First Disputation. §. 1.

2. Wherfore to recount the particulars as breifely as we may, the first publike disputa­tion First di­sputation of Peter Martyr at Oxford. 1549. of these ten, wherof we now are to treat, was held at Oxford against the reall presence of the blessed body & bloud of our Sauiour in the Sacrament of the Altar, by Peter Martyr an Ita­lian Apostata friar, vpon the yeare of Christ (as Fox setteth it downe) 1549. which was the third of K. Edward the sixt his raigne, about the moneth of Iune (for he expresseth not the very day) and the cheife moderator or iudge in this disputation, was D. Cox Chancelourat that [Page 35] tyme of the vniuersity; but after vnder Q. Eli­zabeth was B. of Ely, and his assistents were Henry B. of Lincolne, D. Haynes deane of Exceter; Fox pag. 1249. M. Richard Marison Esquier, and Christophor Ne­ [...]son Doctor of Cyuill law; all comissionars (saith Fox) of the Kings Maiestie, sent downe for this effect to authorize the disputations.

3. For better vnderstandinge wherof yow must note, that albeit K. Edward had raigned now more then full two yeares, and that the protector Seymer and some others of his hu­mour, would haue had change of doctrine established euen at the beginninge, about the point of the blessed Sacrament; yet could they not obtayne it in Parlamēt, partly, for that the farre greater part of the realme was yet against it, but especially for that it was not yet resol­ued by the Archbishopp Cranmer himselfe, of whome if you remember, Iohn Fox doth com­plaine in one place vnder K. Henry; that good Cranmer had not yet a full feelinge of that doctrine. Fox pag. 1115. & 1205. Whervpon we see, that in the first parlament of K. Edwards tyme, begon vpon the 4. 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 See Statue. booke an. 1. Edvv. 6. cap. 1. 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, ta [...]ks, rymes, songes, playes, or gestures, did name and call yt, [...]y such vile and vnseemely words (saith the Statute) is Christian eares did abhorre to heare yt rehearsed; [Page 36] 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, Fox pag. 1548. 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 Zuinalla­nisue ad­mitted. 1546. 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 Sup. De­cemb. 26. shewed, was sent to Oxford before with indifferēcy, 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 See Doctor Saunders l. 2. de sehi, m. A [...]gl. 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 1. Cor. 11. aduertisment of the new decree, did not only accomodate himselfe to teach and preach the same doctrine presently: (which yet the other The dis­semblinge of Peter Martyr & Bucer. 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 [Page 37] and paradox of Zuinglius, Occolampadius, and Carolstadius, three schollers of Luther him­selfe, against the reall presence, which as often Luth. lib. cont Sacra­ment. & alibi sap [...]. 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 Three questions to be di­sputed at Oxford 1549. 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 [Page 38] 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 See the defence of the relaciō of [...] his dispu­tation vvith B. Pe [...]on of Eureux tom 2 part. 3 or our three con­uernons, 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 demaūds 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 questiō, to witt, whether wine be really & truly there or no? and cauil [Page 39] only about the second, vvhether the vvater be tur­ned Tvvo si­militudes to expresse the vayne vvtāgling of Sacra­mētaryes about Transub­stantiatiō. 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 cōuerted the water in­to it selfe or no; for yf neither gold nor wine be really there presēt, then is there no place for the secōd dispute at all. And so fareth it in our cōtrouersy of the reall presence of Christs body. For if the said body be not really & substātially in the Sacramēt at all, as the Zuinglians & Cal­uinists do hould; then is it impertinēt 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 Trāsubstātiation, for so much as they suppose it not to be there at all; only Luther & Lutherans may haue cōtro­uersy with Catholiks, about the māner how it is there, seing they beleeue it to be there in deed; but Zuingliās & Caluinists cānot, 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 frō the purpose, & shew thēselues not only wrāglers but also deceauers, seeking to dazell the eyes of the simple in this behalfe, [Page 40] 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 first was by preposterous order of Transubstantiation, and the second of the Sacrifice, but the reall presence was wholy omytted, and the like in the rourth disputation vnder Maister Fraudulēt dealing of Protestāts, in dispu­tation. Pearne for the Protestants, as after yow shall see. And when lastly Maister Ridley came to re­solue vpon all three disputations, held vnder him in Cambridge, and the questions handled therin, he quite passeth ouer the controuersie of reall presence. And so yow shall obserue the like tricke in most of the other disputations, and yet (as I say) yf there be no reall presence, the question of Transubstantiation hath no place at all, no nor the sacrifice neyther, as Ri­dley confesseth in his said resolution, and this for the first shift of Peter Martyr & his fellowes in this disputation.

8. The second shifte is, that he putteth downe fraudulently the second question a­bout Fox pag. 1249. the reall presence, whether the body of Christ be there carnally or corporally, for albeit we do hold that both Caro & Corpus, which is 2. fraud. the flesh and body of Christ our Sauiour, be there truly and really, yet not after a fleshely and corporall manner, as these words seeme to import, but rather Sacramentally, that is to say though truly, and really, yet after a Sacramen­tall [Page 41] and spirituall manner, euen as our soule is in our body, and an Angell in a corporall place. And albeit some authors and Fathers do vse sometymes the word Corporaliter, speakinge of the reall presence, yet do Fox and Martyr mali­tiously euery where call yt a carnall and corporall presence, therby to deceaue the simple reader, See after­vvard c. 3. as though yt were there with locall dimen­sions, after the manner of other bodyes, and not after a spirituall manner of being.

9. The third fraude in settinge downe this first disputation is, that wheras Fox doth tell Fox pag. ibid. vs in this place, that the principall disputers against Peter Martyr were Doctor Tressam, Doctor Chadsey, and Maister Morgan, yet doth he not tell vs one word what they said against him, nor 3. fraud. doth he relate any one of their arguments or answers, but only the arguments of Peter Mar­tyr against them with triumph, as who would say, he had gotten the victory without resi­stance: but yow shall see in the ensuing Chap­ters, what manner of arguments Peter Martyrs were, and how easy to be answered, as no doubt but they were by them, yf Fox had thought good to haue related both parts (as he ought to haue done) or haue left both parts out. But this is his ordinary custome of dea­ling. Wherfore that you may vnderstād part­ly how the matter went in deed, by the rela­tion of one that was present, to witt D. Saun­ders, I will set downe breefely his words of the action in generall, as yt passed. Thus then he wryteth about this first Oxford disputation.

[Page 42] 10. Petrus Martyr (saith he) &c. ‘Peter Martyr, of Sand l [...]b. 2. de schism. Angl. whome many of the Sectaryes promised to themselues great matters, for that he was pu­blike reader in Oxford, being challenged in those dayes by many of that vniuersity, to de­fend his doctrine by disputation, and namely by D. Rich. Smyth who had byn his predecessor in the same chaire, neuer durst to yeld ther vn­to, vntill he had obtayned that D. Cox a secta­ry of his owne side, and a man of very loose life should be sent from the court, to be mode­rator and iudge in the same disputation: And that D. Smith was called from the vniuersity, &c. But when the said disputation had endu­red for three dayes, and that Cox had seene his D. Saunders relation of this di­sputation at Oxford. Peter Martyr much more pressed then he loo­ked for, and almost hissed out of the schooles by all the schollers and hearers, he was forced to say that he was sent for away in all hast to London, & consequently could no longer at­tend to these disputes. Wherfore hauing giuen great praises publikely to Peter Martyr, and ad­monished the schollers to keep peace, he brake vp those disputations, & so departed with in­famy in the sight of all men: yet Peter Martyr afterward set forth these disputations fraudu­lently, as heretiks are accustomed, and would needs seeme to haue had the victory, but by the iudgment of that vniuersity he was twise vanquished, first in that he durst not encounter D. Smith, & secondly for that he could not an­swere the arguments of the other Cath. Do­ctors.’ Thus he. Wherby we may perceaue, the [Page 43] reason wherfore Fox would not set downe at length the particulars of this first disputation at Oxford, as he did of some of the others after.

Second Disputation. §. 2.

11. The second disputation was held at Cam­bridge about the same tyme (saith Fox) to witt The secōd disputa­tion held by D. Rid­ley in Cam­bridge. vpon the 20. of Iune anno 1549. the defendant for the Protestant side was D. Madew; the op­ponents D. Glyn, M. Langdale, M. Sedgewike, and M. Yonge, the moderator was D. Ridley B. of Ro­chester at that time, but soone after of London by depriuation of D. Bonner. The commissionars sent from the King to assist as iudges, besides the said Nicolas Ridley, were Thomas B. of Ely, Syr Iohn Cheke schoolmaister to the King, a for­ward Protestant in those daies, though vnder Q. Mary he left them, D. May a Ciuilian, and D. VVenday the Kings phisition. The questiōs di­sputed were two, as before hath byn said. The first, whether there were any Transubstātiation & the second, whether there be any externall & propitiatory sacrifice in the masse. The question of the reall pre­sence, wherof both these do depend, was not handled at all, for the causes yow must thinke before mentioned, and he that shall read ouer this whole disputatiō, shall find it a very cold & trifling thing, much of the time being spent in ceremoniall words of courtesy, much in im­pertinēt Triflinge disputa­tions of our first Prote­stants. excursions frō the purpose, out of all scholasticall forme of disputing or strayning the defendant, & when any thing drew neere [Page 44] to vrge or presse, eyther the moderator would diuert the same by intrudinge himselfe, or the proctors by their authority would interrupt yt. Heere (faith Fox) the proctors commaunded the opponent to diuerte, &c. And againe, heere the pro­ctors commaunded Langdale to giue place to another. Fox pag. 1254. And further; heere he was cōmaunded to reply in the second matter. And yet further, heere M. Sedgewike was commaunded to ceasse to Maister Yonge. Which Yonge, hauinge scarce made three instances in proofe of the Sacrifice against Ridley, ended all the disputations with these words: VVell I am contented, and do most humbly beseech your good Lor­shipp, to pardon me of my great rudenesse & imbecillity vvhich I haue heere shewed, &c. Which indeed sheweth great imbecillity, yf he said so in deed, and that Fox hath not made him to speake as best pleaseth himselfe.

12. I could alleage diuers other simplicityes out of this disputation, yf I would stand vpon them, yea on the part of Fox and Ridley them­selues; for in one place Fox maketh this note vpon a certayne answere of Ridley: Heere is to be noted (saith he) that Peter Martyr in his answere at Oxford, did graunt a change in the substances of bread Fox pag. 1255. and vvyne, vvhich in Cambridge by the Bishopp Doctor Fox no­teth the disagree­ment of his ovvne men. Ridley vvas denyed. Behould heere the goodly agreement, that was betweene the first foun­ders of Sacramentaryes doctrine in England, and how worthy to be noted by themselues. Friar Martyr in Oxford graunted a change in the substances themselues of bread and wyne, by the words of consecration; but Bishop Ridley in [Page 45] Cambridge denieth the same, so great difference is there betweene Oxford and Cambridge, the Friar and the Bishopp: and is not he well holpen vp that hangeth his soule on these mens opi­nions? this then is one simplicity of Fox, but lett vs heare another of Ridley related by Fox his ownepen, in his answere to Maister Sedge­wicke, who began thus.

13. Right VVorshippfull Maister Doctor I do aske of yow first of all, whether the Greeke article (this) Ridleyes fond aun­svveringe. being of the neuter gender, be referred to the vvord (bread) or to the word (body)? to the first yt cannot be, for that it is of the masculine gender, ergo to the se­cond. This was the obiection or demaund, lett vs heare the Bishopps solution. Forsooth (saith Fox pag. 1256. he) that article is referred to neyther of both, but may signisie vnto vs any other kind of things. Thus the Bi­shopp. So as by this exposition, Christ might as well fignifie a staffe, or a stoole, or any gar­ment or thing that lay on the table, or what­soeuer els any man will diuise, as well as bread, or his body, when he said of bread, this is my body. And is not this a Bishopp like aun­swere? But of the arguments and aunswers of this second disputation, we shall haue oc­casion to speake afterwards, when the con­trouersies themselues shalbe discussed in par­ticular, and so we shall passe forward to re­coumpte the other disputations that ensue.

Third Disputation. §. 3.

14. The third disputation was held at Cam­bridge vpon the 23. of Iune in the same yeare 1549. as Fox recounteth, wherin two propo­sitions were held affirmatiuely for the Catho­liks, by the aforesaid D. Glyn defendant, to witt The 3. di­sputation at Cam­bridge anno Domini 1549. for the reall presence & sacrifice of the masse. The opponents for the Protestants were M. Perne, M. Gryndall B. afterwards of London, and Canterbury, M. Ghest and M. Pilkinton, which last vnder Q. Elizabeth gott the Bishopricke of Dur­ham. The moderator and iudges were the same as in the former disputation, to witt Ridley and his fellowes, and the manner and forme not much vnlike, though somewhat more disorderly, each one puttinge in his ver­dict to and fro at his pleasure. But yet who­soeuer shall pervse the same vvith equality, will easily perceaue an eminent difference for learninge, discretion and clere aunsweringe betweene the said Doctor Glyn and his oppo­nents, which principally is to be attributed to the difference of his cause from theirs; they neuer prosecuting commonly one medium for aboue one or two instances, but leaping pre­sently to another: so graue and substantiall a disputation was this for poore people that heard yt, or heard of yt, and followed the re­solution therin sett downe, to hange their soules vpon the certaynty therof.

[Page 47] 15. Maister Perne beginneth with a complaint, D. Perne confesseth the cor­porall presence of Christ in the Sa­crament. against D. Glyn, that he had left Transubstantia­tion & taken vpon him to defend the reall pre­sence in the Sacrament, vvheras we deny nothinge lesse (saith he) then his corporall presence or absence of his substance in the bread. Wherby yt is euidently seene, that Maister Perne was not of Ridleyes opi­nion, but held the reall presence, though with Luther perhaps he did not beleeue Transubstan­tiation: and this is euident by his arguments which after he vsed, nothinge in deed against the reall presence, but only to proue that Christ his body was togeather with bread. The like manner of impertinent dealinge vsed Ridley himselfe in diuers of his arguments; as for ex­ample: this is that bread (saith he) vvhich came Fox pag. 1257. downe from heauen, ergo, yt is not Christs body, for that his body came not from heauen: which proueth also that yt was not bread, for that Ridley will not say (I thinke) that the materiall bread which Christ had in his hand, camed owne from heauen. The like argument vseth Pilkin­ [...]on thus: vvhersoeuer (saith he) Christ is, there be his Fond ar­guments of Sacra­menta­ryes. ministers also, for so he promised: but Christ as you hould is in the Sacrament, ergo his ministers are there also. Which were a foule incōuenience as you see, if all our English ministers should be in the Sa­crament for the poore people to byte at. And yet this argument seemeth so graue vnto Iohn Fox, as he maketh this marginall note theron. VVhere Christ is, there are his ministers. And the poore fellow hath not so much witt, as to see that those words of Christ were meant [Page 48] of his glory in the life to come, and not of the Sacrament which is ministred vpon earth.

16. But to the end yow may the better per­ceaue, how disorderly this and the former di­sputation at Cambridge, was made by the new Protestants to ouerbeare the Catholike cause, I shall sett downe some lynes of a narration of D. Langdale, Archdeacon of Chichester, a Cam­bridge man who was present at the said dispu­tation, and confuted afterward in print the said Ridleyes determination vpon these dispu­tations. Thus then he wryteth: Vix dum finita Albanus Langlandus in confut. Determ. Nicol. Rid­ley. Collegiorum visitatione, &c. ‘The Colledges of Cambridge were no sooner visited by the Kinges Commissionars, but there appeared vpon all the gates two conclusions set vp, the first against Transubstantiation, the other against the sacrifice of the masse, and presently the bedells of the vniuersity went about to giue warning, that yf any man had any thinge to say against these conclusions, he should come forth the third day after, (which was Corpus-Christi day,) to dispute, or otherwise all to be bound to perpetuall silence for euer after. The con­course of noble men, & all other degrees was great, and scaffolds made for the place of di­sputation, that the multitude might the better heare: but all that were indifferent, did see matters to be handled with great inequality; for that whosoeuer spake for the Catholike side presently his speach was eyther interrup­ted, or for breuity shifted of to another tyme, and Ridley that was the Captayne of all step­pinge [Page 49] in at euery turne to assist his defendant, did eyther with threates or fayre words, or by scoffes and bytter taunts seeke to diuert the Catholike disputers.’

‘17. And when the first dayes disputation was in this manner ended, yt was denounced to the auditory, before the dismission of the schooles, that yf any man would come forth The par­tiall dea­linge of Protestāts in their disputa­tions. and defend within a day or two, the Catho­like parte of those questions, he might, but af­terwards it should not be lawfull for any man to speake therof: which vnexpected denun­tiation being heard, one man looked vpon another, and all for a tyme were silent, vntill at length a most learned and graue man, pious and skillfull, as well in knowledge of the tongues, as also in diuinity, wherof he had bvn there publike reader before (to witt Do­ctor Glyn) stept forth and offered himselfe to the combatt, and performed yt the third day after, takinge the place of defendant without help of any moderator, but all rather against him, beginning his declaration, (which Cam­bridge men call his position) with the words of the Prophett: Credidi propter quod locutus sum. Psalm. 115. And the Protestants were so vrged in these disputations about the reall presence, that not­withstandinge they auoyded and dissembled that question so much as they could, yet were they driuen to such shifts, to putt of the cleere places & authorityes of ancient Fathers about the same, as was ridiculous to heare; for that sometymes they said Christs body was present [Page 50] in the Sacrament by signification, then by re­presentation, then by meditation, then by ap­pellation, sometymes by propriety, other tymes by nature, then by power, then againe by grace, then by memory or remembrance, then by vertue & energy, and by many other diuises of deluding or shifting of the matter. All which being done, and another third day of disputation passed ouer in like manner, Ridley tooke vpon him to giue the determina­tion of all, as though he had gotten the victo­ry. Thus farre out of Doctor Langelands booke; wherby may be gathered how the matter passed in these disputations.’

Fourth Disputation. §. 4.

18. The fourth disputation was held also in Cambridge soone after the former, wherin, ac­cording The 4. di­sputation at Cam­bridge. 1549. to Fox his relation, the forsaid Maister Perne was defendant for the Protestants, and the opponents for the Catholike part, were Maister Parker, Maister Pollard, Maister Vauesour, and Maister Yonge: the moderator and iudges Fox pag. 1257. was Maister Ridley of Rochester togeather with his fellowes aforementioned: the two que­stions were about Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice; the other of the reall presence was pre­termitted (accordinge to the former declared sleight) though yt were the principall and the ground, wheron these other two do depend, & concerneth the very substance of the Zuin­glian [Page 51] and Caluinian sect, now newly set vp and authorized by these disputations, and conse­quently should first and principally haue byn discussed, yf eyther good method or shew of true dealinge had byn obserued. But D. Perne the defendant beleeued the reall presence, as in the former disputation yow haue heard him protest, though in this disputation he sought to expound himselfe in these words: I graunt that Christ is in the Sacrament truly, wholy and verily after a certayne property and manner. I deny not his presence, but his reall, and corporall presence. But this is a difference without a diuersity (by M. Pernes D. Pearne speaketh doubtfully & doubly about the Sacramēt. licence) for yf Christs body be there truly, who­ly and verily, he must also be there really, as to euery mans common sense and reason is eui­dent; and so Maister Perne by this distinction sheweth, that he beleeued nothing at all real­ly, truly, or verily at that tyme, yf his heart were accordinge to his words.

19. And albeit, as I haue said, Maister Perne pro­poundeth The fond manner of this dispu­tation. the questions of Transubstantiation & sacrifice of the masse, yet when they came to ioyne issue, their speach was most of all about the reall presence, and I call yt a speach rather then disputation, for that yt had neyther or­der, method, nor substance in yt, but was a most ridiculous colloquy of one to another, without vrginge or answeringe any one ar­gument substantially, but as little beagles ly­inge togeather, one starteth vp and giueth a barke or two, and lyeth downe againe; so these disputers, aunswerers, and moderator [Page 52] handled the matter; as for example, M. Parker being to argue first, began to alleage three vayne reasons (as Fox calleth them in the margent) for the reall presence, to witt, that yt was prophesyed, promised, and performed as he pro­ued by diuers places of scripture, which being done Iohn Fox, without tellinge vs any aun­swere at all giuen by Maister Perne, hath these words. Heere they were sorced to breake of through the want of tyme, yet Maister Parker replyed this with a prayer against Maister Perne; vve giue th [...] thankes most holy Father, that thou hast hidden these Fox pag. 1260. things from the wise and prudent, and hast reueyled them to babes, for pride is the roote of all heresies what­soeuer, &c.

20. Now heere I vvould aske Iohn Fox what he meaneth by this note; that they were forced to breake of for lacke of tyme? and yet that Contradi­ction in Fox his vvords. Parker replyed, and began his reply with a prayer? For yf they brake of, how did he re­ply, especially his reply being somewhat long? And yf he replyed in so large a manner as Fox setteth it downe, how did they breake of? & how ridiculous a thing is it, that a sollemne disputation being begon in presence of the whole vniuersity, and of so great an audience, and Maister Parker being the first opponent, the matter should be broken of without hearing any one answere of the defendant? But these are Fox his fooleryes, and these were the first and most firme foundations of our new Cal­uinian sect in England. Many other particu­lars might be sett downe, especially of Ridley [...] [Page 53] moderatinge, who at euery turne made him­selfe defendant & answered farre worse then Perne himselfe, but we shall haue better occa­sion to touch the same afterward, when we shall examine more particularly what passed about euery controuersie, in each of these di­sputations; only Vauesour of all the opponents seemeth to haue spoken best to the purpose M. Vaue­sour com­mended. (as Fox relateth him) for that he alleaged an authority of S. Augustine in Psalm. 98. which Ri­dley, not able to answere, ridiculously shifteth of as yow shall see afterwards, when yt com­meth in ranke to be examined, and in his pre­face he cited two sayings of Zuinglius and Oeco­lampadius, Zuinglius and Oeco­lampadius doubtfull of their doctrine at the be­ginninge. of their owne doubtfullnesse at the beginninge, in the doctrine with they first broached against the reall presence. Zuinglius his words are: Albeit this thinge that I meane to treat of, doth like me very well; yet notwithstandinge I dare define nothinge, but only shew my poore iudge­ment abroad to others, &c. Oecolampadius his words are wrytinge to his brother. Peace be with thee. As farre as I can coniecture out of the ancient Fathers, these words of Christ (this is my body) is a figura­tiue locution, &c. Thus they at the beginninge very doubtfully, as yow see, but afterward, as those that tell lyes so often, as at length they beginne to beleeue them to be true them­selues, so did these men; and yet others were so foolish as to follow them in their doubtfull fancyes, a pittifull case in the cause of our soule. Well, Iohn Fox concludeth this whole Fox pag. 1261. disputation with these words: Heere endeth [Page 54] (saith he) the third and last disputation holden at Cambridge 1549.

Fifth Disputation. §. 5.

21. The fifth disputation was the publike determination made by B. Ridley, as iudge and The 5. di­sputation or deter­mination at Cam­bridge by M. Ridley. moderator vpon the questions, before handled in the three disputations of Cambridge, vvhich determinatiō I do reckon among the number of the other disputations publike, and collo­quyes, both for that yt was made vpon a se­uerall day most sollemnely, and with no lesse concourse of people then the former, as also for that yt setteth downe all the heads of his principall arguments, as the first disputation doth those of Peter Martyr, though without the answers or replyes of his aduersaryes. And indeed this being a collection of all the sub­stantiall points, of whatsoeuer had byn allea­ged by the Protestants in all three disputa­tions, as also whatsoeuer himselfe could adde thervnto; and being done with so great study & deliberation, as to be deliuered in the grea­test concourse and expectation of people (for the nouelty therof) that euer perhaps were seene togeather in Cambridge before; yt being the first publike determination against the truth of Christs sacred body in the Sacramēt, that euer that vniuersity, from her first foun­dation had heard of: For all these reasons and respects (I say) this determination may per­haps [Page 55] be numbred amongst one of the most sollemne conferences, or disputations held by the Sacramentarye Protestants in our countrey.

22. Ridley then began the assembly with these words: There hath byn an ancient custome amonge you, that after disputatiōs had in your common schooles, Fox pag. 1261. there should be some determination made of the matter disputed and debated, especially touching Christian Re­ligion; because therfore it is seene good to these worship­full assistants, ioyned with me in commission from the Kings Maiestie, that I should performe the same at this tyme, I will by your fauourable patience declare, both Ridley his entrance to his de­termina­tion. vvhat I do thinke and beleeue my selfe, and what all other ought to thinke of the same, vvhich I vvould that afterward ye did with diligence weigh and ponder, eue­ry man at home seuerally by himselfe, &c. This is his preface, wherin yow may note first, what a different assurance it is for a man, to repose the saluation of his soule vpon this new beleefe and thinkinge of Maister Ridley, which was not yet as yt seemeth full three or foure yeares old with him (for vntill K. Henryes death he was euer held of another opinion) or vpon the ge­nerall determination, learninge, iudgement, piety, & consent of the worthiest in the Chri­stian world, assembled togeather in councells, wheroften, (as in our preface we haue tou­ched, and shall againe afterward) had deter­mined for the reall presence in the space of the Diuers cō ­sideratiōs about the vncertain­ty of Pro­testants beliefe. last 500. yeares, before this contrary determi­nation of Ridley, to witt after the question was once moued by Berengarius, vntill yt was mo­ued [Page 56] againe by Zuinglius and Oecolampadius; lett euery discreet man, I say, consider what a dif­ferēce this is, for a man to aduenture his soule and euerlastinge inheritance theron. For yf a man had demaunded of Ridley himselfe 4. or 5. yeares before this day, what a man was bound to thinke and beleeue in this point for sauinge his soule, he would haue said the quite contrary to that he determineth now.

23. Secondly yow may consider another difference in this priuate determination, of Ridley & his associates from that of Catholike Councells, for that Councells after enquiry and disputations made for the truth, do de­termyne by generall consent of the Bishopps assembled, with assured assistance of the holy ghost; wheras Maister Ridley remytteth all to the priuate iudgement of euery one at home, seue­rally by himselfe; which is as much to say, not­withstanding all the disputation, and his de­termination, yet must euery man and woman follow their owne fancy at home, and be iudge of all that hath byn disputed, or determyned: & this is the certainty that Protestants haue for common people to rely vpon.

24. Thirdly yt is to be noted, that notwith­standing Fox calleth this decision, the determi­nation of Doctor Nicolas Ridley B. of Rochester, vpon the conclusions aboue prefixed, yet handleth he only two questions in this his determination vide­licet; Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the Al­tar, but the first much more amply and aboun­dantly, pretermitting the very cheefe & prin­cipall [Page 57] question in deed, wherof all the rest de­pendeth, which is of the reall presence, which maketh the very essence of Caluinian and Zuin­glain sect, wherby they do differ from both Lutherans and vs: of which absurd imposture we haue spoken sufficiently before, and seing so much had byn said in the former disputa­tions about that point, though greatly against the Protestants inclination, me thinketh he ought not to haue left out wholy that que­stion in this his determination. But as I haue often said, their principall shift in those dayes was to stepp from the mayne point, whether Christ were really in the Sacrament or no; & to leape vnto a quiddity of the manner of his being there, to witt by Transubstantiation. Fiue pre­tended heades of Ridleyes determi­nation. About which notwithstandinge, B. Ridley be­ginneth his resolution with great oftentation of words sayinge; that he had fiue principall grounds or head springs for the same: First (to vse his words) the authority, Maiestie, and verity of the scriptures: secondly the most certayne testimonyes of ancient Catholike Fathers: thirdly the definition of a Sacrament: fourthly the abhominable heresie of Eu­tiches, that may ensue of Transubstantiation: fifthly, the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith; he as­cended into heauen, &c.

25. These be Maister Ridleyes fiue bulwarks or castles of defence builded in the ayre, which he handleth so fondly and childishely, as after yow shall see in the particular examinations of his arguments. Only heere I will say in generall, that the reader shall find his authority, [Page 58] maiestie, and verity of scriptures against Tran­substantiation, to be a meere vaunt and vani­ty, for he hath no one cleere or substantiall place at all. And as for his certayne testimo­nyes of the ancient Fathers, they will proue so vncertaine for his purpose, as yow shall see them most certaynely against him. His third castle of the definition of a Sacrament, vvill proue a cottage of no strength at all, for that the true nature of a Sacrament standeth well vvith Transubstantiation. His fourth head springe about the heresie of Eutiches, will proue a puddle, and himselfe puzzeled therin, for that the heresie of Eutiches confoundinge two distinct natures in Christ, hath no more cohe­rence vvith Transubstantiation, then Rochester with Rome. And finally his last ground about the article of Christs ascendinge into heauen, hath no ground to rest on, but is a meere ima­gination in the ayre, to witt, that for so much as Christ ascended into heauen, ergo there is no Transubstantiation.

26. Wherefore to leaue this first question of Transubstantiation, and passe to the second of Ridleyes resolution about the sacrifice of the masse. sacrifice, vow must vnderstand, that when Maister Ridley had spent most of the time about Transubstantiation, he had little left concerning the sacrifice of the masse, but concluded his said determination in very few words thus: Now for the better conclusion (saith he) concerning the sa­crifice, because yt dependeth vpon the first, I will in few Fox pag. 1262. vvords declare what I thinke. Two things do persuade me, that this conclusion (against the sacrifice of the [Page 59] masse) is true, that is certayne places of scripture, and certayne testimonyes of the Fathers. Lo heere the graue and weighty motiues that Ridley had, to aduenture vpon so great a change in beleefe as this was, after so many yeares, being a Priest and Catholike Bishopp, and offeringe sacrifice after the manner of the Catholike Church, from the first day of our contreyes conuersion, vnto th'end of K. Henryes raigne. His motiues were, as yow heare, certayne places of the scripture, which were only taken out of the Epistle to the Hebrues, talkinge of Christs bloudy sacrifice on the crosse, which was but Hebr. 9. & 10. one, & certayne places of the Fathers, to witt, two or three misvnderstood out of S. Augustine, The mise­rable pro­ceeding of Ridley. and one out of Fulgentius, all which notwith­standinge proue nothinge for his purpose, as after yow shall see declared in their place, and turne. And the selfe same Fathers haue so ma­ny other cleere places to the contrary, as we will desire no better iudges for proofe of our Catholike cause, then yf Ridley would remitt himselfe to these two Fathers iudgements, by him cyted against vs; for that both of them do professe themselues to be Priests, and to offer externall sacrifice, vpon the Altar as our Priests do now.

27. Consider then how wise and constant a man Ridley was, to leaue his ancient faith so generally receaued throughout all Christen­dome in his dayes, and so many yeares practi­sed by himselfe, vpon two such motiues, as are certayne places of scripture misvnderstood by him­selfe, [Page 60] and certayne testimonyes of Fathers, that see­med to him to haue some difficulty. Which Ieuity vvas so displeasaunt vnto almighty God, as by the effects we see, that wheras at the beginning he seemed to doubt vpon these two motiues, leauinge other men to iudge therof, he became by little and little to be so obstinately blinded at length therin, as albeit some foure or fiue yeares after, he were open­ly conuicted in disputations at Oxford, as by his answers yow shall afterwards see, yet was he content to burne for the same, which was the highest degree of calamity that could fall vpon him, in body and soule. And thus much of him and his determination for the present.

Sixt Disputation. §. 6.

28. In all the former disputations both at Oxford and Cambridge, yow shall find nothinge The sixt disputatiō at Cam­bridge by Bucer 1549. of friar Martyn Bucer, no not so much as that he is once named in all these conflicts, about the blessed Sacrament. And yet yow must remem­ber, that he was principall reader of diuinity in Cambridge at this tyme, as Peter Martyr was in Oxford: and therfore as the first place was giuen to the said Peter in Oxford; so yt is likely, that the same would haue byn to Martyn in Cambridge, yf they had found him so pliable to their hands in his opinions about the Sacra­ment, as the other was; but in no case would he be induced as yet, to accommadate him­selfe [Page 61] therin, and therfore had he not any part Martyn Bucer in great di­stresse. allowed him in this comedy, eyther of defen­dant, opponent, disputer, counselour, mode­rator, assistant, or other office or imployment: nay yt is thought that he incurred so great disgrace about this matter, as he could wil­lingly haue departed the realme againe, (as Bernardinus Ochinus vpon such like discontent­ment did from London) had not the necessi­ty of his woman, and other impediments of pouerty letted him, not knowinge well whi­ther to goe, as being expulsed from Argentina at his comming to England, as Mense Decemb. cap. 16. before we haue shewed in the story of his life.

29. Wherfore resoluinge himselfe at length to passe ouer this mortification, and to giue our English Protestants some satisfaction, though not in the points which they desired, he thought it good after Ridleyes departure, to defend certayne other paradoxes, which Fox recordeth in these words: Ouer and besides these Fox pag. 1262 & 1263. disputations aboue mentioned, other disputations vvere holden in Cambridge shortly after by Martyn Bu­cer, vpon these conclusions followinge: First, that the canonicall bookes of scripture alone, do sufficiently teach the regenerate all things necessary belonginge to salua­tion. Secondly, there is no Church on earth that er­reth not, as well in faith, as in manners. Thirdly we are so iustified freely of God, that before our iustifica­tion, The que­stions of Bucers di­sputatio. yt is sinne and prouoketh Gods wrath against vs, whatsoeuer good worke we seeme to do. Then being iu­stifyed, we do good works.

30. These were Bucers conclusions, which [Page 62] well I may call paradoxes, for that euen in the common sense & iudgement of euery meane capacity, the falsity and absurdity therof is ap­parant. For as touchinge the first, though we graunt, that the diuine books of scripture, yf they were fewer then they are (respectinge Gods holy prouidence) are sufficient to teach both regenerate and not regenerate (that be­leeue the verity therof) the true way of sal­uation, and that the said diuine prouidence hath, doth, and will so prouide, that albeit some parts of these we now haue should be lost (as diuers others before haue byn) yet should the remnant still be sufficient to that purpose, with such other supplyes of Gods as­sistance as he would send; yet to say, as this man doth, that the canonicall bookes of scripture Hovv scri­ptures are sufficient to salua­tion. alone, do sufficiently teach all things belonginge to sal­uation; yf by alone he will exclude all other helpes of tradition, antiquity, testimony of the Church, interpretation of the Fathers, dire­ction of generall Councells, and other like aydes, yt is a most absurd paradox; for ney­ther can we know which bookes are to be held canonicall, nor what they teach truly & sincerely, nor what may be deduced out of them; yf we remoue the former helpes; And the case is, as yf one of the Kings of our coun­trey goinge abroad, as some did to Hierusalem, or other forrayne warres, and intending to be longe absent, should leaue with his Councel­lors for their better gouernement certayne lawes wrytten with his owne hand, & other [Page 63] directions by word of mouth how to pro­ceed, A case re­presen­tinge the heretiks of our dayes about cry­inge for scriptures alone. interprett, and vse them, commaunding all men to obay them, and that some trouble­some people after many yeares continuance in their gouernement, should appeale from them, to the Kings wrytten lawes only, pray­inge the sufficiency therof (for better colou­ [...]inge their pretence) and suinge that yt were [...] blott vnto the said lawes, and to the Kings wisdome that made them, to acknowledge any insufficiency at all in them for perfect di­rection of the common welth, which lawes [...]et, themselues would expound, as pleased them best for their owne purposes.

[...]1. In this case, who seeth not whervnto this practise tendeth, and for what causes so great prayses are giuen to the sufficiency of these lawes, vsed to make the praisers iudges of all, and to exempt them from all controlment of others? And the very same is seene in the other case of the scriptures, which being writ­ten by the spiritt and fingar of God himselfe, and deliuered vnto vs by the Church, whose commission also and authority in the same scriptures is sett downe, byndinge vs vnder Matt. 18. 1 Tim 3. Marc. vlt. Matt. 16. dlamnation to heare her from age to age as the pillar and firmament of truth, there stepp vp to­geather diuers sorts of sectarves in all ages, & of this of ours, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Caluinists, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, and the like chalenged by the said Church of disobedience, and do all appeale ioyntly and seuerally from her, to on­ly scriptures, praysinge highly the sufficiency, [Page 64] and excellency therof, and refusinge all other meanes, eyther of tradition or ancient exposi­tion, for vnderstandinge of the sense and true meaninge. And when we alleadge the Ca­tholike Doctors and Pastors of euery age, as spirituall Gouernours and Conselors vnder God in the Church, for explaninge his diuine will and meaninge in this behalfe; they refuse all, and only will be interpreters and exposi­tors themselues, and this not only against the Catho. Church, which they ought to obay, but one sect also against another for their par­ticular opinions, and diuersityes, which by this meanes are made irreconciliable, and in­determinable, as experience teacheth vs. For when, I pray yow, will Luther & Zuinglius or their followers, come to any accord eyther with vs, or amongst themselues by only cano­nicall scriptures, expounded after each partyes particular spiritt, iudgement and affection? The like I may aske of Anabaptists & Arrians, English Protestants and Puritans, or of any other Sectaryes that yow can name vnto me, which neuer agreed by this way, nor euer will. And this is the first paradox of Martyn Bucer, that only scriptures are sufficient to teach euery man.

32. The second is yet worse (yf worse may be) to witt; that there is no Church on earth, which The secōd paradox of Martyn Bucer. erreth not as well in faith as manners. Which yf yt be so, then erreth also in faith the true Church of Christ, and is a lyinge Church, and may lead vs into error and heresie. And of this yt [Page 65] followeth againe, that we can haue no cer­tainty of any thinge in this life, and that al­mighty God doth damne vs very vniustly for heresie, wherinto we may be brought by his true Church, and spouse, which on the other side, he hath commaunded vs to heare, and obay Matt [...]. 18. vnder payne of damnation; yt followeth also that S. Paul did falsely call the Church, the pillar and 1. Tim. 5. firmament of truth; for as much as yt may both deceaue and be deceaued. Christs promise al­so was false, when he assured his Church, that Marc. vlt. he would be with her by his spiritt of truth vnto the worlds end; and that, the gates of hell should not pre­vaile Matth. 16. against her. All these absurdityes, impossi­bilityes and impietyes, do follow of this se­cond paradox, besides infinite others, which any meane capacity may deduce of himselfe.

33. The third paradox also is no lesse mon­strous to common sense and reason, then the two former, to witt, that vvhatsoeuer good worke The third paradox of Martyn Bucer. any man doth, or may seeme to doe before iustification, a sinne, and prouoketh Gods wrath. But I would aske this new opiniatour or paradox-defen­der, how he would answere to that of Exodus, where yt is said of the Egyptian mid-wyues [...] infidells no doubt) quia timuerunt obstetrices Deum, aedificauit illis domos. God gaue them a­boundant Exod. 1. children, for that vpon feare of of­fendinge almighty God, they disobayed their King Pharao in sauinge the Hebrues children. doth God vse to reward sinne? or to prayse that which prouoketh his wrath? Againe, the Prophett Ezechiell sheweth vs how God did [Page 66] temporally reward Nabuchodonozor and his ar­my Ezech. 20. with the spoyle of Egypt, for that they had serued him faithfully in chastizinge of Tyrus. And S. Hierome vpon that place hath Hier. in Comment. in cap. 20. Ezech. these words: By that Nabuchodonosor receaued this reward for his good worke, we learne that gentills also yf they do any good thinge, shall not leese their reward at Gods hands; and how can God be said to re­ward that which offendeth him? The Pro­phet Daniell also to the same Nabuchodonosor an infidell, gaue this counsell, peccata tua eleemosy­mis Dan. 4. redime: redeeme thy synnes with almes, which he would neuer haue done, yf yt had byn a synne, & prouoked Gods wrath to giue almes, or to performe any such other morall vertue before iustification, especially being styrred & holpen thervnto by Gods especiall help, which may be before iustification, as Martyn Bucer in this paradox supposeth. And lastly not to stand any longer in this which is of it selfe so euident; I would aske friar Martyn, whether Cornelius the centurion being yet a gentile, did sinne and prouoke Gods wrath in prayinge, and giuinge almes before his con­uersion? Yf he say yea (as needs he must ac­cordinge to his doctrine) the text of scripture is against him, for the Angell said vnto him: Thy prayers and almes deeds, haue ascended vp, and haue byn called into remembrance in the sight of God▪ Act. 10. Vpon which words S. Augustine in diuers of his Aug. l. de pradestinat. sanct cap 7. & lib. 1. de Baptis c. 3. & l. 4. c. 23. works, doth call the said almes-deeds of Cor­nelius, before he beleeued in Christ, Iustice, and the gifts of God, which he would neuer haue [Page 67] done, yf they had byn synnes, and prouoked Gods wrath, as this new-fangled friar hath taken vpon him to defend.

34. And this shalbe sufficient for this sixt di­sputation of Martyn Bucer, which is fiue tymes as much, as Fox setteth downe of the same, for that he relateth only the time and place of the said dispute, togeather with the conclusions afore mentioned, & that Sedgewicke, Yonge, and [...]erne were opponents to Bucer therin; but all the rest he remitteth to a larger discourse at another tyme, supplyinge the breuity of this Bucerian disputation, with another dispute betweene custome and verity, which he cal­leth: A fruitfull dialogue, gathered out (saith Fox) Fox pag. 1263. [...]f the Tractations of Peter Martyr, and other authors, [...] a certayne reuerend person of this realme, teachinge all men not to measure Religion by custome, but to try custome by truth, &c.

[...]5. And this was another diuise of those [...]ayes of Innouations and noueltyes, to dazell [...]mple mens eyes, as though Custome and Veri­ [...], An alter­cation be­tvveene custome & verity. the handmayd and maistresse, were so fal­len out, that one impugned the other, & could not agree or stand togeather any longer, and consequently custome and antiquity, must needs [...]ue place to nouelty; the fraud and folly of which diuise may in very few words be dis­ [...]ouered, and their true frendshipp and agree­ment easily be declared; yea their in separable [...]herence to be such, as in our case of the con­ [...]ouersie about the reall presence (for in this [...]int they are made to braule and full out) [...] [Page 70] [...] [Page 71] [Page 68] they cannot possibly be separated. For yf ve­rity in this matter haue not antiquity and cu­stome with yt, yt is nouelty, and by conse­quence not verity at all. And on the otherside, custome in points of Christian faith and be­leefe, yf yt be generall, and of long tyme (for otherwise yt cannot properly be called cu­stome, in the subiect we handle) may not pos­sibly be found in our Christian Church with­out verity, for that otherwise the whole Church should vniuersally admitt a falsity, & continue yt by custome, which to imagine were folly and madnesse, yea most insolen [...] madnes, yf vve beleeue S. Augustine, whose words are: Disputare contra id, quod tota per orbe [...] Au [...]. epist. 118. ad Ia­ [...]uer. frequentat Ecclesia, insolentissimae insaniae est. ‘It is a most insolent madnes to dispute against that which the whole Church throughout the world doth practice.’ And he addeth in the same place, though it be not cōteined in the scriptures.

36. Wherfore for Iohn Fox, and his reuerenc maister Nicolas Ridley, Peter Martyr and others to come out now with a dialogue or brauling altercation, betweene custome and verity about the matter of the Sacrament, and to seeke to sett them by the eares, or make a diuorse be­tweene them, for that custome had continue [...] from the beginning of our conuersion to that day without verity, was a very simple and re­diculous diuise, & worthy Iohn Fox his wi [...] Custome and verity cannot be at odds in the Chri­stian Church. and grauity, for by this he confesseth in effect that custome and antiquity was against him wherof we in this matter do rightly also in­ferre, [Page 69] verity I say in this matter concerninge Christian faith and beleefe, receaued in the Church by custome and tradition of former ages, which our sauiour Christ did promise to assist with his spiritt of truth, whatsoeuer Fox or his fellowes may obiect, or we admitt, against Idolatry or other reprehensible cu­stomes of former tymes amongst the Iewes, gentills, nations, contreyes, and common­welthes different from the Christian Church; all which had no such assurance of truth, for beginninge and continuinge their customes, as our Christian Church hath. And so much of this feigned fight, betweene custome and verity in Christian Religion; whatsoeuer ar­guments of moment are alleaged in the com­batt betweene them about the reall presence, shalbe afterward handled in their due places. So as of this disputation and Martyn Bucers we shall make but one, to witt, the sixt.

Seauenth Disputation. §. 7.

37. Hitherto are the publike disputations, recorded by Fox to haue byn held by Prote­stants, for establishinge and authorizinge their new religion vnder K. Edward, and all within the compasse of one yeare, to witt, 1549. there ensue now foure other, appointed some foure yeares after in the first of Q. Maryes raigne 1553. vvhich albeit they were vnder a Catholike gouernement, yet were they for giuinge sa­tisfaction [Page 70] only to Protestants of those dayes, The 7. di­sputation in the cō ­nocation house armo 1553. when Catholike Religion was to be restored to th' end that the other might see their owne leuity in changinge the same. And the first of these disputations (being the seauenth in or­der) was held in the conuocation house, at Fox pag. 1284. S. Paules Church in London, begon (as Fox saith) vpon the 18. of October in the foresaid yeare, and during for six dayes togeather. The questions vvere the accustomed about the reall presence and Transubstantiation. The manner of disputinge was not in forme or af­ter any fashion of schoole, but rather of pro­posinge doubts, and answeringe the same for satisfaction of them that were not resolued, and so much lesse then in the former was any thinge pursued to any point of triall. Doctor VVeston deane of VVestminster was chosen pro­locutor, M. Doctor VVeston prolocu­tor. who protested in his preface (as Fox saith) that this conference vvas not held to call any points of Catholike Religion into doubt, but to solue such Fox ibid. scruples or doubts, as any man might pretend to haue.

38. This conuocation consisted for the grea­test part, of all those clergy-men that had borne rule in K. Edwards dayes, exceptinge Cranmer, Ridley, Latymer and Rogers, and I know not yf any other that were commytted be­fore. And the first point that was handled therin, was about a certayne Caluinian Ca­techisme, sett forth a little before vnder the name of that conuocation, whervnto the pro­locutor required subscriptions, to testifie that yt was not sett forth by their consents, mea­ninge, [Page 71] as yt seemed, therby to conuince Ridley or Crammer, or both of false dealinge therin. The second point was of subscribing to the reall presence, whervnto all the whole house agreed (saith Fox) sauinge fiue or six, to witt, Maister Philips Deane of Rochester, Maister Haddon Deane of Exceter, Maister Philpott Archdeacon Six only of all the cō ­uocation house re­fused to subscribe. of VVinchester, Maister Cheyney Archdeacon of Hereford, & Maister Elmour Archdeacon of Stow, and one other whome he nameth not, and by these were propounded all the doubts, that were there discussed: and as for the first two dayes, there was nothinge done at all, but a certaine communication. The third day came the Lord great-master, with the Earle of De­uonshire and diuers other noble men, and Cheiney afterward Bishopp of Glocester, who M. Cheiney. confessed the reall presence, but not Transubstan­tiation, proposed some doubts about the se­cond point, which we shall afterwards exa­mine in their place. The prolocutor appoin­ted Doctor Moreman to aunswere him and the rest extempore, wherby we may ghesse how D. More­man. substantiall a disputation yt was, for that the defendant came nothinge at all prepared. Pho­ [...]ipps also proposed some what about the reall presence; Elmour and Haddon spake little vpon that day, though the next day Elmour, then M. Elmour Chaplaine to the Duke of Suffolke, and after Bishopp of London, read certayne authorityes but of a note-booke, which he had gathered against the reall presence.

[...]9. But of all other, the most busy was Phil­pott, M. Philpot. [Page 72] both that day, and the other followinge, vauntinge and chalenginge the whole com­pany to dispute. Then quoth Philpott (saith Fox) I vvill speake playne English, the Sacrament of the Al­tar, which yee reckon to be all one with the masse; is no Sacrament at all, neyther is Christ any wise present in yt, and this his sayinge he offered to proue before the vvhole house, yf they listed to call him thervnto, and be­fore the Queens grace, and her counsell, and before the face of six of the best learned men of the house of the Fox pag. 1285. contrary opinion, and refused none. And yf I shall not be able (quoth he) to maintayne by Gods word that I haue said, and confound those six which shall take vpon them to withstand me, in this point, let me be bur­ned with as many sag gotts as be in London, before the court-gates, &c. This was Philpotts vaunt, and yet yf yee consider the poore arguments he brought forth in this conference, which after­wards shalbe discussed, togeather with his fond answers that he gaue in his 15. or 16. se­uerall examinations, before the Bishopps of VVinchester, London, Chichester, Bangor and others (for so much payne was taken to saue him) yow will say that his B. Gardiner had reason, when he held him for more then halfe madd, Iohn Phil­potis vaūt in the cō ­uocation house. as in his story we haue related. Consider also, that his denying Christ to be present any wise in the Sacrament, is much different from that yow heard Maister Perne affirme before, by ap­probation of Maister Ridley the moderator, that Christs body was truly, wholy, and verily in the Sacrament after a certayne propriety; but these men must not be taken at their words.

[Page 73] 40. And finally, the conclusion of all this conference with Philpott was, that the prolo­cutor in the end, seing him out of all reason to trouble the house, layed two comaundements vpon him; the first that he should not come thither any more, vnlesse he came in gowne and typpett, as the others came: the second, that he should not speake but in order, and with licence as the rest did; whose aunswere Fox relateth in these words: then quoth Philpott Fox ibid. I had rather be absent altogeather, so insufferable was all order, or temperate manner of procee­dinge to this disorderly man; and so Q. Mary sent a wryte the next day to dissolue the con­uocation: And such as had disputed (saith Fox) on the contrary part, were driuen, some to sly, some to de­ny, and some to dye, though to most mens iudgements, that heard the disputation, they had the vpper hand, &c. These are hereticall bragges, as yow will bet­ter see afterwards when we come to exami­ning of arguments. And as for dyinge, none of the forsaid disputers died, to our knowledge, but only Philpott in his madd moode; Cheyney, Elmour, and Haddon gott Bishopricks, & other dignityes vnder Q. Elizabeth. And so much of this disputation in the conuocation house.

Eight, ninth, and tenth Disputation. §. 8.

41. These last three disputations I do ioyne togeather, for that they were held successiuely [Page 74] in Oxford vpon three seuerall dayes in the mo­neth of Aprill, anno 1554. with Cranmer, Ridley, and Latymer vpon the forsaid three questions Three di­sputatiōs in Oxford against Cranmer, Ridley and Latymer. of the reall presence, Transubstantiation, and the sa­crifice of the masse. The names (saith Fox) of the vniuersity Doctors and graduates, appointed to dispute against them vpon the said que­stions, were these of Oxford, Doctor VVeston pro­locutor, Doctor Tressam, Doctor Cole, Doctor Ogle­thorpe, Fox pag. [...]299. Doctor Pye, Maister Harpesfield, Maister Feck­nam. Of Cambridge, Doctor Yonge Vice Chaun­celour, Doctor Glynn, Doctor Seton, Doctor VVatson, Doctor Sedgewicke, and Doctor Atkinson, to witt six of each vniuersity, all meeting at Oxford togeather to this effect. Thus farre Fox; who describeth also the manner and forme of this disputation, much more reasonable, orderly & indifferent, then all the former disputations vnder the Protestants, yf we beleeue Fox himselfe, who saith; that in the middle of the Doctors, there were appointed foure to be exceptores argumen­torum, wryters of the arguments (to vse his Fox ibid. words) and a table sett in the middest, and foure no­taryes sittinge with them; So as by his relation there were eight indifferent men chosen to register whatsoeuer passed: yet yf he relate truly, the manner of arguinge, was not so or­derly and schoolelike as might haue byn, wherby yt came to passe, that scarce any ar­gument The indif­ferēt dea­linge of Cath. in their di­sputation was prosecuted to the end; and the answeringe was such, as comonly was wholy from the purpose, as by diuers examples, yow shall see afterwards declared; as also we shall [Page 75] examine what arguments Cranmer could al­leage against the reall presence, vpon the fourth day of disputation, to witt the next day after Latymer had ended. For that Doctor Harpesfield answeringe for his degree, defended the que­stion of the reall presence, and Maister Cranmer was courteously inuited to the said disputa­tion, and suffered to say what he would or could against that verity, & was fully answe­red; notwithstandinge Fox will needs beare vs in hand to the contrary, as his fashion is.

42. And wheras the said Doctor Harpesfield in his preface, did much commend the diligent readinge of scripture with prayer, and confer­ring one place with another, but yet said that this was no secure way or meane, for euery particular man to resolue himselfe of the sense therof, but must rather beleeue the body of the Catholike Church therin, then his owne [...]udgement. Fox saith that Maister Cranmer in The foo­lish repre­hentiō v­sed by Cranmer & Fox. his reply reprehended that direction, sayinge: vvheras yow referre the true sense & iudgement of the scriptures to the Catholike Church, as iudge therof, yow are much deceaued, &c. And Fox himselfe addeth this marginall note: Yf Maister Harpesfield (when he saith we must not follow our owne heads and senses, [...]ut giue ouer our iudgement to the holy Catholike Church) had willed vs to submitt our selues to the holy Ghost he had said much better. So Iohn. But I Fox pag. 1326. would aske him, who shalbe iudge what the holy Ghost teacheth vs? For that is the que­stion. For yf a particular man readinge the scripture with prayer, and conferringe place [Page 76] with place only, may be presumed to attayne therby the true meaninge of the holy Ghost (which notwithstanding cannot be certayne, for that an heretike may vse the same meanes) how much more may the vniuersall body of the Church, vsing the selfe-same meanes also, as many of her learned members no doubt do; how much more, I say, may shee be thought and presumed to attayne to the true sense of the holy Ghost, seing that she hath a speciall promise of his infallible assistance to that ef­fect, which particular men haue not, though heretiks are wont proudly to presume thereof? And so yow shall see yt appeare also in these disputations, when we come to discusse the particulars.

43. And heere it is to be noted, that present­ly vpon the end of this Oxford disputation, vn­der Q. Mary, it was reported, that others should be held at Cambridge betweene the Doctors of that vniuersity, and the residue of the Pro­testant preachers that were in prison; wherof they being aduertised by the warninge of Do­ctor Ridley, as yt seemeth by Fox, and castinge Fox pag. 1336. their heads togeather vpon the matter, deter­mined to refuse all disputation, except it were before the Queene and priuy Councell, or be­fore The Pro­testāt Mi­nisters ex­cuse them solues frō disputa­tion. the houses of parlament, to which effect they sett sorth a publike wrytinge and prote­station, with certayne reasons of excuses mo­uinge them thervnto, subscribed by Hooper, Farrar, Taylor, Philpott, Bradford, Rogers, Saunders, and some others. And their cheefe excuse was, [Page 77] for that matters had byn determined by par­lament before they were disputed of, not con­sideringe that in K. Edwards dayes, the same course with farre lesse reason was held and determined by Parlament, before the Prote­stants disputations in Cambridge.

Of diuers other Disputations held be­sides these ten. §. 9.

44. These ten disputations I thought good to sett downe, for that they were held vpon the first chaunges of Religion in England, within the space of 4. or 5. yeares, as before hath byn said: diuers others I do passe ouer, The di­sputation of K. Hen­ry vvi [...]h Lambert. though some of them were as sollemne as these; as that of K. Henry the 8. against Lambert, vvherin Doctor Cranmer disputed for the reall presence, and the Lord Cromwell gaue sentence against him, as we haue shewed Sup [...]p. 14 di [...] 4. Octob. before in Lamberts story. That also which was held on pretended in the beginninge of the raigne of Q Elizabeth at Westminster, betweene nyne persons of the Catholike parte, and as many of the Protestant preachers newly come from beyond the seas. Those of the Catholike side were siue Bishopps, to witt Doctor Iohn VVhite Bishopp of VVinchester, Doctor Baynes of Lichsield, Doctor Scott of Chester, Doctor Oglethorpe or Car­liele, Doctor VVatson of Lincolne, with foure other Doctors adioyned vnto them, Doctor Cole [Page 78] Deane of London, Doctor Langedale Archdea­con of Lewis, Doctor Harpesfield Archdeacon of A preten­ded dispu­tation in the begin­ninge of Q. Elizabe­thes raigne anno 1559. Canterbury, and Doctor Chadsey Archdeacon of Middlesex. And for the Protestant parte, were Doctor Scory an Apostata friar, & Doctor Cox be­fore mentioned, that fledd the realme vnder Q. Mary, with whome ioyned M. VVhitehead, M. Grindall, M. Horne, M. Sandes, M. Ghest, M. El­mour, and M. Iewell, all freshly come from be­yond the seas, who all, except some one or two, were soone after for their good deme­ritts, made Bishopps, and accommodated by thrustinge out the other, in reward of this di­sputation, wherin notwithstanding there was not one argument made, nor solution giuen, but only an ostentation sought to effectuate that with some colour, which otherwise was determined before, and lacked but a pretence, for that the Queene and those that were nea­rest about her, hauinge determined to make a change of Religion, thought they should do yt best, and most iustifiable, yf they promised some name of disputation, wherin the Ca­tholiks had byn satisfied or vanquished; to which end, there were so many shifts, partia­lityes, and diuises vsed, and so many iniuryes offered to the Bishops of the Catholike party, as they thought good vpon the second dayes meetinge, to passe on no further, except more reason or indifferency vvere vsed towards them.

45. For first, in this disputation summoned & denounced throughout the whole realme, [Page 79] by order of the Queene and Councell, Syr Ni­colas Bacon lately made Lord Keeper, tooke vpon him to be president, and cheefe moderator, The great inequality & iniuryes offered in this pretē ­ded dispu­tation. whome all men knew to be one of the grea­test aduersaryes to Catholike Religion, that was in England, violent in condition, and vtterly ignorant in matters of diuinity. Se­condly the questions appointed to be disputed on, were not chosen nor assigned by the said Bishopps, but by the same Syr Nicolas and his adherents in the name of the Councell, at the instance or pleasure of the Protestant new pretenders, wherof when the Bishopps com­playned, the Lord Keeper answered: the questions are neyther of their (to witt the Protestants) pro­poundinge, Fox page 1924. nor of your diuise, but offered indifferently to [...]ow both.

46. The questions were three, first vvhether yt were against Godsword, and the custome of the primitiue Three questions to small purpose. Church, to vse a tongue vnknowne to the people in common prayer, and administration of Sacraments. The second, vvhether euery Church had authority to appoint, take away, and change ceremonyes and Eccle­siasticall rites, so the same be to edification. Thirdly whether yt can be proued by the word of God, that there is offered vp in the masse a sacrifice propitiatory for the quicke, and the dead: VVhich questions vvere to be handled (saith Fox) in the presence of the Queenes Fox pag. 1919. Councell, Nobility, and other of the parlament house, for the better satisfaction and enablinge of their iudge­ments, to treat and conclude of such lawes as might de­pend heerevpon. By which words you may easily conceaue what the drift of this pretended di­sputation [Page 80] was, and how guilefully these que­stions were chosen, and sett downe, yf yow marke their words and sense, especially the former two, which only or principally were to be handled, and how impertinent these questions were to the great moment of the whole matter and sequele, that was to ensue therof, which was no lesse then the vniuersall change of the whole body of Catholike Reli­gion, throughout the realme.

47. This then was the first hereticall fraud in appointinge this disputation, and the que­stions to be disputed, but they were many Diuers frauds. more and greater in the prosecution therof; for first the Catholike cleargy lackinge their 1. cheife head, which was the Archbishopp of Canterbury lately dead, the other Archbishopp of Yorke, to witt, Doctor Heath was entertay­ned with feyre words for a time, to effectuate with his brethren, what the Protestant party of the Conncell should thinke expedient▪ whervpon he being Chancelour yet in name, though the effect of his office was giuen to Syr Nicolas Bacon, vnder the little of Lord Keeper, he was brought into the place of disputation, and sate in his roome amongst other Coun­cellours, togeather with the Duke of Nor­folke, & other of the nobility as one of them, and rather against the Bishops, then for them, (though no doubt the good man meant yt not so) then was yt appointed to the said Catho­like 2. Bishopps by the Archbishopp, in name of the Councell, only two dayes before their [Page 81] meetinge at the conference (for so complay­neth Fox pag. 1923. col. 1. num. 1. the Bishop of Lincolne in the second dayes meetinge) that both they, to witt the Bishops, should begin to say what they could for themselues, & the Protestant preachers should answere them. And secondly that the confe­rence should be in English and not in Latyn; and thirdly, that yt should not be by way of arguinge or disputinge, but only of speach or 3. readinge yt out of some booke or paper: All which three points seeminge indignityes to Three in­dignityes o [...]ered vnto the Bishops. the Bishopps, they complayned greeuously therof at their first publike meetinge, which was in VVestminster Church vpon the last of March 1559. being friday; and Bishop VVhite of VVinchester being the first to speake for his side, said that they were ready to dispute & argue, but had not their wrytinge ready to be read there, but would do it at their next meeting: yet for giuinge some satisfaction, Doctor Cole extempore alleaged some breife reasons concer­ninge D. Col [...]. the former questions or propositions, reseruinge the rest vnto their fuller booke or wrytinge.

48. But heerevpon presently the Protestant preachers came out with their booke, or inue­ctiue against Latyn seruice, fraught with a vayne shew of many allegations, Scriptures, Fathers, Councells, and Constitutions of Em­perors, sounding as it might seeme somewhat to their party, though nothing at all in truth, yf yow examine them, as they ly in Fox him­selfe, An osten­tation of the Prote­stant side. but with this ostentation they sought to [Page 82] get the applause of the people, & heerby well declared that they had more then two dayes warninge to prepare themselues; and albeit when this was done, the Bishops offered to refute all the same cleerely at the next me­tinge, yet could they not be heard or permit­ted, as presently we shall shew, but that this must needs stand for the whole resolution in the first questiō. And Fox like one of his kind, seeketh to preuent the matter in these words: The same being reade (to witt the wryting of the Protestant party) vvith some likelyhood as it seemed Fox pag. 1922. that the same was much allow able to the audience, cer­tayne of the Bishopps began to say, contrary to their for­mer aunswere, that they had now much more to say in this matter, vvherin although they might vvell haue byn reprehended; yet for auoydinge of any more mista­kinge, and that they should vtter all they had to say, yt was ordered that vpon munday followinge, the Bishopps should bringe their mynd and reasons in vvryting to the second assertion, and to the last also ys they could, and first read the same, and that done the other part should bring likewise theirs, &c.

49. Lo heere the indifferency that was vsed; the Bishopps are accused of cauillation, that they offered to aunswere in wrytinge to the Protestants libell, which is not only denyed them, but yt is ordayned also, that after other Open inequali­ty. two dayes, they should bringe in whatsoeuer they haue to say to the second and third que­stions, and readinge yt first, giue their aduersa­ryes leaue to triumphe in the second place, as they had done vpon the first question the day [Page 83] before. But vpon munday, when all the as­sembly was sett, the Bishopps stood firmely vpon this, that they would first read publikely their owne vyrytinge, vvhich there they brought with them vpon the first question of Latyn seruice, in answere to that of the Prote­stants at the last meeting, but in no case would yt be graunted them. Fox relateth the Alter­cation thus.

50. VVinchester. I am determyned for my part, that there shalbe now read that, vvhich vve haue to say Altercatiō of the Bis­hops vvith Syr Nico­las Bacon. for the first question.

L. Keeper. VVill yow not then proceed in the or­der appointed yow?

Winchester. VVe should suffer preiudice, yf yow permitt vs not to treat of the first question first, and so vve vvould come to the second, and I iudge all my bre­thren are so mynded.

Bishopps. VVe are all so determyned.

L. Keeper. Yow ought to looke vvhat order is ap­pointed yow to keepe, &c.

Winchester. Syth our aduersaryes part haue so confirmed their assertion, we suffer preiudice yf yow permitt vs not the like.

Lincolne. VVe are not vsed indifferently, sithen [...]ow allow vs not, to open in present vvrytinge that, vve [...]aue to say for declaration of the first question, &c. for that vvhich Maister Cole spake in this late assembly, The reso­lute spe­ach of D. VVatson B. of Lincolne. [...]as not prepared to strengthen our cause, but he made [...]is oration of himselfe extempore, &c. VVe are al­l euill ordered as touchinge the tyme, our aduersaryes [...]art hauinge warninge longe before, and we were war­ [...]ed only two dayes before the last assembly in this place, [Page 84] and vvith this busines and other trouble, we haue byn dryuen to be occupied the whole last night, for we may in no case betray the cause of God nor will not do, but susteyne it to the vttermost of our power, but heervnto vve vvant presently indifferent vsinge, &c.

L. Keeper. I am vvillinge and ready to heare yow, after the order taken for yow to reason therin, and fur­ther or contrary to that, I cannot deale vvith yow.

Lichfield. Let vs suffer no disorder heerin, but be heard vvith indifferency.

51. Thus went on that contention, wherof I omitt much for breuityes sake; but by this little, so partially declared by Fox, as may be immagined, and appeareth also by diuers cir­cumstances, yow may ghesse how the matter passed, and which part had more reason. At the length, the Archbishop of Yorke, knowing belike that this standinge of the Bishopps would not preuaile against designements, al­ready made by the Queene and Councell in disgrace of the Catholike cause, willed the Bishopps ro giue ouer in this matter, and to passe to the second question. But then began a new strife, which party should first begin to speake in this question also, the Bishops affir­minge both in respect they had begonne the other day, and that the Protestant party was plaintife or accusant, they should begin, and the Bishopps would answere, but this in no case would be graunted, but that the Bishops must begin againe, and the other haue the last word as before: which indignity the Bishop of Lichfield being not well able to beare, reque­sted [Page 85] humbly the Lords there present, that they might dispute, and try first which party was Catholike and of the Catholike Church, for that therby would appeare who had right to the first or second place of speach, and being somewhat earnest therin, spake to M. Horne in these words as Fox relateth.

52. Lichfield. Maister Horne, Maister Horne, there Another altercatiō vvith the L. Keeper. are many Churches in Germany, I pray yow vvhich of these Churches are ye of?

Horne. I am of Christs Catholike Church.

L. Keeper. Yow ought not thus to runne into wandringe talke of your owne inuentinge, &c.

Lichfield. Nay vve must first go thus to vvorke vvith them yf vve vvill search a truth: these men come in and pretend to be doubtfull, therfore they should first bringe vvhat they haue to impugne, &c.

Winchester. Lett them begin, so vvill vve go onward.

Chester. They speakinge last vvould depart cum applausu populi, &c. surely vve thinke yt meete that they should for their parts giue vs place.

Lichfield. Yea that they should and ought to do, vvhere any indifferency is vsed.

Elmour. VVe giue yow place, do vve not? I pray yow begin.

L. Keeper. Yf yow make this assembly gathered in vayne, and vvill not go to the matter, lett vs rise vp and depart.

Winchester. Contented, lett vs be gone: for vve vvill not in this point giue ouer. And so finally after some other like altercation, Bacon dissolued the assembly with this threat.

[Page 86] L. Keeper. My Lords, for that yow vvill not, that vve shall heare yow, you may chaunce shortly to heare of vs. So he. And this hearinge was; that soone af­ter (saith Stow) the Bishopps of Lincolne and Winchester vvere sent to the Towar, and the rest Stovv anno Domini 1559. bound to make dayly, and personall appearance before the Councell, and not to depart the Citty of London and VVestminster, vntill further order vvere taken vvith them for their disobedience and contempt.

53. And this was the issue of the first dispu­tation The issue of this di­sputation vvith the Bishops. vnder Q. Elizabeth, vvherof presently there was a booke printed and published, ac­cordinge to the fashion of the new Doctors, giuinge the victory to the Protestants, and ouerthrow to the Cath. Bishopps, who yet, as yow see, were neuer permitted to propose any one argument, or reason in due place and tyme.

54. And with this shall we end our narra­tion of publike disputations, omitting many more priuate and particular, as the conference of Ridley, and Secretary Burne, Doctor Fecknam, and others in the towar, in the beginninge of Q. Maryes Fox pag. 1297. raigne: The colloquy of the foresaid Fecknam, with the Lady Iane in the same place; the particular conferences and examinations of Hooper, Farrar, Taylour, Rogers, Philpott, Smyth, Bradford, Tyms, Saunders, Blandford, and others of the learneder sort of Protestants, but many more of craftesmen, artificers, weomen, and such like of the ignorant sort, in the Bishopps consistoryes and other places: Out of which also we shall reduce the summe of the princi­pall [Page 87] arguments or answers, yf yt be different from the rest, when we come afterward to their due places.

55. And now all this being seene and con­sidered, the reader will easily discerne, what ground of certainty may be drawne from all these disputations, altercations, and confe­rences, to found theron the security of his soule in beleeuing, as the Protestants doe: yea and yeldinge themselues to the fire for yt, as many did in Q. Maryes dayes, vpon the fame The infe­rence vpō these di­sputatiōs. and creditt of the forsaid disputations, which yet many of them vnderstood not, nor euer heard or read, but most of all were not able to resolue themselues by them, yf they had heard, read, or vnderstood them, but only in generall they rested themselues vpon this point, that the Protestants were learned men, and had gotten the victory in disputations a­gainst the Catholiks, for that so yt was told them. And this they thought sufficient for their assurance.

56. But now on the contrary side, yf a man would oppose to these ten publike disputa­tions before recyted, ten learned Councells of the Catholike Church, that disputed, exami­ned, and condemned this heresie of theirs a­gainst the reall presence, vvithin the space of these last 600. yeares, since Berengarius first be­gan Ten coun­cells exa­mined & confirmed the do­ctrine of the reall presence. yt, as namely those foure named by Lanck­franke, to witt, that of Rome vnder Leo the 9. and another of Versells vnder the same Pope; the third at Towars in France vnder Pope Victor [Page 88] successor to Leo, the fourth at Rome againe vn­der Pope Nicolas the second; In all which Beren­garius himselfe was present, and in the last, not only abiured, but burnt his owne booke. And Laufrane. contra Be­rengarium. after this, six other Councells to the same ef­fect, the first at Rome vnder Gregory the 7. where Berengarius againe abiured, as VVald. tom. 2. de Sacram. cap. 43. VValdensis testi­fieth: The second of Lateran in Rome also vn­der Innocentius the third: the generall Coun­cell of Vienna; the fourth at Rome againe vnder Pope Iohn the 22. the fifth at Constance, and the sixt at Trent. All these Councells (I say) yf a man consider with indifferency of what va­riety of learned men they consisted, of what singular piety and sanctity of life, of how ma­ny nations, of what dignity in Gods Church, how great diligence they vsed to discusse this matter, what prayer, what conferringe of scriptures, and other meanes they vsed, and with how great consent of both Greeke and Latyn Church conforme to all antiquity, they determined and resolued against the opinion of Protestants in our dayes; he will easily dis­couer, how much more reason, and probabi­lity of security there is, of aduenturinge his soule of the one side then of the other, which yet he will better do, by contemplation of the vanity of new Protestants arguments and ob­iections, against so ancient founded and con­tinued a truth. Which obiections we shall examine in the Chapters followinge. And so much for this.

Catholike groundes of these three ar­ticles, and first of the reall presence. §. 1.

8. The first ground that Catholike men haue of these, and all other misteryes of Christian [Page 67] faith that are aboue the reach of common sense and reason, is the authority of the Ca­tholike Church, by which they were taught the same: as points of faith reuealed from God. And this is such a ground, as we see by experience, that the most part of people of what Religion soeuer, being yonge or vnlear­ned, can yeld no other reason in effect, why they beleeue this or that article of theire faith, but for that they receaued the same from their Church and teachers therof, being not able themselues to searche out any other grounde therof: yea the most learned of all from their infancy, tooke all vpon this assurance only of their Church, which Church yf they held to be of infallible authority, so as she can neither be deceaued nor deceaue (as we do of the Ca­tholike) then should they rest firme & sure in their opinion vpon this ground; but yf they hould that all Churches may erre, and bringe into error both in doctrine, and manners, as yow haue heard Martyn Bucer hold before in his Cambridge conclusions, and most sectaryes Sup. cap. 1. of our tyme do follow him in that assertion, then can they haue no ground or certainty this way, but each man and woman must seeke other grounds and proofes, and stand vpon their owne iudgements for triall of the same, which how well the most part of people can do, being eyther yonge, simple, vnlear­ned, or otherwayes so busyed in other mat­ters, as they cannot attend thervnto, euery man of meane discretion will consider, and [Page 98] consequently they must needs be said both to liue and dye, vvithout any ground of their faith at all, but proper opinion, and so perish euerlastingely.

9. The famous Doctor S. Augustine handleth this matter in a speciall booke to his frend Ho­noratus deceaued by the Manichies, as himselfe also sometymes had byn, and he intituleth his booke De vtilitate credendi: of the profitt that Aug. tom. 6. commeth to a man by beleeuing the Church, and points of faith therin taught, without de­maundinge reason or proofe therof, which the Manichies derided, and said that they re­quired nothinge to be beleeued of their fol­lowers, but that which first should be proued to them by good proofe and reason, and not depend only of mens creditt: but the holy Fa­ther scorneth this hereticall bragg and often­tation of theirs, and commendeth highly the contrary custome of simple beleeuinge vpon the creditt of the Catholike Church, for that otherwise infinite people should haue no faith at all, and exhorteth his frend Honoratus to take the same course; first to beleeue, and after to seeke the reason. His discourse is this: Fac nos nunc primum quaerere, cuinam Religioni, animas no­stras, Aug. lib. de vtil. cred. tom. 6. cap. 7. &c. ‘Suppose that we now first of all did seeke, vnto what Religion we should commit our soules to be purged and rectified; without all doubt we must begin with the Catholike Church, for that she is the most eminent now in the world, there being more Christians in her, at this day, then in any other Church of [Page 99] Iewes, and Gentills put togeather: And albeit amongst these Christians, there may be sects and heresies, and all of them would seeme to be Catholiks, and do call others besides them­selues heretiks: yet all graunt, that yf we con­sider the whole body of the world, there is one Church amongst the rest more eminent then all other, & more plentifull in number, & (as they which know her do affirme) more sincere also in truth; but as concerninge truth, we shall dispute more afterward; now yt is sufficient for them that desire to learne, that there is a Catholike Church, which is one in yt selfe, whervnto diuers heretiks do feigne, and diuise diuers names, wheras they, (and their sects) are called by peculiar names, which themselues cannot deny, wherby all men that are indifferent, & not letted by pas­sion, may vnderstand vnto what Church, the name Catholike, which all parts desire & pre­tend, is to be giuen.’

10. Thus S. Augustine: teachinge his frend how he might both know and beleeue the Catholike Church, and all that shee taught simply, and without asking reason or proofe. And as for knowing and discerning her from all other Churches, that may pretend to be Catholike, we heare his marks, that she is more eminent, vniuersall, greater in number, and in possession of the name Catholike. The second that she may be beleeued securely, and cannot deceaue nor be deceaued in matters of faith, he proueth elswhere, concluding finally [Page 100] in this place: Si iam satis tibi iactatus videris, &c. Aug. ibid. cap. 8. ‘Yf thou dost seeme to thy selfe now to haue byn sufficiently tossed vp and downe amonge sectaryes, and wouldst putt an end to these labours and tormoyles, follow the way of Cath. discipline, which hath flowen downe vnto vs from Christ by his Apostles, and is to flow from vs to our posterity.’

11. This then is the iudgement and direction of S. Augustine, that a man should for his first Hovv a man may knovv the Catholike Church. ground, in matters of faith, looke vnto the be­leefe of the greatest & most eminent Church of Christendome, that hath endured longest, embraceth most people, & hath come downe from our fore-fathers with the name of Ca­tholike, not only among her owne professors, but euen among her enemyes Iewes, infidells, and heretiks, and so is termed & held by them Aug. de ve­ra rel. c. 7. & serm. 131. de temp. & lib. 3. cont. Gaudent. Denat. c. 1. in their common speach, as the said Father in diuers others places declareth at large. Which rule of direction, yf we will follow about these three articles of faith now proposed, the reall presence, Transubstantiation, and Sacrifice of the masse, yt is easily seene what ground we haue for their beleefe, in this kind of proofe, so highly esteemed by S. Augustine, which is the authority of the vniuersall Cath. Church. For that when Luther and his followers began to oppose themselues in our dayes, no man can deny, but that our beleefe in these articles was generally receaued ouer all Christen­dome, as well Asia and Africa, where so euer Christians be, as Europe, and so vpward tyme [Page 101] out of mynd; neither can any beginning be as­signed to these doctrines in the Cath. Church, but only a certayne definition and determina­tion of some Councells, about the name of Transubstantiation, as after shalbe declared.

12. Now then, hauinge found out this first Groundes about the reall pre­sence. ground which S. Augustine and other Fathers do make so great accoumpt of, which is the authority and beleefe of that Church, that ge­nerally is called Catholike: Yf we passe fur­ther, and see what grounds this Church had or hath to admytt the same, (which yet is not needfull, or possible to all sortes of men, for that only can be done by the learneder sort) we shall find that she hath such grounds, as may conuince any man that is not obstinate, and indurate to the contrary. And first to be­gin with the article of the reall presence, what ground, proofe, or Theologicall demonstra­tion can there bee, which the Cath. Church hath not for her beleefe in that high mistery? which as it was to be one of the cheefest, most sacred, and admirable of Christian Religion, so was yt meet that yt should be confirmed, by all the principall wayes that any article of faith could or can be confirmed, that is to say both by scriptures of the ould and new Testa­ment, and the true exposition therof by aun­cient Fathers, that liued before this contro­uersie began with Sacramentarye [...]; by autho­rity and tradition of the Apostles and their successors; by testimony of auncient Fathers from age to age; by consent and agreement, [Page 102] practise and vse of the vniuersall Church; by the concourse and approbation of almighty God, with euident and infinite miracles, by confession of the aduersaryes, and other such generall heads of arguments, which Catho­like diuines do produce for this truth, for iu­stifyinge the Churches faith therin.

13. And out of the scriptures their demon­stration Demon­strations out of the scripture. is not single or of one sort only, but in diuers manners, as to the height and digni­ty of so diuine and venerable a mystery was conuenient. For that out of the ould Testa­ment, they shew how yt was prefigured and prophesied, and in the new both promised againe, exhibited, and confirmed, and this not by exposition of their owne heads only, as sectaryes do, but by intendement, and inter­pretation, of the grauest and most ancient Fa­thers, that haue liued in the Church of God from age to age, who vnderstood so the said figures and foreshewinges of the old Testa­ment. As for example, the bread and wine mi­steriously offered to almighty God by Melchi­sedeck King and Priest, who bare the type of our Sauiour Gen. 14. Psalm. 109. Heb. 7. The shew-bread amonge the Iewes, that only could be eaten by them that were sanctified Exod. 40. &c. Reg. 21. The bread sent miraculously Three fi­gures of Christs flesh in bread. by an Angell to Elias, whereby he was so strengthened, as he trauayled 40. dayes with­out eating by vertue only of that bread. These three sorts of bread to haue byn expresse fi­gures of this Sacrament, and of the trew flesh [Page 103] of Christ therein conteined, do testifie by one consent all the ancient Fathers, as S. Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3. Clem. Alexand. lib. 4. Strom. Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 3. Hier in cap. 1. ad Titum. Chrysost. hom. 35. in Gen. August. lib. 2. cont. litteras Petii. cap. 37. Cyrill. Catechesi 4. Mystag. Arnobius, Eusebius, Gregorius, and many others.

14. Three other figures there are not expres­sed in the forme of bread, but in other things more excellēt then bread, as the paschall lambe Exod. 12. Leuit. 23. The bloud of the Testament Three other signes of Christs flesh. described Exod. 24. Heb. 9. And fulfilled by Christ Luc. 22. when he said: This cupp is the new Testament in my bloud, and againe: This is my bloud of the new Testament Matth. 26. The manna al­so sent by God from heauen was an expresse figure of this Sacrament, as appeareth by the words of our Sauiour. Ioan. 6. and of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. Out of all which figures, is inferred, that for so much as there must be great difference betweene the figure, and the thing prefigured, no lesse yf we beleeue S. Paul, Colloss. 2. Heb. 10. then betweene a shaddow, & the body whose shaddow yt is; yt cannot be imagined by any probability, that this Sacrament exhibited by Christ, in performance of those figures, should be only creatures of bread and wine, as Sacra­mentaryes do imagine, for then should the fi­gures An inference vpō the for­mer fi­gures. be eyther equall, or more excellent then the thing prefigured yt selfe, for who will not confesse but that bread for bread, Elias his bread made by the Angell, that gaue him strength to walke 40. dayes vpon the vertue [Page 104] therof was equall to our English-ministers Communion-bread, and that the manna was much better.

15. And yf they will say for an euasion, as they do, that their bread is not common bread, but such bread as being eaten and re­ceaued by faith, worketh the effect of Christs body in them, and bringeth them his grace; we answeare that so did these figures and Sa­craments also of the ould Testament, being receaued by faith in Christ to come, as the ancient Father and Preachers receaued them: And for so much as Protestants do further hould, that there is no difference betweene the vertue & efficacy of those old Sacramēts, and ours, (which we deny) yt must needs fol­low, that both we & they agreeinge, that the Fathers of the old Testament beleeued in the same Christ to come that we do now, being come, their figures and shaddowes must be as good as our truth in the Sacrament, that was prefigured, if it remaine bread still after Christs institution, and consecration. But Catholike Fathers did vnderstand the matter farre otherwise, and to alleage one for all, for that he spake in the sense of all in those dayes, Saint Hierome talking of one of those forsaid figures, to witt, of the shew-bread, and comparinge yt with the thinge figured, and by Christ exhibi­ted, saith thus: Tantum interest, &c. ‘There is so Hier. in [...]. much difference betweene the shew-bread, and the body of Christ figured therby, as there is difference betweene the shaddow and the [Page 105] body, whose shaddow yt is, and betweene an Image and the truth, which the Image repre­senteth, & betweene certaine shapes of things to come, and the things themselues prefigured by those shapes. And thus much of figures, & presignifications of the old Testament.’

16. In the new Testament, as hath byn said, are conteyned both the promise of our Saui­our, Proofes out of the nevv Testament. to fullfill these figures with the truth of his flesh, which he would giue to be eaten in the Sacrament, as also the exhibition and per­formance therof afterward, the very night before his passion, with a miraculous confir­mation of the same by S. Paul, vpon conference had therin with Christ himselfe after his bles­sed assension. The promise is conteyned in the sixt Chapter of S. Iohns ghospell, where our Sauiour foretelleth expressely, that he would Io. 6. giue his flesh to vs to be eaten: for that except vve did eat the same, vve could not be saued: that his flesh vvas truly meat, and his bloud truly drinke; and that his flesh that he would giue vs to eat, vvas the same that vvas to be giuen for the life of the world: All which speaches of our Sauiour expoun­ded vnto vs in this sense, for the reall presence of his flesh in the Sacrament by the vniuersall agreeinge consent of auncient Fathers, must needs make great impression in the hart of a faithfull Christian man, especially the perfor­mance of this promise ensuing soone after, vvhen Christ being to depart out of this world, and to make his last will and Testa­ment, exhibited that which heere he promi­sed, [Page 106] takinge bread, brake and distributed the same, sayinge: this is my body that shalbe deliuered Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Lu [...]. 22. for yow, which words are recorded by three se­uerall Euangelists, and that with such signifi­cant, and venerable circumstances on our Sa­uiours behalfe, of feruent prayer, washinge his Apostles feet, protestation of his excessiue loue, and other deuout, and most heauenly speaches in that nearnesse to his passion, as well declared the exceeding greatnesse of the mistery which he was to institute: whervnto if we add that excellent cleare cōfirmation of S. Paul, who for resoluing doubts as it seemed had conference with Christ himselfe after his ascension (for before he could not, he being no Christian when Christ ascended) the matter will be more euident. His words are these to the Corinth. Ego enim accepi à Domino, quod & tradi­di vobis, &c. For I haue receaued from our Lord 1. Cor. 11. himselfe, that which I haue deliuered vnto yow about the Sacrament; and do yow note S. Paules confirma­tion of the reall presence. the word (for) importinge a reason why he ought specially to be beleeued in this affayre, for so much as he had receaued the resolution of the doubt frō Christ himselfe. And then he setteth downe the very same words againe of the Institution of this Sacrament, that were vsed by Christ before his passion, without al­teration, or new exposition, which is moral­ly most certayne that he would haue added for clearinge all doubts, yf there had byn any other sense to haue byn gathered of them, then the plaine words themselues do beare. [Page 107] Nay himselfe doth add a new consirmation, when he saith, that he which doth eate and drinke vnworthily this Sacrament, reus erit [...]orporis & sanguinis Domini, shalbe guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. And againe: Iu­ [...]cium sibi manducat & bibit, non dijudicans corpus Domini, he doth eat & drinke his owne iudge­ment, not discerninge the body of our Lord: Which inferreth the reall presence of Christes body, which those, whome the Apostle repre­hendeth, by the fact of their vnworthy recea­uing doe so behaue themselues, as yf they did not discerne it to be present. All which laid togeather, & the vniforme consent of exposi­tors throughout the whole Christian world, concurringe in the selfe-same sense and mea­ninge of all these scriptures, about the reall pre­sence of Christs true body in the Sacrament, yow may imagine what a motiue yt is, and ought to be to a Catholike man, who desireth to beleeue, and not to striue and contend. And thus much for scriptures.

17. There followeth the consideration of Fathers, Doctors and Councells, wherein as The secōd ground a­bout au­thorityes of Fa­thers. the Sacramentaryes of our tyme, that pleased first to deny the reall presence, had not one au­thority, nor can produce any one at this day, that expressely saith, that Christs reall body is not in the Sacrament, or that yt is only a fi­gure, signe, or token therof (though diuers impertinent peeces of some Fathers speaches they will now and then pretend to alleage) so on the cōtrary side, the Catholiks do behould [Page 108] for their comfort, the whole ranks of ancient Fathers through euery age, standinge with them in this vndoubted truth: Yea not only affirming the same reall presence in most cleere, and perspicuous words (wherof yow may see See Claud. de Xanctes repet. & Bellarm. l. de Euchar. tom 2. and others. whole books in Catholike wryters repleni­shed with Fathers authorityes, laid togeather out of euery age from Christ downe wards) but that which is much more, yeldinge rea­sons, & endeauoring to proue the same by ma­nifest arguments, & theologicall demonstra­tions, vsing therin such manner of speach and words, as cannot possibly agree vnto the Pro­testants communion of bare bread and wyne, with their symbolicall signification or repre­sentation only. As for example, where the Fa­thers do shew how Christs true flesh com­meth to be in this Sacramēt, videlicet: by the true conuersion of bread into his body, and by, that this body The first reason of the Fa­thers. is made of bread, and by, that the substances of breat and vvyne be changed, and other like speaches, as may be seene in S. Ambrose 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. & lib. 6. cap. 1. lib. de myst. init. cap. 9. Cypr. Serm. de Coena. Chrysost. hom. 83. in Matth. & de proditione Iudae. Cyrill. Catec. 4. Mystag. Nissenus orat. Catech. 37. and others.

18. Secondly, yt is an ordinary speach of the The secōd reason of Fathers. Fathers, to cry out & admyre the miracle that happeneth, by the conuersion in this Sacra­ment, ascribinge the same to the supreme om­nipotencv of almighty God, as yow may see in S. Chrysostome l. 3. de sacerdotio: O miraculum, &c. S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. Iustinus Martyr [Page 109] Apolog. 2. sayinge: that by the same omnipotency of God, vvherby the vvord vvas made flesh, the flesh of the vvord vvas made to be in the Eucharist, which a­greeth not to a Caluinian communion.

19. Thirdly, some of them do extoll and ma­gnifie The third reason. the exceeding loue & charity of Christ towards vs, aboue all other humane loue, in that he feedeth vs with his owne flesh, which no shephards did euer their sheepe, or mothers their children, which is the frequent speach of S. Chrysostome hom. 83. in Matth. & 45. in Ioan. & hom. 24. in ep. 1. ad Cor. 2. & homil. 60. & 61. ad Pop. Antioch. And to the same effect S. Augu­stine ep. 120. cap. 27. & in Psal. 33. which speaches can no wayes agree to the Protestants supper.

20. Fourthly, diuers of the said Fathers do The 4. reason. expressely teach, that we do receaue Christ in the Sacrament not only by faith, but truly, really, and corporally; semetipsum nobis commiscet (saith S. Chrysostome) non side tantum, sed & reipsa: Chrysost. hom. 60. ad Popul. An­t [...]och. Christ doth ioyne himselfe with vs (in the Sacrament) not only by faith, but really. And [...]n another De Sancto Phylogonio. place, he putteth this antithesis or opposition betwixt vs, and the Magi, that saw and beleeued in Christ lyinge in the manger, that they could not carry him with them, as we do now by receauinge him in the Sacra­ment, and yet no doubt they beleeued in him, and carryed him in faith as we do now; to which effect S. Cyrill Alexand. saith: Corporaliter 4. in Ioan. cap. 13. & 14. & l. 11. cap. 27. nobis filius vnitur vt homo, spiritualiter, vt Deus: Christ as a man is vnited vnto vs corporally, (by the Sacrament) and spiritually, as he is God. [Page 110] Whervnto yow may add S. Hilary lib. 8. de Tri­nitate, and Theodorus in the Councell of Ephesu­tom. 6. Appendic. 5. cap. 2. and others.

21. Fiftly the Fathers do many tymes, and The fifth reason. in diuers places, and vpon sundry occasions go about to proue the truth of other myste­ryes, and articles of our faith, by this miracle of the being of Christs flesh and body in the Sacrament, as S. Irenaeus for example, doth Lib. 4. cent. haer [...]s [...]. 34. proue Christs Father to be the God of the old sestament, for that in his creatures he hath left vs his body & bloud, and in the same Ibidem. place he vseth the same argument, for esta­blishinge the article of the resurrection of out bodyes, to witt, that he that vouch safeth to nowrish vs with his owne body and bloud, will not lett our bodyes remayne for euer in death & corruption. S. Chrysostome in like man­ner, Hom. 3. in Matth. by the truth of his reall presence in the Sa­crament, doth confute them that denyed Christ to haue taken true flesh of the Virgin Mary, which hardly would be proued by the Sacramentary supper of bread and wyne, as euery man by himselfe will consider.

22. Sixtly to pretermitt all other points han­dled to this effect, by the said Fathers, as that The sixth reason. diuers of them do exclude expressely the name of figure, or similitude from this Sacra­ment, as S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 1. Da­masc. lib. 4. cap. 4. & 14. Theophilact. in Matth. 26. Others yeld reasons why Christ in the Sacra­ment, would be really vnder the formes or accidents of bread and wyne, to witt, that our [Page 111] faith might be proued and exercised therby, & the horror of eating flesh & bloud, in their owne forme & shape, taken away, and so the same S. Ambrose Ibid. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. Cyrill. in cap. 22. Luc. apud D. Thom. in catena. Others do persuade vs not to beleeue our senses that see only bread and wyne, wherof we shall speake more in the obseruations following: so S. Au­gustine, serm. de verbis Apost. & l. 3. de Trinit. cap. 10. Others do proue this reall presence by the sa­crifice, affirminge the selfe same Christ to be offered now in our dayly sacrifice vpon the Altars of Christians, after an vnbloudy man­ner, which was offered once bloudely vpon the Altar of the Crosse, as more largely shalbe Diuers euident reasons togeather. shewed: so S. Chrysostome hom. 17. ad Haebr. & 2. [...] 2. ad Tim. Greg. lib. 4. dial. c. 58. Nissenus orat. 1. [...] pascha, &c. All these considerations I say, and many others that may be taken out of the Fa­thers wrytinges, I do for breuityes sake lett passe in this place, though most euidently they do declare the said Fathers plaine meaninge, and beleefe in this article, and cannot any way be applyed to the new Communion of Pro­testants, but by manifest impropriety and de­ [...]ortion.

23. And therfore I will end only with one consideration more, very ordinary with the The sea­nenth rea­son. said Fathers, which is, the diuine reuerence, honour, and adoration, that in all ages the said Fathers haue giuen vnto the blessed Sacra­mēt, whose authorityes were ouerlong heere to recyte in particular. The sayinge of S. Austen [Page 112] is knowne Nemo manducat nisi prius adorauerit, no Aug. [...]ne. 1. [...]. ps. [...]. man eateth the Sacrament but first adoreth the same, and S. Chrysostome, Adora & manduca▪ Chrysost. hom. 3. in epist. ad Ephes. Theodor. in 2. dialog. adore yt and receaue yt; And Theodoret to the same effect, Et creduntur & adorantur, quòd easint quae creduntur. They are beleeued and adored (the flesh and bloud of Christ) for that they are in deed the things they are beleeued to be. And to speake nothinge of many other Fathers sayings to this effect, S. Chrysostome his large dis­courses about this matter may serue for all, Chrysost. hom 60. ad Popul. An­tioch. & hom. 3. in ep. ad Ephes. & lib. 6. de Sacerdotio. who wryteth, that at the tyme of consecration and sacrifice, the very Angells come downe, and vvith tremblinge do adore Christ their Lord therin present▪ vvhich he vvould neuer haue vvrytten, y [...] bread, and wyne were only there present.

24. By all these wayes & meanes then, may easily be seene what the auncient Fathers in The third ground of Coūcells. their ages did thinke, speake, and beleeue, of this high & admirable mistery of Christs real presence in the Sacrament. And albeit ther▪ were no Councells about this matter, for the space of a thousand yeares after Christ, the cause therof was, that in all that space no on▪ man euer openly contradicted the same, atleast after the tyme of S. Ignatius vntill Berenga [...] rius, (for yf any man had done yt, we may se [...] by the foresaid Fathers speaches, who must haue byn the chiefe in these Councells, what their determination would haue byn against them) and when the said Berengarius had once broached this Sacramentary heresy, the whole Theodoretus in 3. Dial. Christian world rose vp presently against the [Page 113] same, as against a blasphemous nouelty, and ten seuerall Councells condemned the same, as in the former Chapter hath byn declared.

25. Wherfore the Catholikes hauinge with them all these warrants of truth by scriptures, The 4. ground of the Chur­thes con­sent. fathers, councells, tradition of antiquity, vni­forme consent of all Christian nations, both Greeke, Latyn, Asian, African, & other coun­treyes embracing the name & faith of Christ, and that no beginninge or entrance can be shewed of this doctrine in the said Church, nor any contradiction against yt when yt first entred: as on the cōtrary side the first of spring of the other, togeather with the place, author, tyme, manner, occasion, resistance, condem­nation, and other like circumstances are and may be authentically shewed, prooued and conuinced, yea that the very face of Christen­dome from tyme out of mynd, by their [...]hurches, altars, offerings, adoration, and manner of diuine seruice admittted euery where, without contradiction, doubt, or que­stion, do testifie the same: the truth moreouer therof being confirmed by so infinite con­ [...]ourse of manifest miracles, recorded by such authors, as no man with piety can doubt of their creditt; the Catholiks I say hauinge all his mayne cloud of wittnesses (to vse the Apostles Miracles. Hebr. 12. [...]ords) for the testimony of this truth, and being practized and accustomed in the beleefe [...]erof for so many ages togeather without [...]terruption, and seing moreouer that Luther [...]mselfe, and all the learned of his side that [Page 114] were open professed enemyes in other things to the Catholike beleefe, yet in this protested the truth to be so euident, as they durst not impugne it, nay held the first impugners ther­of for damnable heretiks, addinge also heere­vnto that Zuinglius the first chiefe author, con­fesseth himselfe to haue byn moued thervnto by a certayne extrauagant spiritt, which he saith he knew not whether yt was blacke or white. Zuing. l. de vt Sacra­mentaria. All these things, I say, laid togeather, and the liues and manners considered of them, that haue held the one & the other faith; that is to say the infinite Saints of the one side, whome the Protestants themselues do not deny to haue byn Saints; and the qualityes and condi­tions of the others, that first began, or since haue defended the new Sacramentary opi­nions: lett the discreet reader iudge, whether the Catholiks of England had reason to stand VVeighty considera­tions. fast in their old beleefe, against the innoua­tions of our new Sacramentary Protestants in K. Edwards dayes. And the like shall yow see in the other articles that ensue of Transubstan­tiation and Sacrifice, dependinge of this first of the reall presence, as before yow haue heard. But much more will yow be confirmed in all this, when yow shall haue read ouer the di­sputations followinge, and seene the triflinge arguments of the Sacramentaryes in these so weighty & important articles of our beleefe and the ridiculous euasions where with they seeke to auovd, or delude the graue tistimo­nyes of scriptures, and Fathers before men­tioned. [Page 115] For therby wilbe seene, that they seeke not truth in deed with a good and sin­cere conscience, & feare of Gods iudgements; but only to escape and entertayne talke for continuaunce of their faction, which ought to be marked by the reader, yf he loue his soule. And thus much for the grounds of the reall-presence.

Groundes of Transubstantiation. §. 2.

26. Touchinge the second question about Transubstantiation, though yt be lesse princi­pall then the former of the reall-presence, for that yt conteyneth but the particular manner how Christ is really in the Sacrament, & con­sequently not so necessary to be disputed of with Sacramentaryes, that deny Christ to be there really at all, as before hath byn noted: [...]et shall we briefely discouer the principall [...]rounds wheron Catholiks do stand, in this [...]eceaued doctrine of the Church against Lu­therans especially, who grauntinge the said [...]all presence, do hold that bread is there togea­ther with our Sauiours body: which Catho­liks for many reasons do hould to be absurd. [...]nd albeit the word Transubstantiation & par­ticular declaration therof, was not so expresse­ [...] sett downe in the Church vntill some 400. [...]cares gone in the generall Councell of Late­ran [Page 116] vnder Pope Innocentius the third, as the word Trinity, Homousion, or Consubstantiality and cleere exposition therof, was not vntill the Councell of Nice 300. yeares after Christ; yet was the truth of this doctrine held euer be­fore in effect and substance, though in diffe­rent words: to witt mutation, transinutation, con­uersion of bread into the body of Christ, transelementa­tion, and the like, which is proued by the per­petuall consent of doctrine, vttered by the an­cient Fathers in this 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 Fathers authori­tyes redu­ced to tvvo heads. 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 First head. words are: hoc sciens, ac pro certissimo habens, panem hunc, qui videtur à nobis, non esse panem, etiamsi gusts Catech. 4. mystag. 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 Lib. de Sancto Baptis­mo non [...]ōge [...]. Panis iste panis est in initio communis, &c. ‘This [Page 117] 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 Hom. 1. de Pasc. 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, De Sacram. cap. 4. sed vbi accesserit consecratio, de pane sit [...]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 Hem de Euchar [...]n Ence [...]. [...]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 2. head. 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 [...]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 [Page 118] (saith he) non hoc esse quod natura formanit, Ambros. l. de ijs qui [...]trantur cap. 9. 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, [...]t Ambros. ibid. 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 elemēts? 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 Cyprian. de Cena Domini. 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 [Page 119] 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 Cyrill. Ca­tech. my­stag. 4. 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 Hom. 83. in Matth. 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 Serm. de corp. Do­mini. 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 [Page 120] 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 shalbe 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 Lanfrant. l. de corp. Do­mini Guit. l. 3. de corp. Domini & Ansel ep de corp. Domi­ni. 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 Christs institu­tion, This is my body, which can haue no other probable exposition, but that the bread is chaunged into his body. And so yt is expoun­ded by all the forsaid Fathers, and others that, before this controuersie fell out, interpreted the same words of our Sauiour.

31. These grounds then had the English Ca­tholiks in K. Edwards dayes to stand in the de­fence The con­sent of the vniuer sall Church. of this doctrine, that is to say, the cleere words of scripture so vnderstood by all anti­quity, [Page 121] togeather with the assertions and asse­uerations of all the Fathers, the determina­tion of Councells presently vpon the contro­uersie first moued, and namely of that great famous Lateran Councell, wherin concurred Canon. 1. & 2. both the Greeke and Latyn Church, there being present, the Greeke patriarks of Constan­tinople and Hierusalem, 70. metropolitan Arch­bishops, and aboue a thousand and two hun­dred other Fathers of diuers states, & degrees, (compare this with a meeting of some twen­ty or thirty ministers impugninge the same.) All which hauinge disputed the matter, and considered as well by scripture, and by ancient The great­nesse of the Late­ran Coun­cell. tradition of the Fathers and vniuersall Cath. Church, what had byn held before, did with full agreement determine & declare this mat­ter, accursinge whosoeuer should from that tyme foreward, deny that doctrine of Transub­stantiation. Which decree of that Councell being receaued generally, vvithout contradiction throughout the Christian world, hath byn confirmed by seauen other Councells since that tyme, as before we haue shewed. And let the discreet reader vveigh vvith himselfe, vvhich party hath more security for yt selfe, eyther the Catholike that followed all this authority & consent of antiquity, or our new Protestants, that vpon fresh imaginations of their owne heads, diuised a new doctrine con­trary to all this antiquity. And thus much of this article, for a tast of that which may be al­leaged for yt.

Groundes for the sacrifice of the masse. §. 2.

32. The third question proposed to be hand­led in the foresaid disputations, was about the sacrifice of the masse, to witt, whether the selfe­same body of our Lord, whose reall presence is proued in the first question, be not only a Sacrament in the Christian Church, as yt is receaued vnder a signe of bread and wyne by the Priest and communicants, but a sacrifice also, as yt is offered to God the Father by the Priest vpon the Altar; and whether this ex­ternall and visible sacrifice be appointed by Christ, to be iterated and dayly frequented in the Church vnto the worlds end, and this both for an externall worshipp peculiar to The state of the que­stion. Christians, whereby they are distinguished from all other people, as also for propitiation of sinnes, by applyinge the meritt and vertue of the other bloudy sacrifice of our Sauiour on the Crosse once offered for all, and euer auayleable (as S. Paul at large declareth in his epistle to the Hebrewes) for sanctifyinge the redeemed: this then being the question, and this being a doctrine so generally receaued throughout the Christian world, both in the Greeke, Latin, AEthiopian, Armenian, and other Christian Churches, as there was no doubt or question therof, when Luther and his ofspring [Page 123] began; yt fell out in England, that vnder the child King Edward his raigne, name & autho­rity, that the L. Seymour protect our and his followers, with some few Priests that were weary of massinge, and desirous of marriage, but cheefly Cranmer and Ridley, Hooper, Latymer, and others, bad heads of the cleargy in those dayes, tooke vpon them to pull downe this publike vse of sacrifice, and afterward to exa­mine, and call in question the doctrine therof. At which chaunge and suddayne innouation, neuer seene in England before, from the first day that Christian Religion entred vnder the Apostles, as all the realiues and contreyes round about remayned astonished: so diuers notwithstanding of the lighter sort, enclyned to noueltyes, applauded to them, & followed their diuise; others more prudent and respe­ctiue to their owne saluation, consideringe that there went more in this matter then the pleasure and fancyes of a few particular men, stood constant in that, which before they had receaued, and that which generally they saw, and knew to be in vse throughout all Chri­stendome without cōtradiction, which could not be by S. Austens rule, but that yt must needs Aug. l. 2. de baptis. c. 7. lib. 4. cop. 6. & 24. & l. 5. c. 23. come downe from the Apostles themselues, for so much as all opposite doctrine to that, which was first planted by them & receaued from them, could neuer be so generally ad­mitted without contradiction.

33. Wherfore entringe into due considera­tion of this matter, whilst all the ruffe ran the [Page 124] other way for 5. or 6. yeares space, vnder that King Child, and those other little tyrants that bare sway, and one destroyed the other by Gods iust iudgement vnder him. These good men (the Catholikes I meane) fell to search what grounds they had, or might find out for this so receaued a doctrine & practise, as this of the masse and sacrifice was. And first they The se­arch of Catholiks vnder K. Edvv. for the groūds of the masse. found, that wheras the first insult of heretiks was against the very name of the masse, as a new diuised thinge without reason or signifi­cation; they found (I say) that it was a very ancient and vsuall word, for the externall sa­crifice About the name of masse. of Christians vpon the Altar, in the La­tyn Church, for twelue hundred yeares past and downeward; in place wherof the Grecians haue vsed the word Liturgie, Synaxis, and the like, and this vse is not only to be shewed by the testimonyes of particular Fathers, as Saint l. 5. ep. 33. Ambrose, S. Serm. 91. & 251. de sēp & serm. 237. in do­min. 19. post. Pentecost. Augustine, S. Ep. 81 ad D [...]oscor & 28. ad episc. Germ Leo, S. 1. ep 12. & l. 4. c. 10. Gregory, Lib. 2 hist. Uandal. Victor Vticensis, Lib. 3. de cant. ps. ord. Cassianus, and other; but by whole Councells also, as by that of Can. 1. Rome, vn­der Pope Siluester the first of 275. Bishops, held almost 1300. yeares gone; the second & fourth of In 2. Conc. can. 3. & 4. Ca. 84. Carthage held the next age after, and the Councell of Can. 47. Agatha in France the same age; the Councell of Can. 4. Ilerdum and Can. 1. Valentia in Spaine, and of Can 28. Orleance in France, all aboue 1000. yeares gone, which was sufficient mat­ter against the vanyty of heretiks, that con­demned the name & the words: for example of S. Ambrose sayinge Missam facere coepi, orare in oblatione Deum. I began to say masse, and to Ambros. ibid. [Page 125] pray to God in the oblation of the sacrifice, and those of S. Austen: In lectione quae nobis ad mis­sas legenda est, audituri sumus. ‘We shall heare or Aug. ibid. this matter more in the lesson which is to be read vnto vs at masse.’ These speaches I say, & this practise of so ould learned & holy Priests, as these and their fellowes were, did preuayle more with the grauer sort of English people, then the lightnesse & inconstancy of Cranmer Ridley, and such other licentious Priests, as for liberty fell to Apostasie.

34. And this for the name of the masse. But for the nature and substance therof, which conteyneth the externall true and proper sa­crifice of the Christian Church, they found such store of euident proofes, and most graue authorityes, as might stay, confirme and satis­fie any mans mynd, that were not willfully bent to the contrary. And wheras I do vse the words of externall, true and proper sacrifise, yow must remember therby the fraud of these new heretiks, who, as before about the reall pre­sence, did go about to delude all the sayings of holy Fathers, and other testimonyes of Anti­quity, that spake of Christs reall being in the Sacrament, by running to the words spiritual­ly, sacramentaly, by faith, and the like: so heere fyndinge the whole torrent and streame of Christian antiquity to stand for this Christian sacrifice, & to mention, reuerence, & auouch the same; these fellowes for auoydinge their authorityes do runne from the proper exter­nall sacrifice, wherof we treate, vnto the in­ternall, [Page 126] and inuisible sacrifice of the mynd, wherof K. Dauid saith, that a contrite spiritt is a sacrifice to God. And when this cannot serue, they run also to improper and metapho­ricall externe sacrifices, such as are, mortification of the body Rom. 12. sacrifice of thankesgeuinge. Psalm. 49. Sacrifice of almes deedes. Hebr. 13. and other such good works, which by a certayne analogy or proportion with the nature of proper sacrifices, are called also sacrifice in scri­ptures & by the Fathers, but improperly. To these then do our Protestants runne, when they are pressed with the authorityes of aun­cient Fathers, that name the vse of Christian sacrifice in the Church, and will needs make vs beleeue, that the Fathers ment not proper­ly of any true visible or externall sacrifice, but eyther of inward or inuisible sacrifice of the hart, mynd, and good desire; or els of outward metaphoricall sacrifice of pious and vertuous workes.

35. But all these are fraudulent shifts to ouer­throw one truth by another. For as we do not deny, but that there is an inward and in­uisible sacrifice of our mynd, in dedicatinge of our selues to God, and to the subiection of his Maiestie, without which the externall sacri­fice is little worth to him that offereth the same: And as we graunt that all good works be sacrifices in a certayne sort, by some simili­tude they haue with true & proper sacrifices, for that they are offered vp to God in his ho­nour; yet do we say, that this is from our pur­pose [Page 127] in this place, who talke of a true proper externall sacrifice offered vp to God, after a The de­scription of a true externall and visible sacrifice. peculiar sacred rite, or ceremonyes, by pecu­liar men deputed to this office in acknow­ledgement of Gods diuine power, maiestie, and dominion ouer vs, & protestation of our due subiection vnto him, such as were the ex­ternall sacrifices in the law of nature, offered vp by patriarks and heads of familyes, and by Priests of Aarons order vnder the law of Moyses, and by Christ and his Priests accor­dinge to the order of Melchisedech in the new law; and for so much as both the internall, & metaphoricall sacrifices before mentioned of good affection, desires, and holy works, are not peculiar to any law, but were lawfull and needfull vnder all lawes, and in all tymes, and require no particular kind of men or ministers to offer them, but may be offered vp by any man or woman whatsoeuer: therfore do we exclude all these from the name of the sacri­fice, which heere is meant by our description, and comprehendeth as yow see an externall visible oblation, made by him or them, who are peculiarly deputed by God to this office, which are Priests: So as when soeuer our ad­uersaryes do slipp from this proper significa­tion of a sacrifice to the other, eyther internall or metaphoricall, which may be offeted by all sorts of people, and therevpon do say that all men are Priests, they runne, as vow see, quite from the purpose, as they do also for examples sake, when to auoyd the necessity of externall [Page 128] fastinge, they runne to the internall fastinge An exāple of an he­reticall fraude a­bout fa­stinge. of the mynd, sayinge that true fastinge, is to fast from sinne, which as we deny not in that sense of spirituall fastinge; so is it notwith­standinge a plaine shift, and runninge from the purpose, and cannot stand with many places of the scripture, which must needs be vnderstood of the externall fast; as when Christ is said by the Euangelists to haue fasted 40. dayes togeather; and S. Paul affirmeth that he and his fellow Apostles fasted frequently; It cannot be vnderstood (I say) of fastinge on­ly those tymes from sinne; for that Christ fa­sted alwayes from sinne without exception; and so do all good men both fast and facrisice also, by offeringe vp good desires and pious actions to almighty God, dayly and hourely without distinction of men or tymes.

36. But this is not the proper, visible, & exter­nall sacrifice which heere we meane, which was instituted by God, as peculiar to Chri­stian people vnder the law of the ghospell, for an externall worshipp vnto him (besides the internall) and testification of their inward subiection, loue, and piety towards him; which sacrifice comming in place of all others that went before, both in the law of nature and of Moyses that prefigured and foresigni­fied the same; and being but one and singular The excel­lency of the Chri­stian and externall sacrifice. insteed of them all, and their great variety, is to be esteemed so much more excellent then they all, as the law of the ghospell is more excellent then those lawes, and truth aboue [Page 129] shaddowes, & the sacred body of Christ God and man himselfe, to be preferred before the bodyes of beasts, byrds and other such crea­tures, vvhich vvere but signes and figures of this.

37. And in this sense do both scriptures, fa­thers, councells, and all holy Christian anti­quity speake and treat of this most diuine, ve­nerable and dreadfull sacrifice, wherof, as of the highest and most principall mystery and treasure, left by our Sauiour in his Church, there are so many testimonyes, as before hath byn signifyed, that yt shall not be possible for me in this place, and with the breuity which is necessary, to alleage the least part therof; yet some few generall heads shall I touch, which the learned reader may see more dilated, by diuers Catholike wryters of our dayes, and he that hath not commodity or tyme to do that, may geue a ghesse by that which heere I shall sett downe.

38. First then, for that this holy sacrifice of the Christian Church was so principally in­tended by almighty God for the new law, as hath byn said, many things were sett downe by the holy Ghost in the old Testament, both prefiguringe and prophecyinge the same, as first the sacrifice of the King and Priest Melchi­sedech in bread and wyne, Gen. 14. which all the auncient Fathers, by generall consent, do apply to the sacrifice vsed now in the Chri­stian Church, and yt were ouerlong to alleage their particular authorityes, lett. S. Augustine [Page 130] speake for all: Primum apparuit (saith he) sacrifi­cium Aug. l. 16. de ciuit. cap. 22. (Melchisedech) quod à Christianis nunc offer­tur Deo toto orbe terrarum. ‘The first sacrifice ap­peared in Melchisedech, which now is offe­red to God by Christians throughout all the world.’ And in another place: Vident nunc tale sacrificium offerri Deo toto orbe terrarum: ‘Christians Lib. 1. cont. aduers. leg. & Prophet. cap. 20. do see the like sacrifice (to that of Melchise­dech) to be offered to God, ouer all the World.’ And all the other sacrifices, signes and obla­tions mentioned before, as prefiguringe the reall presence of Christs sacred body, and true flesh in the Sacrament, are applied by the selfe same Fathers, whome before we haue named, to the prefiguration also of this diuine sacri­fice, conteyninge the selfe same thinge, which the Sacrament doth, but in a different sort, in respect of diuers ends, the one as yt is receaued by the communicants; the other as yt is offe­red vnto God the Father.

39. After these prefigurations there follow the predictions of Prophetts as that of Esay 19. and 66. where is forteold the reiection of the Aaronicall priesthood and sacrifice, and a new promised vnder the Christians. The prophesy of Daniell also, where it is foretould, that in the last age of the law of grace, by the comminge of Antichrist, iuge sacrificium, that is the dayly Dan. 8. & 11. sacrifice shall cease. Of this (I say) is inferred by the ancient Fathers, that vntill Antichrists comminge there shalbe a perpetuall and dayly sacrifice amonge Christians; which is most of all confirmed by the prophesie of Malachias in Malach. 1. [Page 131] these words: Ad vos ò sacerdotes, &c. ‘To yow ò priests, that despise my name, and do offer vpon my Altar polluted bread, and do sacri­fice the beasts that are blind, lame and weake, I haue no more likinge of yow, saith the lord of hosts, and I will not receaue at your hands any gifts, for that from the east to the west my name is great amonge the gentills, and they do sacrifice vnto me in euery place, and do of­fer vnto my name a pure oblation, for that my name is great amonge the gentills, saith the lord of hostes.’ Out of which place the Fathers do shew first, that heere the priesthood and sacrifice of Aaron was to be reiected, & a new priesthood and sacrifice, accordinge to the or­der of Melchisedech, erected amongst the gen­tills, wherby ordinarily are vnderstood the Christian people conuerted chiefly (from gen­tility) who were to succeed in their place, and that with such certainty, as the present tense The op­position of the pro­phesie of Malachie. is put for the future, accordinge to the manner of prophesies; and the Antithesis or opposition betweene the two sacrifices, the one reiected, the other promised, doth make the matter more plaine; for that as the Iewes sacrifice could not be offered but in one place, to witt, in the Temple of Hierusalem: so shall the Christian sacrifice be offered vp in omni loco, that is euery where without respect of places from the east to the west. The Iewish sacri­fices were many and of diuers sorts, but the Christian sacrifice that should succeed in place therof was to be but one. The Iewish sacri­fices [Page 132] were polluted, not so much in respect of great quantity of beasts bloud powred out therin, and for that they offered defectuous beasts, as for the wickednesse of them that of­fered the same; but the Christian sacrifice was to be cleane & vnspotted, not only in respect of the vnbloudy manner, wherin yt was to be offered vnder the formes of bread and wyne, but especially for the excellency of the thinge yt selfe offered, being the most pretious body of Christ himselfe, and for that the demeritt of the offerer cannot take away the worth of the offeringe.

40. These circumstances then considered, and that the heretikes heere cannot runne to their shift of inward, and inuisible sacrifices, (for that these could not be vnderstood by the Prophett as new sacrifices, that should suc­ceede to the ould, for that these were alwayes in vse with good men, duringe the tyme of the old sacrifice also, and were lawfull, yea com­maunded Circum­stances that proue the sacri­fice of the masse to haue byn fore pro­phesied. in all tymes, to witt, to haue inward piety and deuotion, giue almes, and the like) these things I say considered, togeather with the expositions of holy Fathers, as well vpon these as vpon other places of the old Testa­ment, there can be no probable doubt, but that this externall sacrifice of the Christian was prophesyed by the holy Ghost longe be­fore the comminge of Christ.

41. Secondly, the same is proued out of diuers places of the new Testament: And first out of S. Iohns ghospell, where as our Sauiour [Page 133] promised in mysterious words the institution of this blessed sacrifice, as before hath byn seene; so also did he signifie that this sacrifice should succeed in steed of all sacrifices that went before. For wheras the Samaritan wo­man Ioan. 4. & 6. Ioseph. lib. 10. de Antiquitat. Iudaic. c. 8. at the well, speakinge of the schisme be­tweene the Iewes & Samaritans about adoring in the Temple of Ierusalem, and in the hill Garizim of Samaria (which word of adoringe must needs in that place signifie sacrifycinge, as yt doth also in other places of scripture, as Gen. 22. Act. 8. and els where, for that the con­trouersie betweene the Iewes and Samaritans was about the vse of sacrificing, as the highest externall act of adoration) our Sauiour aun­swereth to her question, that the houre was now come, when neyther in that hill of Sama­ria, nor in Ierusalem they should adore; that is to say, vse any more sacrifice, but that a new adoration in spiritt and truth should succeed the former; which adoration being vnder­stood The expli­cation of the place of S. Iohn ca. 4. about Sacrifice. of sacrifice, as the circumstance both of the place and matter do enforce, yt followeth that Christ did heere promise a new sacrifice, that should be spirituall and true: spirituall, both in comparison of the bloudy sacrifice that went before, & for that the consecration of Christs holy body in this sacrifice, is made by speciall worke and operation of the holy Ghost; true also and in truth it may iustly be said to bee, for that yt is the fullfillinge of all precedent sacrifices, and the truth of all for­mer figures.

[Page 134] 42. There ensue the places of Saint Mathew, Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. S. Marke, S. Luke, and S. Paul about the institu­tion and first celebration, of this vnbloudy sa­crifice of Christ in his last supper, where yf we admitt that, which all the circumstances of the places themselues do plainly insinuate or rather inforce; the continuall exposition and tradition of the auncient Church doth teach vs, to witt, that Christ our Sauiour hauinge consecrated his sacred body, did offer the same vnto his Father as a most gratefull sacrifice in his last supper; then must yt follow, that the words hoc facite in meant commemorationem, do this in remembrance of me, implyed a pre­cept not only of receauinge and communica­tinge the body of Christ, but to offer vp the selfe same also to God in sacrifice, after the ex­ample of Christ himselfe; which is that we call the sacrifice of the masse, & to proue that th' Apostles vnderstood these words (I meane, Proofe of the sacri­fie by Christs Institu­tion. do this in remembrance of me) so; and in this sense, not only the most ancient Fathers, as hath byn said, do testifie the same, but the ancient litur­gies or ritualls also of the Apostles and their schollers, as namely of S. Iames, S. Clement, and S. Dionysius Areopagita, do make the matter ma­nifest, concerning the Apostles practise in this behalfe, to witt, that they did offer vp this Christian externall sacrifice in all places of the world, where they liued, and that from them the Church [...]ooke the same precept and vse, accordinge to the testimony of old Irenaeus Bi­shopp & Martyr, that liued aboue 1300. yeares [Page 135] gone, whose words are: Eum qui ex creatura pa­ [...]u Iren. lib. 4. adu. haeres. cap. 32. est, accepit, & gratias egit, dicens; Hoc est cor­pus meum; & calicem similiter qui est ex e [...] creatu­ra quae est secundum nos suum sanguinem confessus est, & noui testamenti nouam docuit oblationem, quam Ec­clesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in vniuerso mundo offert Deo. ‘Christ tooke that bread which was a creature and gaue thanks sayinge: This is my body; and that cupp or wyne in like manner, which accordinge to vs, is of a creature, he confesseth to be his bloud, and heerby taught a new oblation of the new Testament, which the Church receauinge from the Apostles, doth offer the same to God, throughout the whole world.’

43. Heere now are touched all the points that might be doubted of by sectaryes, to wit, that this bread and wine being first creatures, are confessed by Christ, after consecration, to be his body and bloud: secondly that this was A most cleere place of S. Irenaeus for the dayly sa­crifice. not only an institution of the Sacrament, and communion, but of a new oblation & sacrifice for the tyme of the new Testament: thirdly that yt was not only to be offered once and in one place, as Christs bloudy sacrifice was vpon the Crosse, but throughout the whole world by the whole Church. And fourthly that this manner of oblation was taught the Apostles by Christ himselfe, and by them de­liuered to the said Church. What can be spo­ken more cleerly or distinctly by so ancient a wittnesse? neyther can heretiks heere haue any refuge to internall or inuisible sacrifices of [Page 136] the mynd, or to vnproper externall sacrifices of thankesgeuinge, almesdeeds, and the like, for that they are many, and were before also lawfull vnder the law of Moyses, as often hath byn noted, & heere is said to be taught a new particular and singular oblation of the new Testament, in steed of all the sacrifices of the ould Testament, vvhich Irenaeus confirmeth presently in the next words after, by the pro­phecye of Malachye before mentioned sayinge: Malachias sic praesignificauit, &c. ‘Malachy the Pro­phet did so foretell vs, (that this new sacrifice Iren. ibid. and oblation of the new Testament, should thus be instituted by Christ, and frequented by the Church) when he said to the Iewish Priests, I haue no will or likinge in yow, &c.’ Manifestissimè significans, quoniam prior quidem popu­lus cessauit offerre Deo; omni autem loco sacrificium of­fertur Deo, & hoc purum in gentibus; most mani­festly signifyinge, that the former Iewish people (being reiected) haue ceased to offer sacrifice vnto God; but that amonge the gen­tills (to witt, Christians conuerted of them) a pure sacrifice is offered in euery place of the world, that is to say, without respect of any certayne place, as the Iewish sacrifices were.

44. With S. Irenaeus Bishop and Martyr, con­curreth in the same age, and somewhat before him, S. Iustinus philosopher and Martyr, who speakinge of the selfe same thinge, and of the Iewes reprobation, and of the sacrifice of the new Testament ordayned by Christ in place therof, writeth thus in his dialogue, intituled, [Page 137] Triphon against the said Iewes: A nemine Deus Iustin. dial. Triph. hostias accipit, nisi à sacerdotibus suis, &c. ‘God doth accept hosts and sacrifice of none, but of his Priests; wherfore he preuenting all those that do ofter such sacrifice vnto him in Christs name, as Iesus Christ hath deliuered to be made in the Eucharist of bread and wyne, & are made by Christians in euery place, doth testify that they are gratefull vnto him: but your sacrifices (o Iewes) he doth reiect.’ Thus he. And these two testimonyes, of two so fa­mous Martyrs and Doctors, are sufficient for wittnesses of the first and next age after the Apostles, to declare what the said Apostles both taught and practised in this point of pu­blike sacrifice, and what the Church of that time vnderstood Christ himselfe to haue done in that behalfe, though I might adioyne other foure testimonyes more auncient yet then these; which are S. l. 5. Const. Apost. c. 18. & l 8. c. 5. & 36. Clemont, scholler to S. Pe­ter S. l. de Eccl. Hier. cap. 3. Dionysius Areopagita, scholler to S. Paul; S. epist. ad Burdegal. cap 3. Martiall Bishop of Burdeaux, and S. ep. 1. De­eret. ad Or­thodox. Alexan­der Bishop and Martyr of Rome; All which do no lesse cleerly then these two, declare vnto vs the doctrine and practice of their tymes vnder the Apostles.

45. But for auoydinge prolixity I must passo them ouer, aduertisinge only by the way, that where in the Acts of the Apostles yt is wryt­ten by S. Luke, cōcerning the mission of S. Paul, Act. 13. and Barnaby to preach, Ministrantibus illis Domino, & ieiunantibus, dixit Spiritus Sanctus, segregate mihi That the Apostles did sacri­fice. Saulum & Barnabam, &c. ‘They ministring vnto [Page 138] God, and fastinge (to witt, Barnabas, Symon, Lucius, Manahen and Saul, that were Prophetts and Doctors saith S. Luke) the holy Ghost said to them, take out for me Saul, and Barnabas, to the worke that I haue chosen them for.’ Now as concerning the mynistery which these men were performing, when the holy Ghost spake vnto them, the Greeke word vsed by S. Luke, Litour­gounion. importeth rather sacrificing, and so doth Eras­mus translate yt, who was no euill Grecian, nor of small creditt with our aduersaryes: and of that word proceed the names before men­cyoned of Liturgy, conteyninge the order of this sacrifice in the Christian Church.

46. But howsoeuer this bee, yow haue heard the iudgement of the first age, after the Apostles, by two wittnesses of singular credit, S. Iustinus, and S. Irenaeus: for the second may speake S. Cyprian to the same effect: Iesus Chri­stus Dominus & Deus noster, ipse est summus sacerdos Cypr. lib 2. epist. 8. Dei Patris, & sacrificium Deo Patri ipse primus obtu­lit, & hoc sieri in sui commemoratione praecepit. ‘Iesus Christ our Lord and our God, he is the high Priest of God the Father, and he offered vp first of all to God his Father a sacrifice, and commaunded this to be done in his comme­moration. Lo he commaundeth vs to sacrifice as he did sacrifice.’ And for the third age after the Apostles S Ambrose may only speake: Ponti fex noster ille est, (saith he) qui obtulit hostiam nos Ambros. com. ent. in cap. 10. ad Hebr. mundamem ipsam offerimus nunc, quae tunc oblata quidem, consumi non potest. ‘He is our high Priest that offered the host which made vs cleane, [Page 139] the selfe same do we offer now, which then was offerred, and cannot be consumed. Be­hould that we offer the selfe same host that Christ offered, and cannot be consumed.’ And for the fourth age S. Austen may stand for all, who answering Faustus the Manichee, that obie­cted, that he and other Catholiks did offer sa­crifice vnto Martyrs; the holy Father denyeth yt sayinge: Sacrificare martyribus dixi, &c. ‘I said that we did not sacrifice vnto Martyrs, but Aug. l. 20. contr. Faust. Manich. cap. 21. I said not, but that we sacrifised to God in the memoryes of Martyrs, which we most fre­quently vse to do, after that only rite, which God in the manifestation of the new Testa­ment hath comaunded vs to sacrifice vn­to him.’

47. By all which testimonyes is euident, that the Church of God, in the first foure ages af­ter the Apostles, did both offer an externall sacrifice, which was the same that Christ had offered before, and this after a peculiar rite insinuated by Christ to the Apostles, and de­liuered by them to their posterity (which pe­culiar rite is more expressed in the liturgies before mentioned) and that all this is done by the authority and example of Christ himselfe in his last supper, and by tradition of the Apostles, which is inough to settle any pious mans conscience. Now then thirdly, wheras I should by order passe to the consideration of ancient Fathers sayings & testimonyes about this matter, they are so many and copious, as I should be prolix and weary to the reader in [Page 140] producing so many as may be alleaged, no one article or mystery of our faith, being so often handled or inculcated by them, as this of the Church sacrifice. For better comprehendinge wherof, I shall, as for the mystery of the reall Diuers heads of Fathers authori­tyes. presence before, heere note only vnto thee cer­tayne generall heads, whervnto the said Fa­thers 1. testimonyes may be reduced; as first, that euery where in their wrytings, speakinge of this oblation made in the masse, they vse the words sacrificium, hostia, victima, offerre, immolare, sacrificare, all which are words that peculiarly and properly do signify sacrifice; which is cer­tayne that the said Fathers would neuer so comonly haue vsed, no more then the Prote­stants do vse them now of their supper, if they had meant no otherwise then the Protestants do for other Sacraments; as Baptisme for ex­ample they do not call eyther sacrifice, host, or victime, nor that the act of Baptizinge, is offer­ringe, immolation or sacrifice, as they do the act of celebratinge masse, wherof you may read all the Fathers generally, as S. Hyppolitus Martyr, Orat. de Antichrist. S. Ambrose in psalm. 38. Nissen. orat. de resurrect. Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. Cor. & hom. 17. in epist ad Hebraeos. Cyrill. lib. de adorat. Aug. l. 2. quaest. Euang. q. 8. & l. 4. de Trinit. cap. 14.

48. The second head is of those authorityes, 2. that do compare this Christian sacrifice with the sacrifices of the Iewes, affirminge the one to be of the flesh of beasts & spotted, the other of the pure, and immaculate flesh of Christ, which they would neuer haue done in like [Page 141] manner, yf they had not meant properly of true externall sacrifices, offered by Christians in the new law, wherof yow may see at large Tertullian lib. contr. Iudaeos cap. 1. Iustin. in Triph. Chrysost. in psalm. 95. Cyprian. lib. de vnitat. Ecclesiae Ambros. in cap. 1. Lucae. Nazianz. orat. 2. de paschat. Aug. lib. 17. de Ciuitat. Dei cap. 20. S. Leo. serm. de passion. and many others.

49. The third head is of those authorityes, 3. that compare this dayly sacrifice of the Chri­stian Church, offered in euery place through­out the world, with the only sacrifice of Christ, offered once for all vpon the Crosse, wherin for differēce sake they vse the words, cruentum & incruentum sacrificium, that is bloudy and vnbloudy sacrifice, for distinguishinge the māner of the oblatiō, the one vpon the Crosse, the other vpon many Altars in the Church at once, till the worlds end, otherwise holding the thing it selfe offered to be the very same in th' one & other sacrifice. See S. Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. Cor. & hom. 2. ad 2. Tim. Cyprian. lib. 2. ep. 3. Ambros. in psalm. 38. Nissen. orat. 1. de resurrect. Aug. lib. 3. cont. Donatist. cap. 19. & lib. 20. contr. Faust. cap. 21. Isichius in Leuit. cap. 8. and others.

50. The fourth head is of those, that affirme 4. this our dayly sacrifice to be propitiatory both for the liue and dead, as well those that are absent as present, and that for both these sorts of people yt ought, and was accustomed to be offered in their dayes, which doth euidently proue yt a true sacrifice, for that a Sacrament only doth profitt only those that do commu­nicate [Page 142] and receaue the same, and no Prote­stant will say that their communion is offe­red vp for those that are absent, quicke or dead, as the ancient Fathers do euery where say, that our host & Eucharist was offered vp in their dayes, and consequently they held yt not only for a Sacrament, but also for a sacri­fice; whereof yow may see S. Chrysostome hom. 79. ad Pop. Antiochen; where he saith yt was offered for Bishopps and Gouernours of the Church; & hom. 72. in Matth. for sicke men, & lib. 6. de Sa­cerdotio for the dead. For which effect see S. Au­gustine lib. 22. de ciuit. cap. 8. & in Enchirid. cap. 110. & lib. 9. Confess▪ cap. 12. where he professeth to haue offered sacrifice of the masse for his mo­ther S. Monica.

51. The fifth head is of those places wherin 5. the Fathers do vse the words Altar, Priests and Priesthood, as proper, peculiar, and appropriated to true sacrifices; For as the Protestants of our tymes do not vse these words, for that they hould not their supper to be a sacrifice, but ra­ther do fly them, though neuer so much vsed by the said Fathers, and in place therof do vse the words, table, minister, mynistry, and other such like of their new Religion; so neyther would the Fathers haue vsed the same words, yf they had had the same meaning that Prote­stants haue; For that well knew the said Fa­thers how to expresse their meaninge in pro­per words, and therfore when they say that Altars amonge Christians, are, sedes Optat. l. 6. cont. Par [...]. corporis Christi the seats of the body of Christ, and that [Page 143] in their dayes Christians did Tertull. l. de Pen [...]te [...]t. adgeniculare aris Dei, knele downe at the Altars of God, & quod Ambros. l. 5. ep. 33. obsculabantur altaria, that they kissed the Al­tars, and that the office of Christian Priests is to sacrifice vpon the said Altars, yt is euident what they meant, to him that will vnderstand them, wherof more may be read in S. Cyprian lib. 1. ep. 9. Euseb. lib. 1. demonstr. Euang. cap. 6. Athan. in vita Anton. Nazianz. orat. in Gorgon. Nissen. lib. de baptisimo. Chrysost. hom. 53. ad Pop. Antioch. & hom. 20. in 2. Cor. Hieron. lib. cont. Vigilant. & dial. cont. Lucifer. Aug. lib. 8. cap. vlt. and others.

52. The sixt consideration out of the Fathers, 6. may be their lyturgyes or forme of diuine ser­uice or masse, for offeringe of this sacrifice in those dayes, of which sort of liturgyes there are extant vnto this day diuers, as that of S. Iames the Apostle, S. Clement scholler and successor of S. Peter, of S. Basill, S. Chrysostome, S. Ambrose, which albeit in all particular forme of prayer, do not agree with our forme and canon of masse at this day, yet in the substance of the sacrifice they do, as also in many other particular circumstances, vsinge the words of oblation, sacrifice, victime, signes, singings, blessings, eleuations, and other such rites which Prote­stants cannot abide. And for the cannon, and forme of our masse, which is vsed at this day in the Latyn Church, most parts therof are to be seene in S. Ambrose his books de Sacramentis, and the whole order as now yt is hath endu­red without alteration from S. Gregory the first downeward, wherof yow may see Alcuinus, [Page 144] Amalarius, VValfridus, and other ancient authors in their books de diuinis officijs.

53. By all which generall heads, yow may Luther reiecteth all Fathers about the masse. easily see the multitude of testimonyes, that may be alleaged out of the Fathers, yf we should prosecute euery one of these in parti­cular; & how great reason Martyn Luther had to except against them all, or rather to defy them all, when first he begā to write against this sa­crifice, Hic non moramur (saith he) si clamitant Pa­pistae, Ecclesia, Ecclesia, Patres, Patres; heere we care Lib. de Messa & l. deaurogand. miss. & lib. contr. An­gliae hegem. not, though Papists cry, Church, Church, Fathers, Fathers; And againe: Heere I do professe against them that vvill cry out, that I do teach against the rite of the Church and ordinances of Fathers, that I vvill heare none of these obiections. And in another place against our K. Henry of England, much more immodestly and wickedly, when the King alleaged the authorityes of ancient Fa­thers for the masse, this shamelesse fellow an­swered: Thomisticos asinos, &c. I say that these. Tho­misticall asses haue nothinge to bringe forth, but only a multitude of men, and vse of antiquity. And a little after he saith expressely; that he careth not though a thousand Augustines, and a thousand Cyprians be brought against him. So as this first Father and chiefe Captayne of our Protestants, did easily graunt, as yow see, that the whole consent of ancient Fathers was against him.

Ponderations Upon the Premises. §. 4.

54. All which being considered, there re­mayneth only to weigh, what a discreet man Import [...] considera­tions. may thinke or do in this important case: For first heere is all the antiquity of the Christian 1. Church on the one side, that testifyeth vnto vs not only what was beleeued and exercised in their dayes, but vpon what grounds also, both of scriptures of the old and new Testa­ment, and by Christs owne institution, fact and ordination, and by the practise and tradi­tion of the Apostles themselues. Then is there 2. the continuance of all ages since, throughout all countreyes and nations of Christendome, as hath byn said. There is the agreement of all 3. generall Councells: The consent of all Eccle­siasticall 4. historyes, wherin as there is conti­nuall mention of both publike and priuate exercise of this externall Sacrifice: So is there 5. no memory at all, of any tyme synce the Apostles wherin yt began, or that euer any contradiction, doubt, or question was about the same, for 1200. yeares togeather after Christs assension, which must needs haue hap­pened, yf the vse therof had not byn prescri­bed and left by Christ and his Apostles them­selues. For what men or people would haue attempted to begin, or bring in so great a mat­ter [Page 146] as this? or who would haue receaued yt without opposition, yf yt had not byn establi­shed euen from the beginninge? I adde also another cōsideration of no little importance, 6. which is, that yf Christ had left his Church & people without a particular externall sacrifice, wherby they should be distinguished from all other people; the Christian Church vnder the law of grace, should be inferiour to the Church of the patriarks vnder the law of na­ture, and vnto the Prophetts vnder the law of Moyses: for that both of those Churches and people had an externall dayly sacrifice, wher­by to honour God, besides the internall sacri­fice of their mynd: neyther can yt be said, that Christs owne sacrifice on the Crosse, once of­fered for all, is this dayly sacrifice apprehen­ded by vs in faith, for that they also beleeued in him, and their sacrifices were acceptable only by faith in him to come. And therfore as Christs one sacrifice then to come, was no im­pediment, why their dayly sacrifices, which tooke their valour from this one of Christ, should not be dayly offered amonge them: so the same sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse, being now past, should not take away our dayly sacrifices offered in remembrance ther­of, and for the applying of the infinite valour of that one sacrifice vnto vs, from which this other dayly sacrifice taketh his sufficiency.

55. Furthermore the very outward forme of all Christian Churches, there buildinge 7. with Crosses, Altar, Iles, and the like, the [Page 147] foundinge of monasteryes, Chappells, orato­ryes, the ceremonyes in foundinge them, their statutes for sayinge of masses for the dead, which were in Britany both before our na­tion was conuerted, and much more after; the whole Canon of our Latyn masse-booke which is graunted by our aduersaryes, and euidently proued to haue byn, as yt is now, for aboue a thousand yeares togeather, and brought in by S. Augustine our first Apostle: All these things I say, do shew whether this were a matter to be called in question by a few li­bertyne Priests, and auaritious noble men, & to be banished the realme vpon a soddayne, vnder the name of a child Kinge, that knew not what yt meant, as yt was in K. Edwards dayes in our miserable countrey.

56. Moreouer yf yow ponder with your selfe, what manner of Priests they were for 8. life, learninge, and vertue that acknowledged themselues to haue offered sacrifices vpon Al­tars in their dayes, as S. Irenaeus, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine, S. Gregory. and others of the first ages, yea and for these [...]ater ages, since Berengarius mooued first the question about the reall presence, as S. Anselme, [...]. Bernard, S. Thomas of Aquin, S. Dominicke, and The com­parison of Priests that offe­red or im­pugned the sacri­fice of the masse. almost infinite other Saints, and holy men, of whome all historyes do report wonderfull extraordinary tokens, of almighty God his speciall fauours towards them; and do com­pare them with the first marryed Priests and Apostata friars, that were the first impugners [Page 148] of this sacrifice in England or round about vs, we shall find a great difference. And then yf we consider, by what good spiritt or mo­tiue 9. Luther began the first contradiction in Germany, which was by the diuells owne per­suasion and personall appearance vnto him, and disputinge against yt (for yt seemed that he esteemed so much both of the man and the matter, that he would not send an Embassa­dour vnto him, as he did soone after to Zuin­glius, for impugninge the reall presence, but go himselfe in proper person) and that all this is confessed by themselues, and testifyed by their owne wrytings: All this, I say, being laid togeather, may strengthen him that hath any faith at all, to stand constant in the beleefe of the Catholike Church concerninge these ar­ticles: For yf there be any certainty or ground in Christian Religion at all, yt must needs be in these, wherein authority, learninge, antiqui­ty, consent, continuance, vniuersality, mi­racles, and all other sorts of theologicall argu­ments, both diuine & humane, do concurre and nothinge at all with the impugners, but only selfe-will, passion, and malitious obsti­nacy, as yow will better see afterward, when yow come to examine their obiections.

57. Furthermore yt is to be pondered, what miserable men they were that first in 10. our dayes, against the whole army of God Church did presume to impugne this blessed sacrifice, vpon such simple and fond reasons a [...] before yow haue heard, to witt Luther in Ger­many, [Page 149] vpon the motiue laid downe vnto him by the diuell, in his disputation with him, re­corded by himselfe in his wrytings, and Nico­las Ridley in England, vpon certayne places of the scripture, and certayne testimonyes of Fathers (to vse his owne words) which made nothinge at all for his purpose, as after most cleerly shall be shewed in due place, and we may easily ghesse by that, which hath byn alleaged before out of scriptures and Fathers: for that scriptures cannot be contrary to scriptures; nor are Fa­thers presumed to impugne Fathers, in so great a point of faith as this is.

58. Wherfore miserable & twise miserable were these men, that first vpon so small grounds aduentured to make so fatall a bre­ach in Gods Church; and thrise miserable were other, who vpon these mens creditts, ranne to aduenture both body and soule euer­lastingly, in pursuite of this breach and con­tradiction begunne, as were the most of Fox his phantasticall Martyrs of the ruder and vn­learned sort, who in all their examinations & answers, were most blasphemous in defiance and detestation of this blessed-Sacrament, as yow haue seene in their historyes; and therby did well shew that they were gouerned by his spiritt, that aboue all honours doth enuy this that is done to almighty God, as the highest, and most pleasing to his diuine Maiestie of all others. And so much for this point.

First Obseruation. That vve are not in this mystery to follow our sense, or Imagination. §. 1.

3. The first obseruation is taken out of the ancient Fathers wrytings, who treatinge of this mystery of Christs being in the Sacra­ment, do expressely warne vs to beware, that we iudge not of the matter according to sense or humayne imagination: So saith S. Cyrill B. of Hierusalem, whose words are: Quamuis sensui Cy [...]ill. Ca­tech. 4. my­stag. prope enitium. hoc tibi suggerat, &c. ‘Albeit externall sense do suggest vnto thee, that this Sacrament is bread and wyne; yet lett faith confirme thee to the [Page 153] contrary; neyther do thou iudge by the tast, knowinge most certainely, that this bread, which seemeth so vnto vs, is not bread in deed, notwithstandinge the tast doth iudge it to be bread; but is the body of Christ; and that the wyne, which so appeareth to our sight, & by the sense of our tast, is iudged to be wyne, yet is it not wyne, but the bloud of Christ.’ Thus hee, neere thirteene hundred yeares gone. And the like aduertisment giueth in the same matter S. Ambrose, somewhat after him, who hauing determined most cleerly the truth of the reall presence, sayinge: Panis iste, panis Ambr 1. 4. do Sacram. cap. 1. est ante verba Sacramentorum, vbi accesserit consecra­tio, de pane sit corpus Christi: ‘This bread is bread, before the words of the Sacrament be vttered (by the Priest) but when the consecration is ad­ded thervnto, the bread is made the body of Christ:’ He frameth an obiection of the senses in these words: Fortèdicas, aliud video, &c. ‘Per­haps Ambr. l. de myster imi­tiand. c. 7. thou wilt say, I see another thinge (to witt bread, and not the body of Christ) and how then dost thou say that I receaue his body?’ To which question S. Ambrose aunswereth at large alleaginge many other myracles, wherein our senses are deceaued.

4. The like obseruation hath S. Chrysostoine in sundry places, talkinge of this mystery: Cre­damus (saith he) vbique Deo, nec repugnemus ei, etsi Chrysost. hom 8 [...]. in Matth. sensui & cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur, &c. ‘Let vs alwayes giue creditt to God, nor let vs resist him, albeit the thing seeme absurd to our sense and cogitation, for our sense may easily [Page 154] be deceaued; and therfore for so much as he hath said; This is my body, lett vs not doubt therof at all, but beleeue him.’ Saint Epiphanius standeth also vpon the same aduertisment, re­prehendinge them greuously, yea condem­ninge them that dispute and frame their argu­ments, from the testimony of their senses a­gainst the reall presence, whose words he brin­geth in thus: Et videmus (say they) quod non aequale Epiph. in Ancoras. circa me­dium. est, &c. ‘We do see with our eyes, that this which we do receaue in this Sacramēt (to witt, the host) is neyther equall nor like the image of Christ in flesh, nor to his inuisible deity, nor to the formes or lineaments of his body, for yt is of a round forme, &c.’ So they; but S. Epi­phanius his conclusion is against them thus: qui Epiph. ibia. non credit esseipsum verum, excidit à gratia & salute; ‘he that doth not beleeue Christ himselfe to be truly there (vnder the round forme of bread that is giuen) is fallen both from Gods grace, and his owne saluation.’

5. And finally not to enlarge my selfe fur­ther in this behalfe, Eusebius Emissenus, or who els was the author of that excellent sermon de corpore Dominï, concurreth also in this note a­gainst the iudgement of our senses sayinge; Verè vnica & persecta hostia side aestimanda, non specie, non exteriori consenda visu, ‘This only and perfect Eusibius Emiss serm 5. de Pa­sehat. host is truly to be esteemed by faith, and not to be iudged by the externall shape or veiw of our eyes.’ Thus hee; wherof S. Chrysostome gi­ueth an example when he wryteth of this my­stery: O quot modò dicnns, vellem formam, & speciem [Page 155] cius, vellem vestimenta ipsa, vellem calce amenta videre. Chrysost. hom. 51. & 83. in Matth. ‘O how many are there (videlicet of the simpler sort, and not so grounded in faith) that say, I would I could see Christ, his forme & shape in the Sacrament, I would see his apparell, I would see his very shooes.’ Thus said some in those dayes, vpon simplicity perhappes; but so say many more in our dayes, vpon heresie and infidelity. And truly yf we consider most of the arguments of all Fox his artificers, or weomen Martyrs, they were such as these heere mentioned, & deryded by S. Chrysostome, and vpon these arguments went they to the stake: Let your God in the Sacrament (said Alice Driuer and her fellowes) shedd some bloud, and vve vvill beleeue. The like cryed out many other simple & rude people; vve see bread, we see wyne, vve see a round cake, we will neuer beleeue yt to be God, except we see him worke some miracle. What would S. Chrysostome (thinke yow) and other Fathers before mentioned haue said' to these people, yf they had heard them sound out such blasphemous cryes of infidelity, and vn­beleefe in their dayes? And so much for this first obseruation, which is vsually to be found in all auncient Fathers wrytinges.

The second Obseruation. That not only sense and common Imagination, but ney­ther philosophicall reason is necessary to be followed in these mysteryes. §. 2.

6. The second obseruation is much like to the first, but passeth some degrees further, and is taken out of the auncient Fathers aduertis­ments in like manner, to witt, that not only sense, and sensuall imagination is not to be followed in these diuine mysteryes, of our Sa­uiours body; but neyther naturall, or philoso­phicall reason it selfe, is allwayes to be fol­lowed, notwithstandinge yt reacheth farre higher then sense can attayne to: which is proued first by the generall definition of faith, vsed by S. Paul in his epistle to the Hebrues, where yt is said to be argumentum rcrum non ap­parentium, an argument or assent of things, that do not appeare by reason, which yet is more explicated by Saint Gregory, when he saith: sides non habet meritum, vbi humana ratio praebet experi­mentum; Greger. hom. 26. in euang. faith hath no meritt, where humane reason doth yeld a proofe: Saint Augustine also saith: This is the praise of faith, yf that which is belee­ued Aug. tract. 79. in Ioan. be not seene, for what great matter is it, yf that be beleeued, vvhich is euident? And this is vniuersally in all points of our faith, the beleefe wherof must not depend of the euidency of reason, for then yt should be science (as philosophers tearme yt) and not faith, which faith depen­deth [Page 157] on the authority, trust and creditt we giue to the reuealer, which is God himselfe.

7. But especially is this to be done in this high mystery of the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, which is not only a mystery, but a mi­racle also, and such a miracle, as requireth no lesse power then the omnipotency of God to performe the same: Necessarium est (said S. Chry­sostome to his people of Antioch) mysteriorum Chrysost. in serm. ad Pop. An­tioch. discere miraculum, &c. ‘It is necessary for vs to learne this myracle of mysteryes, what it is, why it was giuen vs, what vtility cometh therwith vnto vs & the like:’ And againe the same Father in his bookes of Priesthood, des­cending to treat more in particular one point of this mystery, which is, how Christs body is at one tyme in many places, he cryeth out; O miraculum! o Dei benignitatem! O myracle! o goodnesse of God! and why? qui cum patre Chrysost. l. 3. de Sa­cerd. sursum sedet, in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium ma­nibus petractatur, ‘he that sitteth aboue with his Father, in that very instant of tyme is handled by all Priests hands:’ And S. Cyprian to the same effect: Panis quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat, non Cypr. serm. de cana Dominj. effigie sed natur a mutatus, omnipotentia verbi sactuiest caro: ‘The bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples (at the last supper) being changed not in outward shew (for yt appeareth bread still) but in nature, by the omnipotency of Gods word is made flesh.’

8. Thus thought and spake the ancient Fa­thers of this high mystery, and myracle in the Sacrament. And conforme to this, they called [Page 158] vs alwayes from reason to faith, from conten­tion to humble beleefe, when they treated therof, for so wryteth among other auncient Fathers S. Hilary speakinge of this matter: non est humano aut saeculi sensu in Dei rebus loquendum. Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit. ‘We must not talke of works of God accor­dinge to humayne and wordly reason, &c. touchinge the naturall verity of Christ in vs (by this Sacrament) that which we affirme except we haue learned yt of himselfe, we do affirme the same folishly, and impiously, but he hath said: my flesh is truly meate, &c.’ Vnto whome S. Ambrose agreeinge, saith of the same Ioan. 6. mystery: Quid hic quaeris natura ordinem, &c. ‘Why Ambr. l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. seekest thou heere the order of nature (tou­chinge the body of Christ in the Sacrament) forsomuch as our Lord Iesus was borne of the Virgin beside the course of nature.’ Heere yow see he compareth this mystery, and my­racle of Christs being in the Sacrament, with the myracle of his incarnation & myraculous byrth, of the blessed Virgin. The very same iudgement held S. Ephrem equall in antiquity Ephrem. lib. de natura De [...] mini­mè scrutan da cap. 5. to S. Ambrose. Quid scrutaris inscrutabilia. &c. ‘What dost thou search after thinges vnsear­cheable? Yf thou examine these thinges cu­riously, thou wilt seeme not to be faithfull but curious: be faithfull and simple, and so participate the immaculate body of thy Lord, beleeuinge most certaynely, that thou dost eat the very whole lambe yt selfe, &c.’ So he.

9. Saint Augustine also in many places doth beat earnestly, against this standing vpon rea­son [Page 159] in matters of faith, but especially in his epistle to Volutianus, sayinge: Quae sibi quisque fa­tilia, August. op. ad Volutian. &c. ‘The thinges which each man estee­meth easy for him to conceaue, though he cannot make them, he is content to beleeue them, but all that is aboue his capacity he hol­deth for false and feigned.’ And againe: Si ratio quaeritur non erit mirabile, ‘yf yow seeke reason for euery thinge, yt will not be maruelous,’ Demus, Deum aliquid posse quod nos fateamur inuesti­gare non posse: ‘Lett vs graunt that God can do Aug. ibid. somewhat, wherof we cannot seeke out the reason;’ in talibus rebus tota ratio facti est potentia facientis; ‘in such matters all the reason, that can be alleaged for the fact, or for that which is done, is the power of the doer.’ And in another place the same Father hauinge spoken of the blessed Sacrament and how Christ our Saui­our is therein sub aliena specie, vnder another forme of bread and wyne, as the Angells also appeare vnto vs vnder assumpted bodyes, he concludeth thus: Mihi autem omnino vtile est, &c. ‘It is very profitable for me to remember my Ibidem. owne feeble forces, & to warne my brethren that they also be myndfull of theirs, to the end that our humayne infirmity do not passe further (in search of these mysteryes) then is safe for vs to do.’ So blessed S. Augustine.

10. And finally S. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria handlinge those words of the faithlesse Ca­pharnaites, Ioan. 6. How can he giue his flesh to be eaten. &c. reprehendeth greatly such curious inquisition sayinge: Numquam in tam sublimibus [Page 160] rebus illud (quomodo) aut cogitemus aut proferamus. In Cyrill. Alex. l. 4. in Ioan. cap. 12. so high matters (as these of the Sacrament) let vs neuer thinke or alleage this word (quomodo) that is, how yt can be? And in this manner did the ancient Fathers proceed about this myste­ry, by way of faith and humble submission of their iudgements and vnderstandings, and not by feeding their imagination with probabili­ty of humayne reason against faith, as the se­ctaryes of our tyme do, yea and placinge so much confidence therin, as they were con­tent to dy for the same (as after yow will see by experience, when we come to handle their arguments in particular, wherof the greater part (yea almost all) relyed eyther vpon com­mon sense, or some little shew of humayne reason. And thus much for the second obser­uation.

Third Obseruation. That reason is not contrary to faith, but inferior vnto it. §. 3.

11. The third obseruation may be, that though yt is iustly accoumpted a fault of folly, pride, heresie, or infidelity by the foresaid Fa­thers, to stand too much vpon sense & reason in these mysteryes, which do surpasse them both; yet are they not contrary to reason, for that one truth cannot be contrary to another, and God is the author of both lightes, the one as a lower, the other as a more high and [Page 161] eminent light, so as, though this lower cannot reach to discouer that, which the higher doth disclose & comprehend; yet is not this extin­guished or violated by the other, but rather perfected and strengthened. Reason reacheth only to thinges that are probable in nature, faith ascendeth to all that is possible, and not only possible to man, but euen to God him­selfe, which so farre exceedeth both the power and vnderstanding of man, as S. Paul speaking but of one point only of our faith, which is the ioyes of heauen, saith that the hart of man could not comprize the same.

12. And yet yf we would enter into the search of what is possible to Gods power and omnipotency, the scripture in few words set­teth yt downe: Non est impossibile apud Deum Luc. [...]. omne verbum: there is nothinge impossible to God, which is as much to say, that all thinges are possible. And againe our Sauiour speaking to his Father said: Omnia tibi possibilia sunt: All Marc. 14. things are to thee possible. And yf we would require examples, the creation of the hea­uens, and of all things both in & vnder them, will minister thousands, whervnto humayne reason cannot reach. And S. Iohn Baptist gaue an example to the Iewes, that God of stones Luc. 3. is able to raise vp children to Abraham; but this also is nothing in respect of Gods infinite and incomprehensible omnipotency, which is aboue the reach of our vnderstandinge.

13. No limitation then at all is to be layd to Gods almighty power, but that he may do [Page 162] whatsoeuer he please, except only one, ac­cordinge to diuines, which is, that the thinge do not imply contradiction in yt selfe, as that yt should be and not be at once, which is impos­sible, D. Tho. 1. part. q. 14. art. 3. or that yt should import any imperfe­ction or impotency in God, as to synne, or dye, which are effects rather of want of power, then of omnipotency. And in this do the more learned Protestants also agree in word with vs, sayinge, that yf yt were cleere that God would haue yt so, or had said yt, that of bread should be made his flesh, and that one substance should be turned into the other, they would graunt that he could do yt by his omnipotency. Thus they say in, words, to auoid the odious note of infidelity, or limiting Gods power; but when they come to the point indeed, they found all their greatest ar­guments vpon the impossibility thereof, as though God could not do yt. And so shall yow see afterwards, when we come to dis­cusse their strongest arguments. And their great Grand-father Iohn VVikliffe, or rather VVicked-beleefe, as VValsingham calleth him, did absolutely deny that God was able to do yt, VValdens. tom. 2. cap. 72. & 73. as Thomas VValden testifieth out of his owne wrytings. And Iohn Caluyn his scholler in this point calleth vs madd-men, for that we be­leeue that God was able to make bread his flesh in the Sacrament, and yet not to haue the externall forme, nature and propriety of flesh: Insane (saith he) quid à Dei potentia postulas, Calu. lib. 4. Institut. cap. 17. §. 24. vt carnem faciat simul esse, & non esse carnem? ‘Thou [Page 163] madd-man how dost thou demaund of the power of God, that he should make flesh to be flesh, and not flesh at one tyme?’ But how doth Caluyn proue (thinke yow) that our be­leefe of the Sacrament implyeth this contra­diction of flesh and no flesh? Forsooth (to vse his words) for that we graunt, that God can make, that the selfe-same flesh of Christ can occupy di­uers Calu. ibid. places at once, and that yt be conteyned in no cer­tayne place, and that yt lacketh both the outward shape of flesh and proper manner of being, &c. And for be­leeuinge of this he counteth vs madd-men, as yow haue heard, and so must he account also of necessity all those holy Fathers before mentioned, who beleeued the same mystery, as we do, notwithstandinge the outward ap­pearances of impossibility, for comprehen­dinge wherof they fledd from sense and rea­son to faith and beleefe.

14. And yet further then this the reader must vnderstand, that for so much as the said reason and faith, are not contradictory the one to the other, but more eminent the one aboue the other, as before hath byn shewed, Catholiks do take vpon them to proue, that no one of these difficultyes obiected by faithlesse Prote­stants, is impossible, or implieth contradiction in reason it selfe, as by the ensuing considera­tions shall more particularly be declared; no­tinge only to the reader by the way, that yf the particular intrinsecall natures and essences of euery thing were cleerly knowen vnto vs, [...]s they are for example vnto Angells, and [Page 164] other Saints, that be in glory, we should easi­ly see what doth imply contradiction to the said natures, and what doth not, but for that God, for our humility and greater meritt, would haue vs not alwayes to see this; ther­fore are we forced to ghesse at the same by way of discourse and reason, and by one ex­ample to another, as yow shall see in the en­suinge obseruations.

Fourth Obseruation. How a body may be vvithout an ordinary naturall place. §. 4.

15. One of the greatest difficultyes therfore obiected by the aduersary, is, that a true and naturall organicall body, such as Christs is confessed to be in the Sacrament, cannot be without the ordinary dimensions of a peculiar place, which we deny in such sense, as heere we shall declare. For better vnderstandinge Three vvayes or manners of being in place. wherof is to be noted, that three wayes a thinge may be in a place, first naturally and ordinarily by extension and commensuration vnto the said place, soe as euery part 1. and part cell of the thinge placed, do aunswere to each 1. part of the place yt selfe, which manner of being in place, philosophers do call circumscrip­tiuely, for that all places of the body so placed are so limited and circumscribed by the part of the place, as neyther that body can be i [...] any other place, nor that place admitt ano­ther [Page 165] body, without penetratinge the one of the other, which by ordinary course of nature is held for impossible.

16. Another manner of being in place is more spirituall, and hard to conceaue, to witt, 2. when a thing is so in a place, as the parts ther­of are not extended to the parts of the place, as in the former example, but yet that the whole thing is so defined and limited within the compasse of that whole place assigned thervnto, as naturally yt cannot be in any other, whilest yt is there, as for example, the soule of a man in the body thervnto assigned, is so conteyned therin, as yt is not elswhere, and yet is it not so extended by commensura­tion, as in the former example, that one part of the soule aunswereth one part of the body, and another, another part, but the whole soule which is indiuisible, and hath no parts at all, is wholy in the whole body, and who­ly in euery part and parcell therof, which is a miraculous strange being, yf yt be well consi­dered, & notwithstanding naturall as all phi­losophers do graunt, for that the whole soule of man is as wholy (for example) in the singar and foote, as in the breast and head, and yet is but one soule in all, and nether many soules nor one soule diuided into parts. And after the same manner, is an Angell also in a place defi­nitiuely, and not circumscriptiuely, that is to say wholy in the whole place, which he occu­pieth, & wholy in euery part therof, without multiplication or diuision in himselfe, or ex­tension [Page 166] vnto the parts of the place wherin yt is. But for that the example of the soule, is more familiar and euident to our sense and reason, it doth better expresse the matter. And yt is to be noted, that yt doth somewhat imi­tate the being of God himselfe wholy, and without diuision in all parts of the world, and in all creatures therof without limitation, change, or multiplication, but only yt diffe­reth in this, that the soule, or an Angell, being both creatures, cannot be euery where, as the creatour naturally is, and he cannot be other­wise; but yet by his diuine power, the said creatures may be in diuers places at once, as after shalbe shewed.

17. These two wayes then of being in a place, as I haue said, are naturall; the first cir­cumscriptiuely, the second definitiuely. But besides these two, there is a third supernatu­rall, and possible to Gods diuine omnipoten­cy, and not repugnant to reason yt selfe, as af­ter shalbe shewed; which is, that one and the selfe-same thing, may by Gods diuine power, be placed in two different places at once, that is to say, that the selfe-same soule, as yt is na­turally, wholy, and entyrely in the head, for example, and in the foote; so yt repugneth not to the same nature or essence of the soule, to be putt in two different bodyes at once. The like of an Angell in diuers places, and the same also may be held of a naturall body, ys God will haue yt so, as in the next obserua­tion shalbe proued. And this way or manner [Page 167] of being in place, for that the Cath. Church doth hould yt to be in the body of our Saui­our in the Sacrament, is called by diuines a sacramentall being in place, nor for that the true body is not really there, as some hearinge the word Sacramentally, vsed sometymes by the Fathers and Doctors, do fondly apprehend, but for that it is there after this speciall man­ner, as we haue declared, that is to say, so as yt is also in other places at the same tyme.

18. Now then, these three wayes or manners of being in place declared, yt remayneth, that we shew how yt is possible to Gods power, and not repugnant to naturall reason, that a true body, which of his owne nature is in Hovv a body may be defini­tiuely in place. place, only after the first manner of circum­scription and commensuration, or extension, may, by Gods power, be in place also after the second and third way, that is difinitiuely and Sacramentally, without the first way of com­mensuration and extension to a place. And first heere we shall shew the said possibility in the second way, and then of the third in the ensuinge obseruation.

19. The only cheefe ground, or reason obie­cted by the heretiks, why it may seeme to re­pugne or imply contradiction, that a true or­ganicall body togeather with his quantity, such as Christs is in the Sacrament, should be definitiuely without extension in place, is, for that yt appeareth contrary to the nature of quantity to be without such extension; but this ground Cath. Philosophers and diuines [Page 168] 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 Cap. 19. for a Camell to passe through the eye of a needle, then for a rich-man to enter into the [Page 169] 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 Nazianz­orat. 36. quae est quarta de Theolog. 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, Matth. 19. Luc. 18. Marc. 10. 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 third condition or pro­priety of quantity. 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 [Page 170] 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 Ioan. 20. he came in to his disciples, when the gates were shutt. And in S. Mathew, and S. Marke, Math. 28. Mare. 16. 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 Ephes. 4. he passed through all the heauens with his naturall body. In all which myraculouse ex­amples Se S. Aug. ep. 3. ad Vo­lus. & l 22. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 8. & Chrysost. Euth [...]m Cy­rill. &c In cowmenta­vijs. (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 [Page 171] 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 shalbe 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 Shrysost. lib. 3. de Sacerdotie. the same Christ who sitteth in heauen vvith his Father, is conuersant at the selfe-same tyme, in the hands of all that receaue him on earth! And the same Father, wrytinge of the same sacred body of our Saui­our, as yt is a sacrifice, saith: Vnum est hoc sacri­ficium, &c. This sacrifice is but one, for that otherwise, because yt is offered in many places, there should be ma­ny Chrysost. hom. 17. in ep. ad hebr. Christs, vvhich is not so, but one, and the selfe same Christ is in euery place, (when yt is offered) here yt is whole Christ, and there it is whole Christ, and yet but one body: for as euery where one body, and not many bodyes are offered, so is there also but one sacrifice, &c. [Page 173] In which places you see S. Chrysostome to hould & to affirme, that Christs true body, without diuision or multiplication, is offered vp in ma­ny places at once, yea innumerable places, yf we beleeue S. Gregory Nissen whose words are: As Christs diuinity doth replenish the world, and yet is Nissen. orat. de Paschate. but one; so is his body consecrated in innumerable places, and yet is but one body. So he. And do yow ob­serue, that the Father saith not, that Christs body is euery where, as his diuinity is, as the Lutherane Vbiquitaryes of Germany, do ab­surdly affirme; but that yt is in innumerable places by consecration.

25. Well then these Fathers denyed not the reall presence, as our Sacramentaryes do, for that they conceaued not the reason, how one body might be in diuers places at once, but moun­ted by faith aboue reason, asscribing the same to miracle and Gods omnipotency, as yow haue heard: and so do Catholiks at this day. Heare the pious speach of a great learned man aboue 400. yeares gone. Yow vvill say to me Hugo de Sa Victor. l. 2. do Sacram. p. 8. cap. 11. (quoth he), how can one and the selfe same body, be at one tyme in diuers places, &c. Do not maruayle, he that made the place, made the body, and the place for the body, and the body in the place; and vvhen he orday­ned that one body should be in one place, yt was as plea­sed him, and yf he would, he could haue made yt other­vvise, &c. Thou hast seene only that vvhich he hath made, and not that vvhich he can make, and heerevpon dost maruayle when thou seest any other thinge, then that which thou art accustomed to see; but do thou thinke vpon the matter, and yt will cease to be maruay­lous, [Page 174] or at leastwayes, yt will not seeme to be incredible. Thus he.

26. But our diuines do go yet further, shew­inge that this is not impossible, euen in na­ture yt selfe, for God to performe, as yow may perceaue by that we haue declared in the for­mer obseruation: For yf yt were repugnant and contradictory to the nature of a true bo­dy, to be in diuers places at once, this must be eyther in respect of the vnity therof, for that Tvvo dif­ficultyes solued. yt should therby be diuided from yt selfe, or multiplyed in yt selfe, and so not be one but many bodyes; or els secondly yt should be im­possible to be in diuers places, in respect of the quantity, which a true body hath, wherby yt should be limyted to some certayne space or place; but neyther of these two difficultyes do impossibilitate the matter, as now we shall declare.

27. Not the first about vnity, for that God The first difficulty about vnity. being a substance indiuisible, is euery where wholy, and in euery one of his creatures, and yet remayneth one still, nor can be diuided or multiplyed: which is so wonderfull a consi­deration, as S. Augustine saith therof: Miratur hoc Aug. ep. 3. ad Volus. mens humana, & quia non capit, fortasse non credit. Mans mynd doth wonder at this, and for that yt conceaueth yt not, perhaps yt doth not be­leeue yt. Some likenesse also of this admirable being is in an Angell, which though it cannot be euery where at once, as God is, yet hath yt a wonderfull being in place; notwithstanding, as before hath byn touched, being placed [Page 175] within any compasse or circuite, as for ex­ample in a house or Church, yt is wholy in all that space, and wholy in euery part therof, & yet remayneth one and simple without diui­sion in himselfe: which example is more eui­dent also in our soule; as before we haue de­clared, for that the selfe-same soule in a body, when yt is an infant, and when yt is at his full grouth, is wholy in the whole body, & who­ly in euery part therof, and yet is yt not multi­plyed therby, nor diuided. Whereby is made manifest, that yt repugneth not to the essence or vnity of any one substance, to be in diuers places at once, and this naturally, but much more supernaturallye, by the omnipotent power of God.

28. There remayneth then the second diffi­culty The secōd difficulty about quantity. about quantity, or a body indued with quantity, how yt is not letted therby to be in two places at once, wherof we haue treated in the former obseruation, shewinge how actuall locality by circumscription, being but a secondary propriety, following and flowing from the nature of quantity, may, by Gods power, be separated from the same, so as the said quantity may remayne with her true es­sence, of hauinge distinct parts in yt selfe, and yet no extensiue location, or commensuration of place, in which case yt repugneth no more for the selfe-same quantity to be in many places at once, then yt doth vnto a spirituall substance without quantity, such as is an An­gell, or the soule of man, and consequently [Page 176] the substance of Christs body, togeather with the quantity in this manner, may by Gods power be put in many places at once, as we see by course of nature it selfe, that the sub­stance of mans soule without quantity, is put in many particular places of a mans body, without diuision or multiplication, remay­ninge still but one only soule, as hath byn de­clared. And this shall suffice for explication of this possibility, how yt doth not imply contradiction, and therefore is not impossible to God.

29. Neyther do our diuines shew only, that Diuers ar­ticles be­leeued by Protestāts are more hard then this. this is not impossible in our Sauiours body, but further also, that we do beleeue diuers other mysteryes of our faith as hard or harder then this, yea much more impossible to sense and reason, yf we consider well the difficul­tyes therof, as the creation of the world of nothinge, the mystery of the blessed Trinity, the beleefe of Christs incarnation, our resur­rection, and the like, for yt is much harder by humayne reason and naturall philosophy, to conceaue how the world could be created of nothinge, and how one and the selfe-same na­ture can be wholy in three reall distinct per­sons, without diuision or multiplication in yt selfe, and how one person can be in two di­uers distinct natures, as yt is in our Sauiour, and how one, and the selfe-same thing being perished and corrupted, may be raised againe with the selfe-same accidents that perished before. These points I say, and diuers others [Page 177] which both we and Protestants do confesse to be true, are more harde, and impossible in naturall reason, then yt is to be beleeue that one body is in diuers places at once.

30. Furthermore there be certayne familiar Naturall examples inducing vs to this manner of being of Christes body in diuers places. examples in nature yt selfe, that do resemble somewhat the matter, and may induce a man that is not obstinate, and hath any meane ca­pacity to conceaue somewhat of the possibi­lity therof, as when a great 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 Aug. ep. [...] ad Volus. 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 Examples of the being of Christs body in diuers places it once. 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 [Page 178] 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 Act. 9. & 22. 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 Egesipp. l. 3. de excidio Hierosol. Ambr. orat. cont. Auxentium Athan. in vita Anton. Greg. lib. 4. dial. c 16. Paul. ep. ad Macarium. Ioan. Dia [...]. l. 2. de vita Greg. c. 22. 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 Mare. 16. his body could be in diuers places at once, wherby is broken and dissolued another squadron of arguments, framed by the Sacra­mentaryes Hovv Christ is in heauen and in the Sacramēt after a dif­ferent manner. 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 [Page 180] substance may be increased or diminished ex­ternally, in respect of place, without alteratiō Note this example. 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 [Page 181] 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 Vli supra. 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, [Page 182] 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 Aristot. 5. Metiph. [...]ext. 35. accident can be in God, as in a subiect, (ney­ther are they in Christs body, as we also doe 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 [Page 183] 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 See Auer [...]. in cpitom. Metaphys. tract. 2. Aui [...]ēbron. l. font. vitae tract. 2. VValdensis tom. 2. cap. 76. 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 Basil. he. 2. & 6. de oper. sex die [...]um Da­mascen. l. 2. cap. 7. 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, Of the actiuity of accidents being se­perated from their substance. 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 [Page 184] 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 [Page 185] 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 wilbe 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 vvord Sacramēt explica­ted. 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 [Page 187] 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 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, The other vvords of tipe figure &c. expli­cated. 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, [Page 188] 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, Note this example. 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 [Page 189] for the first, the common sense, and meaninge Tvvo si­gnificatiōs of the vvord sa­cramentally and both against the Sacramen­taryes. 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 1. 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 2. 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 [Page 190] 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 VVhat the vvord spi­ritually si­gnifieth in this my­stery. 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 [Page 191] carnally & corporally, which hauing a double sense, the one that Christs body is naturally and really in the Sacrament, the other that he is there after the externall being of other bo­dyes, they deceytfully do take them now in one sense, and now in another, and alwayes oppose them to the word spiritually, which in the former sense are not incompatible, but may stand togeather, though not in the later. And for auoydinge of this equiuocation, di­uines do wish those two words, carnally and corporally, though true in the foresaid sense, yet to be more sparingly vsed, then the other words really and substantially, that are equi­ualent in sense, and lesse subiect to equiuoca­tion and mistaking.

45. Wherfore to conclude this obseruation, all these words are to be noted, and their true vse and signification remembred by him, that will not be deluded by hereticall sleights and impostures in this high mystery, but especial­ly are to be obserued these three, wherby our Sacramentaryes do most of all deceyue the vulgar people, in their assertions and answers to our arguments, to witt, sacramentally, spiri­tually and by faith, as though they did exclude the reall presence of Christs body in the Sa­crament; which is most false, for that in the true sense we admitt them all. For example, we graunt that Christ is sacramentally in this Sacrament, both as sacramentally signifieth a distinct manner of Christs being there, from that in heauen, and as yt signifieth his being [Page 192] there vnder a Sacrament or signe, but yet really, we graunt also that he is there spiri­tually, that is to say, after a spirituall, and not corporall circumscriptiue manner, yet truly and really. We graunt further, that he is in the Sacrament by faith, for that we do not see him, but apprehend him present by faith, but yet truly and really, and not in faith and beleefe only. And by this yow may per­ceaue our Sacramentaryes manner of dispu­tinge, Our here­tiks cauill like to that of the Arrians. iust like the Arrians of old tyme, and of our dayes, who seeke to enacuate all places al­leaged for the vnity and equality of Christ with his Father, by one only distinction of will and nature: So as when Christ said for example Ioan. 6. my Father and I are one, yt is true said they, they are one in will & loue, but not in nature; & thus they deluded all that could be brought for naturall vnity, except only the authority, and contrary beleefe of the vniuer­sall Church, wherby at last they were ouer­borne.

46. And the very same course held the Sa­cramentaryes of our dayes; for whatsoeuer plaine and perspicuous places you bring them out of antiquity, affirminge the true naturall substantiall body of our Sauiour, to be in the Sacrament, they will shift of all presently, by one of these three words; yt is true, sacramen­tally, yt is true spiritually, and yt is true by faith only, as though these could not stand with really or truly; and heere of shall yow haue store of examples afterward in the aunswerings of [Page 193] Doctor Perne, Cranmer, Ridley and Latymer for the Sacramentary party to our arguments, taken out of the ancient Fathers. For when the said Fathers do auouch, that Christ our Sauiours true naturall body is in the Sacrament, they answere, yt is true sacramentally, and thinke they haue defended themselues manfully therby, and when in other places the same Fathers do professe, that the very same flesh that was borne of the virgin Mary and cruicified for vs, is there, they aunswere, yt is true spiritually and by faith, but not really. And thus they do euacuate and delude all that can be alleaged: But yf they cannot shew (as they cannot) any one Father that tooke or vsed the words sa­cramentally, spiritually, or by faith, in this sense, as opposite to really and truly in this mystery, then is it euident, this to be but a shift of their owne inuention, to escape therby. And so much of this obseruation.

The nynth Obseruation. How Christ is receaued of euill men in the Sacrament, and of good men both in, and out of the same. §. 9.

47. It followeth vpon the former declara­tion of the words, sacrament, signe, and the rest, that we explane in this place, a certayne di­stinction insinuated by the ancient Fathers, and touched in the Councell of Trent, of three Concil. Tr [...] dent. sess. 13. Can [...]. sorts of receauinge and eatinge Christ by this [Page 194] Sacrament: First sacramentally alone, the se­cond D. Them. 3. part q. 80. art. 1. spiritually only, the third both sacramen­tally and spiritually togeather. An example of the first is, when euill men do receaue the Sacrament vnworthily, for that these men, thought they receaue the very Sacrament, to witt the true body of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wyne, yet do they not receaue the true spirituall effect therof, which is grace and nourishment of their soule, and of these doth S. Paul speake expressely to the Corin­thians, when he saith: He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily (videlicet the Sacrament) doth eat and drinke iudgement to himselfe, not discerninge the body 1. Cor. 11. of our Lord. And in this sense do the auncient Fathers vpon this place, expound the Apostle, as yow may see in the commentaryes of Saint Chrysostome, S. Ambrose, S. Anselme, and other ex­positors Aug. l. 5. de [...]apt. cap. 8. both Greeke and Latyn; and S. Austen in many places of his works doth expressely shew the same, alleaginge this text of the Apostle for proofe therof, Corpus Domini (saith Aug. epist. 162. & in psalm. 10. he) & sanguis Domini nihilominus erat illus, quibus di­cebat Apostolus, &c. It was notwithstanding the body & bloud of our Lord, which they tooke, to whome the Apostle said; he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily, eateth and drinketh his owne damnation. And to the same effect he saith in diuers other places, that Iudas receaued the very selfe-same body of Christ, that the other Apostles did; and the same affirmeth S. Chrysostome in his homily intituled, of the Treason of Iudas; & generally it is the vniforme [Page 195] opinion of all the auncient Fathers, when­soeuer any occasion is giuen to speake or treat therof.

48. The second manner of receauing Christ by this Sacrament, is tearmed spiritually only; for that without sacramentall receauinge of Christs body and bloud, a man may in some case receaue the spirituall fruite or effect ther­of, as yf he had receaued the same really, and this eyther with relation to the Sacrament, videlicet, when a man hath a desire to receaue yt actually, but cannot; or without reference thervnto, when by faith and grace good men do communicate with Christ, and participate the fruite of his passion. In which sense of spirituall communion, or eating Christ, S. Au­sten Aug. tract. 25. in Ioan. wryteth vpon S. Iohns ghospell, Crede & manducasti; beleeue, and thou hast eaten. And to the same effect do our Fathers often speake, when they treat of this spirituall & metapho­ricall eating only without relation to the Sa­cramet: which manner of speaches the Sacra­mentaryes of our dayes do seeke to abuse, as though there were no other eatinge of Christ in the Sacrament, but by faith alone, which is furthest of from the said Fathers meaninge, though sometymes they had occasion to speake in that manner.

49. The third member of our former diui­sion is, to eat Christ both sacramentally and spiritually, as all good Christians do, when with due preparation & disposition, they re­ceaue both the outward Sacrament and in­ward [Page 196] grace and fruite therof: by obseruation of which threefold manner of receauing, ma­ny obiections and hereticall cauillations will easily afterward be discerned. And so much for this.

The tenth Obseruation. Touchinge indignityes and inconueniences obiected by Sacramentaryes against vs, in holdinge the Reall presence. §. 10.

50. As by the former obiections of naturall impossibilityes, yow haue heard this soue­raigne mystery impugned, both by the learne­der sort of old and new heretiks; so do the more simple & ignorant insist & insult most, vpon certayne inconueniences, indignityes, and absurdityes, as to them do appeare. As for example, that Christ in the Sacrament, should be eaten with mens teeth, go into the belly, not only of men & weomen, but also of beasts yf they should deuoure yt, that yt may putri­fie, be burned, cast and fall into base and vn­worthy places, be troden vnder mens feet, with the like, which is a kind of argument plausible at the first sight vnto vulgar appre­hensions, and such as seemed to moue princi­pally the most part of Iohn Fox his artificers, and spinster-martyrs, as may appeare by their rude clamours, and grosse obiections, expro­brations, irrisions, iests and scoffes at their aunsweringe before their ordinaryes.

[Page 197] 51. And heerin also they shewed their spiritt of derydinge and blaspheminge that, which they vnderstood not, to concurre with that of the pagans and Iewes against the whole body of Christian Religion, and of auncient heretiks against the principall articles therof. Of the pagans S. Augustine wryteth thus: In ip­sum Christum non crederemus, si fides Christiana ca­chinnum Aug. ep. 49. q. [...]. metueret paganorum: We should not be­leeue in Christ himselfe, yf Christian faith did feare the scoffinge of pagans. S. Paul also wry­teth both of Gentills and Iewes, that the Crosse of Christ (that is to say, that God should be apprehended, beaten, wounded and crucified) was to these a scandall, and folly to 1. Cor. 8. the others, though vnto the elect, yt was the very wisdome, power & vertue of God him­selfe. We read also in the ghospell, that the Saduces amongst the Iewes, scoffed at the resur­rection of bodyes, by asking Christ a question Matth. 22. of a woman that had seauen husbands, whose wife she should be in the resurrection, purpo­singe therby to haue inferred an absurdity a­gainst the said article, to witt, that eyther sea­uen men should haue striued for one woman, or one woman haue byn wife of seauen men. And the Marcionists infamous heretiks, that tooke the same heresie from the Sadduces, as also the Originists concurringe therin against the said beleefe of our resurrection, went about to disgrace the same, as both Tertullian, Tertul l. de resur. caro. [...]ter. in ep. ad Pama­chi [...]m. and S. Hierome do testifie, by certaine absurd in­dignityes, which they imagined would ensue [Page 198] therof, as for example that difference of sexes procreation, mydwyues, nurses, priuyes, and the like, must needs be in heauen, but the aun­cient Fathers answered them with the words of our Sauiour to the said Sadduces, Erratis, ne­scientes scripturam, & virtutem Dei. Yow do erre, Matth. 11. not knowinge the scriptures, nor the power of God.

52. And the same aunswere was giuen by Catholiks to the first Sacramentaryes, that euer publikely appeared, to witt the Berenga­rians aboue 500. yeares past, who obiected the very same absurdityes, that our hereriks do at this day, as testifieth Guitmundus and Algerus, Guitmun­dus lib 2. & Algerus leb. 2 cont. Berenga­rium. that liued in that age and wrote against them; they were aunswered (I say) that their error proceeded of not vnderstandinge the true meaning of scriptures, nor the power of God, which in the Sacrament conserueth his body without all leasion, hurt, indignity, or incon­uenience, whatsoeuer happeneth vnto the formes, vnder which his body is, and that it is nothing so base and vnworthy a matter, euen in our sense & comon reason, that Christ our Sauiour being impassible in the Sacrament, should vnder another forme be said to fall on the ground, to be burned, to be eaten, &c. then in his owne proper forme, when he was passible, and sensible to ly in his mothers wombe, or to cry and weepe in the cradle, or to suffer hunger, thirst, and other humayne necessityes, and to be whipped, wounded and put to death, all which indignityes, supposing [Page 199] that he was the selfe-same God that created the world, might seeme more absurd, and im­probable in common sense and reason, then this of the Sacrament, and so they did seeme to old heretiks, who obiected and derided the same, as the forsaid Marcionists, that God should be in a womans belly, and in a maunger; and Nestorius the heretike, that God should be two monethes old for example, and two cubitts bigg, and other such iests and scoffes, as yow may read of them in Tertullian, Theodoret, Eua­grius Tert lib. do carn. Christs & Theod. l. 4. haeret. faehul. & Euagr. l. 1. hist. c. 2. and other wryters.

53. Wherfore to conclude this obseruation, two points are to be noted in this whole mat­ter: First that many things that seeme to hap­pen to Christ in these cases, do not touch him indeed, but only the externall formes of bread and wyne, as when they are burned for ex­ample, do putrifie, or the like, Christs body is not burned, or putrified, but ceaseth to be vn­der them, when the said formes or accidents are corrupted, for that the substance of Christs body, supplyinge the substance of bread, is no longer there then the substance of bread would haue byn there, yf yt had not ben con­uerted into Christs body, but yf bread had re­mayned, yt would haue ceased by any kind of corruption, as burninge, putrifyinge, or the like, and so doth Christs body, though in a different sort, so that the substance of bread might, by the said corruption, be chaunged in­to some other substance, which Christs body cannot be, but only ceasseth to be there, God [Page 200] supplyinge some other matter for production of that, which is brought forth of new, as in the former obseruation hath byn declared.

54. The other point, that those other con­ditions which by reason of the formes are asscribed vnto Christ his body in the Sacra­ment, as to moue from place to place, when the formes are moued, to be seene, touched, eaten with our teeth and the like, which are frequent phrases among the Fathers, haue no Notethese tvvo ex­amples. inconuenience amonge them at all, no more for example, then when our soule is said to be moued with the motion of the body, which soule notwithstandinge of his owne nature is not moueable: so as an Angell being a spiritt, may be handled, seene, or stroken in the body which he taketh to appeare in, as is euident by the whole story of Tobias and other places of scripture, which Angell of himselfe notwith­standinge, is not capable of such thinges; and finally Gods eternall diuinity and maiesty is present in all places & things, the most basest and horrible that can be diuised, and yet suffe­reth no inconuenience therby: For though he be for example in the dunghill, yet he cannot be said to haue any euill smell therby, neyther to be burned in the fire, though the formes of bread and wyne be burned therin, nor to pu­trifie, though he be actually present in those things that rott and putrifie. And by this may yow see the vayne calumniations of fond he­retiks, against the power of almighty God, out of their senses and foolish imaginations.

The eleuenth Obseruation. About the nature of a sacrifice, as it is ordayned to diffe­rent effectes, and how that of the Crosse standeth vvith that of the masse. §. 11.

55. The eleuenth and last obseruation shalbe peculiarly about the last of the three questions proposed, which is sacrifice of the masse, no­tinge therin two ends, offices, or effects to be considered: First that yt is ordayned ad cultum externum, to an externall worshipp of God pe­culiar to himselfe, in the highest degree of ho­nour, called by the Gretians Latria: secondly ad propitiationem pro peccatis, for pacifyinge of Gods wrath for sinnes, and albeit both these effects may be in one and the selfe-same sacri­fice (and so we hould them to be in the sacri­fice of the masse, for that yt was ordayned by Christ, as well for a perpetuall outward ho­nour & worshipp to be exhibited vnto God in the Christian Church vnto the worlds end, as also for remission of sinnes by application of the meritt of Christs bloudy sacrifice on the Crosse) yet may they be separated of their owne natures, so as a sacrifice may be orday­ned only ad cultum, that is to say, for an exter­nall worshipp only, without power to remitt sinnes: And so in a manner were the sacrifices of the ould law, which little or nothing auay­led for sinnes. And againe, sacrifice may be or­deined only or principally to satisfy for sinnes, [Page 202] without relation therof ad cultum, to perseuere in any state of men, to be often offered by them, and such was Christs on the Crosse, which is not reiterated againe in the same bloudy and passible manner, as then yt was, but in another farre different sort in the masse, which is capable of both these effects, as hath byn said.

56, Now then in the first sense, as a sacrifice is ordayned ad cultum, to an externall worship The first effect of sacrifice. of God, yt conteyneth an outward protesta­tion of our knowledge of Gods supreme Ma­iestie, power, and absolute dominion ouer vs, and in our subiection thervnto, which is the highest honour that can be giuen by a crea­ture vnto the creator, and is so particular to God alone, as hath byn said, as yt cannot be imparted to any creature, without the hor­rible sinne of Idolatry, and is so conioyned with the nature of Religion yt selfe, as no true Religion hath euer byn without this degree of externall honour, exhibited vnto God by his people; and so we see that all good men in the law of nature, by Gods instinct, did sacri­fice vnto him, as Adam, Abell, Noe, Melchisedecke, and others, as afterwards also in the law of Moyses, the same was expressely ordayned by Gods owne commandement; & the Gen­tills did the same, though not to one true God, but to many idolls, by suggestion of the diuell, that therin emulated Gods honour ex­hibited vnto him by sacrifice. And this for the first effect or office of sacrifice.

[Page 203] 57. The second is propitiation, or pacifyinge The secōd effect of sacrifice vvith 3. degrees therof. of Gods wrath for sinnes, as hath byn said. Wherin for more perspicuityes sake, three de­grees may be obserued. First of such sacrifices as were so weake & imperfect in themselues, touching this point of propitiation and satis­fyinge for sinnes, as they profited little or no­thinge, except only as they were morall good works; and accordinge to the piety of the of­ferer, they might help somewhat; but they had neyther sufficient force in themselues to remitt sinnes, neyther to apply the vertue and satisfaction of any other sacrifice, already ex­hibited, to the remission therof, but were on­ly figures, and shaddowes of things to come: and such were the sacrifices of the old law of Moyses.

58. The second degree is quite opposite to this for excellency of perfection, power and meritt, being in yt selfe of so infinite valour, as yt is sufficient not only fully to satisfie for the sinnes of all the world; but also to giue vigour to all other sacrifices, both internall, and ex­ternall; And this was the sacrifice of Christ our Sauiour on the Crosse; & betweene these two sacrifices, to witt the weaknesse and im­perfection, multitude and variety of the one vnder the old law, and the singularity, excel­lency, force and infinite power of the other, is the large antithesis & opposition, vsed by S. Paul in his 9. and 10. Chapters of his Epistle to the Hebrewes, shewing, that as the Iewes sacrifices were many in number, and of diuers sorts and [Page 204] infirme of themselues, & therfore offered vp in great multitudes and often; so the sacrifice of Christ for the excellency therof, and infi­nite force and valour, was single, & but one, and once offered for all, and not iterable for acquiringe the price of mans redemption, and perfect sufficiency for the sanctifyinge of all, though yet he affirmeth not, that yt may not be iterated in another manner, & to another effect, to witt for applyinge the sufficiency & meritt of this one sacrifice offered for all, to the vtility of particular people: For albeit Christ hath satisfied for all quoad sufficientiam (to vse the termes of schoole) yet not quoad effi­caciam, which is as much to say, as albeit Christ hath redeemed all and paid the price for all, yet all are not saued therby, nor do receaue the efficacy or benefitt therof, for that they apply not to their owne vtility that which is gay­ned for all.

59. Now then for applyinge this treasure vnto people in particular, our aduersaryes do confesse, that some things are necessary of our parts, as faith & baptisme, but we do ad more meanes, as ordayned by Christ himselfe, and amonge other the sacrifice of the masse, not for acquiringe any new price or sufficiency of our saluation, but for applyinge the effect or efficacy of that, which already is gotten by Christ our Sauiour, through his passion on the Crosse, & heerof resulteth a third degree of propitiatory sacrifice, that is neyther so in­firme as the sacrifices of the ould law were, [Page 205] that remytted not sinnes, nor yet in a manner of so potent effect, as to acquire the price of our saluation, for that yt is not offered vp to that end, but only to apply the vertue of the other sacrifice already gotten, and so may be iterated, not for any defect in it selfe, but for that sinnes dayly growinge haue need of day­ly application of the said sacrifice, as hath byn said.

60. And in this sense do all the ancient Fa­thers, in the places before alleaged, call this sa­crifice of the masse iuge sacrificium, a dayly sacri­fice, and iterable, notwithstandinge that the other on the Crosse could be offered but once, as S. Paul proueth. And now these obserua­tions being premised, we shall passe to exa­mine and aunswere the arguments of our aduersaryes, in all the former disputations brought forth.

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 precedēt Chapter, where we haue shewed, that not only supernatural­ly and by Gods omnipotent power yt may be [Page 208] 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 [Page 209] 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.

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 [Page 218] togeather, as before I did, but set them downe seuerally, as Fox recordeth them out of Peter Martyrs disputation.

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.

The fourth sort of arguments alleaged by others after Peter Martyr. §. 4.

28. And of these the first shalbe that of Cau­son and Higbed, in their confession to B. Bonner [...]nno Domini 1555. The flesh profiteth nothinge (saith First obie­ction. Christ) Ioan. 6. Ergo Christ hath not giuen his flesh to be eaten in the Sacrament; and diuers others do Fox pag. 1400. obiect the same, as a great argument; yea Zuinglius himselfe calleth this argument: A bra­sen vvall, Zuingl. l. da ver [...] & fals. Relig­cap. de Eu­char. and a most stronge adamant, that cannot be [...]oken. But the auncient Fathers, tha [...] knew more then Zuinglius, did easily breake this ada­mant, and brasen wall, giuinge diuers solu­tions The au [...] ­svvere. therof: as first, that yf we take these words of our Sauiour to be spoken properly of his flesh; then must the sense be, that his only flesh, without his soule & diuinity, pro­siteth not to our saluation: and so do expound the place both S. Augustine and S. Cyrill, for that Aug. & Cyril. in Ioan. otherwise no man can deny, but that Christs flesh with his soule and diuinity, doth profitt greatly euen in the Sacrament yt selfe; for that Christ in the selfe-same Chapter of Saint Iohn saith: he that eateth my flesh hath life euerlastinge. Ioan. 6. Secondly, other Fathers more to the literall sense do interpret those words: (the flesh profi­teth nothinge) not that Christs flesh doth not profitt, but that the carnall vnderstandinge of that speach of Christ, about his flesh, to be ea­ten [Page 236] in the Sacrament (such as the Capharnai [...]e had, whome he refuteth) profiteth not to ou [...] saluation, but requireth a more spirituall and high vnderstandinge, to witt, that yt is to be eaten in another manner vnder the formes o [...] bread and wyne. And this is the exposition both of Lib. 3. in [...]p. ad Rom. cap [...]. Origen, Serm. de Caena Dom. S. Cyprian, On [...]es S. Chrysostome [...]hunc [...]heophilact, locum 6. loan. Eu [...]himius, and others, and is th [...] more playne and manifest sense of that place.

29. Maister Guest (one of the Protestant op­ponents) in the first Cambridge disputation M. Guests argument against the reall pre­sence. against Doctor Glyn, vrgeth againe and again [...] this argument: That vvhich Christ tooke, he blessed that vvhich he blessed, he brake: that vvhich he brake Fox pag. 1258. col. 2. num. 80. he gaue: but he tooke bread: ergò he gaue bread: T [...] which argumēt Doctor Glyn answered by a lik [...] Collection out of the scripture: That which Go [...] G [...]n. 2. tooke out of Adams side, vvas a ribbe; but what he tooke that he brought and deliuered to Adam for his vvise ergò he deliuered him a ribbe for his wife. Which aunswere, though yt made the auditory t [...] laugh: yet Maister Perne comminge to answer [...] D. Perne. for the Protestant party; vpon the third day o [...] disputation, would needs vrge the same argu­ment againe in his preface; which Maister Vauisour, that disputed against him, repeating publikely, gaue the like answere about the ribb [...] out of Genesis: vvherwith Fox being angry maketh this note in the margent: An vnsauer [...] comparison: perhapps for that he holdeth th [...] Fox pa [...]. 1261. col. 1. num. 8. ribbe for rotten, which so longe agoe was taken out of Adams side: for that otherwise I d [...] not see what euill sauour Fox can find therin [Page 237] but the effect of the aunswere stands in this: that as God tooke a ribbe, and made therof our mother Eua: so Christ tooke bread, and therof made his body, though in a different manner, the matter or substance remayninge in the one change, but not in the other.

30. The same Guest in the same disputation maketh this other argument against the reall-presence. Guests se­cond ar­gument. The body of Christ is not generate, or be­gotten in the Sacrament; ergò, yt is not in the Sacra­ment. Fox pag. 1259. Whervnto Doctor Glyn answered: Yow impugne a thinge yow know not: what call yow generation? Guest. Generation is the production of accidents. Glyn. A new defini­tion of a new philosopher. Thus they two, and no one word more about this argument: nor did Guest reply, either in iest or earnest, but leapt presently to his former argumēt againe: That which he tooke he blessed; that which he blessed he brake; that vvhich he brake, he gaue, &c. Wherfore to aunswere Guests obiection we say: first that generation is not the production of accidents, as fondly he affirmeth, which production of ac­cidents appertaineth rather to alteration, aug­mentation and locall motion, as Aristotle tea­cheth, Lib. primo Generat. & lib. 3. Phys. wheras generation is the production of a substance and not of accidents: Secondly we say that Christs body in the Sacrament is there, not by generation nor creation, but by another miraculous operation of God, called Transubstantion, which is a conuersion of the bread & wine into the true body & bloud of Christ. And thus much in earnest to M. Guest.

[Page 238] 31. After Guest there commeth Maister Pilkin­ton, as wise as the other in matter of disputa­tion, though afterward by the creditt of his manhood therin, he gott the Bishoppricke o [...] Durham. He began thus against Doctor Glyn. This one thinge I desire of yow most wor­shippfull Maister Doctor, that yow will aun­swere me with breuity as I shall propound and thus I reason:

• The body of Christ that vvas broken on the Crosse, is a full satisfaction for the sinnes of the vvhole vvorld.
• But the Sacrament is not the satisfaction of the vvhole vvorld.
• Ergo, the Sacrament is not the body of Christ.

To this argument Doctor Glyn answered, that he vsed an equiuocation in the 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 [Page 239] 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.
  Pilkinton [...] second ar­gument.
• 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.
  Pilkintons third ar­gument.
• Ergo: the Sacrament is not the body of Christ.

Heere yow see is the same fond equiuocation [Page 240] 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.
  Pilkintons fourth ar­gument.
• 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 [...] Ioan. 12. 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 [...] Ioan. 17. [Page 241] 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; M. Philips his argu­ment. wherin Maeister Phillips Deane of Rochester, did argue against the reall presence in this sort. Fox pag. 1283.

• Christ saith, yow shall haue poore people with yow.
• But me yow shall not haue.
  Matth. 11. Iean. 12.
• 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 Aug. tract. 50. in loan, 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 Tract. 70 in lea [...]o hirras, &c. Which nothinge letteth his being [Page 242] 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 Aug. ibid. 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 Pag. 1283. in margine. 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 Fox pag. 12. 4. [...]l 2. num. 10. 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 Phil [...]otts first argu­ment. 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 [Page 243] he this other. Wherabout though Philpot made agreat styrre, as not content with the aun­swere; yet could he reply nothing of any mo­ment, and so ended that dayes disputation. The next day he returned againe, and would haue made a longe declamation against the reall presence, but being restrayned he fell into such a rage and passion, as twise the prolocu­tor said, he was fitter for Bedlam, then for di­sputation.

37. After Philpott, stood vp Maister Cheney Archdeacon of Hereford, another of the six which did contradict the masse and reall presence in the Conuocation-house, who was after made B. of Glocester, being that tyme perhapps incly­ned to Zuinglianisme, though afterward he turned, and became a Lutheran and so lyued and died in the late Queenes dayes. There is extant to this man an eloquent epistle in La­tyn of F. Edmund Campian, who vnhappily had byn made Deacon by him, but now being made a Catholike, exhorted the Bishopp to leaue that whole ministry: This mans argu­ment against the reall presence, being taken out of the common obiections of Catholike wry­ters and schoole-men, was this, that for so much as it is cleare by experience, that by ea­tinge consecrated hosts for example, a man may be nourished, and that neyther Christs body nor the accidents and formes alone, can be said to norish ergo besides these two there must be some other substance, that nourisheth, which seemeth can be no other but bread: [Page 244] And the like argument may be made of con­secrated wyne that also nourisheth. And fur­ther in like manner he argued, concerninge consecrated bread burned to ashes, demaun­dinge wherof, that is to say, of what substance these ashes were made, for so much as we hould no substance of bread to be therin: and Fox would make vs beleeue, that all the Ca­tholiks there present could not aunswere that doubt, and amongest others he saith of Doctor Harpesfield: Then vvas Maister Harpesfield called in to Fox pag. 1287. & 1288. see vvhat he could say in the matter, vvho tould a fayre tale of the omnipotency of almighty God. But Fox vnderstood not what Doctor Harpesfield said in that behalfe, as may easily appeare by his fond relatinge therof: We haue sett downe the aunswere to these and like obiections, before in the 7. and 10. Obseruations, and yt consi­steth The aun­svvere to M. Che­neyes ar­gument about mi­trition & generatiō. in this; that in these naturall actions, and substantiall changes of nutrition and genera­tion, wherin not only accidents are altered, but new substances also are produced, & con­sequently according to nature that operation doth require not only accidents, but also sub­stantiall matter wherof to be produced; God by his omnipotency doth supply that matter, which is necessary to the new production of that substance, eyther by nutrition or gene­ration.

38. And albeit the vnbeleefe of heretiks doth not reach to comprehend and acknowledge, that God should do a myracle or action aboue nature euery tyme that this happeneth out, [Page 245] yet can they not deny yt in other things: As for example, that euery tyme, when any chil­dren are begotten throughout the world, God immediatly createth new soules for them, which needs must be thousands euery day, yet none of our sectaryes will deny or scoffe at this, or hold yt for absurd, the like may be said of all the supernaturall effectes & benefites which God bestoeth dayly & hour­ly vpon vs in the Sacraments or otherwise.

39. There remayne only some few places out of the Fathers to be explaned, which were obiected in this article, partly by Maister Grindall against Doctor Glyn, and partly also by Peter Martyr in the end of his Oxford-disputa­tion, Certayne places of Fathers explaned. but related by Fox in the question of Transubstantiation, & not of the reall-presence, though properly they appertayne to this, as now yow will see. The first place is out of Tertullian against Marcion the heretike, where he hath these words (saith Fox): This is my body, Fox pag. 1250. col. 2. that is to say, this is the signe of my body. Whervnto I answere, that Fox dealeth heere like a Fox in cytinge these words so cuttedly, for that Tertullian in this very place (as in many others) doth most effectually, not only say, but proue also, that bread is turned into Christs true bo­dy after the words of consecration; and so do Tert. lib. 4▪ cont. Mar­cion. c. 40. Magd. c [...]nt. 2. cap. 4. the Magdeburgians affirme expressely of him: his words are these: Christ takinge bread, and di­stributinge the same vnto his disciples, made yt his body; sayinge this is my body, that is the figure of my body, and immediatly followeth: Figura autem non [Page 246] fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus: but yt had not byn the figure of Christs body. yf his body had not byn a true bo­dy or truly their present. In which words Tertul­lian affirmeth two things, yf yow marke him; First that Christ made bread his true body; & then that bread had byn a figure of his body in the old Testament, which could not be, yf his body were not a true body, but a phanta­sticall body as Marcion did wickedly teach: for that a phantasticall body hath no figure. And this much for the true literall sense of Tertul­lian in this place; who goinge about to shew that Christ did fullfill all the figures of the old Testament (& consequently was sonne of the God of the old Testament, which Marcionists did deny) fullfilled also the figure wherin bread presignified his true body to come, by makinge bread his body: sayinge, this bread that was the figure of my body, in the old Te­stament, is now my true body in the new, and so doth the truth succeed the figure. And this to be the true literall sense and scope of Ter­tullian in this place (as before I haue said) eue­ry man may see plainly, that will read the place.

40. The other places are taken out of diuers other Fathers, who some tymes do call the Sacrament, a figure or signe, representation, or similitude of Christs body, death, passion, & bloud, as S. Augustine in Psalm. 2. Christ gaue a fi­gure of his body, and lib. cont. Adamant. cap. 12. he did not doubt to say this is my body, when he gaue a fi­gure of his body. And S. Hierome: Christ represented [Page 247] vnto vs his body. And S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. As thou hast receaued the similitude of his death, so drinkest thou the similitude of his pretious bloud: These places I say, and some other the like, that may be obiected, are to be vnderstood in the like sense, as those places of Saint Paul are, wherin Christ is called by him a figure, Figura substantiae Patris: A figure of the substance of his Father. Heb. 1. And againe; Imago Dei. An Image of God. Colloss. 1. And further yet; Habitu inuen­tus vt homo. Appearinge in the likenes of a man. Ould he­tetikes haue fra­med some particular heresies out of the Fathers by their misvnder­standinge their meaning. Philipp. 2. All which places, as they do not take from Christ, that he was the true substance of his Father or true God, or true man in deed (though out of euery one of these places some particular heresies haue byn framed by aun­cient heretiks, against his diuinity or humani­ty) so do not the forsaid phrases, sometymes vsed by the auncient Fathers, callinge the Sa­crament a figure, signe, representation or si­militude of Christs body, exclude the truth or reality therof, for 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.

[Page 248] 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 Ambr. l. 4. de Sacra [...]. cap. 4. 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 S. Ambrose expoun­deth him­selfe a­gainst the Protestāts. 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, [Page 249] 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 Aug. tract. 25. in Ioan. 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, [...] [Page 248] [...] [Page 249] [Page 250] 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 The con­clusion of this chap­ter. 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.

[Page 251] 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 The mise­rable case of sectaryes, vvith out any sure ground to Icane vn­to. 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.

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 manr [...] and shew-bread (which signifyed the great im­porta [...]ce and moment therof when yt should D. Gly [...]e his first discourse. 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 hi [...] [Page 259] owne flesh which he would giue vs to eate in fullfillinge those figures: Panis quem ego dabo ca­ [...]o mea est, the bread that I will giue you shalbe Ioan. 6. my flesh, and that truly and indeed: caro enim [...]uea verè est cibus; for my flesh is truly meate, &c. Ibidem.

8. This promise then, and this prefiguration was not (quoth he) performed by Christ, but in his last supper when he tooke bread and de­ [...]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 Ioan. 1. 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 The Ievves equall to vs by the sacramen­tary do­ctrine. 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 [Page 260] 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 cōtrary to the expresse discourse of Christ himselfe, sayinge: not Moyses gaue yow bread from Ioan. 6. 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 Fox pag. 1253. the body of Christ must be adored before yt be receaued; whervnto was aunswered: that only a certayne reuerent manner of receauinge vva [...] therby meant, but no adoration; but the other re­plyed, Adoratiō of the Sa­crament. 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 Augustin [...] meant only of adoringe Christs body in hea­ [...]n and not in the Sacrament; and this aun­swere was confirmed by Ridley very sollemne­ly, sayinge for his preface: For because I am on [...] that doth loue the truth, I vvill heere declare vvha [...] [Page 261] 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, Aug in Psalm. 98. nisi prius adorauerit: No man eateth that flesh (in the Sacrament) but first adoreth yt. And Saint Chrysostome: Adora & communica, dum proseratur Chrysost. hom. 60. ad Pop An­tioch. 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 Psalm. 9 [...]. 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 [Page 262] yt is called the body of Christ; Wherto was S. Ambrose and S. Au­sten hand­somely shifted of. 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 D. Glyns reply. or two more, shewing out of the words of S. Ambrose, that Ridleyes aunswere could not be true; for that S. Ambrose said; that after the Fox pag. 1254. consecration, there is not the thinge that nature did forme, but that which the blessing doth consecrate. And that yf the benediction of Elias the Prophett, could turne the nature of water, how much more the benediction of Christ, God & man can do the same, ergò there is a greater change in the natures then of common bread, to be­come the Lords bread.

12. To this reply there was no other aun­swere giuen, but that S. Ambrose his booke d [...] Sacramentis was not his, & Ridley affirmed that all the Fathers did say so: which was a shame­lesse lye in so great an auditory, nor could he bringe forth so much as one Father that said so, nor alleaged he any one argument to proue yt to be so; and yf he had, yet S. Ambrose repea­ting [...] againe the very same sentence in his booke de initiandis is sufficient for the authori­ty of the place, but Glyn is made to passe away the matter with sylence, sayinge: VVell lett this passe, &c. And then goinge to other authori­tyes [Page 263] of Fathers, ys [...]yped of with like shif [...]; as when he cyteth S. Cyprians words: Panis non A strange shiftinge of the au­thorityes of Fa­thers. effigie, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia Dei sit caro: t [...]e bread by consecration being changed not in shape, but in nature, is by the omnipotency of God made flesh; they aunswere that by na­ture is vnderstood a naturall property or qua­lity, and by flesh, a fleshly thinge or quality, and not the substance, so as the sense must be, that bread is changed not in outward shape, but into a naturall property of a fleshly thing, &c. And when Doctor Glyn replyed to ouer­throw this inuention out of S. Ambrose, who affirmeth this chāge of bread to be made into the flesh, that was taken of the Virgin Mary, ergò yt was not only into a fleshly thinge, qua­lity, or property, but into the true flesh of Christ; Ridly gaue an aunswere, that I vnder­stand not, nor himselfe I thinke, but only that he must say somwhat in so great an audience, and expectation; or Fox vnderstood yt not that setteth it downe: for these are his words:

13. VVhen Doctor Glyn vrged the sayinge of S. Am­brose, that bread is changed into the body taken from the virgin Mary, that is to say (saith he) that by the word Fox pa [...]. 1 [...]54 col. [...]. num. 3. of God, the thinge hath a being that yt had n [...]t before, and we do consecrate the body, that we may receaue the grace and power of the body of Christ in heauen by this Sacramentall body. So he. And doth any man vn­derstand him? or is his aunswere any thinge to the purpose for satisfyinge the Fathers? S. Cyprian saith: that the bread by the omnipo­tency of God is changed in nature, and made [Page 264] flesh and S. Ambrose saith: yt is the flesh taken from the Virgin; and Ridley saith heere; that yt hath a being, vvhich yt had not before, and that, they do con­secrate a sacramentall body of Christ, therby to receaue the grace and power of Christs body in heauen; but howsoeuer they do consecrate that body: (which is a strange word for Sacramentaryes to vse) yet do they graunt that this Sacramen­tall body is but bread; and how then can yt be flesh, and flesh of the Virgin; were not the Fa­thers ridiculous, yf they vsed these equiuoca­tions, yea false and improper speaches?

14. Well Doctor Glyn goeth foreward, and al­leageth S. Chrysostome vpon S. Mathewes gho­spell, where to persuade vs the truth of Christs body in the Sacrament, he saith: that we must Fox pag. 1254. beleeue Christs words in these mysteryes, and not our senses, for that our senses may be deceaued; but Christ sayinge this is my body cannot deceaue vs; and that he made vs one body with himselfe, not through faith only, but in very deed: and further, that the miracle which he wrought in his last supper, he vvorketh dayly by his ministers, &c. Whervnto Ridley aunswered no­thinge S. Chryso­stome shif­ted of. but these words: Maister Doctor, yow must vnderstand, that in that place S. Chrysostome shewed, that Christ deliuered vnto vs no sensible thinge in that supper. So he. Which notwithstanding is eui­dently false, for he deliuered sensible bread & wyne, according to the Protestants faith, and accordinge to outs, the formes of bread and wyne, which are also sensible: and yf there were no sensible thinge, then could there be no Sacrament, which must conteyne a sen­sible [Page 265] signe. And to refu [...]e this shift of Ridley, Doctor Glyn obiected Theophilact, expoundinge S. Chrysostome, and vsinge the same words that he did, to witt, that the bread is transelemented, and transformed. He alleageth another place or two of S. Augustine togeather with S. Irenaeus: Matth. 11. To all which Rochester aunswereth resolutely: VVell say what yow list; yt is but a figuratiue speach, as S. Iohn Baptist was said to be Elias for a property, &c. Hovv S. Iohn Baptist vvas Elyas. But who doth not see the absurdity of this euasion; for so much as the meaning of Christ, about Elias his spiritt in S. Iohn Baptist, is eui­dent, nor euer went any auncient Fathers about to affirme or proue by arguments, that S. Iohn Baptist was truly Elias in person (him­selfe Ioan. 1. expressely denyinge yt) or that yt was meant literally, as they do of the words of Christ in the Sacrament: And this could not Ridley but see, but that he was blinded in pride and passion, for that otherwise he would ne­uer haue gone about to aunswere the Fathers by euident wranglinge, so contrary to their owne sense and meaninge.

15. After Doctor Glyn was putt to silence in this order, succeded Maister Langdale, Maister Langdale disputeth Sedgewicke and Maister Yonge, but very breefely concerninge this article of the reall-presence, not being permitted to speake more, and the most part of the tyme trifled out also, with courtesyes of speach, the one to the other; My good Lord; good Maister Doctor; pleaseth yt your good Lordshipp; liketh yt your good Fathershipp; honourable Father, and the like ceremonyes, for they durst [Page 266] do no other, Ridley being then high commis­sionar; yet Maister Langdale vrged a place of S. Chrysostome, where he bringeth Christ, savinge these words: I vrould be your brother, I tooke vpon Fox pag. 1256. col. 1. num. 43. me common flesh and bloud for your sakes; and euen by the same things that I am ioyned to yow, the very same I haue exhibited to yow againe; meaninge in the Sacrament. Wherof Maister Langdale inferred, that seing Christ tooke vpon him true natu­rall flesh, and not a figure of flesh only, or re­membrance therof, therfore he gaue vs his true naturall flesh like man in the Sacrament, and not a figure. Wherto Ridley aunswereth in these words and no more: VVe are not ioyned Fox ibid. by naturall flesh; but do receaue his flesk spiritually from aboue. Which aunswere is not only contrary to the expresse words and meaning of S. Chry­sostome in this place, but of Christ himselfe also brought in heere by S. Chrysostome to vtter his meaninge, as yow haue heard. I tooke vpon me common flesh for your sakes, and by the same things that I am ioyned to yow, the very same I haue exhibited vn­to yow againe. Where yow see that he saith, he gaue the very same in the Sacrament, which he had taken vpon him for our sakes, and that by the same he was ioyned to vs againe; and now Maister Ridley saith; that vve are not ioyned to him by naturall flesh. These be contraryes, which of two shall we beleeue? Christ, and S. Chryso­stome expoundinge him, or Ridley against them both?

16. Maister Sedg-wicke disputed next, but hath M. Sedge­wicke his disputa­t [...]n. not halfe a columne or page allowed to the [Page 267] settinge downe of his whole disputation; yet he vrginge diuers reasons in that little tyme out of the scriptures, why the Sacrament of the Altar cannot be in the new law by a fi­gure, but must needs be the fullfillinge of old figures, and consequently the true and reall body of Christ; he brought Maister Ridley with­in the compasse of a dozen lines, to giue two aunswers one plaine contrary to another, as his words do import: for this is the first: I do graunt yt to be Christs true body and flesh, by a property M. Ridley his ovvne contradi­ction. of the nature assumpted to the God head, and we do really eate and drinke his flesh and bloud, after a cer­taine reall property. His second aunswere is in these words: It is nothinge but a figure or token of Fox ibid. the true body of Christ, as it is said of S. Iohn Baptist, he is Elias, not that he vvas so indeed or in person, but in property and vertue he represented Elias. So he. And now lett any man with iudgement exa­mine these two aunswers: For in the first he graun [...]eth at least wayes a true reall property of Christs flesh, assumpted to his Godhead, to be in their bread, wherby we do really eate his flesh, and drinke his bloud. And in the se­cond he saith, yt is nothinge but a figure, and consequently excludeth all reall property; for that a figure hath no reallity or reall property, but only representeth and is a token of the bo­dy, as himselfe saith; which is euident also by his owne example, for that S. Iohn Baptist had no reall property of Elias in him, but only a si­militude of his spiritt and vertue. And so these people, whilst they would seeme to say some­what, [Page 268] do speake contradictoryes amonge themselues.

17. There followed Maister Yonge, who as breefly as the other, touched some few places of the Fathers (though they be not quoted) M. Yonges disputa­tion. where they say ‘that our bodyes are nourished in the Sacrament by Christs flesh, and that truly we drinke his bloud therin, and that for auoyding the horror of drinking mans bloud, Christ had condescended to our infirmityes, and giuen yt to vs vnder the formes of wyne;’ and other like speaches, which in any reaso­nable mans sense, must needs import more then a figure of his body and bloud, or a spiri­tuall being there only by grace, for so much as by grace he is also in Baptisme and other Sa­craments: & finally he vrged againe the place of S. Cyprian: That the bread being changed not in shape but in nature, vvas by the omnipotency of the vvord, made flesh. Wherto Ridley aunswered againe in these words: Cyprian there doth take this vvord nature for a property of nature, and not for the naturall substance. To which euasion Maister Yonge replyeth; this is a strange acception, that I haue not read in any authors before this tyme. And so with this he was glad to giue ouer (saith Fox) and askinge pardon for that he had done, said: I am contented, and do most humbly beseech your good Lordshipp to pardon me of my great, rudenesse, &c. Belike this rudenesse was for that he had said, that vt was a strange acception of S. Cyprians words, to take change in nature, for change into a property of nature, and flesh for a fleshely thinge [Page 269] or quality, as before yovv haue heard, and that this should aunswere S. Cyprians intention: for lett vs heare the application: Bread (in the Sa­crament) The con­futation of [...] after Ridi [...]yes euasion a­bout Saint Cyprian. being changed not in shape but in nature (saith S. Cyprian) by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh; that is to say, as Ridley will haue yt bread, being changed not in shape, but in a property of nature, is made a fleshely thinge, or fleshely quality: What is this? or what sense can it haue? what property of fleshely nature doth your commu­nion bread receaue? or what reall property of bread doth it leese by this change mencyoned by S. Cyprian? We say, (to witt S. Cyprian) that our bread retayning the outward shape, doth leese his naturall substance, and becommeth Christs flesh, what naturall property of bread doth yours leese? And againe. What fleshely thinge or quality doth yt receaue by the om­nipotency of the word in consecration? And is not this ridiculous, or doth Ridley vnder­stand this his riddle? But lett vs passe to the next disputation vnder Q. Mary, where we shall see matters handled otherwise, and argu­ments followed to better effect and issue.

Out of the first Oxford-disputation in the beginninge of Q Maryes raigne, wherin D. Cranmer, late Archbi­shopp of Canterbury, was defendant for the Protestant party, vpon the 16. of Aprill anno 1554. §. 2.

18. When as the Doctors were sett in the diuinity schoole, and foure appointed, to be exceptores argumentorum (saith Fox) sett at a Table in the middest therof, togeather with foure other notaryes sittinge with them, and certayne other appointed for iudges (another manner of indifferency, then was vsed in King Edwards dayes vnder B. Ridley, in that disputa­tion at Cambridge) Doctor Cranmer was brought in, and placed before them all to answere, and defend his Sacramentary opinion, giuen vp the day before in wrytinge, concerninge the article of the reall presence. Fox according to his custome noteth diuers graue circumstances, as amonge others, that the beedle had prouided drinke, and offered the aunswerer, but he refused vvith Fox pag. 1300. thanks. He telleth in like manner, that Doctor VVeston the prolocutor offered him diuers courtesyes for his body, yf he should need, which I omitt for that they are homely: against which Doctor VVeston notwithstanding he afterwards stormeth, and maketh a great [Page 271] inuectiue for his rudenes, and in particular for that he had (as Fox saith) his Theseus by him, that is to say a cuppe of wyne at his elbow, whervnto Fox ascribeth the gayninge of the victory, sayinge; yt vvas no maruayle though he gott Fox pag. 1326. the victory in this disputation, he disputinge as he did, non sine suo Theseo, that is not without his [...]pling­cupp. So Fox. And yet further, that he holding the said cuppe at one tyme in his hand, and hearinge an argument made by another that liked him, said: vrge hoc, nam ho [...] facit pro nobis: vrge this, vrge this, for this maketh for vs. Thus pleased it Iohn Fox to be pleasant with Doctor VVeston; but when yow shall see, as pre­sently yow shall, how he vrged Iohn Fox his three Martyrs, and rammes of his flocke (for so els-where he calleth them) in these disputa­tions, not with the cuppe, but with substan­tiall, graue, and learned arguments, yow will not maruaile that he is so angry with him: for in very deed he brought them alwayes to the greatest exigents of any other, and more then all the rest togeather: Now then lett vs passe to the disputation.

19. Doctor Chadsay was the first that disputed against Cranmer, beginninge with the institu­tion of Christs Sacrament, recorded by S. Ma­thew, Matth. 2 [...]. Marc 14. Luc. 22. Marke, and Luke, shewinge out of them by diuers plaine clauses and circumstances, that Christ in his last supper, gaue vnto his disciples, not bread, but his true naturall body, which was giuen the next day on the Crosse, to all which Cranmer aunswered thus: [Page 272] Yf yow vnderstand by the body naturall, Organicum, that is hauing such proportion of members, as he had li­uinge Fox pag. 1 302. col. 1. num. 70. heere, then I aunsivere negatiuely. By which aunswere we may perceaue, that this great Doctor, who had wrytten a great booke a­gainst the reall-presence, by which Latymer a­mongst others was made a Sacramentary, and stood therein vnto death vpon the creditt of this booke (as after yow shall heare him often [...]. Chadsoys first argu­ment. professe) vnderstandeth not the very state of the question betweene vs, for that we hould not Christs body in the Sacrament to be Or­ganicall, in that manner as Cranmer heere ima­gineth, with externall dimensions & propor­tions of members as he liued vpon earth, Sup. cap. 3. though truly organicall, in another manner, without extension to place, as in our fourth and fifth obseruations before sett downe we haue declared; so as he erringe in the very grounds and first principles of the controuer­sie, yow may imagine how he will proceed in the rest.

20. It was obiected vnto him next after this, that as a wise-man lyinge on his death-bedd, The secōd argumēt. and hauing care that his heyres after his departure do liue in quiett, and not contend about his Testament, doth not vse tropes and figures, but cleare and plaine speach in the said Testament; so must we presume of Christ, & for the confirmation of this, Doctor VVeston al­leaged Fox pag. 1302. a place out of S. Augustine, De vnitate Ec­clesiae vrginge this very same similitude; that yf the last words of any graue or honest man [Page 273] lyinge on his death-bedd, are to be beleeued, Aug 1. [...] vnitat. Ecil. cap. 10. much more the last words of our Sauiour Christ in his supper, to which argument I find no effectuall aunswere giuen at all, but only that Cranmer saith: ‘that he vvhich speaketh by tropes and figures, doth not lie;’ but he aunswereth not to the other inconuenience, that his heyres may fall out about his Testament, the one vnder­standinge them literally, the other figuratiue­ly, as we & they do the words of Christ about this Sacrament.

21. Next to this is brought in a large testi­mony of S. Chrysostome, out of his homily vnto 3. Argu­ment. the people of Antioch, which beginneth: Neces­sarium est, dilectissimi, mysteriorum discere miracu­ [...]um, Chrysost. hom. 61. ad Pop. An­ti [...]ch. quid tandem sit, & quare sit datum, & quae rei [...]tilitas, &c. ‘It is necessary, most dearely be­loued, to know this myracle of mysteryes, what yt is, and why yt was giuen, and what profitt cometh to vs therby, &c.’ And then S. Chrysostome declareth at large, ‘how Christ most myraculously aboue all humaine power, giueth his body to be handled and eaten by vs [...]n the Sacrament; so as we fasten our teeth in his flesh, and that he did more then euer any parents did, who many tymes giue their chil­dren to others to be fed, but Christ feedeth vs with his owne flesh, and with that very flesh by which he is our brother, and vnited vnto vs in flesh.’ Out of which discourse D. VVeston [...]rged, that for so much as Christ is made our brother and kins-man, by his true, naturall & organicall flesh; erge he gaue the same his true [Page 274] naturall and organicall flesh to vs to be eaten in the Sacrament. Wherto Cranmer aunswe­red: I graunt the consequence, and the consequent: Fox pag. 1303 col 2. num. 1. Which is contrary to that he said a little be­fore, (yf yow marke yt) that his organicall bo­dy was not there.

22. But Doctor VVeston went further, that seing he graunted this, then did yt follow also, that his true organicall flesh was receaued in our mouth, which S. Chrysostome calleth our teeth. But this Cranmer denyed, and said, he vvas eaten only by faith: Whervpon VVeston came on him againe sayinge, that for so much as he gaue vs the selfe-same flesh to eate in the Sacrament (and this with our teeth, as S. Chrysostome saith) wherby he became our brother & kins-man, yt must needs import a reall eatinge: Wherto Cramner aunswered: I graunt he tooke and gaue (in the Sacrament) the same true naturall and or­ganicall flesh, vvherin he suffered, but feedeth vs spiri­tually, and his flesh is receaued spiritually. This was his aunswere, and this he repeateth often, and from this he could not be drawne: And heere now yow see, the practise of that shift, wher­of we haue spoken before in our eyght and nynth obseruation, whereby these willfull people, vnder the tearmes of spiritually and sacramentally, do delude them selues, & their readers, as though they said somewhat to auoid Catholike arguments, taken out of aun­cient Fathers plaine and perspicuous autho­rityes, wheras indeed they say nothinge in substance at all, but do turne and wynd and [Page 275] hide themselues vnder the sound of different words without sense. For yf yt be true as Cranmer heere graunted, that Christ gaue his true naturall and organicall flesh to be eaten [...]n the Sacrament, and that with our teeth or corporall mouth, as S. Chrysostome saith, how can yt be denyed, but that we eat his flesh really, and not spiritually only, yf spiritually be opposite to really, as in Cranmers sense yt is, which vnderstandeth, spiritually and figuratiuely to be all one: but in our sense spiritually stan­deth with really, for that we hould Christs body to be receaued really and substantially in the Sacrament, but yet after a spirituall man­ner, different from that which the Capharnaits did imagine of a grosse carnall eatinge of Christs flesh, as other flesh is accustomed to be eaten, wherfore to imagine that Christs true naturall or organicall flesh is eaten truly in the Sacrament, and yet only absent, by faith, spiri­tually and in a figure, is to speake contradicto­ [...]yes with one breath.

23. Diuers other texts and testimonyes of [...]. Chrysostome were alleaged by Doctor VVeston 4. Argu­ment or reply. [...]o confute this ideacall fiction of Doctor Cran­ner, as that for example homilia 83. in cap. 26. [...]atth. Where he saith amonge other thinges: [...]eniat tibi in mentem, &c. ‘Lett yt come into thy remembrance with what honour thou art honoured, (in the Sacrament) what table hou dost inioy, for that we are nourished herin with the selfe-same thinge, which the [...]ngells do behould and tremble at, &c.’ VVho [Page 276] shall speake the powers of thy Lord? VVho shall declare forth all his praises? VVhat pastor hath euer nourished his sheepe vvith his owne flesh, &c. Christ feedeth vs vvith his owne body, and conioyneth & vniteth vs to him therby. And againe vpon the 50. Psalme: Pro In Psal. 50. [...]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 Chrysost. hom. 38. in Matth. 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 Fox pag. 1303. Christs body, with our corporall mouth, Doctor VVeston vrged these words of Saint Chrysostome: Chrysost. hom. 29. in 2. Cor. 13. 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 o [...] 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 Fox pag. 1233. col. 1. [...]. 74. of baptisme, which they would haue done, and ought to haue done, yf Christs body be no [Page 277] 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 5. Argu­ment. 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 Chrysost. hom. 34. 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 D. VVeston doth vrg [...] eagerly. vrgo hec, vrgo h [...]c. 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; [Page 278] 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 Fox pag. 1233. 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 aske [...] 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 [Page 279] 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 6. Argu­ment. deale with Cranmer againe, & by issue of talke, D. Chadsey. came to vrge these words of Tertullian; Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, vt animade deo Tertull. l. de res [...]ct carne [...]. c. 8. 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 [...]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 er [...]e in settinge yt downe; for yf the flesh be the Sacrament, then must the Sacra­ment Cranmers shifting of Tertulli [...]. feed on the body and bloud of Christ, accordinge to Tertullian which is absurd. But [...] 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, [Page 280] 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 Tert. ibid. 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 to Doctor Chadsey, sticke to those words of Tertullian, as Fox Fox pag. 2305. affirmeth, yt is like that the foresaid tale of vrge, vrge, feigned of him was meant at this tyme. But yf yt were, the reader may easily see that he had more to vrge against his ad­uersary, than a port at his elbow; and so shall yow see by that which is to ensue; wher­fore lett vs passe yet somewhat further in this combatt.

27. Doctor Cranmer hauinge breathed a little 7. Argu­ment out of S. Hi­lary. vpon the former sharp on-sett of Chadsey and VVeston, one Doctor Tressam began very grauely and moderately to vrge a new argument and discourse, which seemed very important, and after yt was vrged, did more straine and presse [Page 281] the defendant, then any thinge before dispu­ted. The argument was founded vpon a place D. Tressa [...]. of S. Hilary, in his eight booke de trinitate against the Arrians, which both for the great at authori­ty and antiquity of the Father, and cleernes of his words and reason, seemed to all there present to conuince; nor could Doctor Cranmer any way handsomely ridd himselfe of this place, but by his ordinary shiftinge interpre­tation, as ptesently shalbe seene. Doctor Tressam his discourse was this, that wheras the like controuersie for diuers points, had byn be­tweene the old Catholiks and Arrians in Saint Billaryes tyme, as now is betweene vs and Do­ctor Cranmer, and his fellowes, the Catholiks houldinge in that controuersie, the vnion of Christ with his Father to be in nature and substance, and the Arrians in will only and affection: Whatsoeuer authorityes the said Catholiks alleaged out of scriptures or aun­cient Fathers, for the naturall vnion be­tweene Christ and his Father; I and my Fa­ther are one. Such other places: the Arrians shifted of by sayinge: that is true in vvill, but not in nature, yt is true in loue and affection, but not in sub­stance; euen as our Sacramentaryes do now, when we alleage neuer so cleere authorityes, for the true reall nature and substantiall pre­sence of Christ in the Sacrament, and therby of his reall vnion also with vs by eatinge the same; they delude all with sayinge only; yt is true by grace and not by nature; yt is true by faith, but no [...] in substance; yt is true figuratiuely and sacramen­tally, [Page 282] but not really; yt is true in a signe, by a trope; after a certaine manner of speach; yt is true spiritually, and by a naturall property, but not indeed substantially: and such aunswers; but all these shifts (saith Doctor Tressam) did S. Hilary cutt of so longe agoe, for that he proueth the true naturall coniunction of Christ with his Father, by our true naturall coniunction with him, by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament; so as except we deny the true essentiall, reall and substantiall vnity of Christ with his Father, we cannot accordinge to S. Hilary deny the true, reall and substantiall vni­ty of vs with Christ, by receauing his true na­turall flesh in the Sacrament.

28. The place of S. Hilary is in his 8. booke of the blessed Trinity against the Arrians, as hath byn said, where he expoundeth these words of Christ in S. Iohns ghospell: As the liuing Father Io [...]n. 6. sent me, so do I also liue by the Father, and be that ea­teth my flesh, shall also liue throw me: vpon which words of our Sauiour S. Hilary saith: This truly Fox pag. 1306. is the cause of our life, that vve haue Christ dwellinge by his flesh in vs, that are fleshye, vvhich also by him shall liue in such sort, a [...] he liueth by his Father. Of which was inferred, that Christ dwelled in vs in flesh by the Sacrament, and not only in spi­ritt. For better declaration wherof D. Tressam, before the allegation of these words, alleageth a larger discourse of the same S. Hilary, against the said Arrians vpon this point in these words: I demaund of them now (saith Hillary) who will needs haue the vnity of will only betweene the Father, and the Hilar. l. 8. do Trunt. sonne, vvhether Christ be now in vs truly by nature, or [Page 283] only by the agreement of vvilles? yf the vvord be incar­nate in very deed, and vve receaue at the Lords table the vvord made flesh, how then is he to be thought not to dwell in vs naturally, &c. Out of which words of S. Hilary Doctor Tressam vrged, that Christs flesh was not only imparted vnto vs in faith and spiritt, but also really and naturally, according to S. Hilary, and that as his coniunction was naturall with his Father, and not in will and loue only: so is his coniunction with vs in flesh truly naturall, substantiall, and reall, and not only in spiritt and faith. For more confir­mation wherof, Doctor Tressam alleaged also the Bucer. l. cont. A­brincensem words of Martyn Bucer, their late Protestant-reader in Cambridge, who wryteth that accor­ding to the holy Fathers meaning Christ dwel­leth in vs (by the body giuen in the Sacrament) not only by faith and loue, as absent, but naturally, cor­porally, and carnally, &c. To which authority of Bucer Doctor Cranmer gaue no other answere but this iest. I know that Maister Bucer (saith he) was a learned man, but your faith is in good case which leaneth vpon Bucer, &c.

29. But he could not so easily shake of the autority of Hilary, but was hardly pressed ther­with, as yow may see readinge ouer the place yt selfe of this disputation, as also by that his aduocate Iohn Eox is constrayned to make sun­dry large notes, and glosses in the margent to help him out: For Doctor Tressam vrged, that we are not only vnited to Christ by faith and spiritt, but carnally also: Whervnto Cranmer seekinge an euasion answereth: I say that Christ Fox pag. 1306.[Page 284] was communicated vnto vs not only by faith, but in very deed also, vvhen he vvas borne of the Virgin. Behould the shift, we talke of Christ imparted to vs in the Sacrament, and so doth Hillary; he answe­reth, that Christ was imparted to vs in the in­carnation; and yet yf yow consider, our flesh was then rather imparted to him, then his to vs. And againe, Turks and Infidells haue as much coniunction with him by the incarna­tion as we, for that they are men, & the flesh that he tooke, was common to all; So as heere yow see nothing but euasions sought for; and Doctor Tressam perceauing that he could gett no more of him to the purpose, fell to pray for him; but Doctor VVeston followed the argument much further, as there yow may see, for yt is ouerlonge to be alleaged heere. The princi­pall point is, that S. Hilary auoweth: That our coniunction with Christ is not only by will, affection, and faith: but naturall also and reall, by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament, as him­selfe is naturally vnited to his Father and not only by will. And when Doctor Cranmer sought many holes to runne out at, VVeston presseth him againe with other words of S. Hilary ex­plicatinge himselfe, which are these.

30. These things (saith he) are recited of vs to this end, because heretiks feigninge a vnity of vvill only, be­tweene Hilar. ibid. the Father, and the sonne, did vse the example of our vnity vvith God, as though we being vnited to the sonne, and by the sonne to the Father only by obedience, and vvill of Religion, had no propriety of the naturall coniunction by the Sacrament of the body and bloud. [Page 285] Lo heere yt is accoumpted a point of Arria­nisme by S. Hilary, to hould that we are vnited to Christ only by obedience and will of Reli­lion, and not by propriety of naturall com­munion with him, by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament of his body and bloud. Whervpon Doctor VVeston vrged often and earnestly, that not only by faith, but by the nature of his flesh in the Sacrament, we are conioyned not spiri­tually only, and by grace, but naturally and corporally; Whervnto Cranmers aunswere was in these words: I graunt that Cyrill and Hilary do say that Christ is vnited to vs, not only by vvill, but also by nature, he is made one with vs carnally and corporal­ly, because he tooke our nature of the Virgin Mary, &c. Do yow see his runninge from the Sacrament to the natiuity; but heare out the end. VVest. ‘Hilary, where he saith Christ commu­nicated to vs his nature, meaneth not by his natiuity, but by the Sacrament. Cran. Nay he communicated to vs his flesh by his natiuity. VVest. We communicated to him our flesh, Fox ibid. when he was borne. Cran. Nay he commu­nicated to vs his flesh when he was borne, & that I will shew yow out of Cyrill. VVest. ergò, Christ being borne gaue vs his flesh. Cran. In his natiuity he made vs partakers of his flesh.’ VVest. Wryte syrs. Cranm. Yea wryte. And so ended this Encounter, brought (as yow see) to two absurdityes on Cranmers side; the one, that where S. Hilary speaketh of the Sa­crament of the body and bloud of Christ, he flyeth still to the incarnation: the other, that [Page 286] he saith; Christ to haue imparted his flesh to vs in the incarnation, wherin he tooke ours. Wherfore Doctor Chadsey seing the matter in this state, interrupted them by accusing Cran­mer to haue corrupted this place of S. Hilary, in his booke against the reall presence transla­tinge these words: Nos verè sub mysterio carnen [...] ­corporis sui sumimus, we receaue vnder the true mystery the flesh of his body; wheras he should haue said: VVe do receaue truly vnder a my­story (or Sacrament) the flesh of his body; vvhich [...]raud Cranmer could by no other wayes auoid, but by sayinge, that his booke had Vero and not verè, which Iohn Fox saith was a small fault; and yet yow see yt altereth all the sense, as yf a man shauld say Pistor for Pastor.

31. The next conflict to this was betweene Doctor Yonge, and Doctor Cranmer, wherin Yonge accusinge him first for denyinge of principles, and consequently, that they could hardly go forward with any fruitfull disputation, except they agreed vpon certayne grounds, he made sundry demaunds vnto him, as first, whether there were any other naturally true body of Christ, but his organicall or instrumentall bo­dy? Item whether sense and reason, ought not D. Yonge disputeth. to giue place in this mystery to faith? Further, whether Christ be true in his words, & whe­ther he mynded to do that, which he spake at his last supper? And finally, whether his words were effectuall, and wrought any thinge or noe? To all which Doctor Cranmer aunswered affirmatiuely, graunting that the said words of [Page 287] Christ did worke the institution of the Sacra­ment, whervnto Doctor Yonge replyed, that a figuratiue speach wrought nothinge, ergò yt was not a figuratiue speach when he said: Ho [...] [...]st corpus meum. And albeit D. Cranmer sought b [...] two or three struglinges to slipp from this inference, sayinge that yt was sophistry, yet both Doctor Yonge and Doctor VVeston, who came in still at his turne, said; sticke to this argument. It is a figuratiue speach, ergo yt vvorketh nothinge, that quickely they brought Doctor Cranmer in plaine words to graunt, that a figuratiue speach worketh nothinge: Wherof they inferred the contrary againe on the other side: A figuratiue Fox pag. 1307. col. 2. num. 30. speach (say they) vvorketh nothing by your confession, but the speach of Christ in the supper, as yow now graunted, vvrought somewhat, to witt the institu­tion of the Sacrament, ergo the speach of Christ in the supper vvas not figuratiue, which is the ouer­throw of the foundation of all sacramentall buildinge.

32. And heere yow must note by the way, that Fox doth not crowne the head of this syllogisme with any Baroco, or Bocardo in the Fox angry vvith a syllo­gisme. margent, as he is commonly wont to do with the rest, for that yt pleased him not. Wherfore [...]o leaue him, we shall passe to Doctor Cranmer himselfe, whose aunswere yow shall heare in his owne words: I aunswere (saith he) that these are meere sophismes, for speach doth not vvorke, but Christ by speach doth worke the Sacrament, I looke for scriptures at your hands for they are the foundation of [...]isputations. So he. And yow may see by this [Page 288] his speach, that he was entangled, and would gladly be ridde of that he had graunted, for that both the maior and minor propositions were of his owne grauntinge, and the sillo­gisme good both in moode and forme, though the conclusion troubled both him and Fox, and the refuge whervnto both of them do runne in this necessity, the one in the text, the other in the margent, is very fond, sayinge [...] that not the speach of Ghrist, but Christ did vvorke, as though any man would say, that a speach worketh, but by the vertue of the speaker: and consequently yf Christ do worke by a figura­tiue speach, then doth a figuratiue speach worke by his power and vertue, and so wa [...] yt fondy graunted by Cranmer before, that the figuratiue speach of Christ, in institutinge the Sacrament (for of that was the question) did not worke; and yt is a simple euasion now, to runne from Christs speach to Christ himselfe as though there could be a diuersity; euery man may see these are but euasions.

33. But now further Doctor Yonge refuted lar­gely this assertion, that Christs speach worketh not out of diuers and sundry plaine testimonyes o [...] the Fathers, which there openly he caused to be read and namely S. Ambrose, as well in hi [...] booke de initiandis, as de Sacramentis, where he handleth this matter of purpose, to proue that the speach of Christ in the Sacrament, to wit [...] hoc est corpus meum, did worke & conuert brea [...] and wyne into flesh and bloud, and prouet [...] the same by many other exāples of scriptures [Page 289] Sermo Christi (saith he) [...] nihilo facere, Amb. de e [...] qui initian­tur. [...]nd non erat, non pot [...]st ea, qu [...] sunt in id mutare, quae [...]n erant? ‘The speach of Christ which was able to make of nothing that, which was not before, shall yt not be able to change those things that were before, into things that are not? And to the same effect in his booke de Sa­cramentis: Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit Sacramen­tum; Ambr. l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. Qui sermo? nempè is, &c. Therfore the speach of Christ doth make this Sacrament; but what speach? to witt, that wherby all things were created: the Lord commaunded and heauen was made, the Lord cōmaunded & earth was made, the Lord cōmaunded & the seas were made, &c.’ Vides ergò quàm operatorius sit sermo Christi: si ergò tanta vis est in sermone Domini, vt inci­ [...]rent esse quae non erant; quanto magis operatorius erit, [...] sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur? Yow see S. Ambrose most cleere against Cranmer and F [...]x. 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 [...]eated; Wherfore to answere yow I say, that it was not the body of Christ before consecra­tion, but after cōsecration, I say vnto thee, that now yt is the body of Christ. So S. Ambrose.

34. And heere now (good reader) I doubt [Page 290] 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 S. Ambrose corrected by Fox. 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 [Page 291] 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 Hovv Cranmer shifteth of Saint Am­brose. 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 Fox pag. 1308 col. 1. num. 7 [...]. 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 [Page 292] 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 Ambr. l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. 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 Sacramēt, 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 Ambr. l. 6. de Sacram. cap. 1. 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 [Page 293] 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 [...]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, The testi­mony of S. Iustine examined. 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 [...]e taught, that the meate consecrated by the vvord of prayer instituted by him (vvherby our bloud Iustin. Apol. 2. and flesh are nourished by communion) is the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus, that was made flesh. Out of which place they vrged; that as Christ is truly and really incarnate, so is he truly and really in the Sacrament, accordinge to S. Iustinus, and that our flesh and bloud is nourished by that communion, and consequently in Saint Iustinus tyme, yt was not held that Christs body was receaued only by faith.

38. The words of Saint Irenaeus were vrged in like manner, he being another Martyr of the same age with S. Iustine, who wryteth thus: [Page 294] Eum calicem, qui est ex creatura, suum corpus confir­mauit, Iren. lib. 5. cap. 2. cont. haeres. ex quo nostra auget corpora, &c. This is the cupp, which being a creature, he confirmed to be his body, by which he encreaseth our bo­dyes, when both the cupp mixed & the bread broken, hath ioyned to yt the word of God, yt is made the Eucharist of the body & bloud of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is encreased and consisteth. By which words the said Doctors proued, that the flesh and bloud of Christ was otherwise held by S. Ire­naeus to be in the Sacrament, and receaued by vs, than only by faith, seing our bodyes also are nourished therwith; yea the very substance of our flesh is encreased and consisteth therby, as his words are. To all which Cranmer had no other aunswere, but his old shift, that the Sacrament of the body and bloud, vvas called the flesh and bloud of Christ though really yt be not. And from this he could not be drawne: And so finally the tyme drawinge late, they vrged him there Diuers corruptiōs obiected to Cran­mer. publikely with certayne falsityes, vsed in his booke against the reall presence, and besides those that had byn obiected before, as for ex­ample. Doctor Chadsey obiected a manifest cor­ruption in translatinge the foresaid place of S. Iustine, which Cranmer excused no other­wise, but that he translated not Iustine word Fox pag. [...]309. for word, but only gaue the meaninge; but the other, as also Doctor Harpesfield, shewed that he peruerted the whole meaninge, and so yt is euident to him that readeth Iustine.

39. Doctor VVeston obiected a place corrupted [Page 295] in Emissenus by putting in the word spiritualibus, Cranmer aunswered, that yt was so in the de­crees, Doctor VVeston replyed, that he had left out diuers lynes of purpose, vvhich made against him in Emissenus for the reall presence, Cranmer aunswereth: this booke hath not that. VVeston obiected another place falsified, where for Honora corpus Dei tui, honour the body of thy God, to witt of Christ, Cranmer had translated yt thus: honour him vvhich is thy God. Wherto he answered, that he did it not without a weigh­ty cause, that men should not thinke that God had a body. Doctor VVeston obiected also, that alleaginge a sentence out of Scotus, he had left out a clause, that made much to the pur­pose in the matter handled, to witt secundum apparentiam, as may appeare. Cranmer answered iestingly: that is a great offence I promise yow. Ano­ther place in like manner was obiected, as peruerted by him in Scotus words, as also one or two in S. Thomas, Aquinas, wherto I find no aunswere; but disputation is broken vp with this cry of the auditory, in fauour of the Ca­tholike party, vicit veritas, the truth hath had the victory; and with this we shall also end this first disputation against Cranmer, hauinge byn forced to be longer then we purposed at the beginninge, & therfore we shalbe so much the shorter, yf it may be, in that which ensueth with Ridley and Latymer.

Out of the Disputation with D. Ridley in the same dininity-schoole at Ox­ford, the next day after Cranmer, to witt, the 17. of Aprill 1554. §. 3.

40. The next day followinge (saith Fox) was brought forth Doctor Ridley to defend in the same questions of the r [...]all presence, Tran­substantiation, and Sacrifice; against whome Do­ctor Smith was the first and principall oppo­nent, for which cause Fox, before he begin­neth D. Smith opponent. to relate the combatt, maketh a particu­lar inuectiue against him, for that he had byn vnconstant in Religion, the simple fellow not consideringe that yf yt had byn true; yet that the same might be obiected with much more reason, against these his cheefe champions, Cranmer, Ridley and Latymer, that had byn Ca­tholike Priests for many yeares togeather; But Fox his great anger against Doctor Smith was, [...]on that he pressed hardly B. Ridley in his dispu­tation, and so did Doctor VVeston also, as after yow shall see, for that vpon all occasions he came in with Vrge hoc, vrge hoc; but for the rest Ridley vvas most courteously vsed by them both and offered to haue his opinions taken in wrytinge, and that he should haue space till saturday after to consider of them, and that vvhat bookes soeuer he vvould demaund, [Page 297] should be deliuered to him, and that he might Tvvo no­taryes chosen. choose any two of the whole company to be his seuerall notaryes, and he tooke Maister Iohn Iewell afterward made B. of Salisbury by Q. Eli­zabeth, Fox pag. 1311. and Maister Gilbert Monson, that had byn notaryes vnto B. Cranmer the day before.

41, But the greatest difference, and difficul­ty fell out, for that Ridley hauing brought thi­ther with him his opinion, and large explica­tion thereof already wrytten, would needs read the same openly to the whole auditory, which was penned in such bitter, spitefull & blasphemous termes, with such abhominable scoffes, and raylinge contemptuous speach, against the sacred mysteryes, and the vse ther­of, as the commissionars were often-tymes forced to interrupt him, and commaund him to sylence, or to begin disputation, neyther wherof would he do, but with an obstinate face go foreward in readinge his declarations, whervpon, Doctor VVeston callinge vnto him said, as Fox relateth: Yow vtter blasphemyes vvith Fox pag. 1312. an impudent face. Wherfore finally they made him breake of, promisinge that they would read & ponder all themselues, not being con­uenient to infect mens eares with publike readinge therof, but that he might defend the fame, as occasion should be offered in his an­swers and disputations.

42. The first argument brought against him by Doctor Smith was, for ouerthrowinge that principall foundation of the Sacramentary heresie [...] Christs body is inheauen, ergò yt is not in the [Page 298] Sacrament. Wherof yow haue heard often be­fore, for that both Peter Martyr alleaged yt, as a The first argument about Christs being in many places. cheefe fortresse of their faith, though Philipp Melancthon, that is a Calendar-saint togeather with Peter Martyr, as before yow haue heard, did say, that he had rather offer himselfe vp to death, then to affirme vvith the Sacramentaryes, that Christs body cannot be but in one place at once. And this was See of Me­lancthon supra mens [...] Decomb. a principall ground also of Iohn Lambert, bur­ned for Sacramentary opinions vnder K. Hen­ry the eyght, against whome Doctor Cranmer, then Archbishopp of Canterbury, was the first and cheefest disputer after the King, and spe­cially tooke vpon him to confute this reason of Lambert as vayne and false, and contrary to scripture, as before yow haue heard in the sto­ry of Lambert. And the same reasons, and ar­guments, which Cranmer 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 l [...]t to his reall presence in the Sacrament. The antecedent he Act. 9. & 26. 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 [Page 299] Christ vp to heauen, that he may not come into earth at Fox pag. 1314. col. 2. num. 28. 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 Matth. 14. Act. 3. Coloss. 3. 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, Fox pag▪ 1261. 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 [Page 300] 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, Fox pag. 1315. col. 1. [...]. 40. 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 [Page 301] 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. Chrysost. hom. 17. in [...]p. ad Hebr. ‘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 [Page 302] 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 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, [Page 303] not that the sacrifices be all one and the same.

47. Marke now heere gentle reader, what An obser­uation of Ridleyes shifts vpō one place only of S. Chryso­stome. 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 circumscriptiō, 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 vb [...]quity being a [Page 304] 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 s [...]teth yt downe for a wonderfull strange and admirable matter, [Page 305] 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. Bern. s [...]r [...], de Cana D [...]. ‘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 Fox pag. 1315. 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) [Page 306] 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 Rid­leye [...] three aunswers to this place of Saint Bernard.

50. After this Doctor Smith vrged him againe vvith another place of S. Chrysostome, where he Another place of S. Chryso­stome vr­ged about Elias. 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 Chrysost. hom. 2. ad Pop. An­ [...]ch. with him: Helias quidem melotcm discipulo reliquit; [Page 307] 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, Chrysost. l. 3. de. Sa­c [...]rdoti [...]. 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 auo [...]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 [Page 308] 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 Chrysost. hom. 2. ad Pop. An­tioch. 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 [Page 309] 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, Fox pag. 1317. col. 1, num. 80. that Christ carryed vp vvith him, &c. Whervnto Ridley answered after his fashion: yt is the same bloud, but spiritually receaued. Then vrged he Sain [...] 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 [Page 310] 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 e [...]t the same behind him, in that he left vs behind him, Tvvo pluckes of Philpott praysed by Fox. 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 [Page 311] 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, The ab­surdityes of Philpott. 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 s [...]rewdly shake our reall pre­sence, Fox pag. 1294. 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 M. VVard disputeth. D. Ridley to haue 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 Fox pag. 1317. 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 [Page 312] 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, Theoph. comment. in 36. Matth. 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: Theoph. in [...]ap. 6. Ioan. 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 [Page 313] passe ouer diuers other places, as that of Ter­tullian, acceptum panem corpus suum illud fecit: he Tert. lib. 4. cont. Mar­cion. 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. Iust. Mart. in Ap [...]l. 2. And that of S. Augustine vpon the Psalme; Aug. in Psalm. 96. 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 D. Glyns argument about vvorship­pinge the Sacramēt. 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 Fox pag. 1319. all scriptures & fathers. And Ridley answered: this is a greeuous contumely, that yow call me a shifter, &c. [Page 314] 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 Aug. cont. Faust. Ma­nich l. 20. cap. 13. 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, Erasm. in ep. ad frat. Infer. G [...]r [...]. 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, [Page 315] 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 D. Curtopp argued. 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 Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. 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 Fox pag. 1319. 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 Sacrament, vvhich is spoken of the thing [Page 316] of the Sacrament. At which aunswere D. VVeston being moued, as yt seemed, argued in English (saith Fox) thus: That vvhich is in the chalice is the same that flowed out of Christs▪ side, but there came out very true bloud, ergò there is very true bloud in the chalice. Ridley. The bloud of Christ is in the chalice in deed, but not in the reall presence, but by grace and in a Sacrament. Weston. That is very vvell; then vve haue bloud in the chalice. Ridley. Yt is true, but by grace, and in a Sacrament; and heere the people hissed at him, (saith Fox) wherat Ridley said: O my maisters I take this for no iudgement, I will stand to Gods iudgement. This was his last refuge and further then this, nothinge could be had at his hands.

58. There rose vp after this Doctor VVatson, D. VVatson disputeth. who after a long altercation with Ridley, whe­ther after consecration the Sacrament might be called true bread: Ridley alleaged this place of S. Paul. The bread which we breake, is yt not a com­munication 1. Cor. 11. of the body of Christ? As though yt had made for him. But VVatson brought S. Chryso­stomes expositiō: Quare non dixit participationē &c. VVherfore did not S. Paul say heere, that yt is the par­ticipation (of Christs body) but the communication? Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 11. because he would signify some greater matter, & that he vvould declare a great conuenience betwene the same, for that vve do not communicate by participation only & receauing, but by co-vniting or vnion; for euen as the body is co-vnited to Christ; so also are we by the same bread conioyned and vnited to him. Out of which place of S. Chrysostome, yt appeareth euidently, that his bele [...]fe was; that as his body and flesh [Page 317] was really vnited to his person, so are we vn­to him in flesh, by eatinge the same in the Sa­crament, which is another manner of vnion then by faith and generall only. But to this lett vs heare Ridleyes aunswere in his owne words: Ridleye. Let Chrysostome haue his manner of speakinge, and his sentence, yf yt be true, I reiect yt Fox pag. 1320. not, but lett yt not be preiudiciall to me, to name yt bread. So he. And thus was S. Chrysostome shif­ted of, neyther admitted, nor fully reiected; but if he spake truly, then was he to be credited, which was a courteous kind of reiection; for Ridley would haue the reader beleeue, that he spake not truly. And so much for him.

59. And so when nothinge more could be gotten by Doctor VVatson from Maister Ridley in this argument, Doctor Smith stepped in to him againe, and vrged a place of S. Augustine vpon the thirty and third Psalme: Ferebatur in mani­bus suis, &c. He was carryed in his owne hands, applyed by S. Austen to Christ: his words are: Hoc quo modo fieri possit in homine, quis intelligat? 1. Reg. 21. Who can vnderstand how this can be done by a man? for that no man is borne by his owne hands, but by other mens hands, neyther can vve find how this Aug. in Psalm. 33▪ contion. 1. was fullfilled literally in K. Dauid, but by Christ we find it fullfilled, for that Christ was borne in his owne hands, when he said this is my body, for he did become that bo­dy in his owne hands, &c. And againe in another sermon vpon the same place, he repeateth a­gaine the very same thinge sayinge: How vvas Christ borne in his owne hands? for that vvhen he did Aug. ibid. cont. 2. [...] commend vnto vs his body and bloud, he tooke into his [Page 318] hands that vvhich the faithfull knew, and so he bare himselfe after a certayne manner, vvhen he said this is my body. Out of which places appeareth eui­dently, that S. Augustine beleeued, that Christ after the words of consecration vttered, did beare his owne body in his hands, and that this in his iudgement was so miraculous a thinge, as neyther King Dauid, nor any other mortall man could do yt, but only Christ, which yet is not so in a figure (for euery man may beare a figure of his owne body in his hands) and furthermore yt is cleere by these authorityes, and by those words (nôrunt fideles) that this was the beleefe by all faithfull people of S. Austens tyme. Which argument being much vrged against Maister Ridley, both by Do­ctor Smith and others, he sought to declyne the force therof dyuers-wayes, as saying first; that S. Augustine vvent from others in this exposition, (but yet named none) and then, that this place of scripture vvas read otherwise of other men, accordinge to the hebrew text, & other like euasions, which yet proue not (as yow see) but that Saint Austen was of this opinion and beleefe himselfe, (which is the question in this place) and after all this he passed to his ordinary refuge, that Christ bare himselfe sacramentally only, and not other­vvise; layinge hands, for some shew of reason, vpon the word quodammodò vsed in the second place by S. Austen, that is, after a certayne manner. And when it was replied to him, that S. Austen vsed that word, to shew the different manner of his being in the Sacrament, and out of the [Page 319] Sacrament, but that otherwayes all parts and circumstances of S. Austens speach do shew, that he beleeued Christ to haue holden really, and truly his owne body and flesh in his hands, they could gett no other aunswere from him but this: He did beare himselfe, but in a Sacrament. Fox pag. 1321. Wherat men maruaylinge, Doctor Smith said: Yow are holden fast, nor are ye able to escape out of this labyrinth. And then began Doctor Tressam to pray for him with a sollemne prayer, which being ended he said: Yf there were an Arrian heere that had this subtile witt, that yow haue, he might soone shift of the scriptures, and Fathers as yow doe. Wher­at Doctor VVeston, seeming vnwilling that tyme should be spent in prayinge and not in dispu­tinge, said: eyther dispute, or hould your peace I pray yow. And with this they passed to another di­sputation, vvhether euill men do receaue the true body of Christ or not: But S. Austens authority of bea­ringe himselfe in his hands, gatt no other so­lution, but that Christ bare himselfe in his hands, that is the figure or representation of himselfe, which neither Dauid, nor other mor­tall man could do: At which absurdity most of the audience did laugh.

60. But concerninge the other questions, vvhether eu [...]ll men do receaue Christ, Doctor Tressam D. Tressam disputeth. brought two or three places out of S. Austen concerninge Iudas, that he eat the true body of Christ, as the other Apostles did, and then againe of wicked men in generall: Quia aliquis Aug. lib [...]. cont D [...]nat. cap. [...]. non ad salutem manducat, non ideò non est corpus: be­cause some do not eate to saluation, yt fol­loweth [Page 320] not therfore, that yt is not his body: but to all this Maister Ridley aunswered by his former shift, that yt is the body to them, that is, the Sacrament of the body. Do yow see the fond eua­sion? there was no doubt or question whether euill-men did eat the Sacrament, or externall forme, (for euery man doth eat that, when they receaue) but the question was and is of the true body: and therfore when Saint Austen speaketh of this body, yt is madnes to vnder­stand yt of any other thinge, then the reall body. But lett vs heare what was replyed: Doctor VVeston said: I bringe Theophilact against yow: Iudas (saith he) gustauit carnem Domini: Iudas did eate or tast the flesh of Christ. Rid­ley. Fox ibid. num. 49. That is the Sacrament of the Lords flesh. Doctor VVatson replyed out of the Councell of Nice: Exaltata mente fideliter credamus, iacere in illa sacramensa Concil Ni­co [...] primum tit. de diui­na m [...]nsa, &c. vlt [...]m. editionis. agnum Dei tollentem peccata mundi, a sacerdo­tibus sacrificatum. ‘Let vs faithfully beleeue with an exalted mynd, that there lyeth in the holy table the lambe of God, that taketh away the sinnes of the world, which is sacrificed by the Priests.’ Ridley. That Councell vvas collected out of auncient Fathers, and is to me of great authority, &c. Fox ibid. the vvords make for me: the lambe of God is in heauen accordinge to the verity of the body, and heere he is with vs in a mystery accordinge to his power, not corporally. Watson. But the lambe of God lyeth on the table. Ridley. Yt is a figuratiue speach, for in our mynd vve vnderstand him vvhich is in heauen. Watson. But he lyeth there, the Greeke vvord is KEÎTA. Ridley. He lyeth there, that is, he is there present, not corporally, [Page 321] but he lyeth there in his operation, &c. And by this Fox pag. 1321. yow may see, to what purpose yt was to di­spute with this man; for that God by his power and operation is euery where, and in euery creature. And yf Christ be no other­wise heere, but by his power and operation, as in baptisme, what an impertinency is this of the Councell of Nice, to vse so many and si­gnificant words, that vve must faithfully beleeue vvith a high mynd and courage, against sense and reason, that the lambe of God lyeth on the table sacri­ficed by Priests, and the like; Is there any Prote­stant that speaketh thus▪ or can the like words be verified in the Protestants communion, of signes, figures, representations and symbolls?

61. Lastly to skipp ouer diuers other things, Doctor VVeston pressed him with two other places of S. Chrysostome, so cleere, as nothinge can be spoken more cleerer. The first is in these words: vve vvorshipp the selfe [...] same body in the E [...]charist vvhich the vvise men did vvorshipp in the manger. And then againe: vve haue not heere the Lord in the manger, but on the Altar; heere a vvoman Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. ad Cor. holdeth him not in her hands, but a Priest. These are the words. Let vs heare his answere. Ridley. I graunt the Priest holdeth the same thinge, but after another manner. She did hold the naturall body, the Priest holdeth the mystery of the body. So hee. And Fox wryteth in the margent. The s [...]me thinge, Fox pag. 1322. but the manner diuerse. But who seeth not, that our contention is about the thing, and not the manner; for we teach also that the manner of Christs being in the Sacrament, is different [Page 322] from the manner of his being in heauen, but the thinge really is all one. And so yf Ridley do graunt the same thinge to be holden by the Priest hands, which the blessed virgin held in Ridloy in vvords vvil seeme to agree. her hands, as heere yow see him graunt in words, then the controuersie betweene vs and him is ended. But presently he leapeth from his graunt againe, sayinge she did hold the naturall body, and the Priest holdeth the mystery of the body, which are different things, and not only different manners of hol­dinge. Wherefore Doctor VVeston repeatinge againe this argument out of S. Chrysostome to the multitude in English (saith Iohn Fox) and consideringe the manner of Ridleyes aunswe­ringe, and that nothinge more could be had of him, he dissolued the disputation in these words: Videtis praefracti hominis animunt, gloriosum, vafrum, inconstantem, &c. Yow see the stub­borne, vauntinge, deceytfull, and inconstant mynd of this man. And with this Encomion departed Doctor Ridley to his prison againe, and the other Doctors each man to their owne lodginges.

Out of the Disputations with M. Hugh Latimer, togeather with the con­clusion of the whole triall in this article. §. 4.

64. Vpon the third day being wednesday [Page 323] the 18. of Aprill, was brought forth Maister Hugh Latymer to aunswere as the former had done, but the disputation was much more shorter then the other, and in English, for Mai­ster Latymer (saith Fox) alleaged that he vvas out of vse vvith Latyn, and vnfitt for that place. He gaue Fox pag. 1323. vp his confession about the three articles in wrytinge, after the imitation of Cranmer and Ridley, full of scoffes and bitter taunts, as his veyne was, and rested most vpon the masse, and the foure marrow-bones therof (for so blasphe­mously he called them) which were (for­sooth) Latymers 4. morrovv. bones of the masse. consecration, transubstantiation, oblation, and adoration, of all which yow haue heard the an­cient Fathers speaches before, how different they are from these of Latymer, as was also their spiritt.

63. The first entrance to talke betwene Mai­ster Latymer, and the Doctors was, for that he sayinge in his wrytinge, that nothinge was to be receaued concerning the Sacramēt, which was not expressely sett downe in the institu­tion of Christ, Doctor VVeston inferred, that then weomen must not receaue the commu­nion, for that no expresse mention is made in scripture of their receauinge; and when Laty­mer aunswered, that S. Paul said: Probet autem seipsum homo, which signifieth said he both men and weomen, yt was replyed, that in Greeke yt was anthropos that was proper to man, &c. Then Doctor VVeston asked him, how longe he had byn of this opinion? he said about some seauen yeares (he being more then seauenty [Page 324] of age) and that my L. of Canterburyes booke had specially confirmed his iudgement therin. And yf (quoth he) I could remember all therin con­teyned, I vvould not feare to aunswere any man in this matter. So he. And many tymes after he ran still to this booke of Cranmer. My Lord of Can­terburyes booke (saith he to an argument of Doctor Cartwright) handleth this very vvell, and by him could Fox pag. 1325. I aunswere yow, yf I had him. And againe in ano­ther place to another argument. The solution of this (saith he) is in my Lord of Canterbury his booke. And yet further to another. I remember I haue Latymer foundeth himselfe on Cranmers booke. read this in my Lord of Canterburyes booke. Wherto Doctor Tressam aunswered, that there are in that booke six hundred lyes, but Latymer replyed no­thinge, &c.

64. Then said Doctor VVeston: Yow vvere once a Lutheran. Latimer. No I vvas a Papist, for I could neuer perceaue how Luther could desend his opinion, vvithout transubstantiation. The Tygurines once did vvryte a booke against Luther, and I oft desired God that he might liue so longe as to make them aunswere. So he, wherby is seene, that he fauoured Lu­ther more then the Tygurines at that tyme, for that he would haue had them aunswered. But Doctor VVeston said further: Luther in his booke de priuata missa, testifieth that the diuell reasoned vvith L [...]h. l. de inissa Priua­ [...]a fol. 14. Contigit him, and persuaded him that the masse vvas not good, vvherby yt appeareth that Luther said masse, and the diuell dissuaded him from yt. Latimer. I do not take in hand heere to desend Luthers sayings or doings: ys he vvere heere, he vvould desend himselfe vvell inough I trow. So Latymer, leauinge Luther to him­selfe, [Page 325] but Fox will needs defend him with this marginall note sayinge: In that booke, the diuell Fox pag. 1324. doth not dissuade him so much from sayinge masse, as to bring him to desperation for sayinge masse, such tempta­tions many tymes happen to good men.

65. And will yow consider the grauity and verity of this note; first he saith that the di­uell did not so much dissuade him from say­inge masse, as to bringe him to desperation: then somewhat he did dissuade him, though Iohn Fox excuseth the diuell and accu­seth Lu­ther. not so much as to the other; which I beleeue, for that the one was his damnation, and his leauinge of masse was but the way to yt. Se­condly yf the diuell did endeauour to bringe Luther to desperation for sayinge of masse, he must needs persuade him first, that the masse was naught, as yf he would draw a man to desperation for vsing almes deeds, he must first persuade him, that almes-deeds are naught and wicked, and as wise a man as he should shew himselfe, that at the diuells per­suasion will beleeue that almes-deeds were naught, and leaue the same; so were Luther & Latymer as wise to beleeue this suggestion of the diuell against the masse. And where Fox saith, that such temptations of the diuell do happen The di­uells im­pugningo of the masse as euill, pro­ueth yt to be God. many tymes to good-men. I graunt yt, but not that euer any good man did yeld therevnto, or iudge a thinge euill, for that the diuell did say yt was naught, but rather to the contrary, his impugnation of yt is alwayes a signe, that the thing is good and pleasinge to almighty God, whose aduersary the diuell is; yea the greater [Page 326] his impugnation is, the better must we pre­sume the thing to be, and consequently when he would make the masse to seeme so hey­nous a thinge to Luther, as that he should be damned for sayinge the same, yt is a good proofe that the masse is an excellent thing, & displeaseth the diuell, and that Luther and his followers leauing to say masse, do please much the diuell in followinge his suggestion therin, as good and obedient children, to so holy a ghostly Father, and so to him we leaue them.

66. There followeth, that albeit Latymer was loath to dispute, yet some few arguments were cast forth against him, but all in English, for so he would haue yt. And first Maister Do­ctor Tressam alleaged an authority of Saint Hila­ry, affirminge a naturall vnity to be in vs with Christ by eatinge his flesh. Which place, for that yt was alleaged before against his fellowes, I will not stand much vpon yt, but only note this mans euasion: Latymer. I can not speake Latyn so longe, &c. But as for the words (saith he) of Hilary, I thinke they make not so much for yow: but he that should an­swere the Doctors, had not neede to be in my case, but should haue them in a readyness, and know their pur­pose: Melancthon saith, that yf the Doctors had forseene, that they should haue byn so taken in this controuersie, they vvould haue vvrytten more plainly. This was his answere, and more then this yow shall not find, and in this, there is a notable imposture of an old deceauer, for that Melancthon being of opposite opinion to him in this article, and wrytinge a whole worke of the Doctors sen­tences [Page 327] for proofe of the reall-presence, against the Sacramentaryes, as in his Mens [...] Decembri. life we haue shewed, what he speaketh of this mystakinge the Fathers and Doctors, he speaketh expres­sely of the Sacramentaryes, and not of those that defend the reall-presence, which he also, being a Lutheran, defended, and affirmeth plainly that all the Fathers are of the same opinion, though yf they had foreseene, that such heretiks, as are the Sacramentaryes, would haue risen vp, and haue wrested their words and meaning (as yow haue heard both Cranmer, Ridley, and Latymer to haue done) they would haue spoken more plainly in the con­trouersie, though hardly they could haue spo­ken more cleerly against them. And by this first entrance, yow may marke the plaine dea­linge of old Father Latymer.

67. Doctor Seaton Vice-chauncelour of Cam­bridge, seing these sleights of the old fellow, be­ginneth thus with him: I know your learninge vvoll inough, and how subtile yow be: I will vse a few Fox pag. 1325. vvords vvith yow out of S. Cyprian, vvho saith, that the old Testament doth forbidd the drinkinge of bloud, and D. Seatons argument Cypr. de Can. Dom. the new Testament doth commaund the drinkinge of bloud. Out of which words he framed this ar­gument. That yt vvas true and reall bloud, vvhich the old Testament forbadd to drinke, ergò yt is true and reall bloud vvhich the new Testament commaundeth to drinke; for that otherwise the antithesis or oppo­sition of the two Testamēts in this point can not hold, yf the one forbidd the true drinking of true and reall bloud, and the other com­maundeth [Page 328] the figuratiue drinking of spirituall bloud by faith, for that these things are oppo­site, and that the Iewes also in the old [...]esta­ment did drinke Christs bloud by faith, &c. To which argument Latymer aunswered no­thinge in effect, but this; vve do tast true bloud, Fox pag. 1325. but spiritually, and this is inough. And then proueth he the same by those words of S. Augustine be­fore aunswered by vs; crede & manducusti; be­leeue, Aug. tract. 25. in Ioan. & thou hast eaten, as though the words credere and edere, were all one in the scriptures. Whervpon Doctor VVeston recyted a story that passed betwene Maister Hooper and B. Gardener; for when Hooper would needs hould, that to cate was to beleue, and that an Altar signified Christ in the scriptures, B. Gardener inferred, ergò, when S. Paul saith to the Hebrewes, that vve haue an Altar, vvherof the Ieuwes must not eat: the Heb. 13. sense is, vve haue Christ; in whome the Iewes must not beleeue. And after this he retourne [...] to presse Latymer strongly againe vpon this place of S. Cyprian; sayinge: that is comusaunded in the new S. Cyprians Place vr­ged by D. VVeston. Testament, vvhich is forbidden in the ould, but true bloud vvas forbidden in the old, ergò true bloud also is commaunded to be drunken in the new. Whervnto Latymer aunsweringe twise, vttered two con­traryes: for first his words are: It is true as tou­chinge Fox pag. 1325. col. 1. num. 27. the matter; but not as touchinge the manner of the thinge, where he graunteth (as yow see) that true bloud is meant in both Testament, but the manner of drinkinge is different, which also we graunt & teach: but heare his second aunswere vpon the other instance.

[Page 329] 68. Weston. The old Testament doth forbidd the tastinge of bloud, but the new doth commaund yt. La­tymer. Fox ibid. num. 70. It is true, not as touchinge the thinge, but as touchinge the manner therof. Before he said: yt is true touchinge the matter, but not touchinge the manner; now he saith; yt is true touching the manner and not touchinge the thinge: so as yf the thinge and matter be all one, as yt is, he speaketh contraryes. Whervpon Doctor VVeston opened the whole argument to the people in English, and the absurdity of his answere, but Latymer replyed againe and againe; that true bloud vvas commaunded spiritually to be dronken in the new Testament. Whervnto one Doctor Pye re­plyed, D. Pye disputeth. and obiected, that yt was not forbid­den to be dronken spiritually in the old law: for that (saith he) they drinke spiritually Christs bloud in the old law, ergò, the drinkinge therof in the new must be more then only spirituall. To this Latymer aunswered, the substance of bloud is dronken, but not in one manner. So as heere yow see, he graun­teth also the substance of bloud to be dron­ken, though in a different manner from that of the old Testament. But being pressed by the said Doctor Pye, that we require not the same manner of drinkinge bloud in the new law, which was forbidden in the old; but on­ly that yt is as really and truly bloud, as the other was; his finall aunswere and resolution is this, It is the same thinge, but not the same manner, I haue no more to say. Heere then is his last deter­termination, and consider I pray yow the sub­stance therof; yf yt be the same thinge, then [Page 330] must yt needs be really and truly bloud; for this is the thinge or matter wherof the que­stion is, for that otherwayes we know that the bloud forbidden in the old Testament, is meant the bloud of beasts, and the bloud com­maunded in the new, is meant of the bloud of Christ; So as in this, Latymer cannot graunt them to be one thinge, but only in the realli­ty and truth of bloud, that is, as the one is true and reall bloud of beasts: so is the other true and reall bloud of Christ; which yf he graunt (as heere in words he doth) then cannot the different manner of drinkinge the same alter the substance of the thinge yt selfe; or yf yt do, then is yt false, that yt is the same thinge; and so euery way is ould Latymer taken, but lett vs passe foreward.

69. Doctor VVeston to confirme the reallity of Christs bloud, receaued in the Sacrament, al­leaged another place of S. Chrysostome, where Chrysost. serm. de Prodit. Iudae. talkinge of Iudas he saith, Christus ei sangninem quem vendidit offerebat. Christ gaue him (in the Sacrament, to witt, to Iudas) the bloud which he had sould. Can any thinge be playner spo­ken. Latymer answered: he gaue to Iudas his bloud, in a Sacrament, and by this thinketh he hath said some what to the purpose, wheras indeed he saith nothinge. For we say also, that he gaue him his bloud in a Sacrament, as we say, that we giue wyne in a cuppe, but this exclu­deth not the reality of the bloud, no more then the giuinge in a cupp, or vnder a veyle, taketh away the true reality of the wyne; yet is this [Page 331] the common hole for Sacramentaryes to runne out at, when they are pressed; for both they and we do agree, that Christs bloud is giuen in the Sacrament vnder a signe sacra­mentally, and the like phrases; but the diffe­rence betweene vs is, that we by this do not exclude the truth & reality of the thing therin conteyned, as they do, & therby delude both themselues and others, speakinge in such sort, as they cannot be vnderstood, but only that a man may easily vnderstand, that they seeke therby euasions, and wayes to slipp out at.

70. I passe ouer diuers other authorityes of Fathers alleaged by the Doctors, as those words of S. Cyrill: Per communionem corporis Chri­sti, Cyrill. l. 10▪ in cap. 13. Ioan. habitat in nobis Christus corporaliter. By the communion of Christs body, he dwelleth in vs corporally, ergò, not spiritually only and by faith. Latymer aunswered; first that (corporally) hath another vnderstandinge, then yow do grossely take Fox pag. 1325. yt. And then being pressed againe, he said: The solution of this is in my Lord of Canterburyes booke. So he. But Fox not contented, (as it seemeth) with this aunswere, putteth downe a larger, though without an author, wherby we may conceaue yt to be his owne. Corporally (saith he) is to be taken heere in the same sense, that S. Paul saith, the fullnes of diuinity to duuell corporally in Christ, that is, not lighty, nor accidentally, but perfectly & substantially, &c. Which answere yf Fox will stand vnto we are agreed; for we require no more but that Christ by the communion of his body in the Sacrament, doth dwell per­fectly [Page 332] and substantially in vs, for that impor­teth also really, as the fullnesse of diuinity is really in Christ incarnate, and not by vnion only of will, as the Arrians said, and as our Sa­cramentaryes do talke of Christs vnion only by faith in vs. And lett the reader note by the way Iohn Fox his witt, & deepe diuinity, who knowinge not what he saith, graunteth by this example more then we require; for he graunteth the same substantiall vnity to be betweene Christ and our soule, which is be­tweene Christs diuinity, and his humanity; which is false; ours being accidentall and se­parable; the other substantiall & inseparable, for that yt is hypostaticall. But these thinges Iohn had not learned, and so we pardon him, and do returne to Latymer againe, who being vrged hardly by Doctor Smith about Saint Cyrills words; that Christ by communion of his bo­dy in the Sacrament dwelleth corporally in vs, er­gò, not only spiritually by faith; he aunswered: I say both that he dwelleth in vs spiritually, and corporally, spiritually by faith, and corporally by takinge our flesh vpon him; for I remember that I haue read this in my Lord of Canterburyes booke. Heere now yow see another shift different from that of Fox, au­thorised by my L. of Canterburyes booke, but shaken of by S. Cyrills booke, which saith ex­pressely as yow haue heard, that Christ dwelleth in vs corporally by the communion of his body in the Sa­crament, and talketh not of the incarnation.

71. Wherfore Doctor VVeston seing that more could not be had of Latymer in this point, he [Page 333] passed to another matter, which was to deale with him about the Sacrifice of che masse. In scof­finge against which, Latymers grace, or dis­grace rather and sinne, did principally con­sist; and so alleaginge many auncient Fathers authorityes against him for this purpose, and reading the places at length, hauing the books there present, Latymer was quickly dryuen to a non-plus, as may appeare by Fox his owne narration, though he setteth yt downe like a Fox indeed, suppressinge all the particulars of the said places, but only the names of the au­thors, and the first words of the texts, and not them also in all. And then toucheth he the aunswers of Latymer, and the Catholike Do­ctors replyes so brokenly and confusedly, as may easily shew that he would declyne the tempest of that combatt from Latymers shoul­ders, and not haue the matter vnderstood, in­sinuatinge only some 8. or 9. authorityes al­leaged for proofe of the propitiatory sacrifice, wheras more then 8. or 9. score might haue byn cyted to that effect. And finally though Latymer muttered out two or three particular aunswers heere and there, sayinge; that S. Chry­sostome had Emphaticall locutions, and the like; yet his last rest was sett vpon this; that the Doctors might be deceaued in some points, though not in all things: Wherof Fox well allowinge, maketh this scoffinge comment in the margent, Docto­res legendi sunt cum venia; the Doctors are to be read with pardon, which can haue no other sense, but that eyther we must pardon them [Page 334] when they speake not truth, or we must aske pardon of them, not to beleeue them when we mislike them; for other sense I cannot make of this comentary.

27. Doctor Cole replyed; is it not a shame for an The last colloquiū ▪ vvith Latymer. old man to lye? yow say yow are of the old Fathers faith. Latymer. I am of their faith vvhen they say well, I referre my selfe to my Lord of Caterburyes booke wholy [...] ibid. herin Doctor Smith. Then yow are not of S. Chry­sostomes faith, nor S. Augustines faith. Latymer. I haue said, vvhen they say vvell, and bring scriptures for them, I am of their faith, and further Augustine requi­reth not to be beleeued, &c. Weston. Forty yeares gone, vvhether could yow haue gone to haue found your doctrine? Latym. The more cause we haue to thanke God now, that hath sent the light into the vvorld. Weston. The light? ney light and lewd preachers, &c. remember vvhat they haue bin, that haue bin the be­ginners of your doctrine, none but a few flyinge Aposta­taes, runninge out of Germany, &c. remember vvhat they haue bin, that haue sett forth the same in this realme, a sort of flyinge braines, and light heads, which vvere neuer constant in any one thinge, vvhich vvas well seene in the often alteringe of their communion-booke, and turninge their table one day vvest, and another day east, they gott them a tankerd, and one saith I drinke and am thankefull, the more ioy of thee, saith another, &c. Yow neuer agreed vvith the [...]igurynes of Germa­nie, or vvith your selues, your stubburnesse is of vaine glory, and vve all see by your owne confession, how little cause yow haue to be stubburne, your learninge is in feoffers hold, the Queenes grace is mercifull, if yow vvill returne. Latymer. Yow shall haue no hope in [Page 335] me to returne. And thus ended that dispu­tation.

74. And heere Iohn Fox is very angry with Doctor VVeston for this speach, and for reuenge therof, maketh this note in the margent: Blas­phemous lyes of Doctor VVeston sittinge in the chaire of pestilence, and then presently he maketh the narration of him, which before we haue rela­ted about Vrge hoc, vrge hoc, and in the margent he hath this other Notandum, vrge hoc quod VVe­ston, vvith his beere-pott in his hand: which not­withstandinge is more modest, then yf yt had byn a wyne-pott. And I maruayle much why the wisdome of Fox should obiect this beer­pott so often & eagerly against Doctor VVeston, seeing his owne great chaire, which is yet kept for a relique of his holines in London by the sisters, hath two places made on both sides therof, the one for the Candlesticke, the other for the ale-pott and nutmegges, which Father Fox is said to haue loued well, and so do his wrytings also shew, & yet no Catholike man I thinke hath euer obiected the same vnto him before this, as he doth the beer-pott to Doctor VVeston. But these are trifles. Lett vs passe to more serious considerations.

The Conclusion, with some Conside­rations theron. §. 5.

75. By the re-view then of these three dayes disputations, a coniecture may be made, how [Page 336] matters did passe then, and how they stand at this day betwixt vs and Protestants in these articles of controuersie: Yow haue heard be­fore the great vaunts that Doctor Ridley made in his disputations at Cambridge vnder K. Ed­ward, how euidently forsooth and apparently the truth stood with him and his fellowes, & this vpon siue principall grounds and head-springs Fox pag. 1261. as he calleth them; vvhich are the Maiestie and ve­rity of scriptures; the most certaine testimony of the an­cient Fathers; the definition of a Sacrament; the ab [...]o­minable heresie of Eutiches, and the most sure beleese of the article of our faith; He ascended vp to heauen. B. Cranmer also after that againe in the begin­ninge The vaūts of Ridley & Cranmer hovv vvell perfor­med. of Q. Maryes raigne, settinge forth a cer­tayne vauntinge schedell, which Fox called a Purgation of Thomas Archbishopp Cranmer, hath this chalenge therin: I vvith Peter Martyr (saith he) and other foure or fiue vvhich I shall choose, vvill by Fox pag. 1261. Gods grace take vpon vs to desend all the doctrine and Religion, sett [...]orth by our soueraigne Lord K. Edward the sixth to be more pure, and accordinge to Gods word, then any other that hath bin vsed in England these thousand yeares, so that Gods vvord may be iudge, and that the reasons and proofes of both parts may be sett out in vvrytinge, to the entent as well, that all the world may examine and iudge theron, as that no man shall start backe from his vvryting [...].

76. Thus he. And now yow haue seene more or lesse by the former disputation, how he, & his fellow Ridley were able to performe their bragges, and though yow haue seene them brought to the exigents, which before [Page 337] hath appeared: yet yf yow will beleeue them or Iohn Fox their Chronicler, settinge forth their Acts and Monuments, they were so farre of from being conquered, as the aduerse part was rather putt to the foyle, for that they could say nothinge in effect against them. And for example, Fox wryteth of Doctor VVeston (who most of all other vrged them with ma­ny good arguments as yow haue heard) that Fox pag. 1326. not only he had his Theseus there by him to help him out (to witt his beere-pott) but moreouer that he said neuer a true word, nor made neuer a true conclusion al­most Ibid. pag. 1330. in that disputation. Which how true or false yt is, the reader himselfe may be iudge, that Impuden­cy of Fox. hath pervsed ouer the same in this our review: And the very like in effect wryteth B Cranmer Fox pag. 1331. in a certayne letter of his to the Councell, vpon the 23. of Aprill 1554. immediatly after the disputation ended, complayninge greatly of the disorder & iniquity therin vsed, which yet by that we haue examined before out of their owne words, I meane set downe in Fox, his penne being bent wholy to their fauour, there could not be great iniquity or inequali­ty, the combatt consistinge in discussinge au­thorityes of auncient Fathers; but yt is the na­ture of this people as alwayes to be conten­tious, so euer to be clamourous, and neuer sa­tisfied except they haue their will, but espe­cially to wryte and speake both contemptu­ously and partially: yow shall heare how Mal­ster Ridley relateth the euent of this disputa­tion; for that hauinge sett downe his owne [Page 338] disputations and aunswers in the prison, and this with the greatest aduantage, yow must imagine that he could diuise, after much gall vttered in the preface therof against this di­sputation, concludeth the same with these passionate words, as they are in Fox.

77. Thus vvas ended the most glorious disputation of the most holy Fathers, Sacrificers, Doctors and Maisters, D Ridleyes passionate speach of the dispu­tation. vvho fought most manfully for their God and Gods, for their faith and felicity, for their countrey and kitchen, for their beuty and belly, vvith triumphant applauses and famous of the vvhole vniuersity. So hee. And by Fox pag. 1330. this yow may know the man, and how much his words are to be credited; yow hauing con­sidered what hath byn laid downe before, by Fox his owne report, touching the substance of the disputation and authorityes of Fathers, alleaged and examined and shifted of, though in the forme of scholasticall disputation and vrging arguments, yt may be there were some disorders; yet that maketh not so much to the purpose, how arguments were vrged against them, as how they were aunswered by them; and yet could not the disorder be so great, as it was vnder Ridley himselfe in the Cambridge-disputation, as is most euident to the reader by Fox his owne relation, who as before I haue noted, is alwayes to be presumed to re­late the worst for vs, and the best for himselfe in all these actions.

78. Wherfore yt is not a little to be conside­red, what was the difference in substance or substantiall proofes, brought forth in the Cam­bridge [Page 339] Protestant-disputations vnder K. Ed­ward, and these Oxford Catholike-disputations vnder Q. Mary; and whether Doctor Ridley that was moderator of those, or Doctor VVeston pro­locutor in these, did best vrge or solue argu­ments against their aduersaryes; for that this consideration and comparison only, will giue a great light to discerne also the difference of the causes therin defended. One thinge also more is greatly in my opinion to be weighed in this matter, which is, that the said auncient Fathers hauinge to persuade so high and hard a mystery as this is, that Christs true and na­turall flesh and bloud, are really vnder the formes of bread and wyne, by vertue of the Priests consecration, they were forced to vse all the manner of most significant speaches, which they could diuise to expresse the same, and to beate yt into the peoples heads and mynds, though contrary to their senses and common reason, and therby to fly from the opposite heresie and infidelity of our Sacra­mentaryes; lurkinge naturally in the harts of flesh and bloud, and of sensuall people; but synce that tyme by Sathans incytation, broa­ched and brought forth publikely into the world. For meetinge wherwith the holy pro­uidence of almighty God was, that the forsaid Fathers should by all sorts of most significant speaches & phrases, as hath byn said, so cleer­ly lay open their meanings in this matter, as no reasonable man can doubt therof, and not only this, but also that they should vse certaine [Page 340] exaggerations the better to explane them­selues, such as they are wont to do in other controuersies also, when they would vehe­mently oppose themselues against any error or heresie, as by the examples of Saint Augustine against the Pelagians in behalfe of Grace, and against the Manichees in the defence of Free-will. And of S. Hierome against Iouinian for the priuiledge of Virginity aboue marriage. and other like questions, wherin the said Fathers, to make themselues the better vnderstood, do vse sometymes such exaggeratiue speaches, as they may seeme to inclyne somewhat to the other extreme, which indeed they do not, but do shew therby their feruour in defence of the truth, and hatred of the heresie which they impugne.

79. And the like may be obserued in this ar­ticle The Fa­thers effe­ctuall speaches to per­suade the reall-pre­sence. of the reall-presence, of Christs sacred body in the Sacrament of the Altar, which being a mystery of most high importance, and hardest to be beleeued, as aboue humayne sense and reason, and therfore called by them: the myracle of mysteryes: yt was necessary for them, I say to vse as many effectuall wayes, Chrysost hom. 61. ad Pop. An­tioch. & [...]lij. as they possible could for persuadinge the said truth vnto the people, and for preuenting the distrustfull cogitations and suggestions both of humayne infirmity, and diabolicall infideli­ty against the receaued faith and truth of this article; and so they did, not only vsinge most cleere, plaine, effectuall and significant man­ner of expounding themselues, and their mea­ninge, [Page 341] but many such exaggerations also, as must needs make vs see the desire they had, to be rightly and fully vnderstood therein. For better consideration of which point (being of singular moment as hath byn said) the reader shall haue a little patience, whilst I detayne my selfe somewhat longer, then I meant to haue done, in layinge forth the same be­fore him.

80. And first of all, concerninge the effe­ctuall speaches for vtteringe the truth of their beleefe in this article, yow haue heard much in the former disputation, and heere we shall repeat some points againe, which in effect are, that wheras the said Fathers founded them­selues ordinaryly vpon those speaches of our Sauiour: This is my body vvhich shalbe giuen for yow: my flesh is truly meate, and my bloud is truly drinke. Matth. 26. Luc. 14. Ioan. 6. The bread vvhich I shall giue yow is my flesh for the life of the vvorld, and other like sentences of our Sauiour; the Fathers do not only vrge all the circumstances heere specified or signified, to proue yt to be the true naturall and substan­tiall body of Christ (as that yt was to be giuen for vs the next day, after Christs words were spoken, that yt was to be giuen for the life of the whole world, & that yt was truly meate, and truly Christs flesh) but do adde also diuers other circumstances of much efficacy to con­firme the same, affirminge the same more in particular; that it is the very same body which was borne of the blessed Virgin, the very same body that suffered on the Crosse, corpus [Page 342] affixum, verberatum, crucifixum, cruentatum, lanceae Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. Cor. vulneratum (saith S. Chrysostome) ‘the selfe-same body, that was nayled, beaten, crucisied, blou­ded, wounded with a speare, is receaued by vs in the Sacrament.’ Whervnto S. Austen addeth this particularity, that yt is the selfe-same bo­dy that walked heere amonge vs vpon earth. As he vvalked heere in flesh (saith he) amonge vs; so Aug. in Psalm. 98. the very selfe same flesh doth he giue to be eaten, and therfore no man eateth, that flesh; but first adoreth at; and Hisichius addeth; that he gaue the selfe-same H [...]sich. in cap. 22. Leui [...]. body, vvherof the Angell Gabriell said to the Virgin Mary, that it should be conceaued of the holy Ghost. And yet further; yt is the same body (saith S. Chrysostome) that the Magi, or learned men did adore in the manger. But thou dost see him Chrysost. hom. 2. in 2. ad Cor. (saith he) not in the manger, but in the Altar, not in the armes of a vvoman, but in the hands of a Priest. The very same flesh (saith S. Austen againe) that sate at the table in the last supper, and vvashed his disciples Aug. in Psalm. 33. contion. 1. & 2. seet; The very same (I say) did Christ giue with his owne hands to his disciples, vvhen he said; take eate, 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 Cyrill. Hi [...] ­vos Cathec. 4. mystagog. 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, [Page 343] 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 Chrysost. hom. 60. ad Top. An­tioch. 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 Ambr. l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. & l. de initiand. 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 All doubts about this matter condem­ned. of this matter, reprehending sharply all doubt, suspition or ambiguity, which the weaknesse [Page 344] of our flesh or infection of heresie may suggest in this matter. S. Cyrill reasoneth thus: VVheras Cyrill Hier. catech. my­stagog. 4. 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 Ambr. l. 4. de Sacordot. cap 4. 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 Cyril. Alex. l. 4. [...]nc. 13. Ioan. 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 Hilar. l. 8. de trinit. cont. Ar­rian. 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 s [...]e [...]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 Eusebiu [...] Emissenus [Page 345] bringeth in Christ our Sauiour speakinge in these words: For so much as my flesh is truly meat, Euseb. Emissenus. hom 5 de s [...]ch. and my bloud is truly drinke, leit all doubt fullnes of in fideli [...]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 Leo serm. 6. de [...] 7. [...]. doubted of the truth of Christ [...] 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. Ep [...]p [...]anius con­cludeth Ep [...]ph. in An [...]r. 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 [...]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. Chrys [...]stome) but in very deed he maketh vs Chrysost. in [...]om. 87. in cap. 21. Matth. 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 Cyril. Alex. l. 10. in cap. 17 [...]. (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 Chrysost. [...]b. conuerted into his flesh by eatinge the same. And Saint Cyrill againe: VVe receauinge in the Sacrament Cyril. Alex. ib. l. 11. in Ioan. c, 27. corporally and substantially the sonne of God vnited na­turally [Page 346] 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 Theophil. Alex. in cap. 10. Mare. 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 Idem in ca. [...]. Ioan. 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 arcanis verb [...]. 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 mynds haue Magnesl. 3. ad Th [...]osti­nem. trifled; but it is truly the very body and bloud of our Sauiour indeed. And finally the whole generall Councell of Nice the second, aboue 800. yeares past, hath these words: do yow read, as longe as yow vvill, yow shall neuer find Christ or his Apostles, or Conc. Ni­ [...]en. 2. act. 6 the Fathers to haue called the vnhloudy sacrifice of Christ offered by the Priest, an image (or represen­tation) but the very body and bloud of Christ it selfe. And could the auncient Fathers speake more effectually, properly or cleerly then this?

85. And yet he that will examine and weigh their sayings, a man exactly shall find them to speake, in a certaine manner more effectually: [Page 347] for that they did study, (as we haue said) how Emphati­call & ef­fectuall speaches of the fa­thers. Hilar. lib. 8. de Trints. Cy [...]l. l. 11. In Ioan. [...]. 26 to vtter their meaninge with emphasie. S. Hi­lary vseth this kind of argument: yf the word of God were truly made flesh, then do we truly receaue his flesh in the Lords supper, and therby he is to be steemed to dwell in vs naturally: S. Cyrill proueth, not only a spirituall, but a naturall and bodily vnion to be be­tweene vs and Christ, by eatinge his flesh in the Sacra­ment. Theodorete doth proue that Christ tooke flesh of the blessed Virgin, and ascended vp Theod. dial. 2. [...]nconfus. with the same, and holdeth the same there, by that he giueth to vs his true flesh in the Sa­crament; for that otherwayes he could not giue vs his true flesh to eate, yf his owne flesh were not true, seeing that he gaue the same that he carryed vp, and retayneth in heauen. S. Irenaeus, S. Iustine, & S. Chrysostome do proue not Iren. lib. 4. cont. hares. cap. 3. Iustin apol. 2. ad An. tonin Piu [...] Imp. Chrysost. hom 60. & 61. ad top. Antioch. only this, but the resurrection also of our bo­dyes by the truth of Christs flesh in the Sacra­crament, for that our flesh ioyninge with his flesh which is immortall, ours shalbe immor­tall also. And the same Saint Irenaeus also doth proue further, that the great God of the ould Testament, creator of heauen and earth, was Christs Father; for proofe wherof he allea­geth this reason; that Christ in the Sacrament did fullfill the figures of the old Testament, & that in particular, wherin bread was a figure of his flesh, which he fulfilled (saith Irenaeus) makinge yt his flesh indeed.

86. I passe ouer many other formes of speaches no lesse effectuall; which doe easily declare the Fathers mynds and meaninges in [Page 348] this point, as that of Optatus Mileuitanus, who Optat. l. 6. contra Do­natist. accused the Donatists of sacriledge & horrible wickednesse, for hauinge broken downe Ca­tholike Altars, wheron the body, and bloud of Christ had byn borne: VVhat is so sacrilegious (saith he) as to breake downe, scrape and remoue the Altars of God, on vvhich your selues haue sometymes of­fered, and the members of Christ haue byn borne, &c. VVhat is an Altar, but the seate of the body and bloud of Christ? and this monstrous villany of yours is doubled, Chalice-breakers. for that yow haue broken also the chalices, vvhich did beare the bloud of Christ himselfe. So he. And is there any Protestant, that will speake thus at this day? or doth not this reprehension agree fully to Protestants, that haue broken downe more Altars, and chalices, then euer the Do­natists did? Saint Leo the first saith: that the truth Lee serm. 7. de pas. chate. of Christs true body and bloud in the Sacrament, was so notorious in his dayes; vt nec ab insantium linguis ta­ceretur. That very infants did professe the same. And in the same sermon he saith: that the body of Christ is so receaued by vs in the Sacrament; vt in carnem ipsius, qui caro nostra fa­ctus est, transeamus, that we should passe into his flesh, who by his incarnation is made our flesh. Saint Chrysostome in many places of his works, doth vse such deuout, re [...]orent and significant speaches of that, which is contey­ned in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread, & wyne after consecration, as no doubt can be of his meaninge, whereof yow haue heard diuers points before in the disputations, as that it deserued the highest honour in earth; that he [Page 349] did shew it lyinge vpon the Altar, that the Angells des­cended at the tyme of consecration, and did adore Christ Chrysost. hom. 61. ad Pop. An­tioch. & hom. 6. d [...] virbis I sa [...]a & hom. 3. de inc [...]mpra­hens. Dei natura. there present vvith tremblinge and seare, and durst not looke vpon him for the Maiestie of his presence. And other such speaches, which is conforme to that before cyted in the disputation out of the Councell of Nice: Credamus iaecere in illa mensa sacra, agnum Det à Sacerdotibus sacri [...]icatum. Let vs beleeue to lye on that holy table, the lambe of God sacrificed by Priests. And is there any Protestant that will speake thus?

87. But aboue all the rest are those speaches, which before I said to tend to a certeyne ex­aggeration, as that, our flesh is turned into his flesh Exaggera­tiue spea­ches of the Fa­thers to vtter their minds the more cleerly. by receauinge the blessed Sacrament: that our flesh is nourished by his; and that of two fleshes there is made but one flesh; Whervnto do appertayne not on­ly those former phrases, which already yow haue heard of the naturall and corporall vni­ty; ‘which the Fathers do so often inculcate to be betweene Christ and vs, by eatinge his flesh in the Sacrament, & that we are brought therby into one masse, or substance of flesh with him;’ but many other like significant manners for vtteringe their mynds, as that of S. Chrysostome: he nourisheth vs vvith his owne body, Chrysost. hom. 61. ad Pop. An­tioch. & hom. 45. in loan. and doth ioyne and conglutinate our flesh to his. And againe: That by his body (giuen vs in the Sa­crament) Se nobis commiscuit, & in vnum nobiscum redegit. ‘He hath mixt himselfe to vs, and brought himselfe and vs into one body and flesh. And yet further: he doth permitt him­selfe not only to be handled by vs, but also to [Page 350] be eaten, and our teeth to be fastened vpon his flesh, and vs to be filled with the same flesh; which is the greatest point of loue (saith Saint Chrysostome) that possible can be imagined.’ So Cyrill. Alex lib. 4. in loan. cap. 17. he. And conforme to this S. Cyrill of Alexandriae vttereth himselfe after another sort, for he vseth the example of leuen, which Saint Paul doth touch in his epistle to the Corinthians, when he saith; that a little leuen doth leuen a whole 1. Cor. 5. bach; euen so (saith S. Cyrill) the flesh of Christ ioyned to our flesh, doth leuen or pearse through it, and conuert it into it selfe. And in another place he vseth Idem. l. 10. in loan. cap. 13. this similitude; that as vvhen yow take a peece of vvax melted at the fire, and do droppe the same vpon another peece of vvax, these two vvaxes are made one; so by the communication of Christs body and bloud vnto vs, he is in vs and we in him.

88. Another auncient Father also vpon the point of 1200. yeares gone had this similitude: As wine (saith he) is mixed vvith him that drinketh Marcus Anac [...]oreta in 1. ad Cor. the same, in such sort, as the wine is in him, and he in the wine: so is the bloud of Christ mixed also vvith him that drinketh the same in the Sacrament. And S. Ire­naeus, Tertullian, & S. Iustinus Martyr, all of them elder then this man, do vse commonly this phrase of nourishinge, and feedinge our flesh by the flesh of Christ. How do they affirme (saith S. Irenaeus against certayne heretiks that denied Iren. lib. 4. cont hares. cap. 34. the resurrection) that our flesh shall come to corrup­tion, and not receaue life againe, vvhich is nourished by the body and bloud of Christ? And againe. Ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. Of Ibid. lib. 5. cap. 2. which body and bloud of Christ, the sub­stance [Page 351] of our flesh is encreased and consisteth. And Tertullian, caro, corpore & sanguine Christi Tert. lib. de resurrect. carnis. vescitur, &c. Our flesh doth feed on the body and bloud of Christ. And marke that he saith the flesh, and not only the soule. And Iustine in his second Apology to the Emperour Anto­ninus talkinge of the Sacrament, saith, it is, ci­bus quo sanguis carnes (que) nostrae aluntur. The meat wherwith our bloud and flesh is fedd; and to this manner of speach appertayne those say­ings of S. Chrysostome: Altare meum cruentum san­guine, Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. my Altar that is made redd with bloud. Where he speaketh in the person of Christ. And againe to him that had receaued the Sa­crament, dignus es habitus qui eius carnes lingua tan­geres: Thou are made worthy to touch with thy tongue the flesh of Christ: And yet further Hom. 27. in c. 11. ad Cor. in another place: Thou seest Christ sacrificed in the Altar, the Priest attendinge to his sacrifice, and powring out prayers; the multitude of people receauinge the Sa­crament, praetioso illo sanguine intingi & rubefieri. Ibid. l. 3. d [...] Sacerdot. To be died and made read with that pretious bloud. All which speaches and many more, that for breuity I pretermitt, though they tend to a certayne exaggeration (as hath byn said) yet do they plainly declare the sense, iudgement and beleefe of the Fathers in this article, and so albeit literally, and in rigour, they be not in all respects verified: yet need we no better arguments to certifie vs of the Fathers meaninges then these, to witt, how farre they were of, from the Protestants opi­nions in this mystery.

[Page 352] 89. And truly yf we would now put downe heere on the contrary side the Prorestants as­sertions, and their cold manner of speaches in this behalfe, and compare them with this ve­hemency of the Fathers; we should presently see a wonderfull difference. I will touch some few only conteyned in this booke. First they say (and yt is a common refuge of Cranmer and 1. the rest in this disputation as you haue heard) that their communion-bread is Christs true body, as S. Iohn Baptist was true Elias.

Item. That yt is Christs body, as the doue was the holy-ghost. 2.

Item. That the body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament of the Altar, no otherwise 3. then yt is in baptisme.

Item. That infants when they be baptized do eate the body of Christ also. 4.

Item. That Christs body is in the Sacra­crament, as when two or three are gathered 5. togeather in his name.

Item. That the body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament, as yt is eaten, when wee read 6. scriptures, or heare sermons.

Item. That the breakinge of Christs body is nothinge but the breaking of the scriptures 7. to the people. And these are the common phrases of all lightly. For I lett passe many particular assertions of some, much more cold and contemptible then these, wherby yow may easily se [...] the difference of estimation, re­uerence, respect, and beleefe betweene them and the auncient Fathers.

[Page 353] 90. And on the other side, he that will con­sider the great care and warynesse, which the The great vvarynesse of the Fa­thers in speakinge of articles of faith. said Fathers did vse in speakinge properly and exactly, as well in other mysteryes & articles of our faith, as in this, shall easily see, that they could not fall into such excesse of speach, with open reprehension & contradiction of others, yf their meaninge had not byn euident, and the doctrine Catholike and generally recea­ued, which they endeauoured to inculcate by these speaches; for so much as we are taught by all antiquity, that there was such exact ri­gour vsed in this behalfe in those dayes, that a word or sillable could not be spoken amisse, without present note or checke. And S. Hie­rome saith: that sometymes for one only vvord here­tiks Hier. lib. 3. Apol. cont. Ruffin, haue byn cast out of the Church. And Saint Basill being intreated and vrged by a Gouernour of Constantius the Arrian Emperour, to accomo­date himselfe in manner of speach only about two words: homiousion, and homousion (which are not, said the gouernour, found in scri­pture) he answered him noe: & that for one Sillable he vvould offer his life, yf it vvere need. And the like ex­actnesse Theodore [...] ▪ lib. 2. hist. c. 18. & 19. did the anciēt Fathers, of the Coūcell of Ephesus, shew afterwards in standinge so re­solutely Concil. Ephes. act. 1. & 2. for the word Deipara, mother of God against Nestorius, & refusing the vse of the other word Christipara, mother of Christ, though the one & the other of the words refused, to witt, homiousion & Christipara in their senses are true; but for that some hereticall meaninge might lurke therin, they were refused.

[Page 354] 91. And to conclude, yf antiquity was so carefull and vigilant, to exclude dangerous & incommodious speaches in other articles, how much more would yt haue byn in this also of the reall presence, yf the said Fathers speaches before rehearsed had not byn true, as in the Protestants sense they cannot be, but must needs tend to most dangerous error of misbeleefe and idolatry? And consequently there is no doubt, but that they would haue byn reproued by other Fathers, yf the Prote­stants opinions had byn then receaued for truth. And this shall suffice for this Chapter.

About the third Article of the Sacrifice of the Masse. §. 2.

13. For that there was little or nothinge di­sputed of this third article, eyther in Cambridge, Oxford, or London, except only a little against Latymer, as presently we shall see, I haue thought best to betake me only to Ridleyes de­termination in this matter: he beginneth the same thus: Now in the later conclusion, concerninge the sacrifice, because yt dependeth vpon the first (to witt of the reall-presence) I will in few vvords de­clare Fox pag. 1262. vvhat I thinke; for yf we once agree in that, the vvhole controuersie in the other vvill soone be at an end. Marke heere good reader that Ridley confes­seth this controuersie of the sacrifice to de­pend [Page 367] of the reall-presence, which reall-presence being so substantially proued before, as yow haue heard, little doubt can be made of this; yet will Ridley tell vs what he thinketh (a goodly ground for vs to hange our soules on) which is, that there is no sacrifice at all, but that of Christ vpon the Crosse, and he will tell vs also his grounds for so thinkinge: Two things (saith he) there be, vvhich do persuade me, to Fox ibid. vvitt, certayne places of scripture, and certayne testi­monyes of the Fathers. So he. And as for scri­ptures, he alleageth no one, but out of the Epistle to the Hebrues; that Christ entred once for Heb. 9. all into the holy-place, and obtayned for vs eternall re­demption. And againe. That Christ vvas once offered Heb. 10. to take away the sinnes of many. And yet further: that with one offeringe he made perfect for euer those that are sanctified. And hauinge cyted these places, he maketh this conclusion. These scri­ptures do persuade me to beleeue, that there is no other oblation of Christ (albeit I am not ignorant there are many sacrifices) but that vvhich vvas once made vpon the Crosse.

14. Heere now yow may see the force of a passionate iudgement, and how little doth suffice to persuade a man to any heresie, that is inclined thervnto of himselfe. I would aske of Ridley heere, how chaunceth yt that S. Chry­sostome, S. Basill, S. Ambrose, S. Cyrill, S. Hierome, S. Augustine and other Fathers cyted before so aboundantly, and perspicuously affirming the dayly sacrifice of the masse, and distin guishing betweene Cruentum & incruentum sacrificium, he [Page 368] bloudy sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse once offered vp for all; And the selfe-same sacrifice dayly reiterated, and offered againe in many places throughout the world, after an vnblou­dy manner: how these Fathers, I say, had not byn persuaded, as Ridley was, by these places The diffe­rence be­tvveene Ridley and the anciēt Fathers in their per­suasions. of scripture to deny the Sacrifice of the Masses had they not read (thinke yow) the Epistle to the Hebrewes; or did they not vnderstand yt as well as Ridley? and how then was Ridley persuaded, and not they? there reason is, that, which he touched before, when he said: after my iudgement, &c. For that he followed his owne iudgement, blynded by his owne affe­ction in this point against the masse, and they followed not their owne iudgement, but the vniuersall iudgement and beleefe of the Ca­tholike Church in their dayes, and so must Ridley giue vs leaue to follow them, rather then him.

15. As for his second motiue of certayne te­stimonyes of the Fathers, yt is so weake and broken a thinge, as he dareth not come forth with yt, but only quoteth certayne places of Saint Augustine, wherby he saith that the Chri­stians Aug. ep. 23. & l 43. 9. 61. & l. 20. co [...]r Faust. Manich. c [...]. 2 & 20. keepe a memoriall of the sacrifice past; and that Fulgentius in his booke de fide calleth the same a commemoration. And these be all the Fathers, and their authorityes which he alleageth for his second motiue: wherby yow may see, that he was moued by a little against the masse: For we deny not but that the sacri­fice of the masse is a commemoration also of [Page 369] the death, passion, and Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse, and he that in steed of these impertinent citations out of S. Austen nothing at all to the purpose, would lay downe on the contrary side, all the cleere, euident, and effe­ctuall places, sentences, discourses and asse­uerations, which this holy Father hath in profe and confirmation of the visible exter­nall sacrifice of the masse, wherin Christs sa­cred body, the same that was offered on the Crosse, is offered againe dayly both for quicke and dead by Christian Catholike Priests on the Altar, might make a whole Treatise ther­of, and I remitt the reader to Hieronymus Tor­rensis his collection, called Confessio Augustiniana, Torrens. in Confess August l. b. 3. cap. 7. where throughout a 11. or 12. paragraphes, he doth set downe large authorityes, most plaine and euident out of the said Fathers works. And yt is inough for vs at this tyme, that La­tymer being pressed in his disputations with diuers of these authorityes answeted: I am not a shamed to acknowledge my ignorance, and these testimonyes Fox pag. 1325. are more then I can beare away, and after againe, being further pressed with the most euident authorityes of S. Augustine, and S. Chry­sostome in particular, affirminge that the sacri­fice of the masse is propitiatory both for quicke and dead, he aunswered: The Doctors might be deceaued in some points, though not in all things: I beleeue them when they say vvell. And yet further: I am of their saith vvhen they say vvell. I re­ferre my selfe to my L. of Canterburyes booke vvholy Fox pag. 1326. heerin, And yet againe. I haue said vvhen they say [Page 370] vvell and bringe the scriptures for them, I am of their faith. And further. Augustine requireth not to be be­leeued. So he. And by this yow may see, what accompt they make both of S. Augustine and other Fathers, notwithstandinge for a shew, sometymes they will cyte some places out of them little to the purpose, but being witting in their owne consciences, that really and substantially they make against them, they shift them of finally in this order as yow haue heard, and will beleeue and teach only as pleaseth themselues, which is the peculiar pride and willfullnes of heresie, from which God deliuer vs. And with this I end this whole Treatise.