word Sacrament for that yf the word Sacrament in this place be taken for that which it conteyneth to witt the body of Christ then is the minor proposition false for that the body of Christ as yt was giuen on the Crosse is the satisfaction for the world But yf he take the Sacrament for the outward signes only of bread wyne them he graunteth both the conclusion and the whole sillogisme to be true that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ. Whervnto Pilkinton maketh one only reply and that most fondly out of the same equiuocation sayinge that the Sacrament hath not satisfied for the world and that men may be saued without the Sacrament as many were before yt was instituted Whervnto Doctor Glyn very learnedly aunswered that yf he tooke the Sacrament as before he had distinguished for Christ conteyned in the Sacrament then had the Sacrament that is to say Christ therin conteyned both satisfied for the whole world and none were euer saued without him for that all were saued by faith in him to come 32. The same Pilkinton leaping from his former argument without takinge his leaue falleth vpon another medium in these words The body of Christ is resiant in he auen And the body of Christ is in the Sacrament Ergo the Sacrament is in heauen This argument yow see is as good and no better then yf we should say The soule of a man is in the fingar And the soule of a man is in the foote Ergo the foote is in the fingar But yet Doctor Glyn declared there further after he had iested at the argument that Christ was in one sort in heauen and after another sort in the Sacrament in heauen locally visibly circumscriptiuely but in the Sacrament inuisibly and sacramentally which differences being not found in the soule being in the foote and fingar maketh our argument more heard to answere then that of Pilkinton 33. There followeth a third argument of Pilkinton thus In the body of Christ there be no accidents of bread But in the Sacrament there be accidents of bread Ergo the Sacrament is not the body of Christ. Heere yow see is the same fond equiuocation and doubtfull sense of the word Sacramen◠before expounded and poore Pilkinton can not gett out of yt For yf he take the word Sacrament for the only body of Christ conteyned therin then is the minor proposition false for that the Sacrament in this sense hath no accidents of bread in yt But yf he take the Sacrament for externall signes then we graunt both his minor and conclusion to be true and nothinge against vs to witt that the Sacrament in this sense is not the body of Christ though comonly in our sense the Saerament comprehendeth both the one and the other 34. But further Maister Pilkinton had a fourth argument with that he was briefly dispatched he proposed the same in these words VVhersoeuer Christ is there be his ministers also for so he promiseth But Christ as yow hould is in the Sacrament Ergo his ministers are there also This argument is worthy of Maister Pilkinton and his ministers for yt proueth by like consequence that they should haue byn in Pilatt◠pallace with him and on the Crosse. And y◠may be argued also that for so much as they are n◠with him now in heauen ergo he is not there Wherfore the meaninge of that place in S. Iohn ghospell VVhere I am there shall my minister be h◠saith not vvheresoeuer as Maister Pilkinton puttet◠yt downe is to be vnderstood of the participation of Christs glory in the next life a◠himselfe expoundeth in the 17. of S. Iohn wher◠he saith to his Father that he will haue the◠to be with him to see his glory And in the meane space we see how these fellowes that glory so much of scripture do abuse the true sense of scripture in euery thinge they handle And thus much do I find obiected against the reall-presence in the Cambridge disputations 35. There ensueth another disputation houlden in the Conuocation-house in the beginninge of Q. Maryes raigne which in our former order or Catalogue of disputations is the seauenth wherin Maeister Phillips Deane of Rochester did argue against the reall presence in this sort Christ saith yow shall haue poore people with yow But me yow shall not haue Ergo. Christ is not present in the Sacrament Whervnto Doctor VVeston prolocutor in that conference answered that Christ is not present in that manner of bodyly presence as then he was so that good people may vse works of deuotion and piety towards himselfe as then S. Mary Magdalen did in whose defence he spoke those words But Phillips not contenting himselfe with this answere alleaged a longe discourse out of S. Augustine in his commentary vpon S. Iohns ghospell where the holy father saith that Christ is present vvith vs in Maiestie prouidence grace and loue now but not in corpotall presence Whervnto answered D. VVatson afterward B. of Lincolne expoundinge that place by another of the same Father vpon the same Euangelist where he saith that Christ is not now present after that mortall condition which then hirras c. Which nothinge letteth his being after another manner in the Sacrament Nay S. Augustine in the very same Treatise not ten lynes before the words alleaged by M. Philipps hath these words Habes Christum praesentem peraltaris cibum potum Thou hast Christ present in this life by the foode and drinke of the Altar which is another distinct way of presence from those two named by him in the former place of grace and corporall conuersation And y◠may seeme that this Philipps was not only satisfied by this answere for that he replied not but further also was conuerted vpon this conference or disputation in the conuocation-house or very soone after For that Fox affirmeth that he cōtinued Deane of Rochester all Q. Maryes dayes which no doubt he should not haue done yf he had not subscribed as all the rest did to this article of the reall-presence 36. Next after Philips Deane of Rochester stepped vp Philpott Archdeacon of VVinchester with great vehemency and tooke vpon him to pioue that Christ in his last snpper did not eat his owne body by this argument that sor so much as remission of sinnes was promised vnto the receauinge of Christs body and that Christ did not receaue remission of sinnes ergò Christ did not receaue his owne body Whervnto Maister More-man who extempore was appointed to answere him and Doctor VVeston the prolocutor gaue this answere that as well he might proue that Christ was not baptized for that he receaued no remission of sinnes therin but as he receaued that Sacramé◠for our instruction and imitation only so did he this other Wherabout though Philpot made agreat styrre as not content with the aunswere yet could he reply nothing
this place whatsoeuer was obiected by the said Sacramentaryes of any moment in all the former disputations or other conferences colloquyes or examinations reducinge all for more perspicuityes sake vnto certaine heads or groundes in manner followinge The first head or ground of Sacramentary obiections for that yt seemeth impossible to them that Christes body can be in many places at once §. 1. 2. This is the first principall ground of all the Sacramentaryes vnbeleefe and out of which they draw the greatest squadron of all their arguments and obiections as presently yow shall see for that yt is a point very plausible to comon-sense and humayne reason that a naturall body naturally cannot be but in one place at once but he that shall read our obseruations in the precedeÌ„t Chapter where we haue shewed that not only supernaturally and by Gods omnipotent power yt may be done but that it comprehendeth not so much as any contradiction in nature it selfe and further shall consider that alboit Christs true and naturall body be in the Sacrament at many places at once yet not after a naturall manner but supernaturall and miraculous as euery where the ancient Fathers do admonish vs and we haue alleaged many of their admonitions before he I say that shall consider this will easily contemne and laughe at the vanity of so many Sacramentary arguments founded vpon this weake ground and principle only that a naturall body cannot be in more places then one at once which is true naturally that is to say by the ordinary course of nature but by the power of God that is aboue nature yt may be and this without an essentiall contradiction as I haue said in nature yt selfe 3. Well then now will I sett downe the whole squadron of arguments which out of this false principle or rather true principle misvnderstood Iohn Fox layeth foorth with great ostentation out of Peter Martyr his Oxford disputations which arguments are 8. in number and did seeme so insoluble vnto Fox his diuinity and philosophy as he putteth no answere at all giuen by the Catholike defendants to the same I shall deliuer them also in dialecticall forme as they ly in Fox this once togeather with his foolery of cytinge the moods and figures of sophistry in the margent to euery argument a thinge knowen to euery child that beginneth logique consequently is ridiculous to men of learninge though strange to the ignorant people that may imagine great secrets to ly hidden in those words of Disamis Darij Baroco Festino Bocardo and thinke that Iohn Fox doth go about to coniure vs his readers by settinge them downe but now to the arguments themselues 1. Argument 4. The true naturall body of Christ is placed in heauen Matth. 24. 26. Ioan. 12. 16. Act. 3. Colloss 3. The true naturall body of man can be but in one place at once where he is August ad Dardanum propter veri corporis modum saith he that is for the manner of a true body Ergo the true naturall body of Christ can be in noe place at once but in heauen where he is 2. Argument Euery true naturall body requireth one certayne place Christs body is a true naturall body Ergo. Christs body requireth one certayne place 3. Argument Augustine giueth not to the soule of Christ to be in more places at once then one Aug. ad Dardan Ergo. Much lesse yt is to be giuen to the body of Christ to be in more places at once then one 4. Argument The nature of Angells is not to be in diuers places but they are limited to occupy one certayne place at once Basil. dâ— spiritu sancto cap. 22. Ergo. The body of Christ being the true naturall body of man cannot fill diuers places at once 5. Argument Whatsoeuer is in many diuers places at once is God The body of Christ is not God but a creature Ergo. The body of Christ cannot be in more places togeather 6. Argument We must not so defend the diuinity of Christ as we destroy his humanity Yf we assigne more places to the body of Christ we destroy his humanity Ergo. We must not assigne to the body of Christ plurality of places 7. Argument Whatsoeuer thinge is circumscribed that is to say conteyned in the limitts of any peculiar place cannot be dispersed into more places at once The body of Christ is a thinge circumscribed Ergo the body of Christ is not dispersed into more places at one tyme. 8. Argument Euery quantity that is euery body hauing magnitude length and other dimensions is circumscribed in one peculiar place Cyrill de triuit lib. 2. The body of Christ hath his dimensions and is a quantity Ergo the body of Christ is circumscribed Aunswere 5. These are the doughty arguments which Fox affirmeth their great Patriarke Peter Martyr to haue alleaged against the reall-presence out of this first philosophicall ground that one body cannot be in many places at once Whervnto I might aunswere in the words of S. Augustine to such kind of men as measure Gods power by their owne imagination Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas behould with what kind of arguments the infirmity of man possessed by vanity doth contradict Gods omnipotency Yf yow read the fourth and fifth obseruations sett downe in the former Chapter yow will easily see both the infirmity and vanity of all these arguments how this great variety vpon one ground are but mâ—ncedmeats guised in diuers sorts and fashions by the art of Fox and Peter Martyrs cookery and yet are they held for great demonstrations and stronge fortresses of the Sacramentary faith or rather infidelity and vrged euery where by their followers 6. Iohn Rogers vsed the same argument in his defence before the Bishops as yow may see in Fox pag. 1251. Christ is corporally saith he in heauen only ergò not in the Sacrament where he vseth an equiuocation also in the word corporally for that we do not say that Christ is corporally in the Sacrament yf by corporally he meane not only really and substantially but also after a corporall manner accordinge to externall dimensions Thomas Tompkins the weauer of Shordich vseth the same argument against his Ordinary in like manner to witt that Christ body cannot be in the Sacrament for that yt is in heauen Fox pag. 1395. Maister Guest in his Cambridge disputations against Doctor Glyn leaned principally to this argument and B. Ridley his moderator or president of these disputations vrged a place of S. Augustine ad Dardanum to the same effect Tolle spatia corporibus nusquam erunt Take away the spaces from bodyes saith S. Austen and they shal be no where But D. Glyn defendant
answered him well that S. Augustine spake expressely of the naturall being of bodyes accordinge to their ordinary externall dimensions and not how they might be by Gods supernaturall power and omnipotency 7. But aboue all others Philpott did keep reuell in the conuocation house about this argument against Maister Morgan Maister Harpesfield alleaginge diuers places of scripture for the same but little to the purpose God wooteth as that of S. Paul Christ is like vnto vs in all points except sinne And therfore said he as one of our bodyes cannot be at Paules and at VVestminster togeather so cannot Christ be in heauen and in the Sacrament But yt was told him that these words of S. Paul were true in S. Paules sense but yet that Christs body was vnlike also vnto vs besides sinne in diuers other points as for example in that he was begotten without the seed of man and that his body was inuisible when he would haue it soe and that he rose out of the sepulcher the same being shutt and diuers other like points which our ordinary naturall bodyes haue not though God of his omnipotency might giue the same to our bodyes also Then he alleaged the savinge of S. Peter in the Acts VVhome heauen must receaue vntill the consumation of the world Wherof he would inferre a necessity of Christs remayning in heauen vntill the day of iudgement Then Morgan laughed at this saith Fox Harpesfield stood vp and asked him how he vnderstood that place Oportet Episcopum esse vnius vxoris virum A Bishop must be the husband of one wife And whether this be of such necessity as he may not be without a wife one at least With which demaund Philpott was so entangled as he could not well go forward as there yow may see and refused to aunswere Maister Morgan as the prolocutor would haue had him 8. Well then this is the first and principall ground and bulwarke of all Sacramentary vnbeleefe in this article that Christs body cannot be by Gods omnipotent power in two places at once to witt both in heauen and in the Sacrament which we haue shewed before in our fourth fifth and sixt obseruations to be a fond and temerarious position whervnto we referre the reader to see the grounds more at large and heere only we shall say a word or two to the former eight arguments as they lye in order Yet first it shal be good for the reader to remember that which we haue noted before in the story of Melancthon who saith I had rather offer my selfe to death then to affirme as the Zuinglians do that Christes body cannot be but in one place at once But yet Peter Martyr Philpott Cranmer and their fellowes would dye and some of them also did dye for the contrary so as Saints of one Calendar do heere dye for contrary opinions one to the other But let vs answere the arguments 8. To the first we say concerning the minor proposition that a true naturall body naturally and by ordinary course of nature cannot be at one tyme but in one place and that meaneth S. Augustine ad Dardanum but supernaturally and by Gods ommpotent power that exceedeth nature yt repugneth not to be in diuers places at once yf God will haue yt so as in our fifth obseruation is proued To the second argument we say that euery true naturall body requireth one certaine place by ordinary course of nature and not otherwise To the third that soules and spiritts by their naturall course haue but one totall place wherin they may be said to be as one soule in one body and one Angell in the place that it pleaseth to occupye or to haue operation therin albeit yf we respect partiall places of the same body as head foote fingar and the like the selfe-same soule is wholy in diuers places at once which is no lesse wonderfull and incredible to our sense then for a bodily substance to be in two distinct places at once And the like is in the Angell who may occupy for example a whole house or towne for his totall place and yet be in euery particular and partiall place therof wholy and entyrely which is graunted both by all philosophers and diuynes though vulgar sense cannot apprehend yt 9. To the fourth may be answered the very same as to the former that the being of Angells in place definitiuely is like in all respects to that of the soule Read our fourth obseruation in the precedent Chapter To the fifth argument the aunswere is easy for we deny that whatsoeuer is in diuers places at once is God for that by his omnipotent power a creature may be yt is Gods priuiledge that he is euery where wholy and entyrely ex vi naturae diuinae by force of his diuine nature that is to say he is so euery-where as he cannot be but euery where which is not true eyther in a spiritt or in Christs body or in any other creature whatsoeuer for that all creatures as they haue limited natures so are they limited also in place and restrayned from vbiquity or being euery where which is proper and peculiar to almighty God alone so to speake of the body of Christ in particular yt is not euery-where and we detest both the Eutichian vbiquitaryes that held Christs body to be euery-where as confounded with his diuinity and no lesse the Lutheran vbiquitaryes of our dayes that hold Christs body to be euery where by reason of the coniunction with Christs diuinity the Catholike faith affirming only that Christs body though naturally it be but in one place yet by Gods omnipotency it may be in more 10. To the sixt argument we deny the Minor to witt that we destroy Christs humanity by grauntinge that yt may be in diuers places at once for that yt repugneth not to a humayne creature to be in more places then one by Gods omnipotency this we haue shewed more largely in our fifth obseruation To the seauenth we deny also the Minor that Christs body in the Sacrament is to be circumscribed or circumscriptiuely there as yt is in heauen The differences betweene three manners of being to witt circumscriptiuely definitiuely and sacramentally yow may see more at large declared in our fourth and fifth obseruations To the eight and last we say that the maior is to be vnderstood naturally and not supernaturally by diuine power to the Minor we aunswere that Christs body hath not externall dimensions in the Sacrament though yt haue in heauen and in the Sacrament yt hath only internall and inuisible quantity without extension to place wherof yow may read more in the fourth and fifth obseruations And this shal be sufficient for this first ground of philosophicall arguments Now will we passe to the second The second head or ground of Sacramentary argumentes drawen from contrary qualityes or quantityes c. §. 2. 11. This second ground is not
vsed against Lambert out of the scriptures doth Doctor Smith vse now against Ridley to witt that Christ appeared corporally and really on earth after his assension to S. Paul and others ergò his being in heauen is no lâ—t to his reall presence in the Sacrament The antecedent he proued out of the Acts of the Apostles and S. Paules Epistles where yt is shewed that Christ appeared vnto him after his assension but Ridley did not aunswere this argument as Lambert and other Sacramentaryes before him had done denyinge that Christ appeared corporally and really vpon earth but rather that his voyce was heard from heauen but he said that Christ left heauen for a tyme and came downe I do not saith he so straitly tye Christ vp to heauen that he may not come into earth at his pleasure howbeit I do affirme that yt is not possible for him to be in earth and heauen at one tyme. So hee whervnto Doctor Smith replyed ergò yt is lawfull for Christ to be heere present on earth vvhen he will Ridley Yea when he will yt is lawfull Smith Ergò his ascendinge to heauen doth not restrayne his reall presence in the Sacrament Ridley I do not gainsay but that yt is lawfull for him to appeare on earth when he will but proue yow that he will 43. Lo heere another starting hole but yet first yow see the great Sacramentary bullwarke so much stood vpon by others that Christ is in heauen at the right hand of God and that the heauens must receaue him vntill the day of iudgement and consequently cannot be vpon earth or in the Sacrament is quite forsaken by Ridley grauntinge that this argument proueth nothinge he is ascended to heauen ergò he is not on earth for he may leaue heauen and come downe accordinge to Ridley Yea Ridleyes owne principall ground is forsaken by him for that among his fiue principall grounds and headsprings for so he calleth them sett downe by him in his Cambridge disputation vvhy he did inclyne to this sentence and iudgement for then he was but inclininge the last was yf yow remember the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith he ascended into heauen which now yow see may stand without this doctrine Secondly wheras he denyeth that Christ will depart from heauen at any tyme sayinge proue yow yf he vvill yet very soone after being pressed by Doctor Smith out of the scriptures that Christ after his assension vvas seene visibly really and corporally vpon earth he answered in these words I graunt the antecedent that is Christ did appeare on earth Smith Do you graunt the antecedent Ridley Yea I graunt the antecedent because I know that there be certayne ancient Fathers of that opinion Heere yow see that Ridley by grauntinge this antecedent to witt that Christ after his assension did appeare really and corporally vpon earth eyther doth contradict himselfe when he denyed before that Christ would euer come out of heauen notwithstandinge he could or els he must graunt that Christ appeared vpon earth against his will or without his owne will which were a greater absurdity then any of the other 44. And furthermore he contradicteth himselfe againe in that he said a little before that Christ may leaue heauen and come downe into earth vvhen he vvill For being asked by Doctor Smith this question Doth Christ so sitt at the right hand of his Father that he doth neuer foresake the same Ridley answereth in these words Yf yow vnderstand his sitting to be after a corporall manner of sitting so is he alwayes permanent in heauen Which yf yt be true then is that false which before he said that Christs body is not so tyed to heauen but that he may come downe into the earth vvhen he vvill And much more false is yt that Christ did really and corporally appeare vpon earth to Saint Paul and others as a little before he graunted so as by these yow may see the briars wherinto Ridley was driuen about this argument 45. The third point to be noted in these inconstant speaches of Ridley is that yt is not possible for Christs body to be in heauen and earth at one tyme and yet when we vrge them with impiety for laying impossibilityes to Gods omnipotency they will presently runne to that answere as Ridley also afterward doth that they dispute not what God can do but what he vvill do Wherfore to returne to our disputation when Doctor VVeston heard him talke of this impossibility that Christ yf he would appeare in earth must leaue heauen he tooke vpon him to conuince this falsity out of two authorityes the one of S. Chrysostome the other of S. Bernard S Chrysostome his place is vpon the Epistle to the Hebrues talkinge of the dayly externall sacrifice of Christians offered throughout the world in many churches at once saith thus vna est haec oblatio non multae c. this oblation we offer is one and not many and how is it one and not many which being once offered vp in sancto sanctorum to witt vpon the Crosse notwithstandinge is offered by vs dayly This sacrifice which dayly we offer is a paterne of that once offered on the Crosse and alwayes we offer the selfe-same not offeringe now one lambe and to morrow another but alwayes the selfe-same wherfore heere is but one sacrifice for that otherwayes by this meanes yf there be many sacrifices in many places there should be many Christs which is not so but one Christ in all places qui hic plenius illic plenus vnum corpus which Christ is fully heere and fully there being but one body c. 46. Out of which place Doctor VVeston did vrge B. Ridley very straitly who first would seeme to make light of the place sayinge these things make nothinge against me but VVeston vrged how say yow then one Christ is in all places heere fully and there fully Ridley One Christ is in all places but not one body is in all places c. And this euasion pleaseth so much Iohn Fox as he wryteth in the margent one Christ but not one body in all places as though Christ could be separated from his body or as though S. Chrysostome did not expressely talke of one body Heere Christ fully and there Christ fully one body and the very next words of Chrysostome immediatly followinge are these euen as then Christ offered in many places is one body and not many bodyes so is the sacrifice also but one But lett vs heare Doctor VVeston vrge the same Weston One body saith Chrysostome Ridley But not after the maner of bodily substance he is in all places not by circumscription of places for hic illic heere and there in Chrysostome do assigne no place as Augustine saith Sursum est Dominus vbique est veritas Domini The Lord is aboue but the truth of the Lord is in all places Weston Yow cannot so
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 substances of bread and vvyne vvhich in Cambridge by the Bishopp Doctor Ridley vvas denyed Behould heere the goodly agreement that was betweene the first founders of Sacramentaryes doctrine in England and how worthy to be noted by themselues Friar Martyr in Oxford graunted a change in the substances themselues of bread and wyne by the words of consecration but Bishop Ridley in Cambridge denieth the same so great difference is there betweene Oxford and Cambridge the Friar and the Bishopp and is not he well holpen vp that hangeth his soule on these mens opinions this then is one simplicity of Fox but lett vs heare another of Ridley related by Fox his ownepen in his answere to Maister Sedgewicke who began thus 13. Right VVorshippfull Maister Doctor I do aske of yow first of all whether the Greeke article this being of the neuter gender be referred to the vvord bread or to the word body to the first yt cannot be for that it is of the masculine gender ergo to the second This was the obiection or demaund lett vs heare the Bishopps solution Forsooth saith he that article is referred to neyther of both but may signisie vnto vs any other kind of things Thus the Bishopp So as by this exposition Christ might as well fignifie a staffe or a stoole or any garment or thing that lay on the table or whatsoeuer els any man will diuise as well as bread or his body when he said of bread this is my body And is not this a Bishopp like aunswere But of the arguments and aunswers of this second disputation we shall haue occasion to speake afterwards when the controuersies themselues shal be discussed in particular and so we shall passe forward to recoumpte the other disputations that ensue Third Disputation §. 3. 14. The third disputation was held at Cambridge vpon the 23. of Iune in the same yeare 1549. as Fox recounteth wherin two propositions were held affirmatiuely for the Catholiks by the aforesaid D. Glyn defendant to witt for the reall presence sacrifice of the masse The opponents for the Protestants were M. Perne M. Gryndall B. afterwards of London and Canterbury M. Ghest and M. Pilkinton which last vnder Q. Elizabeth gott the Bishopricke of Durham The moderator and iudges were the same as in the former disputation to witt Ridley and his fellowes and the manner and forme not much vnlike though somewhat more disorderly each one puttinge in his verdict to and fro at his pleasure But yet whosoeuer shall pervse the same vvith equality will easily perceaue an eminent difference for learninge discretion and clere aunsweringe betweene the said Doctor Glyn and his opponents which principally is to be attributed to the difference of his cause from theirs they neuer prosecuting commonly one medium for aboue one or two instances but leaping presently to another so graue and substantiall a disputation was this for poore people that heard yt or heard of yt and followed the resolution therin sett downe to hange their soules vpon the certaynty therof 15. Maister Perne beginneth with a complaint against D. Glyn that he had left Transubstantiation taken vpon him to defend the reall presence in the Sacrament vvheras we deny nothinge lesse saith he then his corporall presence or absence of his substance in the bread Wherby yt is euidently seene that Maister Perne was not of Ridleyes opinion but held the reall presence though with Luther perhaps he did not beleeue Transubstantiation and this is euident by his arguments which after he vsed nothinge in deed against the reall presence but only to proue that Christ his body was togeather with bread The like manner of impertinent dealinge vsed Ridley himselfe in diuers of his arguments as for example this is that bread saith he vvhich came downe from heauen ergo yt is not Christs body for that his body came not from heauen which proueth also that yt was not bread for that Ridley will not say I thinke that the materiall bread which Christ had in his hand camed owne from heauen The like argument vseth Pilkinâ—on thus vvhersoeuer saith he Christ is there be his ministers also for so he promised but Christ as you hould is in the Sacrament ergo his ministers are there also Which were a foule incoÌ„uenience as you see if all our English ministers should be in the Sacrament for the poore people to byte at And yet this argument seemeth so graue vnto Iohn Fox as he maketh this marginall note theron VVhere Christ is there are his ministers And the poore fellow hath not so much witt as to see that those words of Christ were meant of his glory in the life to come and not of the Sacrament which is ministred vpon earth 16. But to the end yow may the better perceaue how disorderly this and the former disputation at Cambridge was made by the new Protestants to ouerbeare the Catholike cause I shall sett downe some lynes of a narration of D. Langdale Archdeacon of Chichester a Cambridge man who was present at the said disputation and confuted afterward in print the said Ridleyes determination vpon these disputations Thus then he wryteth Vix dum finita Collegiorum visitatione c. The Colledges of Cambridge were no sooner visited by the Kinges Commissionars but there appeared vpon all the gates two conclusions set vp the first against Transubstantiation the other against the sacrifice of the masse and presently the bedells of the vniuersity went about to giue warning that yf any man had any thinge to say against these conclusions he should come forth the third day after which was Corpus-Christi day to dispute or otherwise all to be bound to perpetuall silence for euer after The concourse of noble men all other degrees was great and scaffolds made for the place of disputation that the multitude might the better heare but all that were indifferent did see matters to be handled with great inequality for that whosoeuer spake for the Catholike side presently his speach was eyther interrupted or for breuity shifted of to another tyme and Ridley that was the Captayne of all steppinge in at euery turne to assist his defendant did eyther with threates or fayre words or by scoffes and bytter taunts seeke to diuert the Catholike disputers 17. And when the first dayes disputation was in this manner ended yt was denounced to the auditory before the dismission of the schooles that yf any man would come forth and defend within a day or two the Catholike parte of those questions he might but afterwards it should not be lawfull for any man to speake therof which vnexpected denuntiation being heard one man looked vpon another and all for a tyme were silent vntill at length a most learned and graue man pious and skillfull as well in knowledge of the tongues as also in diuinity wherof he had bvn there publike reader before to witt Doctor Glyn stept
lookinge-glasse that represented but one face vnto yow when yt was whole being broken into many parts euery part will represent wholy the selfe-same face The voyce also of him that speaketh to a great multitude though yt be but one in yt selfe yet cometh yt wholy to euery mans eares which S. Augustine alleaged for a wonderfull thinge towards the prouinge of Gods being wholy euery-where Omne quod sonat saith he omnibus totum est singulis totum est All that soundeth is heard wholy of all and wholy of euery particular man And though these examples be not like in euery respect yet may they serue for a certayne induction to make vs comprehend the other wherof we now speake 31. Last of all Catholike diuines do not only shew the possibility of this point that our Sauiours body may be in diuers places at once as also that sundry other mysteryes of our faith are beleeued of more difficulty then this yf we regard common sense and reason but do shew also out of the scriptures themselues that Christ after his assension hath byn in more then one place at once as is manifest by that famous apparition of his to S. Paul recorded in the acts of the Apostles when he appeared vnto him in the way neere to Damasco inuironed with a great light and talked with him in such sort as both the light and words were seene and heard by his companions and many other apparitions to S. Peter himselfe testified by Egesippus and S. Ambrose to S. Anthony also testified by S. Gregory besides diuers others recorded by S. Paulinus Ioannes Diaconus and other authenticall wryters from whome except we will derogate all creditt and authority we may not doubt but that Christ remayninge still in heauen for so hould both we and Protestants togeather that he departed not from thence appeared also in diuers places of the earth to his Saints and consequently his body could be in diuers places at once wherby is broken and dissolued another squadron of arguments framed by the Sacramentaryes of our dayes to the simple people as though Christs reall body could not be in the Sacrament for that yt is in heauen wheras we affirme that both may be and stand togeather though in different manner for that in heauen he is circumscriptiuely and in the Sacrament sacramentally which tearmes we haue before declared The sixth Obseruation How Christes body in the Sacrament may be now vnder a greater forme now vnder a losse and the least that may be discerned §. 6. 32. By this also which is said may be conceaued how the sacred body of our Sauiour in the Sacramēt vnder the accidents of bread is sometymes in a greater visible quantity and sometymes in a lesse accordinge to the externall formes and accidents vnder which yt is yea and in the least part parcell of the consecrated host that is perceptible to our sense for that the said body being remoued by Gods omnipotent power from all locall extension it may be vnder a greater or smaller externall quantity without alteration of the body yt selfe as we see in the soule of man which is the selfe-same in the least part of the body wherin it is as in the greatest or in the whole body yea when the said body is changed or groweth from a lesser to a greater quantity as in an infant who after commeth to be a great man the selfe-same soule replenisheth the one and the other without grouth or diminution in yt selfe and so the body of Christ in a great host or a little or in any least part therof when yt is broken is wholy and the selfe-same body with the selfe-same internall organicall quantity which yt had vnder a great host And this point that the quantity of a substance may be increased or diminished externally in respect of place without alteratiō of the inward quantity or substāce is euident by many examples which we see dayly of rarefaction and condensation As for example when a gallon of water is put in a great vessell ouer the fire yt cometh by boylinge to fill the whole vessell that is capable of many gallons and yet as the inward substance is not increased so neyther the quantity in yt selfe and contrary wise when the said water is againe cooled it returneth to occupy as small a place as yt did at the beginninge and yet retayneth allwayes the selfe same both quantity and substance 33. By which example many other that may be alleaged some kind of notice may be gathered vnto our common sense and reason how the substance of Christs body in the Sacrament togeather with his internall quantity may by his omnipotent power be sometymes vnder a great externall quantity or extension in place sometymes vnder a lesser yea the least that by our senses may be perceaued and yet is Christs body wholy and entirely there accordinge in some proportion to the lookinge-glasse before mentioned which being broken into diuers small peeces each one representeth the whole visage seuerally which before was exhibited by the whole And so when any consecrated host is broken into many parts that which was cōteyned before in the whole host is now cōteyned wholy vnder euery particular parcell therof as yt was also before And to this effect are those words of S. Epiphanius before alleaged against them that said Videmus quod est aequale c. We see that the host receaued in the Sacrament is not equall or like to the figure of Christs body but is round c. Wherfore all the arguments of Fox his Martyrs that were founded on this improportion of the host to Christs naturall and externall quantity haue no ground at all but a little fraudulent shew and appearance of sensible improbability and yet were many of their cheefest arguments builded on this only foundation as yow haue seene readinge ouer their historyes before recyted and shall do more afterward when we come to examine their arguments seuerally and in the meanee space this shall suffice for an aduertisment about this obseruation The seauenth Obseruation How accidents may be without a subiect and of their operations in that case §. 7. 34. The seauenth obseruation may be about the accidents or formes of bread and wyne that do remayne by Gods omnipotent power without a subiect after the words of consecration as they did before in the substance of bread whervpon the more simple sort of Sacramentaryes following sense will needs argue that the substance also of bread wyne do remayne after the said consecration and those that be more learned do go about to proue the same by philosophicall reason for that the nature of an accident is to be in another as the nature of a substance is to be in yt selfe wherof ensueth that for so much as no accident can be in God as in a subiect neyther are they in Christs body as we also doe
saith for it is ridiculous to affirme that when the consecrated host is diuided into three partes that Christs body is diuided also which is no more true then when a mans fingar is cutt of wherin the soule was wholy before that she is also diuided therwith 4. Argument No naturall body can receaue in yt selfe at one tyme contrary or diuers qualityes Vigil cont Eutich lib. 4. To be in one place locall and in another place not locall in one place with quantity and in another place without quantity in one place circumscript in another place incircumscript is for a naturall body to receaue contrary qualityes Ergo they cannot be said to be in Christs body Aunswere 16. To the first proposition of this argument I say that the sentence of Vigilius alleaged by Fox in this place is nothinge to his purpose For that Vigilius dealinge against the heretike Eutiches that would haue Christs humanity confounded with his diuinity saith as Fox alleageth him These two things are diuers and sarre vnlike that is to say to be conteyned in a place and to be euery where for the word is euery where but the slesh is not euery-where Which sentence of Vigilius maketh against Iohn Fox his frends and some of his Saints also the vbiquitaryes that hold Christs body to be euery where as his diuinity is of which heresie yow haue heard before Melancthon to be accused by Coliander one of his owne sect but Catholiks do not hold this vbiquity of Christs body but that yt may be circumscribed in a certayne place and so yt is de facto in heauen though otherwise by Gods omnipotency the same body may be and is in diuers places which this sentence of Vigilius nothing impugneth and consequently is nothing to the purpose 17. To the second or minor proposition I say that Fox is a simple fellow when he calleth contrary qualityes to haue quantity locall and not locall circumscript and vncircumscript wheras these do appertayne to the predicaments of quantity and vbi rather then to quality and are not so contrary or opposite to themselues but that in diuers respects they may be in one and the selfe-same thinge as Christ is locally in heauen and not locally in the Sacrament with visible and externall quantity in heauen but with internall and inuisible in the Sacrament The third head or ground of Sacramentary arguments concerninge the receauinge and receauers of the Sacrament §. 3. 18. Another company or squadron of arguments against the reall-presence though lesse then the former is framed by our Sacramentaryes against the reall-presence concerning the receauers or manner of receauinge the same Yow shall heare them as Fox layeth them downe 1. Argument The wicked receaue not the body of Christ. The wicked do receaue the body of Christ yf Transubstantiation be graunted Ergo. Transubstantiation is not to be graunted in the Sacrament Aunswere 19. Do yow see a wise argument and why leapeth Fox thinke yow from the reall presence to Transubstantiation but that he is weary of the former controuersie for that Transubstantiation hath a proper place very largely afterward so as heere yt is wholy impertinent And further yf yow consider the matter rightly yow will see that the same followeth as well of the reall-presence as of Transubstantiation for yf Christ be truly and really in the Sacrament eyther with bread or without bread then whosoeuer receaueth the said Sacramēt must needs receaue also Christs body Wherfore this skipp of Fox from reall presence to Transubstantiation was needles and helpeth him nothinge besides that the whole argument is foolish for that his Maior or first proposition that wicked men receaue not the body of Christ is wholy denyed by vs and not proued by him but presumed and how fondly yt is done shall appeare presently in our aunswere to his other arguments of this kind and the whole matter is discussed more at large in our ninth precedent obseruation 2. Argument To eat Christ is for a man to haue Christ dwelling and abiding in him Cyprian de Cana Domini Aug. lib. de ciuit Dei 21. cap. 15. The wicked haue not Christ dwellinge in them Ergo the wicked eat not the body of Christ. Aunswere 20. The whole aunswere of this argument is sett downe more at large in our foresaid ninth obseruation where yt is shewed that there are three manners of receauinge Christ sacramentally only spiritually only and both sacramentally and spiritually and that euill men do receaue him ater the first manner only that is to say they receaue Christs true body in the Sacrament but not the spirituall fruite therof which S. Paul expresseth most cleerly when he saith that an euill-man receauinge the Sacrament Iudicium sibi manducat non dijudicans corpus Domini Doth eat his owne iudgement and condemnation not discerninge or respectinge the body of Christ which he eateth And this is the assertion of all holy Fathers after him to witt that vvicked-men do eate the body of Christ but not the fruite and namely the two heere cited by Fox to the contrary S. Cyprian and S. Augustine do expressely hold the same For that S. Cyprian vpon these words of th' Apostle making an inuectiue against them that receaue Christs body vnworthily saith Antequam expiantur delicta ante exhomologesin factam criminis ante purgatam conscientiam sacrificio manu sacerdotis c. Before their sinnes be clensed before they haue made confession of their faults and before their conscience be purged by the sacrifice and hand of the Priest this was the preparation to receaue worthily in S. Cyprians tyme they do presume to receaue the body of Christ. Wherof the holy Father inferred Spretis his omnibus atque contempt is vis infortur corporieius sanguini These due preparations being contemned violence is offered by them to the body and bloud of Christ which he would neuer haue said yf those wicked-men had not receaued the body and bloud of Christ at all as Protestants do hould 21. S. Augustine is frequent also and earnest in this matter Corpus Domini saith he sanguis Domini nihilominùs er at illis quibus c. It was no lesse the body and bloud of Christ vnto those wicked-men to whome the Apostle said he that eateth vnworthily eateth drinketh his iudgement then yt was to the good And the same Father in diuers places affirmeth that aswell Iudas receaued the true body of Christ as the rest of the Apostles though yt were to his owne damnation Nam Iudas proditor bonum corpus saith he Symon magus bonum baptisma ◠Christo accepit sed quia bono benè non sunt vsi mali malè vtendo deleti sunt For that Iudas the Traytor also receaued the good body of Christ and Symon Magus the good baptisme of Christ but for that they vsed not well that
would haue happened as in all other occasions of errors or heresies yt did yf his speach had bin vnsound vnproper or dangerous so as when we find but one Father vncontroulled in these assertions we are iustly to presume that we heare the whole age and Christian Church of his tyme speake togeather and much more when we see diuers Fathers agree in the selfe-same manner of speach and vtteringe their meaninge And whosoeuer is carefull of his soule in these dangerous tymes of controuersies ought to be mindfull of this obseruation and so shall we passe to the disputations themselues Out of the first Cambridge-disputation in K. Edvvardes dayes wherin the defendantes were D. Madevv and B. Ridley highe Comissioner 20. Iunij 1549. §. 1. 7. Albeit in this disputation matters were but sleightly handled and no argument vrged to any important issue by reason of the often interruptions of the Cambridge-proctors and sleights vsed by Ridley himselfe yet do I find that Doctor Glyn being a very learned man indeed did touch diuers matters of moment though he prosecuted not the same yf Fox his relation be true and much lesse receaued he any substantiall solution therof As for example in the beginninge he made a very effectuall discourse how this diuine Sacrament conteyninge Christs reall body was not only prefigured by diuers figures in the old Testament as namely the Paschall-lambe the manrâ— and shew-bread which signifyed the great importaâ—ce and moment therof when yt should be performed but also was so peculiarly and diligently promised by our Sauiour in the six of S. Iohn comparinge yt with the said figures and shewing how much yt was to exceed the same and namely the manna that came from heauen and finally expoundinge yt to be hiâ— owne flesh which he would giue vs to eate in fullfillinge those figures Panis quem ego dabo caâ—o mea est the bread that I will giue you shal be my flesh and that truly and indeed caro enim â—uea verè est cibus for my flesh is truly meate c. 8. This promise then and this prefiguration was not quoth he performed by Christ but in his last supper when he tooke bread and deâ—iuered it sayinge this is my body which performance yf yt must aunswere eyther to Christs promise in the ghospell or to the figures in the old Testament must needs be more then bread for that otherwise yt should not be better then the manna that was bread from heauen which Christ in S. Iohns ghospell expressely promised should be changed into his flesh And yf Christ in his last supper had but giuen a figure of his true body then had he fullfilled the figures of th' old Testament with a figure in the new and so all had byn figures contrary to that of S. Iohn Lex per Moysen data est veritas autem per Iesum Christum facta est The law was giuen by Moyses in figures but the truth thereof was performed by Iesus Christ c. 9. Thus began Doctor Glyn but I find no solution giuen thervnto but that Doctor Madew being asked whether the Sacraments of the old law and new were all one he said yea indeed effect Doctor Glyn inferred that then they were not inferiour to vs for that they had bread that signified Christs body as well as ours and they by eating that bread with faith in Christ to come did eat Christs body and participate his grace therby no lesse then we which is a great absurdity and contrary to the whole drift of S. Paul speaking of that matter and extollinge the dignity of this Sacrament yea coÌ„trary to the expresse discourse of Christ himselfe sayinge not Moyses gaue yow bread from heauen meaning the Manna but my Father giueth yow true bread from heauen And to this discourse also yow shall find nothinge aunswered in effect 10. From this Doctor Glyn passeth to shew out of S. Augustine S. Ambrose and S. Basill that the body of Christ must be adored before yt be receaued whervnto was aunswered that only a certayne reuerent manner of receauinge vvaâ— therby meant but no adoration but the other replyed that the Fathers spake of proper adoration yea S. Austen went so farre therin in his books De ciuitate Dei that he affirmeth the heathens to haue esteemed the Christians to haue adored Ceres and Bacchus Gods of bread and wyne by the adoration which they vsed to this Sacrament of bread and wyne which they would neuer haue suspected of the Protestants by their behauiour towards their supper of bread and wyne Whervnto another aunswere was framed that Saint Augustinâ— meant only of adoringe Christs body in heaâ—â—n and not in the Sacrament and this aunswere was confirmed by Ridley very sollemnely sayinge for his preface For because I am onâ— that doth loue the truth I vvill heere declare vvhaâ— I thinke in this point c. I do graunt a certayne honour and adoration to be done vnto Christs body but then the Fathers speake not of yt in the Sacrament but of yt in heauen c. Neyther is there any other aunswere giuen And yet who seeth not that this is but a playne shift For when S. Augustine for example saith Nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adorauerit No man eateth that flesh in the Sacrament but first adoreth yt And Saint Chrysostome Adora communica dum proseratur sacrisicium adore and communicate vvhilst the sacrifice is brought forth yt is euident by common sense that the adoration is appointed to that body which there presently is eaten and not to Christs body absent in heauen for by this kind of their adoration we adore also our ordinary dinners to witt by adoringe God in heauen and sayinge grace c. And he that shall read the place of the Fathers themselues will wonder at this impudency for Saint Austen doth expound those words of the Psalme Adorate scabellum pedum eius and applieth yt to his flesh in the Sacrament and S. Chrysostome speaketh expressely of Christs flesh as yt is in the Sacrament and offered as a sacrifice 11. And yet doth Fox make Doctor Glyn to haue replyed neuer a word nor so much as produced the textes themselues of the Fathers named by him but giuinge yt ouer passed to another argument sayinge Yf yt please your good Lordshipp S. Ambrose and S. Augustine do say that before the consecration yt is but bread and after the consecration yt is called the body of Christ Wherto was aunswered Indeed yt is the very body of Christ Sacramentally after the consecration vvher as before yt is nothinge but common bread and yet after that yt is the Lords bread and thus must S. Ambrose and S. Augustine be vnderstood So said the aunswerers and Doctor Glyn vvas by the procters commaunded to cease and passe to the second question but he obtayned by intreaty to go foreward an instance or two more
shewing out of the words of S. Ambrose that Ridleyes aunswere could not be true for that S. Ambrose said that after the consecration there is not the thinge that nature did forme but that which the blessing doth consecrate And that yf the benediction of Elias the Prophett could turne the nature of water how much more the benediction of Christ God man can do the same ergò there is a greater change in the natures then of common bread to become the Lords bread 12. To this reply there was no other aunswere giuen but that S. Ambrose his booke dâ— Sacramentis was not his Ridley affirmed that all the Fathers did say so which was a shamelesse lye in so great an auditory nor could he bringe forth so much as one Father that said so nor alleaged he any one argument to proue yt to be so and yf he had yet S. Ambrose repeatingâ— againe the very same sentence in his booke de initiandis is sufficient for the authority of the place but Glyn is made to passe away the matter with sylence sayinge VVell lett this passe c. And then goinge to other authorityes of Fathers ys â—â—yped of with like shifâ—â— as when he cyteth S. Cyprians words Panis non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Dei sit caro tâ—e bread by consecration being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of God made flesh they aunswere that by nature is vnderstood a naturall property or quality and by flesh a fleshly thinge or quality and not the substance so as the sense must be that bread is changed not in outward shape but into a naturall property of a fleshly thing c. And when Doctor Glyn replyed to ouerthrow this inuention out of S. Ambrose who affirmeth this chaÌ„ge of bread to be made into the flesh that was taken of the Virgin Mary ergò yt was not only into a fleshly thinge quality or property but into the true flesh of Christ Ridly gaue an aunswere that I vnderstand not nor himselfe I thinke but only that he must say somwhat in so great an audience and expectation or Fox vnderstood yt not that setteth it downe for these are his words 13. VVhen Doctor Glyn vrged the sayinge of S. Ambrose that bread is changed into the body taken from the virgin Mary that is to say saith he that by the word of God the thinge hath a being that yt had nâ—t before and we do consecrate the body that we may receaue the grace and power of the body of Christ in heauen by this Sacramentall body So he And doth any man vnderstand him or is his aunswere any thinge to the purpose for satisfyinge the Fathers S. Cyprian saith that the bread by the omnipotency of God is changed in nature and made flesh and S. Ambrose saith yt is the flesh taken from the Virgin and Ridley saith heere that yt hath a being vvhich yt had not before and that they do consecrate a sacramentall body of Christ therby to receaue the grace and power of Christs body in heauen but howsoeuer they do consecrate that body which is a strange word for Sacramentaryes to vse yet do they graunt that this Sacramentall body is but bread and how then can yt be flesh and flesh of the Virgin were not the Fathers ridiculous yf they vsed these equiuocations yea false and improper speaches 14. Well Doctor Glyn goeth foreward and alleageth S. Chrysostome vpon S. Mathewes ghospell where to persuade vs the truth of Christs body in the Sacrament he saith that we must beleeue Christs words in these mysteryes and not our senses for that our senses may be deceaued but Christ sayinge this is my body cannot deceaue vs and that he made vs one body with himselfe not through faith only but in very deed and further that the miracle which he wrought in his last supper he vvorketh dayly by his ministers c. Whervnto Ridley aunswered nothinge but these words Maister Doctor yow must vnderstand that in that place S. Chrysostome shewed that Christ deliuered vnto vs no sensible thinge in that supper So he Which notwithstanding is euidently false for he deliuered sensible bread wyne according to the Protestants faith and accordinge to outs the formes of bread and wyne which are also sensible and yf there were no sensible thinge then could there be no Sacrament which must conteyne a sensible signe And to refuâ—e this shift of Ridley Doctor Glyn obiected Theophilact expoundinge S. Chrysostome and vsinge the same words that he did to witt that the bread is transelemented and transformed He alleageth another place or two of S. Augustine togeather with S. Irenaeus To all which Rochester aunswereth resolutely VVell say what yow list yt is but a figuratiue speach as S. Iohn Baptist was said to be Elias for a property c. But who doth not see the absurdity of this euasion for so much as the meaning of Christ about Elias his spiritt in S. Iohn Baptist is euident nor euer went any auncient Fathers about to affirme or proue by arguments that S. Iohn Baptist was truly Elias in person himselfe expressely denyinge yt or that yt was meant literally as they do of the words of Christ in the Sacrament And this could not Ridley but see but that he was blinded in pride and passion for that otherwise he would neuer haue gone about to aunswere the Fathers by euident wranglinge so contrary to their owne sense and meaninge 15. After Doctor Glyn was putt to silence in this order succeded Maister Langdale Maister Sedgewicke and Maister Yonge but very breefely concerninge this article of the reall-presence not being permitted to speake more and the most part of the tyme trifled out also with courtesyes of speach the one to the other My good Lord good Maister Doctor pleaseth yt your good Lordshipp liketh yt your good Fathershipp honourable Father and the like ceremonyes for they durst do no other Ridley being then high commissionar yet Maister Langdale vrged a place of S. Chrysostome where he bringeth Christ savinge these words I vrould be your brother I tooke vpon me common flesh and bloud for your sakes and euen by the same things that I am ioyned to yow the very same I haue exhibited to yow againe meaninge in the Sacrament Wherof Maister Langdale inferred that seing Christ tooke vpon him true naturall flesh and not a figure of flesh only or remembrance therof therfore he gaue vs his true naturall flesh like man in the Sacrament and not a figure Wherto Ridley aunswereth in these words and no more VVe are not ioyned by naturall flesh but do receaue his flesk spiritually from aboue Which aunswere is not only contrary to the expresse words and meaning of S. Chrysostome in this place but of Christ himselfe also brought in heere by S. Chrysostome to vtter his meaninge as yow haue heard I tooke vpon me common flesh for
againe vpon the 50. Psalme Pro â—bo carne propria nos pascit pro potu sanguinem suum nobis propinat In steed of meat he feedeth vs with his owne flesh and in steed of drinke he giueth vnto vs to drinke his owne bloud And againe homil 83. in Matth. Non side tantum sed reipsa nos corpus suum effecit c. Not only by faith but in deed he hath made vs his body And finally for that yt was denyed expressely Saint Chrysostome to meane that we receaued Christs body with our corporall mouth Doctor VVeston vrged these words of Saint Chrysostome Non vulgarem honorem consecutum est os nostrum excipiens corpus dominicum Our month hath gotten no small honour in that yt receaueth the body of our Lord. 24. But all this will not serue for still Cranmer aunswered by his former sleight thus VVith our mouth vve receaue the body of Christ and teare it vvith our teeth that is to say the Sacrament of the body of Christ. Do yow see the euasion And what may not be shifted of in this order doth any minister in England vse to speake thus oâ— his communion-bread as S. Chrysostome in the place alleaged of the Sacrament after the words of consecration or do any of the auncient Fathers wryte so reuerently of the water of baptisme which they would haue done and ought to haue done yf Christs body be no otherwise present in this Sacrament then the holy-Ghost is in that water as Cranmer oftentymes affirmeth and namely some few lynes after the foresaid places alleaged But Doctor VVeston seing him to decline all the forsaid authorityes by this ordinary shift of the words spiritually and sacramentally vrged him by another way out of the same Chrysostome concerninge the honour due to Christs body vpon earth quod summo honore dignum est id tibi in terra ostendo c. I do shew thee vpon earth that which is worthy of highest honour not Angells not Archangells nor the highest heauens but I shew vnto thee the Lord of all these things himselfe Consider how thou dost not only behould heere on earth that which is the greatest and highest of all things but dost touch the same also not only touchest him but dost eat the same and hauinge receaued him returnest home 25. Thus S. Chrysostome Out of which place Doctor VVeston vrged him eagerly excludinge all figures and eatinge of Christs body absent by faith for that S. Chrysostome saith not only Ostendo tibi I do shew vnto thee that which is worthy of highest honour aboue Angells and Archangells but ostendo tibi in terra I shew yt to thee heere vpon earth which signifieth the presence of a substance wherto this highest honour is to be done and that this thinge is seene touched eaten in the Church which cannot be a figure nor the sacramentall bread for that highest honour is not due to them nor can vt be Christ absent only in heauen for S. Chrysostome saith I snew it thee heere on earth c. To all which pressinges when Doctor Cranmer had no other thing in effect to aunswere but these phrases often repeated that it is to be vnderstood sacramentally and I aunswere that it is true sacramentally c. The hearers fell to cry out and hisse at him clappinge their hands saith Fox and callinge him indoctum imperitum impudentem vnlearned vnskillfull impudent And Fox to help out Cranmer in this matter besides all other excuses maketh this learned glosse in the margent vpon S. Chrysostomes words Ostendo tibi in terra c. I do shew vnto thee vpon earth what is worthiest of highest honour to witt Christs body The body of Christ saith Fox is shewed forth vnto vs heere on earth diuers vvayes as in readinge scriptures hearinge sermons and Sacraments and yet neyther scriptures nor sermons nor Sacraments are to be worshipped c. So he which is as iust as Germans lippes And I would askeâ— this poore glossist what maketh this note to the purpose of S. Chrysostome for neyther doth he speake of the different wayes wherby Christs body may be shewed forth vpon earth but saith that himselfe did shew yt in the Sacrament vpon the Altar to all that would see it Nor doth he say that the meanes or wayes wherby Christs body is shewed are worthy greatest honour or worshipp but that the thinge that is shewed forth is worthy of highest honour And how then standeth Fox his glosse with this sense or whervnto serueth it but only to shew these wreched-mens obstinacy that one way or other will breake through when they are hedged in by the Fathers authorityes most plaine and manifest 26. After this assault giuen by Doctor VVeston the first opponent Doctor Chadsey returned to deale with Cranmer againe by issue of talke came to vrge these words of Tertullian Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt animade deo saginetur Our flesh is fedd with the body and bloud of Christ to the end that our soule may be fatted with God which is as much to say that our mouth doth eate the body of Christ and our mynd therby receaueth the spirituall fruite therof Out of which words D. VVeston â—vrged that seing our flesh eateth the body of Christ which cannot eat but by the mouth Christs body is really eaten and receaued by our mouth which so often by Cranmer hath byn denyed but now his words are Vnto Tertullian I aunswere that he calleth that the flesh vvhich is the Sacrament Of which aunswere I cannot vnderstand what meaninge yt hath except Fox do erâ—e in settinge yt downe for yf the flesh be the Sacrament then must the Sacrament feed on the body and bloud of Christ accordinge to Tertullian which is absurd But â— suspect that Cranmers meaninge was that the body of Christ was called the Sacrament for so he expoundeth himselfe afterward when he saith The flesh liueth by the bread but the soule is inwardly fedd br Christ so as when Tertullian saith our flesh is fedd by Christs body and bloud he would haue him to meane that our flesh eateth the Sacramentall bread and wyne that signifieth or figureth Christs body and bloud our soule feedeth on the true body of Christ by faith but both Doctor Chadsey Doctor VVeston refuted this shift presently by the words immediatly ensuinge in Tertullian Non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniungit Our body and soule cannot be separated in the reward whome the same worke doth conioyne togeather and he meaneth euidently by the same worke or operation the same eatinge of Christs body Wherfore yf the one that is the soule doth eat Christs true body as Cranmer confesseth then the other which is our flesh eateth also the same body as Tertullian saith and for that Doctor VVeston liked well this argument out of Tertullian and said
mynds haue trifled but it is truly the very body and bloud of our Sauiour indeed And finally the whole generall Councell of Nice the second aboue 800. yeares past hath these words do yow read as longe as yow vvill yow shall neuer find Christ or his Apostles or the Fathers to haue called the vnhloudy sacrifice of Christ offered by the Priest an image or representation but the very body and bloud of Christ it selfe And could the auncient Fathers speake more effectually properly or cleerly then this 85. And yet he that will examine and weigh their sayings a man exactly shall find them to speake in a certaine manner more effectually for that they did study as we haue said how to vtter their meaninge with emphasie S. Hilary vseth this kind of argument yf the word of God were truly made flesh then do we truly receaue his flesh in the Lords supper and therby he is to be steemed to dwell in vs naturally S. Cyrill proueth not only a spirituall but a naturall and bodily vnion to be betweene vs and Christ by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament Theodorete doth proue that Christ tooke flesh of the blessed Virgin and ascended vp with the same and holdeth the same there by that he giueth to vs his true flesh in the Sacrament for that otherwayes he could not giue vs his true flesh to eate yf his owne flesh were not true seeing that he gaue the same that he carryed vp and retayneth in heauen S. Irenaeus S. Iustine S. Chrysostome do proue not only this but the resurrection also of our bodyes by the truth of Christs flesh in the Sacracrament for that our flesh ioyninge with his flesh which is immortall ours shal be immortall also And the same Saint Irenaeus also doth proue further that the great God of the ould Testament creator of heauen and earth was Christs Father for proofe wherof he alleageth this reason that Christ in the Sacrament did fullfill the figures of the old Testament that in particular wherin bread was a figure of his flesh which he fulfilled saith Irenaeus makinge yt his flesh indeed 86. I passe ouer many other formes of speaches no lesse effectuall which doe easily declare the Fathers mynds and meaninges in this point as that of Optatus Mileuitanus who accused the Donatists of sacriledge horrible wickednesse for hauinge broken downe Catholike Altars wheron the body and bloud of Christ had byn borne VVhat is so sacrilegious saith he as to breake downe scrape and remoue the Altars of God on vvhich your selues haue sometymes offered and the members of Christ haue byn borne c. VVhat is an Altar but the seate of the body and bloud of Christ and this monstrous villany of yours is doubled for that yow haue broken also the chalices vvhich did beare the bloud of Christ himselfe So he And is there any Protestant that will speake thus at this day or doth not this reprehension agree fully to Protestants that haue broken downe more Altars and chalices then euer the Donatists did Saint Leo the first saith that the truth of Christs true body and bloud in the Sacrament was so notorious in his dayes vt nec ab insantium linguis taceretur That very infants did professe the same And in the same sermon he saith that the body of Christ is so receaued by vs in the Sacrament vt in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transeamus that we should passe into his flesh who by his incarnation is made our flesh Saint Chrysostome in many places of his works doth vse such deuout reâ—orent and significant speaches of that which is conteyned in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread wyne after consecration as no doubt can be of his meaninge whereof yow haue heard diuers points before in the disputations as that it deserued the highest honour in earth that he did shew it lyinge vpon the Altar that the Angells descended at the tyme of consecration and did adore Christ there present vvith tremblinge and seare and durst not looke vpon him for the Maiestie of his presence And other such speaches which is conforme to that before cyted in the disputation out of the Councell of Nice Credamus iaecere in illa mensa sacra agnum Det à Sacerdotibus sacriâ—icatum Let vs beleeue to lye on that holy table the lambe of God sacrificed by Priests And is there any Protestant that will speake thus 87. But aboue all the rest are those speaches which before I said to tend to a certeyne exaggeration as that our flesh is turned into his flesh by receauinge the blessed Sacrament that our flesh is nourished by his and that of two fleshes there is made but one flesh Whervnto do appertayne not only those former phrases which already yow haue heard of the naturall and corporall vnity which the Fathers do so often inculcate to be betweene Christ and vs by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament that we are brought therby into one masse or substance of flesh with him but many other like significant manners for vtteringe their mynds as that of S. Chrysostome he nourisheth vs vvith his owne body and doth ioyne and conglutinate our flesh to his And againe That by his body giuen vs in the Sacrament Se nobis commiscuit in vnum nobiscum redegit He hath mixt himselfe to vs and brought himselfe and vs into one body and flesh And yet further he doth permitt himselfe not only to be handled by vs but also to be eaten and our teeth to be fastened vpon his flesh and vs to be filled with the same flesh which is the greatest point of loue saith Saint Chrysostome that possible can be imagined So he And conforme to this S. Cyrill of Alexandriae vttereth himselfe after another sort for he vseth the example of leuen which Saint Paul doth touch in his epistle to the Corinthians when he saith that a little leuen doth leuen a whole bach euen so saith S. Cyrill the flesh of Christ ioyned to our flesh doth leuen or pearse through it and conuert it into it selfe And in another place he vseth this similitude that as vvhen yow take a peece of vvax melted at the fire and do droppe the same vpon another peece of vvax these two vvaxes are made one so by the communication of Christs body and bloud vnto vs he is in vs and we in him 88. Another auncient Father also vpon the point of 1200. yeares gone had this similitude As wine saith he is mixed vvith him that drinketh the same in such sort as the wine is in him and he in the wine so is the bloud of Christ mixed also vvith him that drinketh the same in the Sacrament And S. Irenaeus Tertullian S. Iustinus Martyr all of them elder then this man do vse commonly this phrase of nourishinge and feedinge our flesh by the flesh
is the Eucharist called sometymes by the Fathers the signe of Christs body but of Christs body present as hath byn said and not absent Thirdly this Sacrament is a signe of Christ his death and passion and of the vnion of his mysticall body the Church with him For that as bread and wyne represented by these formes are made of many grains and many grapes so is Christs mysticall body consistinge of many members vnited to him so as by all these wayes may this Sacrament be called a signe to witt a signe of the inward grace and norishment of the soule obtayned therby a signe of Christs true body present a signe of Christ his death and mysticall body and yet do none of all these figures exclude the true reall being of his body in the Sacrament but do rather suppose the same 41. And the like may be said to the other words or tearmes of figure type commemoration or memory all which when they occurre are to be vnderstood in some of these senses without preiudice of the reality or truth of our Sauiours being in this Sacrament as for example this Sacrament is a forme type commemoration memory of Christs death on the Crosse and yet this excludeth not his reall-presence from hence As for example if a Prince hauing gayned in proper person a great singular victory should institute a sollemne triumph to be made euery yeare in memory therof some times should go in that triumph himselfe also yt might be truly said that this triumph is a figure type commemoration and memory of the other victory of the Prince yet is the Prince truly also in yt himselfe and so may be said in like manner of this matter of the Sacrament wherin Christ in differēt manner is a figure or type of himselfe And the like may be said of the dayly sacrifice also which sacrifice is a commemoration or memory of the other bloudy sacrifice once offered on the crosse and yet conteyneth the same reall body of our Sauiour which the other did after another manner And by this will the reader easily discouer diuers poore shifts fallacyes of our moderne heretiks especially of Ridley before named who as yow haue heard him professe was moued to leaue his ancient faith of the masse his practice therin for that in some certaine places for sooth of the Fathers he found that this sacrifice of the masse is called a commemoration of Christs passion a stronge argument no doubt to moue him to so great a resolution And so much of this 42. Now then are to be examined the other words sacramentally really and spiritually and as for the first the common sense and meaninge of schoole diuines is that diuised this word to signifie therby a peculiar manner of Christs supernaturall being in the Sacrament different from his naturall and circumscriptiue being in heauen and from the naturall being of an Angell definitiuely in a place wherof we haue spoken before So as when they say that Christ is sacramentally vnder the formes of bread and wyne they do not deny his true and reall being there in flesh the very selfe-same that is in heauen but he is there in another manner And this is the chiefe proper signification of the word sacramentally amongest schoole-men for which the word was inuented 43. But in the common vse and sense of our speach sacramentally signifieth that Christs body is there vnder a Sacrament or signe which are the formes of bread and wyne and not in his owne proper shape euen as an Angell when he appeareth in a body he may be said to appeare bodyly for that the body is the figure or forme vnder which he appeareth and conforme to this sense we are said to receyue Christ sacramentally when we receaue him truly and really but yet not in his proper forme but vnder another forme that is to say of bread and wyne wherby the fraudulent dealing of our moderne Sacramentaryes may appeare who deceauing the people with this word sacramentally do oppose yt to really and truly as though when any author saith that we receaue Christ sacramentally in the Eucharist yt were to be vnderstood that we did not receaue Christs body in deed and really but only a signe therof and by this they endeauour to delude all the places though neuer so euident of holy Fathers affirminge that Christs true flesh and body the very same that was borne of the virgin Mary and crucified for vs is receaued in the Sacrament these good fellowes aunswere that yt is true sacramentally which we also graunt yf sacramentally do not exclude really accordinge to the true signification of the word But yf by sacramentally they meane as they do that only a signe is receaued of Christs body in the Sacrament then is their deceyt manifest as yow see for that sacramentally hath no such signification at all amonge diuines but only is diuised amonge them for a shift 44. The like fraud they vse about the word spiritually which in the sense of holy Fathers being opposite to carnally and corporally in their ordinary materiall signification is by sectaryes also wrested as though yt were contrary to the word really so as whensoeuer they are forced to graunt Christs body to be spiritually in the Sacrament by which phrase the said ancient Fathers do meane only that he is not there after a carnall or common manner as he liued vpon earth they will haue yt vnderstood that he is there only by faith and not in deed really and substantially They abuse also the signification of the foresaid wordes carnally corporally which hauing a double sense the one that Christs body is naturally and really in the Sacrament the other that he is there after the externall being of other bodyes they deceytfully do take them now in one sense and now in another and alwayes oppose them to the word spiritually which in the former sense are not incompatible but may stand togeather though not in the later And for auoydinge of this equiuocation diuines do wish those two words carnally and corporally though true in the foresaid sense yet to be more sparingly vsed then the other words really and substantially that are equiualent in sense and lesse subiect to equiuocation and mistaking 45. Wherfore to conclude this obseruation all these words are to be noted and their true vse and signification remembred by him that will not be deluded by hereticall sleights and impostures in this high mystery but especially are to be obserued these three wherby our Sacramentaryes do most of all deceyue the vulgar people in their assertions and answers to our arguments to witt sacramentally spiritually and by faith as though they did exclude the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament which is most false for that in the true sense we admitt them all For example we graunt that Christ is sacramentally in this Sacrament both as sacramentally signifieth a distinct
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