumstances that Christ in his last supper gaue vnto his disciples not bread but his true naturall body which was giuen the next day on the Crosse to all which Cranmer aunswered thus Yf yow vnderstand by the body naturall Organicum that is hauing such proportion of members as he had liuinge heere then I aunsivere negatiuely By which aunswere we may perceaue that this great Doctor who had wrytten a great booke against the reall-presence by which Latymer amongst others was made a Sacramentary and stood therein vnto death vpon the creditt of this booke as after yow shall heare him often professe vnderstandeth not the very state of the question betweene vs for that we hould not Christs body in the Sacrament to be Organicall in that manner as Cranmer heere imagineth with externall dimensions proportions of members as he liued vpon earth though truly organicall in another manner without extension to place as in our fourth and fifth obseruations before sett downe we haue declared so as he erringe in the very grounds and first principles of the controuersie yow may imagine how he will proceed in the rest 20. It was obiected vnto him next after this that as a wise-man lyinge on his death-bedd and hauing care that his heyres after his departure do liue in quiett and not contend about his Testament doth not vse tropes and figures but cleare and plaine speach in the said Testament so must we presume of Christ for the confirmation of this Doctor VVeston alleaged a place out of S. Augustine De vnitate Ecclesiae vrginge this very same similitude that yf the last words of any graue or honest man lyinge on his death-bedd are to be beleeued much more the last words of our Sauiour Christ in his supper to which argument I find no effectuall aunswere giuen at all but only that Cranmer saith that he vvhich speaketh by tropes and figures doth not lie but he aunswereth not to the other inconuenience that his heyres may fall out about his Testament the one vnderstandinge them literally the other figuratiuely as we they do the words of Christ about this Sacrament 21. Next to this is brought in a large testimony of S. Chrysostome out of his homily vnto the people of Antioch which beginneth Necessarium est dilectissimi mysteriorum discere miracuâ—um quid tandem sit quare sit datum quae rei â—tilitas c. It is necessary most dearely beloued to know this myracle of mysteryes what yt is and why yt was giuen and what profitt cometh to vs therby c. And then S. Chrysostome declareth at large how Christ most myraculously aboue all humaine power giueth his body to be handled and eaten by vs â—n the Sacrament so as we fasten our teeth in his flesh and that he did more then euer any parents did who many tymes giue their children to others to be fed but Christ feedeth vs with his owne flesh and with that very flesh by which he is our brother and vnited vnto vs in flesh Out of which discourse D. VVeston â—rged that for so much as Christ is made our brother and kins-man by his true naturall organicall flesh erge he gaue the same his true naturall and organicall flesh to vs to be eaten in the Sacrament Wherto Cranmer aunswered I graunt the consequence and the consequent Which is contrary to that he said a little before yf yow marke yt that his organicall body was not there 22. But Doctor VVeston went further that seing he graunted this then did yt follow also that his true organicall flesh was receaued in our mouth which S. Chrysostome calleth our teeth But this Cranmer denyed and said he vvas eaten only by faith Whervpon VVeston came on him againe sayinge that for so much as he gaue vs the selfe-same flesh to eate in the Sacrament and this with our teeth as S. Chrysostome saith wherby he became our brother kins-man yt must needs import a reall eatinge Wherto Cramner aunswered I graunt he tooke and gaue in the Sacrament the same true naturall and organicall flesh vvherin he suffered but feedeth vs spiritually and his flesh is receaued spiritually This was his aunswere and this he repeateth often and from this he could not be drawne And heere now yow see the practise of that shift wherof we haue spoken before in our eyght and nynth obseruation whereby these willfull people vnder the tearmes of spiritually and sacramentally do delude them selues their readers as though they said somewhat to auoid Catholike arguments taken out of auncient Fathers plaine and perspicuous authorityes wheras indeed they say nothinge in substance at all but do turne and wynd and hide themselues vnder the sound of different words without sense For yf yt be true as Cranmer heere graunted that Christ gaue his true naturall and organicall flesh to be eaten â—n the Sacrament and that with our teeth or corporall mouth as S. Chrysostome saith how can yt be denyed but that we eat his flesh really and not spiritually only yf spiritually be opposite to really as in Cranmers sense yt is which vnderstandeth spiritually and figuratiuely to be all one but in our sense spiritually standeth with really for that we hould Christs body to be receaued really and substantially in the Sacrament but yet after a spirituall manner different from that which the Capharnaits did imagine of a grosse carnall eatinge of Christs flesh as other flesh is accustomed to be eaten wherfore to imagine that Christs true naturall or organicall flesh is eaten truly in the Sacrament and yet only absent by faith spiritually and in a figure is to speake contradictoâ—yes with one breath 23. Diuers other texts and testimonyes of 〈◊〉 Chrysostome were alleaged by Doctor VVeston â—o confute this ideacall fiction of Doctor Cranner as that for example homilia 83. in cap. 26. â—atth Where he saith amonge other thinges â—eniat tibi in mentem c. Lett yt come into thy remembrance with what honour thou art honoured in the Sacrament what table hou dost inioy for that we are nourished herin with the selfe-same thinge which the â—ngells do behould and tremble at c. VVho shall speake the powers of thy Lord VVho shall declare forth all his praises VVhat pastor hath euer nourished his sheepe vvith his owne flesh c. Christ feedeth vs vvith his owne body and conioyneth vniteth vs to him therby And
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
doubted so much in grauntinge and denyinge Christs body to haue appeared vpon earth as in the former disputations of Doctor Smith yow haue partly heard though much be omitted for breuityes sake he began to vrge him againe in that point alleaginge against him the authority of a Catechisme sett forth by himselfe in the name of the whole conuocation-house in K. Edwards dayes where the selfe-same point is graunted which heere he denyed but Ridley for two or three abouts would not yeld that the Catechisme was his though the iudges said that Cranmer had confessed the matter the day before and Maister VVard auouched to his face that he being Bishop of London in his ruffe compelled him to subscribe thervnto yet at length he confessed that both he and Cranmer had approued the same vnder their hands that the place alleaged against him might easily be expounded without any incōuenience and so they slydd away from that matter and a place of Theophilact came in question where he wryteth that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament of the Altar non dixit hoc est figura corporis mei sed hoc est corpus meum he said not that this is the figure of my body but this is my body which authority Ridley wiped of by sayinge his meaninge to be that yt was not only a figure of his body Wherevnto Doctor VVeston replyd that this only was one lye put in by him for that Theophilact had no such word nor could yt stand with his sense for that he did not make the opposition betweene figure and only but betweene the body and figure sayinge yt vvas his body and not a figure of his body And for proofe of this another place of Theophilact was alleaged vpon Saint Iohn where his words are quoniam infirmi sumus c. for that vve are infirme and abhorre to eate raw-flesh especially the flesh of man therefore yt appeared bread but is flesh what can be more plaine and perspicuous then this and yet do I not find any annswere to haue byn giuen by Doctor Ridley to this place but that he passed to another matter to expound the word Transelemented vsed by Theophilact And I passe ouer diuers other places as that of Tertullian acceptum panem corpus suum illud fecit he takinge bread made yt his body and that of Iustinus Martyr sayinge That Christs flesh in the Sacrament is the same that vvas taken of the blessed Virgin And that of S. Augustine vpon the Psalme that he gaue vs to eat the selfe same flesh wherin he vvalked vpon earth All which places being obiected before to Cranmer and read both then now out of the authors themselues by Doctor VVeston that had the books by him were no otherwise aunswered heere then by the same shifts which Cranmer had auoyded them before yt appearinge euidently that they had agreed vpon certayne distinctions and common euasions wherby to delude all the Fathers authorityes that might be brought against them though they were neuer so cleere or pregnant for the purpose 56. It followeth that by order of disputation the turne came to Doctor Glyn to dispute against Doctor Ridley who made saith Fox a very contumelious preface against him vvhich Ridley tooke the more to heart for that he had allwayes taken him to be his frend And albeit Fox doth not sett downe the same preface yet by Doctor Glyns entrance to his argument a man may see that the cheefe point was in reprehendinge him for deludinge and shiftinge of both scriptures and fathers so shamfully as he had heard him do for he saith I see that yow euade or shift away all scriptures fathers And Ridley answered this is a greeuous contumely that yow call me a shifter c. And finally Doctor Glyn endeauored to draw him to yeld to the Catholike Church which being the piller of truth could not be thought to haue fallen to such Idolatry as for many ages to haue worshipped erroneously bread and wyne for the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist and for proofe therof he alleaged Saint Augustine against Faustin the Manichec where he saith that this vse of adoring Christs body in the Sacrament was so auncient and publike as some pagans did thinke that Christians did adore Ceres and Bacchu◠the Gods of bread and wyne He alleaged also Erasmus authority who affirmeth that this worshipping and adoration of the Sacrament of the Altar was in vse before the tyme of S. Augustins and S. Cyprian which is not so in the Sacrament of Baptisme though Ridley affirme there is as much the flesh of Christ as in the other and consequently there is some speciall cause in the Eucharist aboue other Sacraments To which two authorityes I find nothinge aunswered particularly as neyther to Erasmus but to the thing it selfe Ridley aunswered VVe do handle the signes reuerently c. And againe There is a deceyt in this word Adoramus we adore for vve vvorshipp the symbolls vvhen reuerently vve handle them vve vvorshipp vvhersoeuer vve perccaue benefitts Whervnto Doctor Glyn aunswered So I might fall downe before the bench heere and worshipp Christ therin c. For a bench also is a beneficiall creature to them that sitt on yt But for all this no further satisfaction could be had but that all the adoe which the Fathers do make about the highest honour in earth to be giuen to the Sacrament of the Altar comes to no more by these mens interpretations but that the signes of bread and vvyne must be reuerently handled Christ absent must be vvorshipped therein as in other thinges vvherin vve perceaue or receaue his benefitts vvhich indeed are all his creatures made ordayned for our profitt for by them all we perceaue receaue Christs benefitts So as all these great admirations of the Fathers about the honour worshipp adoration due to this Sacrament come to no more in effect but that vve must reuerence Christ therin as in other his beneficiall creatures and vvorshipp the symboll of bread and wyne as much as you do the water in baptisme vvhich yet neuer any of the Fathers said was to be adored by vs as they do of the Eucharist though Baptisme be a most necessary and profitable Sacrament 57. Then disputed one Doctor Curtopp alleaginge a place out of S. Chrysostome affirminge that which is in the cupp or chalice to be the same bloud after the words of consecration that flowed from the side of Christ wherof he inferred that true and naturall bloud did flow from the side of Christ ergò true and naturall bloud was in the chalice To this Ridley answered in effect after his ould fashion that yt was true bloud that is to say the Sacrament of his bloud Curtopp The Sacrament of the bloud is not the bloud Ridley The Sacrament of the bloud is the bloud and that is attributed to the
mynds haue trifled but it is truly the very body and bloud of our Sauiour indeed And finally the whole generall Councell of Nice the second aboue 800. yeares past hath these words do yow read as longe as yow vvill yow shall neuer find Christ or his Apostles or the Fathers to haue called the vnhloudy sacrifice of Christ offered by the Priest an image or representation but the very body and bloud of Christ it selfe And could the auncient Fathers speake more effectually properly or cleerly then this 85. And yet he that will examine and weigh their sayings a man exactly shall find them to speake in a certaine manner more effectually for that they did study as we haue said how to vtter their meaninge with emphasie S. Hilary vseth this kind of argument yf the word of God were truly made flesh then do we truly receaue his flesh in the Lords supper and therby he is to be steemed to dwell in vs naturally S. Cyrill proueth not only a spirituall but a naturall and bodily vnion to be betweene vs and Christ by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament Theodorete doth proue that Christ tooke flesh of the blessed Virgin and ascended vp with the same and holdeth the same there by that he giueth to vs his true flesh in the Sacrament for that otherwayes he could not giue vs his true flesh to eate yf his owne flesh were not true seeing that he gaue the same that he carryed vp and retayneth in heauen S. Irenaeus S. Iustine S. Chrysostome do proue not only this but the resurrection also of our bodyes by the truth of Christs flesh in the Sacracrament for that our flesh ioyninge with his flesh which is immortall ours shal be immortall also And the same Saint Irenaeus also doth proue further that the great God of the ould Testament creator of heauen and earth was Christs Father for proofe wherof he alleageth this reason that Christ in the Sacrament did fullfill the figures of the old Testament that in particular wherin bread was a figure of his flesh which he fulfilled saith Irenaeus makinge yt his flesh indeed 86. I passe ouer many other formes of speaches no lesse effectuall which doe easily declare the Fathers mynds and meaninges in this point as that of Optatus Mileuitanus who accused the Donatists of sacriledge horrible wickednesse for hauinge broken downe Catholike Altars wheron the body and bloud of Christ had byn borne VVhat is so sacrilegious saith he as to breake downe scrape and remoue the Altars of God on vvhich your selues haue sometymes offered and the members of Christ haue byn borne c. VVhat is an Altar but the seate of the body and bloud of Christ and this monstrous villany of yours is doubled for that yow haue broken also the chalices vvhich did beare the bloud of Christ himselfe So he And is there any Protestant that will speake thus at this day or doth not this reprehension agree fully to Protestants that haue broken downe more Altars and chalices then euer the Donatists did Saint Leo the first saith that the truth of Christs true body and bloud in the Sacrament was so notorious in his dayes vt nec ab insantium linguis taceretur That very infants did professe the same And in the same sermon he saith that the body of Christ is so receaued by vs in the Sacrament vt in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transeamus that we should passe into his flesh who by his incarnation is made our flesh Saint Chrysostome in many places of his works doth vse such deuout reâ—orent and significant speaches of that which is conteyned in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread wyne after consecration as no doubt can be of his meaninge whereof yow haue heard diuers points before in the disputations as that it deserued the highest honour in earth that he did shew it lyinge vpon the Altar that the Angells descended at the tyme of consecration and did adore Christ there present vvith tremblinge and seare and durst not looke vpon him for the Maiestie of his presence And other such speaches which is conforme to that before cyted in the disputation out of the Councell of Nice Credamus iaecere in illa mensa sacra agnum Det à Sacerdotibus sacriâ—icatum Let vs beleeue to lye on that holy table the lambe of God sacrificed by Priests And is there any Protestant that will speake thus 87. But aboue all the rest are those speaches which before I said to tend to a certeyne exaggeration as that our flesh is turned into his flesh by receauinge the blessed Sacrament that our flesh is nourished by his and that of two fleshes there is made but one flesh Whervnto do appertayne not only those former phrases which already yow haue heard of the naturall and corporall vnity which the Fathers do so often inculcate to be betweene Christ and vs by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament that we are brought therby into one masse or substance of flesh with him but many other like significant manners for vtteringe their mynds as that of S. Chrysostome he nourisheth vs vvith his owne body and doth ioyne and conglutinate our flesh to his And againe That by his body giuen vs in the Sacrament Se nobis commiscuit in vnum nobiscum redegit He hath mixt himselfe to vs and brought himselfe and vs into one body and flesh And yet further he doth permitt himselfe not only to be handled by vs but also to be eaten and our teeth to be fastened vpon his flesh and vs to be filled with the same flesh which is the greatest point of loue saith Saint Chrysostome that possible can be imagined So he And conforme to this S. Cyrill of Alexandriae vttereth himselfe after another sort for he vseth the example of leuen which Saint Paul doth touch in his epistle to the Corinthians when he saith that a little leuen doth leuen a whole bach euen so saith S. Cyrill the flesh of Christ ioyned to our flesh doth leuen or pearse through it and conuert it into it selfe And in another place he vseth this similitude that as vvhen yow take a peece of vvax melted at the fire and do droppe the same vpon another peece of vvax these two vvaxes are made one so by the communication of Christs body and bloud vnto vs he is in vs and we in him 88. Another auncient Father also vpon the point of 1200. yeares gone had this similitude As wine saith he is mixed vvith him that drinketh the same in such sort as the wine is in him and he in the wine so is the bloud of Christ mixed also vvith him that drinketh the same in the Sacrament And S. Irenaeus Tertullian S. Iustinus Martyr all of them elder then this man do vse commonly this phrase of nourishinge and feedinge our flesh by the flesh
conuersion And then he explaneth himselfe thus that as in bread one loafe is made of many graynes so signifieth this Sacrament that we are all one mysticall body in Christ. And againe As bread nourisheth our body so doth the body of Christ nourish our soule And thirdly As bread is turned into our substance so are vve turned into Christs substance All vvhich three effects cannot be signified saith he by this Sacrament yf there be Transubstantiation and no nature of bread left and therfore there can be no Transubstantiation 7. This is Maister Ridleyes deepe diuinity about the nature of this Sacrament but yf yow reade that which we haue noted before in our eyght obseruation concerninge the true definition and nature of a Sacrament in deed yow will see that this was great simplicity in him though accordinge to his hereticall groūd that the Sacramēts doe not giue grace to leaue out the principall effect signified in the Sacrament which is grace for that a Sacrament is defined A visible signe of inuisible grace receaued therby This Sacrament also is a signe of Christs body there present vnder the formes of bread and wyne yet deny we not but that these other three effects also of vnity nutrition and conuersion may be signified therby as in like manner the death and passion of our Sauiour wherof this Sacrament is a memoriall and commemoration neyther doth the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ lett or take away these significations for so much as to make this Sacrament there is taken bread and wyne which naturally doth signifie these effects of vnion nutrition and conuersion which Ridley heere mentioneth though yt be not necessary that the substance of the said bread and wyne should still remayne but only there formes and accidents which do signifie and are signes to our senses as much as yf the substances themselues of bread and wyne were present As for example the brasen serpent did as much represent and was a signe of Christ in respect of the analogie betwene Christ and a true serpent as yf he had had the substance of à true serpent whereof he had but only the forme and shape and so are the outward formes of bread and wyne after the words of consecration sufficient to represent vnto vs the Analogy that is betweene feedinge the body and feedinge the soule vnity of graines and vnity of Christs mysticall body which is his Church 8. And thus much of Ridleyes third ground which impugneth Transubstantiation which ground as yow see is so weake and feeble as he that shall build theron is like to come to a miserable ruyne of his owne saluation But much more ridiculous is his fourth ground vttered in these words The fourth ground saith he is the abhominable heresie of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation Thus he saith in his position but lett vs heare him afterward in his probation which is not much larger then his proposition for thus he wryteth They vvhich say that Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist do take from him the verity of mans nature Eutiches graunted the diuyne nature in Christ but his humayne nature he denyed And is not this a goodly proofe of so great a charge Nay is not this a goodly ground and head-springe of proofes Consider I pray yow how these matters do hange togeather Eutiches heresy was as yow may see in the letters of Saint Leo the first and in the Councell of Calcedon that Christs flesh being ioyned to his diuinity was turned into the same and so not two distinct natures remayned but one only made of them both And how doth this heresie I pray yow follow of our doctrine of Transuostantiation Eutiches said that the diuine and humayne natures in Christ were confounded togeather and of two made but one we say that they remayne distinct and do condemne Eutiches for his opinion and by our Church he was first accursed and anathematized for the same Eutiches said Christs humayne nature was turned into his diuine we say only that bread and wyne is turned into Christs flesh and bloud what likenesse hath this with Eutiches heresie But saith Ridley vve do take from Christ the verity of mans nature This is a fiction and foolish calumniation as before yow haue heard and consequently deserueth no further refutation 9. The fifth ground is saith he the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith He ascended into heauen This ground yf yow remember hath byn ouerthrowne before and abandoned by Ridley himselfe in his Oxford-disputation where he graunted that he did not so straitly tye Christ vp in heauen to vse his owne words but that he may come downe on earth at his pleasure And againe in another place of the said disputation VVhat letteth but that Christ yf yt please him and vvhen yt pleaseth him may be in heauen and in earth c. And yet further to Doctor Smith that asked him this question Doth he so sitt at the right hand of his Father that he doth neuer foresake the same Ridley aunswered Nay I do not bynd Christ in heauen so straitly By which aunsweres yow see that this whole principall ground and head-springe of Ridleyes arguments against Transubstantiation is quite ouerthrowne For yf Christ in flesh after his ascension may be also on earth when he will as Ridley heere graunteth then is it not against the article of our Creed He ascended into heauen to beleeue that not withstandinge his ascension he may be also on earth in the Sacrament And albeit Ridley do cyte heere certayne places of S. Augustine that do seeme to say that Christ after his ascension is no more conuersant amonge vs vpon earth yet that is not to be vnderstood of his being in the Sacrament which is a spirituall manner of being but of his corporall manner of conuersation as he liued visibly among his disciples before his ascension And this is sufficient for discussion of this fifth ground wherof the cheefe particulars haue byn handled in diuers places before 10. Now then will we returne to his second ground againe of the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient Catholike Fathers And first he alleagath Saint Dionysius Areopagita for that in some places of his works he callerh yt bread And the like of Saint Ignatius to the Philadelphians which we deny not for S. Paul also calleth yt so as before we haue shewed but yet such bread as in the same place he declareth to be the true body of Christ sayinge that he vvhich receaueth yt vnworthily shal be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ addinge for his reason non dijudicans corpus Domini for not discerninge the body of our Lord there present And so S. Ignatius in the very selfe-same place saith that yt is the flesh and bloud of Christ as yow may read in that Epistle 11. After these he citeth Irenaeus whose words are Eucharistia ex
is the Eucharist called sometymes by the Fathers the signe of Christs body but of Christs body present as hath byn said and not absent Thirdly this Sacrament is a signe of Christ his death and passion and of the vnion of his mysticall body the Church with him For that as bread and wyne represented by these formes are made of many grains and many grapes so is Christs mysticall body consistinge of many members vnited to him so as by all these wayes may this Sacrament be called a signe to witt a signe of the inward grace and norishment of the soule obtayned therby a signe of Christs true body present a signe of Christ his death and mysticall body and yet do none of all these figures exclude the true reall being of his body in the Sacrament but do rather suppose the same 41. And the like may be said to the other words or tearmes of figure type commemoration or memory all which when they occurre are to be vnderstood in some of these senses without preiudice of the reality or truth of our Sauiours being in this Sacrament as for example this Sacrament is a forme type commemoration memory of Christs death on the Crosse and yet this excludeth not his reall-presence from hence As for example if a Prince hauing gayned in proper person a great singular victory should institute a sollemne triumph to be made euery yeare in memory therof some times should go in that triumph himselfe also yt might be truly said that this triumph is a figure type commemoration and memory of the other victory of the Prince yet is the Prince truly also in yt himselfe and so may be said in like manner of this matter of the Sacrament wherin Christ in differēt manner is a figure or type of himselfe And the like may be said of the dayly sacrifice also which sacrifice is a commemoration or memory of the other bloudy sacrifice once offered on the crosse and yet conteyneth the same reall body of our Sauiour which the other did after another manner And by this will the reader easily discouer diuers poore shifts fallacyes of our moderne heretiks especially of Ridley before named who as yow haue heard him professe was moued to leaue his ancient faith of the masse his practice therin for that in some certaine places for sooth of the Fathers he found that this sacrifice of the masse is called a commemoration of Christs passion a stronge argument no doubt to moue him to so great a resolution And so much of this 42. Now then are to be examined the other words sacramentally really and spiritually and as for the first the common sense and meaninge of schoole diuines is that diuised this word to signifie therby a peculiar manner of Christs supernaturall being in the Sacrament different from his naturall and circumscriptiue being in heauen and from the naturall being of an Angell definitiuely in a place wherof we haue spoken before So as when they say that Christ is sacramentally vnder the formes of bread and wyne they do not deny his true and reall being there in flesh the very selfe-same that is in heauen but he is there in another manner And this is the chiefe proper signification of the word sacramentally amongest schoole-men for which the word was inuented 43. But in the common vse and sense of our speach sacramentally signifieth that Christs body is there vnder a Sacrament or signe which are the formes of bread and wyne and not in his owne proper shape euen as an Angell when he appeareth in a body he may be said to appeare bodyly for that the body is the figure or forme vnder which he appeareth and conforme to this sense we are said to receyue Christ sacramentally when we receaue him truly and really but yet not in his proper forme but vnder another forme that is to say of bread and wyne wherby the fraudulent dealing of our moderne Sacramentaryes may appeare who deceauing the people with this word sacramentally do oppose yt to really and truly as though when any author saith that we receaue Christ sacramentally in the Eucharist yt were to be vnderstood that we did not receaue Christs body in deed and really but only a signe therof and by this they endeauour to delude all the places though neuer so euident of holy Fathers affirminge that Christs true flesh and body the very same that was borne of the virgin Mary and crucified for vs is receaued in the Sacrament these good fellowes aunswere that yt is true sacramentally which we also graunt yf sacramentally do not exclude really accordinge to the true signification of the word But yf by sacramentally they meane as they do that only a signe is receaued of Christs body in the Sacrament then is their deceyt manifest as yow see for that sacramentally hath no such signification at all amonge diuines but only is diuised amonge them for a shift 44. The like fraud they vse about the word spiritually which in the sense of holy Fathers being opposite to carnally and corporally in their ordinary materiall signification is by sectaryes also wrested as though yt were contrary to the word really so as whensoeuer they are forced to graunt Christs body to be spiritually in the Sacrament by which phrase the said ancient Fathers do meane only that he is not there after a carnall or common manner as he liued vpon earth they will haue yt vnderstood that he is there only by faith and not in deed really and substantially They abuse also the signification of the foresaid wordes carnally corporally which hauing a double sense the one that Christs body is naturally and really in the Sacrament the other that he is there after the externall being of other bodyes they deceytfully do take them now in one sense and now in another and alwayes oppose them to the word spiritually which in the former sense are not incompatible but may stand togeather though not in the later And for auoydinge of this equiuocation diuines do wish those two words carnally and corporally though true in the foresaid sense yet to be more sparingly vsed then the other words really and substantially that are equiualent in sense and lesse subiect to equiuocation and mistaking 45. Wherfore to conclude this obseruation all these words are to be noted and their true vse and signification remembred by him that will not be deluded by hereticall sleights and impostures in this high mystery but especially are to be obserued these three wherby our Sacramentaryes do most of all deceyue the vulgar people in their assertions and answers to our arguments to witt sacramentally spiritually and by faith as though they did exclude the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament which is most false for that in the true sense we admitt them all For example we graunt that Christ is sacramentally in this Sacrament both as sacramentally signifieth a distinct
about to delude as he had done other former places by sayinge that Chrysostomes meaninge was that he left his flesh vpon earth not really and substantially but to be receaued after a spirituall communication by grace addinge this example as we also quoth he by hearing the ghospell and by faith So as by this aunswere we haue Christs flesh no otherwise present by meanes of the Sacrament then we haue him present by hearinge the ghospell or by beleeuinge in him which is to euacuate wholy the speach comparison of S. Chrysostome Wherfore to ouerthrow this shift Doctor Smith alleaged another plaine place of the same Chrysostome in confirmation of this where he saith O miraculum ô Dei benignitatem qui sur sum sedet tempore sacrificis hominum mantbus continetur c. O miracle o goodnesse of God! that he which sitteth aboue is conteyned in mens hands in the tyme of the sacrifice But all this would not serue for he auoâ—ded this as he had done the other sayinge he that sitteth there to witt in heauen is heere present in mystery and by grace and is holden of the godly c. And finally though there were diuers boutes in this matter yet could nothinge be gotten more 51. But to this sense Doctor Smith Doctor Seton Doctor Harpesfield and Doctor VVeston vrged him much about the place asking him where was the miracle yf Christ left his flesh heere only in mystery and by faith how could the comparison stand betweene Helias and Christ for Christ must do more then Elias Elias left his mantle and could not carry yt vp with him Christ not only left his flesh but carryed vp the same ergò he left the same that he carryed vp c. But he carryed vp his true and naturall flesh ergò he left the same to all which he aunswered againe He tooke vp his flesh vvith him to heauen and left heere the communion of his flesh on earth With which shiftinge aunswere Doctor VVeston being moued began after his fashion to vrge the matter earnestly sayinge yow vnderstand in the first place his flesh for very true flesh and in the second place for grace and communion of his flesh I will make yt euident how blockish and grosse your aunswere is As Elias left his cloke saith S. Chrysostome so the sonne of God left his flesh but Elias left his true substantiall cloke ergò Christ left his true substantiall flesh and heerin he spake in English Ridly I am glad yow speake in English and surely I vvould vvish all the vvorld might vnderstand your reasons and my answers Reliquit nobis carnem Christ left vnto vs his flesh This yow vnderstand of flesh and I vnderstand of grace he carryed his flesh to heauen and left behind him the communion of his flesh vnto vs. Weston Yee iudges vvhat thinke yow of this aunswere Iudges Iudges It is a ridiculous and very fond aunswere Ridley vvell I vvill take your vvords patiently for Christs sake 52. And this was the end of the controuersy about this place of S. Chrysostome to witt that we must take grace for flesh and when Christ is said to haue left his flesh heere with vs we must vnderstand his grace Yet Doctor VVeston alleaged also another place out of the same Father where he saith Spargimur c. VVe are sprinkeled vvith the very selfe-same bloud that Christ carryed vp vvith him c. Whervnto Ridley answered after his fashion yt is the same bloud but spiritually receaued Then vrged he Sainâ— Bernards words againe the selfe-same Christ is present vvholy in diuers places euen from the vvest to the east from the north to the south c. Wherto Ridley aunswered that God accordinge to his Maiestie and prouidence as S. Augustine saith is euery-where with the faithfull and so must Bernard be expounded Do yow see this exposition Read Saint Bernards words before sett downe and yow shall see that he speaketh of Christ as sittinge in heauen and yet present vvholy in the Priests hands c. And not of his Maiestie prouidence wherby he is euery-where as before hath byn declared So as this is not to expound but to confound the Fathers and I thinke verily that Ridley was much troubled when he gaue such impertinent aunswers and expositions 53. And with this would I passe ouer this whole strife about Saint Chrysostomes places of Elias but that I must let yow know that there had byn some yeares before a great styrre and altercation in the conuocation-house about the same for that Philpott hearinge that place alleaged against him as his fashion was vaunted wounderfully that this being the Papists cheefe and principall foundation he would so beat them from yt and as Fox addeth giue such a plucke at yt as yt should neuer sorue their turne more and when yt came to the triall he said that he had two wayes to beate them from it The first was that Christ goinge vp to heauen carryed his owne flesh with him and eâ—t the same behind him in that he left vs behind him that are flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones This is the first blow and plucke wherby yow see that Christs progatiue is plucked also for Helias as well as he left his flesh behind him in this sense for he was of our flesh and Philpott also left his flesh behind him in vs though his owne were burned in Smith-field And finally S. Chrysostome speaketh expressely of the Sacrament of the Altar sayinge that therein Christ left his flesh but he did not leaue all mankynd in that Sacrament wherefore this first plucke is to small purpose But lett vs see his second 54. The second is that Christ saith he lest his flesh in the mysteryes that is sacramentally and that this mysticall flesh Christ leaueth as well in the Sacrament of baptisme as in the sacramentall bread wine So he Wherin yf yow marke he giueth not only the ordinary old plucke of other Sacramentaryes to the verity of Christs flesh makinge that mysticall which S. Chrysostome speaketh expressely of the naturall flesh left by him and therby plucketh out of ioint all Saint Chrysostomes whole meaninge and discourse but giueth a new plucke also to the whole Sacrament of the Eucharist affirminge Christs flesh to be as much in baptisme as in the other consequently that both Saint Chrysostome and other Fathers do in vayne trouble themselues with so much extollinge the excellency of the Eucharist for hauinge Christs flesh in yt for that the water of baptisme hath the same so yow see the whole Sacrament plucked vp by these pluckes of Philpott and yet saith Fox that he did sâ—rewdly shake our reall presence by giuinge such a plucke to one of our cheefe foundations Yow see how one of these men do flatter the other 55. Next to this entred one Maister VVard to dispute that had byn Philpotts reader and seing D. Ridley to haue
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
quantity to be without such extension but this ground Cath. Philosophers and diuines do easily ouerthrow shewinge that three things do agree to quantity or magnitude wherof the first is to be extended in yt selfe and to haue distinct partes one from the other among themselues though not euer visible or perceptible by our sense and this first point is so essentiall to quantity and magnitude as yt cannot be imagined separable so as it remaine quantity And therfore this is graunted to be in the body of our Sauiour in the Sacrament though our sense doth not comprehend yt The second property of quantity or magnitude proceedinge from this first is not only to haue partes distinct in themselues but to haue them extended also in place accordinge to the commensuration therof as in the first way of being in place we haue declared 20. And for that this second condition or propriety is later then the former ensueth therof yt is not so intrinsecall to the nature essence of quantity but that by Gods diuine power yt may be separated without destroyinge the said nature which our diuines do shew by examples of other thinges where God hath separated such secondary proprietyes without dissoluinge the natures as heatinge for example from fyre in the fornace of Babylon which heatinge notwithstandinge is as naturall to fyre as yt is to quantity to occupy place Christ also in S. Mathewes ghospell hauinge said to his disciples that yt was easier for a Camell to passe through the eye of a needle then for a rich-man to enter into the Kingedome of heauen and the Apostles wondringe therat and sayinge vvho then can be saued our Sauiour answered that that vvhich vvas impossible to men vvas possible to God which yet could not be possible but by separatinge from the camell all his naturall extension and commensuration of place Wherfore all the auncient Fathers vpon this place attributing this to myracle do affirme that by Gods diuine power yt may be done to witt that a camell remayninge in the nature of a camell may passe through a needles eye quid prohibet saith S. Gregory Nazianzen quo minus hoc siat si voluntas it a tulerit What letteth but that this of the camell may be done yf Gods will be to haue yt so Some Protestant will stepp forth and say that yt cannot be done for that the Camell should not in that case haue quantity and be organicall for so they say of our Sauiours body in the Sacrament but Nazianzen was of another opinion And so may yow read Origen S. Hierome S. Augustine S. Hilary S. Chrysostome and other Fathers in their commentaryes and expositions vpon this place of S. Mathewes ghospell 21. The third naturall condition or propriety of quantity proceedinge of this second is that for so much as by the forsaid second propriety the thinge placed doth fill vp the place which yt occupyeth euery part therof answeringe to euery part of the said place only and one place conteyne one body so as naturally yt is no lesse impossible for two bodyes to be in one place then for one body to be in many Yet notwithstanding supernaturally and by Gods omnipotent power both the one the other may be without implication or contradiction of the essence or nature of a true body The reason wherof is this for that this third propriety in quantity or magnitude flowinge of the second as hath byn said may much more easily be separated from the essence of the said quantity and body then the second and consequently the former being separable this is much more wherof our diuines do giue diuers most euident instances out of scripture yt selfe As for example out of S. Iohns Ghospell where twise yt is said that he came in to his disciples when the gates were shutt And in S. Mathew and S. Marke where yt is shewed how Christ after his resurrection came forth of the sepulcher the stone also being shutt and in his natiuity he came forth of his mothers wombe without violation of her virginity and in his assension he passed through all the heauens with his naturall body In all which myraculouse examples for so do the ancient Fathers hould and affirme them to be there must needs be penetration of bodyes or two bodyes in one place which is no lesse repugnant to the ordinary nature of quantity as hath byn said then for a body to be without certaine dimension of any place 22. Besides this our diuines do alleage the examples of the damned spirits miraculously tyed to certayne locall places in hell and that which is more maruelous that the damned soules being spiritts should suffer and be tormented by corporall fire wherof S. Augustine treateth at large lib. 21. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 1. 2. deinceps which is no lesse against the ordinary nature and propriety of spiritts to suffer corporally then yt is against the nature of a body to be after a certayne spirituall manner without his locall dimension by all which we may perceaue that although yt be aboue naturall reason that organicall bodyes should want these externall locall positions yet is yt not contrary or contradictory thervnto but subiect to Gods omnipotent power when and where yt pleaseth him to make yt so and consequently yt may be so also in the blessed Sacrament without destroyinge the nature of a true body as fondly Protestants do pretend 23. And heerby now falleth to the ground a whole mayne multitude of vayne arguments brought by Fox his Martyrs as after yow shall see against the reall presence all of them founded vpon this ground that a true organicall body cannot by Gods power be either without locall dimensions or in moe places then one at once The first of which two assertions hath now ben improued and the second shal be in the next ensuinge obseruation The fifth Obseruation How a body may be in diuers places at once §. 5. 24. As the weake faith and learninge of the Sacramentaryes of our tyme cannot reach to conccaue that a body can be without an externall place so much lesse can they comprehend that yt may be by Gods omnipotency placed in diuers places at once for that yt seemeth to their sense and humayne reason to be impossible but the ancient holy Fathers more wise and learned then our said Sectaryes tooke another course in this point which was to asscribe yt to miracle and to Gods infinite power which they could not by reason arriue vnto I might cyte diuers Fathers but one or two shall serue for all Omiracle saith S. Chrysostome o goodnes of God! that the same Christ who sitteth in heauen vvith his Father is conuersant at the selfe-same tyme in the hands of all that receaue him on earth And the same Father wrytinge of the same sacred body of our Sauiour as yt is a sacrifice saith Vnum est hoc sacrificium c. This sacrifice is
but one for that otherwise because yt is offered in many places there should be many Christs vvhich is not so but one and the selfe same Christ is in euery place when yt is offered here yt is whole Christ and there it is whole Christ and yet but one body for as euery where one body and not many bodyes are offered so is there also but one sacrifice c. In which places you see S. Chrysostome to hould to affirme that Christs true body without diuision or multiplication is offered vp in many places at once yea innumerable places yf we beleeue S. Gregory Nissen whose words are As Christs diuinity doth replenish the world and yet is but one so is his body consecrated in innumerable places and yet is but one body So he And do yow obserue that the Father saith not that Christs body is euery where as his diuinity is as the Lutherane Vbiquitaryes of Germany do absurdly affirme but that yt is in innumerable places by consecration 25. Well then these Fathers denyed not the reall presence as our Sacramentaryes do for that they conceaued not the reason how one body might be in diuers places at once but mounted by faith aboue reason asscribing the same to miracle and Gods omnipotency as yow haue heard and so do Catholiks at this day Heare the pious speach of a great learned man aboue 400. yeares gone Yow vvill say to me quoth he how can one and the selfe same body be at one tyme in diuers places c. Do not maruayle he that made the place made the body and the place for the body and the body in the place and vvhen he ordayned that one body should be in one place yt was as pleased him and yf he would he could haue made yt othervvise c. Thou hast seene only that vvhich he hath made and not that vvhich he can make and heerevpon dost maruayle when thou seest any other thinge then that which thou art accustomed to see but do thou thinke vpon the matter and yt will cease to be maruaylous or at leastwayes yt will not seeme to be incredible Thus he 26. But our diuines do go yet further shewinge that this is not impossible euen in nature yt selfe for God to performe as yow may perceaue by that we haue declared in the former obseruation For yf yt were repugnant and contradictory to the nature of a true body to be in diuers places at once this must be eyther in respect of the vnity therof for that yt should therby be diuided from yt selfe or multiplyed in yt selfe and so not be one but many bodyes or els secondly yt should be impossible to be in diuers places in respect of the quantity which a true body hath wherby yt should be limyted to some certayne space or place but neyther of these two difficultyes do impossibilitate the matter as now we shall declare 27. Not the first about vnity for that God being a substance indiuisible is euery where wholy and in euery one of his creatures and yet remayneth one still nor can be diuided or multiplyed which is so wonderfull a consideration as S. Augustine saith therof Miratur hoc mens humana quia non capit fortasse non credit Mans mynd doth wonder at this and for that yt conceaueth yt not perhaps yt doth not beleeue yt Some likenesse also of this admirable being is in an Angell which though it cannot be euery where at once as God is yet hath yt a wonderfull being in place notwithstanding as before hath byn touched being placed within any compasse or circuite as for example in a house or Church yt is wholy in all that space and wholy in euery part therof yet remayneth one and simple without diuision in himselfe which example is more euident also in our soule as before we haue declared for that the selfe-same soule in a body when yt is an infant and when yt is at his full grouth is wholy in the whole body wholy in euery part therof and yet is yt not multiplyed therby nor diuided Whereby is made manifest that yt repugneth not to the essence or vnity of any one substance to be in diuers places at once and this naturally but much more supernaturallye by the omnipotent power of God 28. There remayneth then the second difficulty about quantity or a body indued with quantity how yt is not letted therby to be in two places at once wherof we haue treated in the former obseruation shewinge how actuall locality by circumscription being but a secondary propriety following and flowing from the nature of quantity may by Gods power be separated from the same so as the said quantity may remayne with her true essence of hauinge distinct parts in yt selfe and yet no extensiue location or commensuration of place in which case yt repugneth no more for the selfe-same quantity to be in many places at once then yt doth vnto a spirituall substance without quantity such as is an Angell or the soule of man and consequently the substance of Christs body togeather with the quantity in this manner may by Gods power be put in many places at once as we see by course of nature it selfe that the substance of mans soule without quantity is put in many particular places of a mans body without diuision or multiplication remayninge still but one only soule as hath byn declared And this shall suffice for explication of this possibility how yt doth not imply contradiction and therefore is not impossible to God 29. Neyther do our diuines shew only that this is not impossible in our Sauiours body but further also that we do beleeue diuers other mysteryes of our faith as hard or harder then this yea much more impossible to sense and reason yf we consider well the difficultyes therof as the creation of the world of nothinge the mystery of the blessed Trinity the beleefe of Christs incarnation our resurrection and the like for yt is much harder by humayne reason and naturall philosophy to conceaue how the world could be created of nothinge and how one and the selfe-same nature can be wholy in three reall distinct persons without diuision or multiplication in yt selfe and how one person can be in two diuers distinct natures as yt is in our Sauiour and how one and the selfe-same thing being perished and corrupted may be raised againe with the selfe-same accidents that perished before These points I say and diuers others which both we and Protestants do confesse to be true are more harde and impossible in naturall reason then yt is to be beleeue that one body is in diuers places at once 30. Furthermore there be certayne familiar examples in nature yt selfe that do resemble somewhat the matter and may induce a man that is not obstinate and hath any meane capacity to conceaue somewhat of the possibility therof as when a great