point from the beginninge which are recorded by Catholike wiyters of our dayes from age to age and one only alleageth thirty and two that wrote heereof before the Councell of Lateran and are ouerlong to be recited in this place only they may be reduced for more perspicuitie to two heads the one of such as deny the substance of bread to remayne after the words of consecration the other of such as do expressely auouch a conuersion of bread into Christs body 27. Of the first sort that deny bread to remaine is S. Cyrill Bishop of Hierusalem whose words are hoc sciens ac pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem etiamsi gusts panem esse sentiat c. Thou knowing and being certayne of this that the bread which we see is not bread not withstanding it tast as bread and the wyne which we see not to be wyne but the bloud of Christ though to the taste still see me to be wyne And S. Gregory Nissen Panis iste panis est in initio communis c. This bread at the beginninge is comon bread but when yt is consecrated yt is called and is indeed the body of Christ. Againe Eusebius Antequant consecrentur c. Before consecration there is the substance of bread and wyne but after the words of Christ yt is his body and bloud All which do exclude as yow see bread after consecration And to the same effect S. Ambrose Panis hic panis est ante verba Sacramentorum sed vbi accesserit consecratio de pane sit â—aro Christi This bread before the words of the Sacraments is bread but after the consecration of bread is made the flesh of Christ. And S. Chrysostome treating of this mistery asketh this question and aunswereth the same Num â—ides panem num vinum absit ne sic cogites Dost thou see bread dost thou see wyne heere God forbidd thinke no such matter And to this same effect many others might be cyted but yt would grow to ouergreat prolixity 28. The second sort of testimonyes that do affirme conuersion and change of bread into the body of Christ are many more yf we would stand vpon their allegation and in place of all might stand S. Ambrose whose faith was the generall faith of Christendome in his â—ayes he doth not only oftentymes repeat that by the words of Christ vttered by the Priest vpon the bread the nature substance therof is changed into the body and bloud of Christ but proueth the same by examples of all the miraculous mutations conuersions recorded in the old and new Testament Prebemus saith he non hoc esse quod natura formanit sed quod benedictio consecrauit maiorémque vim esse benedictionis quam naturae quia benedictione etiam ipsa natura mutatur Lett vs proue then by all these other miracles that this which is in the Sacrament is not that which nature did frame vsed bread and wyne but that which the blessinge hath consecrated and that the force of blessinge is greater then the force of nature for that nature herselfe is changed by blessinge And againe Si tantum valuit sermo Eliae vt ignem de coelo depoueret non valebit sermo Christi â—t species mutet elementorum Yf the speach of Elyas was of such force as yt could bring downe fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ in the Sacrament be able to change the natures of the elemeÌ„ts videlicet as I said before of bread and wyne And yet further Yow haue read that in the creation of the world God said and thinges were made he commaunded and they were created that speach then of Christ vvhich of nothinge created that which was not before shall yt not be able to exchaunge those thinges that are into other thinges vvhich they vvere not before sor yt is no lesse to giue new natures to things then to chaunge natures but rather more c. 29. Thus reasoneth that graue and holy Doctor to whome we might adioyne many more both before and after him as namely S. Cyprian in his sermon of the supper of our Lord Panis iste quem c. This bread which Christ gaue vnto his disciples being change not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of the word made flesh S. Cyrill Bishop of Hierusalem proueth the same by example of the miraculous turning of water into wine at the marriage of Cane in Galeley aquam mutauit in vinum saith he c. Christ turned water into wyne by his only will and is he not worthy to be beleeued quod vinum in sanguinem transmutauit that he did chaunge wyne into his bloud For yf at bodily marriages he did worke so wonderfull a miracle why shall not we confesse that he gaue his body and bloud in the Sacrament to the children of the spouse wherfore with all certainty let vs receaue the body and bloud of Christ for vnder the forme of bread is giuen vnto vs his body and vnder the forme of wyne his bloud Thus hee of this miraculous chaunge wherof Saint Chrysostome treatinge also vpon S. Mathew wryteth thus Nos ministrorum locum tenemus qui verò sanctificat immutat ipse est We that are Priests should but the place of his ministers in this great chaunge for he who doth sanctifie all and maketh the chaunge is Christ himselfe To like effect wryteth Eusebius Emissenus quando benedicendae c. When the creatures of bread and wyne are layd vpon the Altar to be blessed before they are consecrated by the inuocation of the holy Ghost there is present the substance of bread and wyne but after the words of Christ there is Christs body and bloud And what maruayle yf he that could create all by his word posset creata conuertere could conuert and chaunge those thinges that he had created into other natures 30. I might alleage many other Fathers to this effect but my purpose in this place doth not permitt yt this shal be sufficient for a tast that the doctrine of conuersion or chaunge of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ which is the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not new at the tyme of the Councell of Lateran but was vnderstood and held euer before by the cheefe Fathers of the Catholike Church yea and determined also by two Councells at Rome and the first therof generall wherin was present our Lansrancus vpon the yeare of Christ 1060. vnder Pope Nicolas the second and the other 19. yeares after vnder Pope Gregory the seauenth both of them aboue an hundred yeares before the Councell of Lateran wherin notwithstanding is declared expressely this doctrine of the chaunge of bread wyne into the body and bloud of our Sauiour albeit not vnder the name of Transubstantiation and yt is proued expressely out of the words of
this is my body c. And so did he beare himselfe in his owne hands vvhich vvas prophesied of Dauid but fulfilled only by Christ in that Supper 81. These are the particularityes vsed by the Fathers for declaring what body they meane and can there be any more effectuall speaches then these but yet harken further Thou must know and hold for most certaine saith S. Cyrill that this vvhich seemeth to be bread is not bread but Christs body though the tast doth iudge it bread And againe the same Father Vnder the forme or shew of bread is giuen to thee the body of Christ vnder the forme or snape of wine is giuen to thee the bloud of Christ c. And S. Chrysostome to the same effect VVe must not beleeue our senses eaysie to be beguiled c. VVe must simply and vvithout all ambyguity beleeue the vvords of Christ sayinge This is my body c. O how many say now adayes I vvould see him I vvould behould his visage his vestments c. But he doth more then this for he giueth himselfe not only to be seene but to be touched also handled and eaten by thee Nor only do the Fathers affirme so asseuerantly that yt is the true naturall body of Christ though yt appeare bread in forme and shape and that we must not beleeue our senses heerin but do deny expressely that yt is bread after the words of consecration wherof yow heard longe discourses before out of S. Ambrose in his books de sacramentis and de initiandis Before the words of consecration it is bread saith he but after consecration de pane sit caro Christi of bread yt is made the flesh of Christ And note the word fit yt is made And againe Before the words of Christ be vttered in the consecration the chalice is full of vvine and vvater but vvhen the vvords of Christ haue vvrought their effect ibi sanguis efficitur qui redemit plebem there is made the bloud that redeemed the people And marke in like manner the word efficitur is made and consider whether any thinge can be spoken more plainly 83. But yet the Fathers cease not heere but do passe much further to inculcate the truth of this matter reprehending sharply all doubt suspition or ambiguity which the weaknesse of our flesh or infection of heresie may suggest in this matter S. Cyrill reasoneth thus VVheras Christ hath said of the bread this is my body vvho vvill dare to doubt therof and vvheras he hath said of the wine this is my bloud vvho vvill doubt or say yt is not his bloud he once turned vvater into vvine in Cana of Galiley by his only will which wine is like vnto bloud and shall vve not thinke him vvorthy to be beleeued vvhen he saith that he hath changed vvine into his bloud So he And S. Ambrose to the same effect Our Lord Iesus Christ doth iestifie vnto vs that we do receaue his body and bloud and may we doubt of his creditt or testimony And the other Saint Cyrill of Alexandria saith to the same effect that in this mystery we should not so much as aske quomodo how yt can be done Iudaicum enim verbum est saith he aeterm supplicij causa For ye is a Iewish word and cause of euerlastinge torment And before them both Saint Hilary left wrytten this exhortation These things saith he that are wrytten lett vs read and those things that vve reade lett vs vnderstand and so vve shall perfectly performe the duty of true saith for that these points vvhich vve affirme of the naturall verity of Christs being in vs. exceptive learne them of Christ himselfe we affirme them wickedly and foolishly c. VVherfore vvheras he saith my sâ—eâ—h is truly meat and my bloud is truly drinke there is no place left to vs of doubting concerning the truth of Christs body bloud for that both by the affirmation of Christ himselfe and by our owne beleefe there is in the Sacrament the flesh truly and the bloud truly of our Sauiour 83. So great S. Hilary and Eusebiuâ— Emissenus bringeth in Christ our Sauiour speakinge in these words For so much as my flesh is truly meat and my bloud is truly drinke leit all doubt fullnes of in fideliâ—y depart for so much as he vvho is the author of the gift is vvittnesse also of the truth therof And S. Leo to the same effect Nothinge at all is to be doubted of the truth of Christâ— body and bloud in the Sacrament c. And those do in vaine aunswere amen when they receaue yt if they dispute against that vvhich is affirmed And finally S. Epâ—pâ—anius concludeth thus He that beleeueth it not to be the very body of Christ in the Sacrament is fallen from grace and saluation 84. And by this we may see the earnestnesse of the Fathers in vrginge the beleefe of Christs true flesh and bloud in the Sacrament But they cease not heere but do preuent and exclude all shifts of Sacramentaryes which by Gods holy spiritt they forsaw euen in those auncient dayes affirminge that not by faith only or in â—igure or image or spiritually alone Christs flesh is to be eaten by vs but really substantially and corporally Not only by faith saith S. Chrysâ—stome but in very deed he maketh vs his body reducing vs as yt were into one masse or substance vvith himselfe And Saint Cyrill Not only by saith and charity are we spiritually conioyned to Christ by his flesh in the Sacrament but corporally also by communication of the same flesh And S. Chrysostome againe Not only by loue but in very deed are we conuerted into his flesh by eatinge the same And Saint Cyrill againe VVe receauinge in the Sacrament corporally and substantially the sonne of God vnited naturally to his Father we are clarified glorified therby and made partakers of his supreme nature Thus they Whervnto for more explication addeth Theophilact VVhen Christ said This is my body he shewed that it vvas his very body in deed and not any figure correspondent thervnto for he said not this is the figure of my body but this is my body by vvhich vvords the bread is transformed by an vnspeakable operation though to vs it seeme still bread And againe in another place Behould that the bread vvhich is eaten by vs in the mysteryes is not only a figuration of Christs flesh but the very flesh indeed for Christ said not that the bread vvhich I shall giue yow is the figure of my flesh but my very flesh indeed for that the bread is transformed by secrett vvords into the flesh And another Father more auncient then he aboue twelue hundred yeares past handlinge those words of Christ This is my body saith It is not the figure of Christs body and bloud vt quidam stupida mente nugati sunt as some blockish
of Nouember ended vpon the 14. of December 1547. there was an act made with this title An act against such persons as shall vnreuerently speake against the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ c. Wherin magnificent words are spoken of this Sacrament and all those greatly reprehended that in their sermons preachings readings taâ—ks rymes songes playes or gestures did name and call yt â—y such vile and vnseemely words saith the Statute is Christian eares did abhorre to heare yt rehearsed and this was the the first spiritt of that Caluinian humor in England misliked by Cranmer and the rest at that tyme but soone after allowed well by Iohn Fox in such of his Martyrs as call yt wormes-meate idoll and the like 4. And finally this party so much preuayled with them that gouerned as not longe after that is to say in the second parlament be gone the 4. of Nouember 1548. and ended the 14. of March 1549. they gott their new communion booke to be admitted wherin their new doctrine also against the reall presence was conteyned and then Peter Martyr who as in his story we haue shewed was sent to Oxford before with indiffereÌ„cy to teach what should be ordeyned him from higher powers in that parlament hauing expected all the lent long whilst the parlament endured what would be decreed about this point and finding himselfe in straytes for that he was come to the place of S. Paul to the Corinthians where he must needs declare himselfe receauinge now aduertisment of the new decree did not only accomodate himselfe to teach and preach the same doctrine presently which yet the other friar his companion Martyn Bucer would not doe in Cambridge but also was content vpon request order from the Councell to defend the same in publike disputations for better authorizinge yt through the whole body of the realme This then was the occasion of this first publike disputation to giue some countenance and creditt to the new receaued opinion and paradox of Zuinglius Occolampadius and Carolstadius three schollers of Luther himselfe against the reall presence which as often yow haue heard before Luther did condemne for damnable heresie and them for heretiks that mayntayned yt 5. The questions chosen by Peter Martyr were three First about Transubstantiation whether after the words of consecration the bread and wyne be turned into the body and bloud of Christ. The second about the reall presence whether the body and bloud of Christ be carnally and corporally for so are his words in the bread and wyne or otherwise vnder the kinds of bread and wyne The third was whether the body and bloud of Christ be vnited to bread Sacramentally But of this last question Fox relateth nothing that yt was eyther handled or touched in this disputation About the former two this manifest fraud was vsed that wheras the first about Transubstantiation dependeth of the second of the reall presence it should haue byn handled in the second place and not in the first as heere yt is for cleerer conceauing whereof the Reader must note that the mayne controuersie betweene the Sacramentaryes vs is about the reall presence to witt whether the true body of Christ be really and substantially in the Sacrament after the words of consecration which we do hould affirmatiuely and so doth Luther also then supposing that it is so there followeth a second question de modo essendi of the manner of Christs being there to witt whether yt be there togeather with bread or without bread or whether the bread be anihilated by the ptesence of Christs body or whether yt be turned into the very substance of Christs body as we haue shewed out of Scotus and Durand before in the discussion of Plessis Mornay his Triall and euery one of these opinions about the manner of Christs being there do presuppose the reall presence denyed by the Sacramen taryes So as to dispute first about this particular manner of Christ his being there by Transubstantiation before yt be discussed whether he be really there or noe ys to sett the cart before the horse and the foote before the head 6. And yet for that they do persuade themselues that they haue some more shifts or shewes of probability against Transubstantiation then against the reall presence or can delude better our arguments in the simple peoples eyes they alwayes runne to this leaue the other And it is as if the question being first whether gold were in a purse then whether yt were there alone or els togeather with ledd tynne or some such baser mettall some wrangeler would first dispute the second question before the first or as if two demauÌ„ds being propounded first whether in such a vessell where watter was knowne to be before there be wine put in and secondly whether this wine haue turned that water into it selfe or noe or that water wine do remaine togeather and that one would pretermit the first questioÌ„ to witt whether wine be really truly there or no and cauil only about the second vvhether the vvater be turned into wine or remaine togeather with the wine In which cases yow see first that this manner of dealinge were preposterous and impertinent wrangling but especially yf the wrangler did deny expressely that there was any gold at all in the purse or wine in the vessell for then yt were too too much folly for him to dispute the secondary questions whether the said gold were there alone or with other mettalles or whether the wine had coÌ„uerted the water into it selfe or no for yf neither gold nor wine be really there preseÌ„t then is there no place for the secoÌ„d dispute at all And so fareth it in our coÌ„trouersy of the reall presence of Christs body For if the said body be not really substaÌ„tially in the SacrameÌ„t at all as the Zuinglians Caluinists do hould then is it impertineÌ„t for them to dispute the second question whether it be there without bread or with bread or whether bread be turned into it or no by TraÌ„substaÌ„tiation for so much as they suppose it not to be there at all only Luther Lutherans may haue coÌ„trouersy with Catholiks about the maÌ„ner how it is there seing they beleeue it to be there in deed but ZuingliaÌ„s Caluinists caÌ„not but only about the first question whether it be there or noe which question notwithstanding for so much as they fly and runne alwayes to the second as we haue shewed notorious it is that they runne froÌ„ the purpose shew theÌ„selues not only wraÌ„glers but also deceauers seeking to dazell the eyes of the simple in this behalfe as in this first disputation at Oxford Peter Martyr begon with Transubstantiation and was much longer therein then in the controuersie of the reall presence 7. And in the second disputation of B. Ridley in Cambridge two only questions being proposed the
confesse they must needs be heere in their proper subiect and substances of bread and wyne but all this is founded vpon a false ground for albeit naturally an accident cannot be but in a subiect yet supernaturally and by the power of God susteyninge yt and supplyinge the place of a naturall subiect yt may be as we do confesse on the contrary side by Christian faith that the humayne nature of Christ in the mystery of the incarnation hath not her proper subsistence in yt selfe which yet is as naturall to a substance to subsist in yt selfe as yt is to an accident to be susteyned by another but is susteyned by the diuine person of Christ. 35. And the reason of this concerninge accidents is that albeit the intrinsecall nature of an accident is to be vnperfect and to depend of another and therby to haue an aptitude to be in another yet the act therof may be separated by Gods power from the said nature as a thinge posterior and followinge from the said nature as we haue she wed before in the naturall propriety of quantity to haue commensuration of place and this to be true that this actuall inherence of accidents may be seuered from the essentiall aptitude thervnto without destroing the nature of the said accident many philosophers both Christian and heathen do affirme whose sentences you may see gathered by diuers learned men as well of ancient as of our tymes Sundry Fathers also are of opinion that this case happened de facto in the creation of the world when the light being made vpon the first day as the booke of Genesis recounteth which being but a quality and accident remayned without a subiect vnto the fourth day when the sonne and moone weare created And of this opinion expressely was S. Basill in his explication of the works of God in those six dayes And the same holdeth S. Iohn Damascene Procopius in his commentary vpon the first Chapter of Genesis and Saint Iustine in the explication of our faith 36. This then being so that these accidents of bread wyne may remaine by the power of God in the Sacrament without their proper subiects yt followeth to consider what actions they can haue And first yt is to be noted that whatsoeuer actions or operations are proper to them as accidents when they were in their proper subiects of bread and wyne before consecration the same they may haue afterwards when they conteyne the body and bloud of Christ without inherence therein for that God supplyeth all by his power which their said subiects or substances did performe when they were present So as the effects for example that the accidents of wine bread did worke in our senses before by mouinge our sight by their colours to see our tast by their sauour and other like effects the same do they performe also afterwards So as for example sake by drinkinge much consecrated wyne though there be no substance of wyne therin but only the proper accidents of wyne as heat smell and other qualityes and proprietyes of wyne may a man be incensed or distempered as much as yf the substance of wyne were there in deed for these are the proper actions and operations of the said accidents themselues but where the concurrāce of substance is necessary to any action as in nutrition generation or corruption of one substance into another there doth God supply the matter that is necessary to that action when the body of Christ doth cease to be there which is when those accidents of bread and wyne are corrupted and not otherwise As for example in the resurrection of our bodyes where euery body is to receaue his owne proper flesh againe which yt had in this life yf some one body hauinge eaten another body or parcell therof in this world and conuerted the same into his proper substance in this case I say almighty God must needs supply otherwise by his omnipotent power that part and matter of substance that wanteth in one of these two bodyes for that els one of them should be vnperfect and want part of his substance in the resurrection And after the like manner we say that when a consecrated hoast is eaten and afterward is turned into the naturall norishment of the eater which norishment requireth a materiall substance God doth supply that substance in that instant when the formes of bread and wyne perishinge the body of Christ ceaseth to be there 37. And this appertayneth to the prouidence of almighty God for supplying the defects of particular naturall causes when any thinge fayleth that is necessary for their naturall operations The very same also is to be obserued in generation and corruption as for example when the accidents of the consecrated host perishinge and some other substance should happen to be engendred thereof as wormes or the like there the body of Christ ceaseth to be when the said accidents do perish and for the new generation insuinge thereof God supplyeth fitt matter as in the example before alleaged of the resurrection of our bodyes wherof the one had eaten part of the other By which obseruation yt wil be easy afterward to dissolue many cauillations proceedinge eyther of ignorance heresie or both and obiected by Sacramentaryes against this mystery The eight Obseruation About the wordes Sacrament signe figure type commemoration memory c. §. 8. 38. For so much as the Sacramentaryes of our tyme did forsee that they should be forced to oppose themselues for defending their hereticall noueltye sagainst the whole streame of scriptures expositors fathers councells reasons practise antiquity and vniforme consent of the vnhole Christian vvorld they thought best to diuise certayne tearmes and distinctions which should serue them for euasions or gappes to runne out at when-soeuer they should be pressed by our arguments and these their shifts do consist principally in the fraudulent vse of these tearmes of Sacrament signe figure type commemoration memory sacramentally spiritually and the like Wherfore we thinke yt needfull to explane and declare in this place the natures vses and abuses of these words 39. First then a Sacrament according to the common definition asscribed to S. Augustine is a visible signe of an inuisible grace as in baptisme the externall washinge by water is the signe of the internall washing of the soule by grace So heere also in this Sacrament of the Eucharist the externall visible signe are the consecrated formes of bread and wyne as they conteyne the body of Christ the internall or inuisible grace signified is the inward nourishinge and seedinge of our soule And this is the first and cheefe manner how this Sacrament is a signe that is to say a signe of grace and not of Christs body absent as Protestants are wont most fondly and fraudulently to inferre 40. Secondly these externall formes and accidents of bread and wyne are also a signe of Christs body conteyned vnder them And in this sense
that there is as well signum figura rei praesentis quam absentis A signe or figure of things present as well as of things absent as for an example a firkyn of wyne hanged vp for a signe at a Tauerne dore that there is wyne to be sould is both a sygne of wyne and yet conteyneth and exhibiteth the thinge yt selfe And so yt is in the Sacrament which by his nature being a signe figure or representation doth both represent and exhibitt signifieth and conteyneth the body of our Sauiour 41. And as it should be an hereticall cauill to argue out of the said places of S. Paul as the old heretiks did that Christ is called a figure of the substance of his Father and the Image of God or the similitude of man ergo he is not of the reall substance with his Father nor really God nor truly man so is it as hereticall to argue as our Sacramentaryes do that Tertullian Augustine some other Fathers do sometymes call the Sacrament a similitude figure signe or remembrance of Christs body his death and passion as in deed yt is for that otherwise yt should not be a Sacrament ergo yt is not his true body that is conteyned therin especially seing the same Fathers do in the selfe-same places whence these obiections are deduced expressely cleerly expound themselues affirming Christs true reall body to be in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wyne as for example Saint Ambrose heere obiected in the fourth booke de Sacramentis cap. 4. doth expressely and at large proue the reall-presence as exactly as any Catholike can wryte at this day sayinge that before the words of consecration yt is bread but after yt is the body of Christ. And againe Before the vvords of Christ be vttered the chalice is full of vvyne and water but when the words of Christ haue vvrought their effect then is made that bloud which redeemed the people And yet further Christ Iesus doth testifie vnto vs that vve receaue his body bloud and shall we doubt of his testimony Which words being so plaine and euident for the truth of Catholike beleefe lett the reader consider how vaine and fond a thing yt is for the Protestants to obiect out of the selfe-same place that vve receaue the similitude of his death and drinke the similitude of his pretious bloud for that we deny not but the body of Christ in the Sacrament is a representation and similitude of his death on the Crosse and that the bloud which we drinke in the Sacrament vnder the forme of wine is a representation and similitude of the sheddinge of Christs bloud in his passion But this letteth not but that it is the selfe-same body bloud though yt be receaued in a different manner as it letteth not but that Christ is true God though he be said to be the Image of God as before yow haue heard 42. There remayneth then only to be aunswered that speach of S. Augustine obiected in these disputations Quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly beleeue and thou hast eaten Whervnto I answere that this speach of S. Augustine and some other like that are found in him and some other Fathers of the spirituall eatinge of Christ by faith do not exclude the reall presence as we haue shewed before in our nynth obseruation It is spoken against them that come with a base and grosse imagination to receaue this diuine foode as if yt were a corporall refection and not spirituall wheras indeed faith charity are those vertues that giue the life vnto this eatinge faith in beleeuinge Christs words to be true as S. Ambrose in the place before cyted saith and therby assuringe our selues Christs true body to be there and charity in preparing our selues worthily by examinations of our conscience that we do not receaue our owne damnation as S. Paul doth threat And this is the true spirituall eatinge of Christs body by faith but yet truly and really as the said Fathers do expound vnto vs whose sentences more at large yow shall see examined in the Chapter followinge 43. These then being all in effect or at least wayes the most principall arguments that I find obiected by our English Sacramentaryes in the forsaid ten disputations against the article of Christs true reall being in the Sacrament you may consider with admiration and pitty how feeble grounds those vnfortunate men had that vvere first dealers in that affaire wheron to change their faith and religion from that of the Christian world from tyme out of mynd before them and to enter into a new sect and labyrinth of opinions contradicted amonge themselues and accursed by him that was their first guide to lead them into new pathes to witt Luther himselfe and yet to stand so obstinately with such immoueable pertinacy therin as to offer their bodyes to temporall fire and their soules to the euident perill of eternall damnation for the same but this is the ordinary enchauntement of heresie founded on pride selfe iudgement and selfe-will as both by holy scriptures and auncient Fathers we are admonished 44. One thinge also is greatly heere to be noted by the carefull reader vpon consideration of these arguments to and fro how vncertayne a thing yt is for particular men whether learned or vnlearned but especially the ignorant to ground themselues their faith vpon their owne or other mens disputations which with euery little shew of reason to and fro may alter theire iudgement or apprehension and in how miserable a case Christian men were yf their faith wherof dependeth their saluation or damnation should hange vpon such vncertayne meanes as these are that God had left no other more sure or certaine way then this for men to be resolued of the truth as we see he hath by his visible Church that cannot erre yet thought we good to examine this way of disputatiōs also and the arguments therof vsed by Protestants against the truth But now followeth a larger more important examen of the Catholike arguments alleaged by our men against them in this article of the reall-presence And what kind of aunswers they framed to the same wherby thou wilt be greatly confirmed good reader yf I be not much deceaued in the opinion of their weaknesse and vntruth of their cause VVHAT CATHOLIKE ARGVMENTS VVere alleaged in these disputations for the reall-presence and how they were aunswered or shifted of by the Protestants CHAP. V. AS I haue briefly touched in the former Chapter the reasons and arguments alleaged for the Sacramentary opinions against the reall-presence so now I do not deeme yt amisse to runne ouer in like manner some of the Catholike arguments that were alleaged against them though neyther tyme nor place will permitt to recyte them all which the discreett reader may easily imagine by the grounds and heads therof
againe vpon the 50. Psalme Pro â—bo carne propria nos pascit pro potu sanguinem suum nobis propinat In steed of meat he feedeth vs with his owne flesh and in steed of drinke he giueth vnto vs to drinke his owne bloud And againe homil 83. in Matth. Non side tantum sed reipsa nos corpus suum effecit c. Not only by faith but in deed he hath made vs his body And finally for that yt was denyed expressely Saint Chrysostome to meane that we receaued Christs body with our corporall mouth Doctor VVeston vrged these words of Saint Chrysostome Non vulgarem honorem consecutum est os nostrum excipiens corpus dominicum Our month hath gotten no small honour in that yt receaueth the body of our Lord. 24. But all this will not serue for still Cranmer aunswered by his former sleight thus VVith our mouth vve receaue the body of Christ and teare it vvith our teeth that is to say the Sacrament of the body of Christ. Do yow see the euasion And what may not be shifted of in this order doth any minister in England vse to speake thus oâ— his communion-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
but what speach to witt that wherby all things were created the Lord commaunded and heauen was made the Lord coÌ„maunded earth was made the Lord coÌ„maunded the seas were made c. Vides ergò quà m operatorius sit sermo Christi si ergò tanta vis est in sermone Domini vt inciâ—â—rent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius erit â—â— sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Yow see therfore how working the speach of Christ is yf then there be so much force in the speach of our Lord as that those things which were not tooke their beginning therby how much more potent is the same speach in workinge that those things which were before be changed into another And presently he addeth the heauen was not the sea was not the earth was not but heare him speake he said the word and they were done he commaunded and they were â—â—eated Wherfore to answere yow I say that it was not the body of Christ before consecration but after coÌ„secration I say vnto thee that now yt is the body of Christ. So S. Ambrose 34. And heere now good reader I doubt not but yow see the fond euasion of Cranmer and Fox his aduocate cleerly refuted by S. Ambrose where they say that the speach or words of Christ worke not but Christ by the words as though there were a great diuersity in that point But now lett vs see how they will scamble ouer this authority of S. Ambrose that saith expressely both that the speach of Christ did worke potently and worke the conuersion of bread and wyne into flesh and bloud first Fox hath this note in the margent against S. Ambrose as though he had miscompared the words of creation with the words of the institution of the Sacrament The Lord Iesus saith Fox vsed not heere commaundement in the Sacrament as in creation for we read not Fiat hoc corpus meum as vve read Fiat lux c. Do yow see the mans subtile obseruation or rather simple sottish cauillation against so graue a Father The words Hoc est corpus meum this is my body imployeth somewhat more then Fiat corpus meum lett yt be my body for that yt signifieth the thinge done already which the other willeth to be done And so for this we will leaue Iohn Fox to striue with S. Ambrose about the vsinge or abusinge of scriptures alleaged by him And so much of Fox 35. But how doth Cranmer himselfe auoyd this plaine authority of S. Ambrose thinke yow Yow shall heare yt in his owne words for they are very few to so large an authority All these thinges saith he are common I say that God doth chiefly vvorke in the Sacraments Do yow see his breuity and obscurity but his meaning is that wheras before he had denyed for a shift that Christs words did worke but only Christ by his words a difference without a diuersity now seing S. Ambrose so plaine to the contrary in settinge forth the workinge of Christs words he seeketh another shift in this aunswere which is that albeit Christs words do worke in the Sacraments yet Christ chiefly as though any controuersy were in this or any man had denyed yt But what saith he to the mayne point wherin S. Ambrose affirmeth not only Christs vvords to be Operatoria vvorkingewords but that their worke is to make bread the true and naturall body of Christ after they be vttered by the Priest nothing truly in substance doth he aunswere herevnto but after his shifts he saith only that yt vvas called the body of Christ as the holy-ghost vvas called the doue and S. Iohn Baptist was called Elias which are but bare signes representations as euery one seeth hay he goeth againe presently from this which heere he had graunted that God worketh in the Sacraments For when Doctor Yonge vrged him thus Yf God worke in the Sacraments he worketh in this Sacrament of the Fucharist Cranmer aunswereth God worketh in his faithfull not in the Sacraments And thus he goeth forward grauntinge and denyinge turninge and wyndinge and yet poore miserable man he would not turne to the truth nor had grace to acknowledge the same laid before him but toyled himselfe in contradictions endeauouring to shift of most euident authorityes of ancient Fathers by impertinent interpretations As when Doctor Yonge vrged him with those cleere words of S. Ambrose Before the words of Christ be spoken the chalice is full of wyne and water but when the vvords of Christ haue vvrought their effect then is there made the bloud that redeemed the people Cranmer aunswered that the words of Christ wrought no otherwise in this SacrameÌ„t then in baptisme Ambrose said quoth he that the bloud is made that is the Sacrament of the bloud is made fit sanguis the bloud is made that is to say ostenditur sanguis the bloud is shewed forth there 36. These and such like vvere Cranmers sleights to ridd himselfe that day and yet did not Doctor Chadsey and VVeston leaue him for these starts but followed him close with other cleere places of S. Ambrose the one expounding the other As for example Fortè dicas c. Perhaps yow may say how are these things true I vvhich see the similitude do not see the truth of the bloud First of all I tould thee of the word of Christ vvhich so vvorketh that yt can change and turne the kinds ordayned of nature c. And againe in another place Ergo didicisti c. Therfore thou hast learned that of bread is made the body of Christ and that vvyne and vvater is putt into the cupp but by consecration of the heauenly vvord it is made bloud Sed fortè dices speciem sanguinis non videri sed habet similitudinem But perhaps yow will say that the shape or forme of bloud is not seene but yet it hath the similitude So S. Ambrose and for that he saith as yow see that albeit the bloud after consecration hath not the shew or forme of true bloud yet hath yt similitude for that the forme of wyne commeth neerest to the likenesse of bloud heerof Cranmer layinge hands could not be drawne from affirminge that S. Ambrose meaninge is that it is not true naturall bloud after the consecration but beareth a similitude only representation or â—ipe therof which is quite contrary to S. Ambrose his whole drift and discourse yf yow consider yt out of passion 37. After these bickerings about S. Ambrose were vrged against him by the two Doctors Chadsey and VVeston diuers other Fathers as Iustinus Martyr aboue 14. hundred yeares gone whoe in his Apology for Christians writeth that as by the word of God Iesus Christ our Sauiour being made flesh had both flesh and bloud for our saluation so are â—e taught that the meate consecrated by the vvord of prayer instituted by him vvherby our bloud and flesh are nourished by communion
doubted so much in grauntinge and denyinge Christs body to haue appeared vpon earth as in the former disputations of Doctor Smith yow haue partly heard though much be omitted for breuityes sake he began to vrge him againe in that point alleaginge against him the authority of a Catechisme sett forth by himselfe in the name of the whole conuocation-house in K. Edwards dayes where the selfe-same point is graunted which heere he denyed but Ridley for two or three abouts would not yeld that the Catechisme was his though the iudges said that Cranmer had confessed the matter the day before and Maister VVard auouched to his face that he being Bishop of London in his ruffe compelled him to subscribe thervnto yet at length he confessed that both he and Cranmer had approued the same vnder their hands that the place alleaged against him might easily be expounded without any incōuenience and so they slydd away from that matter and a place of Theophilact came in question where he wryteth that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament of the Altar non dixit hoc est figura corporis mei sed hoc est corpus meum he said not that this is the figure of my body but this is my body which authority Ridley wiped of by sayinge his meaninge to be that yt was not only a figure of his body Wherevnto Doctor VVeston replyd that this only was one lye put in by him for that Theophilact had no such word nor could yt stand with his sense for that he did not make the opposition betweene figure and only but betweene the body and figure sayinge yt vvas his body and not a figure of his body And for proofe of this another place of Theophilact was alleaged vpon Saint Iohn where his words are quoniam infirmi sumus c. for that vve are infirme and abhorre to eate raw-flesh especially the flesh of man therefore yt appeared bread but is flesh what can be more plaine and perspicuous then this and yet do I not find any annswere to haue byn giuen by Doctor Ridley to this place but that he passed to another matter to expound the word Transelemented vsed by Theophilact And I passe ouer diuers other places as that of Tertullian acceptum panem corpus suum illud fecit he takinge bread made yt his body and that of Iustinus Martyr sayinge That Christs flesh in the Sacrament is the same that vvas taken of the blessed Virgin And that of S. Augustine vpon the Psalme that he gaue vs to eat the selfe same flesh wherin he vvalked vpon earth All which places being obiected before to Cranmer and read both then now out of the authors themselues by Doctor VVeston that had the books by him were no otherwise aunswered heere then by the same shifts which Cranmer had auoyded them before yt appearinge euidently that they had agreed vpon certayne distinctions and common euasions wherby to delude all the Fathers authorityes that might be brought against them though they were neuer so cleere or pregnant for the purpose 56. It followeth that by order of disputation the turne came to Doctor Glyn to dispute against Doctor Ridley who made saith Fox a very contumelious preface against him vvhich Ridley tooke the more to heart for that he had allwayes taken him to be his frend And albeit Fox doth not sett downe the same preface yet by Doctor Glyns entrance to his argument a man may see that the cheefe point was in reprehendinge him for deludinge and shiftinge of both scriptures and fathers so shamfully as he had heard him do for he saith I see that yow euade or shift away all scriptures fathers And Ridley answered this is a greeuous contumely that yow call me a shifter c. And finally Doctor Glyn endeauored to draw him to yeld to the Catholike Church which being the piller of truth could not be thought to haue fallen to such Idolatry as for many ages to haue worshipped erroneously bread and wyne for the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist and for proofe therof he alleaged Saint Augustine against Faustin the Manichec where he saith that this vse of adoring Christs body in the Sacrament was so auncient and publike as some pagans did thinke that Christians did adore Ceres and Bacchu◠the Gods of bread and wyne He alleaged also Erasmus authority who affirmeth that this worshipping and adoration of the Sacrament of the Altar was in vse before the tyme of S. Augustins and S. Cyprian which is not so in the Sacrament of Baptisme though Ridley affirme there is as much the flesh of Christ as in the other and consequently there is some speciall cause in the Eucharist aboue other Sacraments To which two authorityes I find nothinge aunswered particularly as neyther to Erasmus but to the thing it selfe Ridley aunswered VVe do handle the signes reuerently c. And againe There is a deceyt in this word Adoramus we adore for vve vvorshipp the symbolls vvhen reuerently vve handle them vve vvorshipp vvhersoeuer vve perccaue benefitts Whervnto Doctor Glyn aunswered So I might fall downe before the bench heere and worshipp Christ therin c. For a bench also is a beneficiall creature to them that sitt on yt But for all this no further satisfaction could be had but that all the adoe which the Fathers do make about the highest honour in earth to be giuen to the Sacrament of the Altar comes to no more by these mens interpretations but that the signes of bread and vvyne must be reuerently handled Christ absent must be vvorshipped therein as in other thinges vvherin vve perceaue or receaue his benefitts vvhich indeed are all his creatures made ordayned for our profitt for by them all we perceaue receaue Christs benefitts So as all these great admirations of the Fathers about the honour worshipp adoration due to this Sacrament come to no more in effect but that vve must reuerence Christ therin as in other his beneficiall creatures and vvorshipp the symboll of bread and wyne as much as you do the water in baptisme vvhich yet neuer any of the Fathers said was to be adored by vs as they do of the Eucharist though Baptisme be a most necessary and profitable Sacrament 57. Then disputed one Doctor Curtopp alleaginge a place out of S. Chrysostome affirminge that which is in the cupp or chalice to be the same bloud after the words of consecration that flowed from the side of Christ wherof he inferred that true and naturall bloud did flow from the side of Christ ergò true and naturall bloud was in the chalice To this Ridley answered in effect after his ould fashion that yt was true bloud that is to say the Sacrament of his bloud Curtopp The Sacrament of the bloud is not the bloud Ridley The Sacrament of the bloud is the bloud and that is attributed to the