sectaryes of our tyme do follow him in that assertion then can they haue no ground or certainty this way but each man and woman must seeke other grounds and proofes and stand vpon their owne iudgements for triall of the same which how well the most part of people can do being eyther yonge simple vnlearned or otherwayes so busyed in other matters as they cannot attend thervnto euery man of meane discretion will consider and consequently they must needs be said both to liue and dye vvithout any ground of their faith at all but proper opinion and so perish euerlastingely 9. The famous Doctor S. Augustine handleth this matter in a speciall booke to his frend Honoratus deceaued by the Manichies as himselfe also sometymes had byn and he intituleth his booke De vtilitate credendi of the profitt that commeth to a man by beleeuing the Church and points of faith therin taught without demaundinge reason or proofe therof which the Manichies derided and said that they required nothinge to be beleeued of their followers but that which first should be proued to them by good proofe and reason and not depend only of mens creditt but the holy Father scorneth this hereticall bragg and oftentation of theirs and commendeth highly the contrary custome of simple beleeuinge vpon the creditt of the Catholike Church for that otherwise infinite people should haue no faith at all and exhorteth his frend Honoratus to take the same course first to beleeue and after to seeke the reason His discourse is this Fac nos nunc primum quaerere cuinam Religioni animas nostras c. Suppose that we now first of all did seeke vnto what Religion we should commit our soules to be purged and rectified without all doubt we must begin with the Catholike Church for that she is the most eminent now in the world there being more Christians in her at this day then in any other Church of Iewes and Gentills put togeather And albeit amongst these Christians there may be sects and heresies and all of them would seeme to be Catholiks and do call others besides themselues heretiks yet all graunt that yf we consider the whole body of the world there is one Church amongst the rest more eminent then all other more plentifull in number as they which know her do affirme more sincere also in truth but as concerninge truth we shall dispute more afterward now yt is sufficient for them that desire to learne that there is a Catholike Church which is one in yt selfe whervnto diuers heretiks do feigne and diuise diuers names wheras they and their sects are called by peculiar names which themselues cannot deny wherby all men that are indifferent not letted by passion may vnderstand vnto what Church the name Catholike which all parts desire pretend is to be giuen 10. Thus S. Augustine teachinge his frend how he might both know and beleeue the Catholike Church and all that shee taught simply and without asking reason or proofe And as for knowing and discerning her from all other Churches that may pretend to be Catholike we heare his marks that she is more eminent vniuersall greater in number and in possession of the name Catholike The second that she may be beleeued securely and cannot deceaue nor be deceaued in matters of faith he proueth elswhere concluding finally in this place Si iam satis tibi iactatus videris c. Yf thou dost seeme to thy selfe now to haue byn sufficiently tossed vp and downe amonge sectaryes and wouldst putt an end to these labours and tormoyles follow the way of Cath. discipline which hath flowen downe vnto vs from Christ by his Apostles and is to flow from vs to our posterity 11. This then is the iudgement and direction of S. Augustine that a man should for his first ground in matters of faith looke vnto the beleefe of the greatest most eminent Church of Christendome that hath endured longest embraceth most people hath come downe from our fore-fathers with the name of Catholike not only among her owne professors but euen among her enemyes Iewes infidells and heretiks and so is termed held by them in their common speach as the said Father in diuers others places declareth at large Which rule of direction yf we will follow about these three articles of faith now proposed the reall presence Transubstantiation and Sacrifice of the masse yt is easily seene what ground we haue for their beleefe in this kind of proofe so highly esteemed by S. Augustine which is the authority of the vniuersall Cath. Church For that when Luther and his followers began to oppose themselues in our dayes no man can deny but that our beleefe in these articles was generally receaued ouer all Christendome as well Asia and Africa where so euer Christians be as Europe and so vpward tyme out of mynd neither can any beginning be assigned to these doctrines in the Cath. Church but only a certayne definition and determination of some Councells about the name of Transubstantiation as after shal be declared 12. Now then hauinge found out this first ground which S. Augustine and other Fathers do make so great accoumpt of which is the authority and beleefe of that Church that generally is called Catholike Yf we passe further and see what grounds this Church had or hath to admytt the same which yet is not needfull or possible to all sortes of men for that only can be done by the learneder sort we shall find that she hath such grounds as may conuince any man that is not obstinate and indurate to the contrary And first to begin with the article of the reall presence what ground proofe or Theologicall demonstration can there bee which the Cath. Church hath not for her beleefe in that high mistery which as it was to be one of the cheefest most sacred and admirable of Christian Religion so was yt meet that yt should be confirmed by all the principall wayes that any article of faith could or can be confirmed that is to say both by scriptures of the ould and new Testament and the true exposition therof by auncient Fathers that liued before this controuersie began with Sacramentaryeâ— by authority and tradition of the Apostles and their successors by testimony of auncient Fathers from age to age by consent and agreement practise and vse of the vniuersall Church by the concourse and approbation of almighty God with euident and infinite miracles by confession of the aduersaryes and other such generall heads of arguments which Catholike diuines do produce for this truth for iustifyinge the Churches faith therin 13. And out of the scriptures their demonstration is not single or of one sort only but in diuers manners as to the height and dignity of so diuine and venerable a mystery was conuenient For that out of the ould Testament they shew how yt was prefigured and prophesied and in the new both promised
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
contrary And wheras I do vse the words of externall true and proper sacrifise yow must remember therby the fraud of these new heretiks who as before about the reall presence did go about to delude all the sayings of holy Fathers and other testimonyes of Antiquity that spake of Christs reall being in the Sacrament by running to the words spiritually sacramentaly by faith and the like so heere fyndinge the whole torrent and streame of Christian antiquity to stand for this Christian sacrifice to mention reuerence auouch the same these fellowes for auoydinge their authorityes do runne from the proper externall sacrifice wherof we treate vnto the internall and inuisible sacrifice of the mynd wherof K. Dauid saith that a contrite spiritt is a sacrifice to God And when this cannot serue they run also to improper and metaphoricall externe sacrifices such as are mortification of the body Rom. 12. sacrifice of thankesgeuinge Psalm 49. Sacrifice of almes deedes Hebr. 13. and other such good works which by a certayne analogy or proportion with the nature of proper sacrifices are called also sacrifice in scriptures by the Fathers but improperly To these then do our Protestants runne when they are pressed with the authorityes of auncient Fathers that name the vse of Christian sacrifice in the Church and will needs make vs beleeue that the Fathers ment not properly of any true visible or externall sacrifice but eyther of inward or inuisible sacrifice of the hart mynd and good desire or els of outward metaphoricall sacrifice of pious and vertuous workes 35. But all these are fraudulent shifts to ouerthrow one truth by another For as we do not deny but that there is an inward and inuisible sacrifice of our mynd in dedicatinge of our selues to God and to the subiection of his Maiestie without which the externall sacrifice is little worth to him that offereth the same And as we graunt that all good works be sacrifices in a certayne sort by some similitude they haue with true proper sacrifices for that they are offered vp to God in his honour yet do we say that this is from our purpose in this place who talke of a true proper externall sacrifice offered vp to God after a peculiar sacred rite or ceremonyes by peculiar men deputed to this office in acknowledgement of Gods diuine power maiestie and dominion ouer vs protestation of our due subiection vnto him such as were the externall sacrifices in the law of nature offered vp by patriarks and heads of familyes and by Priests of Aarons order vnder the law of Moyses and by Christ and his Priests accordinge to the order of Melchisedech in the new law and for so much as both the internall metaphoricall sacrifices before mentioned of good affection desires and holy works are not peculiar to any law but were lawfull and needfull vnder all lawes and in all tymes and require no particular kind of men or ministers to offer them but may be offered vp by any man or woman whatsoeuer therfore do we exclude all these from the name of the sacrifice which heere is meant by our description and comprehendeth as yow see an externall visible oblation made by him or them who are peculiarly deputed by God to this office which are Priests So as when soeuer our aduersaryes do slipp from this proper signification of a sacrifice to the other eyther internall or metaphoricall which may be offeted by all sorts of people and therevpon do say that all men are Priests they runne as vow see quite from the purpose as they do also for examples sake when to auoyd the necessity of externall fastinge they runne to the internall fastinge of the mynd sayinge that true fastinge is to fast from sinne which as we deny not in that sense of spirituall fastinge so is it notwithstandinge a plaine shift and runninge from the purpose and cannot stand with many places of the scripture which must needs be vnderstood of the externall fast as when Christ is said by the Euangelists to haue fasted 40. dayes togeather and S. Paul affirmeth that he and his fellow Apostles fasted frequently It cannot be vnderstood I say of fastinge only those tymes from sinne for that Christ fasted alwayes from sinne without exception and so do all good men both fast and facrisice also by offeringe vp good desires and pious actions to almighty God dayly and hourely without distinction of men or tymes 36. But this is not the proper visible externall sacrifice which heere we meane which was instituted by God as peculiar to Christian people vnder the law of the ghospell for an externall worshipp vnto him besides the internall and testification of their inward subiection loue and piety towards him which sacrifice comming in place of all others that went before both in the law of nature and of Moyses that prefigured and foresignified the same and being but one and singular insteed of them all and their great variety is to be esteemed so much more excellent then they all as the law of the ghospell is more excellent then those lawes and truth aboue shaddowes the sacred body of Christ God and man himselfe to be preferred before the bodyes of beasts byrds and other such creatures vvhich vvere but signes and figures of this 37. And in this sense do both scriptures fathers councells and all holy Christian antiquity speake and treat of this most diuine venerable and dreadfull sacrifice wherof as of the highest and most principall mystery and treasure left by our Sauiour in his Church there are so many testimonyes as before hath byn signifyed that yt shall not be possible for me in this place and with the breuity which is necessary to alleage the least part therof yet some few generall heads shall I touch which the learned reader may see more dilated by diuers Catholike wryters of our dayes and he that hath not commodity or tyme to do that may geue a ghesse by that which heere I shall sett downe 38. First then for that this holy sacrifice of the Christian Church was so principally intended by almighty God for the new law as hath byn said many things were sett downe by the holy Ghost in the old Testament both prefiguringe and prophecyinge the same as first the sacrifice of the King and Priest Melchisedech in bread and wyne Gen. 14. which all the auncient Fathers by generall consent do apply to the sacrifice vsed now in the Christian Church and yt were ouerlong to alleage their particular authorityes lett S. Augustine speake for all Primum apparuit saith he sacrificium Melchisedech quod à Christianis nunc offertur Deo toto orbe terrarum The first sacrifice appeared in Melchisedech which now is offered to God by Christians throughout all the world And in another place Vident nunc tale sacrificium offerri Deo toto orbe terrarum Christians do see the like sacrifice to that of
manner of Christs being there from that in heauen and as yt signifieth his being there vnder a Sacrament or signe but yet really we graunt also that he is there spiritually that is to say after a spirituall and not corporall circumscriptiue manner yet truly and really We graunt further that he is in the Sacrament by faith for that we do not see him but apprehend him present by faith but yet truly and really and not in faith and beleefe only And by this yow may perceaue our Sacramentaryes manner of disputinge iust like the Arrians of old tyme and of our dayes who seeke to enacuate all places alleaged for the vnity and equality of Christ with his Father by one only distinction of will and nature So as when Christ said for example Ioan. 6. my Father and I are one yt is true said they they are one in will loue but not in nature thus they deluded all that could be brought for naturall vnity except only the authority and contrary beleefe of the vniuersall Church wherby at last they were ouerborne 46. And the very same course held the Sacramentaryes of our dayes for whatsoeuer plaine and perspicuous places you bring them out of antiquity affirminge the true naturall substantiall body of our Sauiour to be in the Sacrament they will shift of all presently by one of these three words yt is true sacramentally yt is true spiritually and yt is true by faith only as though these could not stand with really or truly and heere of shall yow haue store of examples afterward in the aunswerings of Doctor Perne Cranmer Ridley and Latymer for the Sacramentary party to our arguments taken out of the ancient Fathers For when the said Fathers do auouch that Christ our Sauiours true naturall body is in the Sacrament they answere yt is true sacramentally and thinke they haue defended themselues manfully therby and when in other places the same Fathers do professe that the very same flesh that was borne of the virgin Mary and cruicified for vs is there they aunswere yt is true spiritually and by faith but not really And thus they do euacuate and delude all that can be alleaged But yf they cannot shew as they cannot any one Father that tooke or vsed the words sacramentally spiritually or by faith in this sense as opposite to really and truly in this mystery then is it euident this to be but a shift of their owne inuention to escape therby And so much of this obseruation The nynth Obseruation How Christ is receaued of euill men in the Sacrament and of good men both in and out of the same §. 9. 47. It followeth vpon the former declaration of the words sacrament signe and the rest that we explane in this place a certayne distinction insinuated by the ancient Fathers and touched in the Councell of Trent of three sorts of receauinge and eatinge Christ by this Sacrament First sacramentally alone the second spiritually only the third both sacramentally and spiritually togeather An example of the first is when euill men do receaue the Sacrament vnworthily for that these men thought they receaue the very Sacrament to witt the true body of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wyne yet do they not receaue the true spirituall effect therof which is grace and nourishment of their soule and of these doth S. Paul speake expressely to the Corinthians when he saith He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily videlicet the Sacrament doth eat and drinke iudgement to himselfe not discerninge the body of our Lord. And in this sense do the auncient Fathers vpon this place expound the Apostle as yow may see in the commentaryes of Saint Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Anselme and other expositors both Greeke and Latyn and S. Austen in many places of his works doth expressely shew the same alleaginge this text of the Apostle for proofe therof Corpus Domini saith he sanguis Domini nihilominus erat illus quibus dicebat Apostolus c. It was notwithstanding the body bloud of our Lord which they tooke to whome the Apostle said he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation And to the same effect he saith in diuers other places that Iudas receaued the very selfe-same body of Christ that the other Apostles did and the same affirmeth S. Chrysostome in his homily intituled of the Treason of Iudas generally it is the vniforme opinion of all the auncient Fathers whensoeuer any occasion is giuen to speake or treat therof 48. The second manner of receauing Christ by this Sacrament is tearmed spiritually only for that without sacramentall receauinge of Christs body and bloud a man may in some case receaue the spirituall fruite or effect therof as yf he had receaued the same really and this eyther with relation to the Sacrament videlicet when a man hath a desire to receaue yt actually but cannot or without reference thervnto when by faith and grace good men do communicate with Christ and participate the fruite of his passion In which sense of spirituall communion or eating Christ S. Austen wryteth vpon S. Iohns ghospell Crede manducasti beleeue and thou hast eaten And to the same effect do our Fathers often speake when they treat of this spirituall metaphoricall eating only without relation to the Sacramet which manner of speaches the Sacramentaryes of our dayes do seeke to abuse as though there were no other eatinge of Christ in the Sacrament but by faith alone which is furthest of from the said Fathers meaninge though sometymes they had occasion to speake in that manner 49. The third member of our former diuision is to eat Christ both sacramentally and spiritually as all good Christians do when with due preparation disposition they receaue both the outward Sacrament and inward grace and fruite therof by obseruation of which threefold manner of receauing many obiections and hereticall cauillations will easily afterward be discerned And so much for this The tenth Obseruation Touchinge indignityes and inconueniences obiected by Sacramentaryes against vs in holdinge the Reall presence §. 10. 50. As by the former obiections of naturall impossibilityes yow haue heard this soueraigne mystery impugned both by the learneder sort of old and new heretiks so do the more simple ignorant insist insult most vpon certayne inconueniences indignityes and absurdityes as to them do appeare As for example that Christ in the Sacrament should be eaten with mens teeth go into the belly not only of men weomen but also of beasts yf they should deuoure yt that yt may putrifie be burned cast and fall into base and vnworthy places be troden vnder mens feet with the like which is a kind of argument plausible at the first sight vnto vulgar apprehensions and such as seemed to moue principally the most part of Iohn Fox his artificers and spinster-martyrs as may appeare by their rude clamours and grosse obiections
in his disputations with diuers of these authorityes answeted I am not a shamed to acknowledge my ignorance and these testimonyes are more then I can beare away and after againe being further pressed with the most euident authorityes of S. Augustine and S. Chrysostome in particular affirminge that the sacrifice of the masse is propitiatory both for quicke and dead he aunswered The Doctors might be deceaued in some points though not in all things I beleeue them when they say vvell And yet further I am of their saith vvhen they say vvell I referre my selfe to my L. of Canterburyes booke vvholy heerin And yet againe I haue said vvhen they say vvell and bringe the scriptures for them I am of their faith And further Augustine requireth not to be beleeued So he And by this yow may see what accompt they make both of S. Augustine and other Fathers notwithstandinge for a shew sometymes they will cyte some places out of them little to the purpose but being witting in their owne consciences that really and substantially they make against them they shift them of finally in this order as yow haue heard and will beleeue and teach only as pleaseth themselues which is the peculiar pride and willfullnes of heresie from which God deliuer vs. And with this I end this whole Treatise FINIS Anno Domini 215. Euseb. l. 6. hist. c. 14. Hier. de vir Illust. in Caio Bed l. 1. hist. c. 14. Const. presbyt in vita S. Lupi episc See the acts of this disputatioÌ„ in Possid l. de vita Aug. c. 3. Aug. epist. 244. S. Austens disputation with Foelix Manichaeus S. Ausren his disputation with the Donatists Breuic collat primi diei Aug. in Breuic Epist. ad Gaudent Acta apud Aug. ep 157. l. 2. Retract c. 51. Possidon in vita Aug. c. 14. Possid ib. cap. 17. S. Augustines disputatioÌ„s vvith the Atrians Aug. epist. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. Photius in Bibliotheca Anastasius hoc anno Beda l. 3. hâ—st cap. 25. Publike disputation refused by S. Ambros. vpon iust causes Ambros. epist. 31. vvhere is extant also the booke sent by Ambrose to Valentinian Paul in vita Ambrosij The comparison betwene Cath hereticall disputations DisputatioÌ„ fitter in some to moue doubts examine the truth then to resolue the same Aug. l. de moribus Ecclesiae contra Manicheos Aug. confess lib. 5. cap. 13. lib. 6. c. 1. 2. 11. VVhat force disputatioÌ„ hath in resoluing matters of faith Act. 15. The manner of proceeding vnder the Apostles The waÌ„t which sectaryes haue to determyne matters by Cicero in Paradox The willfullnes of Foxtan vnlearned sectaryes in disputation * Mensiâ—us Ian Mars Sept Noucmb The story of a Mani hean woman that disputed with a Bishopp Mareus in vita S. Porphirij The cause of the Edition of these disputations First disputation of Peter Martyr at Oxford 1549. Fox pag. 1249. Fox pag. 1115. 1205. See Statue booke an 1. Edvv. 6. cap. 1. Fox pag. 1548. Zuinallanisue admitted 1546. * Sup. Decemb 26. See Doctor Saunders l. 2. de sehi m. Aâ—gl 1. Cor. 11. The dissemblinge of Peter Martyr Bucer Luth. lib. cont Sacrament alibi sapâ— Three questions to be disputed at Oxford 1549. See the defence of the relacioÌ„ of 〈◊〉 his disputation vvith B. Peâ—on of Eureux tom 2 part 3 or our three conuernons Tvvo similitudes to expresse the vayne vvtaÌ„gling of SacrameÌ„taryes about TransubstantiatioÌ„ FrauduleÌ„t dealing of ProtestaÌ„ts in disputation Fox pag. 1249. 2. fraud See aftervvard c. 3. Fox pag. ibid. 3. fraud Sand lâ—b 2. de schism Angl. D. Saunders relation of this disputation at Oxford The secoÌ„d disputation held by D. Ridley in Cambridge Triflinge disputations of our first Protestants Fox pag. 1254. Fox pag. 1255. Fox noteth the disagreement of his ovvne men Ridleyes fond aunsvveringe Fox pag. 1256. The 3. disputation at Cambridge anno Domini 1549. D. Perne confesseth the corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament Fox pag. 1257. Fond arguments of Sacramentaryes Albanus Langlandus in confut Determ Nicol. Ridley The partiall dealinge of ProtestaÌ„ts in their disputations Psalm 115. The 4. disputation at Cambridge 1549. Fox pag. 1257. D. Pearne speaketh doubtfully doubly about the SacrameÌ„t The fond manner of this disputation Fox pag. 1260. Contradiction in Fox his vvords M. Vauesour commended Zuinglius and Oecolampadius doubtfull of their doctrine at the beginninge Fox pag. 1261. The 5. disputation or determination at Cambridge by M. Ridley Fox pag. 1261. Ridley his entrance to his determination Diuers coÌ„sideratioÌ„s about the vncertainty of Protestants beliefe Fiue pretended heades of Ridleyes determination Ridleyes resolution about the sacrifice of the masse Fox pag. 1262. Hebr. 9. 10. The miserable proceeding of Ridley The sixt disputatioÌ„ at Cambridge by Bucer 1549. Martyn Bucer in great distresse * Mense Decemb. cap. 16. Fox pag. 1262 1263. The questions of Bucers disputatio Hovv scriptures are sufficient to saluation A case representinge the heretiks of our dayes about cryinge for scriptures alone Matt. 18. 1 Tim 3. Marc. vlt. Matt. 16. The secoÌ„d paradox of Martyn Bucer Mattâ— 18. 1. Tim. 5. Marc. vlt. Matth. 16. The third paradox of Martyn Bucer Exod. 1. Ezech. 20. Hier. in Comment in cap. 20. Ezech. Dan. 4. Act. 10. Aug. l. de pradestinat sanct cap 7. lib. 1. de Baptis c. 3. l. 4. c. 23. Fox pag. 1263. An altercation betvveene custome verity Auâ— epist. 118. ad Iaâ—uer Custome and verity cannot be at odds in the Christian Church The 7. disputation in the coÌ„nocation house armo 1553. Fox pag. 1284. M. Doctor VVeston prolocutor Fox ibid. Six only of all the coÌ„uocation house refused to subscribe M. Cheiney D. Moreman M. Elmour M. Philpot. Fox pag. 1285. Iohn Philpotis vauÌ„t in the coÌ„uocation house Fox ibid. Three disputatioÌ„s in Oxford against Cranmer Ridley and Latymer Fox pag. â—299 Fox ibid. The indiffereÌ„t dealinge of Cath. in their disputation The foolish reprehentioÌ„ vsed by Cranmer Fox Fox pag. 1326. Fox pag. 1336. The ProtestaÌ„t Ministers excuse them solues froÌ„ disputation The disputation of K. Henry vviâ—h Lambert * Sup â—â—p 14 diâ— 4. Octob. A pretended disputation in the beginninge of Q. Elizabethes raigne anno 1559. The great inequality iniuryes offered in this preteÌ„ded disputation Fox page 1924. Three questions to small purpose Fox pag. 1919. Diuers frauds 1. 2. Fox pag. 1923. col 1. num 1. 3. Three indignityes oâ—â—ered vnto the Bishops D. Colâ— An ostentation of the Protestant side Fox pag. 1922. Open inequality AltercatioÌ„ of the Bishops vvith Syr Nicolas Bacon The resolute speach of D. VVatson B. of Lincolne Another altercatioÌ„ vvith the L. Keeper Stovv anno Domini 1559. The issue of this disputation vvith the Bishops Fox pag. 1297. The inference vpoÌ„ these disputatioÌ„s Ten councells examined confirmed the doctrine of the reall presence Laufrane contra Berengarium * VVald tom 2. de Sacram.
true throughout England wherein concurred also the vvhole Christian vvorld abroad from the tyme before by me prefixed of our first conuersion and more euen from the Apostles dayes neyther could any tyme be appointed or memory brought forth when how or by whome the said doctrines had their beginnings in England or els where which accordinge to S. Augustines rule and diuers particular demonstrations layd downe by vs before in the first part of the Treatise of three Conuersions doth euidently couuince that they came from Christ and his Apostles themselues vvhich ought to be sufficient though no other proofes of Scriptures Fathers Doctors and Councells could be shewed in particular for the same as may be almost infinite and some yow shall heare a little after in this Chapter 4. And as for the second question of Transubstantiation though yt be but a certayne appendix of the first about the manner how Christ is really in the Sacrament as before hath byn shewed was not so particularly declared and defined by the Church in this very tearme of Transubstantiation vntill some 400. yeares gone in the generall Councell of Lateran as neyther the doctrine of homusion or consubstantiality was vntill 300. yeares after Christ in the Councell of Nice neyther the dignity of theotoces wherby the blessed Virgin is called the Mother of God vntill the Councell of Ephesus aboue 400. yeares after Christ yet was the same doctrine euer true before from the beginninge and vttered by the Fathers in other equiualent words speaches of changes and Transmutations of natures conuersions of substances and the like and when there had not byn such other euident proofes extant for the truth therof yet the consent and agreement of so great and vniuersall a Councell of Christendome as the said Lateran was wherin both the Greeke and Latyn Church agreed and after great and longe searche by readinge disputinge prayinge conferringe of Scriptures and Fathers and other such meanes concluded this doctrine to be truth Yf there had byn I say nothinge els for English Catholiks to rest vpon in this point but the generall consent and agreement of so learned holy and venerable an assembly yt might iustly seeme sufficient in the sight of an indifferent or reasonable man to weygh and ouerweygh against the particular iudgements of all the innouators of any age to the contrary and so no maruayle though they stood so earnest against that innouation this being the state of the controuersie on their part 5. But now for the Protestants the state of their question was farre different For first wheras Martyn Luther about the 9. or 10. yeare of K. Henryes raigne had begon some noueltyes about the second and third question of Transubstantiation and Sacrifice holding still the first of the reall presence for firme and that three of his first schollers Oecolampadius Carolstadius and Zuinglius full sore against his will takinge occasion of his innouations had added others of their owne about the said first question denyinge the reall presnce though in different sorts and that after them againe Iohn Caluyn a French-man had diuised a third manner of beleefe therin not a little different from them all about the said doctrine both affirminge denyinge the reall presence in different manner and sound of words yt seemed good to our English Protestants at that tyme or the more part therof to choose the last and newest opinion of all and to establish yt by parlament banishinge ther vpon the ould faith that euer vntill that day had byn held and beleeued in our countrey as well by themselues as others 6. And thus came in the first new Religion â—nto England by some shew of publike authority which being sett forth with so great applause and ostentation both of publike disputations colloquyes conferences lectures preachings exposition of scriptures and consent of Parlament as yow haue heard did partly by this outward shew and ostentation of authority partly by the pleasinge face of â—ouelty yt selfe and sweet freedome that yt brought from all former Ecclesiasticall discipline so infect and enchaunt the harts iudgements affections of diuers of the common people and some also of the learned but the â—ighter and more licentious sort as afterward vvhen Q. Mary came to take accoumpt and vvould recall them againe to the station vvhich they had forsaken they chose rather of â—ride and obstinacy to suffer any thinge yea â—o dye and go to the fire then to renounce these new fancyes once fastened vpon them â—nto which pertinacity the fame of the forsaid Protestants disputations did not a little animate them for that yt was giuen out generally and so doth Fox stand stiffely in the same that the Sacramentaryes had the vpper hand in all as well against the Lutherans in the first question of reall presence as against the Catholiks in that and all the rest vvhich bragg how vayne yt was will appeare after when we come to examine their arguments in particular 7. But yet before we come to that two other points seeme expedient to be performed for better direction of the readers vnderstandinge in these high misteryes of our faith the first to see what sure grounds the Catholiks had and haue at this day to stand firme and immoueable in their old beleefe about these articles notwithstandinge any plausible or deceytfull arguments of sense and reason that may be brought against them secondly certayne obseruations wherby the force or rather fraud of hereticall obiections may be discouered which so beguyled many simple people in Q. Maryes dayes and made them runne headlonge to their perdition the first of these points I shall handle in this Chapter the second in the next that followeth Catholike groundes of these three articles and first of the reall presence §. 1. 8. The first ground that Catholike men haue of these and all other misteryes of Christian faith that are aboue the reach of common sense and reason is the authority of the Catholike Church by which they were taught the same as points of faith reuealed from God And this is such a ground as we see by experience that the most part of people of what Religion soeuer being yonge or vnlearned can yeld no other reason in effect why they beleeue this or that article of theire faith but for that they receaued the same from their Church and teachers therof being not able themselues to searche out any other grounde therof yea the most learned of all from their infancy tooke all vpon this assurance only of their Church which Church yf they held to be of infallible authority so as she can neither be deceaued nor deceaue as we do of the Catholike then should they rest firme sure in their opinion vpon this ground but yf they hould that all Churches may erre and bringe into error both in doctrine and manners as yow haue heard Martyn Bucer hold before in his Cambridge conclusions and most
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
Altar of the Crosse as more largely shal be shewed so S. Chrysostome hom 17. ad Haebr 2. â—â— 2. ad Tim. Greg. lib. 4. dial c. 58. Nissenus orat 1. â—â— pascha c. All these considerations I say and many others that may be taken out of the Fathers wrytinges I do for breuityes sake lett passe in this place though most euidently they do declare the said Fathers plaine meaninge and beleefe in this article and cannot any way be applyed to the new Communion of Protestants but by manifest impropriety and deâ—ortion 23. And therfore I will end only with one consideration more very ordinary with the said Fathers which is the diuine reuerence honour and adoration that in all ages the said Fathers haue giuen vnto the blessed SacrameÌ„t whose authorityes were ouerlong heere to recyte in particular The sayinge of S. Austen is knowne Nemo manducat nisi prius adorauerit no man eateth the Sacrament but first adoreth the same and S. Chrysostome Adora manduca adore yt and receaue yt And Theodoret to the same effect Et creduntur adorantur quòd easint quae creduntur They are beleeued and adored the flesh and bloud of Christ for that they are in deed the things they are beleeued to be And to speake nothinge of many other Fathers sayings to this effect S. Chrysostome his large discourses about this matter may serue for all who wryteth that at the tyme of consecration and sacrifice the very Angells come downe and vvith tremblinge do adore Christ their Lord therin present vvhich he vvould neuer haue vvrytten yâ— bread and wyne were only there present 24. By all these wayes meanes then may easily be seene what the auncient Fathers in their ages did thinke speake and beleeue of this high admirable mistery of Christs real presence in the Sacrament And albeit ther were no Councells about this matter for the space of a thousand yeares after Christ the cause therof was that in all that space no on man euer openly contradicted the same atleast after the tyme of S. Ignatius vntill Berengaâ—rius for yf any man had done yt we may seâ— by the foresaid Fathers speaches who must haue byn the chiefe in these Councells what their determination would haue byn against them and when the said Berengarius had once broached this Sacramentary heresy the whole Christian world rose vp presently against the same as against a blasphemous nouelty and ten seuerall Councells condemned the same as in the former Chapter hath byn declared 25. Wherfore the Catholikes hauinge with them all these warrants of truth by scriptures fathers councells tradition of antiquity vniforme consent of all Christian nations both Greeke Latyn Asian African other countreyes embracing the name faith of Christ and that no beginninge or entrance can be shewed of this doctrine in the said Church nor any contradiction against yt when yt first entred as on the coÌ„trary side the first of spring of the other togeather with the place author tyme manner occasion resistance condemnation and other like circumstances are and may be authentically shewed prooued and conuinced yea that the very face of Christendome from tyme out of mynd by their â—hurches altars offerings adoration and manner of diuine seruice admittted euery where without contradiction doubt or question do testifie the same the truth moreouer therof being confirmed by so infinite conâ—ourse of manifest miracles recorded by such authors as no man with piety can doubt of their creditt the Catholiks I say hauinge all his mayne cloud of wittnesses to vse the Apostles â—ords for the testimony of this truth and being practized and accustomed in the beleefe â—â—erof for so many ages togeather without â—â—terruption and seing moreouer that Luther â—â—mselfe and all the learned of his side that were open professed enemyes in other things to the Catholike beleefe yet in this protested the truth to be so euident as they durst not impugne it nay held the first impugners therof for damnable heretiks addinge also heerevnto that Zuinglius the first chiefe author confesseth himselfe to haue byn moued thervnto by a certayne extrauagant spiritt which he saith he knew not whether yt was blacke or white All these things I say laid togeather and the liues and manners considered of them that haue held the one the other faith that is to say the infinite Saints of the one side whome the Protestants themselues do not deny to haue byn Saints and the qualityes and conditions of the others that first began or since haue defended the new Sacramentary opinions lett the discreet reader iudge whether the Catholiks of England had reason to stand fast in their old beleefe against the innouations of our new Sacramentary Protestants in K. Edwards dayes And the like shall yow see in the other articles that ensue of Transubstantiation and Sacrifice dependinge of this first of the reall presence as before yow haue heard But much more will yow be confirmed in all this when yow shall haue read ouer the disputations followinge and seene the triflinge arguments of the Sacramentaryes in these so weighty important articles of our beleefe and the ridiculous euasions where with they seeke to auovd or delude the graue tistimonyes of scriptures and Fathers before mentioned For therby wil be seene that they seeke not truth in deed with a good and sincere conscience feare of Gods iudgements but only to escape and entertayne talke for continuaunce of their faction which ought to be marked by the reader yf he loue his soule And thus much for the grounds of the reall-presence Groundes of Transubstantiation §. 2. 26. Touchinge the second question about Transubstantiation though yt be lesse principall then the former of the reall-presence for that yt conteyneth but the particular manner how Christ is really in the Sacrament consequently not so necessary to be disputed of with Sacramentaryes that deny Christ to be there really at all as before hath byn noted â—et shall we briefely discouer the principall â—rounds wheron Catholiks do stand in this â—eceaued doctrine of the Church against Lutherans especially who grauntinge the said â—â—all presence do hold that bread is there togeather with our Sauiours body which Catholiks for many reasons do hould to be absurd â—nd albeit the word Transubstantiation particular declaration therof was not so expresseâ— sett downe in the Church vntill some 400. â—cares gone in the generall Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocentius the third as the word Trinity Homousion or Consubstantiality and cleere exposition therof was not vntill the Councell of Nice 300. yeares after Christ yet was the truth of this doctrine held euer before in effect and substance though in different words to witt mutation transinutation conuersion of bread into the body of Christ transelementation and the like which is proued by the perpetuall consent of doctrine vttered by the ancient Fathers in this
Melchisedech to be offered to God ouer all the World And all the other sacrifices signes and oblations mentioned before as prefiguringe the reall presence of Christs sacred body and true flesh in the Sacrament are applied by the selfe same Fathers whome before we haue named to the prefiguration also of this diuine sacrifice conteyninge the selfe same thinge which the Sacrament doth but in a different sort in respect of diuers ends the one as yt is receaued by the communicants the other as yt is offered vnto God the Father 39. After these prefigurations there follow the predictions of Prophetts as that of Esay 19. and 66. where is forteold the reiection of the Aaronicall priesthood and sacrifice and a new promised vnder the Christians The prophesy of Daniell also where it is foretould that in the last age of the law of grace by the comminge of Antichrist iuge sacrificium that is the dayly sacrifice shall cease Of this I say is inferred by the ancient Fathers that vntill Antichrists comminge there shal be a perpetuall and dayly sacrifice amonge Christians which is most of all confirmed by the prophesie of Malachias in these words Ad vos ò sacerdotes c. To yow ò priests that despise my name and do offer vpon my Altar polluted bread and do sacrifice the beasts that are blind lame and weake I haue no more likinge of yow saith the lord of hosts and I will not receaue at your hands any gifts for that from the east to the west my name is great amonge the gentills and they do sacrifice vnto me in euery place and do offer vnto my name a pure oblation for that my name is great amonge the gentills saith the lord of hostes Out of which place the Fathers do shew first that heere the priesthood and sacrifice of Aaron was to be reiected a new priesthood and sacrifice accordinge to the order of Melchisedech erected amongst the gentills wherby ordinarily are vnderstood the Christian people conuerted chiefly from gentility who were to succeed in their place and that with such certainty as the present tense is put for the future accordinge to the manner of prophesies and the Antithesis or opposition betweene the two sacrifices the one reiected the other promised doth make the matter more plaine for that as the Iewes sacrifice could not be offered but in one place to witt in the Temple of Hierusalem so shall the Christian sacrifice be offered vp in omni loco that is euery where without respect of places from the east to the west The Iewish sacrifices were many and of diuers sorts but the Christian sacrifice that should succeed in place therof was to be but one The Iewish sacrifices were polluted not so much in respect of great quantity of beasts bloud powred out therin and for that they offered defectuous beasts as for the wickednesse of them that offered the same but the Christian sacrifice was to be cleane vnspotted not only in respect of the vnbloudy manner wherin yt was to be offered vnder the formes of bread and wyne but especially for the excellency of the thinge yt selfe offered being the most pretious body of Christ himselfe and for that the demeritt of the offerer cannot take away the worth of the offeringe 40. These circumstances then considered and that the heretikes heere cannot runne to their shift of inward and inuisible sacrifices for that these could not be vnderstood by the Prophett as new sacrifices that should succeede to the ould for that these were alwayes in vse with good men duringe the tyme of the old sacrifice also and were lawfull yea commaunded in all tymes to witt to haue inward piety and deuotion giue almes and the like these things I say considered togeather with the expositions of holy Fathers as well vpon these as vpon other places of the old Testament there can be no probable doubt but that this externall sacrifice of the Christian was prophesyed by the holy Ghost longe before the comminge of Christ. 41. Secondly the same is proued out of diuers places of the new Testament And first out of S. Iohns ghospell where as our Sauiour promised in mysterious words the institution of this blessed sacrifice as before hath byn seene so also did he signifie that this sacrifice should succeed in steed of all sacrifices that went before For wheras the Samaritan woman at the well speakinge of the schisme betweene the Iewes Samaritans about adoring in the Temple of Ierusalem and in the hill Garizim of Samaria which word of adoringe must needs in that place signifie sacrifycinge as yt doth also in other places of scripture as Gen. 22. Act. 8. and els where for that the controuersie betweene the Iewes and Samaritans was about the vse of sacrificing as the highest externall act of adoration our Sauiour aunswereth to her question that the houre was now come when neyther in that hill of Samaria nor in Ierusalem they should adore that is to say vse any more sacrifice but that a new adoration in spiritt and truth should succeed the former which adoration being vnderstood of sacrifice as the circumstance both of the place and matter do enforce yt followeth that Christ did heere promise a new sacrifice that should be spirituall and true spirituall both in comparison of the bloudy sacrifice that went before for that the consecration of Christs holy body in this sacrifice is made by speciall worke and operation of the holy Ghost true also and in truth it may iustly be said to bee for that yt is the fullfillinge of all precedent sacrifices and the truth of all former figures 42. There ensue the places of Saint Mathew S. Marke S. Luke and S. Paul about the institution and first celebration of this vnbloudy sacrifice of Christ in his last supper where yf we admitt that which all the circumstances of the places themselues do plainly insinuate or rather inforce the continuall exposition and tradition of the auncient Church doth teach vs to witt that Christ our Sauiour hauinge consecrated his sacred body did offer the same vnto his Father as a most gratefull sacrifice in his last supper then must yt follow that the words hoc facite in meant commemorationem do this in remembrance of me implyed a precept not only of receauinge and communicatinge the body of Christ but to offer vp the selfe same also to God in sacrifice after the example of Christ himselfe which is that we call the sacrifice of the masse to proue that th' Apostles vnderstood these words I meane do this in remembrance of me so and in this sense not only the most ancient Fathers as hath byn said do testifie the same but the ancient liturgies or ritualls also of the Apostles and their schollers as namely of S. Iames S. Clement and S. Dionysius Areopagita do make the matter manifest concerning the Apostles practise in this behalfe to witt that they
etsi sensui cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur c. Let vs alwayes giue creditt to God nor let vs resist him albeit the thing seeme absurd to our sense and cogitation for our sense may easily be deceaued and therfore for so much as he hath said This is my body lett vs not doubt therof at all but beleeue him Saint Epiphanius standeth also vpon the same aduertisment reprehendinge them greuously yea condemninge them that dispute and frame their arguments from the testimony of their senses against the reall presence whose words he bringeth in thus Et videmus say they quod non aequale est c. We do see with our eyes that this which we do receaue in this Sacramēt to witt the host is neyther equall nor like the image of Christ in flesh nor to his inuisible deity nor to the formes or lineaments of his body for yt is of a round forme c. So they but S. Epiphanius his conclusion is against them thus qui non credit esseipsum verum excidit à gratia salute he that doth not beleeue Christ himselfe to be truly there vnder the round forme of bread that is giuen is fallen both from Gods grace and his owne saluation 5. And finally not to enlarge my selfe further in this behalfe Eusebius Emissenus or who els was the author of that excellent sermon de corpore Dominï concurreth also in this note against the iudgement of our senses sayinge Verè vnica persecta hostia side aestimanda non specie non exteriori consenda visu This only and perfect host is truly to be esteemed by faith and not to be iudged by the externall shape or veiw of our eyes Thus hee wherof S. Chrysostome giueth an example when he wryteth of this mystery O quot modò dicnns vellem formam speciem cius vellem vestimenta ipsa vellem calce amenta videre O how many are there videlicet of the simpler sort and not so grounded in faith that say I would I could see Christ his forme shape in the Sacrament I would see his apparell I would see his very shooes Thus said some in those dayes vpon simplicity perhappes but so say many more in our dayes vpon heresie and infidelity And truly yf we consider most of the arguments of all Fox his artificers or weomen Martyrs they were such as these heere mentioned deryded by S. Chrysostome and vpon these arguments went they to the stake Let your God in the Sacrament said Alice Driuer and her fellowes shedd some bloud and vve vvill beleeue The like cryed out many other simple rude people vve see bread we see wyne vve see a round cake we will neuer beleeue yt to be God except we see him worke some miracle What would S. Chrysostome thinke yow and other Fathers before mentioned haue said ' to these people yf they had heard them sound out such blasphemous cryes of infidelity and vnbeleefe in their dayes And so much for this first obseruation which is vsually to be found in all auncient Fathers wrytinges The second Obseruation That not only sense and common Imagination but neyther philosophicall reason is necessary to be followed in these mysteryes §. 2. 6. The second obseruation is much like to the first but passeth some degrees further and is taken out of the auncient Fathers aduertisments in like manner to witt that not only sense and sensuall imagination is not to be followed in these diuine mysteryes of our Sauiours body but neyther naturall or philosophicall reason it selfe is allwayes to be followed notwithstandinge yt reacheth farre higher then sense can attayne to which is proued first by the generall definition of faith vsed by S. Paul in his epistle to the Hebrues where yt is said to be argumentum rcrum non apparentium an argument or assent of things that do not appeare by reason which yet is more explicated by Saint Gregory when he saith sides non habet meritum vbi humana ratio praebet experimentum faith hath no meritt where humane reason doth yeld a proofe Saint Augustine also saith This is the praise of faith yf that which is beleeued be not seene for what great matter is it yf that be beleeued vvhich is euident And this is vniuersally in all points of our faith the beleefe wherof must not depend of the euidency of reason for then yt should be science as philosophers tearme yt and not faith which faith dependeth on the authority trust and creditt we giue to the reuealer which is God himselfe 7. But especially is this to be done in this high mystery of the blessed Sacrament of the Altar which is not only a mystery but a miracle also and such a miracle as requireth no lesse power then the omnipotency of God to performe the same Necessarium est said S. Chrysostome to his people of Antioch mysteriorum discere miraculum c. It is necessary for vs to learne this myracle of mysteryes what it is why it was giuen vs what vtility cometh therwith vnto vs the like And againe the same Father in his bookes of Priesthood descending to treat more in particular one point of this mystery which is how Christs body is at one tyme in many places he cryeth out O miraculum o Dei benignitatem O myracle o goodnesse of God! and why qui cum patre sursum sedet in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus petractatur he that sitteth aboue with his Father in that very instant of tyme is handled by all Priests hands And S. Cyprian to the same effect Panis quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natur a mutatus omnipotentia verbi sactuiest caro The bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples at the last supper being changed not in outward shew for yt appeareth bread still but in nature by the omnipotency of Gods word is made flesh 8. Thus thought and spake the ancient Fathers of this high mystery and myracle in the Sacrament And conforme to this they called vs alwayes from reason to faith from contention to humble beleefe when they treated therof for so wryteth among other auncient Fathers S. Hilary speakinge of this matter non est humano aut saeculi sensu in Dei rebus loquendum We must not talke of works of God accordinge to humayne and wordly reason c. touchinge the naturall verity of Christ in vs by this Sacrament that which we affirme except we haue learned yt of himselfe we do affirme the same folishly and impiously but he hath said my flesh is truly meate c. Vnto whome S. Ambrose agreeinge saith of the same mystery Quid hic quaeris natura ordinem c. Why seekest thou heere the order of nature touchinge the body of Christ in the Sacrament forsomuch as our Lord Iesus was borne of the Virgin beside the course of nature Heere
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
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
sett downe in the second Chapter of this Treatise though many waighty they were or might be Wherfore to speake breifely somewhat therof and for more breuity and perspicuity to draw the matter to some kind of order and methode yow must note that of these ten disputations only foure were in tyme of Catholike gouernement as before I signified that is to say the six-dayes conference in the Conuocation-house in the beginninge of Q. Maryes raigne the three-dayes seuerall disputation at Oxford with Cranmer Ridley and Latymer some monethes after And as for the first in the Conuocation-house the Protestants only did dispute for three continuall dayes togeather to witt Phillips Haddon Cheyney Elmour and Philpott and seuerall Catholike men were appointed to aunswere them And when in the end the Protestants were required to aunswere according to promise in their turnes the Catholike opponents for other three dayes they refused yt all sauing Philpott vpon certayne conditions to be heard yet further but Doctor VVeston the prolocutor reiected him as a man fitter to be sent to bedlam saith Fox then to be admitted to disputation c. For that he both was vnlearned and a very madd man in deed Wherfore out of this disputation little or nothinge is offered about this article of reall-presence for that the Catholike party disputed not at all 2. And as for the other three dayes disputation in Oxford the last which was with Latymer was very little for that he fledd disputation as there yow shall see and the few arguments that were made against him were rather in proofe of the sacrifice of the masse so as most arguments were alleaged in the former two-dayes conflict against Cranmer and Ridley which presently we shall examine though vnder K. Edward also one day of the Cambridge disputations was allowed to Catholike opponents to propose their argumeÌ„ts Doctor Madew being defendant for the Protestants and Doctor Glyn Maister Langdall Maister Sedg-wicke opponents for the Catholiks to as out of these foure disputations we shall note breifely some Catholike arguments that were alleaged aduertisinge the reader first to consider with some attention the points ensuinge 3. First that we haue nothinge of these disputations their arguments or aunswers but only such as pleaseth Iohn Fox to deliuer and impart with vs which most euidently do appeare to be mangled and vnperfect in many places without head or foote coherence or consequence which must proceed eyther of purpose to make matters obscure and therby to bring the reader into doubt and confusion or of lacke of good information and that the former is more credible then the second may be gliessed by the variety of impertinent notes in the margent scoffes and iests in the text yt selfe often tymes putt in to deface the Catholike party and to giue creditt to his sectaryes And consequently what faith may be giuen to his narrations but only where they make against himselfe is easy to be seene especially in that himselfe coÌ„fesseth that Ridley wrote in prison his owne disputations after they were past the same we may presume of the rest and then no man can doubt but that they would putt downe their owne parts to their vttermost aduantage or at least-wise with the smallest losse that they could diuise 4. Secondly yt is to be considered of the precedent reader that must aduenture his soule euerlastingely by takinge one part or other in this controuersie heere in hand how much yt may import him to stand attent to the places and authorityes alleaged out of scriptures Fathers for the truth to consider them well reading them ouer againe and againe weighing the true meaning sense of the wryter and not how sleightly or cunningly they are or may be shifted of by any witty wrangler for so much as this may be done with any wrytinge or euidence neuer so manifest yf the defendant will list to cauill the reader be so inconsiderate or carelesse of his owne perill as to be delighted or abused therwith 5. Thirdly in the allegation of Fathers testimonyes which heere are to ensue yt is to be weighed not only what they say but also how they say what phrases and speaches they vse and to what end and whether yf they had byn of the Protestants Religion they would haue vsed those phrases or no more then Protestant wryters do themselues at this day especially so ordinarily and commonly as the said Fathers do they being men both learned wise and religious that well knew how to vtter their owne mynds meaning what is proper improper speach withall not being ignoraÌ„t how great inconueniences must ensue of improper speaches in matters of faith where men are bound to speake precisely and warily and on the other side is â—o be considered also yf they were of contrary opinions to the Protestants and of that faith which we affirme them to be in this point of the reall presence what more effectuall speaches could they haue vsed to expresse yt then they do callinge yt the true body the reall body the naturall body of our Sauiour the same body that he tooke of the blessed Virgin and gaue vpon the Crosse the body vvherby he is vnited vnto vs in humanity and denyinge it expressely to be bread after the vvords of consecration though yt seeme to be bread to our eyes tast and that we must not trust our senses therin but yeld to Gods omnipotency and beleeue that as he hath vvrought infinite other miracles so hath he done this that we must adore yt vvith the highest adoration and other like phrases which neyther Protestants can abide or euer do vse in their wrytinges nor could the Fathers yf they had byn expressely of our Religion as we say they were diuise words more significant proper or effectuall to expresse the truth of our Catholike faith then yf of purpose they had studyed for yt as no doubt they did So as yf the auncient Fathers did vnderstand what they spake and that they spake as they meant then are the Protestants in a pittifull plight whose saluation or damnation dependeth in this whether we must vnderstand them S. Paul and Christ himselfe literally as they spake or by a figure only so as yf they vsed no figure then is the Sacramentary opinion to be held for heresie 6. Fourthly is to be considered also in this matter as els-where we haue noted that when any one of these auncient Fathers in what age soeuer is found to vse these effectuall words for vttering his meaning about this high mystery of Christs being present in the Sacrament he is to be vnderstood to expresse not only his owne iudgement and beleefe therin but the iudgement also and beleefe of the whole Church of Christendome in that age for so much as any Doctor neither then nor after did note him for error or â—emerity in speakinge wrytinge as he did which no doubt
or externall forme for euery man doth eat that when they receaue but the question was and is of the true body and therfore when Saint Austen speaketh of this body yt is madnes to vnderstand yt of any other thinge then the reall body But lett vs heare what was replyed Doctor VVeston said I bringe Theophilact against yow Iudas saith he gustauit carnem Domini Iudas did eate or tast the flesh of Christ. Ridley That is the Sacrament of the Lords flesh Doctor VVatson replyed out of the Councell of Nice Exaltata mente fideliter credamus iacere in illa sacramensa agnum Dei tollentem peccata mundi a sacerdotibus sacrificatum Let vs faithfully beleeue with an exalted mynd that there lyeth in the holy table the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world which is sacrificed by the Priests Ridley That Councell vvas collected out of auncient Fathers and is to me of great authority c. the vvords make for me the lambe of God is in heauen accordinge to the verity of the body and heere he is with vs in a mystery accordinge to his power not corporally Watson But the lambe of God lyeth on the table Ridley Yt is a figuratiue speach for in our mynd vve vnderstand him vvhich is in heauen Watson But he lyeth there the Greeke vvord is KEÃŽTA Ridley He lyeth there that is he is there present not corporally but he lyeth there in his operation c. And by this yow may see to what purpose yt was to dispute with this man for that God by his power and operation is euery where and in euery creature And yf Christ be no otherwise heere but by his power and operation as in baptisme what an impertinency is this of the Councell of Nice to vse so many and significant words that vve must faithfully beleeue vvith a high mynd and courage against sense and reason that the lambe of God lyeth on the table sacrificed by Priests and the like Is there any Protestant that speaketh thus or can the like words be verified in the Protestants communion of signes figures representations and symbolls 61. Lastly to skipp ouer diuers other things Doctor VVeston pressed him with two other places of S. Chrysostome so cleere as nothinge can be spoken more cleerer The first is in these words vve vvorshipp the selfeâ— same body in the Eâ—charist vvhich the vvise men did vvorshipp in the manger And then againe vve haue not heere the Lord in the manger but on the Altar heere a vvoman holdeth him not in her hands but a Priest These are the words Let vs heare his answere Ridley I graunt the Priest holdeth the same thinge but after another manner She did hold the naturall body the Priest holdeth the mystery of the body So hee And Fox wryteth in the margent The sâ—me thinge but the manner diuerse But who seeth not that our contention is about the thing and not the manner for we teach also that the manner of Christs being in the Sacrament is different from the manner of his being in heauen but the thinge really is all one And so yf Ridley do graunt the same thinge to be holden by the Priest hands which the blessed virgin held in her hands as heere yow see him graunt in words then the controuersie betweene vs and him is ended But presently he leapeth from his graunt againe sayinge she did hold the naturall body and the Priest holdeth the mystery of the body which are different things and not only different manners of holdinge Wherefore Doctor VVeston repeatinge againe this argument out of S. Chrysostome to the multitude in English saith Iohn Fox and consideringe the manner of Ridleyes aunsweringe and that nothinge more could be had of him he dissolued the disputation in these words Videtis praefracti hominis animunt gloriosum vafrum inconstantem c. Yow see the stubborne vauntinge deceytfull and inconstant mynd of this man And with this Encomion departed Doctor Ridley to his prison againe and the other Doctors each man to their owne lodginges Out of the Disputations with M. Hugh Latimer togeather with the conclusion of the whole triall in this article §. 4. 64. Vpon the third day being wednesday the 18. of Aprill was brought forth Maister Hugh Latymer to aunswere as the former had done but the disputation was much more shorter then the other and in English for Maister Latymer saith Fox alleaged that he vvas out of vse vvith Latyn and vnfitt for that place He gaue vp his confession about the three articles in wrytinge after the imitation of Cranmer and Ridley full of scoffes and bitter taunts as his veyne was and rested most vpon the masse and the foure marrow-bones therof for so blasphemously he called them which were forsooth consecration transubstantiation oblation and adoration of all which yow haue heard the ancient Fathers speaches before how different they are from these of Latymer as was also their spiritt 63. The first entrance to talke betwene Maister Latymer and the Doctors was for that he sayinge in his wrytinge that nothinge was to be receaued concerning the SacrameÌ„t which was not expressely sett downe in the institution of Christ Doctor VVeston inferred that then weomen must not receaue the communion for that no expresse mention is made in scripture of their receauinge and when Latymer aunswered that S. Paul said Probet autem seipsum homo which signifieth said he both men and weomen yt was replyed that in Greeke yt was anthropos that was proper to man c. Then Doctor VVeston asked him how longe he had byn of this opinion he said about some seauen yeares he being more then seauenty of age and that my L. of Canterburyes booke had specially confirmed his iudgement therin And yf quoth he I could remember all therin conteyned I vvould not feare to aunswere any man in this matter So he And many tymes after he ran still to this booke of Cranmer My Lord of Canterburyes booke saith he to an argument of Doctor Cartwright handleth this very vvell and by him could I aunswere yow yf I had him And againe in another place to another argument The solution of this saith he is in my Lord of Canterbury his booke And yet further to another I remember I haue read this in my Lord of Canterburyes booke Wherto Doctor Tressam aunswered that there are in that booke six hundred lyes but Latymer replyed nothinge c. 64. Then said Doctor VVeston Yow vvere once a Lutheran Latimer No I vvas a Papist for I could neuer perceaue how Luther could desend his opinion vvithout transubstantiation The Tygurines once did vvryte a booke against Luther and I oft desired God that he might liue so longe as to make them aunswere So he wherby is seene that he fauoured Luther more then the Tygurines at that tyme for that he would haue had them aunswered But Doctor VVeston said further Luther
the propitiatory sacrifice wheras more then 8. or 9. score might haue byn cyted to that effect And finally though Latymer muttered out two or three particular aunswers heere and there sayinge that S. Chrysostome had Emphaticall locutions and the like yet his last rest was sett vpon this that the Doctors might be deceaued in some points though not in all things Wherof Fox well allowinge maketh this scoffinge comment in the margent Doctores legendi sunt cum venia the Doctors are to be read with pardon which can haue no other sense but that eyther we must pardon them when they speake not truth or we must aske pardon of them not to beleeue them when we mislike them for other sense I cannot make of this comentary 27. Doctor Cole replyed is it not a shame for an old man to lye yow say yow are of the old Fathers faith Latymer I am of their faith vvhen they say well I referre my selfe to my Lord of Caterburyes booke wholy herin Doctor Smith Then yow are not of S. Chrysostomes faith nor S. Augustines faith Latymer I haue said vvhen they say vvell and bring scriptures for them I am of their faith and further Augustine requireth not to be beleeued c. Weston Forty yeares gone vvhether could yow haue gone to haue found your doctrine Latym The more cause we haue to thanke God now that hath sent the light into the vvorld Weston The light ney light and lewd preachers c. remember vvhat they haue bin that haue bin the beginners of your doctrine none but a few flyinge Apostataes runninge out of Germany c. remember vvhat they haue bin that haue sett forth the same in this realme a sort of flyinge braines and light heads which vvere neuer constant in any one thinge vvhich vvas well seene in the often alteringe of their communion-booke and turninge their table one day vvest and another day east they gott them a tankerd and one saith I drinke and am thankefull the more ioy of thee saith another c. Yow neuer agreed vvith the â—igurynes of Germanie or vvith your selues your stubburnesse is of vaine glory and vve all see by your owne confession how little cause yow haue to be stubburne your learninge is in feoffers hold the Queenes grace is mercifull if yow vvill returne Latymer Yow shall haue no hope in me to returne And thus ended that disputation 74. And heere Iohn Fox is very angry with Doctor VVeston for this speach and for reuenge therof maketh this note in the margent Blasphemous lyes of Doctor VVeston sittinge in the chaire of pestilence and then presently he maketh the narration of him which before we haue related about Vrge hoc vrge hoc and in the margent he hath this other Notandum vrge hoc quod VVeston vvith his beere-pott in his hand which notwithstandinge is more modest then yf yt had byn a wyne-pott And I maruayle much why the wisdome of Fox should obiect this beer-pott so often eagerly against Doctor VVeston seeing his owne great chaire which is yet kept for a relique of his holines in London by the sisters hath two places made on both sides therof the one for the Candlesticke the other for the ale-pott and nutmegges which Father Fox is said to haue loued well and so do his wrytings also shew yet no Catholike man I thinke hath euer obiected the same vnto him before this as he doth the beer-pott to Doctor VVeston But these are trifles Lett vs passe to more serious considerations The Conclusion with some Considerations theron §. 5. 75. By the re-view then of these three dayes disputations a coniecture may be made how matters did passe then and how they stand at this day betwixt vs and Protestants in these articles of controuersie Yow haue heard before the great vaunts that Doctor Ridley made in his disputations at Cambridge vnder K. Edward how euidently forsooth and apparently the truth stood with him and his fellowes this vpon siue principall grounds and head-springs as he calleth them vvhich are the Maiestie and verity of scriptures the most certaine testimony of the ancient Fathers the definition of a Sacrament the abâ—ominable heresie of Eutiches and the most sure beleese of the article of our faith He ascended vp to heauen B. Cranmer also after that againe in the beginninge of Q. Maryes raigne settinge forth a certayne vauntinge schedell which Fox called a Purgation of Thomas Archbishopp Cranmer hath this chalenge therin I vvith Peter Martyr saith he and other foure or fiue vvhich I shall choose vvill by Gods grace take vpon vs to desend all the doctrine and Religion sett â—orth by our soueraigne Lord K. Edward the sixth to be more pure and accordinge to Gods word then any other that hath bin vsed in England these thousand yeares so that Gods vvord may be iudge and that the reasons and proofes of both parts may be sett out in vvrytinge to the entent as well that all the world may examine and iudge theron as that no man shall start backe from his vvrytingâ— 76. Thus he And now yow haue seene more or lesse by the former disputation how he his fellow Ridley were able to performe their bragges and though yow haue seene them brought to the exigents which before hath appeared yet yf yow will beleeue them or Iohn Fox their Chronicler settinge forth their Acts and Monuments they were so farre of from being conquered as the aduerse part was rather putt to the foyle for that they could say nothinge in effect against them And for example Fox wryteth of Doctor VVeston who most of all other vrged them with many good arguments as yow haue heard that not only he had his Theseus there by him to help him out to witt his beere-pott but moreouer that he said neuer a true word nor made neuer a true conclusion almost in that disputation Which how true or false yt is the reader himselfe may be iudge that hath pervsed ouer the same in this our review And the very like in effect wryteth B Cranmer in a certayne letter of his to the Councell vpon the 23. of Aprill 1554. immediatly after the disputation ended complayninge greatly of the disorder iniquity therin vsed which yet by that we haue examined before out of their owne words I meane set downe in Fox his penne being bent wholy to their fauour there could not be great iniquity or inequality the combatt consistinge in discussinge authorityes of auncient Fathers but yt is the nature of this people as alwayes to be contentious so euer to be clamourous and neuer satisfied except they haue their will but especially to wryte and speake both contemptuously and partially yow shall heare how Malster Ridley relateth the euent of this disputation for that hauinge sett downe his owne disputations and aunswers in the prison and this with the greatest aduantage yow must imagine that he could diuise after much