A REVIEW OF TEN public disputations Or Conferences held within the compass of four years, under K. Edward & Qu. Mary, concerning some principal points in Religion, especially of the Sacrament & sacrifice of the Altar.  
WHEREBY, May appear upon how weak grounds both Catholic Religion was changed in England; as also the fore-recounted Foxian Martyrs did build their new opinions, and offer themselves to the fire for the same, which was chief upon the credit of the said Disputations.  
BY N. D.  Aug. lib. 2. against Petilian the Donatist. 
We are constrained to hear, discuss, and refute these trifles of yours: lest the simpler and weaker sort should fall into your snares.  
Imprinted with licence Anno M. DC. Four   

The contents of this review.  
THe Preface showing what utility disputation may bring, for discussion of matters in controversy; and how far: together with the causes, why the review of these ten disputations is now published.  
1. Often public disputations, recounted by John Fox to have been held in England, about controversies in Religion, especially concerning the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, within the space of four years, at two several changes of Religion under K. Edward and Q. Mary; besides many other more particular, held in Bishop's consistories and other places about the same matters. CHAP. I.  
2. The state of the chief question handled in the foresaid disputations, concerning the Real presence, Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the mass; with the cheese grounds that be on either side. CHAP. II.  
3. Certain observations to be noted, for better answering of heretical cavillations against the foresaid articles. CHAP. III.  
4. The examination of such arguments, as in the former disputations were alleged by the Zivinglians and Caluinists, against the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament. CHAP. IV.  
5. What Catholic arguments were alleged in these disputations for the real presence: & how they were answered or shifted of by the Protestants. CHAP. V.  
6. Of two other articles about Transubstantiation, and the Sacrament of the Altar, what passed in this disputation. CHPP. VI.   

THE PREFACE, shewing what utility disputation may bring, for discussion of matters in controversy, & how far: together with the causes, why the review of these ten disputations is now published.  
THAT disputation is a good means and profitable instrument, to examine and try out truth, even in matters of faith, if it be rightly used, & with due circumstances, no man can deny; for that experience in God's Church doth teach it, to wit, that great utility hath oftentimes been received by such disputations: and we read among other examples, that in the time of Antoninus the Emperor son of Severus, that died in York, a little more than a hundred years after Christ, the Montanists heresy, who were called also Cataphrigians, growing strong, and drawing to it divers principal men, and namely Tertullian, with the admiration of the whole world; one Caius a Cath man most excellently learned, and of rare and virtuous 
Anno Domini 215.  life, took upon him to dispute publicly in Rome in the presence of the whole Church, with licence of Zepherinus the Pope, against a chief principal man of that sect called Proclus, and so confounded him therein, as from that day forward the sect began greatly to decline; of which disputation do make mention both Eusebius & S. Jerome, & it did 
Euseb. l. 6. hist. c. 14. Hier. de vir. Illust. in Caio.  much profit that Catholic cause.  
2. And about 2. hundred years after this again, we read of another profitable disputation held in our country, by S. Germanus & his fellows, French bishops, with the British Pelagians upon the year of 
Bed. l. 1. hist. c. 14. & Const. presbyt. in vita S. Lupi episc.  Christ 429. whereby they were so confuted, as also with the miracles wrought by S. German, by certain relics brought from Rome, as their heresy never prospered there afterwards, but was soon extinguished. We read in like manner of divers public conflicts & disputations, held by S. Austen with divers learned heretics of sundry sects, as namely with Fortunatus a Manichean priest, in the city of Hippo in Africa, upon the year 392. all the clergy & people being present, & public notaries appointed to set down both their arguments: & the issue of this disputations was, that when the Manichean heretic could not answer, he said (saith Possidonius) secum suis maioribus collaturum, that he would confer those difficulties with his betters, & then if they could not satisfy him se animae suae consulturum, that he 
See the acts of this disputation in Possid. l. de vita Aug. c. 3.  would have care of his own soul. But this care was (saith the same Possidonius) that he ran away from the city, and never appeared there again. Which point S. Augustine himself objecteth, in a certain epistle, to another Manichee 
Aug. epist. 244.  Priest, that came to succeed in Fortunatus his place in that city, provoking him also to like disputation, but the heretic refused the combat.  
3. And after this again, the said Father being now made Bishop, upon the year of Christ 405. he disputed publicly for two days together, with another principal Manichean heretic named Foelix, in presence of the whole people, notaries being appointed on both sides to take their arguments. In 
S. Austin's disputation with Foelix Manichaeus  which disputation, S. Austen did so evidently convince his adversary, as he in the end yielded (a strange example in an heretic) and renounced his heresy, and became a Catholic, whereby the Mavichean heresy was so shaken and discredited throughout all Africa, as no man ever openly afterwards durst defend the same in disputation, but it vanished away by little and little, as a smoke when the fire is put out. This whole disputation is to be seen at large in S. Austen, laid forth in two books of his de acts cum Faelice Manichaeo. And this for the Manicheans.  
4. But with the Donatists and Arrians, he had many other like conflicts: as for example, upon the year of Christ 411. there was a solemn disputation held at Carthage 
S. Ausren his disputation with the Donatists.  in Africa, for divers days together, between the Catholic and Donatist bishops, the Cath. bishops being in number 286. whereof the principal disputer was S. Austen 
Brevic. collat. primi diei.  himself; & of the Donatist Bishops 279. which showeth the multitude of heretics in those parts to have been great, notwithstanding they had been much diminished by Cath. Bishops labours and write: for that 17. years before, there met together against the catholics 400. Donatist bishops, excepting six: this disputation was before the Conte Marcellinus governor of that country, and public notaries were present to take the arguments on both sides, and all being ended the judge pronounced this sentence: Omnium documentorum manifestatione, à Catholicis Donatistas' confutatoes. 
Aug. in Brevic.  That the Donatists were convinced by the catholics, by the manifest truth of all kind of arguments. S. Augustine himself setteth forth a brief relation of all that meeting & disputation, intituling yt Breviculum. And in a certain epistle of his testifieth moreover of the event, that albeit those miserable 
Epist. ad Gaudent.  Bishops were not converted thereby, but rather made more obstinate & obdurate: yet that many of their people were, & especially of the furious Circumcellians, that were ready to murder men upon zeal of their heresy.  
5. I let pass another disputation which the said Father had, some 10. or 11. years after that, by the order of Pope Zozimus of Rome, in the city of Caesarea in Mauritania, with one Emeritus a Donatist B. of that city; all the whole people of the city, together with divers bishops, being present; but little good could be done with him, his obstinacy was so great and perverse. 
Acta apud Aug. ep. 157. & l. 2. Retract. c. 51. & Possidon. in vita Aug. c. 14.  The acts of that disputation are extant in S. Austen, & often mention thereof is made by himself, & by Possidonius in his life. And this for the Donatists.  
6. But with the Arrians I find the same Father to have had sundry disputations also, as namely once upon the year of Christ 422. the governor Bonifacius, having many 
Possid. ib. cap. 17.  Goths in his camp who were of the Arrian sect: they had also an Arrian Bishop that governed them, named Maximinus, who in their opinion was very learned, and therefore they made instance, that he might dispute with S. Augustine, which the good Father accepted, for he refused none, and so they had their meeting and disputation, 
S. Augustine's disputations with the Atrians.  and the acts thereof are extant in his works, together with a certain book of his own added thereunto, for explication of divers points, whereof these heretics were want to vaunt afterwards, as though they had got the victory; which happened to the same Father in another combat, held the very same year, with one Conte Pascentius of the same Arrian sect, who was chief fifchall or treasurer of the Emperor, and most arrogantly challenged to dispute with S. Austen, but yet in private & without notaries, in respect of the imperial laws, that did forbid public disputations in favour of sects and heresies. Which disputation S. Augustine accepted; and the same was held privately, in the presence of many noble and learned men, but the heretics 
Aug. epist. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.  would not yield, but rather published soon after (as their fashion is) that they had the victory, which S. Austen was forced to refute by many several epistles, and by setting forth the disputation itself, as it is to be seen in his works.  
7. And this may suffice for a taste of some disputations, held at divers times and in divers countries, with heretics of sundry sects in the ancient Church: And I might recite 
Photius in Bibliotheca.  many more, as that of Maximus a learned Catholic monk in Africa, 
Anastasius hoc anno.  who upon the year of Christ 645. held a very famous disputation against one Pyrrhus, Archbishop of Constantinople, a great pillar of those heretics called Monothelits, that held one only will, and not two to be in Christ our saviour, which disputation being made in the presence of many bishops, and of the governor of that Country, named Gregorius Patricius, the heretical Archbishopp was so confounded, as he left his heresy, went to Rome, and gave up a book of his penance to Pope Theodorus, and was received by him into the Catholic communion again: and that was the event of that disputation.  
8. And not full 20. years after this again, to wit upon the year 664. was that great disputation also in England, between the English and scottish Bishops, about the observation of Easter, in the presence of two Kings Oswyn and Egfrid his son, Kings of Northumberland 
Beda l. 3. h●st. cap. 25.  and of the Mercians: the chief disputers, on the Scottish bishops part, were Colman and Cedda, and of the English, Agilbertus Bishop of the Westsaxons and Wilfrid: and the issue of this disputation was, that Kings Oswyn was converted to the union of the Roman Church, and caused the use thereof to be practised in his country.  
9 And so we see by these examples, and many more that might be alleged, that disputations in points of Religion are sometimes necessary, & do much good, when they are taken in hand with equal and due conditions, and convenient laws for indifferency in trying out the truth, for that otherways they may be pernicious, & have been refused by ancient Fathers, as we read of one rejected by Saint Ambrose in milan, upon the year 
Public disputation refused by S. Ambros. upon just causes.  of Christ 286. when Auxentius the Arrian-Bishopp, being puffed up with pride & arrogancy, by the favour of the Empress Justina, infected with the same heresy, had not only provoked S. Ambrose to public disputation, but had further procured that Valentinian the young Emperor, being yet a child, & not baptised but only Cathecumenus, did make a public edict, to command the said disputations to be held upon such a day, in his public court or consistory, before himself & the said Empress, certain learned Pagans and Jews being appointed for judges in that matter. But S. Ambrose, by the counsel of divers bishops gathered together with him, refused to come to those disputations, writing a book to the Emperor Valentinian for his 
Ambros. epist. 31. where is extant also the book sent by Ambrose to Valentinian.  excuse, shewing the injustice and unequality of the order, and of those times, and persuading him to recall the said la. And if he would have that controversy in religion, between them and the Arrians, treated again, he should follow therein the excellent example of his predecessor Constantine the great, who suffered Priests and bishops only to handle that matter in the council of Nice, and so was this disputation broken of: & presently there happened a thing of great admiration (saith Paulinus in the life of S. Ambrose) which was, 
Paul. in vita Ambrosijs.  that a certain principal learned Arrian, acerrimus disputator; & inconuertibilis ad fidem Catholicam, being a most eager disputer, and esteemed not possible to be converted to the Catholic faith; being deceived, at it seemeth, of his hope and expectation to dispute in this conflict, went to the Church, to hear at lest what Ambrose could say out of the pulpit in his sermons: where seeing an angel to speak as it were in his ear, he was by that miracle not only converted to be a Catholic, but became also a most vehement defender of that faith against the heretics.  
10. To return then to our purpose of disputation, it is of great moment, how, and in what time and place, and with what laws and conditions they are made, whereof you will see the proof and experience also in these ten, that here we are to present; whereof six being 
The comparison between Cath & heretical disputations.  held under the government of Protestants, and 4. under Catholic magistrates, you shall see complaints on both sides of inequality used: but he that shall read and consider them in differently, and without passion, even as they are set down by Fox himself (for we could get no other records thereof for the present) he shall easily see no small differences to appear. For that the disputations both at Oxford and Cambridge in K. Henry's days, were only certain ostentations of light skirmishes a far of, so vainly and fond performed, as they have no substance in them at all. And so he will see that shall read these examinations. The other under Queen Mary, though the first of them in the convocation-house, wherein Protestants only were opponents, was not much unlike the former for substance, or rather lack of substance: yet the other three held in Oxford against Cranmer, Ridley and Latymer by Catholic disputers, are of a far different kind, as having both judges, notaries, and arbitrators to the liking of both parts appointed. And albeit in the manner of urging arguments, there want not complaints of the Protestant party, as after you shall hear: for that divers sometimes are said to have spoken together, & one man to have put himself into the prosecution of another man's argument, somewhat disorderly as to them it seemed: yet touching the things themselves, to wit the arguments & proofs there laid forth & prosecuted, there were so many clear, substantial & weighty, as the reader will confess there was no time lost in those 3. days disputation of the Cath party. And so to the examination thereof I remit me.  
11. One thing of no small importance there is to be considered in this preface about the nature of disputation; to wit, that as it is a fit means 
Disputation fit in some to move doubts & examine the truth, then to resolve the same.  to stir up man's understanding to attend the truth, by laying forth the difficulties on both sides; so is it not always sufficient to resolve his judgement, for that it moveth more doubts than he can answer or dissolve. And this happeneth not only in unlearned people, which by no means can discern which party hath the better, when both parts are learned & allege arguments for themselves, in matters above their capacity, but even the most learned also, if they have no other means of resolution then arguing to and fro by disputation, are brought manytimes to be more doubtful thereby then before, & this even in matters both natural and moral of this life. The reason whereof is, that man's understanding being limited, and the light of knowledge imparted unto him from God, being but a little particle or sparkle of his infinite divine knowledge: it cometh to pass, that the more this sparkle is exercised, & inkendled in searching out God's works and secrets in this life, the more it seethe her own weakness, and beginneth to doubt more, & to be more ambiguous in herself, whether that which she apprehendeth be truly apprehended or no, or whether by further search she shall not find it otherwise, and see herself deceived in this apprehension, as she hath found in many other apprehensions that went before, when she had less knowledge.  
12. And upon this ground no doubt came those philosophers, called the academics, to found their sect & profession, that they would belceve or affirm nothing, but dispute of all things to and fro without assent. And here hence came also the saying of that other philosopher: Hoc Unum scio, me nihil scire. I know only this, that I know nothing. And S. Austen himself before his conversion, being yet a Manichee, & wearied out with this search by way of arguments to and fro, which should be the true Religion (for this was one of their principal grounds, as himself testified, to believe nothing, but that which was evident by reason) fell at length to forsake the Manichees, & to join himself to the Academiks: but after long search finding no certainty also therein, and hearing their sect 
Aug. l. de moribus Ecclesiae contra Manicheos.  every day impugned by S. Ambrose Bishop of milan (where then Augustine remained) he returned in the end by the motion of almighty God, to consider what more grounds the Catholic Religion had, to stay a man's judgement 
Aug. confess. lib. 5. cap. 13. & lib. 6. c. 1. 2. 11.  or conscience, than the uncertainty of disputations, and finding the same, resolved himself to renounce all sects and to be a Catholic, as in his own confessions at large he declareth.  
13. By this than we do see, that albeit disputation rightly used, be a good means to discover truth by moving doubts to and fro, yet is it not always sufficient to resolve and quiett a man's judgement, even in natural things: and if not in these, how much less in supernatural and divine, wherein humane disputation hath far less force? For that humane sciences, deducing their disputation from principles that are evidently known unto us by light of nature, may far better resolve a man by force of those disputations, and enforce 
What force disputation hath in resolving matters of faith.  him to yield his assent, then in matters of divinity, where the first grounds and principles, are not known to us by light of nature, as in humane sciences, but are received only by light of faith, & revealed from God: wherefore these disputations may serve to examine and discuss matters, for stirring up our understanding, but the resolution & determination, must come from a more certain means which is infallible, and this we see practised in the very first controversy, that ever was handled in the privitive Church, as is recorded by S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, where the question being, whether Christians converted of Gentiles, should be bound to the observation of the Mosaical la or no? there was (saith the text) first magna conquisitio, 
Act. 15.  a great search or disputation about 
The manner of proceeding under the Apostles.  the matter; and then secondly the Apostles declared their sentences in order; and finally the determination was in all their names, representing the whole Church, visum est spiritui sancto & nobis, it seemed good to the holy-ghost and us, and so was the matter determined, and the like form hath been observed ever since that time in the Cath. Church, determining all controversies that have fallen out, to wit, that first there should be great search & discussion of the matter, by lawful and free disputation, to which end the most learned men of all nations are sent commonly to general councils, to perform this point. And secondly all arguments on both sides being heard & examined, the Bishop's present do give their voices, and according to the greater part, with concourse & general approbation of the general head, do they determine visum est spiritui sancto & nobis. So as here disputation serveth not to determine but to examine.  
14. And for that the sectaries of our days have not this sound mean to determine matters, but do depend 
The want which sectaries have to determine matters by Cicero in Paradox.  only upon probability, and persuasibility of speech, or writing one against the other, by which (as Tully saith) nothing is so incredible, that may not be made probable: therefore are their questions and controversies endless and indeterminable; and though they have had above a hundred meetings, conferences, disputations, councils and synods from their first disputation held at Lypsia, upon the year 1519. unto their synodde in Vilna, upon the year 1590. whereof you may see more largely in Stanislaus Rescius his observations: yet could they never agree, nor will hereafter, lacking the foresaid means of resolution and determination upon their disputations.  
15. And if this do fall out even in the learnedst of our sectaries, that they cannot by disputations alone resolve sound either themselves, or others in matters of controversy, for that still there remain doubts and difficulties, whether matters were well prosecuted or no; and new arguments do offer themselves daily to and fro: what shall we think of the unlearned and ignorant people, that cannot understand that is argued, and much less judge thereof? and yet upon the credit of such disputations do adventure their fowls, as you have seen by many lamentable examples before in both men & women, that upon the fame & credit of these English disputations here set down by Fox, partly under K. Edward, & partly under Queen Mary, and upon the probability of some fond and broken arguments 
The wilfulness of Foxtan unlearned sectaries in disputation.  used therein for the Protestants side, as somewhat apparent & plausible to their senses & capacity, have not only stood therein most arrognatly against their bishops, and learned Pastors by open disputations in their Courts and consistories, but have run also to the fire for the same, whereof Allerton, Tankerfield, Crashfield, Fortune, and others 
* Mensi●us Jan Mars. Sept & Noucmb.  before mentioned being but Cooks, Carpenters, and Coblars by occupation: yea women also as Anne Alebright, Alice Potkins, Joan Lashford, Alice driver, and others may be ridiculous but lamentable examples.  
16. Neither is this a new or strange thing, that heretical women should grow to such insolency, as to stand in disputation with the learnedst Bishops of the Catholic side, for that we read it recorded in ecclesiastical histories above 12. 
The story of a Mani hean woman that disputed with a Bishop.  hundred years gone, to wit upon the year of Christ 403. that a certain wilful woman of the city of Antioch named Julia, infected with the abominable heresy of the Manichees and fervent therein, came unto the city of Gaza, whereof S. Porphyrius a holy learned man was Bishop, & beginning there to pervert divers Christians, & being for the same reprehended by the Bishop, she contemned him, yea challenged him to open disputation, which the good man admitting, she behaved herself so insolently therein as was intolerable: So as when he had suffered her a great while to allege her blasphemous arguments, & could by no means reduce her or make her hearken to the truth, he fell from disputation to use another mean, turning himself to God, saying: O eternal 
Mareus in vita S. Porphirij.  God which hast created all things, and art only eternal, having no beginning or ending, who art glorified in the blessed trinity, strike this woman's tongue, and stop her mouth that she speak no more blasphemies against thee. Which words being uttered, Julia began to stammer, and to change countenance, falling into an extasis, and so losing her voice, remained dumb until she died, which was soon after, wherat two men and two women that came with her fell down at the bishops feet as King pardon, and were converted, as were divers gentils also by the same miracle.  
17. And this was the conclusion of that disputation; and though it pleased not almighty God to use the like miracles externally in Qu. mary's days, for the repressing of those insolent women that disputed so malapertly, and uttered so many blasphemous speeches against the sovereign mystery of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament; yet can there be no great doubt, but that inwardly he used the same, or no less justice unto them, especially seeing he suffered them to go to the fire all without repentance, and so to perish both bodily and ghostly, temporally add eternally. And for that in recytinge 
The cause of the Edition of these disputations.  their stories before set down, intending all brevity possible, I could not conveniently lay forth their several arguments in disputation, as neither of those that were their masters and inducers to this maddnes; I have thought good here to examine all together in this review, whereby you shall see what grounds they had of so great an enterprise, and of so obstinate a prosecution thereof. And this shall suffice by way of Preface: Now will we pass to the recital of the said disputations.   

OF TEN public disputations, Recounted by John Fox, to have been held in England, About controversies in Religion, especially concerning the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, within the space of 4. years, at two several changes of Religion, under K Edward, and Queen Mary; Besides many other more particular, held in Bishop's consistories, and other places, about the same matters. CHAP. I.  
Now then to come more near to the matter itself, we are briefly to recount the foresaid ten disputations, or public meetings and conferences, that after the change of the outward face of Catholic Religion in England, were held in our country within the space only of 4. or 5. years, and the effects that ensued thereof, which in great part were not unlike to the success of all those disputations, meetings, conferences, colloquies and other attempts of trial before mentioned, to have been with little profit of agreement, made in Germany, Polony, France and other places amongst the Protestants of this age, since the beginning of their new gospel, the causes and reasons whereof, have in part been touched by us in our precedent preface, and shall better appear afterward by the examination of these ten public disputations, from which, as from general storehouses, or head schools, were borrowed the armour & arguments, for these other lesser bicker of particular Foxian Martyrs, which they had with their Bishops, Prelates & Pastors at their examinations & arraignments, upon the confidence & pride whereof, they were induced to offer themselves most obstinately & pitifully unto the fire, as in th'examen of john Fox his Calendar, you have seen abundantly declared.  

First Disputation. §. 1.  
2. Wherefore to recount the particulars as briefly as we may, the first public disputation 
First disputation of Peter Martyr at Oxford. 1549.  of these ten, whereof we now are to treat, was held at Oxford against the real presence of the blessed body & blood of our saviour in the Sacrament of the Altar, by Peter Martyr an Italian Apostata friar, upon the year of Christ (as Fox setteth it down) 1549. which was the third of K. Edward the sixth his reign, about the month of June (for he expresseth not the very day) and the chief moderator or judge in this disputation, was D. Cox Chancelourat that time of the university; but after under Q. Elizabeth was B. of Ely, and his assistants were Henry B. of Lincoln, D. Haynes deane of Exeter; 
Fox pag. 1249.  M. Richard Marison esquire, and Christophor Ne●●son Doctor of civil law; all comissionars (saith Fox) of the King's majesty, sent down for this effect to authorize the disputations.  
3. For better understanding whereof you must note, that albeit K. Edward had reigned now more than full two years, and that the protector Seymer and some others of his humour, would have had change of doctrine established even at the beginning, about the point of the blessed Sacrament; yet could they not obtain it in parliament, partly, for that the far greater part of the realm was yet against it, but especially for that it was not yet resolved by the Archbishopp Cranmer himself, of whom if you remember, john Fox doth complain in one place under K. Henry; that good Cranmer had not yet a full feeling of that doctrine. 
Fox pag. 1115. & 1205.  whereupon we see, that in the first parliament of K. Edward's time, begun upon the 4. of November & ended upon the 14. of December 1547. there was an act made with this title. An act against such persons as shall unreverently speak against 
See Statue. Book an. 1. Edw. 6. cap. 1.  the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, etc. wherein magnificent words are spoken of this Sacrament and all those greatly reprehended, that in their sermons, preachings, readings, ta●ks, rhymes, songs, plays, or gestures, did name and call it, ●y such vile and unseemly words (saith the Statute) is Christian ears did abhor to hear it rehearsed; and this was the the first spirit of that Calvinian humour in England, misliked by Cranmer and the rest at that time, but soon after allowed well by john Fox in such of his Martyrs, 
Fox pag. 1548.  as call it wormes-meate, idol, and the like.  
4. And finally this party so much prevailed with them that governed, as not long after, that is to say, in the second parliament be gone the 4. of November 1548. and ended the 14. of March 1549. they got their new communion 
Zuinallanisue admitted. 1546.  book to be admitted, wherein their new doctrine also against the real presence was contained, and then Peter Martyr, who, as in his story we have 
* Sup. Decemb. 26.  showed, was sent to Oxford before with indifferency, to teach what should be ordained him from higher powers in that parliament, having expected all the lent long, whilst the parliament endured, what would 
See Doctor Saunders l. 2. de sehi, m. A●gl.  be decreed about this point; and finding himself in straits, for that he was come to the place of S. Paul to the Corinthians, where he must needs declare himself, receiving now 
1. Cor. 11.  advertisement of the new decree, did not only accommodate himself to teach and preach the same doctrine presently: (which yet the other 
The dissembling of Peter Martyr & Bucer.  friar, his companion Martin Bucer would not do in Cambridge) but also was content upon request & order from the council, to defend the same in public disputations, for better authorizing it through the whole body of the realm. This than was the occasion of this first public disputation, to give some countenance and credit to the new received opinion and paradox of Zuinglius, Occolampadius, and Carolstadius, three scholars of Luther himself, against the real presence, which as often 
Luth. lib. count Sacrament. & alibi sap●.  you have heard before, Luther did condemn for damnable heresy, and them for heretics that maintained it.  
5. The questions chosen by Peter Martyr were three: First about Transubstantiation, whether after the words of consecration, the bread and wine be turned into the body and blood of Christ. The second about the real presence; whether the body and blood of Christ be carnally and corporally (for so are his words) in the bread and wine, or otherwise under 
Three questions to be disputed at Oxford 1549.  the kinds of bread and wine. The third was: whether the body and blood of Christ be united to bread Sacramentally? But of this last question Fox relateth nothing, that it was either handled or touched in this disputation. About the former two, this manifest fraud was used, that whereas the first about Transubstantiation, dependeth of the second of the real presence, it should have been handled in the second place, and not in the first, as here it is; for clearer conceiving whereof, the Reader must note, that the main controversy between the sacramentaries & us, is about the real presence, to wit whether the true body of Christ be really and substantially in the Sacrament after the words of consecration, which we do hold affirmatively, and so doth Luther also, & then supposing that it is so, there followeth a second question de modo essendi, of the manner of Christ's being there, to wit, whether it be there together with bread, or without bread, or whether the bread be annihilated by the ptesence of Christ's body, or whether it be turned into the very substance of Christ's body, as we have showed out of Scotus and Durand before, in the discussion of Plessis Mornay his trial; and every 
See the defence of the relation of 〈◊〉 his disputation with B. Pe●on of Eureux tom 2 part. 3 or our three convernons,  one of these opinions, about the manner of Christ's being there, do presuppose the real presence, denied by the Sacramentaries: So as to dispute first about this particular manner of Christ his being there by Transubstantiation, before it be discussed whether he be really there or Noah, is to set the cart before the horse, and the foot before the head.  
6. And yet for that they do persuade themselves, that they have some more shifts or shows of probability against Transubstantiation, then against the real presence, or can delude better our arguments in the simple people's eyes, they always run to this, & leave the other: And it is, as if the question being, first whether gold were in a purse, & then whether it were there alone or else together with led, tin, or some such base metal; some wrangeler would first dispute the second question before the first; or as if two demands being propounded, first whether in such a vessel (where water was known to be before) there be wine put in, and secondly whether this wine have turned that water into itself or no? or that water & wine do remain together, and that one would pretermit the first question, to wit, whether wine be really & truly there or no? and cavil only about the second, whether the water be turned 
Two similitudes to express the vain wtangling of sacramentaries about Transubstantiation.  into wine, or remain together with the wine? In which cases you see first, that this manner of dealing were preposterous and impertinent wrangling, but especially, if the wrangler did deny expressly that there was any gold at all in the purse, or wine in the vessel, for than it were too too much folly for him to dispute the secondary questions whether the said gold were there alone, or with other metals; or whether the wine had converted the water into itself or no; for if neither gold nor wine be really there present, then is there no place for the second dispute at all. And so fareth it in our controversy of the real presence of Christ's body. For if the said body be not really & substantially in the Sacrament at all, as the Zwinglians & Caluinists do hold; then is it impertinent 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 Transubstantiation, for so much as they suppose it not to be there at all; only Luther & Lutherans may have controversy with catholics, about the manner how it is there, seeing they believe it to be there in deed; but Zwinglians & Caluinists cannot, but only about the first question, whether it be there or no; which question notwithstanding, for so much as they fly and run always to the second, as we have showed; notorious it is that they run from the purpose, & show themselves not only wranglers but also deceivers, seeking to dazzle the eyes of the simple in this behalf, as in this first disputation at Oxford, Peter Martyr begun with Transubstantiation, and was much longer therein, then in the controversy of the real 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 real presence was wholly omitted, and the like in the rourth disputation under Master 
Fraudulent dealing of Protestant's, in disputation.  Pearne for the Protestants, as after you shall see. And when lastly Master Ridley came to resolve upon all three disputations, held under him in Cambridge, and the questions handled therein, he quite passeth over the controversy of real presence. And so you shall observe the like trick in most of the other disputations, and yet (as I say) if there be no real presence, the question of Transubstantiation hath no place at all, no nor the sacrifice neither, as Ridley confesseth in his said resolution, and this for the first shift of Peter Martyr & his fellows in this disputation.  
8. The second shift is, that he putteth down fraudulently the second question about 
Fox pag. 1249.  the real 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 saviour, be there truly and really, yet not after a fleshly and corporal manner, as these words seem to import, but rather Sacramentally, that is to say though truly, and really, yet after a sacramental and spiritual manner, even as our soul is in our body, and an angel in a corporal place. And albeit some authors and Fathers do use sometimes the word Corporaliter, speaking of the real presence, yet do Fox and Martyr maliciously every where call it a carnal and corporal presence, thereby to deceive the simple reader, 
See afterwards c. 3.  as though it were there with local dimensions, after the manner of other bodies, and not after a spiritual manner of being.  
9 The third fraud in setting down this first disputation is, that whereas Fox doth tell 
Fox pag. ibid.  us in this place, that the principal disputers against Peter Martyr were Doctor Tressam, Doctor Chadsey, and Master Morgan, yet doth he not tell us 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 you 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, if Fox had thought good to have related both parts (as he ought to have done) or have left both parts out. But this is his ordinary custom of dealing. Wherefore that you may understand partly how the matter went in deed, by the relation of one that was present, to wit D. Saunders, I will set down briefly his words of the action in general, as it passed. Thus than he writeth about this first Oxford disputation.  
10. Petrus Martyr (saith he) etc. Peter Martyr, of 
Sand l●b. 2. de schism. Angl.  whom many of the sectaries promised to themselves great matters, for that he was public reader in Oxford, being challenged in those days by many of that university, to defend his doctrine by disputation, and namely by D. Rich. Smyth who had been his predecessor in the same chair, never durst to yield there unto, until he had obtained that D. Cox a sectary of his own side, and a man of very lose life should be sent from the court, to be moderator and judge in the same disputation: And that D. Smith was called from the university, etc. But when the said disputation had endured for three days, and that Cox had seen his 
D. Saunders relation of this disputation at Oxford.  Peter Martyr much more pressed than he looked for, and almost hissed out of the schools by all the scholars and hearers, he was forced to say that he was sent for away in all haste to London, & consequently could no longer attend to these disputes. Wherefore having given great praises publicly to Peter Martyr, and admonished the scholars to keep peace, he broke up those disputations, & so departed with infamy in the sight of all men: yet Peter Martyr afterward set forth these disputations fraudulently, as heretics are accustomed, and would needs seem to have had the victory, but by the judgement of that university he was twice vanquished, first in that he durst not encounter D. Smith, & secondly for that he could not answer the arguments of the other Cath. Doctors. Thus he. Whereby we may perceive, the reason wherefore Fox would not set down 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 time (saith Fox) to wit 
The second disputation held by D. Ridley in Cambridge.  upon the 20. of June anno 1549. the defendant for the Protestant side was D. Madew; the opponents D. Glyn, M. Langdale, M. Sedgewike, and M. young, the moderator was D. Ridley B. of Rochester at that time, but soon after of London by deprivation of D. Bonner. The commissionars sent from the King to assist as judges, besides the said Nicolas Ridley, were Thomas B. of Ely, Sir John Cheke schoolmaster to the King, a forward Protestant in those days, though under Q. Mary he left them, D. May a civilian, and D. Wenday the King's physician. The questions disputed were too, as before hath been said. The first, whether there were any Transubstantiation & the second, whether there be any external & propitiatory sacrifice in the mass. The question of the real presence, whereof both these do depend, was not handled at all, for the causes you must think before mentioned, and he that shall read over this whole disputation, shall find it a very cold & trifling thing, much of the time being spent in ceremonial words of courtesy, much in impertinent 
Trifling disputations of our first Protestant's.  excursions from the purpose, out of all scholastical form of disputing or straining the defendant, & when any thing drew near to urge or press, either the moderator would divert the same by intruding himself, or the proctor's by their authority would interrupt it. Hear (faith Fox) the proctor's commanded the opponent to divert, etc. And again, here the proctor's commanded Langdale to give place to another. 
Fox pag. 1254.  And further; here he was commanded to reply in the second matter. And yet further, here M. Sedgewike was commanded to cease to Master young. Which young, having scarce made three instances in proof of the Sacrifice against Ridley, ended all the disputations with these words: Well I am contented, and do most humbly beseech your good Lorshipp, to pardon me of my great rudeness & imbecility which I have here showed, etc. Which indeed showeth great imbecility, if he said so in deed, and that Fox hath not made him to speak as best pleaseth himself.  
12. I could allege divers other simplicities out of this disputation, if I would stand upon them, yea on the part of Fox and Ridley themselves; for in one place Fox maketh this note upon a certain answer of Ridley: here is to be noted (saith he) that Peter Martyr in his answer at Oxford, did grant a change in the substances of bread 
Fox pag. 1255.  and wine, which in Cambridge by the Bishop Doctor 
Fox noteth the disagreement of his own men.  Ridley was denied. Behold here the goodly agreement, that was between the first founders of sacramentaries doctrine in England, and how worthy to be noted by themselves. Friar Martyr in Oxford granted a change in the substances themselves of bread and wine, by the words of consecration; but Bishop Ridley in Cambridge denieth the same, so great difference is there between Oxford and Cambridge, the Friar and the Bishop: and is not he well helped up that hangeth his soul on these men's opinions? this then is one simplicity of Fox, but let us hear another of Ridley related by Fox his ownepen, in his answer to Master Sedgewicke, who began thus.  
13. Right Worshippfull master Doctor I do ask of you first of all, whether the Greek article (this) 
Ridley's fond answering.  being of the neuter gender, be referred to the word (bread) or to the word (body)? to the first it cannot be, for that it is of the masculine gender, ergo to the second. This was the objection or demand, let us hear the bishops solution. Forsooth (saith 
Fox pag. 1256.  he) that article is referred to neither of both, but may signisie unto us any other kind of things. Thus the Bishop. So as by this exposition, Christ might as well signify a staff, or a stool, or any garment or thing that lay on the table, or whatsoever else any man will devise, as well as bread, or his body, when he said of bread, this is my body. And is not this a Bishop like answer? But of the arguments and answers of this second disputation, we shall have occasion to speak afterwards, when the controversies themselves shallbe discussed in particular, and so we shall pass forward to recoumpte the other disputations that ensue.   

Third Disputation. §. 3.  
14. The third disputation was held at Cambridge upon the 23. of June in the same year 1549. as Fox recounteth, wherein two propositions were held affirmatively for the catholics, by the aforesaid D. Glyn defendant, to wit 
The 3. disputation at Cambridge anno Domini 1549.  for the real presence & sacrifice of the mass. The opponents for the Protestants were M. Perne, M. Gryndall B. afterwards of London, and Canterbury, M. guest and M. Pilkinton, which last under Q. Elizabeth got the bishopric of Durham. The moderator and judges were the same as in the former disputation, to wit Ridley and his fellows, and the manner and form not much unlike, though somewhat more disorderly, each one putting in his verdict to and fro at his pleasure. But yet whosoever shall peruse the same with equality, will easily perceive an eminent difference for learning, discretion and clear answering between the said Doctor Glyn and his opponents, which principally is to be attributed to the difference of his cause from theirs; they never prosecuting commonly one medium for above one or two instances, but leaping presently to another: so grave and substantial a disputation was this for poor people that heard it, or heard of it, and followed the resolution therein set down, to hang their souls upon the certainty thereof.  
15. Master Perne beginneth with a complaint, 
D. Perne confesseth the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament.  against D. Glyn, that he had left Transubstantiation & taken upon him to defend the real presence in the Sacrament, whereas we deny nothing less (saith he) than his corporal presence or absence of his substance in the bread. whereby it is evidently seen, that Master Perne was not of Ridley's opinion, but held the real presence, though with Luther perhaps he did not believe Transubstantiation: and this is evident by his arguments which after he used, nothing in deed against the real presence, but only to prove that Christ his body was together with bread. The like manner of impertinent dealing used Ridley himself in divers of his arguments; as for example: this is that bread (saith he) which came 
Fox pag. 1257.  down from heaven, ergo, it is not Christ's body, for that his body came not from heaven: which proveth also that it was not bread, for that Ridley will not say (I think) that the material bread which Christ had in his hand, came down from heaven. The like argument useth Pilkin●on thus: wheresoever (saith he) Christ is, there be his 
Fond arguments of sacramentaries.  ministers also, for so he promised: but Christ as you hold is in the Sacrament, ergo his ministers are there also. Which were a foul inconvenience as you see, if all our English ministers should be in the Sacrament for the poor people to bite at. And yet this argument seemeth so grave unto John Fox, as he maketh this marginal note thereon. Where Christ is, there are his ministers. And the poor fellow hath not so much wit, as to see that those words of Christ were meant of his glory in the life to come, and not of the Sacrament which is ministered upon earth.  
16. But to the end you may the better perceive, how disorderly this and the former disputation at Cambridge, was made by the new Protestants to overbear the Catholic cause, I shall set down some lines 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 Ridley's determination upon these disputations. Thus than he writeth: Vix dum finita 
Albanus Langlandus in confut. Determ. Nicol. Ridley.  Collegiorum visitatione, etc. The colleges of Cambridge were no sooner visited by the Kings commissioners, but there appeared upon all the gates two conclusions set up, the first against Transubstantiation, the other against the sacrifice of the mass, and presently the bedells of the university went about to give warning, that if any man had any thing 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 perpetual silence for ever 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 hear: but all that were indifferent, did see matters to be handled with great inequality; for that whosoever spoke for the Catholic side presently his speech was either interrupted, or for brevity shifted of to another time, and Ridley that was the captain of all stepping in at every turn to assist his defendant, did either with threats or fair words, or by scoffs and bitter taunts seek to divert the Catholic disputers.  
17. And when the first days disputation was in this manner ended, it was denounced to the auditory, before the dismission of the schools, that if any man would come forth 
The partial dealing of Protestant's in their disputations.  and defend within a day or two, the Catholic part of those questions, he might, but afterwards it should not be lawful for any man to speak thereof: which unexpected denunciation being heard, one man looked upon another, and all for a time were silent, until at length a most learned and grave man, pious and skilful, as well in knowledge of the tongues, as also in divinity, whereof he had bun there public reader before (to wit Doctor Glyn) stepped forth and offered himself to the combat, and performed it the third day after, taking 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 urged in these disputations about the real presence, that notwithstanding they avoided and dissembled that question so much as they could, yet were they driven to such shifts, to put of the clear places & authorities of ancient Fathers about the same, as was ridiculous to hear; for that sometimes they said Christ's body was present in the Sacrament by signification, then by representation, then by meditation, then by appellation, sometimes by propriety, other times by nature, then by power, than again by grace, then by memory or remembrance, then by virtue & energy, and by many other devices of deluding or shifting of the matter. All which being done, and another third day of disputation passed over in like manner, Ridley took upon him to give the determination of all, as though he had gotten the victory. Thus far out of Doctor Langelands' book; whereby may be gathered how the matter passed in these disputations.   

Fourth Disputation. §. 4.  
18. The fourth disputation was held also in Cambridge soon after the former, wherein, according 
The 4. disputation at Cambridge. 1549.  to Fox his relation, the foresaid Master Perne was defendant for the Protestants, and the opponents for the Catholic part, were Master Parker, Master Pollard, Master Vavesour, and Master young: the moderator and judges 
Fox pag. 1257.  was Master Ridley of Rochester together with his fellows aforementioned: the two questions were about Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice; the other of the real presence was pretermitted (according to the former declared sleight) though it were the principal and the ground, whereon these other two do depend, & concerneth the very substance of the Zwinglian and Calvinian sect, now newly set up and authorized by these disputations, and consequently should first and principally have been discussed, if either good method or show of true dealing had been observed. But D. Perne the defendant believed the real presence, as in the former disputation you have heard him protest, though in this disputation he sought to expound himself in these words: I grant that Christ is in the Sacrament truly, wholly and verily after a certain property and manner. I deny not his presence, but his real, and corporal presence. But this is a difference without a diversity (by M. Pernes 
D. Pearne speaketh doubtfully & doubly about the Sacrament.  licence) for if Christ's body be there truly, wholly and verily, he must also be there really, as to every man's common sense and reason is evident; and so Master Perne by this distinction showeth, that he believed nothing at all really, truly, or verily at that time, if his heart were according to his words.  
19 And albeit, as I have said, Master Perne propoundeth 
The fond manner of this disputation.  the questions of Transubstantiation & sacrifice of the mass, yet when they came to join issue, their speech was most of all about the real presence, and I call it a speech rather than disputation, for that it had neither order, method, nor substance in it, but was a most ridiculous colloquy of one to another, without urging or answering any one argument substantially, but as little beagles lying together, one starteth up and giveth a bark or two, and lieth down again; so these disputers, answerers, and moderator handled the matter; as for example, M. Parker being to argue first, began to allege three vain reasons (as Fox calleth them in the margin) for the real presence, to wit, that it was prophesied, promised, and performed as he proved by divers places of scripture, which being done John Fox, without telling us any answer at all given by Master Perne, hath these words. Hear they were forced to break of through the want of time, yet Master Parker replied this with a prayer against Master Perne; we give th● thanks most holy Father, that thou hast hidden these 
Fox pag. 1260.  things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes, for pride is the root of all heresies whatsoever, etc.  
20. Now here I would ask John Fox what he meaneth by this note; that they were forced to break of for lack of time? and yet that 
Contradiction in Fox his words.  Parker replied, and began his reply with a prayer? For if they broke of, how did he reply, especially his reply being somewhat long? And if he replied in so large a manner as Fox setteth it down, how did they break of? & how ridiculous a thing is it, that a solemn disputation being begun in presence of the whole university, and of so great an audience, and Master Parker being the first opponent, the matter should be broken of without hearing any one answer of the defendant? But these are Fox his fooleries, and these were the first and most firm foundations of our new Calvinian sect in England. Many other particulars might be set down, especially of Ridley● moderating, who at every turn made himself defendant & answered far worse than Perne himself, but we shall have better occasion to touch the same afterward, when we shall examine more particularly what passed about every controversy, in each of these disputations; only vavesour of all the opponents seemeth to have spoken best to the purpose 
M. vavesour commended.  (as Fox relateth him) for that he alleged an authority of S. Augustine in Psalm. 98. which Ridley, not able to answer, ridiculously shifteth of as you shall see afterwards, when it cometh in rank to be examined, and in his preface he cited two sayings of Zuinglius and Oecolampadius, 
Zuinglius and Oecolampadius doubtful of their doctrine at the beginning.  of their own doubtfulness at the beginning, in the doctrine with they first broached against the real presence. Zuinglius his words are: Albeit this thing that I mean to treat of, doth like me very well; yet notwithstanding I dare define nothing, but only show my poor judgement abroad to others, etc. Oecolampadius his words are writing to his brother. Peace be with thee. As far as I can conjecture out of the ancient Fathers, these words of Christ (this is my body) is a figurative locution, etc. Thus they at the beginning very doubtfully, as you see, but afterward, as those that tell lies so often, as at length they begin to believe them to be true themselves, so did these men; and yet others were so foolish as to follow them in their doubtful fancies, a pitiful case in the cause of our soul. Well, john Fox concludeth this whole 
Fox pag. 1261.  disputation with these words: Hear endeth (saith he) the third and last disputation holden at Cambridge 1549.   

Fifth Disputation. §. 5.  
21. The fifth disputation was the public determination made by B. Ridley, as judge and 
The 5. disputation or determination at Cambridge by M. Ridley.  moderator upon the questions, before handled in the three disputations of Cambridge, which determination I do reckon among the number of the other disputations public, and colloquies, both for that it was made upon a several day most solemnly, and with no less concourse of people than the former, as also for that it setteth down all the heads of his principal arguments, as the first disputation doth those of Peter Martyr, though without the answers or replies of his adversaries. And indeed this being a collection of all the substantial points, of whatsoever had been alleged by the Protestants in all three disputations, as also whatsoever himself could add thereunto; and being done with so great study & deliberation, as to be delivered in the greatest concourse and expectation of people (for the novelty thereof) that ever perhaps were seen together in Cambridge before; it being the first public determination against the truth of Christ's sacred body in the Sacrament, that ever that university, from her first foundation had heard of: For all these reasons and respects (I say) this determination may perhaps be numbered amongst one of the most solemn conferences, or disputations held by the Sacramentarye Protestants in our country.  
22. Ridley then began the assembly with these words: There hath been an ancient custom among you, that after disputations had in your common schools, 
Fox pag. 1261.  there should be some determination made of the matter disputed and debated, especially touching Christian Religion; because therefore it is seen good to these worshipful assistants, joined with me in commission from the King's majesty, that I should perform the same at this time, I will by your favourable patience declare, both 
Ridley his entrance to his determination.  what I do think and believe myself, and what all other aught to think of the same, which I would that afterward ye did with diligence weigh and ponder, every man at home severally by himself, etc. This is his preface, wherein you may note first, what a different assurance it is for a man, to repose the salvation of his soul upon this new belief and thinking of Master Ridley, which was not yet as it seemeth full three or four years old with him (for until K. Henry's death he was ever held of another opinion) or upon the general determination, learning, judgement, piety, & consent of the worthiest in the Christian world, assembled together in councils, wheroften, (as in our preface we have touched, and shall again afterward) had determined for the real presence in the space of the 
divers considerations about the uncertainty of Protestants belief.  last 500 years, before this contrary determination of Ridley, to wit after the question was once moved by Berengarius, until it was moved again by Zuinglius and Oecolampadius; let every discreet man, I say, consider what a difference this is, for a man to adventure his soul and everlasting inheritance thereon. For if a man had demanded of Ridley himself 4. or 5. years before this day, what a man was bound to think and believe in this point for saving his soul, he would have said the quite contrary to that he determineth now.  
23. Secondly you may consider another difference in this private determination, of Ridley & his associates from that of Catholic councils, for that councils after inquiry and disputations made for the truth, do determine by general consent of the bishops assembled, with assured assistance of the holy ghost; whereas Master Ridley remitteth all to the private judgement of every one at home, severally by himself; which is as much to say, notwithstanding all the disputation, and his determination, yet must every man and woman follow their own fancy at home, and be judge of all that hath been disputed, or determined: & this is the certainty that Protestants have for common people to rely upon.  
24. Thirdly it is to be noted, that notwithstanding Fox calleth this decision, the determination of Doctor Nicolas Ridley B. of Rochester, upon the conclusions above 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 abundantly, pretermitting the very chief & principal question in deed, whereof all the rest dependeth, which is of the real presence, which maketh the very essence of Calvinian and Zuinglain sect, whereby they do differ from both Lutherans and us: of which absurd imposture we have spoken sufficiently before, and seeing so much had been said in the former disputations about that point, though greatly against the Protestants inclination, me thinketh he ought not to have left out wholly that question in this his determination. But as I have often said, their principal shift in those days was to step from the main point, whether Christ were really in the Sacrament or no; & to leap unto a quiddity of the manner of his being there, to wit by Transubstantiation. 
Five pretended heads of Ridley's determination.  About which notwithstanding, B. Ridley beginneth his resolution with great ostentation of words saying; that he had five principal grounds or head springs for the same: First (to use his words) the authority, majesty, and verity of the scriptures: secondly the most certain testimonies of ancient Catholic Fathers: thirdly the definition of a Sacrament: four the abominable heresy of Eutiches, that may ensue of Transubstantiation: fifthly, the most sure belief of the article of our faith; he ascended into heaven, etc.  
25. These be Master Ridley's five bulwarks or castles of defence builded in the air, which he handleth so fond and childishly, as after you shall see in the particular examinations of his arguments. Only here I will say in general, that the reader shall find his authority, majesty, and verity of scriptures against Transubstantiation, to be a mere vaunt and vanity, for he hath no one clear or substantial place at all. And as for his certain testimonies of the ancient Fathers, they will prove so uncertain for his purpose, as you shall see them most certainly against him. His third castle of the definition of a Sacrament, will prove a cottage of no strength at all, for that the true nature of a Sacrament standeth well with Transubstantiation. His fourth head springe about the heresy of Eutiches, will prove a puddle, and himself puzzeled therein, for that the heresy of Eutiches confounding two distinct natures in Christ, hath no more coherence with Transubstantiation, than Rochester with Rome. And finally his last ground about the article of Christ's ascending into heaven, hath no ground to rest on, but is a mere imagination in the air, to wit, that for so much as Christ ascended into heaven, ergo there is no Transubstantiation.  
26. Wherefore to leave this first question of Transubstantiation, and pass to the second of 
Ridley's resolution about the sacrifice of the mass.  sacrifice, vow must understand, that when Master Ridley had spent most of the time about Transubstantiation, he had little left concerning the sacrifice of the mass, but concluded his said determination in very few words thus: Now for the better conclusion (saith he) concerning the sacrifice, because it dependeth upon the first, I will in few 
Fox pag. 1262.  words declare what I think. Two things do persuade me, that this conclusion (against the sacrifice of the mass) is true, that is certain places of scripture, and certain testimonies of the Fathers. Lo here the grave and weighty motives that Ridley had, to adventure upon so great a change in belief as this was, after so many years, being a Priest and Catholic Bishop, and offering sacrifice after the manner of the Catholic Church, from the first day of our countries conversion, unto th'end of K. Henry's reign. His motives were, as you hear, certain places of the scripture, which were only taken out of the Epistle to the Hebrues, talking of Christ's bloody sacrifice on the cross, which was but 
Hebr. 9 & 10.  one, & certain places of the Fathers, to wit, two or three misunderstood out of S. Augustine, 
The miserable proceeding of Ridley.  and one out of Fulgentius, all which notwithstanding prove nothing for his purpose, as after you shall see declared in their place, and turn. And the self same Fathers have so many other clear places to the contrary, as we will desire no better judges for proof of our Catholic cause, then if Ridley would remit himself to these two Fathers judgements, by him cited against us; for that both of them do profess themselves to be Priests, and to offer external sacrifice, upon the Altar as our Priests do now.  
27. Consider then how wise and constant a man Ridley was, to leave his ancient faith so generally received throughout all Christendom in his days, and so many years practised by himself, upon two such motives, as are certain places of scripture misunderstood by himself, and certain testimonies of Fathers, that seemed to him to have some difficulty. Which jevity was so displeasant unto almighty God, as by the effects we see, that whereas at the beginning he seemed to doubt upon these two motives, leaving other men to judge thereof, he became by little and little to be so obstinately blinded at length therein, as albeit some four or five years after, he were openly convicted in disputations at Oxford, as by his answers you shall afterwards see, yet was he content to burn for the same, which was the highest degree of calamity that could fall upon him, in body and soul. And thus much of him and his determination for the present.   

sixth Disputation. §. 6.  
28. In all the former disputations both at Oxford and Cambridge, you shall find nothing 
The sixth disputation at Cambridge by Bucer 1549.  of friar Martin Bucer, no not so much as that he is once named in all these conflicts, about the blessed Sacrament. And yet you must remember, that he was principal reader of divinity in Cambridge at this time, as Peter Martyr was in Oxford: and therefore as the first place was given to the said Peter in Oxford; so it is likely, that the same would have been to Martin in Cambridge, if 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 himself therein, and therefore had he not any part 
Martin Bucer in great distress.  allowed him in this comedy, either of defendant, opponent, disputer, counsellor, moderator, assistant, or other office or employment: nay it is thought that he incurred so great disgrace about this matter, as he could willingly have departed the realm again, (as Bernardinus Ochinus upon such like discontentment did from London) had not the necessity of his woman, and other impediments of poverty letted him, not knowing well whither to go, as being expulsed from Argentina at his coming to England, as 
* Mense Decemb. cap. 16.  before we have showed in the story of his life.  
29. Wherefore resolving himself at length to pass over this mortification, and to give our English Protestant's some satisfaction, though not in the points which they desired, he thought it good after Ridley's departure, to defend certain other paradoxes, which Fox recordeth in these words: Over and beside these 
Fox pag. 1262 & 1263.  disputations above mentioned, other disputations were holden in Cambridge shortly after by Martin Bucer, upon these conclusions following: First, that the canonical books of scripture alone, do sufficiently teach the regenerate all things necessary belonging to salvation. Secondly, there is no Church on earth that erreth not, as well in faith, as in manners. Thirdly we are so justified freely of God, that before our justification, 
The questions of Bucers' disputatio.  it is sin and provoketh God's wrath against us, whatsoever good work we seem to do. Then being justified, we do good works.  
30. These were Bucers' conclusions, which well I may call paradoxes, for that even in the common sense & judgement of every mean capacity, the falsity and absurdity thereof is apparent. For as touching the first, though we grant, that the divine books of scripture, if they were fewer than they are (respecting God's holy providence) are sufficient to teach both regenerate and not regenerate (that believe the verity thereof) the true way of salvation, and that the said divine providence hath, doth, and will so provide, that albeit some parts of these we now have should be lost (as divers others before have been) yet should the remnant still be sufficient to that purpose, with such other supplies of God's assistance as he would send; yet to say, as this man doth, that the canonical books of scripture 
How scriptures are sufficient to salvation.  alone, do sufficiently teach all things belonging to salvation; if by alone he will exclude all other helps of tradition, antiquity, testimony of the Church, interpretation of the Fathers, direction of general councils, and other like aids, it is a most absurd paradox; for neither can we know which books are to be held canonical, nor what they teach truly & sincerely, nor what may be deduced out of them; if we remove the former helps; And the case is, as if one of the Kings of our country going abroad, as some did to Jerusalem, or other foreign wars, and intending to be long absent, should leave with his councillors for their better government certain laws written with his own hand, & other directions by word of mouth how to proceed, 
A case representing the heretics of our days about crying for scriptures alone.  interprett, and use them, commanding all men to obey them, and that some troublesome people after many years continuance in their government, should appeal from them, to the Kings written laws only, praying the sufficiency thereof (for better colou●inge their pretence) and suing that it were ● blot unto the said laws, and to the King's wisdom that made them, to acknowledge any insufficiency at all in them for perfect direction of the common wealth, which laws ●et, themselves would expound, as pleased them best for their own purposes.  
●1. In this case, who seethe not whereunto this practice tendeth, and for what causes so great praises are given to the sufficiency of these laws, used to make the praisers judges of all, and to exempt them from all controlment of others? And the very same is seen in the other case of the scriptures, which being written by the spirit and fingar of God himself, and delivered unto us by the Church, whose commission also and authority in the same scriptures is set down, binding us under 
Matt. 18. 1 Tim 3. Marc. vlt. Matt. 16.  dlamnation to hear her from age to age as the pillar and firmament of truth, there step up together divers sorts of sectarves in all ages, & of this of ours, Lutherans, Zwinglians, Caluinists, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, and the like challenged by the said Church of disobedience, and do all appeal jointly and severally from her, to only scriptures, praising highly the sufficiency, and excellency thereof, and refusing all other means, either of tradition or ancient exposition, for understanding of the sense and true meaning. And when we allege the Catholic Doctors and Pastors of every age, as spiritual governors and Conselors under God in the Church, for explaninge his divine will and meaning in this behalf; they refuse all, and only will be interpreters and expositors themselves, and this not only against the Catho. Church, which they ought to obey, but one sect also against another for their particular opinions, and diversities, which by this means are made irreconcilable, and indeterminable, as experience teacheth us. For when, I pray you, will Luther & Zuinglius or their followers, come to any accord either with us, or amongst themselves by only canonical scriptures, expounded after each parties particular spirit, judgement and affection? The like I may ask of Anabaptists & Arrians, English Protestant's and Puritans, or of any other sectaries that you can name unto me, which never agreed by this way, nor ever will. And this is the first paradox of Martin Bucer, that only scriptures are sufficient to teach every man.  
32. The second is yet worse (if worse may be) to wit; that there is no Church on earth, which 
The second paradox of Martin Bucer.  erreth not as well in faith as manners. Which if it be so, then erreth also in faith the true Church of Christ, and is a lying Church, and may lead us into error and heresy. And of this it followeth again, that we can have no certainty of any thing in this life, and that almighty God doth damn us very unjustly for heresy, wherinto we may be brought by his true Church, and spouse, which on the other side, he hath commanded us to hear, and obey 
Matt●. 18.  under pain of damnation; it followeth also that S. Paul did falsely call the Church, the pillar and 
1. Tim. 5.  firmament of truth; for as much as it may both deceive and be deceived. Christ's promise also was false, when he assured his Church, that 
Marc. vlt.  he would be with her by his spirit of truth unto the world's end; and that, the gates of hell should not prevail 
Matth. 16.  against her. All these absurdities, impossibilities and impieties, do follow of this second paradox, besides infinite others, which any mean capacity may deduce of himself.  
33. The third paradox also is no less monstrous to common sense and reason, than the two former, to wit, that whatsoever good work 
The third paradox of Martin Bucer.  any man doth, or may seem to do before justification, a sin, and provoketh God's wrath. But I would ask this new opinionator or paradox-defender, how he would answer to that of Exodus, where it is said of the Egyptian midwives ● infidels no doubt) quia timuerunt obstetrices Deum, aedificavit illis domos. God gave them abundant 
Exod. 1.  children, for that upon fear of offending almighty God, they disobeyed their King Pharaoh in saving the Hebrues children. doth God use to reward sin? or to praise that which provoketh his wrath? Again, the Prophett Ezechiell showeth us how God did temporally reward Nabuchodonozor and his army 
Ezech. 20.  with the spoil of Egypt, for that they had served him faithfully in chastizing of Tyrus. And S. Jerome upon that place hath 
Hier. in Comment. in cap. 20. Ezech.  these words: By that Nabuchodonosor received this reward for his good work, we learn that Gentiles also if they do any good thing, shall not lose their reward at God's hands; and how can God be said to reward that which offendeth him? The Prophet Daniel also to the same Nabuchodonosor an infidel, gave this counsel, peccata tua eleemosymis 
Dan. 4.  redime: redeem thy sins with alms, which he would never have done, if it had been a sin, & provoked God's wrath to give alms, or to perform any such other moral virtue before justification, especially being stirred & helped thereunto by God's especial help, which may be before justification, as Martin Bucer in this paradox supposeth. And lastly not to stand any longer in this which is of itself so evident; I would ask friar Martin, whether Cornelius the centurion being yet a gentile, did sin and provoke God's wrath in praying, and giving alms before his conversion? If he say yea (as needs he must according to his doctrine) the text of scripture is against him, for the angel said unto him: Thy prayers and alms deeds, have ascended up, and have been called into remembrance in the sight of God▪ 
Act. 10.  upon which words S. Augustine in divers of his 
Aug. l. de pradestinat. sanct cap 7. & lib. 1. de Baptis c. 3. & l. 4. c. 23.  works, doth call the said almsdeeds of Cornelius, before he believed in Christ, justice, and the gifts of God, which he would never have done, if they had been sins, and provoked God's wrath, as this newfangled friar hath taken upon him to defend.  
34. And this shallbe sufficient for this sixth disputation of Martin Bucer, which is five times as much, as Fox setteth down of the same, for that he relateth only the time and place of the said dispute, together with the conclusions afore mentioned, & that Sedgewicke, Yonge, and ●erne were opponents to Bucer therein; but all the rest he remitteth to a larger discourse at another time, supplying the brevity of this Bucerian disputation, with another dispute between custom and verity, which he calleth: A fruitful dialogue, gathered out (saith Fox) 
Fox pag. 1263.  ●f the Tractations of Peter Martyr, and other authors, ●● a certain reverend person of this realm, teaching all men not to measure Religion by custom, but to try custom by truth, etc.  
●5. And this was another device of those ●ayes of innovations and novelties, to dazzle ●●mple men's eyes, as though custom and Veri●●, 
An altercation between custom & verity.  the handmaid and mistress, were so fallen out, that one impugned the other, & could not agree or stand together any longer, and consequently custom and antiquity, must needs ●ue place to novelty; the fraud and folly of which device may in very few words be discovered, and their true friendship and agreement easily be declared; yea their in separable ●●herence to be such, as in our case of the controversy about the real presence (for in this ●●int they are made to brawl and full out) they cannot possibly be separated. For if verity in this matter have not antiquity and custom with it, it is novelty, and by consequence not verity at all. And on the otherside, custom in points of Christian faith and belief, if it be general, and of long time (for otherwise it cannot properly be called custom, in the subject we handle) may not possibly be found in our Christian Church without verity, for that otherwise the whole Church should universally admit a falsity, & continue it by custom, which to imagine were folly and madness, yea most insolent madness, if we believe 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 madness to dispute against that which the whole Church throughout the world doth practice. And he addeth in the same place, though it be not contained in the scriptures.  
36. Wherefore for john Fox, and his reverenc master Nicolas Ridley, Peter Martyr and others to come out now with a dialogue or brawling altercation, between custom and verity about the matter of the Sacrament, and to seek to set them by the ears, or make a divorce between them, for that custom had continue● from the beginning of our conversion to that day without verity, was a very simple and ridiculous device, & worthy John Fox his wi●● 
Custom and verity cannot be at odds in the Christian Church.  and gravity, for by this he confesseth in effect that custom and antiquity was against him whereof we in this matter do rightly also infer, verity I say in this matter concerning Christian faith and belief, received in the Church by custom and tradition of former ages, which our saviour Christ did promise to assist with his spirit of truth, whatsoever Fox or his fellows may object, or we admit, against Idolatry or other reprehensible customs of former times amongst the Jews, Gentiles, nations, countries, and commonwealths different from the Christian Church; all which had no such assurance of truth, for beginning and continuing their customs, as our Christian Church hath. And so much of this feigned fight, between custom and verity in Christian Religion; whatsoever arguments of moment are alleged in the combat between them about the real presence, shallbe afterward handled in their due places. So as of this disputation and Martin Bucers we shall make but one, to wit, the sixth.   

seventh Disputation. §. 7.  
37. Hitherto are the public disputations, recorded by Fox to have been held by Protestants, for establishing and authorizing their new religion under K. Edward, and all within the compass of one year, to wit, 1549. there ensue now four other, appointed some four years after in the first of Q. mary's reign 1553. which albeit they were under a Catholic government, yet were they for giving satisfaction only to Protestants of those days, 
The 7. disputation in the convocation house armo 1553.  when Catholic Religion was to be restored to th' end that the other might see their own levity in changing the same. And the first of these disputations (being the seventh in order) was held in the convocation house, at 
Fox pag. 1284.  S. Paul's Church in London, begun (as Fox saith) upon the 18. of October in the foresaid year, and during for six days together. The questions were the accustomed about the real presence and Transubstantiation. The manner of disputing was not in form or after any fashion of school, but rather of proposing doubts, and answering the same for satisfaction of them that were not resolved, and so much less than in the former was any thing pursued to any point of trial. Doctor Weston deane of Westminster was chosen prolocutor, 
M. Doctor Weston prolocutor.  who protested in his preface (as Fox saith) that this conference was not held to call any points of Catholic Religion into doubt, but to solve such 
Fox ibid.  scruples or doubts, as any man might pretend to have.  
38. This convocation consisted for the greatest part, of all those clergymen that had borne rule in K. Edward's days, excepting Cranmer, Ridley, Latymer and Rogers, and I know not if any other that were committed before. And the first point that was handled therein, was about a certain Calvinian catechism, set forth a little before under the name of that convocation, whereunto the prolocutor required subscriptions, to testify that it was not set forth by their consents, meaning, as it seemed, thereby to convince Ridley or Crammer, or both of false dealing therein. The second point was of subscribing to the real presence, whereunto all the whole house agreed (saith Fox) saving five or six, to wit, Master Philip's Dean of Rochester, Master Haddon Deane of Exeter, Master Philpott Archdeacon 
Six only of all the convocation house refused to subscribe.  of Winchester, Master Cheyney Archdeacon of Hereford, & Master Elmour Archdeacon of Stow, and one other whom he nameth not, and by these were propounded all the doubts, that were there discussed: and as for the first two days, there was nothing done at all, but a certain communication. The third day came the Lord greatmaster, with the Earl of Devonshire and divers other noble men, and Cheiney afterward Bishop of Gloucester, who 
M. Cheiney.  confessed the real 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 answer him and the rest extempore, whereby we may guess how 
D. Moreman.  substantial a disputation it was, for that the defendant came nothing at all prepared. Pho●ipps also proposed some what about the real presence; Elmour and Haddon spoke little upon that day, though the next day Elmour, than 
M. Elmour  chaplain to the Duke of Suffolk, and after Bishop of London, read certain authorities but of a notebook, which he had gathered against the real presence.  
●9. But of all other, the most busy was Philpott, 
M. Philpot.  both that day, and the other following, vaunting and challenging the whole company to dispute. Then quoth Philpott (saith Fox) I will speak plain English, the Sacrament of the Altar, which ye reckon to be all one with the mass; is no Sacrament at all, neither is Christ any wise present in it, and this his saying he offered to prove before the whole house, if they listed to call him thereunto, and before the Queen's grace, and her counsel, 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 if I shall not be able (quoth he) to maintain by God's word that I have said, and confound those six which shall take upon them to withstand me, in this point, let me be burned with as many sag gotts as be in London, before the court-gates, etc. This was Philpotts vaunt, and yet if ye consider the poor arguments he brought forth in this conference, which afterwards shallbe discussed, together with his fond answers that he gave in his 15. or 16. several examinations, before the bishops of Winchester, London, Chichester, Bangor and others (for so much pain was taken to save him) you will say that his B. Gardiner had reason, when he held him for more than half mad, 
john Philpotis vaunt in the convocation house.  as in his story we have related. Consider also, that his denying Christ to be present any wise in the Sacrament, is much different from that you heard Master Perne affirm before, by approbation of Master Ridley the moderator, that Christ's body was truly, wholly, and verily in the Sacrament after a certain propriety; but these men must not be taken at their words.  
40. And finally, the conclusion of all this conference with Philpott was, that the prolocutor in the end, seeing him out of all reason to trouble the house, laid two commandments upon him; the first that he should not come thither any more, unless he came in gown and typpett, as the others came: the second, that he should not speak but in order, and with licence as the rest did; whose answer Fox relateth in these words: then quoth Philpott 
Fox ibid.  I had rather be absent altogether, so insufferable was all order, or temperate manner of proceeding to this disorderly man; and so Q. Mary sent a write the next day to dissolve the convocation: And such as had disputed (saith Fox) on the contrary part, were driven, some to sly, some to deny, and some to die, though to most men's judgements, that heard the disputation, they had the upper hand, etc. These are heretical brags, as you will better see afterwards when we come to examining of arguments. And as for dying, none of the foresaid disputers died, to our knowledge, but only Philpott in his mad mood; Cheyney, Elmour, and Haddon got bishoprics, & other dignities under Q. Elizabeth. And so much of this disputation in the convocation house.   

Eight, ninth, and tenth Disputation. §. 8.  
41. These last three disputations I do join together, for that they were held successively in Oxford upon three several days in the month of April, anno 1554. with Cranmer, Ridley, and Latymer upon the foresaid three questions 
Three disputations in Oxford against Cranmer, Ridley and Latymer.  of the real presence, Transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the mass. The names (saith Fox) of the university Doctors and graduates, appointed to dispute against them upon the said questions, were these of Oxford, Doctor Weston prolocutor, Doctor Tressam, Doctor Cole, Doctor Oglethorpe, 
Fox pag. ●299.  Doctor Pie, Master Harpesfield, Master Fecknam. Of Cambridge, Doctor young Vice chancellor, Doctor Glynn, Doctor Seton, Doctor Watson, Doctor Sedgewicke, and Doctor Atkinson, to wit six of each university, all meeting at Oxford together to this effect. Thus far Fox; who describeth also the manner and form of this disputation, much more reasonable, orderly & indifferent, than all the former disputations under the Protestants, if we believe Fox himself, who saith; that in the middle of the Doctors, there were appointed four to be exceptores argumentorum, writers of the arguments (to use his 
Fox ibid.  words) and a table set in the midst, and four notaries sitting with them; So as by his relation there were eight indifferent men chosen to register whatsoever passed: yet if he relate truly, the manner of arguing, was not so orderly and schoolelike as might have been, whereby it came to pass, that scarce any argument 
The indifferent dealing of Cath. in their disputation  was prosecuted to the end; and the answering was such, as commonly was wholly from the purpose, as by divers examples, you shall see afterwards declared; as also we shall examine what arguments Cranmer could allege against the real presence, upon the fourth day of disputation, to wit the next day after Latymer had ended. For that Doctor Harpesfield answering for his degree, defended the question of the real presence, and Master Cranmer was courteously invited to the said disputation, and suffered to say what he would or could against that verity, & was fully answered; notwithstanding Fox will needs bear us in hand to the contrary, as his fashion is.  
42. And whereas the said Doctor Harpesfield in his preface, did much commend the diligent reading of scripture with prayer, and conferring one place with another, but yet said that this was no secure way or mean, for every particular man to resolve himself of the sense thereof, but must rather believe the body of the Catholic Church therein, than his own ●udgement. Fox saith that Master Cranmer in 
The foolish reprehension used by Cranmer & Fox.  his reply reprehended that direction, saying: whereas you refer the true sense & judgement of the scriptures to the Catholic Church, as judge thereof, you are much deceived, etc. And Fox himself addeth this marginal note: If Master Harpesfield (when he saith we must not follow our own heads and senses, ●ut give over our judgement to the holy Catholic Church) had willed us to submit ourselves to the holy Ghost he had said much better. So John. But I 
Fox pag. 1326.  would ask him, who shallbe judge what the holy Ghost teacheth us? For that is the question. For if a particular man reading the scripture with prayer, and confering place with place only, may be presumed to attain thereby the true meaning of the holy Ghost (which notwithstanding cannot be certain, for that an heretic may use the same means) how much more may the universal body of the Church, using the self-same means also, as many of her learned members no doubt do; how much more, I say, may she be thought and presumed to attain to the true sense of the holy Ghost, seeing that she hath a special promise of his infallible assistance to that effect, which particular men have not, though heretics are wont proudly to presume thereof? And so you shall see it appear also in these disputations, when we come to discuss the particulars.  
43. And here it is to be noted, that presently upon the end of this Oxford disputation, under Q. Mary, it was reported, that others should be held at Cambridge between the Doctors of that university, and the residue of the Protestant preachers that were in prison; whereof they being advertised by the warning of Doctor Ridley, as it seemeth by Fox, and casting 
Fox pag. 1336.  their heads together upon the matter, determined to refuse all disputation, except it were before the Queen and privy council, or before 
The Protestant Ministers excuse them solves from disputation.  the houses of parliament, to which effect they set forth a public writing and protestation, with certain reasons of excuses moving them thereunto, subscribed by Hooper, Farrar, Taylor, Philpott, Bradford, Rogers, Saunders, and some others. And their chief excuse was, for that matters had been determined by parliament before they were disputed of, not considering that in K. Edward's days, the same course with far less reason was held and determined by parliament, before the Protestants disputations in Cambridge.   

Of divers other Disputations held besides these ten. §. 9  
44. These ten disputations I thought good to set down, for that they were held upon the first changes of Religion in England, within the space of 4. or 5. years, as before hath been said: divers others I do pass over, 
The disputation of K. Henry wi●h Lambert.  though some of them were as solemn as these; as that of K. Henry the 8. against Lambert, wherein Doctor Cranmer disputed for the real presence, and the Lord Cromwell gave sentence against him, as we have showed 
* Sup ●●p. 14 di● 4. Octob.  before in Lambert's story. That also which was held on pretended in the beginning of the reign of Q Elizabeth at Westminster, between nine persons of the Catholic part, and as many of the Protestant preachers newly come from beyond the seas. Those of the Catholic side were siue bishops, to wit Doctor John White Bishop of Winchester, Doctor Baynes of Lichsield, Doctor Scott of Chester, Doctor Oglethorpe or Carliele, Doctor Watson of Lincoln, with four other Doctors adjoined unto them, Doctor Cole Deane of London, Doctor Langedale Archdeacon of Lewis, Doctor Harpesfield Archdeacon of 
A pretended disputation in the beginning of Q. elizabeth's reign anno 1559.  Canterbury, and Doctor Chadsey Archdeacon of Middlesex. And for the Protestant part, were Doctor Scory an Apostata friar, & Doctor Cox before mentioned, that fled the realm under Q. Mary, with whom joined M. Whitehead, M. Grindall, M. horn, M. sands, M. guest, M. Elmour, and M. jewel, all freshly come from beyond the seas, who all, except some one or two, were soon after for their good demeritts, made bishops, and accommodated by thrusting out the other, in reward of this disputation, wherein notwithstanding there was not one argument made, nor solution given, but only an ostentation sought to effectuate that with some colour, which otherwise was determined before, and lacked but a pretence, for that the Queen and those that were nearest about her, having determined to make a change of Religion, thought they should do it best, and most justifiable, if they promised some name of disputation, wherein the catholics had been satisfied or vanquished; to which end, there were so many shifts, partialities, and diuises used, and so many injuries offered to the Bishops of the Catholic party, as they thought good upon the second days meeting, to pass on no further, except more reason or indifferency were used towards them.  
45. For first, in this disputation summoned & denounced throughout the whole realm, by order of the Queen and council, Sir Nicolas Bacon lately made Lord Keeper, took upon him to be precedent, and chief moderator, 
The great inequality & injuries offered in this pretended disputation.  whom all men knew to be one of the greatest adversaries to Catholic Religion, that was in England, violent in condition, and utterly ignorant in matters of divinity. Secondly the questions appointed to be disputed on, were not chosen nor assigned by the said bishops, but by the same Sir Nicolas and his adherents in the name of the council, at the instance or pleasure of the Protestant new pretenders, whereof when the bishops complained, the Lord Keeper answered: the questions are neither of their (to wit the Protestants) propounding, 
Fox page 1924.  nor of your device, but offered indifferently to ●ow both.  
46. The questions were three, first whether it were against Godsword, and the custom of the primitive 
Three questions to small purpose.  Church, to use a tongue unknown to the people in common prayer, and administration of Sacraments. The second, whether every Church had authority to appoint, take away, and change ceremonies and ecclesiastical rites, so the same be to edification. Thirdly whether it can be proved by the word of God, that there is offered up in the mass a sacrifice propitiatory for the quick, and the dead: Which questions were to be handled (saith Fox) in the presence of the Queen's 
Fox pag. 1919.  Council, Nobility, and other of the parliament house, for the better satisfaction and enabling of their judgements, to treat and conclude of such laws as might depend hereupon. By which words you may easily conceive what the drift of this pretended disputation was, and how guilefully these questions were chosen, and set down, if you mark 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 sequel, that was to ensue thereof, which was no less than the universal change of the whole body of Catholic Religion, throughout the realm.  
47. This than was the first heretical fraud in appointing this disputation, and the questions to be disputed, but they were many 
divers frauds.  more and greater in the prosecution thereof; for first the Catholic clergy lacking their 
1.  chief head, which was the Archbishopp of Canterbury lately dead, the other Archbishopp of York, to wit, Doctor Heath was entertained with fair words for a time, to effectuate with his brethren, what the Protestant party of the council should think expedient▪ whereupon he being chancellor yet in name, though the effect of his office was given to Sir Nicolas Bacon, under the little of Lord Keeper, he was brought into the place of disputation, and sat in his room amongst other councillors, together with the Duke of Norfolk, & other of the nobility as one of them, and rather against the Bishops, then for them, (though no doubt the good man meant it not so) then was it appointed to the said Catholic 
2.  bishops by the Archbishopp, in name of the council, only two days before their meeting at the conference (for so complaineth 
Fox pag. 1923. col. 1. num. 1.  the Bishop of Lincoln in the second days meeting) that both they, to wit the Bishops, should begin to say what they could for themselves, & the Protestant preachers should answer them. And secondly that the conference should be in English and not in latin; and thirdly, that it should not be by way of arguing or disputing, but only of speech or 
3.  reading yt out of some book or paper: All which three points seeming indignities to 
Three indignities o●●ered unto the Bishops.  the bishops, they complained grievously thereof at their first public meeting, which was in Westminster Church upon the last of March 1559. being friday; and Bishop White of Winchester being the first to speak for his side, said that they were ready to dispute & argue, but had not their writing ready to be read there, but would do it at their next meeting: yet for giving some satisfaction, Doctor Cole extempore alleged some brief reasons concerning 
D. Col●.  the former questions or propositions, reserving the rest unto their fuller book or writing.  
48. But hereupon presently the Protestant preachers came out with their book, or invective against latin service, fraught with a vain show of many allegations, Scriptures, Fathers, councils, and Constitutions of Emperors, sounding as it might seem somewhat to their party, though nothing at all in truth, if you examine them, as they lie in Fox himself, 
An ostentation of the Protestant side.  but with this ostentation they sought to get the applause of the people, & hereby well declared that they had more than two days warning to prepare themselves; and albeit when this was done, the Bishops offered to refute all the same clearly at the next meeting, yet could they not be heard or permitted, as presently we shall show, but that this must needs stand for the whole resolution in the first question. And Fox like one of his kind, seeketh to prevent the matter in these words: The same being read (to wit the writing of the Protestant party) with some likelihood as it seemed 
Fox pag. 1922.  that the same was much allow able to the audience, certain of the bishops began to say, contrary to their former answer, that they had now much more to say in this matter, wherein although they might well have been reprehended; yet for avoiding of any more mistaking, and that they should utter all they had to say, it was ordered that upon Monday following, the bishops should bring their mind and reasons in writing to the second assertion, and to the last also is they could, and first read the same, and that done the other part should bring likewise theirs, etc.  
49. Lo here the indifferency that was used; the bishops are accused of cavillation, that they offered to answer in writing to the Protestants libel, which is not only denied them, but it is ordained also, that after other 
Open inequality.  two days, they should bring in whatsoever they have to say to the second and third questions, and reading it first, give their adversaries leave to triumph in the second place, as they had done upon the first question the day before. But upon Monday, when all the assembly was set, the bishops stood firmly upon this, that they would first read publicly their own vyrytinge, which there they brought with them upon the first question of latin service, in answer to that of the Protestants at the last meeting, but in no case would it be granted them. Fox relateth the Altercation thus.  
50. Winchester. I am determined for my part, that there shallbe now read that, which we have to say 
Altercation of the Bishops with Sir Nicolas Bacon.  for the first question.  
L. Keeper. Will you not then proceed in the order appointed you?  
Winchester. We should suffer prejudice, if you permit us not to treat of the first question first, and so we would come to the second, and I judge all my brethren are so minded.  
bishops. We are all so determined.  
L. Keeper. You ought to look what order is appointed you to keep, etc.  
Winchester. Sith our adversaries part have so confirmed their assertion, we suffer prejudice if you permit us not the like.  
Lincoln. We are not used indifferently, sithen ●ow allow us not, to open in present writing that, we ●aue to say for declaration of the first question, etc. for that which Master Cole spoke in this late assembly, 
The resolute speech of D. Watson B. of Lincoln.  ●as not prepared to strengthen our cause, but he made ●is oration of himself extempore, etc. We are all evil ordered as touching the time, our adversaries ●art having warning long before, and we were war●ed only two days before the last assembly in this place, and with this business and other trouble, we have been driven to be occupied the whole last night, for we may in no case betray the cause of God nor will not do, but sustain it to the uttermost of our power, but hereunto we want presently indifferent using, etc.  
L. Keeper. I am willing and ready to hear you, after the order taken for you to reason therein, and further or contrary to that, I cannot deal with you.  
Lichfield. Let us suffer no disorder herein, but be heard with indifferency.  
51. Thus went on that contention, whereof I omit much for brevities sake; but by this little, so partially declared by Fox, as may be imagined, and appeareth also by divers circumstances, you may guess how the matter passed, and which part had more reason. At the length, the Archbishop of York, knowing belike that this standing of the bishops would not prevail against designments, already made by the Queen and council in disgrace of the Catholic cause, willed the bishops ro give over in this matter, and to pass to the second question. But than began a new strife, which party should first begin to speak in this question also, the Bishops affirming both in respect they had begun the other day, and that the Protestant party was plaintiff or accusant, they should begin, and the bishops would answer, but this in no case would be granted, but that the Bishops must begin again, and the other have the last word as before: which indignity the Bishop of Lichfield being not well able to bear, requested humbly the Lords there present, that they might dispute, and try first which party was Catholic and of the Catholic Church, for that thereby would appear who had right to the first or second place of speech, and being somewhat earnest therein, spoke to M. horn in these words as Fox relateth.  
52. Lichfield. Master horn, Master Horn, there 
Another altercation with the L. Keeper.  are many Churches in Germany, I pray you which of these Churches are ye of?  
Horn. I am of Christ's Catholic Church.  
L. Keeper. You ought not thus to run into wandering talk of your own inventing, etc.  
Lichfield. Nay we must first go thus to work with them if we will search a truth: these men come in and pretend to be doubtful, therefore they should first bring what they have to impugn, etc.  
Winchester. Let them begin, so will we go onward.  
Chester. They speaking last would departed cum applausu populi, etc. surely we think it meet that they should for their parts give us place.  
Lichfield. Yea that they should and ought to do, where any indifferency is used.  
Elmour. We give you place, do we not? I pray you begin.  
L. Keeper. If you make this assembly gathered in vain, and will not go to the matter, let us rise up and departed.  
Winchester. Contented, let us be gone: for we will not in this point give over. And so finally after some other like altercation, Bacon dissolved the assembly with this threat.  
L. Keeper. My Lords, for that you will not, that we shall hear you, you may chance shortly to hear of us. So he. And this hearing was; that soon after (saith Stow) the bishops of Lincoln and Winchester were sent to the Towar, and the rest 
Stow anno Domini 1559.  bound to make daily, and personal appearance before the council, and not to departed the city of London and Westminster, until further order were taken with them for their disobedience and contempt.  
53. And this was the issue of the first disputation 
The issue of this disputation with the Bishops.  under Q. Elizabeth, whereof presently there was a book printed and published, according to the fashion of the new Doctors, giving the victory to the Protestants, and overthrow to the Cath. bishops, who yet, as you see, were never permitted to propose any one argument, or reason in due place and tyme.  
54. And with this shall we end our narration of public disputations, omitting many more private and particular, as the conference of Ridley, and Secretary burn, Doctor Fecknam, and others in the towar, in the beginning of Q. mary's 
Fox pag. 1297.  reign: The colloquy of the foresaid Fecknam, with the Lady Jane in the same place; the particular conferences and examinations of Hooper, Farrar, Taylour, Rogers, Philpott, Smyth, Bradford, times, Saunders, Blandford, and others of the learneder sort of Protestants, but many more of craftsmen, artificers, women, and such like of the ignorant sort, in the bishops consistories and other places: Out of which also we shall reduce the sum of the principal arguments or answers, if it be different from the rest, when we come afterward to their due places.  
55. And now all this being seen and considered, the reader will easily discern, what ground of certainty may be drawn from all these disputations, altercations, and conferences, to found thereon the security of his soul in believing, as the Protestants do: yea and yielding themselves to the fire for it, as many did in Q. mary's days, upon the fame 
The inference upon these disputations.  and credit of the foresaid disputations, which yet many of them understood not, nor ever heard or read, but most of all were not able to resolve themselves by them, if they had heard, read, or understood them, but only in general they rested themselves upon this point, that the Protestants were learned men, and had gotten the victory in disputations against the catholics, for that so it was told them. And this they thought sufficient for their assurance.  
56. But now on the contrary side, if a man would oppose to these ten public disputations before recited, ten learned councils of the Catholic Church, that disputed, examined, and condemned this heresy of theirs against the real presence, within the space of these last 600. years, since Berengarius first began 
Ten councils examined & confirmed the doctrine of the real presence.  it, as namely those four named by Lanckfranke, to wit, that of Rome under Leo the 9 and another of Versells under the same Pope; the third at Towars in France under Pope Victor successor to Leo, the fourth at Rome again under Pope Nicolas the second; In all which Berengarius himself was present, and in the last, not only abjured, but burned his own book. And 
Laufrane. contra Berengarium.  after this, six other councils to the same effect, the first at Rome under Gregory the 7. where Berengarius again abjured, as 
* Wald. tom. 2. de Sacram. cap. 43.  Waldensis testifieth: The second of Lateran in Rome also under Innocentius the third: the general council of Vienna; the fourth at Rome again under Pope John the 22. the fifth at Constance, and the sixth at Trent. All these councils (I say) if 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 God's Church, how great diligence they used to discuss this matter, what prayer, what conferring of scriptures, and other means they used, and with how great consent of both Greek and latin Church conform to all antiquity, they determined and resolved against the opinion of Protestants in our days; he will easily discover, how much more reason, and probability of security there is, of adventuring his soul of the one side then of the other, which yet he will better do, by contemplation of the vanity of new Protestants arguments and objections, against so ancient founded and continued a truth. Which objections we shall examine in the Chapters following. And so much for this.    

THE STATE OF THE chief questions handled in the foresaid disputations, Concerning the real presence, Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the mass, with the chief grounds that be on either side. CHAP. II.  
THE questions that were most treated, and urged on both sides, at the two changes of Religion under K. Edward and Q. Mary, were principally three, all concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, as before hath been showed: The first about the real presence of Christ in the said Sacrament: the second concerning the manner of his being there by Transubstantiation: and the third about the same as it is a Sacrifice. Which three points of Catholic doctrine being left by K. Henry the 8. standing in vigour, as he had found them delivered, and preserved by all his ancestors Kings of England, from the beginning of our conversion unto Christian Religion, they were all changed within two years after the said King's death, by authority of his son, being then somewhat less than a dozen years old, and by force of a certain act of parliament, confirmed by his name entitled: An act for the uniformity 
See the book of statutes an. 2 & 3. Edou. 6.  of service and administration of Sacraments, etc. Which act though in show it contained nothing else, but the admission and approbation of a certain new book of Common-prayer and administration of Sacraments (for so are the words of the Statute) gathered together by Cranmer, Ridley, and some others of the same humour, yet for that in this new communion book, together with many other articles of ancient belief, these three also of the real presence, Transubstantiation, and Sacrifice were altogether altered, and a new manner of faith therein taught, it was given forth that all was established and settled by parliament: and for that 
How disorderly Catholic Religion was overthrown in K. Edward's days.  this collection of new articles of belief, passed, as you have heard, in a bundle or farthel shuffled up together in haste, under the name of a reformed book of Common-prayer, without any great examination or dispute about the particulars, but in general only taking voices in the parliament house, as well of laymen as other learned and unlearned, whether the book should pass, or no; wherein the L. Seymour Protector and his crew, having the King's authority in their hands, and getting Cranmer and Ridley on their sides for love of women, and other preferment, easily prevailed, as by the statute itself may appear: it was thought expedient, as before hath been noted, that presently after the statute published, two means should be used for authorizing and better crediting the same. The one by persuasion of divers meetings, conferences, and disputations of the learneder sort, which before you have heard related; and the other by imprisonment & depriving such Bishops, and other chief ecclesiastical persons, as should show themselves most forward or able to resist this course, which they began with Winchester, Durham, and London: And thus passed they on for those 4. or 5. years that remained of K. Edward's reign after this change, wherein notwithstanding, almighty God showed wonderfully his hand of judgement and punishment soon after, upon the principal authors of this innovation both spiritual & temporal; as of the later, both the Seamours, Northumberland, Suffolk, and divers of their followers; of the former Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Latymer, & the like, as to the world is evident.  
2. For upon this followed the reign of Q. Mary for other 4. or 5. years, who seeing so 
The entrance of Q. Mary.  pitiful a breach made in the realm by this unlucky alteration, she as a zealous Catholic Princess, endeavoured to restore the old faith and Religion again, to the former unity of the universal Church, and close up the wound that had been made, using to this effect the self same means of instruction and correction, by arguments and punishments, but in different manner, and with far unlike justice of proceeding. For that the arguments were the very same, which ever had been used by ancient Fathers, against old heretics in the like controversies: and the punishments were no other than such, as ancient ecclesiastical Cannons did prescribe, and were used only towards them, that either had been chief authors of the innovations, or stood so obstinately in defence thereof, as by no means they could be recalled.  
3. Now than it is to be considered, which of these two sorts of people had more ground or reason, either those, that withstood the first change in K. Edward's days, which was from the old accustomed Religion to a new: or those that resisted the second change or exchange under Q. Mary, which was nothing else indeed but a return from the new to the old again. And hereby will appear the state of the controversy which now we are to handle. For as for the first sort, to wit catholics, the historical state of their controversy 
The state of the controversy in three questions.  is manifest, concerning these three questions about the Sacrament; for that no man can deny, but that the doctrine of the first, and third, which is the real presence, and Sacrifice, had been received and held for true throughout England, (wherein concurred also the whole Christian world abroad) from the time before by me prefixed of our first conversion, and more, even from the Apostles days: neither could any time be appointed, or memory brought forth, when, how, or by whom, the said doctrines had their beginnings in England, or else where, which according to S. Augustine's rule, and divers particular demonstrations laid down by us before, in 
Aug. l. 2. de baptis. e. 7. l. 4 e. 6. & 24. & l. 5 c. 23.  the first part of the Treatise of three conversions, doth evidently cowince, that they came from Christ, and his Apostles themselves; which ought to be sufficient, though no other proofs of Scriptures, Fathers, Doctors, and councils could be showed in particular for the same, as may be almost infinite, and some you shall hear a little after in this Chapter.  
4. And as for the second question of Transubstantiation, though it be but a certain appendix of the first, about the manner how Christ is really in the Sacrament, as 
* Sup. cap. praeced.  before hath been showed, & was not so particularly declared, and defined by the Church in this very term of Transubstantiation, until some 400. 
anno 1215.  years gone in the general council of Lateran, (as neither the doctrine of homusion or consubstantiality 
The names of consubstantiality, of Mother of God, and Transubstanriation, determined after one manner.  was, until 300. years after Christ in the council of Nice, neither the dignity of theotoces, whereby the blessed Virgin is called the Mother of God, until the council of Ephesus above 400. years after Christ:) yet was the same doctrine ever true before from the beginning, and uttered by the Fathers in other equivalent words & speeches, of changes, and Transmutations of natures, conversions of substances, and the like; and when there had not been such other evident proofs extant for the truth thereof; yet the consent and agreement of so great and universal a council of Christendom, as the said Lateran was, wherein both the Greek and latin Church agreed; and after great and long search by reading, disputing, praying, confering of Scriptures and Fathers, and other such means, concluded this doctrine to be truth: if there had been (I say) nothing else for English catholics to rest upon in this point, but the general consent, and agreement of so learned, holy, and venerable an assembly; it might justly seem sufficient in the sight of an indifferent or reasonable man to weigh, and overweigh, against the particular judgements of all the innovators of any age to the contrary; and so no marvel, though they stood so earnest against that innovation, this being the state of the controversy on their part.  
5. But now for the Protestants, the state of their question was far different. For first, whereas Martin Luther about the 9 or 10. year 
The state of the question for the Protestants.  of K. Henry's reign, had begun some novelties about the second and third question of Transubstantiation and Sacrifice, holding still the first of the real presence for firm, and that three of his first scholars Oecolampadius, Carolstadius, and Zuinglius full sore against his will, taking occasion of his innovations, had added others of their own, about the said first question, denying the real presnce, though in different sorts: and that after them again john Caluyn a Frenchman, had devised a third manner of belief therein, not a little different from them all about the said doctrine, both affirming & denying the real presence in different manner and sound of words: it seemed good to our English Protestant's at that time, or the more part thereof, to choose the last and newest opinion of all, and to establish it by parliament, banishing there upon the old faith, that ever until that day had been held and believed in our country, as well by themselves as others.  
6. And thus came in the first new Religion ●nto England, by some show of public authority, which being set forth with so great applause, 
Motives that drawn in new Religion.  and ostentation both of public disputations, colloquies, conferences, lectures, preachings, exposition of scriptures, and consent of parliament, as you have heard, did partly by this outward show and ostentation of authority, partly by the pleasing face of novelty itself, and sweet freedom that it brought from all former ecclesiastical discipline, so infect, and enchant the hearts, judgements, & affections of divers of the common people, and some also of the learned, (but the ●ighter, and more licentious sort) as afterward when Q. Mary came to take account, and would recall them again to the station which they had forsaken; they chose rather of ●ride and obstinacy, to suffer any thing, yea ●o die, and go to the fire, then to renounce these new fancies once fastened upon them: ●nto which pertinacity the fame of the foresaid Protestants disputations, did not a little animate them; for that it was given out generally (and so doth Fox stand stiffly in the same) that the sacramentaries had the upper hand in all, as well against the Lutherans in the first question of real presence, as against the catholics in that and all the rest: which brag how vain it was, will appear after when we come to examine their arguments in particular.  
7. But yet before we come to that, two other points seem expedient to be performed, for better direction of the readers understanding in these high mysteries of our faith: the first to see what sure grounds the catholics had, and have at this day to stand firm, and immovable in their old belief about these articles, notwithstanding any plausible or deceitful arguments of sense and reason, that may be brought against them; & secondly certain observations, whereby the force or rather fraud of heretical objections may be discovered, which so beguiled many simple people in Q. mary's days, and made them run headlong to their perdition; the first of these points I shall handle in this Chapter: the second in the next that followeth.  

Catholic grounds of these three articles, and first of the real presence. §. 1.  
8. The first ground that Catholic men have of these, and all other mysteries of Christian faith that are above the reach of common sense and reason, is the authority of the Catholic Church, by which they were taught the same: as points of faith revealed from God. And this is such a ground, as we see by experience, that the most part of people of what Religion soever, being young or unlearned, can yield no other reason in effect, why they believe this or that article of their faith, but for that they received the same from their Church and teachers thereof, being not able themselves to search out any other ground thereof: yea the most learned of all from their infancy, took all upon this assurance only of their Church, which Church if they held to be of infallible authority, so as she can neither be deceived nor deceive (as we do of the Catholic) then should they rest firm & sure in their opinion upon this ground; but if they hold that all Churches may err, and bring into error both in doctrine, and manners, as you have heard Martin Bucer hold before in his Cambridge conclusions, and most sectaries 
Sup. cap. 1.  of our time do follow him in that assertion, then can they have no ground or certainty this way, but each man and woman must seek other grounds and proofs, and stand upon their own judgements for trial of the same, which how well the most part of people can do, being either young, simple, unlearned, or otherways so busied in other matters, as they cannot attend thereunto, every man of mean discretion will consider, and consequently they must needs be said both to live and die, without any ground of their faith at all, but proper opinion, and so perish everlastingely.  
9 The famous Doctor S. Augustine handleth this matter in a special book to his friend Honoratus deceived by the manichees, as himself also sometimes had been, and he entituleth his book De utilitate credendi: of the profit that 
Aug. tom. 6.  cometh to a man by believing the Church, and points of faith therein taught, without demanding reason or proof thereof, which the manichees derided, and said that they required nothing to be believed of their followers, but that which first should be proved to them by good proof and reason, and not depend only of men's credit: but the holy Father scorneth this heretical brag and ostentation of theirs, and commendeth highly the contrary custom of simple believing upon the credit of the Catholic Church, for that otherwise infinite people should have no faith at all, and exhorteth his friend Honoratus to take the same course; first to believe, and after to seek the reason. His discourse is this: Fac nos nunc primum quaerere, cuinam Religioni, animas nostras, 
Aug. lib. de util. cred. tom. 6. cap. 7.  etc. Suppose that we now first of all did seek, unto what Religion we should commit our souls to be purged and rectified; without all doubt we must begin with the Catholic 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 Jews, and gentils put together: And albeit amongst these Christians, there may be sects and heresies, and all of them would seem to be catholics, and do call others besides themselves heretics: yet all grant, that if we consider the whole body of the world, there is one Church amongst the rest more eminent than all other, & more plentiful in number, & (as they which know her do affirm) more sincere also in truth; but as concerning truth, we shall dispute more afterward; now it is sufficient for them that desire to learn, that there is a Catholic Church, which is one in it self, whereunto divers heretics do feign, and devise divers names, whereas they, (and their sects) are called by peculiar names, which themselves cannot deny, whereby all men that are indifferent, & not letted by passion, may understand unto what Church, the name Catholic, which all parts desire & pretend, is to be given.  
10. Thus S. Augustine: teaching his friend how he might both know and believe the Catholic Church, and all that she taught simply, and without ask reason or proof. And as for knowing and discerning her from all other Churches, that may pretend to be Catholic, we hear his marks, that she is more eminent, universal, greater in number, and in possession of the name Catholic. The second that she may be believed securely, and cannot deceive nor be deceived in matters of faith, he proveth elsewhere, concluding finally in this place: Si iam satis tibi iactatus videris, etc. 
Aug. ibid. cap. 8.  If thou dost seem to thyself now to have been sufficiently tossed up and down among sectaries, and wouldst put an end to these labours and tormoyles, follow the way of Cath. discipline, which hath flown down unto us from Christ by his Apostles, and is to flow from us to our posterity.  
11. This then is the judgement and direction of S. Augustine, that a man should for his first 
How a man may know the Catholic Church.  ground, in matters of faith, look unto the belief of the greatest & most eminent Church of Christendom, that hath endured longest, embraceth most people, & hath come down from our forefathers with the name of Catholic, not only among her own professors, but even among her enemies jews, infidels, and heretics, 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 speech, as the said Father in divers others places declareth at large. Which rule of direction, if we will follow about these three articles of faith now proposed, the real presence, Transubstantiation, and Sacrifice of the mass, it is easily seen what ground we have for their belief, in this kind of proof, so highly esteemed by S. Augustine, which is the authority of the universal Cath. Church. For that when Luther and his followers began to oppose themselves in our days, no man can deny, but that our belief in these articles was generally received over all Christendom, as well Asia and Africa, where so ever Christians be, as Europe, and so upward time out of mind; neither can any beginning be assigned to these doctrines in the Cath. Church, but only a certain definition and determination of some councils, about the name of Transubstantiation, as after shallbe declared.  
12. Now then, having found out this first 
Grounds about the real presence.  ground which S. Augustine and other Fathers do make so great account of, which is the authority and belief of that Church, that generally is called Catholic: if we pass further, and see what grounds this Church had or hath to admit the same, (which yet is not needful, or possible to all sorts of men, for that only can be done by the learneder sort) we shall find that she hath such grounds, as may convince any man that is not obstinate, and indurate to the contrary. And first to begin with the article of the real presence, what ground, proof, or theological demonstration can there be, which the Cath. Church hath not for her belief in that high mystery? which as it was to be one of the chiefest, most sacred, and admirable of Christian Religion, so was it meet that it should be confirmed, by all the principal ways that any article of faith could or can be confirmed, that is to say both by scriptures of the old and new Testament, and the true exposition thereof by ancient Fathers, that lived before this controversy began with Sacramentarye●; by authority and tradition of the Apostles and their successors; by testimony of ancient Fathers from age to age; by consent and agreement, practice and use of the universal Church; by the concourse and approbation of almighty God, with evident and infinite miracles, by confession of the adversaries, and other such general heads of arguments, which Catholic divines do produce for this truth, for justifying the church's faith therein.  
13. And out of the scriptures their demonstration 
Demonstrations out of the scripture.  is not single or of one sort only, but in divers manners, as to the height and dignity of so divine and venerable a mystery was convenient. For that out of the old Testament, they show how it was prefigured and prophesied, and in the new both promised again, exhibited, and confirmed, and this not by exposition of their own heads only, as sectaries do, but by intendment, and interpretation, of the gravest and most ancient Fathers, that have lived in the Church of God from age to age, who understood 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 bore the type of our saviour Gen. 14. Psalm. 109. Heb. 7. The showbread among the Jews, that only could be eaten by them that were sanctified Exod. 40. etc. Reg. 21. The bread sent miraculously 
Three figures of Christ's flesh in bread.  by an angel to Elias, whereby he was so strengthened, as he travailed 40. days without eating by virtue only of that bread. These three sorts of bread to have been express figures of this Sacrament, and of the true flesh of Christ therein contained, do testify 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. Higher 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 form of bread, but in other things more excellent than bread, as the paschal lamb Exod. 12. levit. 23. The blood of the Testament 
Three other signs of Christ's flesh.  described Exod. 24. Heb. 9 And fulfilled by Christ Luc. 22. when he said: This cup is the new Testament in my blood, and again: This is my blood of the new Testament Matth. 26. The manna also sent by God from heaven was an express figure of this Sacrament, as appeareth by the words of our saviour. Joan. 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 between the figure, and the thing prefigured, no less if we believe S. Paul, 
Colloss. 2. Heb. 10.  then between a shadow, & the body whose shadow it is; it 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 sacramentaries do imagine, for than should the figures 
An inference upon the former figures.  be either equal, or more excellent than the thing prefigured it self, for who will not confess but that bread for bread, Elias his bread made by the angel, that gave him strength to walk 40. days upon the virtue thereof was equal to our English-ministers Communion-bread, and that the manna was much better.  
15. And if they will say for an evasion, as they do, that their bread is not common bread, but such bread as being eaten and received by faith, worketh the effect of Christ's body in them, and bringeth them his grace; we answer that so did these figures and Sacraments also of the old Testament, being received by faith in Christ to come, as the ancient Father and Preachers received them: And for so much as Protestants do further hold, that there is no difference between the virtue & efficacy of those old Sacraments, and ours, (which we deny) it must needs follow, that both we & they agreeing, that the Fathers of the old Testament believed in the same Christ to come that we do now, being come, their figures and shadows must be as good as our truth in the Sacrament, that was prefigured, if it remain bread still after Christ's institution, and consecration. But Catholic Fathers did understand the matter far otherwise, and to allege one for all, for that he spoke in the sense of all in those days, Saint Jerome talking of one of those foresaid figures, to wit, of the showbread, and comparing it with the thing figured, and by Christ exhibited, saith thus: Tantum interest, etc. There is so 
Hier. in 〈…〉.  much difference between the showbread, and the body of Christ figured thereby, as there is difference between the shadow and the body, whose shadow it is, and between an Image and the truth, which the Image representeth, & between certain shapes of things to come, and the things themselves prefigured by those shapes. And thus much of figures, & presignifications of the old Testament.  
16. In the new Testament, as hath been said, are contained both the promise of our saviour, 
Proofs out of the new Testament.  to fulfil these figures with the truth of his flesh, which he would give to be eaten in the Sacrament, as also the exhibition and performance thereof afterward, the very night before his passion, with a miraculous confirmation of the same by S. Paul, upon conference had therein with Christ himself after his blessed ascension. The promise is contained in the sixth Chapter of S. john's gospel, where our saviour foretelleth expressly, that he would 
Io. 6.  give his flesh to us to be eaten: for that except we did eat the same, we could not be saved: that his flesh was truly meat, and his blood truly drink; and that his flesh that he would give us to eat, was the same that was to be given for the life of the world: All which speeches of our saviour expounded unto us in this sense, for the real presence of his flesh in the Sacrament by the universal agreeing consent of ancient Fathers, must needs make great impression in the heart of a faithful Christian man, especially the performance of this promise ensuing soon after, when Christ being to departed out of this world, and to make his last will and Testament, exhibited that which here he promised, taking bread, brake and distributed the same, saying: this is my body that shallbe delivered 
Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Lu●. 22.  for you, which words are recorded by three several evangelists, and that with such significant, and venerable circumstances on our saviours behalf, of fervent prayer, washing his Apostles feet, protestation of his excessive love, and other devout, and most heavenly speeches in that nearness to his passion, as well declared the exceeding greatness of the mystery which he was to institute: whereunto if we add that excellent clear confirmation of S. Paul, who for resolving doubts as it seemed had conference with Christ himself after his ascension (for before he could not, he being no Christian when Christ ascended) the matter will be more evident. His words are these to the Corinth. Ego enim accepi à Domino, quod & tradidi vobis, etc. For I have received from our Lord 
1. Cor. 11.  himself, that which I have delivered unto you about the Sacrament; and do you note 
S. Paul's confirmation of the real presence.  the word (for) importing a reason why he ought specially to be believed in this affair, for so much as he had received the resolution of the doubt from Christ himself. And then he setteth down the very same words again of the Institution of this Sacrament, that were used by Christ before his passion, without alteration, or new exposition, which is morally most certain that he would have added for clearing all doubts, if there had been any other sense to have been gathered of them, than the plain words themselves do bear. Nay himself doth add a new consirmation, when he saith, that he which doth eat and drink unworthily this Sacrament, reus erit ●orporis & sanguinis Domini, shallbe guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. And again: Iu●cium sibi manducat & bibit, non dijudicans corpus Domini, he doth eat & drink his own judgement, not discerning the body of our Lord: Which inferreth the real presence of Christ's body, which those, whom the Apostle reprehendeth, by the fact of their unworthy receiving do so behave themselves, as if they did not discern it to be present. All which laid together, & the uniform consent of expositors throughout the whole Christian world, concurring in the self-same sense and meaning of all these scriptures, about the real presence of Christ's true body in the Sacrament, you may imagine what a motive it is, and aught to be to a Catholic man, who desireth to believe, and not to strive and contend. And thus much for scriptures.  
17. There followeth the consideration of Fathers, Doctors and councils, wherein as 
The second ground about authorities of Fathers.  the sacramentaries of our time, that pleased first to deny the real presence, had not one authority, nor can produce any one at this day, that expressly saith, that Christ's real body is not in the Sacrament, or that it is only a figure, sign, or token thereof (though divers impertinent pieces of some father's speeches they will now and then pretend to allege) so on the contrary side, the catholics do behold for their comfort, the whole ranks of ancient Fathers through every age, standing with them in this undoubted truth: Yea not only affirming the same real presence in most clear, and perspicuous words (whereof you may see 
See Claud. de Xanctes repet. & Bellarm. l. de Euchar. tom 2. and others.  whole books in Catholic writers replenished with father's authorities, laid together out of every age from Christ down wards) but that which is much more, yielding reasons, & endeavouring to prove the same by manifest arguments, & theological demonstrations, using therein such manner of speech and words, as cannot possibly agree unto the Protestants communion of bare bread and wine, with their symbolical signification or representation only. As for example, where the Fathers do show how Christ's true flesh cometh to be in this Sacrament, videlicet: by the true conversion 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 wine be changed, and other like speeches, as may be seen in S. Ambrose 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. & lib. 6. cap. 1. lib. de mist. init. cap. 9 Cypr. Serm. de Coena. Chrysost. hom. 83. in Matth. & de proditione judae. Cyrill. Catec. 4. Mystag. Nissenus orat. Catech. 37. and others.  
18. Secondly, it is an ordinary speech of the 
The second reason of Fathers.  Fathers, to cry out & admire the miracle that happeneth, by the conversion in this Sacrament, ascribing the same to the supreme omnipotencv of almighty God, as you may see in S. chrusostom l. 3. de sacerdotio: O miraculum, etc. S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. justinus Martyr Apolog. 2. saying: that by the same omnipotency of God, whereby the word was made flesh, the flesh of the word was made to be in the Eucharist, which agreeth not to a Calvinian communion.  
19 Thirdly, some of them do extol and magnify 
The third reason.  the exceeding love & charity of Christ towards us, above all other human love, in that he feedeth us with his own flesh, which no shepherds did ever their sheep, or mothers their children, which is the frequent speech of S. chrusostom hom. 83. in Matth. & 45. in joan. & 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 speeches can no ways agree to the Protestants supper.  
20. Fourthly, divers of the said Fathers do 
The 4. reason.  expressly teach, that we do receive Christ in the Sacrament not only by faith, but truly, really, and corporally; semetipsum nobis commiscet (saith S. chrusostom) non side tantum, sed & reipsa: 
Chrysost. hom. 60. ad Popul. Ant●och.  Christ doth join himself with us (in the Sacrament) not only by faith, but really. And ●n another 
* De Sancto Phylogonio.  place, he putteth this antithesis or opposition betwixt us, and the magis, that saw and believed in Christ lying in the manger, that they could not carry him with them, as we do now by receiving him in the Sacrament, and yet no doubt they believed in him, and carried him in faith as we do now; to which effect S. Cyrill Alexand. saith: Corporaliter 
4. in joan. cap. 13. & 14. & l. 11. cap. 27.  nobis filius unitur ut homo, spiritualiter, ut Deus: Christ as a man is united unto us corporally, (by the Sacrament) and spiritually, as he is God. whereunto you may add S. Hilary lib. 8. de Trinitate, and Theodorus in the council of Ephesutom. 6. Appendic. 5. cap. 2. and others.  
21. Fiftly the Fathers do many times, and 
The fifth reason.  in divers places, and upon sundry occasions go about to prove the truth of other mysteries, and articles of our faith, by this miracle of the being of Christ's flesh and body in the Sacrament, as S. Irenaeus for example, doth 
Lib. 4. cent. haer●s ●. 34.  prove Christ's Father to be the God of the old sestament, for that in his creatures he hath left us his body & blood, and in the same 
Ibidem.  place he useth the same argument, for establishing the article of the resurrection of out bodies, to wit, that he that vouch safeth to nowrish us with his own body and blood, will not let our bodies remain for ever in death & corruption. S. chrusostom in like manner, 
Hom. 3. in Matth.  by the truth of his real presence in the Sacrament, doth confute them that denied Christ to have taken true flesh of the Virgin Mary, which hardly would be proved by the Sacramentary supper of bread and wine, as every man by himself will consider.  
22. Sixtly to pretermitt all other points handled to this effect, by the said Fathers, as that 
The sixth reason.  divers of them do exclude expressly 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 yield reasons why Christ in the Sacrament, would be really under the forms or accidents of bread and wine, to wit, that our faith might be proved and exercised thereby, & the horror of eating flesh & blood, in their own form & 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 us not to believe our senses that see only bread and wine, whereof we shall speak more in the observations following: so S. Augustine, serm. de verbis Apost. & l. 3. de Trinit. cap. 10. Others do prove this real presence by the sacrifice, affirming the self same Christ to be offered now in our daily sacrifice upon the Altars of Christians, after an unbloody manner, which was offered once bloudely upon the Altar of the cross, as more largely shallbe 
divers evident reasons together.  showed: so S. chrusostom hom. 17. ad Haebr. & 2. ●● 2. ad Tim. Greg. lib. 4. dial. c. 58. Nissenus orat. 1. ●● pascha, etc. All these considerations I say, and many others that may be taken out of the father's writings, I do for brevities sake let pass in this place, though most evidently they do declare the said Fathers plain meaning, and belief in this article, and cannot any way be applied to the new Communion of Protestants, but by manifest impropriety and detortion.  
23. And therefore I will end only with one consideration more, very ordinary with the 
The seanenth reason.  said Fathers, which is, the divine reverence, honour, and adoration, that in all ages the said Fathers have given unto the blessed Sacrament, whose authorities were overlong here to recite in particular. The saying of S. Austen is known Nemo manducat nisi prius adoraverit, no 
Aug. ●●ne. 1. ●. ps.. ●●.  man eateth the Sacrament but first adoreth the same, and S. chrusostom, Adora & manduca▪ 
Chrysost. hom. 3. in epist. ad Ephes. Theodor. in 2. dialog.  adore it and receive it; And Theodoret to the same effect, Et creduntur & adorantur, quòd easint quae creduntur. They are believed and adored (the flesh and blood of Christ) for that they are in deed the things they are believed to be. And to speak nothing of many other father's sayings to this effect, S. chrusostom his large discourses about this matter may serve for all, 
Chrysost. hom 60. ad Popul. Antioch. & hom. 3. in ep. ad Ephes. & lib. 6. de Sacerdotio.  who writeth, that at the time of consecration and sacrifice, the very angels come down, and with trembling do adore Christ their Lord therein present▪ which he would never have written, y● bread, and wine were only there present.  
24. By all these ways & means then, may easily be seen what the ancient Fathers in 
The third ground of councils.  their ages did think, speak, and believe, of this high & admirable mystery of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament. And albeit there▪ were no councils about this matter, for the space of a thousand years after Christ, the cause thereof was, that in all that space no on▪ man ever openly contradicted the same, at least after the time of S. Ignatius until Berenga●rius, (for if any man had done it, we may se● by the foresaid father's speeches, who must have been the chief in these councils, what their determination would have been against them) and when the said Berengarius had once broached this Sacramentary heresy, the whole 
Theodoretus in 3. Dial.  Christian world rose up presently against the same, as against a blasphemous novelty, and ten several councils condemned the same, as in the former Chapter hath been declared.  
25. Wherefore the Catholics having with them all these warrants of truth by scriptures, 
The 4. ground of the churthes' consent.  fathers, councils, tradition of antiquity, uniform consent of all Christian nations, both Greek, latin, Asian, African, & other countries embracing the name & faith of Christ, and that no beginning or entrance can be showed of this doctrine in the said Church, nor any contradiction against it when it first entered: as on the contrary side the first of spring of the other, together with the place, author, time, manner, occasion, resistance, condemnation, and other like circumstances are and may be authentically showed, proved and convinced, yea that the very face of Christendom from time out of mind, by their church's, altars, offerings, adoration, and manner of divine service admittted every where, without contradiction, doubt, or question, do testify the same: the truth moreover thereof being confirmed by so infinite concourse of manifest miracles, recorded by such authors, as no man with piety can doubt of their credit; the catholics I say having all his main cloud of witnesses (to use the Apostles 
Miracles. Hebr. 12.  ●ords) for the testimony of this truth, and being practised and accustomed in the belief ●●erof for so many ages together without interruption, and seeing moreover that Luther ●●mselfe, and all the learned of his side that were open professed enemies in other things to the Catholic belief, yet in this protested the truth to be so evident, as they durst not impugn it, nay held the first impugners thereof for damnable heretics, adding also hereunto that Zuinglius the first chief author, confesseth himself to have been moved thereunto by a certain extravagant spirit, which he saith he knew not whether it was black or white. 
Zuing. l. de ut Sacramentaria.  All these things, I say, laid together, and the lives and manners considered of them, that have held the one & the other faith; that is to say the infinite Saints of the one side, whom the Protestants themselves do not deny to have been Saints; and the qualities and conditions of the others, that first began, or since have defended the new Sacramentary opinions: let the discreet reader judge, whether the catholics of England had reason to stand 
Weighty considerations.  fast in their old belief, against the innovations of our new Sacramentary Protestants in K. Edward's days. And the like shall you see in the other articles that ensue of Transubstantiation and Sacrifice, depending of this first of the real presence, as before you have heard. But much more will you be confirmed in all this, when you shall have read over the disputations following, and seen the trifling arguments of the sacramentaries in these so weighty & important articles of our belief and the ridiculous evasions where with they seek to avoud, or delude the grave tistimonyes of scriptures, and Fathers before mentioned. For thereby willbe seen, that they seek not truth in deed with a good and sincere conscience, & fear of God's judgements; but only to escape and entertain talk for continuance of their faction, which ought to be marked by the reader, if he love his soul. And thus much for the grounds of the real-presence.   

Grounds of Transubstantiation. §. 2.  
26. touching the second question about Transubstantiation, though it be less principal than the former of the real-presence, for that it containeth but the particular manner how Christ is really in the Sacrament, & consequently not so necessary to be disputed of with sacramentaries, that deny Christ to be there really at all, as before hath been noted: ●et shall we briefly discover the principal grounds whereon catholics do stand, in this received doctrine of the Church against Lutherans especially, who granting the said ●●all presence, do hold that bread is there together with our saviours body: which catholics for many reasons do hold to be absurd. ●nd albeit the word Transubstantiation & particular declaration thereof, was not so expresse● set down in the Church until some 400. scars gone in the general council of Lateran under Pope Innocentius the third, as the word Trinity, homoousion, or Consubstantiality and clear exposition thereof, was not until the council of Nice 300. years after Christ; yet was the truth of this doctrine held ever before in effect and substance, though in different words: to wit mutation, transinutation, conversion of bread into the body of Christ, transelementation, and the like, which is proved by the perpetual consent of doctrine, uttered by the ancient Fathers in this point from the beginning, which are recorded by Catholic wiyters of our days from age to age: and one only allegeth thirty and two, that wrote hereof before the council of Lateran, and are overlong to be recited in this place; only they may 
Father's authorities reduced to two heads.  be reduced for more perspicuity to two heads: the one of such as deny the substance of bread to remain after the words of consecration; the other of such as do expressly avouch a conversion of bread into Christ's body.  
27. Of the first sort, that deny bread to remain, is S. Cyrill Bishop of Jerusalem, 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, etc. Thou knowing and being certain of this; that the bread which we see is not bread, not withstanding it taste as bread and the wine which we see not to be wine but the blood of Christ, though to the taste still see me to be wine. And S. Gregory Nissen 
Lib. de Sancto Baptismo non ●onge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Panis iste panis est in initio communis, etc. This bread at the beginning is common bread, but when it is consecrated, it is called, and is indeed the body of Christ. again Eusebius: Antequant consecrentur, etc. Before consecration 
Hom. 1. de Pasc.  there is the substance of bread and wine, but after the words of Christ, it is his body and blood: All which do exclude, as you see, bread after consecration. And to the same effect S. Ambrose: Panis hic, panis est, ante verba Sacramentorum, 
De Sacram. cap. 4.  sed ubi 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. chrusostom treating of this mystery, asketh this question, and answereth the same. Num 
Hem de Euchar ●n Ence●.  ●ides panem? num vinum? absit, ne sic cogites! Dost thou see bread? dost thou see wine here? God forbid, think no such matter. And to this same effect many others might be cited, but it would grow to overgreat prolixity.  
28. The second sort of testimonies that do affirm conversion and change of bread into 
2. head.  the body of Christ, are many more, if we would stand upon their allegation, and in place of all might stand S. Ambrose, whose faith was the general faith of Christendom in his ●ayes; & he doth not only oftentimes repeat, that by the words of Christ uttered by the Priest upon the bread, the nature & substance thereof is changed into the body and blood of Christ, but proveth the same by examples of all the miraculous mutations & conversions, recorded in the old and new Testament. Prebemus (saith he) non hoc esse quod natura formanit, 
Ambros. l. de ijs qui ●●trantur cap. 9  sed quod benedictio consecravit, maiorémque vim esse benedictionis quam naturae, quia benedictione etiam ipsa natura mutatur. Let us prove then (by all these other miracles) that this which is in the Sacrament, is not that which nature did frame (used bread and wine) but that which the blessing hath consecrated, and that the force of blessing is greater than the force of nature; for that nature herself is changed by blessing; And again: Si tantum valuit sermo Eliae, ut ignem de coelo depoveret; non valebit sermo Christi, ●t 
Ambros. ibid.  species mutet elementorum? If the speech of Elyas was of such force, as it could bring down fire from heaven, shall not the words of Christ (in the Sacrament) be able to change the natures of the elements? videlicet (as I said before) of bread and wine. And yet further: You have read, that in the creation of the world, God said, and things were made, he commanded, and they were created; that speech then of Christ, which of nothing created that which was not before; shall it not be able to exchange those things that are, into other things, which they were not before? for it is no less to give new natures to things, then to change natures, but rather more, etc.  
29. Thus reasoneth that grave and holy Doctor, to whom we might adjoin 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, etc. This bread which Christ gave unto his disciples being change not in shape, but in nature, is by the omnipotency of the word made flesh. S. Cyrill Bishop of Jerusalem proveth the same by example of the miraculous turning of water into wine, at the marriage of Cane in Galeley: aquam mutavit 
Cyrill. Catech. mystag. 4.  in vinum (saith he etc.) Christ turned water into wine, by his only will, and is he not worthy to be believed quod vinum in sanguinem transmutavit, that he did change wine into his blood? For if at bodily marriages he did work so wonderful a miracle, why shall not we confess that he gave his body and blood (in the Sacrament) to the children of the spouse? Wherefore with all certainty, let us receive the body and blood of Christ, for under the form of bread is given unto us his body, and under the form of wine his blood. Thus he of this miraculous change, whereof Saint chrusostom treating also upon S. Matthew writeth 
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 change) for he who doth sanctify all, and maketh the change, is Christ himself. To like effect writeth Eusebius Emissenus; quando 
Serm. de corp. Domini.  benedicendae, etc. When the creatures of bread and wine are laid upon the Altar to be blessed, before they are consecrated by the invocation of the holy Ghost, there is present the substance of bread and wine; but after the words of Christ, there is Christ's body and blood. And what marvel if he that could create all by his word, posset creata convertere, could convert, and change those things that he had created, into other natures?  
30. I might allege many other Fathers to this effect, but my purpose in this place doth not permit it: this shallbe sufficient for a taste, that the doctrine of conversion or change of bread and wine, into the body and blood of Christ, which is the doctrine of Transubstantiation, was not new at the time of the council of Lateran, but was understood and held ever before, by the chief Fathers of the Catholic Church, yea and determined also by two councils at Rome: and the first thereof general, wherein was present our Lansrancus 
Lanfrant. l. de corp. Domini Guit. l. 3. de corp. Domini & Ansel ep de corp. Domini.  upon the year of Christ 1060. under Pope Nicolas the second; and the other 19 years after under Pope Gregory the seventh, & both of them above an hundred years before the council of Lateran, wherein notwithstanding is declared expressly this doctrine, of the change of bread & wine into the body and blood of our saviour, albeit not under the name of Transubstantiation; and it is proved expressly out of the words of Christ's institution, This is my body, which can have no other probable exposition, but that the bread is changed into his body. And so it is expounded by all the foresaid Fathers, and others that, before this controversy fell out, interpreted the same words of our saviour.  
31. These grounds than had the English catholics in K. Edward's days to stand in the defence 
The consent of the universal Church.  of this doctrine, that is to say, the clear words of scripture so understood by all antiquity, together with the assertions and asseverations of all the Fathers, the determination of councils presently upon the controversy first moved, and namely of that great famous Lateran council, wherein concurred 
Canon. 1. & 2.  both the Greek and latin Church, there being present, the Greek patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, 70. metropolitan Archbishops, and above a thousand and two hundred other Fathers of divers states, & degrees, (compare this with a meeting of some twenty or thirty ministers impugning the same.) All which having disputed the matter, and considered as well by scripture, and by ancient 
The greatness of the Lateran council.  tradition of the Fathers and universal Cath. Church, what had been held before, did with full agreement determine & declare this matter, accursing whosoever should from that time forward, deny that doctrine of Transubstantiation. Which decree of that council being received generally, without contradiction throughout the Christian world, hath been confirmed by seven other councils since that time, as before we have showed. And let the discreet reader weigh with himself, which party hath more security for it self, either the Catholic that followed all this authority & consent of antiquity, or our new Protestants, that upon fresh imaginations of their own heads, devised a new doctrine contrary to all this antiquity. And thus much of this article, for a taste of that which may be alleged for it.   

Grounds for the sacrifice of the mass. §. 2.  
32. The third question proposed to be handled in the foresaid disputations, was about the sacrifice of the mass, to wit, whether the self-same body of our Lord, whose real presence is proved in the first question, be not only a Sacrament in the Christian Church, as it is received under a sign of bread and wine by the Priest and communicants, but a sacrifice also, as it is offered to God the Father by the Priest upon the Altar; and whether this external and visible sacrifice be appointed by Christ, to be iterated and daily frequented in the Church unto the world's end, and this both for an external worship peculiar to 
The state of the question.  Christians, whereby they are distinguished from all other people, as also for propitiation of sins, by applying the merit and virtue of the other bloody sacrifice of our saviour on the cross once offered for all, and ever available (as S. Paul at large declareth in his epistle to the Hebrews) for sanctifying the redeemed: this then being the question, and this being a doctrine so generally received throughout the Christian world, both in the Greek, Latin, AEthiopian, Armenian, and other Christian Churches, as there was no doubt or question thereof, when Luther and his offspring began; it fell out in England, that under the child King Edward his reign, name & authority, that the L. Seymour protect our and his followers, with some few Priests that were weary of massing, and desirous of marriage, but chiefly Cranmer and Ridley, Hooper, Latymer, and others, bad heads of the clergy in those days, took upon them to pull down this public use of sacrifice, and afterward to examine, and call in question the doctrine thereof. At which change and sudden innovation, never seen in England before, from the first day that Christian Religion entered under the Apostles, as all the realives and countries round about remained astonished: so divers notwithstanding of the lighter sort, inclined to novelties, applauded to them, & followed their device; others more prudent and respective to their own salvation, considering that there went more in this matter then the pleasure and fancies of a few particular men, stood constant in that, which before they had received, and that which generally they saw, and knew to be in use throughout all Christendom without contradiction, which could not be by S. Austin's rule, but that it must needs 
Aug. l. 2. de baptis. c. 7. lib. 4. cop. 6. & 24. & l. 5. c. 23.  come down from the Apostles themselves, for so much as all opposite doctrine to that, which was first planted by them & received from them, could never be so generally admitted without contradiction.  
33. Wherefore entering into due consideration of this matter, whilst all the ruff ran the other way for 5. or 6. years space, under that King Child, and those other little tyrants that bare sway, and one destroyed the other by God's just judgement under him. These good men (the Catholics I mean) fell to search what grounds they had, or might find out for this so received a doctrine & practice, as this of the mass and sacrifice was. And first they 
The search of catholics under K. Edw. for the grounds of the mass.  found, that whereas the first insult of heretics was against the very name of the mass, as a new devised thing without reason or signification; they found (I say) that it was a very ancient and usual word, for the external sacrifice 
About the name of mass.  of Christians upon the Altar, in the latin Church, for twelve hundred years past and downward; in place whereof the Grecians have used the word Liturgy, Synaxis, and the like, and this use is not only to be showed by the testimonies of particular Fathers, as Saint 
a l. 5. ep. 33.  Ambrose, S. 
b Serm. 91. & 251. the semp & serm. 237. in domin. 19 post. Pentecost.  Augustine, S. 
c Ep. 81 ad D●oscor & 28. ad episc. Germ  Leo, S. 
d 1. ep 12. & l. 4. c. 10.  Gregory, 
e Lib. 2 hist. Uandal.  Victor Vticensis, 
f Lib. 3. de cant. ps. ord.  Cassianus, and other; but by whole councils also, as by that of 
g Can. 1.  Rome, under Pope Silvester the first of 275. Bishops, held almost 1300. years gone; the second & fourth of 
h In 2. Conc. can. 3. & 4. Ca 84.  Carthage held the next age after, and the council of 
i Can. 47.  Agatha in France the same age; the council of 
k Can. 4.  Ilerdum and 
l Can. 1.  Valentia in Spain, and of 
m Can 28.  Orleans in France, all above 1000 years gone, which was sufficient matter against the vanity of heretics, that condemned the name & the words: for example of S. Ambrose saying Missam facere coepi, orare in oblatione Deum. I began to say mass, and to 
Ambros. ibid.  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 hear or 
Aug. ibid.  this matter more in the lesson which is to be read unto us at mass. These speeches I say, & this practice of so old learned & holy Priests, as these and their fellows were, did prevail more with the graver sort of English people, than the lightness & inconstancy of Cranmer Ridley, and such other licentious Priests, as for liberty fell to apostasy.  
34. And this for the name of the mass. But for the nature and substance thereof, which containeth the external true and proper sacrifice of the Christian Church, they found such store of evident proofs, and most grave authorities, as might stay, confirm and satisfy any man's mind, that were not wilfully bend to the contrary. And whereas I do use the words of external, true and proper sacrifice, you must remember thereby the fraud of these new heretics, who, as before about the real presence, did go about to delude all the sayings of holy Fathers, and other testimonies of Antiquity, that spoke of Christ's real being in the Sacrament, by running to the words spiritually, sacramentaly, by faith, and the like: so here finding the whole torrent and stream of Christian antiquity to stand for this Christian sacrifice, & to mention, reverence, & avouch the same; these fellows for avoiding their authorities do run from the proper external sacrifice, whereof we treat, unto the internal, and invisible sacrifice of the mind, whereof K. David saith, that a contrite spirit is a sacrifice to God. And when this cannot serve, they run also to improper and metaphorical extern sacrifices, such as are, mortification of the body Rom. 12. sacrifice of thanksgiving. Psalm. 49. Sacrifice of alms deeds. Hebr. 13. and other such good works, which by a certain analogy or proportion with the nature of proper sacrifices, are called also sacrifice in scriptures & by the Fathers, but improperly. To these than do our Protestants run, when they are pressed with the authorities of ancient Fathers, that name the use of Christian sacrifice in the Church, and will needs make us believe, that the Fathers meant not properly of any true visible or external sacrifice, but either of inward or invisible sacrifice of the heart, mind, and good desire; or else of outward metaphorical sacrifice of pious and virtuous works.  
35. But all these are fraudulent shifts to overthrow one truth by another. For as we do not deny, but that there is an inward and invisible sacrifice of our mind, in dedicating of ourselves to God, and to the subjection of his majesty, without which the external sacrifice is little worth to him that offereth the same: And as we grant that all good works be sacrifices in a certain sort, by some similitude they have with true & proper sacrifices, for that they are offered up to God in his honour; yet do we say, that this is from our purpose in this place, who talk of a true proper external sacrifice offered up to God, after a 
The description of a true external and visible sacrifice.  peculiar sacred rite, or ceremonies, by peculiar men deputed to this office in acknowledgement of God's divine power, majesty, and dominion over us, & protestation of our due subjection unto him, such as were the external sacrifices in the law of nature, offered up by patriarchs and heads of families, and by Priests of Aaron's order under the law of Moses, and by Christ and his Priests according to the order of Melchisedech in the new law; and for so much as both the internal, & metaphorical sacrifices before mentioned of good affection, desires, and holy works, are not peculiar to any law, but were lawful and needful under all laws, and in all times, and require no particular kind of men or ministers to offer them, but may be offered up by any man or woman whatsoever: therefore do we exclude all these from the name of the sacrifice, which here is meant by our description, and comprehendeth as you see an external visible oblation, made by him or them, who are peculiarly deputed by God to this office, which are Priests: So as when soever our adversaries do slip from this proper signification of a sacrifice to the other, either internal or metaphorical, which may be offeted by all sorts of people, and thereupon do say that all men are Priests, they run, as vow see, quite from the purpose, as they do also for examples sake, when to avoid the necessity of external fasting, they run to the internal fasting 
An example of an heretical fraud about fasting.  of the mind, saying that true fasting, is to fast from sin, which as we deny not in that sense of spiritual fasting; so is it notwithstanding a plain shift, and running from the purpose, and cannot stand with many places of the scripture, which must needs be understood of the external fast; as when Christ is said by the evangelists to have fasted 40. days together; and S. Paul affirmeth that he and his fellow Apostles fasted frequently; It cannot be understood (I say) of fasting only those times from sin; for that Christ fasted always from sin without exception; and so do all good men both fast and facrisice also, by offering up good desires and pious actions to almighty God, daily and hourly without distinction of men or times.  
36. But this is not the proper, visible, & external sacrifice which here we mean, which was instituted by God, as peculiar to Christian people under the law of the gospel, for an external worship unto him (besides the internal) and testification of their inward subjection, love, and piety towards him; which sacrifice coming in place of all others that went before, both in the law of nature and of Moses that prefigured and foresignified the same; and being but one and singular 
The excellency of the Christian and external sacrifice.  instead of them all, and their great variety, is to be esteemed so much more excellent than they all, as the law of the gospel is more excellent than those laws, and truth above shadows, & the sacred body of Christ God and man himself, to be preferred before the bodies of beasts, birds and other such creatures, which were but signs and figures of this.  
37. And in this sense do both scriptures, fathers, councils, and all holy Christian antiquity speak and treat of this most divine, venerable and dreadful sacrifice, whereof, as of the highest and most principal mystery and treasure, left by our saviour in his Church, there are so many testimonies, as before hath been signified, that it shall not be possible for me in this place, and with the brevity which is necessary, to allege the least part thereof; yet some few general heads shall I touch, which the learned reader may see more dilated, by divers Catholic writers of our days, and he that hath not commodity or time to do that, may give a guess by that which here I shall set down.  
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 been said, many things were set down by the holy Ghost in the old Testament, both prefiguring and prophesying the same, as first the sacrifice of the King and Priest Melchisedech in bread and wine, Gen. 14. which all the ancient Fathers, by general consent, do apply to the sacrifice used now in the Christian Church, and it were overlong to allege their particular authorities, let. S. Augustine speak for all: Primum apparuit (saith he) sacrificium 
Aug. l. 16. the civit. cap. 22.  (Melchisedech) quod à Christianis nunc offertur Deo toto orb 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 orb terrarum: Christians 
Lib. 1. cont. Advers. leg. & Prophet. cap. 20.  do see the like sacrifice (to that of Melchisedech) to be offered to God, over all the World. And all the other sacrifices, signs and oblations mentioned before, as prefiguring the real presence of Christ's sacred body, and true flesh in the Sacrament, are applied by the self same Fathers, whom before we have named, to the prefiguration also of this divine sacrifice, containing the self same thing, which the Sacrament doth, but in a different sort, in respect of divers ends, the one as it is received by the communicants; the other as it is offered unto God the Father.  
39 After these prefigurations there follow the predictions of prophets as that of Esay 19 and 66. where is forteold the rejection of the aaronical priesthood and sacrifice, and a new promised under the Christians. The prophecy of Daniel also, where it is foretold, that in the last age of the law of grace, by the coming of Antichrist, iuge sacrificium, that is the daily 
Dan. 8. & 11.  sacrifice shall cease. Of this (I say) is inferred by the ancient Fathers, that until antichrist's coming there shallbe a perpetual and daily sacrifice among Christians; which is most of all confirmed by the prophesy of Malachias in 
Malach. 1.  these words: Ad vos ò sacerdotes, etc. To you ò priests, that despise my name, and do offer upon my Altar polluted bread, and do sacrifice the beasts that are blind, lame and weak, I have no more liking of you, saith the lord of hosts, and I will not receive at your hands any gifts, for that from the east to the west my name is great among the gentils, and they do sacrifice unto me in every place, and do offer unto my name a pure oblation, for that my name is great among the gentils, saith the lord of hosts. Out of which place the Fathers do show first, that here the priesthood and sacrifice of Aaron was to be rejected, & a new priesthood and sacrifice, according to the order of Melchisedech, erected amongst the Gentiles, whereby ordinarily are understood the Christian people converted chief (from gentility) who were to succeed in their place, and that with such certainty, as the present tense 
The opposition of the prophesy of Malachi.  is put for the future, according to the manner of prophecies; and the Antithesis or opposition between the two sacrifices, the one rejected, the other promised, doth make the matter more plain; for that as the Jews sacrifice could not be offered but in one place, to wit, in the Temple of Jerusalem: so shall the Christian sacrifice be offered up in omni loco, that is every where without respect of places from the east to the west. The Jewish sacrifices were many and of divers sorts, but the Christian sacrifice that should succeed in place thereof was to be but one. The Jewish sacrifices were polluted, not so much in respect of great quantity of beasts blood powered out therein, and for that they offered defectuous beasts, as for the wickedness of them that offered the same; but the Christian sacrifice was to be clean & unspotted, not only in respect of the unbloody manner, wherein it was to be offered under the forms of bread and wine, but especially for the excellency of the thing itself offered, being the most precious body of Christ himself, and for that the demeritt of the offerer cannot take away the worth of the offering.  
40. These circumstances then considered, and that the heretics here cannot run to their shift of inward, and invisible sacrifices, (for that these could not be understood by the Prophett as new sacrifices, that should succeed to the old, for that these were always in use with good men, during the time of the old sacrifice also, and were lawful, yea commanded 
Circumstances that prove the sacrifice of the mass to have been fore-prophesied.  in all times, to wit, to have inward piety and devotion, give alms, and the like) these things I say considered, together with the expositions of holy Fathers, as well upon these as upon other places of the old Testament, there can be no probable doubt, but that this external sacrifice of the Christian was prophesied by the holy Ghost long before the coming of Christ.  
41. Secondly, the same is proved out of divers places of the new Testament: And first out of S. john's gospel, where as our saviour promised in mysterious words the institution of this blessed sacrifice, as before hath been seen; so also did he signify that this sacrifice should succeed in steed of all sacrifices that went before. For whereas the Samaritan woman 
joan. 4. & 6. joseph. lib. 10. de Antiquitat. Judaic. c. 8.  at the well, speaking of the schism between the Jews & Samaritans about adoring in the Temple of Jerusalem, and in the hill Garizim of Samaria (which word of adoring must needs in that place signify sacrificing, as it doth also in other places of scripture, as Gen. 22. Act. 8. and else where, for that the controversy between the Jews and Samaritans was about the use of sacrificing, as the highest external act of adoration) our saviour answereth to her question, that the hour was now come, when neither in that hill of Samaria, nor in Jerusalem they should adore; that is to say, use any more sacrifice, but that a new adoration in spirit and truth should succeed the former; which adoration being understood 
The explication of the place of S. John ca 4. about Sacrifice.  of sacrifice, as the circumstance both of the place and matter do enforce, it followeth that Christ did here promise a new sacrifice, that should be spiritual and true: spiritual, both in comparison of the bloody sacrifice that went before, & for that the consecration of Christ's holy body in this sacrifice, is made by special work and operation of the holy Ghost; true also and in truth it may justly be said to be, for that it is the fullfilling of all precedent sacrifices, and the truth of all former figures.  
42. There ensue the places of Saint Matthew, 
Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11.  S. mark, S. Luke, and S. Paul about the institution and first celebration, of this unbloody sacrifice of Christ in his last supper, where if we admit that, which all the circumstances of the places themselves do plainly insinuate or rather enforce; the continual exposition and tradition of the ancient Church doth teach us, to wit, that Christ our saviour having consecrated his sacred body, did offer the same unto his Father as a most grateful sacrifice in his last supper; then must it follow, that the words hoc facite in meant commemorationem, do this in remembrance of me, implied a precept not only of receiving and communicating the body of Christ, but to offer up the self same also to God in sacrifice, after the example of Christ himself; which is that we call the sacrifice of the mass, & to prove that th' Apostles understood these words (I mean, 
Proof of the sacrify by Christ's Institution.  do this in remembrance of me) so; and in this sense, not only the most ancient Fathers, as hath been said, do testify the same, but the ancient liturgies or rituals also of the Apostles and their scholars, as namely of S. James, S. Clement, and S. Dionysius Areopagita, do make the matter manifest, concerning the Apostles practise in this behalf, to wit, that they did offer up this Christian external sacrifice in all places of the world, where they lived, and that from them the Church ●ooke the same precept and use, according to the testimony of old Irenaeus Bishop & Martyr, that lived above 1300. years 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, & novi testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo. Christ took that bread which was a creature and gave thanks saying: This is my body; and that cup or wine in like manner, which according to us, is of a creature, he confesseth to be his blood, and hereby taught a new oblation of the new Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles, doth offer the same to God, throughout the whole world.  
43. Hear now are touched all the points that might be doubted of by sectaries, to wit, that this bread and wine being first creatures, are confessed by Christ, after consecration, to be his body and blood: secondly that this was 
A most clear place of S. Irenaeus for the daily sacrifice.  not only an institution of the Sacrament, and communion, but of a new oblation & sacrifice for the time of the new Testament: thirdly that it was not only to be offered once and in one place, as Christ's bloody sacrifice was upon the cross, but throughout the whole world by the whole Church. And four that this manner of oblation was taught the Apostles by Christ himself, and by them delivered to the said Church. What can be spoken more clearly or distinctly by so ancient a witness? Neither can heretics here have any refuge to internal or invisible sacrifices of the mind, or to unproper external sacrifices of thanksgiving, almesdeeds, and the like, for that they are many, and were before also lawful under the law of Moses, as often hath been noted, & here is said to be taught a new particular and singular oblation of the new Testament, in steed of all the sacrifices of the old Testament, which Irenaeus confirmeth presently in the next words after, by the prophecy of Malachye before mentioned saying: Malachias sic praesignificavit, etc. Malachy the Prophet did so foretell us, (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 Jewish Priests, I have no will or liking in you, etc. Manifestissimè significans, quoniam prior quidem populus cessavit offerre Deo; omni autem loco sacrificium offertur Deo, & hoc purum in gentibus; most manifestly signifying, that the former Jewish people (being rejected) have ceased to offer sacrifice unto God; but that among the Gentiles (to wit, Christians converted of them) a pure sacrifice is offered in every place of the world, that is to say, without respect of any certain place, as the Jewish sacrifices were.  
44. With S. Irenaeus Bishop and Martyr, concurreth in the same age, and somewhat before him, S. Justinus philosopher and Martyr, who speaking of the self same thing, and of the Jews reprobation, and of the sacrifice of the new Testament ordained by Christ in place thereof, writeth thus in his dialogue, entitled, Triphon against the said Jews: A nemine Deus 
justin. dial. Triph.  hostias accipit, nisi à sacerdotibus suis, etc. God doth accept hosts and sacrifice of none, but of his Priests; wherefore he preventing all those that do ofter such sacrifice unto him in Christ's name, as Jesus Christ hath delivered to be made in the Eucharist of bread and wine, & are made by Christians in every place, doth testify that they are grateful unto him: but your sacrifices (o Jews') he doth reject. Thus he. And these two testimonies, of two so famous Martyrs and Doctors, are sufficient for witnesses of the first and next age after the Apostles, to declare what the said Apostles both taught and practised in this point of public sacrifice, and what the Church of that time understood Christ himself to have done in that behalf, though I might adjoin other four testimonies more ancient yet then these; which are S. 
a l. 5. Const. Apost. c. 18. & l 8. c. 5. & 36.  Clemont, scholar to S. Peter S. 
b l. de Eccl. Hier. cap. 3.  Dionysius Areopagita, scholar to S. Paul; S. 
c epist. ad Burdegal. cap 3.  martial Bishop of Bordeaux, and S. 
d ep. 1. Deeret. ad Orthodox.  Alexander Bishop and Martyr of Rome; All which do no less clearly than these two, declare unto us the doctrine and practice of their times under the Apostles.  
45. But for avoiding prolixity I must passo them over, advertising only by the way, that where in the Acts of the Apostles it is written by S. Luke, concerning 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, etc. They ministering unto God, and fasting (to wit, Barnabas, Simon, Lucius, Manahen and Saul, that were prophets and Doctors saith S. Luke) the holy Ghost said to them, take out for me Saul, and Barnabas, to the work that I have chosen them for. Now as concerning the ministry which these men were performing, when the holy Ghost spoke unto them, the Greek word used by S. Luke, 
Litourgounion.  importeth rather sacrificing, and so doth Erasmus translate it, who was no evil Grecian, nor of small credit with our adversaries: and of that word proceed the names before mentioned of Liturgy, containing the order of this sacrifice in the Christian Church.  
46. But howsoever this be, you have heard the judgement of the first age, after the Apostles, by two witnesses of singular credit, S. Justinus, and S. Irenaeus: for the second may speak S. Cyprian to the same effect: jesus 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. jesus Christ our Lord and our God, he is the high Priest of God the Father, and he offered up first of all to God his Father a sacrifice, and commanded this to be done in his commemoration. Lo he commandeth us to sacrifice as he did sacrifice. And for the third age after the Apostles S Ambrose may only speak: Ponti fex noster ille est, (saith he) qui obtulit hostiam nos 
Ambros. come. 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 us clean, the self same do we offer now, which then was offerred, and cannot be consumed. Behold that we offer the self 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 objected, that he and other catholics did offer sacrifice unto Martyrs; the holy Father denieth it saying: Sacrificare martyribus dixi, etc. I said that we did not sacrifice unto Martyrs, but 
Aug. l. 20. contr. Faust. Manich. cap. 21.  I said not, but that we sacrificed to God in the memories of Martyrs, which we most frequently use to do, after that only rite, which God in the manifestation of the new Testament hath commanded us to sacrifice unto him.  
47. By all which testimonies is evident, that the Church of God, in the first four ages after the Apostles, did both offer an external sacrifice, which was the same that Christ had offered before, and this after a peculiar rite insinuated by Christ to the Apostles, and delivered 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 himself in his last supper, and by tradition of the Apostles, which is enough to settle any pious man's conscience. Now than thirdly, whereas I should by order pass to the consideration of ancient father's sayings & testimonies about this matter, they are so many and copious, as I should be prolix and weary to the reader in producing so many as may be alleged, no one article or mystery of our faith, being so often handled or inculcated by them, as this of the Church sacrifice. For better comprehending whereof, I shall, as for the mystery of the real 
divers heads of father's authorities.  presence before, here note only unto thee certain general heads, whereunto the said father's 
1.  testimonies may be reduced; as first, that every where in their writings, speaking of this oblation made in the mass, they use the words sacrificium, hostia, victima, offer, immolare, sacrificare, all which are words that peculiarly and properly do signify sacrifice; which is certain that the said Fathers would never so commonly have used, no more than the Protestants do use them now of their supper, if they had meant no otherwise then the Protestants do for other Sacraments; as baptism for example they do not call either sacrifice, host, or victim, nor that the act of baptizing, is offerringe, immolation or sacrifice, as they do the act of celebrating mass, whereof you may read all the Fathers generally, as S. Hippolytus 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. evang. q. 8. & l. 4. de Trinit. cap. 14.  
48. The second head is of those authorities, 
2.  that do compare this Christian sacrifice with the sacrifices of the Jews, affirming the one to be of the flesh of beasts & spotted, the other of the pure, and immaculate flesh of Christ, which they would never have done in like manner, if they had not meant properly of true external sacrifices, offered by Christians in the new law, whereof you may see at large Tertullian lib. contr. Judaeos cap. 1. justin. in Triph. Chrysost. in psalm. 95. Cyprian. lib. de unitat. Ecclesiae Ambros. in cap. 1. Lucae. Nazianz. orat. 2. de paschat. Aug. lib. 17. de civitat. Dei cap. 20. S. Leo. serm. de passion. and many others.  
49. The third head is of those authorities, 
3.  that compare this daily sacrifice of the Christian Church, offered in every place throughout the world, with the only sacrifice of Christ, offered once for all upon the cross, wherein for difference sake they use the words, cruentum & incruentum sacrificium, that is bloody and unbloody sacrifice, for distinguishing the manner of the oblation, the one upon the cross, the other upon many Altars in the Church at once, till the world's end, otherwise holding the thing itself 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 affirm 
4.  this our daily sacrifice to be propitiatory both for the live and dead, as well those that are absent as present, and that for both these sorts of people it ought, and was accustomed to be offered in their days, which doth evidently prove it a true sacrifice, for that a Sacrament only doth profit only those that do communicate and receive the same, and no Protestant will say that their communion is offered up for those that are absent, quick or dead, as the ancient Fathers do every where say, that our host & Eucharist was offered up in their days, and consequently they held it not only for a Sacrament, but also for a sacrifice; whereof you may see S. chrusostom hom. 79. ad Pop. Antiochen; where he saith it was offered for bishops and governors of the Church; & hom. 72. in Matth. for sick men, & lib. 6. de Sacerdotio for the dead. For which effect see S. Augustine lib. 22. the civit. cap. 8. & in Enchirid. cap. 110. & lib. 9 Confess▪ cap. 12. where he professeth to have offered sacrifice of the mass for his mother S. Monica.  
51. The fifth head is of those places wherein 
5.  the Fathers do use the words Altar, Priests and Priesthood, as proper, peculiar, and appropriated to true sacrifices; For as the Protestants of our times do not use these words, for that they hold not their supper to be a sacrifice, but rather do fly them, though never so much used by the said Fathers, and in place thereof do use the words, table, minister, mynistry, and other such like of their new Religion; so neither would the Fathers have used the same words, if they had had the same meaning that Protestants have; For that well knew the said Fathers how to express their meaning in proper words, and therefore when they say that Altars among Christians, are, sedes 
a Optat. l. 6. cont. Par●●.  corporis Christi the seats of the body of Christ, and that in their days Christians did Tertull. 
b l. de penitent.  adgeniculare aris Dei, kneel down at the Altars of God, & quod 
c Ambros. l. 5. ep. 33.  obsculabantur altaria, that they kissed the Altars, and that the office of Christian Priests is to sacrifice upon the said Altars, it is evident what they meant, to him that will understand them, whereof more may be read in S. Cyprian lib. 1. ep. 9 Euseb. lib. 1. demonstr. evang. 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 sixth consideration out of the Fathers, 
6.  may be their liturgies or form of divine service or mass, for offering of this sacrifice in those days, of which sort of liturgies there are extant unto this day divers, as that of S. James the Apostle, S. Clement scholar and successor of S. Peter, of S. Basill, S. chrusostom, S. Ambrose, which albeit in all particular form of prayer, do not agree with our form and canon of mass at this day, yet in the substance of the sacrifice they do, as also in many other particular circumstances, using the words of oblation, sacrifice, victim, signs, sing, blessings, elevations, and other such rites which Protestant's cannot abide. And for the cannon, and form of our mass, which is used at this day in the latin Church, most parts thereof are to be seen in S. Ambrose his books de Sacramentis, and the whole order as now it is hath endured without alteration from S. Gregory the first downward, whereof you may see Alcuinus, Amalarius, Walfridus, and other ancient authors in their books de divinis officijs.  
53. By all which general heads, you may 
Luther rejecteth all Fathers about the mass.  easily see the multitude of testimonies, that may be alleged out of the Fathers, if we should prosecute every one of these in particular; & how great reason Martin Luther had to except against them all, or rather to defy them all, when first he begun to write against this sacrifice, Hic non moramur (saith he) si clamitant Papistae, Ecclesia, Ecclesia, Patres, Patres; here we care 
Lib. de Messa & l. deaurogand. miss. & lib. contr. Angliae hegem.  not, though Papists cry, Church, Church, Fathers, Fathers; And again: Hear I do profess against them that will cry out, that I do teach against the rite of the Church and ordinances of Fathers, that I will hear none of these objections. And in another place against our K. Henry of England, much more immodestly and wickedly, when the King alleged the authorities of ancient Fathers for the mass, this shameless fellow answered: Thomisticos asinos, etc. I say that these. thomistical asses have nothing to bring forth, but only a multitude of men, and use of antiquity. And a little after he saith expressly; that he careth not though a thousand Augustine's, and a thousand Cyprians be brought against him. So as this first Father and chief captain of our Protestants, did easily grant, as you see, that the whole consent of ancient Fathers was against him.   

Ponderations Upon the Premises. §. 4.  
54. All which being considered, there remaineth only to weigh, what a discreet man 
Import●● considerations.  may think or do in this important case: For first here is all the antiquity of the Christian 
1.  Church on the one side, that testifieth unto us not only what was believed and exercised in their days, but upon what grounds also, both of scriptures of the old and new Testament, and by Christ's own institution, fact and ordination, and by the practice and tradition of the Apostles themselves. Then is there 
2.  the continuance of all ages since, throughout all countries and nations of Christendom, as hath been said. There is the agreement of all 
3.  general councils: The consent of all ecclesiastical 
4.  histories, wherein as there is continual mention of both public and private exercise of this external Sacrifice: So is there 
5.  no memory at all, of any time since the Apostles wherein it began, or that ever any contradiction, doubt, or question was about the same, for 1200. years together after Christ's ascension, which must needs have happened, if the use thereof had not been prescribed and left by Christ and his Apostles themselves. For what men or people would have attempted to begin, or bring in so great a matter as this? or who would have received it without opposition, if it had not been established even from the beginning? I add also another consideration of no little importance, 
6.  which is, that if Christ had left his Church & people without a particular external sacrifice, whereby they should be distinguished from all other people; the Christian Church under the law of grace, should be inferior to the Church of the patriarchs under the law of nature, and unto the prophets under the law of Moses: for that both of those Churches and people had an external daily sacrifice, whereby to honour God, besides the internal sacrifice of their mind: neither can it be said, that Christ's own sacrifice on the cross, once offered for all, is this daily sacrifice apprehended by us in faith, for that they also believed in him, and their sacrifices were acceptable only by faith in him to come. And therefore as Christ's one sacrifice then to come, was no impediment, why their daily sacrifices, which took their valour from this one of Christ, should not be daily offered among them: so the same sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, being now past, should not take away our daily sacrifices offered in remembrance thereof, and for the applying of the infinite valour of that one sacrifice unto us, from which this other daily sacrifice taketh his sufficiency.  
55. Furthermore the very outward form of all Christian Churches, there building 
7.  with Crosses, Altar, isles, and the like, the founding of monasteries, chapels, oratoryes, the ceremonies in founding them, their statutes for saying of masses for the dead, which were in Britain both before our nation was converted, and much more after; the whole Canon of our latin mass-book which is granted by our adversaries, and evidently proved to have been, as it is now, for above a thousand years together, and brought in by S. Augustine our first Apostle: All these things I say, do show whether this were a matter to be called in question by a few libertine Priests, and avaricious noble men, & to be banished the realm upon a sudden, under the name of a child King, that knew not what it meant, as it was in K. Edward's days in our miserable country.  
56. Moreover if you ponder with yourself, what manner of Priests they were for 
8.  life, learning, and virtue that acknowledged themselves to have offered sacrifices upon Altars in their days, as S. Irenaeus, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. chrusostom, S. Augustine, S. Gregory. and others of the first ages, yea and for these ●ater ages, since Berengarius moved first the question about the real presence, as S. Anselme, ●. Bernard, S. Thomas of Aquin, S. Dominicke, and 
The comparison of Priests that offered or impugned the sacrifice of the mass.  almost infinite other Saints, and holy men, of whom all histories do report wonderful extraordinary tokens, of almighty God his special favours towards them; and do compare them with the first married Priests and Apostata friars, that were the first impugners of this sacrifice in England or round about us, we shall find a great difference. And then if we consider, by what good spirit or motive 
9  Luther began the first contradiction in Germany, which was by the devils own persuasion and personal appearance unto him, and disputing against it (for it seemed that he esteemed so much both of the man and the matter, that he would not send an ambassador unto him, as he did soon after to Zuinglius, for impugning the real presence, but go himself in proper person) and that all this is confessed by themselves, and testified by their own writings: All this, I say, being laid together, may strengthen him that hath any faith at all, to stand constant in the belief of the Catholic Church concerning these articles: For if there be any certainty or ground in Christian Religion at all, it must needs be in these, wherein authority, learning, antiquity, consent, continuance, universality, miracles, and all other sorts of theological arguments, both divine & human, do concur and nothing at all with the impugners, but only self-will, passion, and malicious obstinacy, as you will better see afterward, when you come to examine their objections.  
57 Furthermore it is to be pondered, what miserable men they were that first in 
10.  our days, against the whole army of God Church did presume to impugn this blessed sacrifice, upon such simple and fond reasons a● before you have heard, to wit Luther in Germany, upon the motive laid down unto him by the devil, in his disputation with him, recorded by himself in his writings, and Nicolas Ridley in England, upon certain places of the scripture, and certain testimonies of Fathers (to use his own words) which made nothing at all for his purpose, as after most clearly shall be showed in due place, and we may easily guess by that, which hath been alleged before out of scriptures and Fathers: for that scriptures cannot be contrary to scriptures; nor are Fathers presumed to impugn Fathers, in so great a point of faith as this is.  
58. Wherefore miserable & twice miserable were these men, that first upon so small grounds adventured to make so fatal a breach in God's Church; and thrice miserable were other, who upon these men's creditts, ran to adventure both body and soul everlastingly, in pursuit of this breach and contradiction begun, as were the most of Fox his fantastical Martyrs of the ruder and unlearned sort, who in all their examinations & answers, were most blasphemous in defiance and detestation of this blessed-Sacrament, as you have seen in their histories; and thereby did well show that they were governed by his spirit, that above all honours doth envy this that is done to almighty God, as the highest, and most pleasing to his divine majesty of all others. And so much for this point.    

CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS To be noted, for better answering of heretical cavillations, against these articles of the blessed Sacrament. CHAP. III.  
HAVING exhibited a taste in the former Chapter, of the many great and substantial grounds, which Catholic men have to stand upon, in these high and divine mysteries of Christ's sacred body in the Sacrament and sacrifice, and showed in like manner that the faithless and infidious Sacramentary, that wrangeleth against the same, hath no one plain place indeed, either of scriptures or Fathers for his purpose, but only certain objections, founded for the most part upon sense and human reason against faith, and answered ordinarily by our schoolmen themselves that first objected the same, and out of whose books the heretics stole them; I have thought it best for more perspicuityes sake, & for helping their understanding, that are not exercised in matters above sense, to set down a few observations in this very beginning whereby great light will grow to the reader, for discovering whatsoever shall after be treated about this matter. But yet before I enter 
Two things diligently to be noted.  into the observations themselves, I would have the reader consider two things; first the inequality between our adversaries and us in this case, for that their arguments against these mysteries, being founded almost all in the appearance of common sense (as hath been said) the unlearned reader is capable of the objection, but not of the solution, which must be taken from matters above sense, as presently you shall see.  
2. The second point is, that if any of the old heretics, or heathen philosophers should rise again at this day, and bring forth their arguments of sense & humane reason against such articles of our faith, as in old time they did impugn, for both improbable and impossible in nature; as namely the creation of the world out of nothing; three distinct persons of the blessed Trinity in one, & the self same substance; two distinct natures in one person conjoined by the incarnation of Christ; the resurrection of our putrefied bodies, the self same substance, qualities, quantities, & other accidents, & such like points: Against which, I say, if old philosophers, & heretics should come forth again in our days, and propose such arguments as in their days they did, which seem invincible and unanswerable to common sense and humane reason; do you not think that they should have infinite people both men and women to follow them, especially if they were countenanced out with the authority of a potent Prince and kingdom, and suffered to speak their will, as our men were, that first impugned the real presence, and sacrifice in England; and yet as the ancient Fathers in their times, did not abandon these articles of faith for those difficulties, or appearance of impossibilities; no nor the common Catholic people themselves, that could not reach to the understanding thereof; so must not we do now, though we could not answer in reason the adversaries arguments, which yet by the ensuing observations, you will easily be able to do, And this for an entrance; now to the observations themselves.  

First observation. That we are not in this mystery to follow our sense, or Imagination. §. 1.  
3. The first observation is taken out of the ancient father's writings, who treating of this mystery of Christ's being in the Sacrament, do expressly warn us to beware, that we judge not of the matter according to sense or human imagination: So saith S. Cyrill B. of Jerusalem, whose words are: Quamuis sensui 
Civil. Catech. 4. mystag. prope enitium.  hoc tibi suggerat, etc. Albeit external sense do suggest unto thee, that this Sacrament is bread and wine; yet let faith confirm thee to the contrary; neither do thou judge by the taste, knowing most certainly, that this bread, which seemeth so unto us, is not bread in deed, notwithstanding the taste doth judge it to be bread; but is the body of Christ; and that the wine, which so appeareth to our sight, & by the sense of our taste, is judged to be wine, yet is it not wine, but the blood of Christ. Thus he, near thirteen hundred years gone. And the like advertisement giveth in the same matter S. Ambrose, somewhat after him, who having determined most clearly the truth of the real presence, saying: Panis iste, panis 
Ambr 1. 4. do Sacram. cap. 1.  est ante verba Sacramentorum, ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane sit corpus Christi: This bread is bread, before the words of the Sacrament be uttered (by the Priest) but when the consecration is added thereunto, the bread is made the body of Christ: He frameth an objection of the senses in these words: Fortèdicas, aliud video, etc. Perhaps 
Ambr. l. de mister imitiand. c. 7.  thou wilt say, I see another thing (to wit bread, and not the body of Christ) and how then dost thou say that I receive his body? To which question S. Ambrose answereth at large alleging many other miracles, wherein our senses are deceived.  
4. The like observation hath S. Chrysostoine in sundry places, talking of this mystery: Credamus (saith he) ubique Deo, nec repugnemus ei, etsi 
Chrysost. hom 8 ●. in Matth.  sensui & cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur, etc. Let us always give credit to God, nor let us resist him, albeit the thing seem absurd to our sense and cogitation, for our sense may easily be deceived; and therefore for so much as he hath said; This is my body, let us not doubt thereof at all, but believe him. Saint Epiphanius standeth also upon the same advertisement, reprehending them grievously, yea condemning them that dispute and frame their arguments, from the testimony of their senses against the real presence, whose words he bringeth in thus: Et videmus (say they) quod non aequale 
Epiph. in Ancoras. circa medium.  est, etc. We do see with our eyes, that this which we do receive in this Sacrament (to wit, the host) is neither equal nor like the image of Christ in flesh, nor to his invisible deity, nor to the forms or lineaments of his body, for it is of a round form, etc. 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 believe Christ himself to be truly there (under the round form of bread that is given) is fallen both from God's grace, and his own salvation.  
5. And finally not to enlarge myself further in this behalf, Eusebius Emissenus, or who else was the author of that excellent sermon de corpore Dominï, concurreth also in this note against the judgement of our senses saying; Verè unica & 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 judged by the external shape or view of our eyes. Thus he; whereof S. chrusostom giveth an example when he writeth of this mystery: O quot modò dicnns, vellem formam, & speciem cius, vellem vestimenta ipsa, vellem calceamenta 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 form & shape in the Sacrament, I would see his apparel, I would see his very shoes. Thus said some in those days, upon simplicity perhaps; but so say many more in our days, upon heresy and infidelity. And truly if we consider most of the arguments of all Fox his artificers, or women Martyrs, they were such as these here mentioned, & derided by S. chrusostom, and upon these arguments went they to the stake: Let your God in the Sacrament (said Alice Driver and her fellows) shed some blood, and we will believe. The like cried out many other simple & rude people; we see bread, we see wine, we see a round cake, we will never believe it to be God, except we see him work some miracle. What would S. chrusostom (think you) and other Fathers before mentioned have said ' to these people, if they had heard them sound out such blasphemous cries of infidelity, and unbelief in their days? And so much for this first observation, which is usually to be found in all ancient father's writings.   

The second observation. That not only sense and common Imagination, but neither philosophical reason is necessary to be followed in these mysteries. §. 2.  
6. The second observation is much like to the first, but passeth some degrees further, and is taken out of the ancient father's advertisements in like manner, to wit, that not only sense, and sensual imagination is not to be followed in these divine mysteries, of our saviours body; but neither natural, or philosophical reason itself, is always to be followed, notwithstanding it reacheth far higher than sense can attain to: which is proved first by the general definition of faith, used by S. Paul in his epistle to the Hebrues, where it is said to be argumentum rcrum non apparentium, an argument or assent of things, that do not appear by reason, which yet is more explicated by Saint Gregory, when he saith: sides non habet meritum, ubi humana ratio praebet experimentum; 
Greger. hom. 26. in evang.  faith hath no merit, where human reason doth yield a proof: Saint Augustine also saith: This is the praise of faith, if that which is believed 
Aug. tract. 79. in joan.  be not seen, for what great matter is it, if that be believed, which is evident? And this is universally in all points of our faith, the belief whereof must not depend of the evidency of reason, for than it should be science (as philosophers term it) and not faith, which faith dependeth on the authority, trust and credit we give to the revealer, which is God himself.  
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 less power than the omnipotency of God to perform the same: Necessarium est (said S. chrusostom to his people of Antioch) mysteriorum 
Chrysost. in serm. ad Pop. Antioch.  discere miraculum, etc. It is necessary for us to learn this miracle of mysteries, what it is, why it was given us, what utility cometh therewith unto us & the like: And again the same Father in his books of Priesthood, descending to treat more in particular one point of this mystery, which is, how Christ's body is at one time in many places, he crieth out; O miraculum! o Dei benignitatem! O miracle! o goodness 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 above with his Father, in that very instant of time is handled by all Priests hands: And S. Cyprian to the same effect: Panis quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat, non 
Cypr. serm. de cana Dominj.  effigy sed nature a mutatus, omnipotentia verbi sactuiest caro: The bread which our Lord gave to his disciples (at the last supper) being changed not in outward show (for it appeareth bread still) but in nature, by the omnipotency of God's word is made flesh.  
8. Thus thought and spoke the ancient Fathers of this high mystery, and miracle in the Sacrament. And conform to this, they called us always from reason to faith, from contention to humble belief, when they treated thereof, for so writeth among other ancient Fathers S. Hilary speaking of this matter: non est humano aut saeculi sensu in Dei rebus loquendum. 
Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit.  We must not talk of works of God according to human and worldly reason, etc. touching the natural verity of Christ in us (by this Sacrament) that which we affirm except we have learned it of himself, we do affirm the same foolishly, and impiously, but he hath said: my flesh is truly meat, etc. unto whom S. Ambrose agreeing, saith of the same 
joan. 6.  mystery: Quid hic quaeris natura ordinem, etc. Why 
Ambr. l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4.  seekest thou here the order of nature (touching the body of Christ in the Sacrament) forsomuch as our Lord Jesus was borne of the Virgin beside the course of nature. here you see he compareth this mystery, and miracle of Christ's being in the Sacrament, with the miracle of his incarnation & miraculous birth, of the blessed Virgin. The very same judgement held S. Ephrem equal in antiquity 
Ephrem. lib. de natura De● minimè scrutan da cap. 5.  to S. Ambrose. Quid scrutaris inscrutabilia. etc. What dost thou search after things unsearchable? If thou examine these things curiously, thou wilt seem not to be faithful but curious: be faithful and simple, and so participate the immaculate body of thy Lord, believing most certainly, that thou dost eat the very whole lamb yt selfe, etc. So he.  
9 Saint Augustine also in many places doth beat earnestly, against this standing upon reason in matters of faith, but especially in his epistle to Volutianus, saying: Quae sibi quisque fatilia, 
August. op. ad Volutian.  etc. The things which each man esteemeth easy for him to conceive, though he cannot make them, he is content to believe them, but all that is above his capacity he holdeth for false and feigned. And again: Si ratio quaeritur non erit mirabile, if you seek reason for every thing, it will not be marvelous, Demus, Deum aliquid posse quod nos fateamur investigare non posse: Let us grant that God can do 
Aug. ibid.  somewhat, whereof we cannot seek out the reason; in talibus rebus tota ratio facti est potentia facientis; in such matters all the reason, that can be alleged for the fact, or for that which is done, is the power of the doer. And in another place the same Father having spoken of the blessed Sacrament and how Christ our saviour is therein sub aliena specie, under another form of bread and wine, as the angels also appear unto us under assumpted bodies, he concludeth thus: Mihi autem omnino utile est, etc. It is very profitable for me to remember my 
Ibidem.  own feeble forces, & to warn my brethren that they also be mindful of theirs, to the end that our human infirmity do not pass further (in search of these mysteries) then is safe for us to do. So blessed S. Augustine.  
10. And finally S. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria handling those words of the faithless Capharnaites, joan. 6. How can he give his flesh to be eaten. etc. reprehendeth greatly such curious inquisition saying: Numquam in tam sublimibus rebus illud (quomodo) aut cogitemus aut proferamus. In 
Cyrill. Alex. l. 4. in joan. cap. 12.  so high matters (as these of the Sacrament) let us never think or allege this word (quomodo) that is, how it can be? And in this manner did the ancient Fathers proceed about this mystery, by way of faith and humble submission of their judgements and understandings, and not by feeding their imagination with probability of human reason against faith, as the sectaries of our time do, yea and placing so much confidence therein, as they were content to die for the same (as after you will see by experience, when we come to handle their arguments in particular, whereof the greater part (yea almost all) relied either upon common sense, or some little show of human reason. And thus much for the second observation.   

Third observation. That reason is not contrary to faith, but inferior unto it. §. 3.  
11. The third observation may be, that though it is justly accounted a fault of folly, pride, heresy, or infidelity by the foresaid Fathers, to stand too much upon sense & reason in these mysteries, which do surpass 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 lights, the one as a lower, the other as a more high and eminent light, so as, though this lower cannot reach to discover 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 things that are probable in nature, faith ascendeth to all that is possible, and not only possible to man, but even to God himself, which so far exceedeth both the power and understanding of man, as S. Paul speaking but of one point only of our faith, which is the joys of heaven, saith that the heart of man could not comprise the same.  
12. And yet if we would enter into the search of what is possible to God's power and omnipotency, the scripture in few words setteth it down: Non est impossibile apud Deum 
Luc. ●.  omne verbum: there is nothing impossible to God, which is as much to say, that all things are possible. And again our saviour speaking to his Father said: Omnia tibi possibilia sunt: All 
Marc. 14.  things are to thee possible. And if we would require examples, the creation of the heavens, and of all things both in & under them, will minister thousands, whereunto human reason cannot reach. And S. John Baptist gave an example to the Jews, that God of stones 
Luc. 3.  is able to raise up children to Abraham; but this also is nothing in respect of Gods infinite and incomprehensible omnipotency, which is above the reach of our understanding.  
13. No limitation then at all is to be laid to God's almighty power, but that he may do whatsoever he please, except only one, according to divines, which is, that the thing do not imply contradiction in it self, as that it should be and not be at once, which is impossible, 
D. Tho. 1. part. q. 14. art. 3.  or that it should import any imperfection or impotency in God, as to sin, or die, which are effects rather of want of power, then of omnipotency. And in this do the more learned Protestants also agree in word with us, saying, that if it were clear that God would have it so, or had said it, that of bread should be made his flesh, and that one substance should be turned into the other, they would grant that he could do it by his omnipotency. Thus they say in, words, to avoid the odious note of infidelity, or limiting God's power; but when they come to the point indeed, they found all their greatest arguments upon the impossibility thereof, as though God could not do it. And so shall you see afterwards, when we come to discuss their strongest arguments. And their great grandfather john Wikliffe, or rather Wicked-beleefe, as Walsingham calleth him, did absolutely deny that God was able to do it, 
Waldens'. tom. 2. cap. 72. & 73.  as Thomas Walden testifieth out of his own writings. And john Caluyn his scholar in this point calleth us madd-men, for that we believe that God was able to make bread his flesh in the Sacrament, and yet not to have the external form, nature and propriety of flesh: Insane (saith he) quid à Dei potentia postulas, 
Calu. lib. 4. Institut. cap. 17. §. 24.  ut carnem faciat simul esse, & non esse carnem? Thou madd-man how dost thou demand of the power of God, that he should make flesh to be flesh, and not flesh at one time? But how doth Caluyn prove (think you) that our belief of the Sacrament implieth this contradiction of flesh and no flesh? Forsooth (to use his words) for that we grant, that God can make, that the self-same flesh of Christ can occupy divers 
Calu. ibid.  places at once, and that it be contained in no certain place, and that it lacketh both the outward shape of flesh and proper manner of being, etc. And for believing of this he counteth us madd-men, as you have heard, and so must he account also of necessity all those holy Fathers before mentioned, who believed the same mystery, as we do, notwithstanding the outward appearances of impossibility, for comprehending whereof they fled from sense and reason to faith and belief.  
14. And yet further than this the reader must understand, that for so much as the said reason and faith, are not contradictory the one to the other, but more eminent the one above the other, as before hath been showed, catholics do take upon them to prove, that no one of these difficulties objected by faithless Protestants, is impossible, or implieth contradiction in reason itself, as by the ensuing considerations shall more particularly be declared; noting only to the reader by the way, that if the particular intrinsical natures and essences of every thing were clearly known unto us, ●s they are for example unto angels, and 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 merit, would have us not always to see this; therefore are we forced to guess at the same by way of discourse and reason, and by one example to another, as you shall see in the ensuing observations.   

Fourth observation. How a body may be without an ordinary natural place. §. 4.  
15. One of the greatest difficulties therefore objected by the adversary, is, that a true and natural organical body, such as Christ's is confessed to be in the Sacrament, cannot be without the ordinary dimensions of a peculiar place, which we deny in such sense, as here we shall declare. For better understanding 
Three ways or manners of being in place.  whereof is to be noted, that three ways a thing may be in a place, first naturally and ordinarily by extension and commensuration unto the said place, so as every part 
1.  and part cell of the thing placed, do answer to each 
1.  part of the place itself, which manner of being in place, philosophers do call circumscriptively, for that all places of the body so placed are so limited and circumscribed by the part of the place, as neither that body can be i● any other place, nor that place admit another body, without penetrating the one of the other, which by ordinary course of nature is held for impossible.  
16. Another manner of being in place is more spiritual, and hard to conceive, to wit, 
2.  when a thing is so in a place, as the parts thereof 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 compass of that whole place assigned thereunto, as naturally it cannot be in any other, whilst it is there, as for example, the soul of a man in the body thereunto assigned, is so contained therein, as it is not elsewhere, and yet is it not so extended by commensuration, as in the former example, that one part of the soul answereth one part of the body, and another, another part, but the whole soul which is indivisible, and hath no parts at all, is wholly in the whole body, and wholly in every part and parcel thereof, which is a miraculous strange being, if it be well considered, & notwithstanding natural as all philosophers do grant, for that the whole soul of man is as wholly (for example) in the singar and foot, as in the breast and head, and yet is but one soul in all, and neither many souls nor one soul divided into parts. And after the same manner, is an angel also in a place definitively, and not circumscriptively, that is to say wholly in the whole place, which he occupieth, & wholly in every part thereof, without multiplication or division in himself, or extension unto the parts of the place wherein it is. But for that the example of the soul, is more familiar and evident to our sense and reason, it doth better express the matter. And it is to be noted, that it doth somewhat imitate the being of God himself wholly, and without division in all parts of the world, and in all creatures thereof without limitation, change, or multiplication, but only it differeth in this, that the soul, or an angel, being both creatures, cannot be every where, as the creator naturally is, and he cannot be otherwise; but yet by his divine power, the said creatures may be in divers places at once, as after shallbe showed.  
17. These two ways then of being in a place, as I have said, are natural; the first circumscriptively, the second definitively. But besides these two, there is a third supernatural, and possible to God's divine omnipotency, and not repugnant to reason it self, as after shallbe showed; which is, that one and the self-same thing, may by God's divine power, be placed in two different places at once, that is to say, that the self-same soul, as it is naturally, wholly, and entirely in the head, for example, and in the foot; so it repugneth not to the same nature or essence of the soul, to be put in two different bodies at once. The like of an angel in divers places, and the same also may be held of a natural body, is God will have it so, as in the next observation shallbe proved. And this way or manner of being in place, for that the Cath. Church doth hold it to be in the body of our saviour in the Sacrament, is called by divines a sacramental being in place, nor for that the true body is not really there, as some hearing the word Sacramentally, used sometimes by the Fathers and Doctors, do fond apprehend, but for that it is there after this special manner, as we have declared, that is to say, so as it is also in other places at the same tyme.  
18. Now then, these three ways or manners of being in place declared, it remaineth, that we show how it is possible to God's power, and not repugnant to natural reason, that a true body, which of his own nature is in 
How a body may be definitively in place.  place, only after the first manner of circumscription and commensuration, or extension, may, by God's power, be in place also after the second and third way, that is difinitively and Sacramentally, without the first way of commensuration and extension to a place. And first here we shall show the said possibility in the second way, and then of the third in the ensuing observation.  
19 The only chief ground, or reason objected by the heretics, why it may seem to repugn or imply contradiction, that a true organical body together with his quantity, such as Christ's is in the Sacrament, should be definitively without extension in place, is, for that it appeareth contrary to the nature of quantity to be without such extension; but this ground Cath. Philosophers and divines do easily overthrow, shewing that three things do agree to quantity or magnitude, whereof the first is to be extended in it self, and to have distinct parts one from the other among themselves, though not ever visible, or perceptible by our sense; and this first point is so essential to quantity and magnitude, as it cannot be imagined separable, so as it remain quantity. And therefore this is granted to be in the body of our saviour in the Sacrament, though our sense doth not comprehend it. The second property of quantity or magnitude, proceeding from this first, is; not only to have parts distinct in themselves, but to have them extended also in place, according to the commensuration thereof, as in the first way of being in place we have declared.  
20. And for that this second condition, or propriety, is later than the former, & ensueth thereof, it is not so intrinsical to the nature & essence of quantity, but that by God's divine power it may be separated, without destroying the said nature, which our divines do show by examples of other things, where God hath separated such secondary proprieties, without dissolving the natures, as heating, for example, from fire in the furnace of Babylon, which heating notwithstanding is as natural to fire, as it is to quantity to occupy place. Christ also in S. Mathewes gospel, having said to his disciples, that it was easier 
Cap. 19  for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, then for a richman to enter into the kingdom of heaven, and the Apostles wondringe thereat, and saying: who then can be saved? our saviour answered, that, that which was impossible to men, was possible to God, which yet could not be possible, but by separating from the camel all his natural extension, and commensuration of place. Wherefore all the ancient Fathers upon this place attributing this to miracle, do affirm, that by God's divine power it may be done, to wit, that a camel remaining in the nature of a camel, may pass through a needle's eye: quid prohibet (saith S. Gregory Nazianzen) quo minus hoc fiat, si voluntas it a tulerit? What letteth but that this (of 
Nazianzorat. 36. quae est quarta de Theolog.  the camel) may be done, if Gods will be to have it so? Some Protestant will step forth, and say that it cannot be done, for that the camel should not in that case have quantity and be organical (for so they say of our saviours body in the Sacrament), but Nazianzen was of another opinion: And so may you read Origen, S. Jerome, S. Augustine, S. Hilary, 
Matth. 19 Luc. 18. Marc. 10.  S. chrusostom, and other Fathers in their commentaries, and expositions upon this place of S. Mathewes gospel.  
21. The third natural condition or propriety of quantity (proceeding of this second) is, that for so much as by the foresaid second propriety, 
The third condition or propriety of quantity.  the thing placed doth fill up the place which it occupieth, every part thereof answering to every part of the said place only, and one place contain one body; so as naturally it is no less impossible for two bodies to be in one place, then for one body to be in many. Yet notwithstanding supernaturally, and by God's omnipotent power, both the one & the other may be without implication, or contradiction of the essence, or nature of a true body. The reason whereof is this: for that this third propriety in quantity or magnitude, flowing of the second, as hath been said, may much more easily be separated from the essence of the said quantity and body, than the second, and consequently the former being separable, this is much more, whereof our divines do give divers most evident instances, out of scripture itself. As for example out of S. john's gospel, where twice it is said, that 
joan. 20.  he came in to his disciples, when the gates were shut. And in S. Matthew, and S. mark, 
Math. 28. Mare. 16.  where it is showed, how Christ after his resurrection came forth of the sepulchre, the stone also being shut; and in his nativity he came forth of his mother's womb, without violation of her virginity, and in his ascension 
Ephes. 4.  he passed through all the heavens with his natural body. In all which myraculouse examples 
Se S. Aug. ep. 3. ad Volus. & l 22. de civit. Dei cap. 8. & Chrysost. Euth●m Cyrill. etc. In cowmentavijs.  (for so do the ancient father's hold and affirm them to be) there must needs be penetration of bodies, or two bodies in one place, which is no less repugnant to the ordinary nature of quantity (as hath been said) then for a body to be without certain dimension of any place.  
22. Besides this our divines do allege the examples of the damned spirits, miraculously tied to certain local places in hell; and that which is more marvelous, that the damned souls being spirits, should suffer, and be tormented by corporal fire, whereof S. Augustine treateth at large lib. 21. de civit. Dei cap. 1. 2. & deinceps, which is no less against the ordinary nature and propriety of spirits, to suffer corporally, than it is against the nature of a body, to be after a certain spiritual manner without his local dimension; by all which we may perceive, that although it be above natural reason, that organical bodies should want these external local positions; yet is it not contrary, or contradictory thereunto, but subject to God's omnipotent power, when, and where it pleaseth him to make it so, and consequently it may be so also in the blessed Sacrament, without destroying the nature of a true body, as fond Protestant's do pretend.  
23. And hereby now falleth to the ground, a whole main multitude of vain arguments, brought by Fox his Martyrs, as after you shall see, against the real presence, all of them founded upon this ground, that a true organical body cannot, by God's power, be either without local dimensions, or in more places than one at once. The first of which two assertions hath now been improved, and the second shallbe in the next ensuing observation.   

The fifth observation. How a body may be in divers places at once. §. 5.  
24. As the weak faith and learning of the sacramentaries of our time, cannot reach to conccave, that a body can be without an external place; so much less, can they comprehend, that it may be by God's omnipotency placed in divers places at once, for that it seemeth to their sense, and human reason to be impossible; but the ancient holy Fathers, more wise and learned then our said sectaries, took another course in this point, which was to ascribe it to miracle, and to God's infinite power, which they could not by reason arrive unto: I might city divers Fathers, but one or two shall serve for all; Omiracle! (saith S. chrusostom) o goodness of God that 
Shrysost. lib. 3. de Sacerdotie.  the same Christ who sitteth in heaven with his Father, is conversant at the self-same time, in the hands of all that receive him on earth! And the same Father, writing of the same sacred body of our saviour, as it is a sacrifice, saith: unum est hoc sacrificium, etc. This sacrifice is but one, for that otherwise, because it is offered in many places, there should be many 
Chrysost. hom. 17. in ep. ad hebr.  Christ's, which is not so, but one, and the self same Christ is in every place, (when it is offered) here it is whole Christ, and there it is whole Christ, and yet but one body: for as every where one body, and not many bodies are offered, so is there also but one sacrifice, etc. In which places you see S. chrusostom to hold & to affirm, that Christ's true body, without division or multiplication, is offered up in many places at once, yea innumerable places, if we believe S. Gregory Nissen whose words are: As Christ's divinity 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 you observe, that the Father saith not, that Christ's body is every where, as his divinity is, as the Lutheran Vbiquitaryes of Germany, do absurdly affirm; but that it is in innumerable places by consecration.  
25. Well then these Fathers denied not the real presence, as our sacramentaries do, for that they conceived not the reason, how one body might be in divers places at once, but mounted by faith above reason, asscribing the same to miracle and god's omnipotency, as you have heard: and so do catholics at this day. Hear the pious speech of a great learned man above 400. years gone. You will say to me 
Hugo de Sa Victor. l. 2. do Sacram. p. 8. cap. 11.  (quoth he), how can one and the self same body, be at one time in divers places, etc. Do not marvel, he that made the place, made the body, and the place for the body, and the body in the place; and when he ordained that one body should be in one place, it was as pleased him, and if he would, he could have made it otherwise, etc. Thou hast seen only that which he hath made, and not that which he can make, and hereupon dost marvel when thou seest any other thing, then that which thou art accustomed to see; but do thou think upon the matter, and it will cease to be marvelous, or at leastways, it will not seem to be incredible. Thus he.  
26. But our divines do go yet further, shewing that this is not impossible, even in nature itself, for God to perform, as you may perceive by that we have declared in the former observation: For if it were repugnant and contradictory to the nature of a true body, to be in divers places at once, this must be either in respect of the unity thereof, for that 
Two difficulties solved.  it should thereby be divided from it self, or multiplied in it self, and so not be one but many bodies; or else secondly it should be impossible to be in divers places, in respect of the quantity, which a true body hath, whereby it should be limyted to some certain space or place; but neither of these two difficulties do impossibilitate the matter, as now we shall declare.  
27. Not the first about unity, for that God 
The first difficulty about unity.  being a substance indivisible, is every where wholly, and in every one of his creatures, and yet remaineth one still, nor can be divided or multiplied: which is so wonderful a consideration, as S. Augustine saith thereof: Miratur hoc 
Aug. ep. 3. ad Volus.  mens humana, & quia non capit, fortasse non credit. man's mind doth wonder at this, and for that it conceiveth it not, perhaps it doth not believe it. Some likeness also of this admirable being is in an angel, which though it cannot be every where at once, as God is, yet hath it a wonderful being in place; notwithstanding, as before hath been touched, being placed within any compass or circuit, as for example in a house or Church, it is wholly in all that space, and wholly in every part thereof, & yet remaineth one and simple without division in himself: which example is more evident also in our soul; as before we have declared, for that the self-same soul in a body, when it is an infant, and when it is at his full growth, is wholly in the whole body, & wholly in every part thereof, and yet is it not multiplied thereby, nor divided. Whereby is made manifest, that it repugneth not to the essence or unity of any one substance, to be in divers places at once, and this naturally, but much more supernaturally, by the omnipotent power of God.  
28. There remaineth then the second difficulty 
The second difficulty about quantity.  about quantity, or a body endued with quantity, how it is not letted thereby to be in two places at once, whereof we have treated in the former observation, shewing how actual locality by circumscription, being but a secondary propriety, following and flowing from the nature of quantity, may, by God's power, be separated from the same, so as the said quantity may remain with her true essence, of having distinct parts in it self, and yet no extensive location, or commensuration of place, in which case it repugneth no more for the self-same quantity to be in many places at once, than it doth unto a spiritual substance without quantity, such as is an angel, or the soul of man, and consequently the substance of Christ's body, together with the quantity in this manner, may by God's power be put in many places at once, as we see by course of nature itself, that the substance of man's soul without quantity, is put in many particular places of a man's body, without division or multiplication, remaining still but one only soul, as hath been declared. And this shall suffice for explication of this possibility, how it doth not imply contradiction, and therefore is not impossible to God.  
29. Neither do our divines show only, that 
divers articles believed by Protestant's are more hard than this.  this is not impossible in our saviours body, but further also, that we do believe divers other mysteries of our faith as hard or harder than this, yea much more impossible to sense and reason, if we consider well the difficulties thereof, as the creation of the world of nothing, the mystery of the blessed Trinity, the belief of Christ's incarnation, our resurrection, and the like, for it is much harder by human reason and natural philosophy, to conceive how the world could be created of nothing, and how one and the self-same nature can be wholly in three real distinct persons, without division or multiplication in it self, and how one person can be in two divers distinct natures, as it is in our saviour, and how one, and the self-same thing being perished and corrupted, may be raised again with the self-same accidents that perished before. These points I say, and divers others which both we and Protestants do confess to be true, are more hard, and impossible in natural reason, than it is to be believe that one body is in divers places at once.  
30. Furthermore there be certain familiar 
Natural examples inducing us to this manner of being of Christ's body in divers places.  examples in nature itself, that do resemble somewhat the matter, and may induce a man that is not obstinate, and hath any mean capacity to conceive somewhat of the possibility thereof, as when a great lookinge-glasse that represented but one face unto you when it was whole, being broken into many parts every part will represent wholly the self-same face. The voice also of him, that speaketh to a great multitude, though it be but one in it self, yet cometh it wholly to every man's ears, which S. Augustine alleged for a wonderful thing towards the proving of Gods being wholly everywhere: Omne quod sonat (saith he) & omnibus totum est, & singulis totum 
Aug. ep. ●● ad Volus.  est. All that soundeth is heard wholly of all, and wholly of every particular man. And though these examples be not like in every respect, yet may they serve for a certain induction to make us comprehend the other, whereof we now speak.  
31. Last of all, Catholic divines do not only show the possibility of this point, that our saviours 
Examples of the being of Christ's body in divers places it once.  body may be in divers places at once, as also that sundry other mysteries of our faith are believed, of more difficulty than this, if we regard common sense and reason, but do show also out of the scriptures themselves, that Christ after his ascension hath been in more than 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 unto him in the way near to Damascus, environed with a great light, and talked with him in such sort, as both the light and words were seen and heard by his companions, and many other apparitions to S. Peter himself, 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. Joan. Dia●. l. 2. de vita Greg. c. 22.  by Egesippus, and S. Ambrose; to S. Anthony also testified by S. Gregory, & besides divers others recorded by S. Paulinus, Joannes Diaconus, and other authentical writers, from whom, except we will derogate all credit and authority, we may not doubt, but that Christ remaining still in heaven (for so hold both we and Protestants together, that he departed not from thence) appeared also in divers places of the earth to his Saints, and consequently 
Mare. 16.  his body could be in divers places at once, whereby is broken and dissolved another squadron of arguments, framed by the sacramentaries 
How Christ is in heaven and in the Sacrament after a different manner.  of our days to the simple people, as though Christ's real body could not be in the Sacrament, for that it is in heaven; whereas we affirm, that both may be and stand together, though in different manner, for that in heaven he is circumscriptively, and in the Sacrament sacramentally, which terms we have before declared.   

The sixth observation. How Christ's body in the Sacrament, may be now under a greater form, now under a loss, and the least, that may be discerned. §. 6.  
32. By this also which is said may be conceived, how the sacred body of our saviour, in the Sacrament under the accidents of bread, is sometimes in a greater visible quantity, and sometimes in a less, according to the external forms and accidents under which it is, yea and in the least part & parcel of the consecrated host, that is perceptible to our sense, for that the said body being removed by God's omnipotent power from all local extension, it may be under a greater or smaller external quantity, without alteration of the body itself, as we see in the soul of man, which is the self-same in the least part of the body wherein 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 cometh to be a great man, the self-same soul replenisheth the one and the other without growth or diminution in it self, and so the body of Christ in a great host or a little, or in any least part thereof, when it is broken, is wholly, and the self-same body, with the self-same internal organical quantity, which it had under a great host. And this point that the quantity of a substance may be increased or diminished externally, in respect of place, without alteration 
Note this example.  of the inward quantity, or substance, is evident by many examples, which we see daily of rarefaction and condensation. As for example when a gallon of water is put in a great vessel over the fire, it cometh by boiling to fill the whole vessel, that is capable of many gallons, and yet as the inward substance is not increased, so neither the quantity in it self; and contrary wise, when the said water is again cooled, it returneth to occupy as small a place, as it did at the beginning, and yet retaineth always the self same both quantity and substance.  
33. By which example, & many other that may be alleged, some kind of notice may be gathered unto our common sense and reason, how the substance of Christ's body in the Sacrament, together with his internal quantity, may by his omnipotent power, be sometimes under a great external quantity, or extension in place, & sometimes under a lesser; yea the least, that by our senses may be perceived: and yet is Christ's body wholly and entirely there, according (in some proportion) to the lookinge-glasse before mentioned, which being broken into divers small pieces, each one representeth the whole visage severally, which before was exhibited by the whole: And so, when any consecrated host is broken into many parts, that which was contained before in the whole host, is now contained wholly under every particular parcel thereof, as it was also before. And to this effect, are those words of S. Epiphanius before alleged, against them that said: Videmus quod est aequale, etc. We see that the host received in the Sacrament, is 
Vli supra.  not equal or like to the figure of Christ's body, but is round, etc. wherefore all the arguments of Fox his Martyrs, that were founded on this improportion of the host to Christ's natural, and external quantity, have no ground at all, but a little fraudulent show and appearance of sensible improbability, and yet were many of their chiefest arguments builded on this only foundation, as you have seen reading over their histories before recited, and shall do more afterward, when we come to examine their arguments severally; and in the meanee space this shall suffice for an advertisement about this observation.   

The seventh observation. How accidents may be without a subject, and of their operations in that case. §. 7.  
34. The seventh observation may be, about the accidents or forms of bread and wine, that do remain by God's omnipotent power without a subject, after the words of consecration, as they did before in the substance of bread, whereupon the more simple sort of sacramentaries following sense, will needs argue, that the substance also of bread & wine, do remain after the said consecration; and those that be more learned, do go about to prove the same by philosophical reason, for that the nature of an accident is to be in another, as the nature of a substance is to be in it self, whereof ensueth, that for so much as no 
Aristot. 5. Metiph. ●ext. 35.  accident can be in God, as in a subject, (neither are they in Christ's body, as we also do confess) they must needs be here in their proper subject and substances of bread and wine: but all this is founded upon a false ground, for albeit naturally an accident cannot be but in a subject, yet supernaturally, and by the power of God sustaining it, and supplying the place of a natural subject, it may be, as we do confess on the contrary side by Christian faith, that the human nature of Christ in the mystery of the incarnation, hath not her proper subsistence in it self (which yet is as natural to a substance to subsist in it self, as it is to an accident to be sustained by another) but is sustained by the divine person of Christ.  
35. And the reason of this, concerning accidents, is, that albeit the intrinsical nature of an accident is to be unperfect, and to depend of another, and thereby to have an aptitude to be in another, yet the act thereof may be separated by God's power, from the said nature, as a thing posterior, and following from the said nature, as we have she wed before in the natural propriety of quantity, to have commensuration of place; and this to be, true that this actual inherence of accidents, may be severed from the essential aptitude thereunto, without destroying the nature of the said accident, many philosophers both Christian and heathen do affirm, whose sentences you 
See Auer●. in cpitom. Metaphys. tract. 2. Aui●ēbron. l. font. vitae tract. 2. Waldensis tom. 2. cap. 76.  may see gathered by divers learned men, as well of ancient as of our times. Sundry Fathers also are of opinion, that this case happened de facto in the creation of the world, when the light being made upon the first day, as the book of Genesis recounteth, which being but a quality and accident, remained without a subject unto the fourth day, when the son and moon wear created. And of this opinion expressly was S. Basill, in his explication 
Basil. he. 2. & 6. the oper. sex die●um Damascen. l. 2. cap. 7.  of the works of God in those six days. And the same holdeth S. John Damascene, Procopius in his commentary upon the first Chapter of Genesis, and Saint Justine in the explication of our faith.  
36. This then being so, that these accidents of bread & wine may remain, by the power of God, in the Sacrament, without their proper subjects, it followeth to consider, what actions they can have: And first it is to be noted, 
Of the activity of accidents being separated from their substance.  that whatsoever actions, or operations are proper to them, as accidents, when they were in their proper subjects of bread and wine, before consecration, the same they may have afterwards, when they contain the body and blood of Christ, without inherence therein, for that God supplieth all by his power, which their said subjects or substances did perform, when they were present. So as the effects, for example, that the accidents of wine & bread did work in our senses before, by moving our sight by their colours to see, our taste by their savour, and other like effects: the same do they perform also afterwards: So as, for example sake, by drinking much consecrated wine, though there be no substance of wine therein, but only the proper accidents of wine, as heat, smell, and other qualities and proprieties of wine; may a man be incensed, or distempered, as much as if the substance of wine were there in deed, for these are the proper actions and operations of the said accidents themselves; but where the concurrence 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 wine are corrupted and not otherwise: As for example, in the resurrection of our bodies, where every body is to receive his own proper flesh again, which it had in this life, if some one body having eaten another body, or parcel thereof in this world, and converted 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 bodies, for that else one of them should be unperfect, and want part of his substance in the resurrection. And after the like manner we say, that when a consecrated host is eaten, and afterward is turned into the natural nourishment of the eater, which nourishment requireth a material substance, God doth supply that substance in that instant, when the forms of bread and wine perishing, the body of Christ ceaseth to be there.  
37. And this appertaineth to the providence of almighty God, for supplying the defects of particular natural causes, when any thing faileth, that is necessary for their natural operations. The very same also is to be observed in generation, and corruption, as for example, when the accidents of the consecrated host perishing, and some other substance should happen to be engendered thereof, as worms, 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 supplieth fit matter, as in the example before alleged of the resurrection of our bodies, whereof the one had eaten part of the other. By which observation it willbe easy afterward to dissolve many cavillations, proceeding either of ignorance, heresy, or both, and objected by sacramentaries against this mystery.   

The eight observation. About the words Sacrament, sign, figure, type, commemoration, memory, etc. §. 8.  
38. For so much as the sacramentaries of our time, did foresee that they should be forced to oppose themselves, for defending their heretical novelty, sagainst the whole stream of scriptures, expositors, fathers, councils, reasons, practice, antiquity, and uniform consent of the unhole Christian world, they thought best to devise certain terms and distinctions, which should serve them for evasions or gaps to run out at, when-soever they should be pressed by our arguments: and these their shifts do consist principally, in the fraudulent use of these terms of Sacrament, sign, figure, type, commemoration, memory, sacramentally, spiritually and the like. Wherefore we think it needful to explain and declare in this place, the natures, uses and abuses of these words.  
39 First then a Sacrament, according to the common definition ascribe to S. Augustine, is a visible sign of an invisible grace, as in baptism, 
The word Sacrament explicated.  the external washing by water, is the sign of the internal washing of the soul by grace: So here also in this Sacrament of the Eucharist, the external & visible sign are the consecrated forms of bread and wine, as they contain the body of Christ; the internal or invisible grace signified, is the inward nourishing and seeding of our soul: And this is the first and chief manner how this Sacrament is a sign, that is to say a sign of grace, and not of Christ's body absent, as Protestants are wont most fond and fraudulently to infer.  
40. Secondly these external forms and accidents of bread and wine, are also a sign of Christ's body contained under them. And in this sense is the Eucharist called sometimes by the Fathers, the sign of Christ's body, but of Christ's body present, as hath been said, and not absent. Thirdly this Sacrament is a sign of Christ his death and passion, and of the union of his mystical body the Church with him: For that as bread and wine represented by these forms, are made of many grains and many grapes; so is Christ's mystical body, consisting of many members united to him; so as by all these ways may this Sacrament be called a sign, to wit, a sign of the inward grace, and nourishment of the soul obtained thereby, a sign of Christ's true body present, a sign of Christ his death, and mystical body, and yet do none of all these figures exclude the true real 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 terms of figure, type, commemoration, 
The other words of type figure etc. explicated.  or memory, all which, when they occur, are to be understood in some of these senses, without prejudice of the reality, or truth of our saviours being in this Sacrament, as for example, this Sacrament is a form, type, commemoration & memory of Christ's death on the cross, and yet this excludeth not his real-presence from hence. As for example, if a Prince having gained in proper person a great & singular victory, should institute a solemn triumph, to be made every year in memory thereof, & some times should go in that triumph himself also, it 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 it himself, and so may be said in like manner of this matter of the Sacrament, wherein Christ in different manner, is a figure or type of himself. And the like may be said of the daily sacrifice also, which sacrifice is a commemoration or memory of the other bloody sacrifice, once offered on the cross, and yet containeth the same real body of our saviour, which the other did, after another manner. And by this will the reader easily discover divers poor shifts & fallacies of our modern heretics, especially of Ridley before named, who as you have heard him profess, was moved to leave his ancient faith of the mass, & his practice therein, for that in some certain places (for sooth) of the Fathers, he found that this sacrifice (of the mass) is called a commemoration of Christ's passion; a strong argument, no doubt, to move him to so great a resolution. And so much of this.  
42. Now then are to be examined the other words, sacramentally, really, and spiritually: and as for the first, the common sense, and meaning 
Two significations of the word sacramentally and both against the sacramentaries.  of school divines is, that devised this word, to signify thereby a peculiar manner of Christ's supernatural being in the Sacrament, different from his natural and circumscriptive being in heaven, and from the natural being of an angel definitively in a place, whereof we have spoken before. So as, when they say that Christ is sacramentally under the forms 
1.  of bread and wine, they do not deny his true and real being there in flesh, the very self-same that is in heaven; but he is there in another manner. And this is the chief proper signification of the word sacramentally amongst schoolmen, for which the word was invented.  
43. But in the common use, and sense of our speech, sacramentally signifieth, that Christ's 
2.  body is there under a Sacrament or sign, which are the forms of bread and wine, and not in his own proper shape, even as an angel, when he appeareth in a body, he may be said to appear bodily, for that the body is the figure or form, under which he appeareth; and conform to this sense, we are said to receive Christ sacramentally, when we receive him truly and really, but yet not in his proper form, but under another form, that is to say of bread and wine, whereby the fraudulent dealing of our modern sacramentaries may appear, who deceiving the people with this word sacramentally, do oppose it to really and truly, as though when any author saith, that we receive Christ sacramentally in the Eucharist, it were to be understood, that we did not receive Christ's body in deed and really, but only a sign thereof, and by this they endeavour to delude all the places, though never so evident, of holy Fathers affirming, that Christ's true flesh and body, the very same that was borne of the virgin Mary and crucified for us, is received in the Sacrament, these good fellows answer that it is true, sacramentally, which we also grant, if sacramentally, do not exclude really, according to the true signification of the word: But if by sacramentally, they mean as they do, that only a sign is received of Christ's body in the Sacrament, then is their deceit manifest as you see; for that sacramentally, hath no such signification at all among divines, but only is devised among them for a shift.  
44. The like fraud they use about the word 
What the word spiritually signifieth in this mystery.  spiritually, which in the sense of holy Fathers, being opposite to carnally and corporally, in their ordinary material signification, is by sectaries also wrested, as though it were contrary to the word really, so as whensoever they are forced to grant Christ's body to be spiritually in the Sacrament (by which phrase the said ancient Fathers do mean only, that he is not there after a carnal, or common manner, as he lived upon earth) they will have it understood, that he is there only by faith, and not in deed really and substantially. They abuse also the signification of the foresaid words carnally & corporally, which having a double sense, the one that Christ's body is naturally and really in the Sacrament, the other that he is there after the external being of other bodies, they deceitfully do take them now in one sense, and now in another, and always oppose them to the word spiritually, which in the former sense are not incompatible, but may stand together, though not in the later. And for avoiding of this equivocation, divines do wish those two words, carnally and corporally, though true in the foresaid sense, yet to be more sparingly used, than the other words really and substantially, that are equivalent in sense, and less subject to equivocation and mistaking.  
45. Wherefore to conclude this observation, all these words are to be noted, and their true use and signification remembered by him, that will not be deluded by heretical sleights and impostures in this high mystery, but especially are to be observed these three, whereby our sacramentaries do most of all deceive the vulgar people, in their assertions and answers to our arguments, to wit, sacramentally, spiritually and by faith, as though they did exclude the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament; which is most false, for that in the true sense we admit them all. For example, we grant that Christ is sacramentally in this Sacrament, both as sacramentally signifieth a distinct manner of Christ's being there, from that in heaven, and as it signifieth his being there under a Sacrament or sign, but yet really, we grant also that he is there spiritually, that is to say, after a spiritual, and not corporal circumscriptive manner, yet truly and really. We grant 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 belief only. And by this you may perceive our sacramentaries manner of disputing, 
Our heretics cavil like to that of the Arrians.  just like the Arrians of old time, and of our days, who seek to enacuate all places alleged for the unity and equality of Christ with his Father, by one only distinction of will and nature: So as when Christ said for example joan. 6. my Father and I are one, it is true said they, they are one in will & love, but not in nature; & thus they deluded all that could be brought for natural unity, except only the authority, and contrary belief of the universal Church, whereby at last they were overborne.  
46. And the very same course held the sacramentaries of our days; for whatsoever plain and perspicuous places you bring them out of antiquity, affirming the true natural substantial body of our saviour, to be in the Sacrament, they will shift of all presently, by one of these three words; it is true, sacramentally, it is true spiritually, and it is true by faith only, as though these could not stand with really or truly; and here of shall you have store of examples afterward in the aunswerings of Doctor Perne, Cranmer, Ridley and Latymer for the Sacramentary party to our arguments, taken out of the ancient Fathers. For when the said Fathers do avouch, that Christ our saviours true natural body is in the Sacrament, they answer, it is true sacramentally, and think they have defended themselves manfully thereby, and when in other places the same Fathers do profess, that the very same flesh that was borne of the virgin Mary and cruicified for us, is there, they answer, it is true spiritually and by faith, but not really. And thus they do evacuate and delude all that can be alleged: But if they cannot show (as they cannot) any one Father that took or used the words sacramentally, spiritually, or by faith, in this sense, as opposite to really and truly in this mystery, then is it evident, this to be but a shift of their own invention, to escape thereby. And so much of this observation.   

The ninth observation. How Christ is received of evil men in the Sacrament, and of good men both in, and out of the same. §. 9  
47. It followeth upon the former declaration of the words, sacrament, sign, and the rest, that we explain in this place, a certain distinction insinuated by the ancient Fathers, and touched in the council of Trent, of three 
Concil. Tr● dent. sess. 13. Can●●.  sorts of receiving and eating Christ by this Sacrament: First sacramentally alone, the second 
D. Them. 3. part q. 80. art. 1.  spiritually only, the third both sacramentally and spiritually together. An example of the first is, when evil men do receive the Sacrament unworthily, for that these men, thought they receive the very Sacrament, to wit the true body of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, yet do they not receive the true spiritual effect thereof, which is grace and nourishment of their soul, and of these doth S. Paul speak expressly to the Corinthians, when he saith: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily (videlicet the Sacrament) doth eat and drink judgement to himself, not discerning the body 
1. Cor. 11.  of our Lord. And in this sense do the ancient Fathers upon this place, expound the Apostle, as you may see in the commentaries of Saint chrusostom, S. Ambrose, S. Anselme, and other expositors 
Aug. l. 5. the ●apt. cap. 8.  both Greek and latin; and S. Austen in many places of his works doth expressly show the same, alleging this text of the Apostle for proof thereof, Corpus Domini (saith 
Aug. epist. 162. & in psalm. 10.  he) & sanguis Domini nihilominus erat illus, quibus dicebat Apostolus, etc. It was notwithstanding the body & blood of our Lord, which they took, to whom the Apostle said; he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation. And to the same effect he saith in divers other places, that Judas received the very self-same body of Christ, that the other Apostles did; and the same affirmeth S. chrusostom in his homily entitled, of the Treason of Judas; & generally it is the uniform opinion of all the ancient Fathers, whensoever any occasion is given to speak or treat thereof.  
48. The second manner of receiving Christ by this Sacrament, is termed spiritually only; for that without sacramental receiving of Christ's body and blood, a man may in some case receive the spiritual fruit or effect thereof, as if he had received the same really, and this either with relation to the Sacrament, videlicet, when a man hath a desire to receive it actually, but cannot; or without reference thereunto, when by faith and grace good men do communicate with Christ, and participate the fruit of his passion. In which sense of spiritual communion, or eating Christ, S. Austen 
Aug. tract. 25. in joan.  writeth upon S. john's gospel, Crede & manducasti; believe, and thou hast eaten. And to the same effect do our Fathers often speak, when they treat of this spiritual & metaphorical eating only without relation to the Sacramet: which manner of speeches the sacramentaries of our days do seek to abuse, as though there were no other eating of Christ in the Sacrament, but by faith alone, which is furthest of from the said father's meaning, though sometimes they had occasion to speak in that manner.  
49. The third member of our former division is, to eat Christ both sacramentally and spiritually, as all good Christians do, when with due preparation & disposition, they receive both the outward Sacrament and inward grace and fruit thereof: by observation of which threefold manner of receiving, many objections and heretical cavillations will easily afterward be discerned. And so much for this.   

The tenth observation. touching indignities and inconveniences objected by sacramentaries against us, in holding the real presence. §. 10.  
50. As by the former objections of natural impossibilities, you have heard this sovereign mystery impugned, both by the learneder sort of old and new heretics; so do the more simple & ignorant insist & insult most, upon certain inconveniences, indignities, and absurdities, as to them do appear. As for example, that Christ in the Sacrament, should be eaten with men's teeth, go into the belly, not only of men & women, but also of beasts if they should devour it, that it may putrefy, be burned, cast and fall into base and unworthy places, be trodden under men's feet, with the like, which is a kind of argument plausible at the first sight unto vulgar apprehensions, and such as seemed to move principally the most part of John Fox his artificers, and spinster-martyrs, as may appear by their rude clamours, and gross objections, exprobrations, irrisions, jests and scoffs at their answering before their ordinaries.  
51. And herein also they showed their spirit of derydinge and blaspheming that, which they understood not, to concur with that of the pagans and Jews against the whole body of Christian Religion, and of ancient heretics against the principal articles thereof. Of the pagans S. Augustine writeth thus: In ipsum Christum non crederemus, si fides Christiana cachinnum 
Aug. ep. 49. q. ●.  metueret paganorum: We should not believe in Christ himself, if Christian faith did fear the scoffing of pagans. S. Paul also writeth both of Gentills and Jews, that the cross of Christ (that is to say, that God should be apprehended, beaten, wounded and crucified) was to these a scandal, and folly to 
1. Cor. 8.  the others, though unto the elect, it was the very wisdom, power & virtue of God himself. We read also in the gospel, that the Saducees amongst the Jews, scoffed at the resurrection of bodies, by ask Christ a question 
Matth. 22.  of a woman that had seven husbands, whose wife she should be in the resurrection, purposing thereby to have inferred an absurdity against the said article, to wit, that either seven men should have strived for one woman, or one woman have been wife of seven men. And the Marcionists infamous heretics, that took the same heresy from the Sadduces, as also the Originists concurring therein against the said belief 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. Jerome do testify, by certain absurd indignities, which they imagined would ensue thereof, as for example that difference of sex's procreation, midwives, nurses, privies, and the like, must needs be in heaven, but the ancient Fathers answered them with the words of our saviour to the said Sadduces, Erratis, nescientes scripturam, & virtutem Dei. you do err, 
Matth. 11.  not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.  
52. And the same answer was given by catholics to the first sacramentaries, that ever publicly appeared, to wit the Berengarians above 500 years past, who objected the very same absurdities, that our hereriks do at this day, as testifieth Guitmundus and Algerus, 
Guitmundus lib 2. & Algerus leb. 2 cont. Berengarium.  that lived in that age and wrote against them; they were answered (I say) that their error proceeded of not understanding the true meaning of scriptures, nor the power of God, which in the Sacrament conserveth his body without all leasion, hurt, indignity, or inconvenience, whatsoever happeneth unto the forms, under which his body is, and that it is nothing so base and unworthy a matter, even in our sense & common reason, that Christ our saviour being impassable in the Sacrament, should under another form be said to fall on the ground, to be burned, to be eaten, etc. then in his own proper form, when he was passable, and sensible to lie in his mother's womb, or to cry and weep in the cradle, or to suffer hunger, thirst, and other human necessities, and to be whipped, wounded and put to death, all which indignities, supposing that he was the self-same God that created the world, might seem more absurd, and improbable in common sense and reason, than this of the Sacrament, and so they did seem to old heretics, who objected and derided the same, as the foresaid Marcionists, that God should be in a woman's belly, and in a manger; and Nestorius the heretic, that God should be two months old for example, and two cubitts bog, and other such jests and scoffs, as you may read of them in Tertullian, Theodoret, Euagrius 
Tert lib. do carn. Christ's & Theod. l. 4. haeret. faehul. & evagr. l. 1. hist. c. 2.  and other writers.  
53. Wherefore to conclude this observation, two points are to be noted in this whole matter: First that many things that seem to happen to Christ in these cases, do not touch him indeed, but only the external forms of bread and wine, as when they are burned for example, do putrefy, or the like, Christ's body is not burned, or putrefied, but ceaseth to be under them, when the said forms or accidents are corrupted, for that the substance of Christ's body, supplying the substance of bread, is no longer there then the substance of bread would have been there, if it had not been converted into Christ's body, but if bread had remained, it would have ceased by any kind of corruption, as burning, putrifyinge, or the like, and so doth Christ's body, though in a different sort, so that the substance of bread might, by the said corruption, be changed into some other substance, which Christ's body cannot be, but only ceaseth to be there, God supplying some other matter for production of that, which is brought forth of new, as in the former observation hath been declared.  
54. The other point, that those other conditions which by reason of the forms are ascribe unto Christ his body in the Sacrament, as to move from place to place, when the forms are moved, to be seen, touched, eaten with our teeth and the like, which are frequent phrases among the Fathers, have no 
Notethese two examples.  inconvenience among them at all, no more for example, then when our soul is said to be moved with the motion of the body, which soul notwithstanding of his own nature is not movable: so as an angel being a spirit, may be handled, seen, or strooken in the body which he taketh to appear in, as is evident by the whole story of Tobias and other places of scripture, which angel of himself notwithstanding, is not capable of such things; and finally God's eternal divinity and majesty is present in all places & things, the most basest and horrible that can be devised, and yet suffereth no inconvenience thereby: For though he be for example in the dunghill, yet he cannot be said to have any evil smell thereby, neither to be burned in the fire, though the forms of bread and wine be burned therein, nor to putrefy, though he be actually present in those things that rot and putrefy. And by this may you see the vain calumniations of fond heretics, against the power of almighty God, out of their senses and foolish imaginations.   

The eleventh observation. About the nature of a sacrifice, as it is ordained to different effects, and how that of the cross standeth with that of the mass. §. 11.  
55. The eleventh and last observation shallbe peculiarly about the last of the three questions proposed, which is sacrifice of the mass, noting therein two ends, offices, or effects to be considered: First that it is ordained ad cultum externum, to an external worship of God peculiar to himself, in the highest degree of honour, called by the Grecians Latria: secondly add propitiationem pro peccatis, for pacifying of God's wrath for sins, and albeit both these effects may be in one and the self-same sacrifice (and so we hold them to be in the sacrifice of the mass, for that it was ordained by Christ, as well for a perpetual outward honour & worship to be exhibited unto God in the Christian Church unto the world's end, as also for remission of sins by application of the merit of Christ's bloody sacrifice on the cross) yet may they be separated of their own natures, so as a sacrifice may be ordained only ad cultum, that is to say, for an external worship only, without power to remit sins: And so in a manner were the sacrifices of the old law, which little or nothing availed for sins. And again, sacrifice may be ordained only or principally to satisfy for sins, without relation thereof ad cultum, to persevere in any state of men, to be often offered by them, and such was Christ's on the cross, which is not reiterated again in the same bloody and passable manner, as than it was, but in another far different sort in the mass, which is capable of both these effects, as hath been said.  
56, Now then in the first sense, as a sacrifice is ordained ad cultum, to an external worship 
The first effect of sacrifice.  of God, it containeth an outward protestation of our knowledge of God's supreme majesty, power, and absolute dominion over us, and in our subjection thereunto, which is the highest honour that can be given by a creature unto the creator, and is so particular to God alone, as hath been said, as it cannot be imparted to any creature, without the horrible sin of Idolatry, and is so conjoined with the nature of Religion itself, as no true Religion hath ever been without this degree of external honour, exhibited unto God by his people; and so we see that all good men in the law of nature, by God's instinct, did sacrifice unto him, as Adam, Abel, Noah, Melchisedecke, and others, as afterwards also in the law of Moses, the same was expressly ordained by Gods own commandment; & the Gentills did the same, though not to one true God, but to many idols, by suggestion of the devil, that therein emulated God's honour exhibited unto him by sacrifice. And this for the first effect or office of sacrifice.  
57 The second is propitiation, or pacifying 
The second effect of sacrifice with 3. degrees thereof.  of God's wrath for sins, as hath been said. Wherein for more perspicuityes sake, three degrees may be observed. First of such sacrifices as were so weak & imperfect in themselves, touching this point of propitiation and satisfying for sins, as they profited little or nothing, except only as they were moral good works; and according to the piety of the offerer, they might help somewhat; but they had neither sufficient force in themselves to remit sins, neither to apply the virtue and satisfaction of any other sacrifice, already exhibited, to the remission thereof, but were only figures, and shadows of things to come: and such were the sacrifices of the old law of Moses.  
58. The second degree is quite opposite to this for excellency of perfection, power and merit, being in it self of so infinite valour, as it is sufficient not only fully to satisfy for the sins of all the world; but also to give vigour to all other sacrifices, both internal, and external; And this was the sacrifice of Christ our saviour on the cross; & between these two sacrifices, to wit the weakness and imperfection, multitude and variety of the one under the old law, and the singularity, excellency, force and infinite power of the other, is the large antithesis & opposition, used by S. Paul in his 9 and 10. Chapters of his Epistle to the Hebrews, showing, that as the Jews sacrifices were many in number, and of divers sorts and infirm of themselves, & therefore offered up in great multitudes and often; so the sacrifice of Christ for the excellency thereof, and infinite force and valour, was single, & but one, and once offered for all, and not iterable for acquiring the price of man's redemption, and perfect sufficiency for the sanctifying of all, though yet he affirmeth not, that it may not be iterated in another manner, & to another effect, to wit for applying the sufficiency & merit of this one sacrifice offered for all, to the utility of particular people: For albeit Christ hath satisfied for all quoad sufficientiam (to use the terms of school) 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 saved thereby, nor do receive the efficacy or benefit thereof, for that they apply not to their own utility that which is gained for all.  
59 Now then for applying this treasure unto people in particular, our adversaries do confess, that some things are necessary of our parts, as faith & baptism, but we do add more means, as ordained by Christ himself, and among other the sacrifice of the mass, not for acquiring any new price or sufficiency of our salvation, but for applying the effect or efficacy of that, which already is gotten by Christ our saviour, through his passion on the cross, & hereof resulteth a third degree of propitiatory sacrifice, that is neither so infirm as the sacrifices of the old law were, that remitted not sins, nor yet in a manner of so potent effect, as to acquire the price of our salvation, for that it is not offered up to that end, but only to apply the virtue of the other sacrifice already gotten, and so may be iterated, not for any defect in itself, but for that sins daily growing have need of daily application of the said sacrifice, as hath been said.  
60. And in this sense do all the ancient Fathers, in the places before alleged, call this sacrifice of the mass iuge sacrificium, a daily sacrifice, and iterable, notwithstanding that the other on the cross could be offered but once, as S. Paul proveth. And now these observations being premised, we shall pass to examine and answer the arguments of our adversaries, in all the former disputations brought forth.    

THE EXAMINATION OF such arguments As in the former disputations were alleged by the Zwinglians & Caluinists, against the real-presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament. CHAP. IV.  
Now then to join more nearly with our sacramentaries, and to come to the 
Two things to be considered.  view of particular arguments, brought forth against the article of the real-presence, it is to be held in memory, that which before we have noted: first, that these new Doctors having no one direct place either of scriptures, or Fathers for their purpose, that expressly denieth the said real-presence (as we have for the affirmative) they are forced to run to certain inferences, as for that Christ is in heaven, he cannot be in the Sacrament, & such other like of no validity, as presently you shall see. And secondly it is to be remembered, that these arguments (the most whereof are founded on sense and human reason against faith) are ordinarily to be found both alleged, urged and answered in all our schoolmen's books at large, before our sacramentaries were borne, and consequently these men bring no new things, as worthy of a new labour. But yet for better satisfaction of them, that have not read the said schoolmen, nor are of sufficient learning to see the solution of themselves, we shall briefly run over in this place, whatsoever was objected by the said sacramentaries, of any moment in all the former disputations, or other conferences, colloquies, or examinations, reducing all for more perspicuityes sake unto certain heads or grounds in manner following.  

The first head or ground of Sacramentary objections; for that it seemeth impossible to them, that Christ's body can be in many places at once. §. 1.  
2. This is the first principal ground of all the sacramentaries unbelief, and out of which they draw the greatest squadron of all their arguments and objections, as presently you shall see, for that it is a point very plausible to comon-sense and human reason, that a natural body naturally cannot be but in one place at once: but he that shall read our observations in the precedent Chapter, where we have showed, that not only supernaturally and by God's omnipotent power it may be done, but that it comprehendeth not so much as any contradiction in nature itself; and further shall consider, that alboit Christ's true and natural body be in the Sacrament at many places at once, yet not after a natural manner, but supernatural and miraculous, as every where the ancient Fathers do admonish us (and we have alleged many of their admonitions before) he I say that shall consider this, will easily contemn and laugh at the vanity of so many Sacramentary arguments, founded upon this weak ground and principle only, that a natural body cannot be in more places than 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 above nature, it may be, and this without an essential contradiction, as I have said, in nature itself.  
3. Well then, now will I set down the whole squadron of arguments, which out of this false principle, or rather true principle misunderstood, John Fox layeth forth with great ostentation out of Peter Martyr his Oxford disputations, which arguments are 8. in number, and did seem so insoluble unto Fox his divinity, and philosophy, as he putteth no answer at all given by the Catholic defendants to the same. I shall deliver them also in dialectical form, as they lie in Fox this once, together with his foolery of citing the moods and figures of sophistry in the margin to every argument, a thing known to every child that beginneth logic, & consequently is ridiculous to men of learning, though strange to the ignorant people, that may imagine great secrets to lie hidden in those words of Disamis, Darij, Baroco, Festino, Bocardo, and think that John Fox doth go about to conjure us his readers, by setting them down: but now to the arguments themselves.  

1. Argument.  
4. 
Di-  The true natural body of Christ is placed in heaven. 
a It is granted.  Matth. 24. & 26. Joan. 12. & 16. Act. 3. Colloss. 3.  

sa-  The true natural body of man can be but in one place at once, where he is. 
b It is true naturally.  August. ad Dardanum, propter veri corporis modum, saith he, that is for the manner of a true body.  

mis.  Ergo the true natural body of Christ can be in no place at once, but in heaven where he is. 
c But ye may be supernaturally.    

2. Argument.  

Da-  every true natural body requireth one certain place. 
d That is by course of nature.   

ri-  Christ's body is a true natural body. 
e True.   

j  Ergo. Christ's body requireth one certain place. 
f True naturally.    

3. Argument.  

g It is true according  Augustine giveth not to the soul of Christ to be in more places at once than 
●● the ordinary nature of a soul.  one. Aug. ad Dardan.  

h The one and the other may be by God's omnipotency.  Ergo. Much less it is to be given to the body of Christ, to be in more places at once than one.   

4. Argument.  

i True according to their ordinary course of nature.  The nature of angels is not to be in divers places, but they are limited to occupy one certain place at once. Basil. d● spiritu sancto. cap. 22.  

k Christ in the Sacrament filleth no place.  Ergo. The body of Christ being the true natural body of man, cannot fill divers places at once.   

5. Argument.  

Basilius-  whatsoever is in many & divers places at once, is God. 
l This is fall for Fox his soul was in his foot and head, and yet not God.   

ro-  The body of Christ is not God, but a creature.  

co.  Ergo. The body of Christ cannot be in more places together. 
m Naturally.    

6. Argument.  

Fe-  We must not so defend the divinity of Christ, as we destroy his humanity.  

sti-  if we assign more places to the body of Christ, we destroy his humanity. 
n This is false.   

no.  Ergo. We must not assign to the body of Christ plurality of places.   

7. Argument.  

Fe-  whatsoever thing is circumscribed, that is to say, contained in the limits of any peculiar place, cannot be dispersed into more places at once. 
o This granted.   

sti-  The body of Christ is a thing circumscribed. 
p It is true de facto in heaven, but not in the Sacrament.   

no.  Ergo the body of Christ is not dispersed into more places at one tyme. 
q True as it is circuscribed.    

8. Argument.  

Da-  every quantity, that is every body having magnitude, length, and other dimensions, is circumscribed in one peculiar place. 
r True naturally but not supernaturally.  Cyrill. de trivit. lib. 2.  

ri-  The body of Christ hath his dimensions, and is a quantity. 
s True, though a body is 〈…〉 quantity, but a substance that hath quantity.   

j  Ergo the body of Christ is circumscribed. 
t Non soquitur.    

Answer.  
5. These are the doughty arguments, which Fox affirmeth their great patriarch Peter Martyr to have alleged against the real-presence, out of this first philosophical ground, that one body cannot be in many places at once; whereunto I might answer in the words of S. Augustine, to such kind of men, as measure God's power by their own imagination: Ecce qualibus argumentis, 
Aug. l. 21 de civit. D●● cap. ●1  omnipotentiae Dei, humana contradicit infirmitas, quam possidet vanitas: behold with what kind of arguments, the infirmity of man, possessed by vanity, doth contradict God's omnipotency. If you read the fourth and fifth observations set down in the former Chapter, you will easily see both the infirmity, and vanity of all these arguments, & how this great variety upon one ground, are but m●ncedmeats guised in divers sorts and fashions, by the art of Fox and Peter Martyrs cookery, and yet are they held for great demonstrations, and strong fortresses of the Sacramentary faith, or rather infidelity, and urged every where by their followers.  
6. john Rogers used the same argument in his defence before the Bishops, as you may see in Fox pag. 1251. Christ is corporally (saith he) in heaven only, ergò not in the Sacrament, where he useth an equivocation also in the word corporally, for that we do not say, that Christ is corporally in the Sacrament, if by corporally he mean not only really and substantially, but also after a corporal manner, according to external dimensions. Thomas Tompkins the weaver of Shoreditch, useth the same argument against his Ordinary in like manner, to wit, that Christ body cannot be in the Sacrament, for that it is in heaven. Fox pag. 1395. Master Guest in his Cambridge disputations against Doctor Glyn, leaned principally to this argument, and B. Ridley, his moderator, or precedent of these disputations, urged a place of S. Augustine ad Dardanum to the same effect. Tolle spatia corporibus, & nusquam erunt Take away the spaces from bodies (saith S. Austen) and they shallbe no where. But D. Glyn defendant answered him well, that S. Augustine spoke expressly of the natural being of bodies, according to their ordinary external dimensions, and not how they might be by God's supernatural power and omnipotency.  
7. But above all others, Philpott did keep revel 
Phil● of his styire in the convocation house about this argument.  in the convocation house about this argument, against Master Morgan, & Master Harpesfield, alleging divers places of scripture for the same, but little to the purpose God wooteth, as that of S. Paul: Christ is like unto us in all points, except sin. And therefore said he, as one 
Fox pag. 1288.  of our bodies cannot be at Paul's, and at Westminster together; so cannot Christ be in heaven, and in the Sacrament. But it was told him, that these words of S. Paul, were true in S. Paul's sense, but yet that Christ's body was unlike also unto us besides sin, in divers other points, as for example, in that he was begotten without the seed of man, and that his body was invisible, when he would have it so, and that he rose out of the sepulchre the same being shut, and divers other like points, which our ordinary natural bodies have not, though God of his omnipotency might give the same to our bodies also. Then he alleged the saving of S. Peter in the Acts: Whom heaven must receive until the consummation of the world. whereof he would infer a necessity of Christ's remaining in heaven, until the day of judgement. Then Morgan laughed at this (saith Fox) Harpesfield stood up, and asked him how he understood that place, Oportet Episcopum 
1. Tim.  esse unius uxoris virum, A Bishop must be the husband of one wife. And whether this be of such necessity, as he may not be without a wife, one at least? With which demand Philpott was so entangled, as he could not well go forward, as there you may see, and refused to answer Master Morgan, as the prolocutor would have had him.  
8. Well then, this is the first and principal ground and bulwark of all Sacramentary unbelief in this article, that Christ's body cannot be by God's omnipotent power in two places at once, to wit both in heaven, and in the Sacrament, which we have showed before in our fourth, fifth and sixth observations, to be a fond and temerarious position, whereunto we refer the reader to see the grounds more at large, and here only we shall say a word or two to the former eight arguments, as they lie in order. Yet first it shallbe good for the reader to remember that, which we have noted before in the story of Melancthon, who 
Melancth. Epistola ad Mart●●um 〈◊〉.  saith, I had rather offer myself to death, then to affirm, as the Zwinglians do, that Christ's body cannot be but in one place at once. But yet Peter Martyr, Philpott, Cranmer, and their fellows would die, and some of them also did die, for the contrary, so as Saints of one Calendar, do here die for contrary opinions one to the other. But let us answer the arguments.  
8. To the first we say, concerning the minor 
To the first argument.  proposition, that a true natural body, naturally, and by ordinary course of nature, cannot be at one time, but in one place, and that meaneth S. Augustine ad Dardanum, but supernaturally, and by God's ommpotent power, that exceedeth nature, it repugneth not to be in divers places at once, if God will have it so: as in our fifth observation is proved. To 
To the second.  the second argument we say, that every true natural body requireth one certain place by ordinary course of nature, and not otherwise. To the third, that souls and spirits by their 
To the third.  natural course have but one total place, wherein they may be said to be, as one soul in one body, and one angel in the place, that it pleaseth to occupy, or to have operation therein: albeit if we respect partial places of the same body, as head, foot, fingar and the like, the self-same soul is wholly in divers places at once, which is no less wonderful and incredible to our sense, then for a bodily substance, to be in two distinct places at once. And the like is in the angel, who may occupy, for example, a whole house or town for his total place, and yet be in every particular and partial place thereof wholly and entirely, which is granted both by all philosophers and divines, though vulgar sense cannot apprehend it.  
9 To the fourth may be answered the very 
To the fourth.  same, as to the former, that the being of angels in place definitively, is like in all respects to that of the soul. Read our fourth observation in the precedent Chapter. To the fifth 
To the fifth.  argument the answer is easy, for we deny that whatsoever is in divers places at once, is God, for that by his omnipotent power a creature may be: it is God's privilege that he is every where wholly and entirely, ex vi naturae divinae, by force of his divine nature, that is to say, he is so everywhere, as he cannot be but every where, which is not true either in a spirit, or in Christ's body, or in any other creature whatsoever; for that all creatures, as they have limited natures, so are they limited also in place, and restrained from ubiquity, or being every where, which is proper and peculiar to almighty God alone: & so to speak of the body of Christ in particular, it is not everywhere; and we detest both the Eutychian ubiquitaries, that held Christ's body to be everywhere, as confounded with his divinity; and no less the Lutheran ubiquitaries of our days, that hold Christ's body to be every where, by reason of the conjunction with Christ's divinity; the Catholic faith affirming only, that Christ's body, though naturally it be but in one place, yet by God's omnipotency it may be in more.  
10. To the sixth argument we deny the Minor, 
To the sixth.  to wit, that we destroy Christ's humanity by granting, that it may be in divers places at once; for that it repugneth not to a human creature, to be in more places than one by God's omnipotency: this we have showed more largely in our fifth observation. To the 
To the seventh.  seventh we deny also the Minor; that Christ's body in the Sacrament is to be circumscribed, or circumscriptively there, as it is in heaven. The differences between three manners of being, to wit, circumscriptively, definitively, and sacramentally, you may see more at large declared in our fourth and fifth observations. To the eight and last, we say that the mayor is 
To the eight.  to be understood naturally, and not supernaturally by divine power: to the Minor, we answer, that Christ's body hath not external dimensions in the Sacrament, though it have in heaven: and in the Sacrament it hath only internal and invisible quantity, without extension to place; whereof you may read more in the fourth and fifth observations. And this shallbe sufficient for this first ground of philosophical arguments. Now will we pass to the second.    

The second head or ground of Sacramentary arguments, drawn from contrary qualities or quantities, etc. §. 2.  
11. This second ground is not much different from the former, for both of them are founded on sense, and human reason, and here I will not conjoin all the arguments together, as before I did, but set them down severally, as Fox recordeth them out of Peter martyr's disputation.  

1. Argument.  

Basilius-  if Christ had given his body substantially and carnally in the supper, than was that body either passable or impassable.  

ro-  But neither can you say that body to be passable or impassable, which he gave at supper: not passable for that S. Austen denieth it Psalm. 98. not impassable, for that Christ saith: This is my body, which shallbe given for you.  

co.  Ergo he did not give his body substantially at supper.   

Annswere.  
12. And this same argument used others after Peter Martyr, as Pilkilton against Doctor Glym, & allegeth the same place of S. Austen, as you may see in Fox pag. 1259. But the matter is easily answered, for that the minor or second proposition is clearly false, for that Christ's body given in the supper, though it were the same in substance, that was given on the cross, the next day after, yet was it delivered at the supper in another manner, to wit in manner impassable, & under the forms of bread and wine, so as according to the being, which it hath in the Sacrament, no natural cause could exercise any action upon it, though being the self same which was to die upon the cross, it is also passable, even as now in heaven it is visible, & in the Sacrament invisible, though one & the self same body, & now in both places glorious and immortal, & this meaneth expressly S. Austen in the place alleged, whose words cited by Fox are: You are not to eat this body that you see, nor to drink the blood that they are to shed who shall crucify me. Which words being spoken to them, that were scandalised at his speech about the eating of his body, do show that we are in deed to eat his true flesh in the Sacrament, but not after that carnal manner, which they imagined: carnaliter cogitaverunt (saith S. Austen in the 
S. Augustine's sentence of drinking Christ's blood.  same place) & putaverunt, quod praecisurus esset Dominus particulas quasdam de corpore suo, & daturus ●●is. They imagined carnally, and thought that Christ would have cut of certain pieces of his body, and given unto them; which gross imagination our saviour refuteth by telling them, that they should eat his true body, but in another form of bread and wine.  
13. And yet that it is the self-same body & the self-same blood, the same Doctor and Father affirmeth expressly, both in this and many other places. Verè magnus Dominus, etc. he 
Aug. in exposit. Isalm. 33.  is in deed a great God, that hath given to eat his own body, in which he suffered so many, and great things for us. And again talking of his tormentors: Ipsum sanguinem quem per insaniam 
In Psalm. ●5.  fuderunt per gratiam biberunt. The self-same blood which by fury they shed, by grace they drunk. And yet further of the same: Quousque biberent sanguinem quem fuderunt; 
Tract. 31. in joan.  mercy left them not, until they believing him, came to drink the blood, which they had shed. And finally in another place: Vt eius iam sanguinem nossent bibere credentes quem fuderant 
De vtil●t paenit. c. 1.  saevientes; that coming to believe in him, they might learn to drink that blood, which in their cruelty they shed. And last of all, in another place explaninge his own faith, and the belief of all Christians in this behalf, he saith against heretics of his time; Mediatore●▪ 
Lib. 2. contra advers. leg. & proph. c. 9  Dei, etc. We do with faithful heart and mouth, receive the mediator of God and man Christ Jesus, giving unto us his flesh to be eaten, and blood to be drunken, though it may seem more horrible to eat man's flesh, then to stea the same, and to drink man's blood, then to snedd the same. Consider here the speech of Saint Augustine, whether it may agree to the eating of a sign of Christ's body or blood; what horror is there in that? And thus much to this first argument.   

2. Argument.  

Fe-  bodies organical without quantity, be no bodies. 
a without all quantity.   

ri-  The Pope's doctrine maketh the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be without quantity. 
b Not without all quantity.   

●.  Ergo: the Pope's doctrine maketh the body of Christ in the Sacrament to be no body.   

Answer.  
14. We grant that bodies organical, without all quantity are no bodies; but Catholic doctrine doth not teach, that Christ's body in the Sacrament, is without all quantity, but only without external quantity, answering to local extension, and commensuration of place, which repugneth not to the nature of quantity, as before is declared at large, in the fourth observation of the precedent Chapter; whereby you may see both the vanity of this argument, as also the notorious folly & ignorance of Fox, who by occasion of this argument of an organical body urged, by Cranmer in Oxford, against Master Harpesfield when he proceeded Bachler of divinity, bringeth in a whole comedy of vain diuises, how all the learned Catholic men of that university, were astonished at the very propounding of this grave doubt, to wit; Whether Christ hath 
Fox pa●. 1327.  his quantity, quality, form, figure, and such like properties in the Sacrament. All the Doctors (saith Fox) fell in a buzzing, uncertain what to answer, some thought one way, some another, and thus master Doctors could not agree. And in the margin he hath this note: The rabbins could not agree amongst themselves: and then he prosecuteth the matter for a whole column or page together, making Doctor Tressam, to say one thing, Doctor Smith 
A comical device of John Fox.  another, Harpesfield another, Weston another, M. Ward philosophy-reader another, whose philosophical discourse about the nature of quantity, Fox not understanding, neither the other that were present, as he affirmeth, concludeth thus: Master Ward amplified so largely 
Fox ibid.  his words, & so high he climbed into the heavens with Duns ladder, and not with the scriptures, that it is to be marveled, how he could come down again without falling. So John according to his skill; but Master Ward and the rest, that understood philosophy, knew well enough what he said, and you may easily conceive his meaning, as also the truth of the thing itself, by reading my former observation; for I think it not convenient to repeat the same again here.   

3. Argument.  

Da-  All things which may be divided have quantity.  

ri-  The body in the Pope's Sacrament is divided into three parts. 
a False & foolish.   

j  Ergo: the body in the Pope's Sacrament hath quantity, which is against their own doctrine.   

Answer.  
15. We deny that it is against our doctrine, that Christ's body in the Sacrament hath inward quantity, but only external and local. We deny also, that Christ's body is divided into three parts in the Sacrament, or into any part at all, for it is indivisible; only the forms of bread are divided. And this is the ignorance of the framer of this argument, that understandeth not what he saith; for it is ridiculous to affirm, that when the consecrated host is divided into three parts, that Christ's body is divided also, which is no more true, then when a man's fingar is cut of wherein the soul was wholly before, that she is also divided therewith.   

4. Argument.  

Ee-  No natural body can receive in it self at one time contrary or divers qualities. Vigil. cont. Eutich. lib. 4.  

ri-  To be in one place local, and in another place not local, in one place with quantity, and in another place without quantity, in one place circumscript, in another place incircumscript, is for a natural body to receive contrary qualities. 
a False, nor are these properly qualities.   

●.  Ergo: they cannot be said to be in Christ's body.   

Answer.  
16. To the first proposition of this argument, I say, that the sentence of Vigilius, alleged by Fox in this place, is nothing to his purpose: For that Vigilius dealing against the heretic Eutiches, that would have Christ's humanity confounded with his divinity, saith, as Fox allegeth him: These two things are divers, and far unlike, that is to say, to be contained in a place, and to be every where, for the word is every where, but the flesh is not everywhere. Which sentence of Vigilius maketh against John Fox his friends, and some of his Saints also the ubiquitaries, that hold Christ's body to be every where, as his divinity is, of which heresy you have heard before 
* Su●ra m●●se decembri.  Melancthon to be accused by Coliander one of his own sect, but catholics do not hold this ubiquity of Christ's body, but that it may be circumscribed in a certain place, and so it is de facto in heaven, though otherwise by God's omnipotency, the same body may be and is in divers places; which this sentence of Vigilius nothing impugneth, and consequently is nothing to the purpose.  
17. To the second or minor proposition, I say that Fox is a simple fellow, when he calleth contrary qualities to have quantity local and not local, circumscript and uncircumscript, whereas these do appertain to the predicaments of quantity and ubi, rather than to quality, and are not so contrary or opposite to themselves; but that in divers respects they may be in one, and the self-same thing, as Christ is locally in heaven, and not locally in the Sacrament; with visible and external quantity in heaven, but with internal and invisible in the Sacrament.    

The third head or ground of Sacramentary arguments, concerning the receiving and receivers of the Sacrament. §. 3.  
18. Another company or squadron of arguments against the real-presence, though less than the former, is framed by our sacramentaries against the real-presence, concerning the receivers, or manner of receiving the same. You shall hear them as Fox layeth them down.  

1. Argument.  

Fe-  The wicked receive not the body of Christ. 
a It is denied.   

●i-  The wicked do receive the body of Christ, if Transubstantiation be granted. 
b And the like followeth of the real presence without Transubstantiation.   

son.  Ergo. Transubstantiation is not to be granted in the Sacrament.   

Answer.  
19 Do you see a wise argument? and why leapeth Fox (think you) from the real presence to Transubstantiation, but that he is weary of the former controversy, for that Transubstantiation hath a proper place very largely afterward, so as here it is wholly impertinent. And further, if you consider the matter rightly, you will see that the same followeth as well of the real-presence, as of Transubstantiation; for if Christ be truly and really in the Sacrament, either with bread, or without bread, than whosoever receiveth the said Sacrament, must needs receive also Christ's body. Wherefore this skipp of Fox from real presence to Transubstantiation was needles, and helpeth him nothing; besides that, the whole argument is foolish; for that his mayor or first proposition; that wicked men receive not the body of Christ, is wholly denied by us, and not proved by him, but presumed; and how fond it is done, shall appear presently in our answer to his other arguments of this kind, and the whole matter is discussed more at large in our ninth precedent observation.   

2. Argument.  

Ca-  To eat Christ is for a man to have Christ dwelling and abiding in him. Cyprian. de Cana Domini & Aug. lib. de civit. Dei 21. cap. 15. 
a True, fruitfully.   

●es-  The wicked have not Christ dwelling in them. 
b fruintefully they h●ue not.   

tres.  Ergo the wicked eat not the body of Christ.   

Answer.  
20. The whole answer of this argument is set down more at large in our foresaid ninth observation, where it is showed, that there are three manners of receiving Christ sacramentally only, spiritually only, and both sacramentally and spiritually, and that evil men do receive him after the first manner only, that is to say, they receive Christ's true body in the Sacrament, but not the spiritual fruit thereof, which S. Paul expresseth most clearly, when he saith; that an evill-man, receiving the Sacrament, judicium sibi manducat, non dijudicans 
1. Cor. 12.  corpus Domini, Doth eat his own judgement and condemnation, not discerning, or respecting the body of Christ which he eateth. And this is the assertion of all holy Fathers after him, to wit, that wickedmen do eat the body of Christ but not the fruit, and namely the two here cited by Fox to the contrary, S. Cyprian and S. Augustine do expressly hold the same: For that S. Cyprian upon these words of th' Apostle, making an invective against them that receive Christ's body unworthily, saith: Antequam expiantur delicta, ante exhomologesin factam 
Cypr. sor●●. de lapsis.  criminis, ante purgatam conscientiam sacrificio, & manu sacerdotis, etc. Before their sins be cleansed, before they have made confession of their faults, and before their conscience be purged by the sacrifice and hand of the Priest (this was the preparation to receive worthily in S. Cyprians time) they do presume to receive the body of Christ. whereof the holy Father inferred: Spretis his omnibus atque contempt is, vis infortur corporieius & sanguini. These due preparations being contemned, violence is offered by them to the body and blood of Christ, which he would never have said, if those wickedmen had not received the body and blood of Christ at all, as Protestants do hold.  
21. S. Augustine is frequent also and earnest in 
Aug ● cont. Fulgent. Donatist. cap 6. lib. 2. cont. Pet●lian. cap 11. & in psalm. 10. & serm. 11 de verbis Domini & 1. de adulter. con●●g c. 17. & trast. 50. in joan.  this matter: Corpus Domini (saith he) & sanguis Domini, nihilominùs erat illis quibus, etc. It was no less the body and blood of Christ unto those (wickedmen) to whom the Apostle said: he that eateth unworthily, eateth & drinketh his judgement, than it was to the good. And the same Father in divers places affirmeth, that aswell Judas received the true body of Christ, as the rest of the Apostles, though it were to his own damnation: Nam & Judas proditor bonum corpus (saith he) & Simon magus bonum baptisma ● Christo accepit, sed quia bono benè non sunt usi, mali malè utendo deleti sunt. For that Judas the traitor also received the good body of Christ, and Simon Magus the good baptism of Christ, but for that they used not well that which was good, they being evill-men perished accordingly.  
22. The other places cited in the margin, I pretermitt for brevity sake to set down at large, this being known to be the general Catholic sentence of all ancient holy Fathers, concerning Judas and other evill-men, that they receive Christ, but to their own damnation; and the sentence of S. Paul before cited is so clear, and evident, as no reasonable doubt can be made thereof. And when Fox doth here allege certain places of S. Cyprian and S. Augustine, affirming that the eating of Christ is dwelling in him and he in us, and that those that dwell not in him, do not eat him, it is to be understood of spiritual and fruitful eating of Christ's body, which agreeth only to good men and not to evil, which evil do only receive sacramentally the body and blood of Christ, as before we have said, and more at large is doclared in our ninth observation; yea the very words alleged here of S. Augustine by simple john Fox, that 
Aug. l 2●▪ de Cu●t. des cap. 31.  discerneth not what maketh for him, & what against him, do plainly teach us this distinction. For that S. Augustine upon those words of Christ in S. john's gospel; he that eateth my 
Ican. 6.  flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, inferreth presently these words: Christ sieweth what it is, not 
* Non Sacrament▪ tenus.  sacramentally, but indeed to eat his body and drink his blood, which is when a man so dwelleth in Christ, that Christ dwelleth in him.  
23. So he. Which words are evidently meant by S. Augustine of the fruitful eating of Christ's body to our salvation, which may be said in effect the only true eating thereof, as he may be said truly to eat and feed of his meat, that profiteth and nourisheth thereby: but he that taketh no good but rather hurt by that he eateth, may be said truly and in effect not to feed in comparison of the other that profiteth by eating, though he devour the meat set before him; and so it is in the blessed Sacrament, where the evil do eat Sacramento tenus, as S. Augustine saith, that is sacramentally only, and without fruit; not that they receive not Christ's body, but that they receive it without fruit to their damnation; which distinction is founded in the scriptures, not only out of the place of S. Paul before alleged to the Corinthians, but out of Christ's own words in sundry places of the gospel, as that of S. Matthew: Venit filius hominis dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis. The son of man came 
Matth. 20.  to give his life for the redemption of many, whereas indeed he gave it for all, but for that not all, but many should receive fruit thereby, it is said to have been given fruitfully only for many and not all. And again in the same evangelist: This is my blood of the new Testament 
Math. ibid.  that shallbe shed for many. that is to say fruitfully, and to their salvation, but sufficiently for all, and so in like manner all men good and bad, do eat Christ in the Sacrament, but evill-men sacramentally only, without the spiritual effect thereof, but good men both spiritually and sacramentally together.  
24. And to this end appertain also those words of S. Augustine, alleged by Bradford, Ridley and others, that wickedmen edunt panem Domini & non panem Domini, they eat the Lords 
Box pag. 1466.  bread, but not the bread that is the Lords; that is to say, they eat not the bread, that bringeth unto them the true effect and fruit of the Lords body, which is grace, spirit, and life everlasting, though they eat the body itself, which is called the bread of our Lord only in this sense, that it hath no fruit nor vital operation, but rather the contrary.   

3. Argument.  

●a-  if the wicked and infidels do receive the body of Christ, they receive him by sense, reason, or faith.  

●●-  But they receive him neither with sense, reason, or faith, for that the body of Christ is not sensible, nor the mystery is according to reason, nor do infidels believe.  

●●.  Ergo. wickedmen receive in no wise the body of Christ.   

Answer.  
25. This argument is as wise as the maker; for first we do not always join wickedmen and infidels together, as he seemeth to suppose, for that an infidel (their case in receiving being different) when he receiveth the Sacrament, not knowing or believing it to be the body of Christ, he receiveth it only materially, no otherwise then doth a beast or senselesse-man, without incurring new sin thereby: wickedmen receive it to their damnation, for that knowing and believing it to be the body of Christ (or at leastwise aught to do) they do not discern or receive it with the worthiness of preparation, which they should do: and as for sense & reason, though Christ's body be not sensible, yet are the forms of bread, under which it is present and received, sensible, for that they have their sensible taste, colour, smell, and other like accidents, and though the mystery itself stand not upon human reason, yet are there many reasons both human and divine, which may induce Christians to believe the truth thereof, even according to the rule of reason itself, which reasons we call arguments of credibility: So as in this Sacrament, though it stand not upon sense or reason, yet in receiving thereof is there fraud both in sense and reason, which is sufficient to show the vanity of him that urgeth it: now shall we pass to the last argument of Peter Marty● though drawn from another ground.   

4. Argument.  

Bornwell-  The holy Ghost could not come if the 
See this argument urged by Causton, Higbed, and other Foxian martyr's pag. 1400. etc.  body of Christ were really present, for that he saith: joan. 16. unless I go from you the holy ghost shall not come.  

car-  But that the holy-ghost is come, it is most certain.  

do.  Ergo: it cannot be that Christ himself should be here really present.   

Answer.  
26. First neither Fox, nor his Martyr can deny but that the holy-ghost was also in the world, whilst Christ was bodily present, for that it descended visibly upon him in the form of a dove, and after he gave the same to his disciples saying: accipite spiritum sanctum; receive 
joan. 20.  ye the holy-ghost; whereby is manifest, that there is no repugnance, why Christ's bodily presence may not stand together, with the presence of the holy-ghost. Wherefore the meaning of those other words joan. 16. that except Christ departed, the holy-ghost should not come, 
joan. 16. 7.  must needs be, that so long as Christ remained upon earth visibly, as a Doctor, teacher, & external guide of his disciples & Church; so long the holy-ghost should not come in such abundance of grace, to direct the Church, either visibly, as he did at pentecost or invisibly, as after he did. But this impugneth nothing the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, where he is invisibly, & to feed our souls, not as a Doctor to teach & preach, as in his bodily conversation upon earth he was; for this he asscribeth to the holy-ghost after his ascension: Ill● spiritus veritatis docebit vos omnem veritatem, that spirit of truth shall teach you all truth.  
27. And these be all the arguments of Peter Martyr registered by Fox, who concludeth in these words: And thus briefly we have run over all the arguments, and authorities of Peter Martyr in that disputation at Oxford with Doctor Tresham, 
Fox pag. 11●1.  Chedsey and Morgan, before the King's visitors above named, anno 1549. So he. And for so much as he setteth down no solution unto these arguments; we may imagine that he held them for insoluble: and then if you consider how weak and vain they have been, and how easy to answer; you will thereby see how sure grounds, this poor Apostatafriar Martyr had to become a sacramentary, & to leave his former Religion, which had endured in Christ's Church for so many ages before; yea and to oppose himself against Doctor Luther in this point of the real-presence, who was their Prophet, and had first of all opened unto him & others the gap to his apostasy. And finally what good assurance a man may have, to adventure his soul with these companions in such a quarrel, as Cranmer, Ridley, Latymer, Rogers, Hooper, and others did, who having been Cath. Priests for many years, did first of all others embrace in England these new opinions of Peter Martyr, which yet were so young and green, as himself was scarcely settled in them, when he first entered in to that island, as in his 
* Me●s● Decem●r.  story more particularly we have declared. Wherefore to leave him, we shall now examine some other arguments, alleged by others after him, especially by those that were actors in the former ten disputations at Oxford, Cambridge and London, which are not much fewer in number, than these alleged already of Peter Martyr.    

The fourth sort of arguments alleged by others after Peter Martyr. §. 4.  
28. And of these the first shallbe that of Causon and Higbed, in their confession to B. Bonner ●nno Domini 1555. The flesh profiteth nothing (saith 
First objection.  Christ) joan. 6. Ergo Christ hath not given his flesh to be eaten in the Sacrament; and divers others do 
Fox pag. 1400.  object the same, as a great argument; yea Zuinglius himself calleth this argument: A brazen brickwall, 
Zuingl. l. damn ver● & fals. Religcap. de Euchar.  and a most strong adamant, that cannot be ●oken. But the ancient Fathers, tha● knew more than Zuinglius, did easily break this adamant, and brazen wall, giving divers solutions 
The au●swere.  thereof: as first, that if we take these words of our saviour to be spoken properly of his flesh; then must the sense be, that his only flesh, without his soul & divinity, profiteth not to our salvation: and so do expound the place both S. Augustine and S. Cyrill, for that 
Aug. & Cyril. in joan.  otherwise no man can deny, but that Christ's flesh with his soul and divinity, doth profit greatly even in the Sacrament itself; for that Christ in the self-same Chapter of Saint John saith: he that eateth my flesh hath life everlasting. 
joan. 6.  Secondly, other father's more to the literal sense do interpret those words: (the flesh profiteth nothing) not that Christ's flesh doth not profit, but that the carnal understanding of that speech of Christ, about his flesh, to be eaten in the Sacrament (such as the Capharnai●e had, whom he refuteth) profiteth not to ou● salvation, but requireth a more spiritual and high understanding, to wit, that it is to be eaten in another manner under the form's o● bread and wine. And this is the exposition both of 
a Lib. 3. in ●p. ad Rom. cap ●.  Origen, 
b Serm. de Caena Dom.  S. Cyprian, 
c On●●es  S. chrusostom 
d ●●hunc  ●heophilact, 
e locum 6. loan.  Eu●himius, and others, and is th● more plain and manifest sense of that place.  
29. Master Guest (one of the Protestant opponents) in the first Cambridge disputation 
M. Guests argument against the real presence.  against Doctor Glyn, urgeth again and against this argument: That which Christ took, he blessed that which he blessed, he broke: that which he broke 
Fox pag. 1258. col. 2. num. 80.  he gave: but he took bread: ergò he gave bread: T● which argument Doctor Glyn answered by a like Collection out of the scripture: That which Go● 
G●n. 2.  took out of Adam's side, was a rib; but what he took that he brought and delivered to Adam for his wise ergò he delivered him a rib for his wife. Which answer, though it made the auditory t● laugh: yet Master Perne coming to answers 
D. Perne.  for the Protestant party; upon the third day o● disputation, would needs urge the same argument again in his preface; which Master Vauisour, that disputed against him, repeating publicly, gave the like answer about the ribb● out of Genesis: wherewith Fox being angry maketh this note in the margin: An vnsauer● comparison: perhaps for that he holdeth th● 
Fox pa●. 1261. col. 1. num. 8.  rib for rotten, which so long ago was taken out of Adam's side: for that otherwise I d● not see what evil savour Fox can find therein but the effect of the answer stands in this: that as God took a rib, and made thereof our mother Eva: so Christ took bread, and thereof made his body, though in a different manner, the matter or substance remaining in the one change, but not in the other.  
30. The same Guest in the same disputation maketh this other argument against the real-presence. 
Guests second argument.  The body of Christ is not generate, or begotten in the Sacrament; ergò, it is not in the Sacrament. 
Fox pag. 1259.  whereunto Doctor Glyn answered: you impugn a thing you know not: what call you 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 jest or earnest, but leapt presently to his former argument again: That which he took he blessed; that which he blessed he broke; that which he broke, he gave, etc. wherefore to answer Guests objection we say: first that generation is not the production of accidents, as fond he affirmeth, which production of accidents appertaineth rather to alteration, augmentation and local motion, as Aristotle teacheth, 
Lib. primo generate. & lib. 3. Phys.  whereas generation is the production of a substance and not of accidents: Secondly we say that Christ's body in the Sacrament is there, not by generation nor creation, but by another miraculous operation of God, called Transubstantion, which is a conversion of the bread & wine into the true body & blood of Christ. And thus much in earnest to M. Guest.  
31. After Guest there cometh Master Pilkinton, as wise as the other in matter of disputation, though afterward by the credit of his manhood therein, he got the bishopric o● Durham. He began thus against Doctor Glyn. This one thing I desire of you most worshippfull master Doctor, that you will answer me with brevity as I shall propound and thus I reason: 

The body of Christ that was broken on the cross, is a full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.  
But the Sacrament is not the satisfaction of the whole world.  
Ergo, the Sacrament is not the body of Christ.    
To this argument Doctor Glyn answered, that he used an equivocation in the word Sacrament: for that if the word Sacrament in this place, be taken for that which it containeth to wit the body of Christ; then is the minor proposition false; for that the body of Christ as it was given on the cross, is the satisfaction for the world: But if he take the Sacrament for the outward signs only of bread & wine, them he granteth both the conclusion and the whole syllogism to be true, that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ. whereunto Pilkinton maketh one only reply, and that most fond, out of the same equivocation, saying: that the Sacrament hath not satisfied for the world, and that men may be saved without the Sacrament, as many were before it was instituted: whereunto Doctor Glyn very learnedly answered: that if he took the Sacrament, as before he had distinguished, for Christ contained in the Sacrament, than had the Sacrament, that is to say Christ therein contained, both satisfied for the whole world, and none were ever saved without him, for that all were saved by faith in him to come.  
32. The same Pilkinton leaping from his former argument, without taking his leave, falleth upon another medium in these words: 

The body of Christ is resiant in heaven. 
Pilkinton● second argument.   
And the body of Christ is in the Sacrament.  
Ergo: the Sacrament is in heaven.    
This argument you see is as good and no better, then if we should say: 

The soul of a man is in the fingar.  
And the soul of a man is in the foot.  
Ergo, the foot is in the fingar.    
But yet Doctor Glyn declared there further, after he had jested at the argument, that Christ was in one sort in heaven, and after another sort in the Sacrament; in heaven locally, visibly & circumscriptively, but in the Sacrament invisibly and sacramentally: which differences being not found in the soul, being in the foot and fingar, maketh our argument more heard to answer, 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. 
Pilkinton's third argument.   
Ergo: the Sacrament is not the body of Christ.    
Hear you see is the same fond equivocation and doubtful sense of the word sacrament before expounded, and poor Pilkinton can not get out of it: For if he take the word Sacrament, for the only body of Christ contained therein, then is the minor proposition false; for that the Sacrament in this sense hath no accidents of bread in it. But if he take the Sacrament for external signs, than we grant both his minor and conclusion to be true, and nothing against us, to wit, that the Sacrament in this sense is not the body of Christ, though commonly in our sense the Saerament comprehendeth both the one and the other.  
34. But further Master Pilkinton had a fourth argument, & with that he was briefly dispatched: he proposed the same in these words. 

wheresoever Christ is, there be his ministers also, for so he promiseth. 
Pilkinton's fourth argument.   
But Christ, as you hold is in the Sacrament;  
Ergo: his ministers are there also:    
This argument is worthy of Master Pilkinton and his ministers, for it proveth by like consequence, that they should have been in Pilatt● palace with him, and on the Crosse. And y● may be argued also, that for so much as they are n● with him now in heaven, ergo: he is not there. Wherefore the meaning of that place in S. John gospel: Where I am there shall my minister be; (h● 
joan. 12.  saith not wheresoever as Master Pilkinton putteth it down) is to be understood of the participation of Christ's glory in the next life, a● himself expoundeth in the 17. of S. John, wher● he saith to his Father, that he will have the● 
joan. 17.  to be with him, to see his glory. And in the mean space we see how these fellows, that glory so much of scripture, do abuse the true sense of scripture, in every thing they handle. And thus much do I find objected against the real-presence in the Cambridge disputations.  
35. There ensueth another disputation holden in the convocation-house, in the beginning of Q. mary's reign, which in our former order or Catalogue of disputations is the seventh; 
M. Philip's his argument.  wherein Maeister Phillips Deane of Rochester, did argue against the real presence in this sort. 
Fox pag. 1283.  

Christ saith, you shall have poor people with you.  
But me you shall not have. 
Matth. 11. Jean. 12.   
Ergo. Christ is not present in the Sacrament.    
Whereunto Doctor Weston prolocutor in that conference answered, that Christ is not present in that manner of bodily presence, as than he was, so that good people may use works of devotion and piety towards himself, as then S. Mary Magdalen did, in whose defence he spoke those words: But Phillip's not contenting himself with this answer, alleged a long discourse out of S. Augustine in his commentary upon S. john's gospel where the holy father saith; that Christ is present with us in majesty, providence, grace, and love now, but not in 
Aug. tract. 50. in loan,  corpotall presence. Whereunto answered D. Watson afterward B. of Lincoln, expounding that place by another of the same Father upon the same evangelist, where he saith: that Christ is not now present after that mortal condition, which then 
Tract. 70 in lea●o  hirras, etc. Which nothing letteth his being after another manner in the Sacrament. Nay S. Augustine in the very same Treatise, not ten lines before the words alleged by M. Philipps, hath these words: Habes Christum praesentem, peraltaris 
Aug. ibid.  cibum & potum. Thou hast Christ present in this life, by the food and drink of the Altar: which is another distinct way of presence from those two, named by him in the former place, of grace and corporal conversation. And y● may seem that this Philipps was not only satisfied by this answer, for that he replied not; but further also was converted upon this conference, or disputation in the convocation-house, or very soon after: For that Fox 
Pag. 1283. in margin.  affirmeth that he continued Deane of Rochester, all Q. mary's days, which no doubt he should not have done, if he had not subscribed, as all the rest did, to this article of the real-presence.  
36. Next after Philip's Dean of Rochester, stepped up Philpott Archdeacon of Winchester with great vehemency, and took upon him 
Fox pag. 12. 4. ●l 2. num. 10.  to piove, that Christ in his last snpper did not eat his own body by this argument: that for so much as remission of sins was promised unto the receiving 
Phil●otts first argument.  of Christ's body, and that Christ did not receive remission of sins, ergò, Christ did not receive his own body. whereunto Master More-man who, extempore was appointed to answer him, and Doctor Weston the prolocutor, gave this answer; that as well he might prove that Christ was not baptised, for that he received no remission of sins therein: but as he received that Sacramé● for our instruction and imitation only; so did he this other. whereabout though Philpot made a great stir, as not content with the answer; yet could he reply nothing of any moment, and so ended that days disputation. The next day he returned again, and would have made a long declamation against the real presence, but being restrained he fell into such a rage and passion, as twice the prolocutor said, he was fit for Bedlam, then for disputation.  
37. After Philpott, stood up Master Cheney Archdeacon of Hereford, another of the six which did contradict the mass and real presence in the convocation-house, who was after made B. of Gloucester, being that time perhaps inclined to Zuinglianisme, though afterward he turned, and became a Lutheran and so lived and died in the late Queen's days. There is extant to this man an eloquent epistle in latin of F. Edmund Campian, who unhappily had been made Deacon by him, but now being made a Catholic, exhorted the Bishop to leave that whole ministry: This man's argument against the real presence, being taken out of the common objections of Catholic writers and schoolmen, was this, that for so much as it is clear by experience, that by eating consecrated hosts for example, a man may be nourished, and that neither Christ's body nor the accidents and forms alone, can be said to nourish ergo besides these two there must be some other substance, that nourisheth, which seemeth can be no other but bread: And the like argument may be made of consecrated wine that also nourisheth. And further in like manner he argued, concerning consecrated bread burned to ashes, demanding whereof, that is to say, of what substance these ashes were made, for so much as we hold no substance of bread to be therein: and Fox would make us believe, that all the catholics there present could not answer that doubt, and amongst others he saith of Doctor Harpesfield: Then was Master Harpesfield called in to 
Fox pag. 1287. & 1288.  see what he could say in the matter, who told a fair tale of the omnipotency of almighty God. But Fox understood not what Doctor Harpesfield said in that behalf, as may easily appear by his fond relating thereof: We have set down the answer to these and like objections, before in the 7. and 10. Observations, and it consisteth 
The answer to M. Cheneyes' argument about mitrition & generation.  in this; that in these natural actions, and substantial changes of nutrition and generation, wherein not only accidents are altered, but new substances also are produced, & consequently according to nature that operation doth require not only accidents, but also substantial matter whereof to be produced; God by his omnipotency doth supply that matter, which is necessary to the new production of that substance, either by nutrition or generation.  
38. And albeit the unbelief of heretics doth not reach to comprehend and acknowledge, that God should do a miracle or action above nature every time that this happeneth out, yet can they not deny it in other things: As for example, that every time, when any children are begotten throughout the world, God immediately createth new souls for them, which needs must be thousands every day, yet none of our sectaries will deny or scoff at this, or hold it for absurd, the like may be said of all the supernatural effects & benefits which God bestoeth daily & hourly upon us in the Sacraments or otherwise.  
39 There remain only some few places out of the Fathers to be explained, which were objected in this article, partly by Master Grindall against Doctor Glyn, and partly also by Peter Martyr in the end of his Oxford-disputation, 
Certain places of Fathers explained.  but related by Fox in the question of Transubstantiation, & not of the real-presence, though properly they appertain to this, as now you will see. The first place is out of Tertullian against Martion the heretic, where he hath these words (saith Fox): This is my body, 
Fox pag. 1250. col. 2.  that is to say, this is the sign of my body. whereunto I answer, that Fox dealeth here like a Fox in citing these words so crookedly, for that Tertullian in this very place (as in many others) doth most effectually, not only say, but prove also, that bread is turned into Christ's true body after the words of consecration; and so do 
Tert. lib. 4▪ cont. Martion. c. 40. Magd. c●nt. 2. cap. 4.  the Magdeburgians affirm expressly of him: his words are these: Christ taking bread, and distributing the same unto his disciples, made yt his body; saying this is my body, that is the figure of my body, and immediately followeth: Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus: but it had not been the figure of Christ's body. If his body had not been a true body or truly their present. In which words Tertullian affirmeth two things, if you mark him; First that Christ made bread his true body; & then that bread had been a figure of his body in the old Testament, which could not be, if his body were not a true body, but a fantastical body as Martion did wickedly teach: for that a fantastical body hath no figure. And this much for the true literal sense of Tertullian in this place; who going about to show that Christ did fulfil all the figures of the old Testament (& consequently was son of the God of the old Testament, which Marcionists did deny) fulfiled also the figure wherein bread presignified his true body to come, by making bread his body: saying, 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 literal sense and scope of Tertullian in this place (as before I have said) every man may see plainly, that will read the place.  
40. The other places are taken out of divers other Fathers, who some times do call the Sacrament, a figure or sign, representation, or similitude of Christ's body, death, passion, & blood, as S. Augustine in Psalm. 2. Christ gave a figure of his body, and lib. cont. Adamant. cap. 12. he did not doubt to say this is my body, when he gave a figure of his body. And S. Jerome: Christ represented unto us his body. And S. Ambrose lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. As thou hast received the similitude of his death, so drinkest thou the similitude of his precious blood: These places I say, and some other the like, that may be objected, are to be understood in the like sense, as those places of Saint Paul are, wherein Christ is called by him a figure, Figura substantiae Patris: A figure of the substance of his Father. Heb. 1. And again; Imago Dei. An Image of God. Colloss. 1. And further yet; Habitu inventus ut homo. appearing in the likeness of a man. 
Old hetetikes have framed some particular heresies out of the Fathers by their misunderstanding 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 every one of these places some particular heresies have been framed by ancient heretics, against his divinity or humanity) so do not the foresaid phrases, sometimes used by the ancient Fathers, calling the Sacrament a figure, sign, representation or similitude of Christ's body, exclude the truth or reality thereof, for that there is as well, signum & figura rei praesentis quam absentis, A sign or figure of things present, as well as of things absent, as for an example, a firkin of wine hanged up for a sign at a tavern door, that there is wine to be sold, is both a sign of wine, and yet containeth and exhibiteth the thing itself: And so it is in the Sacrament, which by his nature being a sign, figure, or representation, doth both represent and exhibitt, signifieth and containeth the body of our saviour.  
41. And as it should be an heretical cavil to argue out of the said places of S. Paul, as the old heretics 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 real substance with his Father, nor really God, nor truly man: so is it as heretical to argue as our sacramentaries do; that Tertullian, Augustine, & some other Fathers do sometimes call the Sacrament a similitude, figure, sign or remembrance of Christ's body, his death and passion, as in deed it is; (for that otherwise it should not be a Sacrament) ergo: it is not his true body, that is contained therein, especially seeing the same Fathers, do in the self-same places, whence these objections are deduced, expressly & clearly expound themselves, affirming Christ's true real body to be in the Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine: as for example Saint Ambrose here objected in the 
Ambr. l. 4. de Sacra●●. cap. 4.  fourth book de Sacramentis cap. 4. doth expressly and at large prove the real-presence, as exactly as any Catholic can write at this day: saying: that before the words of consecration, it is bread, but after it is the body of Christ. And again. Before the words of Christ be uttered, the chalice is full 
S. Ambrose expoundeth himself against the Protestant's.  of wine and water, but when the words of Christ have wrought their effect, then is made that blood which redeemed the people. And yet further. Christ Jesus doth testify unto us, that we receive his body & blood, and shall we doubt of his testimony? Which words being so plain and evident for the truth of Catholic belief, let the reader consider, how vain and fond a thing it is for the Protestants to object out of the self-same place, that we receive the similitude of his death, and drink the similitude of his precious blood, for that we deny not, but the body of Christ in the Sacrament is a representation and similitude of his death on the cross, and that the blood which we drink in the Sacrament, under the form of wine, is a representation and similitude of the shedding of Christ's blood in his passion. But this letteth not, but that it is the self-same body & blood, though it be received 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 you have heard.  
42. There remaineth then only to be answered, that speech of S. Augustine objected in these disputations. Quid paras dentes & ventrem? crede & manducasti: Why dost thou prepare thy 
Aug. tract. 25. in joan.  teeth and thy belly? Believe and thou hast eaten. Whereunto I answer, that this speech of S. Augustine and some other like, that are found in him, and some other Fathers, of the spiritual eating of Christ by faith, do not exclude the real presence, as we have showed before in our ninth observation. It is spoken against them, that come with a base and gross imagination to receive this divine food, as if it were a corporal refection, and not spiritual; whereas indeed faith & charity are those virtues, that give the life unto this eating: faith in believing Christ's words to be true, as S. Ambrose in the place before cited saith, and thereby assuring ourselves, Christ's true body to be there: and charity in preparing ourselves worthily, by examinations of our conscience, that we do not receive our own damnation, as S. Paul doth threat. And this is the true spiritual eating of Christ's body by faith, but yet truly and really, as the said Fathers do expound unto us, whose sentences more at large you shall see examined in the Chapter following.  
43. These then being all in effect, or at least ways the most principal arguments, that I 
The conclusion of this chapter.  find objected by our English sacramentaries in the foresaid ten disputations, against the article of Christ's true & real being in the Sacrament, you may consider with admiration and pity, how feeble grounds those unfortunate men had, that were first dealers in that affair, whereon to change their faith and religion, from that of the Christian world, from time out of mind before them: and to enter into a new sect and labyrinth of opinions contradicted among themselves, and accursed by him that was their first guide to lead them into new paths, to wit, Luther himself, and yet to stand so obstinately & with such immovable pertinacy therein; as to offer their bodies to temporal fire, and their souls to the evident peril of eternal damnation for the same; but this is the ordinary enchantment of heresy founded on pride, self judgement, and self-will, as both by holy scriptures and ancient Fathers we are admonished.  
44. One thing also is greatly here to be noted by the careful reader, upon consideration of these arguments to and fro, how uncertain a thing it is for particular men, whether learned or unlearned (but especially the 
The miserable case of sectaries, with out any sure ground to Icane unto.  ignorant) to ground themselves & their faith upon their own or other men's disputations, which with every little show of reason to and fro, may alter their judgement or apprehension, and in how miserable a case Christian men were, if their faith (whereof dependeth their salvation or damnation) should hang upon such uncertain means as these are, & that God had left no other more sure or certain way then this for men to be resolved of the truth, as we see he hath, by his visible Church, that cannot err; yet thought we good to examine this way of disputations also, and the arguments thereof used by Protestants against the truth. But now followeth a larger & more important examen, of the Catholic arguments alleged by our men against them, in this article of the real-presence. And what kind of answers they framed to the same, whereby thou wilt be greatly confirmed (good reader) if I be not much deceived, in the opinion of their weakness, and untruth of their cause.    

WHAT Catholic arguments Were alleged in these disputations for the real-presence; and how they were answered or shifted of by the Protestants. CHAP. V.  
AS I have briefly touched in the former Chapter, the reasons and arguments alleged for the Sacramentary opinions, against the real-presence; so now I do not deem it amiss, to run over in like manner, some of the Catholic arguments that were alleged against them, though neither time nor place will permit to recite them all, which the discreett reader may easily imagine by the grounds and heads thereof, set down in the second Chapter of this Treatise, though many & weighty they were or might be. Wherefore to speak briefly somewhat thereof, and for more brevity and perspicuity, to draw the matter to some kind of order and method: you must note, that of these ten disputations, only four were in time of Catholic government, as before I signified, that is to say; the six-dayes conference in the convocation-house, in the beginning of Q. mary's reign, & 
Disputation in the convocation house.  the three-days several disputation at Oxford with Cranmer, Ridley, and Latymer, some months after. And as for the first in the convocation-house, the Protestants only did dispute, for three continual days together, to wit, Phillips, Haddon, Cheyney, Elmour, and Philpott, and several Catholic men were appointed to answer them. And when in the end the Protestants were required to answer according to promise, in their turns, the Catholic opponents for other three days, they refused 
Fox pag. 1287. col. 2. num. 30.  it all, saving Philpott, upon certain conditions to be heard yet further, but Doctor Weston the prolocutor rejected him, as a man fit to be sent to bedlam (saith Fox) then to be admitted to disputation, etc. For that he both was unlearned, and 
Philpott.  a very mad man in deed. Wherefore out of this disputation, little or nothing is offered about this article of real-presence, for that the Catholic party disputed not at all.  
2. And as for the other three days disputation in Oxford, the last, which was with Latymer, was very little, for that he fled disputation, as there you shall see; and the few arguments that were made against him, were rather in proof of the sacrifice of the mass: so as most arguments were alleged in the former two-dayes conflict against Cranmer and Ridley, which presently we shall examine, though under K. Edward also, one day of the Cambridge disputations was allowed to Catholic opponents, to propose their arguments, Doctor Madew being defendant for the Protestants, and Doctor Glyn, Master Langdall, & master sedgwicke opponents for the catholics: to as out of these four disputations, we shall note briefly some Catholic arguments, that were alleged, advertising the reader first to consider with some attention the points ensuing.  
3. First that we have nothing of these disputations, 
First point to be observed.  their arguments or answers, but only such as pleaseth John Fox to deliver and impart with us, which most evidently do appear to be mangled and unperfect in many places, without head or foot, coherence or consequence, which must proceed either of purpose to make matters obscure, and thereby to bring the reader into doubt and confusion, or of lack of good information; and that the former is more credible than the second, may be gliessed by the variety of impertinent notes in the margin, scoffs, and jests in the text itself, often times put in to deface the Catholic party, and to give credit to his sectaries: And consequently what faith may be given to his narrations (but only where they make against himself) is easy to be seen, especially in that himself confesseth, that Ridley wrote in prison his own disputations after they were passed, & the same we may presume of the rest, and then no man can doubt, but that they would put down their own parts to their uttermost advantage, or at leastwise with the smallest loss, that they could devise.  
4. Secondly it is to be considered of the 
The second point to be observed.  precedent reader, that must adventure his soul everlastingely by taking one part or other in this controversy here in hand, how much it may import him to stand attended to the places and authorities, alleged out of scriptures & Fathers for the truth, & to consider them well, reading them over again, and again & weighing the true meaning & sense of the writer, and not how slightly or cunningly they are, or may be shifted of by any witty wrangler, for so much as this may be done with any writing or evidence never so manifest, if the defendant will list to cavil, & the reader be so inconsiderate or careless of his own peril, as to be delighted or abused therewith.  
5. Thirdly in the allegation of father's testimonies, 
The third point considerable.  which here are to ensue, it is to be weighed, not only what they say, but also how they say, what phrases and speeches they use, and to what end, and whether if they had been of the Protestants Religion, they would have used those phrases or no, more than Protestant writers do themselves at this day, especially so ordinarily and commonly as the said Fathers do, they being men both learned, wise, and religious, that well knew how to utter their own minds & meaning, what is proper & improper speech, & withal not being ignorant, how great inconveniences must ensue of improper speeches in matters of faith, where men are bound to speak precisely and warily: and on the other side is ●o be considered also, if they were of contrary opinions to the Protestants, and of that faith which we affirm them to be in this point of the real presence, what more effectual speeches could they have used to express it, than they do, calling yt the true body, the real body, the natural body of our saviour, the same body that he took of the blessed Virgin, and gave upon the cross, the body whereby he is united unto us in humanity; and denying it expressly to be bread after the words of consecration, though it seem to be bread to our eyes & taste, and that we must not trust our senses therein, but yield to God's omnipotency, and believe, that as he hath wrought infinite other miracles, so hath he done this; that we must adore it, with the highest adoration; and other like phrases, which neither Protestant's can abide, or ever do use in their writings; nor could the Fathers, if they had been expressly of our Religion (as we say they were) devise words more significant, proper, or effectual to express the truth of our Catholic faith, then if of purpose they had studied for it, as no doubt they did; So as if the ancient Fathers did understand what they spoke, and that they spoke as they meant; then are the Protestants in a pitiful plight, whose salvation or damnation dependeth in this, whether we must understand them, S. Paul, and Christ himself literally, as they spoke, or by a figure only; so as if they used no figure, then is the Sacramentary opinion to be held for heresy.  
6. Fourthly is to be considered also in this 
The 4. point of note.  matter, as elsewhere we have noted, that when any one of these ancient Fathers, in what age soever, is found to use these effectual words, for uttering his meaning about this high mystery of Christ's being present in the Sacrament, he is to be understood to express not only his own judgement, and belief therein, but the judgement also and belief of the whole Church of Christendom in that age, for so much as any Doctor, neither then nor after, did note him for error, or temerity in speaking & writing as he did, which no doubt would have happened, as in all other occasions of errors or heresies it did, if his speech had been unsound, unproper, or dangerous; so as when we find but one Father uncontroulled in these assertions, we are justly to presume, that we hear the whole age and Christian Church of his time speak together, and much more when we see divers Fathers agree in the self-same manner of speech, and uttering their meaning. And whosoever is careful of his soul in these dangerous times of controversies, aught to be mindful of this observation, and so shall we pass to the disputations themselves.  

Out of the first Cambridge-disputation in K. Edwardes days, wherein the defendants were D. Madew, and B. Ridley high Comissioner. 20. Junii. 1549. §. 1.  
7. Albeit in this disputation's matters were but slightly handled, and no argument urged to any important issue, by reason of the often interruptions of the Cambridge-proctors and sleights used by Ridley himself; yet do I find that Doctor Glyn, being a very learned man indeed, did touch divers matters of moment▪ though he prosecuted not the same, if Fox his relation be true, and much less received he any substantial solution thereof. As for example, in the beginning he made a very effectual discourse how this divine Sacrament containing Christ's real body, was not only prefigured by divers figures in the old Testament, as namely the Paschall-lambe, the manry and showbread (which signified the great importance and moment thereof when it should 
D. Gly●●e his first discourse.  be performed) but also was so peculiarly and diligently promised by our saviour, in the six of S. John, comparing it with the said figures and showing how much it was to exceed the same, and namely the manna that came from heaven, and finally expounding yt to be hi● own flesh which he would give us to eat in fullfilling those figures: Panis quem ego dabo ca●o mea est, the bread that I will give you shallbe 
joan. 6.  my flesh, and that truly and indeed: caro enim ●uea verè est cibus; for my flesh is truly meat, etc. 
Ibidem.   
8. This promise then, and this prefiguration was not (quoth he) performed by Christ, but in his last supper when he took bread and delivered it saying: this is my body: which performance, if it must answer either to Christ's promise in the gospel, or to the figures in the old Testament, must needs be more than bread, for that otherwise it should not be better than the manna, that was bread from heaven, which Christ in S. john's gospel expressly promised, should be changed into his flesh. And if Christ in his last supper, had but given a figure of his true body; then had he fulfiled the figures of th' old Testament with a figure in the new, and so all had been figures contrary to that of S. John: Lex per Moysen data est, veritas autem per jesum Christum facta est. The 
joan. 1.  law was given by Moses (in figures) but the truth thereof was performed by Jesus Christ, etc.  
9 Thus began Doctor Glyn, but I find no solution 
The jews equal to us by the sacramentary doctrine.  given thereunto, 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 inferior to us; for that they had bread that signified Christ's body as well as ours, and they by eating that bread with faith in Christ to come, did eat Christ's body, and participate his grace thereby, no less than we, which is a great absurdity, and contrary to the whole drift of S. Paul speaking of that matter, and extolling the dignity of this Sacrament, yea contrary to the express discourse of Christ himself, saying: not Moses gave you bread from 
joan. 6.  heaven (meaning the Manna) but my Father giveth you true bread from heaven. And to this discourse also you shall find nothing answered in effect.  
10. From this Doctor Glyn passeth to show out of S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, and S. Basill, that 
Fox pag. 1253.  the body of Christ must be adored before it be received; whereunto was answered: that only a certain reverent manner of receiving was thereby meant, but no adoration; but the other replied, 
Adoration of the Sacrament.  that the Fathers spoke of proper adoration; yea S. Austen went so far therein in his books De civitate Dei, that he affirmeth the heathens to have esteemed the Christians, to have adored Ceres and Bacchus, Gods of bread and wine, by the adoration which they used to this Sacrament of bread and wine, which they would never have suspected of the Protestants, by their behaviour towards their supper of bread and wine. Whereunto another answer was framed, that Saint Augustin● meant only of adoring Christ's body in hea●●n and not in the Sacrament; and this answer was confirmed by Ridley very solemnly, saying for his preface: For because I am on● that doth love the truth, I will here declare wha● I think in this point, etc. I do grant a certain honour and adoration to be done unto Christ's body, but then the Fathers speak not of it in the Sacrament, but of it in heaven, etc. neither is there any other answer given. And yet who seethe not, that this is but a plain shift? For when S. Augustine for example saith: Nemo illam carnem manducat, 
Aug in Psalm. 98.  nisi prius adoraverit: No man eateth that flesh (in the Sacrament) but first adoreth it. And Saint chrusostom: Adora & communica, dum proseratur 
Chrysost. hom. 60. ad Pop Antioch.  sacrisicium, adore and communicate, whilst the sacrifice is brought forth; it is evident by common sense, that the adoration is appointed to that body, which there presently is eaten, and not to Christ's body absent in heaven; for by this kind of their adoration, we adore also our ordinary dinners, to wit by adoring God in heaven, and saying grace etc. And he that shall read the place of the Fathers themselves, will wonder at this impudence, for Saint Austen doth expound those words of the psalm Adorate scabellum pedum eius, and apply 
Psalm. 9●.  it to his flesh in the Sacrament, and S. chrusostom speaketh expressly of Christ's flesh, as it is in the Sacrament, and offered as a sacrifice.  
11. And yet doth Fox make Doctor Glyn to have replied never a word, nor so much as produced the texts themselves of the Fathers named by him, but giving it over passed to another argument, saying: If it please your good lordship, S. Ambrose and S. Augustine do say, that before the consecration it is but bread, and after the consecration it is called the body of Christ; whereto was 
S. Ambrose and S. Austen handsomely shifted of.  answered: Indeed it is the very body of Christ Sacramentally after the consecration, where as before it is nothing but common bread, and yet after that it is the Lords bread, and thus must S. Ambrose and S. Augustine be understood. So said the answerers, and Doctor Glyn was by the proctors commanded to cease, and pass to the second question; but he obtained by entreaty to go forward an instance 
D. Glyns reply.  or two more, showing out of the words of S. Ambrose, that Ridley's answer could not be true; for that S. Ambrose said; that after the 
Fox pag. 1254.  consecration, there is not the thing that nature did form, but that which the blessing doth consecrate. And that if the benediction of Elias the Prophett, could turn 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 answer given, but that S. Ambrose his book d● Sacramentis was not his, & Ridley affirmed that all the Fathers did say so: which was a shameless lie in so great an auditory, nor could he bring forth so much as one Father that said so, nor alleged he any one argument to prove it to be so; and if he had, yet S. Ambrose repeating● again the very same sentence in his book de initiandis is sufficient for the authority of the place, but Glyn is made to pass away the matter with silence, saying: Well let this pass, etc. And then going to other authorities of Fathers, is whipped of with like shif●●; as when he citeth S. Cyprians words: Panis non 
A strange shifting of the authorities of Fathers.  effigy, 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 answer that by nature is understood a natural property or quality, and by flesh, a fleshly thing or quality, and not the substance, so as the sense must be, that bread is changed not in outward shape, but into a natural property of a fleshly thing, etc. And when Doctor Glyn replied to overthrow this invention out of S. Ambrose, who affirmeth this change of bread to be made into the flesh, that was taken of the Virgin Mary, ergò it was not only into a fleshly thing, quality, or property, but into the true flesh of Christ; Ridly gave an answer, that I understand not, nor himself I think, but only that he must say somewhat in so great an audience, and expectation; or Fox understood it not that setteth it down: for these are his words:  
13. When Doctor Glyn urged the saying 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 thing hath a being that it had n●t before, and we do consecrate the body, that we may receive the grace and power of the body of Christ in heaven by this sacramental body. So he. And doth any man understand him? or is his answer any thing to the purpose for satisfying the Fathers? S. Cyprian saith: that the bread by the omnipotency of God is changed in nature, and made flesh and S. Ambrose saith: it is the flesh taken from the Virgin; and Ridley saith here; that it hath a being, which it had not before, and that, they do consecrate a sacramental body of Christ, thereby to receive the grace and power of Christ's body in heaven; but howsoever they do consecrate that body: (which is a strange word for sacramentaries to use) yet do they grant that this sacramental body is but bread; and how then can it be flesh, and flesh of the Virgin; were not the father's ridiculous, if they used these equivocations, yea false and improper speeches?  
14. Well Doctor Glyn goeth forward, and allegeth S. chrusostom upon S. Mathewes gospel, where to persuade us the truth of Christ's body in the Sacrament, he saith: that we must 
Fox pag. 1254.  believe Christ's words in these mysteries, and not our senses, for that our senses may be deceived; but Christ saying this is my body cannot deceive us; and that he made us one body with himself, not through faith only, but in very deed: and further, that the miracle which he wrought in his last supper, he worketh daily by his ministers, etc. whereunto Ridley answered nothing 
S. chrusostom shifted of.  but these words: Master Doctor, you must understand, that in that place S. chrusostom showed, that Christ delivered unto us no sensible thing in that supper. So he. Which notwithstanding is evidently false, for he delivered sensible bread & wine, according to the Protestants faith, and according to outs, the forms of bread and wine, which are also sensible: and if there were no sensible thing, then could there be no Sacrament, which must contain a sensible sign. And to refu●e this shift of Ridley, Doctor Glyn objected Theophilact, expounding S. chrusostom, and using the same words that he did, to wit, that the bread is transelemented, and transformed. He allegeth another place or two of S. Augustine together with S. Irenaeus: 
Matth. 11.  To all which Rochester answereth resolutely: Well say what you list; it is but a figurative speech, as S. John Baptist was said to be Elias for a property, etc. 
How S. John Baptist was Elyas.  But who doth not see the absurdity of this evasion; for so much as the meaning of Christ, about Elias his spirit in S. John Baptist, is evident, nor ever went any ancient Fathers about to affirm or prove by arguments, that S. John Baptist was truly Elias in person (himself 
joan. 1.  expressly denying it) or that it 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 never have gone about to answer the Fathers by evident wrangling, so contrary to their own sense and meaning.  
15. After Doctor Glyn was put to silence in this order, succeeded Master Langdale, Master 
Langdale disputeth  Sedgewicke and Master young, but very briefly concerning this article of the real-presence, not being permitted to speak more, and the most part of the time trifled out also, with courtesies of speech, the one to the other; My good Lord; good master Doctor; pleaseth it your good lordship; liketh it your good Fathershipp; honourable Father, and the like ceremonies, for they durst do no other, Ridley being then high commissionar; yet Master Langdale urged a place of S. chrusostom, where he bringeth Christ, saving these words: I urould be your brother, I took upon 
Fox pag. 1256. col. 1. num. 43.  me common flesh and blood for your sakes; and even by the same things that I am joined to you, the very same I have exhibited to you again; meaning in the Sacrament. Whereof Master Langdale inferred, that seeing Christ took upon him true natural flesh, and not a figure of flesh only, or remembrance thereof, therefore he gave us his true natural flesh like man in the Sacrament, and not a figure. Whereto Ridley answereth in these words and no more: We are not joined 
Fox ibid.  by natural flesh; but do receive his flesk spiritually from above. Which answer is not only contrary to the express words and meaning of S. chrusostom in this place, but of Christ himself also brought in here by S. chrusostom to utter his meaning, as you have heard. I took upon me common flesh for your sakes, and by the same things that I am joined to you, the very same I have exhibited unto you again. Where you see that he saith, he gave the very same in the Sacrament, which he had taken upon him for our sakes, and that by the same he was joined to us again; and now Master Ridley saith; that we are not joined to him by natural flesh. These be contraries, which of two shall we believe? Christ, and S. chrusostom expounding him, or Ridley against them both?  
16. Master sedgwicke disputed next, but hath 
M. Sedgewicke his disputation's.  not half a column or page allowed to the setting down of his whole disputation; yet he urging divers reasons in that little time out of the scriptures, why the Sacrament of the Altar cannot be in the new law by a figure, but must needs be the fullfilling of old figures, and consequently the true and real body of Christ; he brought Master Ridley within the compass of a dozen lines, to give two answers one plain contrary to another, as his words do import: for this is the first: I do grant it to be Christ's true body and flesh, by a property 
M. Ridley his own contradiction.  of the nature assumpted to the God head, and we do really eat and drink his flesh and blood, after a certain real property. His second answer is in these words: It is nothing but a figure or token of 
Fox ibid.  the true body of Christ, as it is said of S. John Baptist, he is Elias, not that he was so indeed or in person, but in property and virtue he represented Elias. So he. And now let any man with judgement examine these two answers: For in the first he granteth at least ways a true real property of Christ's flesh, assumpted to his Godhead, to be in their bread, whereby we do really eat his flesh, and drink his blood. And in the second he saith, it is nothing but a figure, and consequently excludeth all real property; for that a figure hath no reality or real property, but only representeth and is a token of the body, as himself saith; which is evident also by his own example, for that S. John Baptist had no real property of Elias in him, but only a similitude of his spirit and virtue. And so these people, whilst they would seem to say somewhat, do speak contradictories among themselves.  
17. There followed Master young, who as briefly as the other, touched some few places of the Fathers (though they be not quoted) 
M. Yonges' disputation.  where they say that our bodies are nourished in the Sacrament by Christ's flesh, and that truly we drink his blood therein, and that for avoiding the horror of drinking man's blood, Christ had condescended to our infirmities, and given it to us under the forms of wine; and other like speeches, which in any reasonable man's sense, must needs import more than a figure of his body and blood, or a spiritual being there only by grace, for so much as by grace he is also in baptism and other Sacraments: & finally he urged again the place of S. Cyprian: That the bread being changed not in shape but in nature, was by the omnipotency of the word, made flesh. whereto Ridley answered again in these words: Cyprian there doth take this word nature for a property of nature, and not for the natural substance. To which evasion Master young replieth; this is a strange acception, that I have not read in any authors before this tyme. And so with this he was glad to give over (saith Fox) and asking pardon for that he had done, said: I am contented, and do most humbly beseech your good lordship to pardon me of my great, rudeness, etc. Belike this rudeness was for that he had said, that ut was a strange acception of S. Cyprians words, to take change in nature, for change into a property of nature, and flesh for a fleshly thing or quality, as before you have heard, and that this should answer S. Cyprians intention: for let us hear the application: Bread (in the Sacrament) 
The confutation of ● after Ridi●yes evasion 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 have it bread, being changed not in shape, but in a property of nature, is made a fleshly thing, or fleshly quality: What is this? or what sense can it have? what property of fleshly nature doth your communion bread receive? or what real property of bread doth it lose by this change mentioned by S. Cyprian? We say, (to wit S. Cyprian) that our bread retaining the outward shape, doth lose his natural substance, and becometh Christ's flesh, what natural property of bread doth yours lose? And again. What fleshly thing or quality doth it receive by the omnipotency of the word in consecration? And is not this ridiculous, or doth Ridley understand this his riddle? But let us pass to the next disputation under 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 beginning of Q mary's reign, wherein D. Cranmer, late Archbishopp of Canterbury, was defendant for the Protestant party, upon the 16. of April anno 1554. §. 2.  
18. When as the Doctors were set in the divinity school, and four appointed, to be exceptores argumentorum (saith Fox) set at a Table in the midst thereof, together with four other notaries sitting with them, and certain other appointed for judges (another manner of indifferency, than was used in King Edward's days under B. Ridley, in that disputation at Cambridge) Doctor Cranmer was brought in, and placed before them all to answer, and defend his Sacramentary opinion, given up the day before in writing, concerning the article of the real presence. Fox according to his custom noteth divers grave circumstances, as among others, that the beedle had provided drink, and offered the aunswerer, but he refused with 
Fox pag. 1300.  thanks. He telleth in like manner, that Doctor Weston the prolocutor offered him divers courtesies for his body, if he should need, which I omit for that they are homely: against which Doctor Weston notwithstanding he afterwards stormeth, and maketh a great invective for his rudeness, and in particular for that he had (as Fox saith) his Theseus by him, that is to say a cup of wine at his elbow, whereunto Fox ascribeth the gaining of the victory, saying; it was no marvel though he got 
Fox pag. 1326.  the victory in this disputation, he disputing as he did, non sine suo Theseo, that is not without his ●plingcupp. So Fox. And yet further, that he holding the said cup at one time in his hand, and hearing an argument made by another that liked him, said: urge hoc, nam ho● facit pro nobis: urge this, urge this, for this maketh for us. Thus pleased it John Fox to be pleasant with Doctor Weston; but when you shall see, as presently you shall, how he urged John Fox his three Martyrs, and rams of his flock (for so elsewhere he calleth them) in these disputations, not with the cup, but with substantial, grave, and learned arguments, you will not marvel that he is so angry with him: for in very deed he brought them always to the greatest exigents of any other, and more than all the rest together: Now then let us pass to the disputation.  
19 Doctor Chadsay was the first that disputed against Cranmer, beginning with the institution of Christ's Sacrament, recorded by S. Matthew, 
Matth. 2●. Marc 14. Luc. 22.  mark, and Luke, shewing out of them by divers plain clauses and circumstances, that Christ in his last supper, gave unto his disciples, not bread, but his true natural body, which was given the next day on the cross, to all which Cranmer answered thus: If you understand by the body natural, Organicum, that is having such proportion of members, as he had living 
Fox pag. 1 302. col. 1. num. 70.  here, than I aunsivere negatively. By which answer we may perceive, that this great Doctor, who had written a great book against the real-presence, by which Latymer amongst others was made a Sacramentary, and stood therein unto death upon the credit of this book (as after you shall hear him often 
●. Chadsoys' first argument.  profess) understandeth not the very state of the question between us, for that we hold not Christ's body in the Sacrament to be organical, in that manner as Cranmer here imagineth, with external dimensions & proportions of members as he lived upon earth, 
Sup. cap. 3.  though truly organical, in another manner, without extension to place, as in our fourth and fifth observations before set down we have declared; so as he erring in the very grounds and first principles of the controversy, you may imagine how he will proceed in the rest.  
20. It was objected unto him next after this, that as a wiseman lying on his deathbed, 
The second argument.  and having care that his heirs after his departure do live in quiett, and not contend about his Testament, doth not use tropes and figures, but clear and plain speech in the said Testament; so must we presume of Christ, & for the confirmation of this, Doctor Weston alleged 
Fox pag. 1302.  a place out of S. Augustine, De unitate Ecclesiae urging this very same similitude; that if the last words of any grave or honest man lying on his deathbed, are to be believed, 
Aug 1. ●● unitat. Ecil. cap. 10.  much more the last words of our saviour Christ in his supper, to which argument I find no effectual answer given at all, but only that Cranmer saith: that he which speaketh by tropes and figures, doth not lie; but he answereth not to the other inconvenience, that his heirs may fall out about his Testament, the one understanding them literally, the other figuratively, as we & they do the words of Christ about this Sacrament.  
21. Next to this is brought in a large testimony of S. chrusostom, out of his homily unto 
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, etc. It is necessary, most dearly beloved, to know this miracle of mysteries, what it is, and why it was given, and what profit cometh to us thereby, etc. And then S. chrusostom declareth at large, how Christ most miraculously above all humane power, giveth his body to be handled and eaten by us ●n the Sacrament; so as we fasten our teeth in his flesh, and that he did more than ever any parents did, who many times give their children to others to be fed, but Christ feedeth us with his own flesh, and with that very flesh by which he is our brother, and united unto us in flesh. Out of which discourse D. Weston ●rged, that for so much as Christ is made our brother and kinsman, by his true, natural & organical flesh; erge he gave the same his true natural and organical flesh to us to be eaten in the Sacrament. Whereto Cranmer answered: I grant the consequence, and the consequent: 
Fox pag. 1303 col 2. num. 1.  Which is contrary to that he said a little before, (if you mark it) that his organical body was not there.  
22. But Doctor Weston went further, that seeing he granted this, than did it follow also, that his true organical flesh was received in our mouth, which S. chrusostom calleth our teeth. But this Cranmer denied, and said, he was eaten only by faith: whereupon Weston came on him again saying, that for so much as he gave us the self-same flesh to eat in the Sacrament (and this with our teeth, as S. chrusostom saith) whereby he became our brother & kinsman, it must needs import a real eating: whereto Cramner answered: I grant he took and gave (in the Sacrament) the same true natural and organical flesh, wherein he suffered, but feedeth us spiritually, and his flesh is received spiritually. This was his answer, and this he repeateth often, and from this he could not be drawn: And here now you see, the practice of that shift, whereof we have spoken before in our eight and ninth observation, whereby these wilful people, under the terms of spiritually and sacramentally, do delude themselves, & their readers, as though they said somewhat to avoid Catholic arguments, taken out of ancient father's plain and perspicuous authorities, whereas indeed they say nothing in substance at all, but do turn and wind and hide themselves under the sound of different words without sense. For if it be true as Cranmer here granted, that Christ gave his true natural and organical flesh to be eaten ●n the Sacrament, and that with our teeth or corporal mouth, as S. chrusostom saith, how can it be denied, but that we eat his flesh really, and not spiritually only, if spiritually be opposite to really, as in Cranmers' sense it is, which understandeth, spiritually and figuratively to be all one: but in our sense spiritually standeth with really, for that we hold Christ's body to be received really and substantially in the Sacrament, but yet after a spiritual manner, different from that which the Capharnaits did imagine of a gross carnal eating of Christ's flesh, as other flesh is accustomed to be eaten, wherefore to imagine that Christ's true natural or organical flesh is eaten truly in the Sacrament, and yet only absent, by faith, spiritually and in a figure, is to speak contradicto●yes with one breath.  
23. divers other texts and testimonies of 〈◊〉. chrusostom were alleged by Doctor Weston 
4. Argument or reply.  ●o confute this ideacall fiction of Doctor Cranner, as that for example homilia 83. in cap. 26. watch. Where he saith among other things: ●eniat tibi in mentem, etc. Let it come into thy remembrance with what honour thou art honoured, (in the Sacrament) what table how dost enjoy, for that we are nourished herein with the self-same thing, which the angels do behold and tremble at, etc. Who shall speak the powers of thy Lord? Who shall declare forth all his praises? What pastor hath ever nourished his sheep with his own flesh, etc. Christ feedeth us with his own body, and conjoineth & uniteth us to him thereby. And again upon the 50. Psalm: Pro 
In Psal. 50.  ●bo carne propria nos pascit, pro potu sanguinem suum nobis propinat. In steed of meat, he feedeth us with his own flesh, and in steed of drink he giveth unto us to drink his own blood. And again, homil. 83. in Matth. Non side tantum, sed 
Chrysost. hom. 38. in Matth.  reipsa nos corpus suum effecit, etc. Not only by faith, but in deed he hath made us his body. And finally for that it was denied expressly, Saint chrusostom to mean that we received 
Fox pag. 1303.  Christ's body, with our corporal mouth, Doctor Weston urged these words of Saint chrusostom: 
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 it receiveth the body of our Lord.  
24. But all this will not serve, for still Cranmer answered by his former sleight thus: With our mouth, we receive the body of Christ, and tear it with our teeth, that is to say the Sacrament of the body of Christ. Do you see the evasion? And what may not be shifted of in this order, doth any minister in England use to speak thus o● his communion-bread, as S. chrusostom in the place alleged of the Sacrament, after the words of consecration? or do any of the ancient Fathers write so reverently of the water 
Fox pag. 1233. col. 1. 〈◊〉. 74.  of baptism, which they would have done, and aught to have done, if Christ's body be no otherwise present in this Sacrament, than the holy-Ghost is in that water, as Cranmer oftentimes affirmeth, and namely some few lines after the foresaid places alleged? But Doctor 
5. Argument.  Weston seeing him to decline all the foresaid authorities by this ordinary shift, of the words spiritually and sacramentally, urged him by another way out of the same chrusostom, concerning the honour due to Christ's body upon earth, quod summo honore dignum est id tibi in terra 
Chrysost. hom. 34.  ostendo, etc. I do show thee upon earth, that which is worthy of highest honour, not angels, not archangels, nor the highest heavens, but I show unto thee the Lord of all these things himself. Consider how thou dost not only behold here 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 having received him, returnest home.  
25. Thus S. chrusostom. Out of which place Doctor Weston urged him eagerly, excluding all figures, and eating of Christ's body absent by faith; for that S. chrusostom saith not only Ostendo tibi, I do show unto thee, that which is 
D. Weston doth urge eagerly. urgo hec, urgo h●c.  worthy of highest honour above angels, and archangels, but ostendo tibi in terra, I show it to thee here upon earth, which signifieth the presence of a substance, whereto this highest honour is to be done, and that this thing is seen, touched, & eaten, in the Church, which cannot be a figure, nor the sacramental bread, for that highest honour is not due to them; nor can ut be Christ absent only in heaven, for S. chrusostom saith, I show it thee here on earth, etc. To all which pressings. when Doctor Cranmer had no other thing in effect to answer, but these phrases often repeated; that it is to be understood sacramentally, and, I answer that it is true sacramentally, etc. The hearers fell to cry out, and hiss at him, clapping their hands saith Fox) and calling him, indoctum, imperitum, impudentem, unlearned, unskilful & impudent. And Fox to help out Cranmer in this matter, besides all other excuses, maketh this learned gloss in the margin upon S. Chrysostom's words: Ostendo tibi in terra, etc. I do show unto thee upon earth, what is worthiest of highest honour, to wit, Christ's body. The body of Christ (saith Fox) is showed forth unto us here on earth divers ways, as 
Fox pag. 1233.  in reading scriptures, hearing sermons, and Sacraments, and yet neither scriptures, nor sermons, nor Sacraments are to be worshipped, etc. So he, which is as just as Germans lips. And I would aske● this poor glossist, what maketh this note to the purpose of S. chrusostom? for neither doth he speak of the different ways, whereby Christ's body may be showed forth upon earth, but saith that himself did show it in the Sacrament upon the Altar, to all that would see it. Nor doth he say that the means or ways, whereby Christ's body is showed, are worthy greatest honour or worship, but that the thing that is showed forth, is worthy of highest honour. And how then standeth Fox his gloss with this sense, or whereunto serveth it, but only to show these wreched-mens' obstinacy, that one way or other will break through, when they are hedged in by the father's authorities most plain and manifest.  
26. After this assault given by Doctor Weston, the first opponent Doctor Chadsey returned to 
6. Argument.  deal with Cranmer again, & by issue of talk, 
D. Chadsey.  came to urge these words of Tertullian; Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, ut animade deo 
Tertull. l. de restrict carne●. c. 8.  saginetur. Our flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, to the end that our soul may be fatted with God; which is as much to say, that our mouth doth eat the body of Christ, and our mind thereby receiveth the spiritual fruit thereof. Out of which words D. Weston ●vrged, that seeing our flesh eateth the body of Christ (which cannot eat, but by the mouth) Christ's body is really eaten and received by our mouth, which so often by Cranmer hath been denied, but now his words are: Unto Tertullian I answer, that he calleth that the flesh, which is the Sacrament. Of which answer I cannot understand what meaning it hath, except Fox do er●e in setting it down; for if the flesh be the Sacrament, then must the Sacrament 
Cranmers' shifting of Tertulli●●.  feed on the body and blood of Christ, according to Tertullian which is absurd. But ● suspect that Cranmers' meaning was, that the body of Christ was called the Sacrament, for so he expoundeth himself afterward, when he saith: The flesh liveth by the bread, but the soul is inwardly fed br Christ: so as when Tertullian saith; our flesh is fed by Christ's body and blood, he would have him to mean, that our flesh eateth the sacramental bread and wine, that signifieth or figureth Christ's body and blood, & our soul feedeth on the true body of Christ by faith: but both Doctor Chadsey & Doctor Weston refuted this shift presently by the words immediately ensuing in Tertullian: Non possunt 
Tert. ibid.  ergo separari in mercede, quas opera coniungit: Our body and soul cannot be separated in the reward, whom the same work doth conjoin together; and he meaneth evidently by the same work or operation, the same eating of Christ's body. Wherefore if the one, that is the soul, doth eat Christ's true body, as Cranmer confesseth, than the other, which is our flesh, eateth also the same body as Tertullian saith; and for that Doctor Weston liked well this argument out of Tertullian, and said to Doctor Chadsey, stick to those words of Tertullian, as Fox 
Fox pag. 2305.  affirmeth, it is like that the foresaid tale of urge, urge, feigned of him was meant at this tyme. But if it were, the reader may easily see that he had more to urge against his adversary, than a port at his elbow; and so shall you see by that which is to ensue; wherefore let us pass yet somewhat further in this combat.  
27. Doctor Cranmer having breathed a little 
7. Argument out of S. Hilary.  upon the former sharp onsett of Chadsey and Weston, one Doctor Tressam began very gravely and moderately to urge a new argument and discourse, which seemed very important, and after it was urged, did more strain and press the defendant, than any thing before disputed. The argument was founded upon a place 
D. Tressa●.  of S. Hilary, in his eight book de trinitate against the Arrians, which both for the great at authority and antiquity of the Father, and clearness of his words and reason, seemed to all there present to convince; nor could Doctor Cranmer any way handsomely rid himself of this place, but by his ordinary shifting interpretation, as ptesently shallbe seen. Doctor Tressam his discourse was this, that whereas the like controversy for divers points, had been between the old catholics and Arrians in Saint Billaryes time, as now is between us and Doctor Cranmer, and his fellows, the catholics holding in that controversy, the union of Christ with his Father to be in nature and substance, and the Arrians in will only and affection: whatsoever authorities the said catholics alleged out of scriptures or ancient Fathers, for the natural union between Christ and his Father; I and my Father are one. Such other places: the Arrians shifted of by saying: that is true in will, but not in nature, it is true in love and affection, but not in substance; even as our sacramentaries do now, when we allege never so clear authorities, for the true real nature and substantial presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and thereby of his real union also with us by eating the same; they delude all with saying only; it is true by grace and not by nature; it is true by faith, but no● in substance; it is true figuratively and sacramentally, but not really; it is true in a sign, by a trope; after a certain manner of speech; it is true spiritually, and by a natural property, but not indeed substantially: and such answers; but all these shifts (saith Doctor Tressam) did S. Hilary cut of so long ago, for that he proveth the true natural conjunction of Christ with his Father, by our true natural conjunction with him, by eating his flesh in the Sacrament; so as except we deny the true essential, real and substantial unity of Christ with his Father, we cannot according to S. Hilary deny the true, real and substantial unity of us with Christ, by receiving his true natural flesh in the Sacrament.  
28. The place of S. Hilary is in his 8. book of the blessed Trinity against the Arrians, as hath been said, where he expoundeth these words of Christ in S. john's gospel: As the living Father 
Io●n. 6.  sent me, so do I also live by the Father, and be that eateth my flesh, shall also live throw me: upon which words of our saviour S. Hilary saith: This truly 
Fox pag. 1306.  is the cause of our life, that we have Christ dwelling by his flesh in us, that are fleshy, which also by him shall live in such sort, a● he liveth by his Father. Of which was inferred, that Christ dwelled in us in flesh by the Sacrament, and not only in spirit. For better declaration whereof D. Tressam, before the allegation of these words, allegeth a larger discourse of the same S. Hilary, against the said Arrians upon this point in these words: I demand of them now (saith Hillary) who will needs have the unity of will only between the Father, and the 
Hilar. l. 8. do Trunt.  son, whether Christ be now in us truly by nature, or only by the agreement of wills? If the word be incarnate in very deed, and we receive at the Lords table the word made flesh, how then is he to be thought not to dwell in us naturally, etc. Out of which words of S. Hilary Doctor Tressam urged, that Christ's flesh was not only imparted unto us in faith and spirit, but also really and naturally, according to S. Hilary, and that as his conjunction was natural with his Father, and not in will and love only: so is his conjunction with us in flesh truly natural, substantial, and real, and not only in spirit and faith. For more confirmation whereof, Doctor Tressam alleged also the 
Bucer. l. cont. Abrincensem  words of Martin Bucer, their late Protestant-reader in Cambridge, who writeth that according to the holy father's meaning Christ dwelleth in us (by the body given in the Sacrament) not only by faith and love, as absent, but naturally, corporally, and carnally, etc. To which authority of Bucer Doctor Cranmer gave no other answer but this jest. I know that Master Bucer (saith he) was a learned man, but your faith is in good case which leaneth upon Bucer, etc.  
29. But he could not so easily shake of the authority of Hilary, but was hardly pressed therewith, as you may see reading over the place itself of this disputation, as also by that his advocate john Eox is constrained to make sundry large notes, and glosses in the margin to help him out: For Doctor Tressam urged, that we are not only united to Christ by faith and spirit, but carnally also: whereunto Cranmer seeking an evasion answereth: I say that Christ 
Fox pag. 1306.  was communicated unto us not only by faith, but in very deed also, when he was borne of the Virgin. behold the shift, we talk of Christ imparted to us in the Sacrament, and so doth Hillary; he answereth, that Christ was imparted to us in the incarnation; and yet if you consider, our flesh was then rather imparted to him, then his to us. And again, Turks and infidels have as much conjunction with him by the incarnation as we, for that they are men, & the flesh that he took, was common to all; So as here you see nothing but evasions sought for; and Doctor Tressam perceiving that he could get no more of him to the purpose, fell to pray for him; but Doctor Weston followed the argument much further, as there you may see, for it is overlong to be alleged here. The principal point is, that S. Hilary avoweth: That our conjunction with Christ is not only by will, affection, and faith: but natural also and real, by eating his flesh in the Sacrament, as himself is naturally united to his Father and not only by will. And when Doctor Cranmer sought many holes to run out at, Weston presseth him again with other words of S. Hilary explicating himself, which are these.  
30. These things (saith he) are recited of us to this end, because heretics feigning a unity of will only, between 
Hilar. ibid.  the Father, and the son, did use the example of our unity with God, as though we being united to the son, and by the son to the Father only by obedience, and will of Religion, had no propriety of the natural conjunction by the Sacrament of the body and blood. Lo here it is accounted a point of Arrianisme by S. Hilary, to hold that we are united to Christ only by obedience and will of Relilion, and not by propriety of natural communion with him, by eating his flesh in the Sacrament of his body and blood. Whereupon Doctor Weston urged often and earnestly, that not only by faith, but by the nature of his flesh in the Sacrament, we are conjoined not spiritually only, and by grace, but naturally and corporally; whereunto Cranmers' answer was in these words: I grant that Cyrill and Hilary do say that Christ is united to us, not only by will, but also by nature, he is made one with us carnally and corporally, because he took our nature of the Virgin Mary, etc. Do you see his running from the Sacrament to the nativity; but hear out the end. West. Hilary, where he saith Christ communicated to us his nature, meaneth not by his nativity, but by the Sacrament. Cran. Nay he communicated to us his flesh by his nativity. West. We communicated to him our flesh, 
Fox ibid.  when he was borne. Cran. Nay he communicated to us his flesh when he was borne, & that I will show you out of Cyrill. West. ergò, Christ being borne gave us his flesh. Cran. In his nativity he made us partakers of his flesh. West. Write sirs. Cranm. Yea write. And so ended this Encounter, brought (as you see) to two absurdities on Cranmers' side; the one, that where S. Hilary speaketh of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, he flieth still to the incarnation: the other, that he saith; Christ to have imparted his flesh to us in the incarnation, wherein he took ours. Wherefore Doctor Chadsey seeing the matter in this state, interrupted them by accusing Cranmer to have corrupted this place of S. Hilary, in his book against the real presence translating these words: Nos verè sub mysterio carnen●corporis sui sumimus, we receive under the true mystery the flesh of his body; whereas he should have said: We do receive truly under a mystory (or Sacrament) the flesh of his body; which ●raud Cranmer could by no other ways avoid, but by saying, that his book had Vero and not verè, which john Fox saith was a small fault; and yet you see it altereth all the sense, as if a man should say Pistor for Pastor.  
31. The next conflict to this was between Doctor young, and Doctor Cranmer, wherein young accusing him first for denying of principles, and consequently, that they could hardly go forward with any fruitful disputation, except they agreed upon certain grounds, he made sundry demands unto him, as first, whether there were any other naturally true body of Christ, but his organical or instrumental body? Item whether sense and reason, ought not 
D. young disputeth.  to give place in this mystery to faith? Further, whether Christ be true in his words, & whether he minded to do that, which he spoke at his last supper? And finally, whether his words were effectual, and wrought any thing or no? To all which Doctor Cranmer answered affirmatively, granting that the said words of Christ did work the institution of the Sacrament, whereunto Doctor young replied, that a figurative speech wrought nothing, ergò it was not a figurative speech when he said: Ho●●st corpus meum. And albeit D. Cranmer sought b● two or three struglinges to slip from this inference, saying that it was sophistry, yet both Doctor young and Doctor Weston, who came in still at his turn, said; stick to this argument. It is a figurative speech, ergo it worketh nothing, that quickly they brought Doctor Cranmer in plain words to grant, that a figurative speech worketh nothing: whereof they inferred the contrary again on the other side: A figurative 
Fox pag. 1307. col. 2. num. 30.  speech (say they) worketh nothing by your confession, but the speech of Christ in the supper, as you now granted, wrought somewhat, to wit the institution of the Sacrament, ergo the speech of Christ in the supper was not figurative, which is the overthrow of the foundation of all sacramental building.  
32. And here you must note by the way, that Fox doth not crown the head of this syllogism with any Baroco, or Bocardo in the 
Fox angry with a syllogism.  margin, as he is commonly wont to do with the rest, for that it pleased him not. Wherefore ●o leave him, we shall pass to Doctor Cranmer himself, whose answer you shall hear in his own words: I answer (saith he) that these are mere sophisms, for speech doth not work, but Christ by speech doth work the Sacrament, I look for scriptures at your hands for they are the foundation of ●isputations. So he. And you may see by this his speech, that he was entangled, and would gladly be rid of that he had granted, for that both the mayor and minor propositions were of his own granting, and the syllogism good both in mood and form, though the conclusion troubled both him and Fox, and the refuge whereunto both of them do run in this necessity, the one in the text, the other in the margin, is very fond, sayings that not the speech of Ghrist, but Christ did work, as though any man would say, that a speech worketh, but by the virtue of the speaker: and consequently if Christ do work by a figurative speech, then doth a figurative speech work by his power and virtue, and so wa● it fondy granted by Cranmer before, that the figurative speech of Christ, in instituting the Sacrament (for of that was the question) did not work; and it is a simple evasion now, to run from Christ's speech to Christ himself as though there could be a diversity; every man may see these are but evasions.  
33. But now further Doctor young refuted largely this assertion, that Christ's speech worketh not out of divers and sundry plain testimonies o● the Fathers, which there openly he caused to be read and namely S. Ambrose, as well in hi● book de initiandis, as de Sacramentis, where he handleth this matter of purpose, to prove that the speech of Christ in the Sacrament, to wit● hoc est corpus meum, did work & convert brea● and wine into flesh and blood, and proveth the same by many other examples of scriptures 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 speech of Christ which was able to make of nothing that, which was not before, shall it not be able to change those things that were before, into things that are not? And to the same effect in his book de Sacramentis: Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum; 
Ambr. l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4.  Qui sermo? nempè is, etc. therefore the speech of Christ doth make this Sacrament; but what speech? to wit, that whereby all things were created: the Lord commanded and heaven was made, the Lord commanded & earth was made, the Lord commanded & the seas were made, etc. Vides ergò quàm operatorius sit sermo Christi: si ergò tanta vis est in sermone Domini, ut inci●●rent esse quae non erant; quanto magis operatorius erit, ●● sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur? you see 
S. Ambrose most clear against Cranmer and F●x.  therefore how working the speech of Christ is; & if then there be so much force in the speech of our Lord, as that those things which were not, took their beginning thereby; how much more potent is the same speech in working, that those things which were before, be changed into another? And presently he addeth: the heaven was not, the sea was not, the earth was not, but hear him speak: he said the word, and they were done, he commanded and they were ●●eated; wherefore to answer you I say, that it was not the body of Christ before consecration, but after consecration, I say unto thee, that now it is the body of Christ. So S. Ambrose.  
34. And here now (good reader) I doubt not, but you see the fond evasion of Cranmer and Fox his advocate, clearly refuted by S. Ambrose; where they say, that the speech or words of Christ work not; but Christ by the words; as though there were a great diversity in that point. But now let us see, how they will scamble over this authority of S. Ambrose, that saith expressly, both that the speech of Christ did work potently, and work the conversion of bread and wine into flesh and blood: first Fox hath this note in the margin against S. Ambrose, as though he had miscompared the words of creation, with the words of the institution of the Sacrament. The Lord Jesus (saith Fox) used not here commandment in the Sacrament, as in 
S. Ambrose corrected by Fox.  creation, for we read not Fiat hoc corpus meum, as we read Fiat lux, etc. Do you see the man's subtle observation, or rather simple & sottish cavillation against so grave a Father? The words: Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, employeth somewhat more than Fiat corpus meum: let it be my body; for that it signifieth the thing done already, which the other willeth to be done. And so for this we will leave john Fox to strive with S. Ambrose, about the using or abusing of scriptures alleged by him. And so much of Fox.  
35. But how doth Cranmer himself avoid this plain authority of S. Ambrose, think you? You shall hear it in his own words, for they are very few to so large an authority. All these things (saith he) are common, I say that God doth chief work in the Sacraments. Do you see his brevity and obscurity? but his meaning is, that whereas before he had denied, for a shift, that Christ's words did work, but only Christ by his words (a difference without a diversity) now seeing S. Ambrose so plain to the contrary, in setting forth the working of Christ's words, he seeketh another shift in this answer, which is, that albeit Christ's words do work in the Sacraments, yet Christ chief; as though any controversy were in this, or any man had denied it. But what saith he to the main point, wherein S. Ambrose affirmeth not only 
How Cranmer shifteth of Saint Ambrose.  Christ's words to be Operatoria, workingewords, but that their work is to make bread, the true and natural body of Christ after they be uttered by the Priest? nothing truly in substance doth he answer hereunto, but after his shifts he saith only, that it was called the body of Christ, as the holy-ghost was called the dove, and S. John Baptist was called Elias (which are but bare signs & representations, as every one seethe) hay he goeth again presently from this, which here he had granted, that God worketh in the Sacraments: For when Doctor young urged him thus: If God work in the Sacraments, he worketh in this Sacrament (of the Fucharist) Cranmer answereth: God worketh in his faithful, not in the 
Fox pag. 1308 col. 1. num. 7●.  Sacraments. And thus he goeth forward granting and denying, turning and wyndinge, and yet poor miserable man he would not turn to the truth, nor had grace to acknowledge the same laid before him, but toiled himself in contradictions, endeavouring to shift of most evident authorities of ancient Fathers, by impertinent interpretations. As when Doctor young urged him with those clear words of S. Ambrose: Before the words of Christ be 
Ambr. l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5.  spoken, the chalice is full of wine and water, but when the words of Christ have wrought their effect, then is there made the blood that redeemed the people. Cranmer answered: that the words of Christ wrought no otherwise in this Sacrament, then in baptism. Ambrose said (quoth he) that the blood is made, that is, the Sacrament of the blood is made, fit sanguis the blood is made, that is to say ostenditur sanguis; the blood is showed forth there.  
36. These and such like were Cranmers' sleights to rid himself that day, and yet did not Doctor Chadsey and Weston leave him for these starts, but followed him close with other clear places of S. Ambrose, the one expounding the other. As for example, Fortè dicas, etc. Perhaps 
Ambr. l. 6. de Sacram. cap. 1.  you may say, how are these things true? I which see the similitude, do not see the truth of the blood: First of all I told thee of the word of Christ, which so worketh, that it can change and turn the kinds ordained of nature, etc. And again in another place. Ergo didicisti, etc. therefore thou hast learned that of bread is made the body of Christ, and that wine and water is put into the cup, but by consecration of the heavenly word it is made blood. Sed fortè dices speciem sanguinis non videri, sed habet similitudinem: But perhaps you will say, that the shape or form of blood is not seen; but yet it hath the similitude. So S. Ambrose, and for that he saith, as you see, that albeit the blood after consecration, hath not the show or form of true blood; yet hath it similitude, (for that the form of wine cometh nearest to the likeness of blood) hereof Cranmer laying hands, could not be drawn from affirming that S. Ambrose meaning is, that it is not true natural blood after the consecration, but beareth a similitude only, representation, or ●ipe thereof, which is quite contrary to S. Ambrose his whole drift and discourse, if you consider it out of passion.  
37. After these bicker about S. Ambrose, were urged against him, by the two Doctors, Chadsey and Weston, divers other Fathers, as justinus Martyr above 14. hundred years gone, 
The testimony of S. Justine examined.  who in his Apology for Christians writeth: that as by the word of God, Jesus Christ our saviour being made flesh, had both flesh, and blood for our salvation: so are ●e taught, that the meat consecrated by the word of prayer instituted by him (whereby our blood 
justin. Apol. 2.  and flesh are nourished by communion) is the flesh and blood of the same Jesus, that was made flesh. Out of which place they urged; that as Christ is truly and really incarnate, so is he truly and really in the Sacrament, according to S. Justinus, and that our flesh and blood is nourished by that communion, and consequently in Saint Justinus time, it was not held that Christ's body was received only by faith.  
38. The words of Saint Irenaeus were urged in like manner, he being another Martyr of the same age with S. Justine, who writeth thus: Eum calicem, qui est ex creatura, suum corpus confirmavit, 
Iren. lib. 5. cap. 2. cont. haeres.  ex quo nostra auget corpora, etc. This is the cup, which being a creature, he confirmed to be his body, by which he increaseth our bodies, when both the cup mixed & the bread broken, hath joined to it the word of God, it is made the Eucharist of the body & blood of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is increased and consisteth. By which words the said Doctors proved, that the flesh and blood of Christ was otherwise held by S. Irenaeus to be in the Sacrament, and received by us, than only by faith, seeing our bodies also are nourished therewith; yea the very substance of our flesh is increased and consisteth thereby, as his words are. To all which Cranmer had no other answer, but his old shift, that the Sacrament of the body and blood, was called the flesh and blood of Christ though really it be not. And from this he could not be drawn: And so finally the time drawing late, they urged him there 
divers corruptions objected to Cranmer.  publicly with certain falsities, used in his book against the real presence, and besides those that had been objected before, as for example. Doctor Chadsey objected a manifest corruption in translating the foresaid place of S. Justine, which Cranmer excused no otherwise, but that he translated not Justine word 
Fox pag. ●309.  for word, but only gave the meaning; but the other, as also Doctor Harpesfield, showed that he perverted the whole meaning, and so it is evident to him that readeth Justine.  
39 Doctor Weston objected a place corrupted in Emissenus by putting in the word spiritualibus, Cranmer answered, that it was so in the decrees, Doctor Weston replied, that he had left out divers lines of purpose, which made against him in Emissenus for the real presence, Cranmer answereth: this book hath not that. Weston objected another place falsified, where for Honora corpus Dei tui, honour the body of thy God, to wit of Christ, Cranmer had translated it thus: honour him which is thy God. whereto he answered, that he did it not without a weighty cause, that men should not think that God had a body. Doctor Weston objected also, that alleging a sentence out of Scotus, he had left out a clause, that made much to the purpose in the matter handled, to wit secundum apparentiam, as may appear. Cranmer answered jestingly: that is a great offence I promise you. Another place in like manner was objected, as perverted by him in Scotus words, as also one or two in S. Thomas, Aquinas, whereto I find no answer; but disputation is broken up with this cry of the auditory, in favour of the Catholic party, vicit veritas, the truth hath had the victory; and with this we shall also end this first disputation against Cranmer, having been forced to be longer than we purposed at the beginning, & therefore we shallbe so much the shorter, if 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 wit, the 17. of April 1554. §. 3.  
40. The next day following (saith Fox) was brought forth Doctor Ridley to defend in the same questions of the r●all presence, Transubstantiation, and Sacrifice; against whom Doctor Smith was the first and principal opponent, for which cause Fox, before he beginneth 
D. Smith opponent.  to relate the combat, maketh a particular invective against him, for that he had been unconstant in Religion, the simple fellow not considering that if it had been true; yet that the same might be objected with much more reason, against these his chief champions, Cranmer, Ridley and Latymer, that had been Catholic Priests for many years together; But Fox his great anger against Doctor Smith was, ●on that he pressed hardly B. Ridley in his disputation, and so did Doctor Weston also, as after you shall see, for that upon all occasions he came in with Urge hoc, urge hoc; but for the rest Ridley was most courteously used by them both and offered to have his opinions taken in writing, and that he should have space till saturday after to consider of them, and that what books soever he would demand, should be delivered to him, and that he might 
Two notaries chosen.  choose any two of the whole company to be his several notaries, and he took Master John jewel afterward made B. of Salisbury by Q. Elizabeth, 
Fox pag. 1311.  and Master Gilbert Monson, that had been notaries unto B. Cranmer the day before.  
41, But the greatest difference, and difficulty fell out, for that Ridley having brought thither with him his opinion, and large explication thereof already written, would needs read the same openly to the whole auditory, which was penned in such bitter, spiteful & blasphemous terms, with such abominable scoffs, and railing contemptuous speech, against the sacred mysteries, and the use thereof, as the commissionars were oftentimes forced to interrupt him, and command him to silence, or to begin disputation, neither whereof would he do, but with an obstinate face go forward in reading his declarations, whereupon, Doctor Weston calling unto him said, as Fox relateth: You utter blasphemies with 
Fox pag. 1312.  an impudent face. Wherefore finally they made him break of, promising that they would read & ponder all themselves, not being convenient to infect men's ears with public reading thereof, 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 overthrowing that principal foundation of the Sacramentary heresies Christ's body is inheaven, ergò it is not in the Sacrament. whereof you have heard often before, for that both Peter Martyr alleged it, as a 
The first argument about Christ's being in many places.  chief fortress of their faith, though Philipp Melancthon, that is a Calendar-saint together with Peter Martyr, as before you have heard, did say, that he had rather offer himself up to death, then to affirm with the sacramentaries, that Christ's body cannot be but in one place at once. And this was 
See of Melancthon supra mens● Decomb.  a principal ground also of john Lambert, burned for Sacramentary opinions under K. Henry the eight, against whom Doctor Cranmer, than Archbishopp of Canterbury, was the first and chiefest disputer after the King, and specially took upon him to confute this reason of Lambert as vain and false, and contrary to scripture, as before you have heard in the story of Lambert. And the same reasons, and arguments, which Cranmer used against Lambert out of the scriptures, doth Doctor Smith use now against Ridley, to wit that Christ appeared corporally and really on earth, after his ascension, to S. Paul and others, ergò, his being in heaven is no l●t to his real presence in the Sacrament. The antecedent he 
Act. 9 & 26.  proved out of the Acts of the Apostles, and S. Paul's Epistles, where it is showed, that Christ appeared unto him after his ascension; but Ridley did not answer this argument, as Lambert, and other sacramentaries before him had done, denying that Christ appeared corporally and really upon earth, but rather that his voice was heard from heaven, but he said, that Christ left heaven for a time, and came down. I do not (saith he) so straightly tie Christ up to heaven, that he may not come into earth at 
Fox pag. 1314. col. 2. num. 28.  his pleasure, howbeit I do affirm, that it is not possible for him to be in earth and heaven at one tyme. So he, whereunto Doctor Smith replied: ergò it is lawful for Christ to be here present on earth when he will. Ridley. Yea when he will it is lawful. Smith. Ergò his ascending to heaven, doth not restrain his real presence in the Sacrament. Ridley. I do not gainsay, but that it is lawful for him to appear on earth, when he will, but prove you that he will.  
43. Lo here another starting hole: but yet first you see the great Sacramentary bulwark, so much stood upon by others, that 
Matth. 14. Act. 3. Coloss. 3.  Christ is in heaven at the right hand of God, and that the heavens must receive him, until the day of judgement, and consequently cannot be upon earth or in the Sacrament; is quite forsaken by Ridley, granting that this argument proveth nothing: he is ascended to heaven, ergò, he is not on earth; for he may leave heaven and come down, according to Ridley. Yea Ridleyes own principal ground is forsaken by him, for that among his five principal grounds and headsprings (for so he calleth them) set down by him in his Cambridge disputation, 
* Fox pag▪ 1261.  why he did incline to this sentence and judgement, (for then he was but inclining) the last was (if you remember) the most sure belief of the article of our faith, he ascended into heaven, which now you see may stand without this doctrine. Secondly, whereas he denieth that Christ will departed from heaven at any time, saying: prove you if he will, yet very soon after being pressed by Doctor Smith out of the scriptures, that Christ after his ascension was seen visibly, really, and corporally upon earth, he answered in these words: I grant the antecedent; (that is Christ did appear on earth). Smith. Do you grant the antecedent? Ridley. Yea I grant the antecedent, because I know that there be certain ancient Fathers of that opinion. here you see that Ridley, by granting this antecedent, to wit, that Christ after his ascension, did appear really and corporally upon earth, either doth contradict himself, when he denied before, that Christ would ever come out of heaven (notwithstanding he could) or else he must grant, that Christ appeared upon earth against his will, or without his own will, which were a greater absurdity, than any of the other.  
44. And furthermore he contradicteth himself again, in that he said a little before, that Christ may leave heaven, and come down into earth when he will: For being asked by Doctor Smith this question: Doth Christ so sit at the right hand of his Father, that he doth never foresake the same? Ridley answereth in these words: If you understand his sitting to be after a corporal manner of sitting, so is he always permanent in heaven: Which if it be true, then is that false which before he said, 
Fox pag. 1315. col. 1. 〈◊〉. 40.  that Christ's body is not so tied to heaven, but that he may come down into the earth when he will. And much more false is it, that Christ did really and corporally appear upon earth to Saint Paul, and others as a little before he granted: so as by these you may see the briers wherinto Ridley was driven about this argument.  
45. The third point to be noted in these inconstant speeches of Ridley, is, that it is not possible for Christ's body to be in heaven and earth at one time; and yet when we urge them with impiety for laying impossibilities to God's omnipotency, they will presently run to that answer, as Ridley also afterward doth: that they dispute not what God can do, but what he will do. wherefore to return to our disputation; when Doctor Weston heard him talk of this impossibility, & that Christ if he would appear in earth, must leave heaven, he took upon him to convince this falsity, out of two authorities, the one of S. chrusostom, the other of S. Bernard. S, chrusostom his place, is upon the Epistle to the Hebrues, talking of the daily external sacrifice of Christians, offered throughout the world in many churches at once, saith thus; una est haec oblatio, non multae, etc. 
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 up in sancto sanctorum (to wit, upon the cross) notwithstanding is offered by us daily? This sacrifice (which daily we offer) is a pattern of that (once offered on the cross) and always we offer the self-same, not offering now one lamb, and to morrow another, but always the self-same; wherefore here is but one sacrifice, for that otherways by this means, if there be many sacrifices in many places, there should be many Christ's, which is not so, but one Christ in all places; qui & hic plenius, & illic plenus, unum corpus, which Christ is fully here, and fully there, being but one body, etc.  
46. Out of which place Doctor Weston did urge B. Ridley very straightly, who first, would seem to make light of the place, saying: these things make nothing against me: but Weston urged: how say you then, one Christ is in all places, here fully, and there fully. Ridley. One Christ is in all places, but not one body is in all places, etc. And this evasion pleaseth so much john Fox, as he writeth in the margin, one Christ, but not one body in all places, as though Christ could be separated from his body, or as though S. chrusostom did not expressly talk of one body: Hear Christ fully, and there Christ fully one body; and the very next words of chrusostom immediately following are these; even as then Christ offered in many places, is one body, and not many bodies, so is the sacrifice also but one. But let us hear Doctor Weston urge the same: Weston. One body saith chrusostom. Ridley. But not after the manner of bodily substance he is in all places; not by circumscription of places: for hic & illic, here and there in chrusostom do assign no place as Augustine saith: Sursum est Dominus, & ubique est veritas Domini. The Lord is above, but the truth of the Lord is in all places. Weston. You cannot so escape, Saint chrusostom saith, not the verity of Christ is one, but one Christ is in all places both here and there. Ridley. One sacrifice is in all places, because of the unity of him, whom the sacrifice doth signify, not that the sacrifices be all one and the same.  
47. Mark now here gentle reader, what 
An observation of Ridley's shifts upon one place only of S. chrusostom.  it is to dispute with these people, that seek after nothing but shifts & holes to run out at, or stipp away? Consider how many they be upon this only place. For first when Ridley was pressed with S. Chrysostom's authority, as you have heard, proving evidently, that Christ could be at one time in divers places, his first shift was, that it maketh nothing 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 again it being showed, that S. chrusostom speaketh expressly of Christ's body, the next shift was, that his body is not there after the ordinary manner of bodily presence, to wit, by circumscription of place, which is quite from the purpose, for that we hold this also, as before you have heard in the fifth & sixth observations, to wit, that Christ is not circumscriptively in the Sacrament. And further it is another absurd shift, or rather ignorance in Ridley (and may be the fift or sixth about this matter) to affirm as here he doth, that Christ's body is not by circumscription everywhere, or in all places: for we hold also, not only, that which he saith, by circumscription, but that no ways, either circumscriptively, or definitively, or sacramentally is Christ's body everywhere, but only in many distinct places, by God's omnipotent will. The other of ubiquity being a property of God's divinity only to be in every place at one time, as before we have showed. And lastly to follow Ridley and his riddles no further about this matter, the words of S, Augustine are foolishly alleged by him; that the Lord is above, but the truth of the Lord is in all places: For as Doctor Weston well noteth and telleth him, we talk not here, how the Lords truth is everywhere, but whether Christ's body be in divers places or no: for Christ's truth is everywhere, where his faith grace or power is, but not his body. And albeit his truth admit not the circumstances or proprieties of places sursum and deorsum, yet his body doth: which Ridley considered not, when he brought this example, but only desired to say somewhat, though never so much from the purpose.  
48. And the like shifts he showeth in his last answer about this place of S. chrusostom, when Doctor Weston urging, that one Christ and one body is in all places wheresoever his sacrifices are offered, he answereth not to the words of Saint chrusostom at all, but saith only at random, that one sacrifice is in all places (S. chrusostom saith one body) because of the unity of him whom the sacrifice doth signify, which is as much to say in his sense, as the sacrifice being but a sign or signification of Christ that is one, is multiplied in divers places. And what great miracle is this I pray you, to multiply many figures in divers places of one thing, who may not do so? and yet Saint chrusostom s●●teth it down for a wonderful strange and admirable matter, that one Christ the self-same lamb, one body, fully here and fully there, should be offered at one time in many places, which miracle in Doctor Ridley's sense is both easy and no miracle at all, and so much about this place of Saint chrusostom.  
49. The second authority out of S. Bernard is in these words: unde hoc nobis pijssime jesu, etc. 
Bern. s●r●●, de Cana D●●●.  How cometh this unto us, o most pious jesus, that we silly worms creeping on the face of the earth, that are but dust and ashes, should deserve to have 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 hour, from the rising of the sun, unto the going down thereof, art present one and the self-same in many and divers places, etc. To this place D. Ridley gave divers answers: First (saith he) these words of Bernard make nothing for you at all. This is very confidently spoken as you see, no less then to the place of S. chrusostom before; and I believe he will not stand long unto it: For if Saint Bernard doth mean as he saith, he must needs make much for us in the words now recited, wherein I refer me to the judgement of the reader. Wherefore Master Ridley not trusting much to this answer, passeth to his second saying: I know that Bernard was in such a 
Fox pag. 1315.  time, that in this matter he may worthily be suspected. So he. And yet lest he might seem to lose some credit in rejecting S. Bernard, he hath a third answer thus: notwithstanding (saith he) I will so expound him rather than reject him, that 〈◊〉 shall make nothing for you at all. Lo here his last cast; and this he learned of his Master Caluyn, not so much to reject in words the Fathers, as Luther did, but rather by false and crafty interpretation, slightly to avoid them, which indeed is not humility but double impiety; and more impious to the Fathers themselves, then to be utterly denied, for by this means they are made coadjutors of heretics: let us hear then S. Bernard expounded by Ridley to his purpose: S. Bernard (quoth he) saith, that we have Christ in a mystery, in a Sacrament, under a veil or cover; in the mean time here now he saith, that the verity of Christ is everywhere. So he. And is not Ridley ridiculous here? let the reader compare S. Bernard's words before alleged, with this exposition of Ridley, and he will say that the commentary hitteth as right the text, as the blynd-fold-man doth hit the hens head on the ground, when his face is another way from her. And thus much of Doctor Ridleye● three answers to this place of Saint Bernard.  
50. After this Doctor Smith urged him again with another place of S. chrusostom, where he 
Another place of S. chrusostom urged about Elias.  making a comparison, between Elias the Prophett and Christ, saith, that Elias left his cloak to Elizeus with his double spirit, when he went up to heaven; but Christ did much more miraculously, for that he left us his flesh in the Sacrament, and yet took the same up 
Chrysost. hom. 2. ad Pop. An●●ch.  with him: Helias quidem melotcm discipulo reliquit; filius autem Dei ascendens, suam nobis carnem dimisit; Helias quidem exutus, Christus autem & nobis reliquit, & ipsam habens ascendit. Elias indeed at his departure, left his cloak or hearcloth unto his disciple Elizeus; but the son of God ascending up to heaven left his own flesh unto us: Elias left his cloak, but Christ both left unto his his flesh & yet carried the same with him. Which plain place when Ridley went about to delude, as he had done other former places, by saying that Chrysostom's meaning was, that he left his flesh upon earth not really and substantially, but to be received after a spiritual communication, by grace, adding this example: as we also (quoth he) by hearing the gospel, and by faith: So as by this answer we have Christ's flesh no otherwise present by means of the Sacrament, than we have him present by hearing the gospel, or by believing in him, which is to evacuate wholly the speech & comparison of S. chrusostom. Wherefore to overthrow this shift, Doctor Smith alleged another plain place of the same chrusostom in confirmation of this where he saith: O miraculum! O Dei benignitatem! qui sur sum sedet, 
Chrysost. l. 3. de. Sac●rdoti●.  tempore sacrificis hominum mantbus continetur, etc. O miracle! o goodness of God that he which sitteth above, is contained in men's hands in the time of the sacrifice. But all this would not serve, for he avoided this as he had done the other, saying: he that sitteth there (to wit in heaven) is here present in mystery and by grace, and is holden of the godly, etc. And finally though there were divers boots in this matter, yet could nothing be gotten more.  
51. But to this sense, Doctor Smith, Doctor Seton, Doctor Harpesfield and Doctor Weston, urged him much about the place, ask him where was the miracle, if Christ left his flesh here only in mystery and by faith; how could the comparison stand between Helias and Christ? for Christ must do more than Elias; Elias left his mantle and could not carry it up with him, Christ not only left his flesh, but carried up the same, ergò he left the same that he carried up, etc. But he carried up his true and natural flesh, ergò he left the same; to all which he answered again: He took up his flesh with him to heaven, and left here the communion of his flesh on earth. With which shifting answer Doctor Weston being moved, began after his fashion to urge the matter earnestly saying: you understand 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 it evident how blockish and gross your answer is: As Elias left his cloak (saith S. chrusostom) so the son of God left his flesh; but Elias left his true substantial 
Chrysost. hom. 2. ad Pop. Antioch.  cloak, ergò Christ left his true substantial flesh: and herein he spoke in English. Ridly. I am glad you speak in English, and surely I would wish all the world might understand your reasons and my answers: Reliquit nobis carnem, Christ left unto us his flesh. This you understand of flesh, and I understand of grace: he carried his flesh to heaven, and left behind him the communion of his flesh unto us. Weston. Ye judges what think you of this, answer judges. judges. It is a ridiculous, and very fond answer. Ridley. well I will take your words patiently for Christ's sake.  
52. And this was the end of the controversy about this place of S. chrusostom, to wit, that we must take grace for flesh, and when Christ is said to have left his flesh here with us, we must understand his grace: Yet Doctor Weston alleged also another place out of the same Father, where he saith: Spargimur, etc. We are sprinkled with the very self-same blood, 
Fox pag. 1317. col. 1, num. 80.  that Christ carried up with him, etc. whereunto Ridley answered after his fashion: it is the same blood, but spiritually received. Then urged he Sain● Bernard's words again; the self-same Christ is present wholly in divers places, even from the west to the east, from the north to the south, etc. whereto Ridley answered; that God according to his majesty and providence, as S. Augustine saith, is everywhere with the faithful, and so must Bernard be expounded. Do you see this exposition? Read Saint Bernard's words before set down, and you shall see, that he speaketh of Christ, as sitting in heaven, and yet present wholly in the priest's hands, etc. And not of his majesty & providence, whereby he is everywhere, as before hath been declared: So as this is not to expound, but to confound the Fathers, and I think verily that Ridley was much troubled, when he gave such impertinent answers and expositions.  
53. And with this would I pass over this whole strife about Saint Chrysostom's places of Elias, but that I must let you know, that there had been some years before, a great stir and altercation in the convocation-house about the same, for that Philpott hearing that place alleged against him, as his fashion was, vaunted wonderfully, that this being the Papists chief and principal foundation, he would so beat them from it, and (as Fox addeth) give such a pluck at it, as it should never serve their turn more: and when it came to the trial, he said that he had two ways to beat them from it: The first was, that Christ going up to heaven carried his own flesh with him, and e●t the same behind him, in that he left us behind him, 
Two plucks of Philpott praised by Fox.  that are flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones. This is the first blow and pluck, whereby you see, that Christ's progative 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 us, though his own were burned in Smithfield. And finally S. chrusostom speaketh expressly of the Sacrament of the Altar, saying: that therein Christ left his flesh, but he did not leave all mankind in that Sacrament; wherefore this first pluck is to small purpose. But let us see his second.  
54. The second is, that Christ (saith he) lest his flesh in the mysteries, that is sacramentally; and that this mystical flesh, Christ leaveth as well in the Sacrament of baptism, as in the sacramental bread & wine. So he. Wherein (if you mark) he giveth not only the ordinary old pluck of other sacramentaries, to the verity of Christ's flesh, making that mystical, which S. chrusostom speaketh expressly of the natural flesh left by him, and thereby plucketh out of joint all Saint Chrysostom's whole meaning and discourse, 
The absurdities of Philpott.  but giveth a new pluck also to the whole Sacrament of the Eucharist, affirming Christ's flesh to be as much in baptism, as in the other, & consequently that both Saint chrusostom, and other Fathers, do in vain trouble themselves, with so much extolling the excellency of the Eucharist for having Christ's flesh in it, for that the water of baptism hath the same, & so you see the whole Sacrament plucked up by these plucks of Philpott, and yet (saith Fox) that he did shrewdly shake our real presence, 
Fox pag. 1294.  by giving such a pluck to one of our chief foundations. you see how one of these men do flatter the other.  
55. Next to this entered one Master Ward to dispute that had been Philpotts reader, and seeing 
M. Ward disputeth.  D. Ridley to have doubted so much in granting and denying Christ's body to have appeared upon earth, as in the former disputations of Doctor Smith, you have partly heard, though much be omitted for brevities sake, he began to urge him again in that point, alleging against him the authority of a catechism 
Fox pag. 1317.  set forth by himself, in the name of the whole convocation-house in K. Edward's days, where the self-same point is granted, which here he denied; but Ridley for two or three about, would not yield that the catechism was his, though the judges said that Cranmer had confessed the matter the day before, and Master Ward avouched to his face, that he being Bishop of London, & in his ruff, compelled him to subscribe thereunto; yet at length he confessed, that both he and Cranmer had approved the same under their hands, & that the place alleged against him, might easily be expounded without any inconvenience; and so they 'slid away from that matter, and a place of Theophilact came in question, where he writeth, 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 saying his meaning to be, that it was not only a figure of his body. whereunto Doctor Weston replied, that this only was one lie put in by him, for that Theophilact had no such word, nor could it stand with his sense, for that he did not make the opposition between figure, and only, but between the body and figure, saying; it was his body, and not a figure of his body. And for proof of this, another place of Theophilact was alleged upon Saint John, where his words are: 
Theoph. in ●ap. 6. Joan.  quoniam infirmi sumus, etc. for that we are infirm, and abhor to eat raw-flesh especially the flesh of man, therefore it appeared bread, but is flesh: what can be more plain, and perspicuous than this? and yet do I not find any answer to have been given by Doctor Ridley to this place, but that he passed to another matter, to expound the word Transelemented used by Theophilact. And I pass over divers other places, as that of Tertullian, acceptum panem corpus suum illud fecit: he 
Tert. lib. 4. cont. Martion.  taking bread made yt his body; and that of justinus Martyr, saying: That Christ's flesh in the Sacrament, is the same that was taken of the blessed Virgin. 
just. Mart. in Ap●l. 2.  And that of S. Augustine upon the psalm; 
Aug. in Psalm. 96.  that he gave us to eat the self same flesh, wherein he walked upon earth. All which places being objected before to Cranmer, and read both then & now out of the authors themselves, by Doctor Weston that had the books by him, were no otherwise answered here, then by the same shifts which Cranmer had avoided them before, it appearing evidently that they had agreed upon certain distinctions, and common evasions, whereby to delude all the father's authorities that might be brought against them, though they were never so clear or pregnant for the purpose.  
56. It followeth, that by order of disputation the turn came to Doctor Glyn to dispute against Doctor Ridley, who made (saith Fox) a very contumelious preface against him, which Ridley 
D. Glyns argument about worshipping the Sacrament.  took the more to heart, for that he had always taken him to be his friend. And albeit Fox doth not set down the same preface, yet by Doctor Glyns entrance to his argument, a man may see, that the chief point was in reprehending him, for deluding and shifting of both scriptures and fathers so shamefully, as he had heard him do, for he saith: I see that you evade or shift away 
Fox pag. 1319.  all scriptures & fathers. And Ridley answered: this is a grievous contumely, that you call me a shifter, etc. And finally Doctor Glyn endeavoured to draw him to yield to the Catholic Church, which being the pillar of truth, could not be thought to have fallen to such Idolatry, as for many ages to have worshipped erroneously bread and wine, for the flesh and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and for proof thereof he alleged Saint Augustine against Faustin the Manichec, where he saith, that this use of adoring Christ's body in the Sacrament, was so ancient and public, as some pagans did think that Christians 
Aug. cont. Faust. Manich l. 20. cap. 13.  did adore Ceres and Bacchu● the Gods of bread and wine. He alleged 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 use before the time of S. Augustins and S. Cyprian; which is not so in the Sacrament of baptism, though Ridley affirm there is as much the flesh of Christ, as in the other, and consequently, there is some special cause in the Eucharist above other Sacraments. To which two authorities I find nothing answered particularly; (as neither to Erasmus) but to the thing itself Ridley answered: We do handle the signs reverently, etc. And again: There is a deceit in this word Adoramus, we adore, for we worship the symbols, when reverently we handle them: we worship wheresoever we perccave benefits. whereunto Doctor Glyn answered: So I might fall down before the bench here, and worship Christ therein, etc. For a bench also is a beneficial creature to them that sit on it. But for all this no further satisfaction could be had, but that all the ado which the Fathers do make, about the highest honour in earth to be given to the Sacrament of the Altar, comes to no more by these men's interpretations; but that the signs of bread and wine must be reverently handled, & Christ absent must be worshipped therein, as in other things, wherein we perceive or receive his benefits: which indeed are all his creatures made & ordained for our profit, for by them all, we perceive & receive Christ's benefits: So as all these great admirations of the Fathers, about the honour, worship & adoration due to this Sacrament, come to no more in effect, but that we must reverence Christ therein, as in other his beneficial creatures, and worship the symbol of bread and wine, as much as you do the water in baptism: which yet never any of the Fathers said was to be adored by us (as they do of the Eucharist) though baptism be a most necessary and profitable Sacrament.  
57 Then disputed one Doctor Curtopp, alleging 
D. Curtopp argued.  a place out of S. chrusostom, affirming: that which is in the cup, or chalice, to be the same blood (after the words of consecration) that flowed 
Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10.  from the side of Christ, whereof he inferred, that true and natural blood did flow from the side of Christ, ergò true and natural blood was in the chalice. To this Ridley answered in effect 
Fox pag. 1319.  after his old fashion, that it was true blood, that is to say, the Sacrament of his blood. Curtopp. The Sacrament of the blood is not the blood. Ridley. The Sacrament of the blood, is the blood, and that is attributed to the Sacrament, which is spoken of the thing of the Sacrament. At which answer D. Weston being moved, as it seemed, argued in English (saith Fox) thus: That which is in the chalice is the same that flowed out of Christ's▪ side, but there came out very true blood, ergò there is very true blood in the chalice. Ridley. The blood of Christ is in the chalice in deed, but not in the real presence, but by grace and in a Sacrament. Weston. That is very well; then we have blood in the chalice. Ridley. It is true, but by grace, and in a Sacrament; and here the people hissed at him, (saith Fox) whereat Ridley said: O my masters I take this for no judgement, I will stand to God's judgement. This was his last refuge and further than this, nothing could be had at his hands.  
58. There rose up after this Doctor Watson, 
D. Watson disputeth.  who after a long altercation with Ridley, whether after consecration the Sacrament might be called true bread: Ridley alleged this place of S. Paul. The bread which we break, is it not a communication 
1. Cor. 11.  of the body of Christ? As though it had made for him. But Watson brought S. Chrysostom's exposition: Quare non dixit participationem etc. Wherefore did not S. Paul say here, that it is the participation (of Christ's body) but the communication? 
Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 11.  because he would signify some greater matter, & that he would declare a great convenience between the same, for that we do not communicate by participation only & receiving, but by co-uniting or union; for even as the body is counited to Christ; so also are we by the same bread conjoined and united to him. Out of which place of S. chrusostom, it appeareth evidently, that his bele●fe was; that as his body and flesh was really united to his person, so are we unto him in flesh, by eating the same in the Sacrament, which is another manner of union then by faith and general only. But to this let us hear Ridley's answer in his own words: Ridleye. Let chrusostom have his manner of speaking, and his sentence, if it be true, I reject it 
Fox pag. 1320.  not, but let it not be prejudicial to me, to name it bread. So he. And thus was S. chrusostom shifted of, neither admitted, nor fully rejected; but if he spoke truly, than was he to be credited, which was a courteous kind of rejection; for Ridley would have the reader believe, that he spoke not truly. And so much for him.  
59 And so when nothing more could be gotten by Doctor Watson from Master Ridley in this argument, Doctor Smith stepped in to him again, and urged a place of S. Augustine upon the thirty and third psalm: Ferebatur in manibus suis, etc. He was carried in his own hands, applied by S. Austen to Christ: his words are: Hoc quo modo fieri possit in homine, quis intelligat? 
1. Reg. 21.  Who can understand how this can be done by a man? for that no man is borne by his own hands, but by other men's hands, neither can we find how this 
Aug. in Psalm. 33▪ contion. 1.  was fulfiled literally in K. David, but by Christ we find it fulfiled, for that Christ was borne in his own hands, when he said this is my body, for he did become that body in his own hands, etc. And again in another sermon upon the same place, he repeateth again the very same thing saying: How was Christ borne in his own hands? for that when he did 
Aug. ibid. cont. 2. ●●  commend unto us his body and blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful knew, and so he bore himself after a certain manner, when he said this is my body. Out of which places appeareth evidently, that S. Augustine believed, that Christ after the words of consecration uttered, did bear his own body in his hands, and that this in his judgement was so miraculous a thing, as neither King David, nor any other mortal man could do it, but only Christ, which yet is not so in a figure (for every man may bear a figure of his own body in his hands) and furthermore it is clear by these authorities, and by those words (nôrunt fideles) that this was the belief by all faithful people of S. Austin's tyme. Which argument being much urged against Master Ridley, both by Doctor Smith and others, he sought to decline the force thereof dyvers-wayes, as saying first; that S. Augustine went from others in this exposition, (but yet named none) and then, that this place of scripture was read otherwise of other men, according to the hebrew text, & other like evasions, which yet prove not (as you see) but that Saint Austen was of this opinion and belief himself, (which is the question in this place) and after all this he passed to his ordinary refuge, that Christ bore himself sacramentally only, and not otherwise; laying hands, for some show of reason, upon the word quodammodò used in the second place by S. Austen, that is, after a certain manner. And when it was replied to him, that S. Austen used that word, to show the different manner of his being in the Sacrament, and out of the Sacrament, but that otherways all parts and circumstances of S. Austin's speech do show, that he believed Christ to have holden really, and truly his own body and flesh in his hands, they could get no other answer from him but this: He did bear himself, but in a Sacrament. 
Fox pag. 1321.  whereat men marveling, Doctor Smith said: You are holden fast, nor are ye able to escape out of this labyrinth. And then began Doctor Tressam to pray for him with a solemn prayer, which being ended he said: If there were an Arrian here that had this subtle wit, that you have, he might soon shift of the scriptures, and Fathers as you do. whereat Doctor Weston, seeming unwilling that time should be spent in praying and not in disputing, said: either dispute, or hold your peace I pray you. And with this they passed to another disputation, whether evil men do receive the true body of Christ or not: But S. Austin's authority of bearing himself in his hands, gatt no other solution, but that Christ bore himself in his hands, that is the figure or representation of himself, which neither David, nor other mortal man could do: At which absurdity most of the audience did laugh.  
60. But concerning the other questions, whether evil men do receive Christ, Doctor Tressam 
D. Tressam disputeth.  brought two or three places out of S. Austen concerning Judas, that he eat the true body of Christ, as the other Apostles did, and then again of wicked men in general: Quia aliquis 
Aug. lib ●. count D●nat. cap. ●.  non ad salutem manducat, non ideò non est corpus: because some do not eat to salvation, it followeth not therefore, that it is not his body: but to all this Master Ridley answered by his former shift, that it is the body to them, that is, the Sacrament of the body. Do you see the fond evasion? there was no doubt or question whether evill-men did eat the Sacrament, or external form, (for every man doth eat that, when they receive) but the question was and is of the true body: and therefore when Saint Austen speaketh of this body, it is madness to understand it of any other thing, than the real body. But let us hear what was replied: Doctor Weston said: I bring Theophilact against you: Judas (saith he) gustavit carnem Domini: Judas did eat or taste the flesh of Christ. Ridley. 
Fox ibid. num. 49.  That is the Sacrament of the Lords flesh. Doctor Watson replied out of the council of Nice: Exaltata mente fideliter credamus, iacere in illa sacramensa 
Council Nico● primum tit. de divina m●nsa, etc. vlt●m. editionis.  agnum Dei tollentem peccata mundi, a sacerdotibus sacrificatum. Let us faithfully believe with an exalted mind, that there lieth in the holy table the lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, which is sacrificed by the Priests. Ridley. That council was collected out of ancient Fathers, and is to me of great authority, etc. 
Fox ibid.  the words make for me: the lamb of God is in heaven according to the verity of the body, and here he is with us in a mystery according to his power, not corporally. Watson. But the lamb of God lieth on the table. Ridley. It is a figurative speech, for in our mind we understand him which is in heaven. Watson. But he lieth there, the Greek word is KEÎTA. Ridley. He lieth there, that is, he is there present, not corporally, but he lieth there in his operation, etc. And by this 
Fox pag. 1321.  you may see, to what purpose it was to dispute with this man; for that God by his power and operation is every where, and in every creature. And if Christ be no otherwise here, but by his power and operation, as in baptism, what an impertinency is this of the council of Nice, to use so many and significant words, that we must faithfully believe with a high mind and courage, against sense and reason, that the lamb of God lieth 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 signs, figures, representations and symbols?  
61. Lastly to skipp over divers other things, Doctor Weston pressed him with two other places of S. chrusostom, so clear, as nothing can be spoken more clearer. The first is in these words: we worship the selfe● same body in the eucharist which the wise men did worship in the manger. And then again: we have not here the Lord in the manger, but on the Altar; here a woman 
Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. ad Cor.  holdeth him not in her hands, but a Priest. These are the words. Let us hear his answer. Ridley. I grant the Priest holdeth the same thing, but after another manner. She did hold the natural body, the Priest holdeth the mystery of the body. So he. And Fox writeth in the margin. The s●me thing, 
Fox pag. 1322.  but the manner diverse. But who seethe not, that our contention is about the thing, and not the manner; for we teach also that the manner of Christ's being in the Sacrament, is different from the manner of his being in heaven, but the thing really is all one. And so if Ridley do grant the same thing to be holden by the Priest hands, which the blessed virgin held in 
Ridloy in words will seem to agree.  her hands, as here you see him grant in words, than the controversy between us and him is ended. But presently he leapeth from his grant again, saying she did hold the natural body, and the Priest holdeth the mystery of the body, which are different things, and not only different manners of holding. Wherefore Doctor Weston repeating again this argument out of S. chrusostom to the multitude in English (saith John Fox) and considering the manner of Ridley's answering, and that nothing more could be had of him, he dissolved the disputation in these words: Videtis praefracti hominis animunt, gloriosum, vafrum, inconstantem, etc. you see the stubborn, vaunting, deceitful, and inconstant mind of this man. And with this Encomion departed Doctor Ridley to his prison again, and the other Doctors each man to their own lodgings.   

Out of the Disputations with M. Hugh Latimer, together with the conclusion of the whole trial in this article. §. 4.  
64. Upon the third day being wednesday the 18. of April, was brought forth Master Hugh Latymer to answer as the former had done, but the disputation was much more shorter than the other, and in English, for Master Latymer (saith Fox) alleged that he was out of use with latin, and unfit for that place. He gave 
Fox pag. 1323.  up his confession about the three articles in writing, after the imitation of Cranmer and Ridley, full of scoffs and bitter taunts, as his vain was, and rested most upon the mass, and the four marrowbones thereof (for so blasphemously he called them) which were (forsooth) 
latymer's 4. morrow. bones of the mass.  consecration, transubstantiation, oblation, and adoration, of all which you have heard the ancient father's speeches before, how different they are from these of Latymer, as was also their spirit.  
63. The first entrance to talk between Master Latymer, and the Doctors was, for that he saying in his writing, that nothing was to be received concerning the Sacrament, which was not expressly set down in the institution of Christ, Doctor Weston inferred, that then women must not receive the communion, for that no express mention is made in scripture of their receiving; and when Latymer answered, that S. Paul said: Probet autem seipsum homo, which signifieth said he both men and women, it was replied, that in Greek it was anthropos that was proper to man, etc. Then Doctor Weston asked him, how long he had been of this opinion? he said about some seven years (he being more than scutcheon of age) and that my L. of canterbury's book had specially confirmed his judgement therein. And if (quoth he) I could remember all therein contained, I would not fear to answer any man in this matter. So he. And many times after he ran still to this book of Cranmer. My Lord of canterbury's book (saith he to an argument of Doctor Cartwright) handleth this very well, and by him could 
Fox pag. 1325.  I answer you, if I had him. And again in another place to another argument. The solution of this (saith he) is in my Lord of Canterbury his book. And yet further to another. I remember I have 
Latymer foundeth himself on Cranmers' book.  read this in my Lord of canterbury's book. whereto Doctor Tressam answered, that there are in that book six hundred lies, but Latymer replied nothing, etc.  
64. Then said Doctor Weston: you were once a Lutheran. Latimer. No I was a Papist, for I could never perceive how Luther could descend his opinion, without transubstantiation. The tigurines once did write a book against Luther, and I oft desired God that he might live so long as to make them answer. So he, whereby is seen, that he favoured Luther more than the tigurines at that time, for that he would have had them answered. But Doctor Weston said further: Luther in his book de privata missa, testifieth that the devil reasoned with 
L●●h. l. de inissa Priua●a fol. 14. Contigit  him, and persuaded him that the mass was not good, whereby it appeareth that Luther said mass, and the devil dissuaded him from it. Latimer. I do not take in hand here to descend Luther's sayings or doings: is he were here, he would descend himself well enough I trow. So Latymer, leaving Luther to himself, but Fox will needs defend him with this marginal note saying: In that book, the devil 
Fox pag. 1324.  doth not dissuade him so much from saying mass, as to bring him to desperation for saying mass, such temptations many times happen to good men.  
65. And will you consider the gravity and verity of this note; first he saith that the devil did not so much dissuade him from saying mass, as to bring him to desperation: then somewhat he did dissuade him, though 
john Fox excuseth the devil and accuseth Luther.  not so much as to the other; which I believe, for that the one was his damnation, and his leaving of mass was but the way to it. Secondly if the devil did endeavour to bring Luther to desperation for saying of mass, he must needs persuade him first, that the mass was nought, as if he would draw a man to desperation for using alms deeds, he must first persuade him, that almsdeeds are nought and wicked, and as wise a man as he should show himself, that at the devils persuasion will believe that almsdeeds were nought, and leave the same; so were Luther & Latymer as wise to believe this suggestion of the devil against the mass. And where Fox saith, that such temptations of the devil do happen 
The devils impugningo of the mass as evil, proveth it to be God.  many times to goodmen. I grant it, but not that ever any good man did yield thereunto, or judge a thing evil, for that the devil did say it was nought, but rather to the contrary, his impugnation of it is always a sign, that the thing is good and pleasing to almighty God, whose adversary the devil is; yea the greater his impugnation is, the better must we presume the thing to be, and consequently when he would make the mass to seem so heinous a thing to Luther, as that he should be damned for saying the same, it is a good proof that the mass is an excellent thing, & displeaseth the devil, and that Luther and his followers leaving to say mass, do please much the devil in following his suggestion therein, as good and obedient children, to so holy a ghostly Father, and so to him we leave 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 have it. And first Master Doctor Tressam alleged an authority of Saint Hilary, affirming a natural unity to be in us with Christ by eating his flesh. Which place, for that it was alleged before against his fellows, I will not stand much upon it, but only note this man's evasion: Latymer. I can not speak latin so long, etc. But as for the words (saith he) of Hilary, I think they make not so much for you: but he that should answer the Doctors, had not need to be in my case, but should have them in a readiness, and know their purpose: Melancthon saith, that if the Doctors had foreseen, that they should have been so taken in this controversy, they would have written more plainly. This was his answer, and more than this you shall not find, and in this, there is a notable imposture of an old deceiver, for that Melancthon being of opposite opinion to him in this article, and writing a whole work of the doctor's sentences for proof of the real-presence, against the sacramentaries, as in his 
* Mens● Decembri.  life we have showed, what he speaketh of this mystakinge the Fathers and Doctors, he speaketh expressly of the sacramentaries, and not of those that defend the real-presence, which he also, being a Lutheran, defended, and affirmeth plainly that all the Fathers are of the same opinion, though if they had foreseen, that such heretics, as are the sacramentaries, would have risen up, and have wrested their words and meaning (as you have heard both Cranmer, Ridley, and Latymer to have done) they would have spoken more plainly in the controversy, though hardly they could have spoken more clearly against them. And by this first entrance, you may mark the plain dealing of old Father Latymer.  
67. Doctor Seaton vicechauncelour of Cambridge, seeing these sleights of the old fellow, beginneth thus with him: I know your learning wool enough, and how subtle you be: I will use a few 
Fox pag. 1325.  words with you out of S. Cyprian, who saith, that the old Testament doth forbid the drinking of blood, and 
D. Seatons' argument Cypr. de Can. Dom.  the new Testament doth command the drinking of blood. Out of which words he framed this argument. That it was true and real blood, which the old Testament forbadd to drink, ergò it is true and real blood which the new Testament commandeth to drink; for that otherwise the antithesis or opposition of the two Testaments in this point can not hold, if the one forbid the true drinking of true and real blood, and the other commandeth the figurative drinking of spiritual blood by faith, for that these things are opposite, and that the Jews also in the old testament did drink Christ's blood by faith, etc. To which argument Latymer answered nothing in effect, but this; we do taste true blood, 
Fox pag. 1325.  but spiritually, and this is enough. And then proveth he the same by those words of S. Augustine before answered by us; crede & manducusti; believe, 
Aug. tract. 25. in joan.  & thou hast eaten, as though the words credere and edere, were all one in the scriptures. Whereupon Doctor Weston recited a story that passed between Master Hooper and B. Gardener; for when Hooper would needs hold, that to eat was to believe, and that an Altar signified Christ in the scriptures, B. Gardener inferred, ergò, when S. Paul saith to the Hebrews, that we have an Altar, whereof the jeuwes must not eat: the 
Heb. 13.  sense is, we have Christ; in whom the Jews must not believe. And after this he retourne● to press Latymer strongly again upon this place of S. Cyprian; saying: that is comusaunded in the new 
S. Cyprians Place urged by D. Weston.  Testament, which is forbidden in the old, but true blood was forbidden in the old, ergò true blood also is commanded to be drunken in the new. whereunto Latymer answering twice, uttered two contraries: for first his words are: It is true as touching 
Fox pag. 1325. col. 1. num. 27.  the matter; but not as touching the manner of the thing, where he granteth (as you see) that true blood is meant in both Testament, but the manner of drinking is different, which also we grant & teach: but hear his second answer upon the other instance.  
68 Weston. The old Testament doth forbid the tasting of blood, but the new doth command it. Latymer. 
Fox ibid. num. 70.  It is true, not as touching the thing, but as touching the manner thereof. Before he said: it is true touching the matter, but not touching the manner; now he saith; it is true touching the manner and not touching the thing: so as if the thing and matter be all one, as it is, he speaketh contraries. Whereupon Doctor Weston opened the whole argument to the people in English, and the absurdity of his answer, but Latymer replied again and again; that true blood was commanded spiritually to be drunken in the new Testament. whereunto one Doctor Pie replied, 
D. pie disputeth.  and objected, that it was not forbidden to be drunken spiritually in the old law: for that (saith he) they drink spiritually Christ's blood in the old law, ergò, the drinking thereof in the new must be more then only spiritual. To this Latymer answered, the substance of blood is drunken, but not in one manner. So as here you see, he granteth also the substance of blood to be drunken, though in a different manner from that of the old Testament. But being pressed by the said Doctor Pie, that we require not the same manner of drinking blood in the new law, which was forbidden in the old; but only that it is as really and truly blood, as the other was; his final answer and resolution is this, It is the same thing, but not the same manner, I have no more to say. here than is his last detertermination, and consider I pray you the substance thereof; if it be the same thing, then must it needs be really and truly blood; for this is the thing or matter whereof the question is, for that otherways we know that the blood forbidden in the old Testament, is meant the blood of beasts, and the blood commanded in the new, is meant of the blood of Christ; So as in this, Latymer cannot grant them to be one thing, but only in the reality and truth of blood, that is, as the one is true and real blood of beasts: so is the other true and real blood of Christ; which if he grant (as here in words he doth) then cannot the different manner of drinking the same alter the substance of the thing itself; or if it do, then is it false, that it is the same thing; and so every way is old Latymer taken, but let us pass forward.  
69. Doctor Weston to confirm the reality of Christ's blood, received in the Sacrament, alleged another place of S. chrusostom, where 
Chrysost. serm. de Prodit. Judae.  talking of Judas he saith, Christus ei sangninem quem vendidit offerebat. Christ gave him (in the Sacrament, to wit, to Judas) the blood which he had sold. Can any thing be plainer spoken. Latymer answered: he gave to Judas his blood, in a Sacrament, and by this thinketh he hath said some what to the purpose, whereas indeed he saith nothing. For we say also, that he gave him his blood in a Sacrament, as we say, that we give wine in a cup, but this excludeth not the reality of the blood, no more than the giving in a cup, or under a veil, taketh away the true reality of the wine; yet is this the common hole for sacramentaries to run out at, when they are pressed; for both they and we do agree, that Christ's blood is given in the Sacrament under a sign sacramentally, and the like phrases; but the difference between us is, that we by this do not exclude the truth & reality of the thing therein contained, as they do, & thereby delude both themselves and others, speaking in such sort, as they cannot be understood, but only that a man may easily understand, that they seek thereby evasions, and ways to slip out at.  
70. I pass over divers other authorities of Fathers alleged by the Doctors, as those words of S. Cyrill: Per communionem corporis Christi, 
Cyrill. l. 10▪ in cap. 13. Joan.  habitat in nobis Christus corporaliter. By the communion of Christ's body, he dwelleth in us corporally, ergò, not spiritually only and by faith. Latymer answered; first that (corporally) hath another understanding, than you do grossly take 
Fox pag. 1325.  it. And then being pressed again, he said: The solution of this is in my Lord of canterbury's book. So he. But Fox not contented, (as it seemeth) with this answer, putteth down a larger, though without an author, whereby we may conceive it to be his own. Corporally (saith he) is to be taken here in the same sense, that S. Paul saith, the fullness of divinity to devil corporally in Christ, that is, not lighty, nor accidentally, but perfectly & substantially, etc. Which answer if Fox will stand unto we are agreed; for we require no more but that Christ by the communion of his body in the Sacrament, doth dwell perfectly and substantially in us, for that importeth also really, as the fullness of divinity is really in Christ incarnate, and not by union only of will, as the Arrians said, and as our sacramentaries do talk of Christ's union only by faith in us. And let the reader note by the way john Fox his wit, & deep divinity, who knowing not what he saith, granteth by this example more than we require; for he granteth the same substantial unity to be between Christ and our soul, which is between Christ's divinity, and his humanity; which is false; ours being accidental and separable; the other substantial & inseparable, for that it is hypostatical. But these things John had not learned, and so we pardon him, and do return to Latymer again, who being urged hardly by Doctor Smith about Saint Cyril's words; that Christ by communion of his body in the Sacrament dwelleth corporally in us, ergò, not only spiritually by faith; he answered: I say both that he dwelleth in us spiritually, and corporally, spiritually by faith, and corporally by taking our flesh upon him; for I remember that I have read this in my Lord of canterbury's book. here now you see another shift different from that of Fox, authorized by my L. of canterbury's book, but shaken of by S. Cyril's book, which saith expressly as you have heard, that Christ dwelleth in us corporally by the communion of his body in the Sacrament, and talketh not of the incarnation.  
71. Wherefore Doctor Weston seeing that more could not be had of Latymer in this point, he passed to another matter, which was to deal with him about the Sacrifice of che mass. In scoffing against which, latymer's grace, or disgrace rather and sin, did principally consist; and so alleging many ancient father's authorities against him for this purpose, and reading the places at length, having the books there present, Latymer was quickly driven to a nonplus, as may appear by Fox his own narration, though he setteth it down like a Fox indeed, suppressing 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 answers of Latymer, and the Catholic Doctors replies so brokenly and confusedly, as may easily show that he would decline the tempest of that combat from latymer's shoulders, and not have the matter understood, insinuating only some 8. or 9 authorities alleged for proof of the propitiatory sacrifice, whereas more than 8. or 9 score might have been cited to that effect. And finally though Latymer muttered out two or three particular answers here and there, saying; that S. chrusostom had emphatical locutions, and the like; yet his last rest was set upon this; that the Doctors might be deceived in some points, though not in all things: whereof Fox well allowing, maketh this scoffing comment in the margin, Doctores legendi sunt cum venia; the Doctors are to be read with pardon, which can have no other sense, but that either we must pardon them when they speak not truth, or we must ask pardon of them, not to believe them when we mislike them; for other sense I cannot make of this commentary.  
27. Doctor Cole replied; is it not a shame for an 
The last colloquium▪ with Latymer.  old man to lie? You say you are of the old father's faith. Latymer. I am of their faith when they say well, I refer myself to my Lord of Caterburyes' book wholly 
〈◊〉 ibid.  herein Doctor Smith. Then you are not of S. Chrysostom's faith, nor S. Augustine's faith. Latymer. I have said, when they say well, and bring scriptures for them, I am of their faith, and further Augustine requireth not to be believed, etc. Weston. Forty years gone, whether could you have gone to have found your doctrine? Latym. The more cause we have to thank God now, that hath sent the light into the world. Weston. The light? Neigh light and lewd preachers, etc. remember what they have been, that have been the beginners of your doctrine, none but a few flying apostates, running out of Germany, etc. remember what they have been, that have set forth the same in this realm, a sort of flying brains, and light heads, which were never constant in any one thing, which was well seen in the often altering of their communion-booke, and turning their table one day west, and another day east, they got them a tankard, and one saith I drink and am thankful, the more joy of thee, saith another, etc. You never agreed with the ●igurynes of Germany, or with yourselves, your stubborness is of vain glory, and we all see by your own confession, how little cause you have to be stubborn, your learning is in feoffers hold, the Queen's grace is merciful, if you will return. Latymer. You shall have no hope in me to return. And thus ended that disputation.  
74. And here John Fox is very angry with Doctor Weston for this speech, and for revenge thereof, maketh this note in the margin: Blasphemous lies of Doctor Weston sitting in the chair of pestilence, and then presently he maketh the narration of him, which before we have related about Urge hoc, urge hoc, and in the margin he hath this other Notandum, urge hoc quod Weston, with his beere-pott in his hand: which notwithstanding is more modest, then if it had been a wyne-pott. And I marvel much why the wisdom of Fox should object this beer-pott so often & eagerly against Doctor Weston, seeing his own great chair, which is yet kept for a relic of his holiness in London by the sisters, hath two places made on both sides thereof, the one for the candlestick, the other for the ale-pott and nutmegs, which Father Fox is said to have loved well, and so do his writings also show, & yet no Catholic man I think hath ever objected the same unto him before this, as he doth the beer-pott to Doctor Weston. But these are trifles. Let us pass to more serious considerations.   

The Conclusion, with some Considerations thereon. §. 5.  
75. By the review then of these three days disputations, a conjecture may be made, how matters did pass then, and how they stand at this day betwixt us and Protestants in these articles of controversy: you have heard before the great vaunts that Doctor Ridley made in his disputations at Cambridge under K. Edward, how evidently forsooth and apparently the truth stood with him and his fellows, & this upon siue principal grounds and head-springs 
Fox pag. 1261.  as he calleth them; which are the majesty and verity of scriptures; the most certain testimony of the ancient Fathers; the definition of a Sacrament; the abominable heresy of Eutiches, and the most sure belief of the article of our faith; He ascended up to heaven. B. Cranmer also after that again in the beginning 
The vaunts of Ridley & Cranmer how well performed.  of Q. mary's reign, setting forth a certain vaunting schedell, which Fox called a Purgation of Thomas Archbishopp Cranmer, hath this challenge therein: I with Peter Martyr (saith he) and other four or five which I shall choose, will by 
Fox pag. 1261.  God's grace take upon us to descend all the doctrine and Religion, set ●orth by our sovereign Lord K. Edward the sixth to be more pure, and according to God's word, than any other that hath been used in England these thousand years, so that god's word may be judge, and that the reasons and proofs of both parts may be set out in writing, to the intent as well, that all the world may examine and judge thereon, as that no man shall start back from his wryting●.  
76. Thus he. And now you have seen more or less by the former disputation, how he, & his fellow Ridley were able to perform their brags, and though you have seen them brought to the exigents, which before hath appeared: yet if you will believe them or John Fox their Chronicler, setting forth their Acts and Monuments, they were so far of from being conquered, as the adverse part was rather put to the foil, for that they could say nothing in effect against them. And for example, Fox writeth of Doctor Weston (who most of all other urged them with many good arguments as you have heard) that 
Fox pag. 1326.  not only he had his Theseus there by him to help him out (to wit his beere-pott) but moreover that he said never a true word, nor made never a true conclusion almost 
Ibid. pag. 1330.  in that disputation. Which how true or false it is, the reader himself may be judge, that 
Impudence of Fox.  hath perused over the same in this our review: And the very like in effect writeth B Cranmer 
Fox pag. 1331.  in a certain letter of his to the council, upon the 23. of April 1554. immediately after the disputation ended, complaining greatly of the disorder & iniquity therein used, which yet by that we have examined before out of their own words, I mean set down in Fox, his pen being bend wholly to their favour, there could not be great iniquity or inequality, the combat consisting in discussing authorities of ancient Fathers; but it is the nature of this people as always to be contentious, so ever to be clamorous, and never satisfied except they have their will, but especially to write and speak both contemptuously and partially: you shall hear how Malster Ridley relateth the event of this disputation; for that having set down his own disputations and answers in the prison, and this with the greatest advantage, you must imagine that he could devise, after much gall uttered in the preface thereof against this disputation, concludeth the same with these passionate words, as they are in Fox.  
77. Thus was ended the most glorious disputation of the most holy Fathers, Sacrificers, Doctors and Masters, 
D Ridley's passionate speech of the disputation.  who fought most manfully for their God and Gods, for their faith and felicity, for their country and kitchen, for their beauty and belly, with triumphant applauses and famous of the whole university. So he. And by 
Fox pag. 1330.  this you may know the man, and how much his words are to be credited; you having considered what hath been laid down before, by Fox his own report, touching the substance of the disputation and authorities of Fathers, alleged and examined and shifted of, though in the form of scholastical disputation and urging arguments, it may be there were some disorders; yet that maketh not so much to the purpose, how arguments were urged against them, as how they were answered by them; and yet could not the disorder be so great, as it was under Ridley himself in the Cambridge-disputation, as is most evident to the reader by Fox his own relation, who as before I have noted, is always to be presumed to relate the worst for us, and the best for himself in all these actions.  
78. Wherefore it is not a little to be considered, what was the difference in substance or substantial proofs, brought forth in the Cambridge Protestant-disputations under K. Edward, and these Oxford Catholike-disputations under Q. Mary; and whether Doctor Ridley that was moderator of those, or Doctor Weston prolocutor in these, did best urge or solve arguments against their adversaries; for that this consideration and comparison only, will give a great light to discern also the difference of the causes therein defended. One thing also more is greatly in my opinion to be weighed in this matter, which is, that the said ancient Fathers having to persuade so high and hard a mystery as this is, that Christ's true and natural flesh and blood, are really under the forms of bread and wine, by virtue of the priest's consecration, they were forced to use all the manner of most significant speeches, which they could devise to express the same, and to beat it into the people's heads and minds, though contrary to their senses and common reason, and thereby to fly from the opposite heresy and infidelity of our sacramentaries; lurking naturally in the hearts of flesh and blood, and of sensual people; but since that time by Satan's incitation, broached and brought forth publicly into the world. For meeting wherewith the holy providence of almighty God was, that the foresaid Fathers should by all sorts of most significant speeches & phrases, as hath been said, so clearly lay open their meanings in this matter, as no reasonable man can doubt thereof, and not only this, but also that they should use certain exaggerations the better to explain themselves, such as they are wont to do in other controversies also, when they would vehemently oppose themselves against any error or heresy, as by the examples of Saint Augustine against the Pelagians in behalf of Grace, and against the Manichees in the defence of Free-will. And of S. Jerome against Jovinian for the privilege of Virginity above marriage. and other like questions, wherein the said Fathers, to make themselves the better understood, do use sometimes such exaggerative speeches, as they may seem to incline somewhat to the other extreme, which indeed they do not, but do show thereby their fervour in defence of the truth, and hatred of the heresy which they impugn.  
79. And the like may be observed in this article 
The father's effectual speeches to persuade the real-presence.  of the real-presence, of Christ's sacred body in the Sacrament of the Altar, which being a mystery of most high importance, and hardest to be believed, as above human sense and reason, and therefore called by them: the miracle of mysteries: it was necessary for them, I say to use as many effectual ways, 
Chrysost hom. 61. ad Pop. Antioch. & ●lij.  as they possible could for persuading the said truth unto the people, and for preventing the distrustful cogitations and suggestions both of human infirmity, and diabolical infidelity against the received faith and truth of this article; and so they did, not only using most clear, plain, effectual and significant manner of expounding themselves, and their meaning, but many such exaggerations also, as must needs make us see the desire they had, to be rightly and fully understood therein. For better consideration of which point (being of singular moment as hath been said) the reader shall have a little patience, whilst I detain myself somewhat longer, than I meant to have done, in laying forth the same before him.  
80. And first of all, concerning the effectual speeches for uttering the truth of their belief in this article, you have heard much in the former disputation, and here we shall repeat some points again, which in effect are, that whereas the said Fathers founded themselves ordinarily upon those speeches of our saviour: This is my body which shallbe given for you: my flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink. 
Matth. 26. Luc. 14. Joan. 6.  The bread which I shall give you is my flesh for the life of the world, and other like sentences of our saviour; the Fathers do not only urge all the circumstances here specified or signified, to prove it to be the true natural and substantial body of Christ (as that it was to be given for us the next day, after Christ's words were spoken, that it was to be given for the life of the whole world, & that it was truly meat, and truly Christ's flesh) but do add also divers other circumstances of much efficacy to confirm the same, affirming 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 cross, corpus affixum, verberatum, crucifixum, cruentatum, lanceae 
Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. Cor.  vulneratum (saith S. chrusostom) the self-same body, that was nailed, beaten, crucified, blooded, wounded with a spear, is received by us in the Sacrament. whereunto S. Austen addeth this particularity, that it is the self-same body that walked here among us upon earth. As he walked here in flesh (saith he) among us; so 
Aug. in Psalm. 98.  the very self same flesh doth he give to be eaten, and therefore no man eateth, that flesh; but first adoreth at; and Hisichius addeth; that he gave the self-same 
H●sich. in cap. 22. Levit.  body, whereof the angel Gabriel said to the Virgin Mary, that it should be conceived of the holy Ghost. And yet further; it is the same body (saith S. chrusostom) that the magis, 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 arms of a woman, but in the hands of a Priest. The very same flesh (saith S. Austen again) that sat at the table in the last supper, and washed his disciples 
Aug. in Psalm. 33. contion. 1. & 2.  feet; The very same (I say) did Christ give with his own hands to his disciples, when he said; take eat, this is my body, etc. And so did he bear himself in his own hands, which was prophesied of David, but fulfilled only by Christ in that Supper.  
81. These are the particularities used by the Fathers for declaring what body they mean; and can there be any more effectual speeches than these? but yet hearken further. Thou must know and hold for most certain (saith S. Cyrill) that 
Cyrill. Hi●vos Cathec. 4. mystagog.  this which seemeth to be bread, is not bread but Christ's body, though the taste doth judge it bread. And again the same Father: Under the form or show of bread, is given to thee the body of Christ, & under the form or snape of wine, is given to thee the blood of Christ, etc. And S. chrusostom to the same effect: We must 
Chrysost. hom. 60. ad Top. Antioch.  not believe our senses eaysie to be beguiled, etc. We must simply, and without all ambyguity believe the words of Christ saying: This is my body, etc. O how many say now adays, I would see him, I would behold his visage, his vestments, etc. But he doth more than this, for he giveth himself not only to be seen, but to be touched also, handled and eaten by thee. Nor only do the Fathers affirm so asseverantly, that it is the true natural body of Christ, though it appear bread in form and shape, and that we must not believe our senses herein; but do deny expressly that it is bread after the words of consecration, whereof you heard long 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 it is made the flesh of Christ; And note the word (fit) it is made. And again. Before the words of Christ be uttered (in the consecration) the chalice is full of wine and water; but when the words of Christ have wrought their effect, ibi sanguis efficitur qui redemit plebem, there is made the blood that redeemed the people. And mark in like manner the word efficitur, is made, and consider whether any thing can be spoken more plainly.  
83. But yet the Fathers cease not here, but do pass much further to inculcate the truth 
All doubts about this matter condemned.  of this matter, reprehending sharply all doubt, suspicion or ambiguity, which the weakness of our flesh or infection of heresy may suggest in this matter. S. Cyrill reasoneth thus: whereas 
Cyrill Hier. catech. mystagog. 4.  Christ hath said of the bread, this is my body, who will dare to doubt thereof? and whereas he hath said of the wine, this is my blood, who will doubt or say it is not his blood? he once turned water into wine in Cana of Galiley by his only will which wine is like unto blood, and shall we not think him worthy to be believed, when he saith, that he hath changed wine into his blood? So he. And S. Ambrose to the same effect. Our Lord Jesus Christ doth iestifie unto us, that we do 
Ambr. l. 4. de Sacordot. cap 4.  receive his body and blood, and may we doubt of his credit or testimony? And the other Saint Cyrill of Alexandria saith to the same effect; that in this mystery we should not so much as ask quomodo 
Cyril. Alex. l. 4. ●nc. 13. Joan.  how it can be done? judaicum enim verbum est (saith he) & aeterm supplicij causa: For ye is a Jewish word, and cause of everlasting torment. And before them both Saint Hilary left written this exhortation: These things▪ saith he) that are written, let us read, and those things that 
Hilar. l. 8. de trinit. cont. Arrian.  we read let us understand, and so we shall perfectly perform the duty of true saith; for that these points which we affirm of the natural verity of Christ's being in us. exceptive learn them of Christ himself, we affirm them wickedly and foolishly, etc. Wherefore, whereas he saith my s●e●h is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink, there is no place left to us of doubting concerning the truth of Christ's body & blood, for that both by the affirmation of Christ himself, and by our own belief, there is (in the Sacrament) the flesh truly and the blood truly of our saviour.  
83. So great S. Hilary: and Eusebiu● Emissenus bringeth in Christ our saviour speaking in these words: For so much as my flesh is truly meat, 
Euseb. Emissenus. hom 5 de s●●ch.  and my blood is truly drink, leit all doubt fullness of in fidelity departed; for so much as he who is the author of the gift, is witness also of the truth thereof. And S. Leo to the same effect: Nothing at all is to be 
Leo serm. 6. the 〈◊〉 7. 〈◊〉.  doubted of the truth of Christ● body, and blood in the Sacrament, etc. And those do in vain answer amen (when they receive it) if they dispute against that which is affirmed. And finally S. Ep●p●anius concludeth 
Ep●ph. in An●●r.  thus: He that believeth it not to be the very body of Christ in the Sacrament, is fallen from grace and salvation.  
84. And by this we may see the earnestness of the Fathers in urging the belief of Christ's true flesh, and blood in the Sacrament; But they cease not here, but do prevent and exclude all shifts of sacramentaries, which by God's holy spirit they foresaw, even in those ancient days, affirming that not by faith only, or in ●igure, or image, or spiritually alone Christ's flesh is to be eaten by us; but really, substantially, and corporally: Not only by faith (saith S. Chrys●stome) but in very deed he maketh us 
Chrysost. in ●om. 87. in cap. 21. Matth.  his body, reducing us as it were into one mass or substance with himself. And Saint Cyrill: Not only by saith and charity are we spiritually conjoined 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. chrusostom again: Not only by love, but in very deed are we 
Chrysost. ●b.  converted into his flesh by eating the same. And Saint Cyrill again: We receiving in the Sacrament 
Cyril. Alex. ib. l. 11. in joan. c, 27.  corporally and substantially the son of God united naturally to his Father, we are clarified & glorified thereby, and made partakers of his supreme nature. Thus they. Whereunto for more explication addeth Theophilact: When Christ said: This is my body; he showed that it was his very body in deed, and not any 
Theophil. Alex. in cap. 10. Mare.  figure correspondent thereunto, for he said not; this is the figure of my body; but, this is my body; by which words the bread is transformed by an unspeakable operation, though to us it seem still bread. And again in another place. Behold that the bread which is eaten by us in the mysteries, is not only a figuration of Christ's 
Idem in ca ●. Joan.  flesh, but the very flesh indeed, for Christ said not, that the bread which I shall give you, is the figure of my flesh, but my very flesh indeed, for that the bread is transformed by 
* arcanis verb●.  secret words into the flesh. And another Father more ancient than he, above twelve hundred years past, handling those words of Christ This is my body, saith: It is not the figure of Christ's body and blood; ut quidam stupida mente nugati sunt; as some blockish minds have 
Magnesl. 3. ad Th●ostinem.  trifled; but it is truly the very body and blood of our saviour indeed. And finally the whole general Council of Nice the second, above 800. years past, hath these words: do you read, as long as you will, you shall never find Christ or his Apostles, or 
Conc. Ni●en. 2. act. 6  the Fathers to have called the unhloudy sacrifice of Christ offered by the Priest, an image (or representation) but the very body and blood of Christ itself. And could the ancient Fathers speak more effectually, properly or clearly than this?  
85. And yet he that will examine and weigh their sayings, a man exactly shall find them to speak, in a certain manner more effectually: for that they did study, (as we have said) how 
Emphatical & effectual speeches of the fathers. Hilar. lib. 8. de Trints. Cy●●l. l. 11. In joan. ●. 26  to utter their meaning with emphasie. S. Hilary useth this kind of argument: if the word of God were truly made flesh, then do we truly receive his flesh in the Lord's supper, and thereby he is to be steemed to dwell in us naturally: S. Cyrill proveth, not only a spiritual, but a natural and bodily union to be between us and Christ, by eating his flesh in the Sacrament. Theodorete doth prove that Christ took flesh of the blessed Virgin, and ascended up 
Theod. dial. 2. ●nconfus.  with the same, and holdeth the same there, by that he giveth to us his true flesh in the Sacrament; for that otherways he could not give us his true flesh to eat, if his own flesh were not true, seeing that he gave the same that he carried up, and retaineth in heaven. S. Irenaeus, S. Justine, & S. chrusostom do prove not 
Iren. lib. 4. cont. hares. cap. 3. Justin apol. 2. ad An. tonin Piu● Imp. Chrysost. hom 60. & 61. add top. Antioch.  only this, but the resurrection also of our bodies by the truth of Christ's flesh in the Sacracrament, for that our flesh joining with his flesh which is immortal, ours shallbe immortal also. And the same Saint Irenaeus also doth prove further, that the great God of the old Testament, creator of heaven and earth, was Christ's Father; for proof whereof he allegeth this reason; that Christ in the Sacrament did fulfil the figures of the old Testament, & that in particular, wherein bread was a figure of his flesh, which he fulfilled (saith Irenaeus) making yt his flesh indeed.  
86. I pass over many other forms of speeches no less effectual; which do easily declare the father's minds and meanings in this point, as that of Optatus milevitanus, who 
Optat. l. 6. contra Donatist.  accused the Donatists of sacrilege & horrible wickedness, for having broken down Catholic Altars, whereon the body, and blood of Christ had been borne: What is so sacrilegious (saith he) as to break down, scrape and remove the Altars of God, on which yourselves have sometimes offered, and the members of Christ have been borne, etc. What is an Altar, but the seat of the body and blood of Christ? and this monstrous villainy of yours is doubled, 
Chalice-breakers.  for that you have broken also the chalices, which did bear the blood of Christ himself. So he. And is there any Protestant, that will speak thus at this day? or doth not this reprehension agree fully to Protestants, that have broken down more Altars, and chalices, than ever the Donatists did? Saint Leo the first saith: that the truth 
Lee serm. 7. de pas. Chat.  of Christ's true body and blood in the Sacrament, was so notorious in his days; ut nec ab insantium linguis taceretur. That very infants did profess the same. And in the same sermon he saith: that the body of Christ is so received by us in the Sacrament; ut in carnem ipsius, qui caro nostra factus est, transeamus, that we should pass into his flesh, who by his incarnation is made our flesh. Saint chrusostom in many places of his works, doth use such devout, re●orent and significant speeches of that, which is contained in the Sacrament under the forms of bread, & wine after consecration, as no doubt can be of his meaning, whereof you have heard divers points before in the disputations, as that it deserved the highest honour in earth; that he did show it lying upon the Altar, that the angels descended at the time of consecration, and did adore Christ 
Chrysost. hom. 61. ad Pop. Antioch. & hom. 6. d● virbis I sa●a & hom. 3. the inc●mprahens. Dei natura.  there present with trembling and sear, and durst not look upon him for the majesty of his presence. And other such speeches, which is conform to that before cited in the disputation out of the council of Nice: Credamus iaecere in illa mensa sacra, agnum Det à Sacerdotibus sacri●icatum. Let us believe to lie on that holy table, the lamb of God sacrificed by Priests. And is there any Protestant that will speak thus?  
87. But above all the rest are those speeches, which before I said to tend to a certain exaggeration, as that, our flesh is turned into his flesh 
Exaggerative speeches of the Fathers to utter their minds the more clearly.  by receiving the blessed Sacrament: that our flesh is nourished by his; and that of two fleshes there is made but one flesh; whereunto do appertain not only those former phrases, which already you have heard of the natural and corporal unity; which the Fathers do so often inculcate to be between Christ and us, by eating his flesh in the Sacrament, & that we are brought thereby into one mass, or substance of flesh with him; but many other like significant manners for uttering their minds, as that of S. chrusostom: he nourisheth us with his own body, 
Chrysost. hom. 61. ad Pop. Antioch. & hom. 45. in loan.  and doth join and conglutinate our flesh to his. And again: That by his body (given us in the Sacrament) Se nobis commiscuit, & in unum nobiscum redegit. He hath mixed himself to us, and brought himself and us into one body and flesh. And yet further: he doth permit himself not only to be handled by us, but also to be eaten, and our teeth to be fastened upon his flesh, and us to be filled with the same flesh; which is the greatest point of love (saith Saint chrusostom) that possible can be imagined. So 
Cyrill. Alex lib. 4. in loan. cap. 17.  he. And conform to this S. Cyrill of Alexandria uttereth himself after another sort, for he useth the example of leaven, which Saint Paul doth touch in his epistle to the Corinthians, when he saith; that a little leaven doth leaven a whole 
1. Cor. 5.  bach; even so (saith S. Cyrill) the flesh of Christ joined to our flesh, doth leaven or pierce through it, and convert it into itself. And in another place he useth 
Idem. l. 10. in loan. cap. 13.  this similitude; that as when you take a piece of wax melted at the fire, and do drop the same upon another piece of wax, these two waxes are made one; so by the communication of Christ's body and blood unto us, he is in us and we in him.  
88 Another ancient Father also upon the point of 1200. years gone had this similitude: As wine (saith he) is mixed with 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 blood of Christ mixed also with him that drinketh the same in the Sacrament. And S. Irenaeus, Tertullian, & S. Justinus Martyr, all of them elder than this man, do use commonly this phrase of nourishing, and feeding our flesh by the flesh of Christ. How do they affirm (saith S. Irenaeus against certain heretics that denied 
Iren. lib. 4. count hares. cap. 34.  the resurrection) that our flesh shall come to corruption, and not receive life again, which is nourished by the body and blood of Christ? And again. Ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. Of 
Ibid. lib. 5. cap. 2.  which body and blood of Christ, the substance of our flesh is increased and consisteth. And Tertullian, caro, corpore & sanguine Christi 
Tert. lib. de resurrect. carnis.  vescitur, etc. Our flesh doth feed on the body and blood of Christ. And mark that he saith the flesh, and not only the soul. And Justine in his second Apology to the Emperor Antoninus talking of the Sacrament, saith, it is, cibus quo sanguis carnesque nostrae aluntur. The meat wherewith our blood and flesh is fed; and to this manner of speech appertain those sayings of S. chrusostom: altar meum cruentum sanguine, 
Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10.  my Altar that is made red with blood. Where he speaketh in the person of Christ. And again to him that had received 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 attending to his sacrifice, and pouring out prayers; the multitude of people receiving the Sacrament, praetioso illo sanguine intingi & rubefieri. 
Ibid. l. 3. d● Sacerdot.  To be died and made read with that precious blood. All which speeches and many more, that for brevity I pretermitt, though they tend to a certain exaggeration (as hath been said) yet do they plainly declare the sense, judgement and belief 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 certify us of the father's meanings then these, to wit, how far they were of, from the Protestants opinions in this mystery.  
89. And truly if we would now put down here on the contrary side the Prorestants assertions, and their cold manner of speeches in this behalf, and compare them with this vehemency of the Fathers; we should presently see a wonderful difference. I will touch some few only contained in this book. First they say (and it is a common refuge of Cranmer and 
1.  the rest in this disputation as you have heard) that their communion-bread is Christ's true body, as S. John Baptist was true Elias.  
Item. That it is Christ's body, as the dove was the holy-ghost. 
2.   
Item. That the body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament of the Altar, no otherwise 
3.  than it is in baptism.  
Item. That infants when they be baptised do eat the body of Christ also. 
4.   
Item. That Christ's body is in the Sacracrament, as when two or three are gathered 
5.  together in his name.  
Item. That the body of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament, as it is eaten, when we read 
6.  scriptures, or hear sermons.  
Item. That the breaking of Christ's body is nothing but the breaking of the scriptures 
7.  to the people. And these are the common phrases of all lightly. For I let pass many particular assertions of some, much more cold and contemptible than these, whereby you may easily se● the difference of estimation, reverence, respect, and belief between them and the ancient Fathers.  
90. And on the other side, he that will consider the great care and wariness, which the 
The great warynesse of the Fathers in speaking of articles of faith.  said Fathers did use in speaking properly and exactly, as well in other mysteries & articles of our faith, as in this, shall easily see, that they could not fall into such excess of speech, with open reprehension & contradiction of others, if their meaning had not been evident, and the doctrine Catholic and generally received, which they endeavoured to inculcate by these speeches; for so much as we are taught by all antiquity, that there was such exact rigour used in this behalf in those days, that a word or syllable could not be spoken amiss, without present note or check. And S. Jerome saith: that sometimes for one only word heretics 
Hier. lib. 3. Apol. cont. Ruffin,  have been cast out of the Church. And Saint Basill being entreated and urged by a governor of Constantius the Arrian Emperor, to accommodate himself in manner of speech only about two words: homiousion, and homoousion (which are not, said the governor, found in scripture) he answered him no: & that for one syllable he would offer his life, if it were need. And the like exactness 
Theodore●▪ lib. 2. hist. c. 18. & 19  did the ancient Fathers, of the council of Ephesus, show afterwards in standing so resolutely 
Concil. Ephes. act. 1. & 2.  for the word Deipara, mother of God against Nestorius, & refusing the use of the other word Christipara, mother of Christ, though the one & the other of the words refused, to wit, homiousion & Christipara in their senses are true; but for that some heretical meaning might lurk therein, they were refused.  
91. And to conclude, if antiquity was so careful and vigilant, to exclude dangerous & incommodious speeches in other articles, how much more would it have been in this also of the real presence, if the said father's speeches before rehearsed had not been true, as in the Protestants sense they cannot be, but must needs tend to most dangerous error of misbelief and idolatry? And consequently there is no doubt, but that they would have been reproved by other Fathers, if the Protestants opinions had been then received for truth. And this shall suffice for this Chapter.    

OF THE TWO OTHER ARTICLES about Transubstantiation, and the Sacrament, what passed in this Disputation. CHAP. vi  
HAVING handled more largely, than was purposed at the beginning, so much as appertaineth to the first article of the real-presence, as the ground and foundation of the other two; I mean to be very brief concerning the rest, as well for that in the Oxforddisputations there was scarce any thing handled thereof; but only some demonstrations out of the Fathers alleged to Latymer (which he as you have heard could not answer) about the third and last point; as also for that whatsoever was treated thereof in the disputations at Cambridge, and in the Convocation house, especially about Transubstantiation, hath been answered for the most part in our former treatise about the real presence. And albeit it was some art of the sacramentaries, in the beginning of these controversies under K. Edward, to run from the discussion of the principal point, as more clearly against them, unto the question of Transubstantiation, for that might seem to yield them some more show of matter or objections to cavil at, as before we have declared: yet when the matter cometh to examination, they have as little for them in this as in the other, or rather less, for that the other, to wit, the real-presence, or being of Christ really and substantially present in the Sacrament, having been so evidently proved against them, as before you have seen; this other of Transubstantiation, being but modus essen●i, the manner how Christ is there, little importeth them; nay themselves do grant, that if Christ be there really present, it cannot be 
Real presence cannot be granted without Transubstantiation according to Latymer.  denied but that he is there also by Transubstantiation of bread into his body: for so Father Latymer, if you remember, affirmed before in his disputations, when he was said once to have been a Lutheran (which Lutherans do hold both Christ's body and bread to be together in the Sacrament) he answered, I say, that he could never perceive, how Luther could defend his opinion without Transubstantiation, & 
Fox pag. 1324.  that the tigurines, being also sacramentaries, did write a book against him in this behalf, proving belike that in granting the real presence, as he did; he must needs grant Transubstantiation also, wherein they had great reason: for that in truth the imagination of Luther, and Lutherans, that Christ's body and bread do stand together, under the same forms and accidents, and be received together being so different substances, is a most gross and fond imagination; so as the Lutherans granting the one, & denying the other, are condemned of absurdity even by the Zwinglians themselves, as you see, and as we say also justly.  
2. And on the other side we say in like manner, as before hath been noted, that the Zwinglians and Caluinists, and other sacramentaries denying wholly the said real presence, do in vain wrangle about Transubstantiation. For as he that should deny (for example sake) that any substance of gold were in a purse, or any substance of wine in a barrel, should in vain dispute whether the gold were there alone, or together with some base metal, as silver, tin, or copper, or whether the wine were there alone, or in company of water; so in this controversy it is an idle disputation for sacramentaries to discuss, whether the substance of Christ's real flesh be alone in the Sacrament, or together with the substance of bread, for so much as they deny it to be there at all.  
3. Yet notwithstanding, for that their chief altercation is about this point, as by their disputations may appear, I shall briefly examine their grounds, which, according to 
Ridley's five grounds against Transubstantiation at Cambridge. anno 1549.  B. Ridley's ostentation uttered in Cambridge out of the divinity chair, under King Edward the sixth, as before you have heard, are five in number set forth in these vaunting words: The principal grounds or rather head-springs of this 
Fox pag. 1261.  matter are specially five. First, the authority, majesty, 
1.  & verity of holy scriptures: the second: the most certain 
2.  testimonies of the ancient Catholic Fathers: the third, The definition of a Sacrament: the 
3.  fourth, The abominable heresy of Eutiches, that 
4.  may ensue of Transubstantiation. The fifth: the most 
5.  sure belief of the article of our faith: He ascended into heaven. And then a little after he concludeth thus: These be the reasons which persuade me to en●lyne 
Fox ibid.  to this sentence and judgement.  
4. Hear you see the principal grounds, or rather head springs, that persuaded Ridley to incline, or rather decline, for yet he seemed not fully settled in this article of belief. And albeit these grounds may seem to contain somewhat, in show and sound of words: yet when the substance thereof cometh to be examined, they are found to be idle, and puffed up with words indeed. For first what authority, majesty and verity of scriptures doth this man bring forth; trow you, for confirmation of this his vaunt? truly nothing in effect, 
The first ground examined.  or of any show or probability, but only that it is called bread and wine in the scripture, after the words of consecration: For which purpose he having alleged the words of Christ: I will not drink hereafter of this fruit of the vine, until I do drink it new with you in the kingdom of 
Matth. 26. Marc. 14.  my Father: he inferreth that the fruit of the vine is wine, which we grant unto him, & do hold is called wine by him after the consecration, as his flesh after the words of consecration is called bread by S. 
* 1. Cor. 11.  Paul, S. Luke, and other Apostles, affirming it notwithstanding to be his own true body and flesh, but retaining the name of bread, for that it was made of bread, and was bread before, as the serpent was called the rod of Aaron, for that it was 
Exod. 7.  made of that rod, and not because it was not a true serpent afterwards, though it were still called a rod, and to signify this, that bread converted into Christ's flesh is not really bread afterward, but the true flesh of Christ, though it retain the former name of bread, it is not simply called bread but with some addition; as bread of life: bread of heaven, this bread, 
joan. 6.  and the like. And finally Christ himself doth expound what bread it is in S. john's gospel when he saith: The bread that I shall give you, is my flesh for the life of the world.  
5. Hear than you see, that Ridley's text of scripture; I will not drink hereafter of the fruit of the vine, until I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father; doth not prove that it was material wine which he drunk, for that he should then drink material wine also in heaven: And yet assoon as Ridley had brought 
Fox pag. 1261.  forth this place, as though he had done a great feat, and fully performed his promise, for proof of the authority, majesty, and verity of scripture, he beginneth presently to excuse himself, for that he hath no more store, saying. There be not many places of scripture, that do confirm this thing; neither is it greatly material, for it is enough if there be any one plain testimony for the same. Lo whereunto this vaunt of the authority, majesty, and verity of holy scriptures is come, to wit, to one place, understood and interpreted after his own meaning alone, against the understanding of all antiquity. And though he go about afterwards to scrape 
Impertinent places alleged against Transubstantiation.  together divers other parings of scripture, nothing at all to the purpose, as, You shall not break any bone of his: Do you this in my remembrance: labour for the meat that perisheth not: this is the work 
Exod 12. 1. Cor 11. Joan. 6.  of God, that they believe in him whom he hath sent: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him; and some other like places: yet as you see by his own confession, they are not plain places, and consequently his vaunting of authority, majesty and verity of scriptures, cometh to just nothing indeed, but only to words and wind. Let us see what he bringeth for his other four grounds and headsprings.  
6. The second is, the most certain testimonies of 
Ridley's second ground of fathers.  the ancient Catholic Fathers. This we shall examine afterwards when we have considered of the other three, yet may you mark by the way, that he useth here also the superlative degree, of most certain testimonies, which certainty of testimonies you shall find afterward, to be like his majesty of scriptures, already alleged. Wherefore let us see his third ground. The third ground (saith he) is the nature of 
Ridley's 3. ground. The nature of a Sacrament.  the Sacrament, which consisteth in three things: unity, nutrition and conversion. And then he explaineth himself thus: that as in bread one loaf is made of many grains, so signifieth this Sacrament, that we are all one mystical body in Christ. And again. As bread nourisheth our body; so doth the body of Christ nourish our soul. And thirdly. As bread is turned into our substance, so are we turned into Christ's substance. All which three effects cannot be signified (saith he) by this Sacrament, if there be Transubstantiation, and no nature of bread left, and therefore there can be no Transubstantiation.  
7. This is Master Ridley's deep divinity about the nature of this Sacrament: but if you read that which we have noted before in our eight observation, concerning the true definition 
Sap. cap. 3. §. 8.  and nature of a Sacrament in deed; you will see that this was great simplicity in him (though according to his heretical ground, that the Sacraments do not give grace) to leave out the principal effect signified in the Sacrament, which is grace, for that a Sacrament is defined: A visible sign of invisible grace received thereby. This Sacrament also is a sign of Christ's body there present under the forms of bread and wine: yet deny we not but that these other three effects also of unity, nutrition and conversion may be signified thereby, as in like manner the death and passion of our saviour, whereof this Sacrament is a memorial and commemoration: neither doth the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ, let or take away these significations, for so much as to make this Sacrament, there is taken bread and wine, which naturally doth signify these effects of union, nutrition, and conversion, which Ridley here mentioneth, though it be not necessary, that the substance of the said bread and wine should still remain, but only there forms and accidents, which do signify and are signs to our senses, as much as if the substances themselves of bread and wine were present. As for example the brazen serpent, did as 
Fox pag. 1261.  much represent, and was a sign of Christ in respect of the analogy between Christ and a true serpent, as if he had had the substance of a true serpent, whereof he had but only the form and shape; and so are the outward 
Exod. 7.  forms of bread and wine, after the words of consecration, sufficient to represent unto us the Analogy that is between feeding the body, and feeding the soul, unity of grains, and unity of Christ's mystical body which is his Church.  
8. And thus much of Ridley's third ground which impugneth Transubstantiation; which ground (as you see) is so weak and feeble, as he that shall build thereon, is like to come to a miserable ruin of his own salvation. But much more ridiculous is his fourth ground, uttered in these words: The fourth 
Ridley's 4. ground about Eutiches his heresy.  ground (saith he) is the abominable heresy of Eutiches, that may ensue of Transubstantiation. Thus he saith in his position, but let us hear him afterward in his probation, which is not much larger than his proposition, for thus he writeth: They which say that Christ is carnally present in the Eucharist, do take from him the verity of man's nature. Eutiches granted the divine nature in Christ, but his human nature he denied. And is not this a goodly proof of so great a charge? Nay is not this a goodly ground and headspring of proofs? Consider I pray you how these matters do hang together. Eutiches heresy was, as you may see in the letters of Saint Leo the first, and in the council of Chalcedon; 
Leo ep. 12. ad Theedos. Council. Cal●●d. sess. 5.  that Christ's flesh being joined to his divinity was turned into the same, and so not two distinct natures remained, but one only made of them both. And how doth this heresy I pray you, follow of our doctrine of Transuostantiation! Eutiches said that the divine and human natures in Christ were confounded together, and of two made but one: we say that they remain distinct, and do condemn Eutiches for his opinion, and by our Church he was first accursed and anathematized for the same: Eutiches said, Christ's human nature was turned into his divine; we say only that bread and wine is turned into Christ's flesh and blood: what likeness hath this with Eutiches heresy? But (saith Ridley) we do take from Christ the verity of man's nature. This is a fiction and foolish calumniation, as before you have heard, and consequently deserveth no further refutation.  
9 The fifth ground, is (saith he) the most sure belief of the article of our faith: He ascended into 
Ridley's 5. ground concerning Christ's ascension.  heaven. This ground if you remember hath been overthrown before, and abandoned by Ridley himself in his Oxford-disputation, where he granted; that he did not so straightly tie Christ up in heaven (to use his own words) but that he may come down on earth at his pleasure. And again 
Fox pag. 1314. & 1515.  in another place of the said disputation: What letteth but that Christ if it please him, and when it pleaseth him, may be in heaven and in earth? etc. And yet further to Doctor Smith that asked him this question: Doth he so sit at the right hand of his Father, that he doth never foresake the same? Ridley answered: Nay I do not bind Christ in heaven so straightly. By which answers you see, that this whole principal ground and headspring of Ridley's arguments against Transubstantiation, is quite overthrown. For if Christ in flesh after his ascension may be also on earth when he will, as Ridley here granteth, then is it not against the article of our Creed (He ascended into heaven,) to believe, that not withstanding his ascension, he may be also on earth in the Sacrament. And albeit Ridley do city here certain places of S. Augustine, that do seem to say: that Christ after his ascension is no more conversant among us upon earth; yet that is not to be understood of his being in the Sacrament, which is a spiritual manner of being, but of his corporal manner of conversation, as he lived visibly among his disciples before his ascension. And this is sufficient for discussion of this fifth ground, whereof the chief particulars have been handled in divers places before.  
10. Now then will we return to his second 
The discussion of the father's authorities alleged by Ridley. Dionys. Areop. in Eccles. Hictarch.  ground again, of the most certain testimonies of the ancient Catholic Fathers. And first he alleagath Saint Dionysius Areopagita, for that in some places of his works he callerh yt bread And the like of Saint Ignatius to the Philadelphians, which we deny not, for S. Paul also calleth it so, as before we have showed: but yet such bread, as in the same place he declareth to be the true body of Christ, saying: that he which receiveth it unworthily, shallbe guilty of the body and 
1. Cor. 11.  blood of Christ, adding for his reason non dijudicans corpus Domini, for not discerning the body of our Lord there present. And so S. Ignatius 
Ignat. in epist. ad Philadelph.  in the very self-same place saith: that it is the flesh and blood of Christ, as you may read in that Epistle.  
11. After these he citeth Irenaeus whose words are: Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & calesti, which Ridley translateth thus: Sacramental bread consisting of two natures earthly and heavenly: But by Master Ridley's leave Eucharistia in this place is fraudulently translated by him Sacramental bread, except he mean as we do, and as Irenaeus did, that it was the body of Christ, but called bread for that it was made of bread: For that Irenaeus in the very same place, writing against heretics asketh this question: Quomodo constabit eyes, eum 
Iren. lib. 4. cont. haeres. cap. 34.  panem in quo gratiae actae sint, corpus esse Domini sui? How shall it be made evident to these heretics, that this bread, in which thanks have been given, is the body of their Lord? Whereto he answered, and proveth the same by divers arguments: so as no place of any Father could have been alleged more against himself, than this is by Ridley. And as for that he saith, that the Eucharist consisteth of two natures, earth-ly and heavenly, he meaneth evidently, by the heavenly nature, the true body of Christ, and by the earthly nature, the external symbols, forms, and accidents. And so much of him.  
12. And the self-same thing do mean both Theoderete and Gelasius, here also by him 
Theod. dia●. 2. Gelas. ●. de duabus nature.  alleged, as using the like phrases; that the natures of bread and wine do remain, which they understand of the external symbols, forms and accidents. For as for the real presence, they do both of them affirm it in the same places by Ridley alleged. And so this shall suffice for this place, there being nothing else worthy answering. And now if you consider, what variety of plain and perspicuous authorities have been alleged by us before, both out of the disputations and otherwise, for confirmation of the Catholil belief of the real presence and Transubstantiation, you will easily see what broken wares these be, which Protestants bring forth to the contrary, and how fond this second ground of Ridley's proofs is entitled by him; the most certain testimonies of the ancient Catholic 
Fox pag. 1261.  Fathers: who after my judgement (saith he) do sufficiently declare this matter. And I will not greatly stand against him, for that the man's judgement being perverted by heresy, faction and ambition of those times, any thing would seem sufficient to him to draw him to that bias, whereunto himself inclined. And thus much of this article.  

About the third Article of the Sacrifice of the mass. §. 2.  
13. For that there was little or nothing disputed of this third article, either in Cambridge, Oxford, or London, except only a little against Latymer, as presently we shall see, I have thought best to betake me only to Ridley's determination in this matter: he beginneth the same thus: Now in the later conclusion, concerning the sacrifice, because it dependeth upon the first (to wit of the real-presence) I will in few words declare 
Fox pag. 1262.  what I think; for if we once agree in that, the whole controversy in the other will soon be at an end. mark here good reader that Ridley confesseth this controversy of the sacrifice to depend of the real-presence, which real-presence being so substantially proved before, as you have heard, little doubt can be made of this; yet will Ridley tell us what he thinketh (a goodly ground for us to hang our souls on) which is, that there is no sacrifice at all, but that of Christ upon the cross, and he will tell us also his grounds for so thinking: Two things (saith he) there be, which do persuade me, to 
Fox ibid.  wit, certain places of scripture, and certain testimonies of the Fathers. So he. And as for scriptures, he allegeth no one, but out of the Epistle to the Hebrues; that Christ entered once for 
Heb. 9  all into the holy-place, and obtained for us eternal redemption. And again. That Christ was once offered 
Heb. 10.  to take away the sins of many. And yet further: that with one offering he made perfect for ever those that are sanctified. And having cited these places, he maketh this conclusion. These scriptures do persuade me to believe, that there is no other oblation of Christ (albeit I am not ignorant there are many sacrifices) but that which was once made upon the Crosse.  
14. Hear now you may see the force of a passionate judgement, and how little doth suffice to persuade a man to any heresy, that is inclined thereunto of himself. I would ask of Ridley here, how chanceth it that S. chrusostom, S. Basill, S. Ambrose, S. Cyrill, S. Jerome, S. Augustine and other Fathers cited before so abundantly, and perspicuously affirming the daily sacrifice of the mass, and distinguishing between Cruentum & incruentum sacrificium, he bloody sacrifice of Christ on the cross once offered up for all; And the self-same sacrifice daily reiterated, and offered again in many places throughout the world, after an unbloody manner: how these Fathers, I say, had not been persuaded, as Ridley was, by these places 
The difference between Ridley and the ancient Fathers in their persuasions.  of scripture to deny the Sacrifice of the Masses had they not read (think you) the Epistle to the Hebrews; or did they not understand it 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 judgement, etc. For that he followed his own judgement, blinded by his own affection in this point against the mass, and they followed not their own judgement, but the universal judgement and belief of the Catholic Church in their days, and so must Ridley give us leave to follow them, rather than him.  
15. As for his second motive of certain testimonies of the Fathers, it is so weak and broken a thing, as he dareth not come forth with it, but only quoteth certain places of Saint Augustine, whereby he saith that the Christians 
Aug. ep. 23. & l 43. 9 61. & l. 20. co●r Faust. Manich. c●. 2 & 20.  keep a memorial of the sacrifice past; and that Fulgentius in his book de fide calleth the same a commemoration. And these be all the Fathers, and their authorities which he allegeth for his second motive: whereby you may see, that he was moved by a little against the mass: For we deny not but that the sacrifice of the mass is a commemoration also of the death, passion, and Sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, and he that in steed of these impertinent citations out of S. Austen nothing at all to the purpose, would lay down on the contrary side, all the clear, evident, and effectual places, sentences, discourses and asseverations, which this holy Father hath in proof and confirmation of the visible external sacrifice of the mass, wherein Christ's sacred body, the same that was offered on the cross, is offered again daily both for quick and dead by Christian Catholic Priests on the Altar, might make a whole Treatise thereof, and I remit 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. paragraphs, he doth set down large authorities, most plain and evident out of the said father's works. And it is enough for us at this time, that Latymer being pressed in his disputations with divers of these authorities answeted: I am not a shamed to acknowledge my ignorance, and these testimonies 
Fox pag. 1325.  are more than I can bear away, and after again, being further pressed with the most evident authorities of S. Augustine, and S. chrusostom in particular, affirming that the sacrifice of the mass is propitiatory both for quick and dead, he answered: The Doctors might be deceived in some points, though not in all things: I believe them when they say well. And yet further: I am of their saith when they say well. I refer myself to my L. of canterbury's book wholly 
Fox pag. 1326.  herein, And yet again. I have said when they say well and bring the scriptures for them, I am of their faith. And further. Augustine requireth not to be believed. So he. And by this you may see, what account they make both of S. Augustine and other Fathers, notwithstanding for a show, sometimes they will city some places out of them little to the purpose, but being witting in their own consciences, that really and substantially they make against them, they shift them of finally in this order as you have heard, and will believe and teach only as pleaseth themselves, which is the peculiar pride and wilfulness of heresy, from which God deliver us. And with this I end this whole Treatise.   
FINIS.