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
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
conuersion And then he explaneth himselfe thus that as in bread one loafe is made of many graynes so signifieth this Sacrament that we are all one mysticall body in Christ. And againe As bread nourisheth our body so doth the body of Christ nourish our soule And thirdly As bread is turned into our substance so are vve turned into Christs substance All vvhich three effects cannot be signified saith he by this Sacrament yf there be Transubstantiation and no nature of bread left and therfore there can be no Transubstantiation 7. This is Maister Ridleyes deepe diuinity about the nature of this Sacrament but yf yow reade that which we haue noted before in our eyght obseruation concerninge the true definition and nature of a Sacrament in deed yow will see that this was great simplicity in him though accordinge to his hereticall groūd that the Sacramēts doe not giue grace to leaue out the principall effect signified in the Sacrament which is grace for that a Sacrament is defined A visible signe of inuisible grace receaued therby This Sacrament also is a signe of Christs body there present vnder the formes of bread and wyne yet deny we not but that these other three effects also of vnity nutrition and conuersion may be signified therby as in like manner the death and passion of our Sauiour wherof this Sacrament is a memoriall and commemoration neyther doth the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ lett or take away these significations for so much as to make this Sacrament there is taken bread and wyne which naturally doth signifie these effects of vnion nutrition and conuersion which Ridley heere mentioneth though yt be not necessary that the substance of the said bread and wyne should still remayne but only there formes and accidents which do signifie and are signes to our senses as much as yf the substances themselues of bread and wyne were present As for example the brasen serpent did as much represent and was a signe of Christ in respect of the analogie betwene Christ and a true serpent as yf he had had the substance of à true serpent whereof he had but only the forme and shape and so are the outward formes of bread and wyne after the words of consecration sufficient to represent vnto vs the Analogy that is betweene feedinge the body and feedinge the soule vnity of graines and vnity of Christs mysticall body which is his Church 8. And thus much of Ridleyes third ground which impugneth Transubstantiation which ground as yow see is so weake and feeble as he that shall build theron is like to come to a miserable ruyne of his owne saluation But much more ridiculous is his fourth ground vttered in these words The fourth ground saith he is the abhominable heresie of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation Thus he saith in his position but lett vs heare him afterward in his probation which is not much larger then his proposition for thus he wryteth They vvhich say that Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist do take from him the verity of mans nature Eutiches graunted the diuyne nature in Christ but his humayne nature he denyed And is not this a goodly proofe of so great a charge Nay is not this a goodly ground and head-springe of proofes Consider I pray yow how these matters do hange togeather Eutiches heresy was as yow may see in the letters of Saint Leo the first and in the Councell of Calcedon that Christs flesh being ioyned to his diuinity was turned into the same and so not two distinct natures remayned but one only made of them both And how doth this heresie I pray yow follow of our doctrine of Transuostantiation Eutiches said that the diuine and humayne natures in Christ were confounded togeather and of two made but one we say that they remayne distinct and do condemne Eutiches for his opinion and by our Church he was first accursed and anathematized for the same Eutiches said Christs humayne nature was turned into his diuine we say only that bread and wyne is turned into Christs flesh and bloud what likenesse hath this with Eutiches heresie But saith Ridley vve do take from Christ the verity of mans nature This is a fiction and foolish calumniation as before yow haue heard and consequently deserueth no further refutation 9. The fifth ground is saith he the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith He ascended into heauen This ground yf yow remember hath byn ouerthrowne before and abandoned by Ridley himselfe in his Oxford-disputation where he graunted that he did not so straitly tye Christ vp in heauen to vse his owne words but that he may come downe on earth at his pleasure And againe in another place of the said disputation VVhat letteth but that Christ yf yt please him and vvhen yt pleaseth him may be in heauen and in earth c. And yet further to Doctor Smith that asked him this question Doth he so sitt at the right hand of his Father that he doth neuer foresake the same Ridley aunswered Nay I do not bynd Christ in heauen so straitly By which aunsweres yow see that this whole principall ground and head-springe of Ridleyes arguments against Transubstantiation is quite ouerthrowne For yf Christ in flesh after his ascension may be also on earth when he will as Ridley heere graunteth then is it not against the article of our Creed He ascended into heauen to beleeue that not withstandinge his ascension he may be also on earth in the Sacrament And albeit Ridley do cyte heere certayne places of S. Augustine that do seeme to say that Christ after his ascension is no more conuersant amonge vs vpon earth yet that is not to be vnderstood of his being in the Sacrament which is a spirituall manner of being but of his corporall manner of conuersation as he liued visibly among his disciples before his ascension And this is sufficient for discussion of this fifth ground wherof the cheefe particulars haue byn handled in diuers places before 10. Now then will we returne to his second ground againe of the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient Catholike Fathers And first he alleagath Saint Dionysius Areopagita for that in some places of his works he callerh yt bread And the like of Saint Ignatius to the Philadelphians which we deny not for S. Paul also calleth yt so as before we haue shewed but yet such bread as in the same place he declareth to be the true body of Christ sayinge that he vvhich receaueth yt vnworthily shal be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ addinge for his reason non dijudicans corpus Domini for not discerninge the body of our Lord there present And so S. Ignatius in the very selfe-same place saith that yt is the flesh and bloud of Christ as yow may read in that Epistle 11. After these he citeth Irenaeus whose words are Eucharistia ex
quantity to be without such extension but this ground Cath. Philosophers and diuines do easily ouerthrow shewinge that three things do agree to quantity or magnitude wherof the first is to be extended in yt selfe and to haue distinct partes one from the other among themselues though not euer visible or perceptible by our sense and this first point is so essentiall to quantity and magnitude as yt cannot be imagined separable so as it remaine quantity And therfore this is graunted to be in the body of our Sauiour in the Sacrament though our sense doth not comprehend yt The second property of quantity or magnitude proceedinge from this first is not only to haue partes distinct in themselues but to haue them extended also in place accordinge to the commensuration therof as in the first way of being in place we haue declared 20. And for that this second condition or propriety is later then the former ensueth therof yt is not so intrinsecall to the nature essence of quantity but that by Gods diuine power yt may be separated without destroyinge the said nature which our diuines do shew by examples of other thinges where God hath separated such secondary proprietyes without dissoluinge the natures as heatinge for example from fyre in the fornace of Babylon which heatinge notwithstandinge is as naturall to fyre as yt is to quantity to occupy place Christ also in S. Mathewes ghospell hauinge said to his disciples that yt was easier for a Camell to passe through the eye of a needle then for a rich-man to enter into the Kingedome of heauen and the Apostles wondringe therat and sayinge vvho then can be saued our Sauiour answered that that vvhich vvas impossible to men vvas possible to God which yet could not be possible but by separatinge from the camell all his naturall extension and commensuration of place Wherfore all the auncient Fathers vpon this place attributing this to myracle do affirme that by Gods diuine power yt may be done to witt that a camell remayninge in the nature of a camell may passe through a needles eye quid prohibet saith S. Gregory Nazianzen quo minus hoc siat si voluntas it a tulerit What letteth but that this of the camell may be done yf Gods will be to haue yt so Some Protestant will stepp forth and say that yt cannot be done for that the Camell should not in that case haue quantity and be organicall for so they say of our Sauiours body in the Sacrament but Nazianzen was of another opinion And so may yow read Origen S. Hierome S. Augustine S. Hilary S. Chrysostome and other Fathers in their commentaryes and expositions vpon this place of S. Mathewes ghospell 21. The third naturall condition or propriety of quantity proceedinge of this second is that for so much as by the forsaid second propriety the thinge placed doth fill vp the place which yt occupyeth euery part therof answeringe to euery part of the said place only and one place conteyne one body so as naturally yt is no lesse impossible for two bodyes to be in one place then for one body to be in many Yet notwithstanding supernaturally and by Gods omnipotent power both the one the other may be without implication or contradiction of the essence or nature of a true body The reason wherof is this for that this third propriety in quantity or magnitude flowinge of the second as hath byn said may much more easily be separated from the essence of the said quantity and body then the second and consequently the former being separable this is much more wherof our diuines do giue diuers most euident instances out of scripture yt selfe As for example out of S. Iohns Ghospell where twise yt is said that he came in to his disciples when the gates were shutt And in S. Mathew and S. Marke where yt is shewed how Christ after his resurrection came forth of the sepulcher the stone also being shutt and in his natiuity he came forth of his mothers wombe without violation of her virginity and in his assension he passed through all the heauens with his naturall body In all which myraculouse examples for so do the ancient Fathers hould and affirme them to be there must needs be penetration of bodyes or two bodyes in one place which is no lesse repugnant to the ordinary nature of quantity as hath byn said then for a body to be without certaine dimension of any place 22. Besides this our diuines do alleage the examples of the damned spirits miraculously tyed to certayne locall places in hell and that which is more maruelous that the damned soules being spiritts should suffer and be tormented by corporall fire wherof S. Augustine treateth at large lib. 21. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 1. 2. deinceps which is no lesse against the ordinary nature and propriety of spiritts to suffer corporally then yt is against the nature of a body to be after a certayne spirituall manner without his locall dimension by all which we may perceaue that although yt be aboue naturall reason that organicall bodyes should want these externall locall positions yet is yt not contrary or contradictory thervnto but subiect to Gods omnipotent power when and where yt pleaseth him to make yt so and consequently yt may be so also in the blessed Sacrament without destroyinge the nature of a true body as fondly Protestants do pretend 23. And heerby now falleth to the ground a whole mayne multitude of vayne arguments brought by Fox his Martyrs as after yow shall see against the reall presence all of them founded vpon this ground that a true organicall body cannot by Gods power be either without locall dimensions or in moe places then one at once The first of which two assertions hath now ben improued and the second shal be in the next ensuinge obseruation The fifth Obseruation How a body may be in diuers places at once §. 5. 24. As the weake faith and learninge of the Sacramentaryes of our tyme cannot reach to conccaue that a body can be without an externall place so much lesse can they comprehend that yt may be by Gods omnipotency placed in diuers places at once for that yt seemeth to their sense and humayne reason to be impossible but the ancient holy Fathers more wise and learned then our said Sectaryes tooke another course in this point which was to asscribe yt to miracle and to Gods infinite power which they could not by reason arriue vnto I might cyte diuers Fathers but one or two shall serue for all Omiracle saith S. Chrysostome o goodnes of God! that the same Christ who sitteth in heauen vvith his Father is conuersant at the selfe-same tyme in the hands of all that receaue him on earth And the same Father wrytinge of the same sacred body of our Sauiour as yt is a sacrifice saith Vnum est hoc sacrificium c. This sacrifice is
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
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
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
much different from the former for both of them are founded on sense and humayne reason and heere I will not conioyne all the arguments togeather as before I did but set them downe seuerally as Fox recordeth them out of Peter Martyrs disputation 1. Argument Yf Christ had giuen his body substantially and carnally in the supper then was that body eyther passible or impassible But neyther can yow say that body to be passible or impassible which he gaue at supper not passible for that S. Austen denyeth yt Psalm 98. not impassible for that Christ saith This is my body vvhich shal be giuen for yow Ergo he did not giue his body substantially at supper Annswere 12. And this same argument vsed others after Peter Martyr as Pilkilton against Doctor Glym alleageth the same place of S. Austen as yow may see in Fox pag. 1259. But the matter is easily answered for that the minor or second proposition is cleerly false for that Christs body giuen in the supper though yt were the same in substance that was giuen on the Crosse the next day after yet was yt deliuered at the supper in another manner to witt in manner impassible vnder the formes of bread and wyne so as according to the being which yt hath in the Sacrament no naturall cause could exercise any action vpon yt though being the selfe same which was to dye vpon the Crosse yt is also passible euen as now in heauen it is visible in the Sacrament inuisible though one the selfe same body now in both places glorious and immortall this meaneth expressely S. Austen in the place alleaged whose words cited by Fox are Yow are not to eate this body that yow see nor to drinke the bloud that they are to shedd who shall crucifie me Which words being spoken to them that were scandalized at his speach about the eatinge of his body do shew that we are in deed to eate his true flesh in the Sacrament but not after that carnall manner which they imagined carnaliter cogitauerunt saith S. Austen in the same place putauerunt quod praecisurus esset Dominus particulas quasdam de corpore suo daturus â—â—is They imagined carnally and thought that Christ vvould haue cutt of certayne peeces of his body and giuen vnto them which grosse imagination our Sauiour refuteth by tellinge them that they should eat his true body but in another forme of bread and wyne 13. And yet that yt is the selfe-same body the selfe-same bloud the same Doctor and Father affirmeth expressely both in this and many other places Verè magnus Dominus c. he is in deed a great God that hath giuen to eat his owne body in which he suffered so many and great thinges for vs. And againe talkinge of his tormentors Ipsum sanguinem quem per insaniam fuderunt per gratiam biberunt The selfe-same bloud which by fury they shee l by grace they dronke And yet further of the same Quousque biberent sanguinem quem fuderunt mercy left them not vntill they beleeuinge him came to drinke the bloud which they had shedd And finally in another place Vt eius iam sanguinem nossent bibere credentes quem fuderant saeuientes that comminge to beleeue in him they might learne to drinke that bloud which in their cruelty they shee l And last of all in another place explaninge his owne faith and the beleefe of all Christians in this behalfe he saith against heretiks of his tyme Mediatoreâ— Dei c. We do with faithfull hart and mouth receaue the mediator of God and man Christ Iesus giuing vnto vs his flesh to be eaten and bloud to be dronken though yt may seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to stea the same and to drinke mans bloud then to snedd the same Consider heere the speach of Saint Augustine whether it may agree to the eatinge of a signe of Christs body or bloud what horror is there in that And thus much to this first argument 2. Argument Bodyes organicall without quantity be no bodyes The Popes doctrine maketh the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be without quantity Ergo the Popes doctrine maketh the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be no body Aunswere 14. We graunt that bodyes organicall without all quantity are no bodyes but Catholike doctrine doth not teach that Christs body in the Sacrament is without all quantity but only without externall quantity aunswering to locall extension and commensuration of place which repugneth not to the nature of quantity as before is declared at large in the fourth obseruation of the precedent Chapter wherby yow may see both the vanity of this argument as also the notorious folly ignorance of Fox who by occasion of this argument of an organicall body vrged by Cranmer in Oxford against Maister Harpesfield when he proceeded Bachler of diuinity bringeth in a whole commedy of vayne diuises how all the learned Catholike men of that vniuersity were astonished at the very propoundinge of this graue doubt to witt VVhether Christ hath his quantity quality forme figure and such like propertyes in the Sacrament All the Doctors saith Fox fell in a buzzinge vncertayne what to aunswere some thought one way some another and thus Maister Doctors could not agree And in the margent he hath this note The Rabbyns could not agree amongst themselues and then he prosecuteth the matter for a whole columne or page togeather makinge Doctor Tressam to say one thinge Doctor Smith another Harpesfield another VVeston another M. VVard philosophy-reader another whose philosophicall discourse about the nature of quantity Fox not vnderstandinge neyther the other that were present as he affirmeth concludeth thus Maister VVard amplified so largely his words so high he clymed into the heauens with Duns ladder and not with the scriptures that yt is to be maruayled how he could come downe againe without falling So Iohn according to his skill but Maister VVard and the rest that vnderstood philosophy knew well inough what he said and yow may easily conceaue his meaninge as also the truth of the thinge yt selfe by readinge my former obseruation for I thinke yt not conuenient to repeate the same againe heere 3. Argument All thinges which may be diuided haue quantity The body in the Popes Sacrament is diuided into three parts Ergo the body in the Popes Sacrament hath quantity which is against their owne doctrine Aunswere 15. We deny that it is against our doctrine that Christs body in the Sacrament hath inward quantity but only externall and locall We deny also that Christs body is diuided into three parts in the Sacrament or into any part at all for it is indiuisible only the formes of bread are diuided And this is the ignorance of the framer of this argument that vnderstandeth not what he
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
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
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
escape Saint Chrysostome saith not the verity of Christ is one but one Christ is in all places both heere and there Ridley One sacrifice is in all places because of the vnity of him vvhome the sacrifice doth signifie not that the sacrifices be all one and the same 47. Marke now heere gentle reader what yt is to dispute with these people that seeke after nothinge but shifts holes to runne out at or stipp away Consider how many they be vpon this only place For first when Ridley was pressed with S. Chrysostomes authority as yow haue heard prouinge euidently that Christ could be at one tyme in diuers places his first shift was that yt maketh nothinge against him and then that albeit Christ be in many places yet his body cannot be in many places as though Christ were in any place without his body And then againe yt being shewed that S. Chrysostome speaketh expressely of Christs body the next shift was that his body is not there after the ordinary manner of bodily presence to witt by circumscription of place which is quite from the purpose for that we hould this also as before you haue heard in the fifth sixt obseruations to witt that Christ is not circumscriptiuely in the Sacrament And further yt is another absurd shift or rather ignorance in Ridley and may be the fift or sixt about this matter to affirme as heere he doth that Christs body is not by circumscription euery-where or in all places for we hould also not only that which he saith by circumscriptioÌ„ but that no wayes either circumscriptiuely or definitiuely or sacramentally is Christs body euery-where but only in many distinct places by Gods omnipotent will The other of vbâ—quity being a property of Gods diuinity only to be in euery place at one tyme as before we haue shewed And lastly to follow Ridley and his riddles no further about this matter the words of S Augustine are foolishely alleaged by him that the Lord is aboue but the truth of the Lord is in all places For as Doctor VVeston well noteth and telleth him vve talke not heere how the Lords truth is eueryvvhere but whether Christs body be in diuers places or noe for Christs truth is euerywhere where his faith grace or power is but not his body And albeit his truth admitt not the circumstances or proprietyes of places sursum and deorsum yet his body doth which Ridley considered not when he brought this example but only desyred to say some-what though neuer so much from the purpose 48. And the like shiftes he sheweth in his last answere about this place of S. Chrysostome when Doctor VVeston vrginge that one Christ and one body is in all places whersoeuer his sacrifices are offered he aunswereth not to the words of Saint Chrysostome at all but saith only at randome that one sacrifice is in all places S. Chrysostome saith one body because of the vnity of him vvhome the sacrifice doth signifie which is as much to say in his sense as the sacrifice being but a signe or signification of Christ that is one is multiplyed in diuers places And what great miracle is this I pray yow to multiply many figures in diuers places of one thinge who may not do so and yet Saint Chrysostome sâ—â—teth yt downe for a wonderfull strange and admirable matter that one Christ the selfe-same lambe one body fully heere and fully there should be offered at one tyme in many places which miracle in Doctor Ridleyes sense is both easy and no miracle at all and so much about this place of Saint Chrysostome 49. The second authority out of S. Bernard is in these words Vnde hoc nobis pijssime Iesu c. How cometh this vnto vs ô most pious Iesu that we seely wormes creepinge on the face of the earth that are but dust and ashes should deserue to haue thee present in our hands before our eyes who sitteth both whole and full at the right hand of the Father and who in the moment of one houre from the risinge of the sunne vnto the goinge downe thereof art present one and the selfe-same in many and diuers places c. To this place D. Ridley gaue diuers answers First saith he these words of Bernard make nothing for yow at all This is very confidently spoken as yow see no lesse then to the place of S. Chrysostome before and I beleeue he will not stand longe vnto yt For yf Saint Bernard doth meane as he saith he must needs make much for vs in the words now recyted wherin I referre me to the iudgement of the reader Wherfore Maister Ridley not trustinge much to this answere passeth to his second sayinge I know that Bernard vvas in such a tyme that in this matter he may vvorthily be suspected So he And yet least he might seeme to leese some creditt in reiectinge S. Bernard he hath a third answere thus notwithstanding saith he I will so expound him rather then reiect him that 〈◊〉 shall make nothinge for yow at all Lo heere his last cast and this he learned of his Maister Caluyn not so much to reiect in words the Fathers as Luther did but rather by false and crafty interpretation sleightly to auoyd them which indeed is not humility but double impiety and more impious to the Fathers themselues then to be vtterly denyed for by this meanes they are made coadiutors of heretiks lett vs heare then S. Bernard expounded by Ridley to his purpose S. Bernard quoth he saith that we haue Christ in a mystery in a Sacrament vnder a veyle or couer in the meane tyme heere now he saith that the verity of Christ is euery-vvhere So he And is not Ridley ridiculous heere let the reader compare S. Bernards words before alleaged with this exposition of Ridley and he will say that the commentary hitteth as right the text as the blynd-fold-man doth hitt the hennes head on the ground when his face is another way from her And thus much of Doctor Ridleyeâ— three aunswers to this place of Saint Bernard 50. After this Doctor Smith vrged him againe vvith another place of S. Chrysostome where he makinge a comparison betweene Elias the Prophett and Christ saith that Elias left his cloake to Elizeus with his double spiritt when he went vp to heauen but Christ did much more miraculously for that he left vs his flesh in the Sacrament and yet tooke the same vp with him Helias quidem melotcm discipulo reliquit filius autem Dei ascendens suam nobis carnem dimisit Helias quidem exutus Christus autem nobis reliquit ipsam habens ascendit Elias indeed at his departure left his cloke or hearcloth vnto his disciple Elizeus but the sonne of God ascendinge vp to heauen left his owne flesh vnto vs Elias left his cloake but Christ both left vnto his his flesh yet carryed the same with him Which plaine place when Ridley went
about to delude as he had done other former places by sayinge that Chrysostomes meaninge was that he left his flesh vpon earth not really and substantially but to be receaued after a spirituall communication by grace addinge this example as we also quoth he by hearing the ghospell and by faith So as by this aunswere we haue Christs flesh no otherwise present by meanes of the Sacrament then we haue him present by hearinge the ghospell or by beleeuinge in him which is to euacuate wholy the speach comparison of S. Chrysostome Wherfore to ouerthrow this shift Doctor Smith alleaged another plaine place of the same Chrysostome in confirmation of this where he saith O miraculum ô Dei benignitatem qui sur sum sedet tempore sacrificis hominum mantbus continetur c. O miracle o goodnesse of God! that he which sitteth aboue is conteyned in mens hands in the tyme of the sacrifice But all this would not serue for he auoâ—ded this as he had done the other sayinge he that sitteth there to witt in heauen is heere present in mystery and by grace and is holden of the godly c. And finally though there were diuers boutes in this matter yet could nothinge be gotten more 51. But to this sense Doctor Smith Doctor Seton Doctor Harpesfield and Doctor VVeston vrged him much about the place asking him where was the miracle yf Christ left his flesh heere only in mystery and by faith how could the comparison stand betweene Helias and Christ for Christ must do more then Elias Elias left his mantle and could not carry yt vp with him Christ not only left his flesh but carryed vp the same ergò he left the same that he carryed vp c. But he carryed vp his true and naturall flesh ergò he left the same to all which he aunswered againe He tooke vp his flesh vvith him to heauen and left heere the communion of his flesh on earth With which shiftinge aunswere Doctor VVeston being moued began after his fashion to vrge the matter earnestly sayinge yow vnderstand in the first place his flesh for very true flesh and in the second place for grace and communion of his flesh I will make yt euident how blockish and grosse your aunswere is As Elias left his cloke saith S. Chrysostome so the sonne of God left his flesh but Elias left his true substantiall cloke ergò Christ left his true substantiall flesh and heerin he spake in English Ridly I am glad yow speake in English and surely I vvould vvish all the vvorld might vnderstand your reasons and my answers Reliquit nobis carnem Christ left vnto vs his flesh This yow vnderstand of flesh and I vnderstand of grace he carryed his flesh to heauen and left behind him the communion of his flesh vnto vs. Weston Yee iudges vvhat thinke yow of this aunswere Iudges Iudges It is a ridiculous and very fond aunswere Ridley vvell I vvill take your vvords patiently for Christs sake 52. And this was the end of the controuersy about this place of S. Chrysostome to witt that we must take grace for flesh and when Christ is said to haue left his flesh heere with vs we must vnderstand his grace Yet Doctor VVeston alleaged also another place out of the same Father where he saith Spargimur c. VVe are sprinkeled vvith the very selfe-same bloud that Christ carryed vp vvith him c. Whervnto Ridley answered after his fashion yt is the same bloud but spiritually receaued Then vrged he Sainâ— Bernards words againe the selfe-same Christ is present vvholy in diuers places euen from the vvest to the east from the north to the south c. Wherto Ridley aunswered that God accordinge to his Maiestie and prouidence as S. Augustine saith is euery-where with the faithfull and so must Bernard be expounded Do yow see this exposition Read Saint Bernards words before sett downe and yow shall see that he speaketh of Christ as sittinge in heauen and yet present vvholy in the Priests hands c. And not of his Maiestie prouidence wherby he is euery-where as before hath byn declared So as this is not to expound but to confound the Fathers and I thinke verily that Ridley was much troubled when he gaue such impertinent aunswers and expositions 53. And with this would I passe ouer this whole strife about Saint Chrysostomes places of Elias but that I must let yow know that there had byn some yeares before a great styrre and altercation in the conuocation-house about the same for that Philpott hearinge that place alleaged against him as his fashion was vaunted wounderfully that this being the Papists cheefe and principall foundation he would so beat them from yt and as Fox addeth giue such a plucke at yt as yt should neuer sorue their turne more and when yt came to the triall he said that he had two wayes to beate them from it The first was that Christ goinge vp to heauen carryed his owne flesh with him and eâ—t the same behind him in that he left vs behind him that are flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones This is the first blow and plucke wherby yow see that Christs progatiue is plucked also for Helias as well as he left his flesh behind him in this sense for he was of our flesh and Philpott also left his flesh behind him in vs though his owne were burned in Smith-field And finally S. Chrysostome speaketh expressely of the Sacrament of the Altar sayinge that therein Christ left his flesh but he did not leaue all mankynd in that Sacrament wherefore this first plucke is to small purpose But lett vs see his second 54. The second is that Christ saith he lest his flesh in the mysteryes that is sacramentally and that this mysticall flesh Christ leaueth as well in the Sacrament of baptisme as in the sacramentall bread wine So he Wherin yf yow marke he giueth not only the ordinary old plucke of other Sacramentaryes to the verity of Christs flesh makinge that mysticall which S. Chrysostome speaketh expressely of the naturall flesh left by him and therby plucketh out of ioint all Saint Chrysostomes whole meaninge and discourse but giueth a new plucke also to the whole Sacrament of the Eucharist affirminge Christs flesh to be as much in baptisme as in the other consequently that both Saint Chrysostome and other Fathers do in vayne trouble themselues with so much extollinge the excellency of the Eucharist for hauinge Christs flesh in yt for that the water of baptisme hath the same so yow see the whole Sacrament plucked vp by these pluckes of Philpott and yet saith Fox that he did sâ—rewdly shake our reall presence by giuinge such a plucke to one of our cheefe foundations Yow see how one of these men do flatter the other 55. Next to this entred one Maister VVard to dispute that had byn Philpotts reader and seing D. Ridley to haue
themselues do graunt that yf Christ be there really present yt cannot be denyed but that he is there also by Transubstantiation of bread into his body for so Father Latymer yf yow remember affirmed before in his disputations when he was said once to haue byn a Lutheran which Lutherans do hould both Christs body and bread to be togeather in the Sacrament he aunswered I say that he could neuer perceaue how Luther could defend his opinion without Transubstantiation that the Tygurynes being also Sacramentaryes did write a booke against him in this behalfe prouinge belike that in grauntinge the reall presence as he did he must needs graunt Transubstantiation also wherin they had great reason for that in truth the imagination of Luther and Lutherans that Christs body and bread doe stand togeather vnder the same formes and accidents and be receaued togeather being so different substances is a most grosse and fond imagination so as the Lutherans graunting the one denying the other are condemned of absurdity euen by the Zuinglians themselues as yow see and as we say also iustly 2. And on the other side we say in like manner as before hath byn noted that the Zuinglians and Caluinists and other Sacramentaryes denyinge wholy the said reall presence do in vayne wrangle about Transubstantiation For as he that should deny for example sake that any substance of gould were in a purse or any substance of wyne in a barrell should in vaine dispute whether the gold were there alone or togeather with some baser metall as siluer tynne or copper or whether the wyne were there alone or in company of water so in this controuersie yt is an idle disputation for Sacramentaryes to discusse whether the substance of Christs reall flesh be alone in the Sacrament or togeather with the substance of bread for so much as they deny yt to be there at all 3. Yet notwithstanding for that their cheefe altercation is about this point as by their disputations may appeare I shall breefely examine their grounds vvhich accordinge to B. Ridleyes ostentation vttered in Cambridge out of the diuinity chayre vnder King Edward the sixt as before yow haue heard are fiue in number sett forth in these vauntinge words The principall grounds or rather head-springs of this matter are specially fiue First the authority maiestie verity of holy scriptures the second the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient Catholike Fathers the third The definition of a Sacrament the fourth The abhominable heresie of Eutiches that may ensue of Transubstantiation The fifth the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith He ascended into heauen And then a little after he concludeth thus These be the reasons vvhich persuade me to enâ—lyne to this sentence and iudgement 4. Heere yow see the principall grounds or rather head springs that persuaded Ridley to inclyne or rather declyne for yet he seemed not fully setled in this article of beleefe And albeit these grounds may seeme to conteyne somewhat in shew and sound of words yet when the substance thereof commeth to be examined they are found to be idle and puffed vp with words indeed For first what authority maiesty and verity of scriptures doth this man bring forth trow you for confirmation of this his vaunt truly nothing in effect or of any shew or probability but only that yt is called bread and wyne in the scripture after the words of consecration For which purpose he hauinge alleaged the words of Christ I will not drinke heerafter of this fruite of the vyne vntill I do drinke yt new vvith yow in the kingdome of my Father he inferreth that the fruite of the vyne is wyne which we graunt vnto him do hould is called wyne by him after the consecration as his flesh after the words of consecration is called bread by S. Paul S. Luke and other Apostles affirming yt notwithstanding to be his owne true body and flesh but retayninge the name of bread for that yt was made of bread and was bread before as the serpent was called the rodd of Aaron for that yt was made of that rodd and not because yt was not a true serpent afterwards though yt were still called a rodd and to signifie this that bread conuerted into Christs flesh is not really bread afterward but the true flesh of Christ though yt retayne the former name of bread yt is not simply called bread but with some addition as bread of life bread of heauen this bread and the like And finally Christ himselfe doth expound what bread yt is in S. Iohns ghospell when he saith The bread that I shall giue yow is my flesh for the life of the vvorld 5. Heere then yow see that Ridleyes text of scripture I vvill not drinke hereafter of the fruite of the vyne vntill I drinke yt new vvith yow in the Kingdome of my Father doth not proue that yt was materiall wine which he dronke for that he should then drinke materiall wyne also in heauen And yet assoone as Ridley had brought forth this place as though he had done a great feate and fully performed his promise for proofe of the authority maiesty and verity of scripture he beginneth presently to excuse himselfe for that he hath no more store sayinge There be not many places of scripture that do confirme this thinge neyther is yt greatly materiall for yt is inough yf there be any one plaine testimony for the same Lo whervnto this vaunt of the authority maiesty and verity of holy scriptures is come to witt to one place vnderstood and interpreted after his owne meaninge alone against the vnderstandinge of all antiquity And though he go about afterwards to scrape togeather diuers other parings of scripture nothinge at all to the purpose as Yow shall not breake any bone of his Do yow this in my remembrance labour for the meate that perisheth not this is the worke of God that they beleeue in him whome he hath sent he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him and some other like places yet as yow see by his owne confession they are not plaine places and consequently his vauntinge of authority maiesty and verity of scriptures commeth to iust nothinge indeed but only to words and wynde Lett vs see what he bringeth for his other foure grounds and headsprings 6. The second is the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient Catholike Fathers This we shall examine afterwards when we haue considered of the other three yet may yow marke by the way that he vseth heere also the superlatiue degree of most certayne testimonyes which certainty of testimonyes yow shall find afterward to be like his maiesty of scriptures already alleaged Wherfore let vs see his third ground The third ground saith he is the nature of the Sacrament which consisteth in three things vnity nutrition and