SDA TOC Bvt » betatete Mate eat oo aAtin'b dde 14: ahd y REDO had Pe etd ofa gide rated be de Ms) htt ike 1% Aa Pen} eit Ate ‘46 stg) sie pdata lations s b 2 (J A ow ha tun a Obs eres day i oker Bu iit: os sisi! ye? wy = t De reretis cern UT ath te aah : i at Hees Meni va nly g Haat yi] stipes ‘ a : Pawar itn “8 see 3 MARAT OOCE A fate . Be eeet aly, on Put raerern Cant itis erro BOO aa eye ih . re Tylyt ye tee alata ates S whe Soares fans Wan ik PPG sere Pos recer es eae Ry ye Mt raed San tyitaty” ents yas Ta ay Be ate Lae! ‘% ‘ . ++ ved Be er ‘ ss u APT TATS bots : Rv eas Uk . Pais Pesan “3 m t . Lg 3. ; : re reat Th Siem z fost malgy MOTD AS trikes. eters ry : at , a tas iterates Later orhe. SR Le arse Are ae Wed re or ast aus 25 Paty ey Tne ‘ r ANH vieh vay 4 ; boone EO Hacer y : GN et . gf Sola vb Faye Ry a, 4 : ¢ Ssroeretersg ’ : TAA IAT Fa i; j , eth Ad F it aes { ie aa i ‘ Z Tey Jest : ~ ¥ aT } 3 < Oe babe 4g Sey , i hens seth ide Beate Ae ee PET. : r ae Pave hy ver ES dl : Bae eth 2 d Teeny ee ye P61 ASP ; : , yuseld ove “ as } : : ; ? j F vy eva ay tn ‘ . j ‘ POAT . . inl) Ra pias ’ ? = f M ‘ i je domticht aul Be bet é mee 7 Pa ee) D ; ' ‘ Fas tey 7K i 7: ‘ ; : a Fd a 51S ee aibin's j ; +e ‘ : SLOT ipetecr © Pe PO ore TE Siyaseet? 5 i a BEAU ayes CSU TR VF : ¥ 4 ‘ rt) DOT BEES ‘ ‘ . ; . bene aan + D "7 5 ’ Spies a Wet acy F set vin dit ‘ é & 7 7 i nd ve wie ‘ - x : ‘ ; x — ’ , ’ Py ise yet ORD ’ a ‘ Pa AALS ate ' 7 T ree AT , , VENT VAAN GARY OF PRINCETQ Vv BA 5149: .C5 C7 1644 cet Cranmer, Thomas, 1489-1556. Writings and disputations <¢ Thomas Cranmer relative tc C12 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library httos://archive.org/details/writingsdisputat0Ocran ARCHBISHOP CRANMER ON THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. Che Parker Society. Sustituted 2.DB. M.BCCC.FEL. for the Publication of the Corks of the sSathers and Garlp GAriters of the Reformed English Church. WRITINGS AND DISPUTATIONS THOMAS (RAN MER. ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, MARTYR, 1556, RELATIVE TO THE SACRAMENT OF THE BOD S SUPEER. EDITED FOR Che Parker Society, REV. JOHN sotaN COX, M.A., OF ALL SOULS’ COLLEGE, OXFORD, CURATE AND LECTURER OF STEPNEY. Cambridge: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. M.DCCC.XLIV. 4e 5 J i we \ f , H) an: nr iG Ty GaTarey ree VARA IN) Mae Tan ry ii Pie! 4 a CONTENTS. PAGE Lire, State, and Story of Thomas Cranmet.................:csessseseessvenersereen ens Vii An Answer to a Crafty and Sophistical Cavillation devised by Stephen (GRINS? osaudootacecan6c06 san cononacag2don0 aoc OLO boc ban codtlodriha pdeqophoe CEODSEDOScEbede ND 1 Prefacesito thes Readerss.s: donc vecdcsees ove ceoseecisieecises saeeciccseterit woncet 3 Boosey len Of the Sacrament csscccssscoisescevsnsenccnesssnessdsvesscliewsees 9 Boows Wile Ofathewiresencerols CHUIsti teed eccrine: terrae otanccacerese 51 Boox IV. Of the Eating and Drinking ......... apanancessesebees cance 201 oo wiles eA canst rans stan tiatlom waded escsce- secede sceceectecrsnce 239 Book V. Of the Oblation and Sacrifice of Christ ................5. 344 PAIS WELALOMSINLIL IM AWETCLACO mics octaedecanesseasociocas satis sasecdaaaeli : : : G the king and and my almoner?” Doctor Cranmer affirming the same, the king said again: “Had doctor Cran- you not conference with them concerning our matter of divorce now in question after mer. this sort ?”—repeating the manner and order thereof. “That is right true, if it please your highness,” quoth doctor Cranmer. ‘“ Well,’ said the king, “I well perceive that you have the right scope of this matter. You must understand,” quoth the king, [? i.e. Doctor Stephen Gardiner, sometime bishop | [® So far as to Rome, Foxe. Ed. 1583. ] of Winchester. ] | [4 Foxe says ‘in Nottinghamishire.”’] The king troubled in conscience. x THE LIFE, STATE, AND STORY “that I have been long troubled in conscience; and now I perceive that by this means I might have been long ago relieved one way or other from the same, if we had this way proceeded. And therefore, master doctor, I pray you, and nevertheless, because you are a subject, I charge and command you, (all your other business and affairs set apart,) to take some pains to see this my cause to be furthered according to your device, as much as it may lie in you,” with many other words in commendation of the queen’s majesty. Doctor Cran- Doctor Cranmer, much disabling himself to meddle in so weighty a matter, be- mer excusing ! 5 - ave c and disabling sought the king’s highness to commit the trial and examining of this matter, by the himself to the king. word of God, unto the best learned men of both his universities, Cambridge and Oxford. “You say well,” said the king, “and I am content therewith. But yet, nevertheless, I will have you specially to write your mind therein.” And so, calling the Doctor Cran- earl of Wiltshire to him, said: “I pray you, my lord, let doctor Cranmer have enter- mer assigned - ‘i, 6 ° by the king tainment in your house at Durham place for a time, to the intent he may be there O seare 1e scriptures in ] ic . . = ° “es scriptures in quiet to accomplish my request, and let him lack neither books nor anything requi his divorce. site for his study.” And thus, after the king’s departure, doctor Cranmer went with my lord of Wiltshire unto his house, where he, incontinent, wrote his mind concern- ° Theking first ing the king’s question, adding to the same besides the authorities of scriptures’, of given to un- derstand that general councils, and of ancient writers; also his opinion, which was this: that the iC a no authorit to dispense Y bishop of Rome had no such authority, as whereby he might dispense with the word weed of God and the scriptures?. When doctor Cranmer had made this book, and com- of God. The king’s matter re- mitted it to the king, the king said to him: “Will you abide by this, that you have here written, before the bishop of Rome?’ “That will I do, by God’s grace,” quoth doctor Cranmer, “if your majesty do send me thither.” “Marry,” quoth the king, “I will send you even to him in a sure embassage.” And thus, by means of doctor Cranmer’s handling of this matter with the king, moved from not only certain learned men were sent abroad to the most part of the universities the pope’s eanon law to the trial the serip- tures. The king's marriage found by God’s word unlawful. Doctor Cran- mer, with others, sent to Rome am- bassador to the pope. Arguing to the pope’s oi Christendom to dispute the question, but also the same being, by commission, disputed by the divines in both the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, it was there concluded that no such matrimony was by the word of God lawful. Where- upon a solemn embassage was prepared and sent to the bishop of Rome, then being at Bonony, wherein went the earl of Wiltshire, doctor Cranmer, doctor Stokesly, doctor Carne, doctor Benet, and divers other learned men and gentlemen. And when the time came that they should come before the bishop of Rome to declare the cause of their embassage, the bishop, sitting on high in his cloth of estate, and in his rich apparel, with his sandals on his feet, offermg, as it were, his foot to be kissed of the ambassadors; the earl of Wiltshire with the rest of the ambassadors, disdaining thereat, stood still, and made no countenance thereunto, and kept themselves from that idolatry. In fine, the pontifical bishop seeing their constancy, without any farther ceremony, gave ear to the ambassadors. Who entering there before the bishop, offered, on the king’s behalf, to be defended, face thatcon- that no man, jure divino, could or ought to marry his brother’s wife, and that the trary to the word of God bishop of Rome by no means ought to dispense to the contrary. Divers promises he had no power to dispense. were made, and sundry days appointed, wherein the question should have been dis- puted: and when our part was ready to answer, no man there appeared to dispute in that behalf. So in the end, the bishop making to our ambassadors good counte- Doctor Cran- Nance, and gratifying doctor Cranmer with the office of the penitentiaryship, dis- mer made the pope's penitentiary missed them undisputed withal. [! Of the scriptures, Foxe. Ed. 1583.] (? The scripture, ibid.] OF THOMAS CRANMER. xl Whereupon the earl of Wiltshire and other commissioners, saving doctor Cranmer, Doctor Cran. mer ambas- returned home again into England. And forthwith doctor Cranmer went to the ee emperor, being in his journey towards Vienna, in expedition against the Turk, there to answer such learned men of the emperor’s council, as would or could say any- thing to the contrary part. Where amongst the rest, at the same time, was Cor- Conference ae a * . eh ay 5 - + W4 >, bishop Cran- nelius Agrippa, an high officer in the emperor’s court; who, having private confer- bishop Cra ence with doctor Cranmer in the question, was so fully resolved and satisfied in the Soren’ matter, that afterwards there was never disputation openly offered to doctor Cran- mer in that behalf. For through the persuasion of Agrippa all other learned men there were much discouraged. This matter thus prospering on doctor Cranmer’s behalf, as well touching the king’s question, as concerning the invalidity of the bishop of Rome’s authority, bishop Warham, then archbishop of Canterbury, departed this transitory life; whereby that Doctor Cran- mer made dignity then being in the king’s gift and disposition, was immediately given to doc- archbishop of tor Cranmer, as worthy for his travail of such a promotion. Thus much touching Pcie the preferment of doctor Cranmer unto his dignity, and by what means he achieved unto the same: not by flattery, nor by bribes, nor by none other unlawful means: which thing I have more at large discoursed, to stop the railing mouths of such, who, being themselves obscure and unlearned, shame not to detract a learned man most ignominiously with the surname of an hosteler, whom, for his godly zeal unto sincere religion, they ought with much humility to have had in regard and reputation. Now as concerning his behayiour and trade of life towards God and the world, being entered* into his said dignity. True it is, that he was so throughly furnished with all properties, qualities, and conditions belonging to a true bishop, as that it shall be very hard in these strange days to find many that so nearly resemble that lively exemplar, described by St Paul the apostle in his several epistles to Titus and fae Timothy: so far he swerved from the common course of common bishops in his time. But because the same is very well deciphered in the story at large‘, it shall not be so needful to discourse all the parts thereof in this place. Yet may not this be forgotten: that, notwithstanding the great charge now committed unto him, the The order of worthy prelate gave himself evermore to continual study, not breaking the order that mer's study. he used commonly in the university. To wit, by five of the clock in the morning in his study, and so until nine, continuing in prayer and study. From thence, until dinner time, to hear suitors (if the prince’s affairs did not call him away), committing his temporal affairs, as well of household as other foreign business, to his officers. For the most part, he would occupy himself in reformation of corrupt religion, and set- ting forth true and sincere doctrine; wherein he would associate himself always with learned men, for the sifting and boulting out one matter or other, for the commodity and profit of the church of England. After dinner, if any suitors were, he would diligently hear them and dispatch them, in such sort as every man commended his lenity and gentleness. That done, to his ordinary study again until five of the clock, which hour he bestowed in hearing common prayer. After supper he would con- sume an hour at the least im some godly conference, and then again, until nine of the clock, at one kind of study or other. So that no hour of the day was spent in vain, but was bestowed as tended to God’s glory, the service of his prince, or the commodity of the church. As touching his affability and easiness to be entreated, it was such as that in The gentie ° . 6 o ro nature of all honest causes, wherein his letter, counsel, or speech, might gratify either nobleman, doctor Cran- = mer. [* Being now entered, Foxe. Ed. 1583. | [* See Foxe. Ed. 1583, p. 1862-1868. | Doctor Cran- mer stout and constant in God's cause. Doctor Cran- mer a stout enemy against the six articles. Of this coming of the lord Cromwell, and the two dukes to the archbishop. Exainple for ecclesiastical pastors. Archbishop Cranmer in displeasure about the employing of chantry lands, xii THE LIFE, STATE, AND STORY gentleman, mean man, or poor man, no man could be more tractable, or sooner won to yield. Only in causes appertaining to God and his prince, no man more stout, more constant, or more hard to be won: as in that part his earnest defence in the parliament-house, above three days together, in disputing against the six articles of Gardiner’s device, can testify. And though the king would needs have them upon some politic consideration to go forward, yet he so handled himself, as well in the parliament-house, as afterwards by writing so obediently and with such humble be- haviour in words towards his prince, protesting the cause not to be his, but Almighty God’s who was the author of all truth, that the king did not only well like his defence, willing him to depart out of the parliament-house into the council chamber, whilst the act should pass and be granted, for safeguard of his conscience, which he with humble protestation refused, hoping that his majesty in process of time would revoke them again; but also, after the parliament was finished, the king perceiving the zealous affection that the archbishop bare towards the defence of his cause, which many ways by scriptures and manifold authorities and reasons he had substantially confirmed and defended, sent the lord Cromwell, then vicegerent, with the two dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, and all the lords of the parliament, to dine with him at Lambeth: where it was declared by the vicegerent and the two dukes, that it was the king’s pleasure, that they all should, in his highness’ behalf, cherish, comfort, and animate him, as one that for his travail in that parliament had shewed himself both greatly learned, and also discreet and wise, and therefore they willed him not to be discouraged for anything that was passed contrary to his allegations. He most humbly thanked the king’s majesty of his great goodness towards him, and them all for their pains, saying: “I hope in God, that hereafter my allegations and authorities shall take place to the glory of God and the commodity of the realm; in the mean time I will satisfy myself with the honourable consent of your honours and the whole parliament.” Here is to be noted, that this man’s stout and godly defence of the truth herein so bound the prince’s conscience, that he would not permit the truth in that man to be clean overthrown with authority and power; and therefore this way God work- ing in the prince’s mind, a plain token was declared hereby, that all things were not so sincerely handled in the confirmation of the said six articles as it ought to have been, for else the prince might have had just cause to have borne his great indigna- tion towards the archbishop. Let us pray that both the like stoutness may be per- ceived in all ecclesiastical and learned men, where the truth ought to be defended, and also the like relenting and flexibility may take place in princes and noblemen, when they shall have occasion offered them to maintain the same, so that they utterly overwhelm not the truth by self-will, power, and authority. Now in the end this archbishop’s constancy was such towards God’s cause, that he confirmed all his doings by bitter death in the fire, without respect of any worldly treasure or pleasure. And as touching his stoutness in his prince’s cause, the contrary resistance of the duke of Northumberland against him proved right well his good mind that way: which chanced by reason that he would not consent to the dissolving of chanteries until the king came of age, to the intent that they might then better serve to fur- nish his royal estate, than to have so great treasure consumed in his nonage: which his stoutness, jomed with such simplicity, surely was thought to divers of the coun- cil a thing incredible, specially in such sort to contend with him who was so ac: counted in this realm, as few or none would or durst gainstand him. So dear was to him the cause of God and of his prince, that for the one he would not keep his conscience clogged, nor for the other lurk or hide his head. Otherwise, as OF THOMAS CRANMER. xiii it is said, his very enemies might easily entreat him in any cause reasonable : and such things as he granted, he did without any suspicion of rebraiding or meed therefore. So that he was altogether void of the vice of the stubbornness, and rather culpable of over- much facility and gentleness. Surely if overmuch patience may be a vice, this man may seem peradventure to offend rather on this part than on the contrary. Albeit for all his doings I cannot say: for the most part, such was his mortification that way, that few we shall find in whom the saying of our Saviour Christ so much prevailed as with him, who would not only have a man to forgive his enemies, but also to pray for them: that lesson never went out of his memory. For it was known that he had many cruel enemies, not for his own deserts, but only for his religion’s sake: and yet, whatsoever he was that either sought his hindrance, either in goods, estimation, or life, and upon conference would seem never so slenderly anything to relent or excuse himself, he would both forget the offence committed, and also evermore afterwards friendly entertain him, and shew such pleasure to him, as by any means possible he might perform or declare. Insomuch that it came into a common proverb: “ Do unto my lord of Canterbury displeasure or a shrewd turn, and then you may be sure to have him your friend whiles he liveth.” Of which his gentle disposition in abstaining from revengement, amongst many examples thereof, I will repeat here one. It chanced an ignorant priest and parson in the north parts, the town is not now in remembrance, but he was kinsman of one Chersey a grocer, dwelling within London, (being one of those priests that use more to study at the alehouse than in his chamber or in his study,) to sit on a time with his honest neighbours at the alehouse within his own parish, where was communication ministered in commendation of my lord Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury. This said parson, envying his name only for religion’s sake, said to his neighbours: “‘ What make you of him?” quoth he, “ he was but an hosteler, and hath no more learning than the goslings that goeth yonder on the green,” with such like slanderous and uncomely words. These honest neighbours of his, not well bear- ing those his unseemly words, articled against him, and sent their complaint unto the lord Cromwell, then vicegerent in causes ecclesiastical; who sent for the priest and committed him to the Fleet, minding to have had him recant those his slanderous words at Paul’s Cross. Howbeit the lord Cromwell, having great affairs of the prince then in hand, forgat his prisoner in the Fleet. So that this Chersey the grocer, understanding that his kinsman was in durance in the Fleet, only for speaking words against my lord of Canterbury, consulted with the priest, and between them devised to make suit rather unto the archbishop for his deliverance, than to the lord Cromwell, before whom he was accused; understanding right well that there was great diversity of natures be- tween those two estates, the one gentle and full of clemency, and the other severe and somewhat intractable, namely against a papist. So that Chersey took upon him first to try my lord of Canterbury’s benignity, namely for that his cousin’s accusation touched only the offence against him and none other. Whereupon the said Chersey came to one of the archbishop’s gentlemen, (whose father bought yearly all his spices and fruit of the said Chersey, and so thereby of familiar acquaintance with the gentleman,) who, opening to him the trouble wherein his kinsman was, requested that he would be a means to my lord his master to hear his suit in the behalf of his kinsman. The matter was moved. The archbishop, like as he was of nature gentle, and of much clemency, so would he never shew himself strange unto suitors, but incontinently sent for the said Chersey. When he came before him, Chersey declared, “that there was a kinsman of his in the Fleet, a priest of the north country, and as I may tell your grace the truth,” quoth Chersey, “a man of small civility and of less learning. And yet he hath a parsonage there, which now (by reason that my lord Cromwell hath The singular patience of this arch- bishop. A story be- tween the archbishop of Canterbury anda poplah priest his enemy. The railing of a popish pres against r Cranmer. Chersey suing for his kins- man to the archbishop. The priest sent for to the arch- bishop. The arch- bishop's words unto the parson. The priest confesseth his fault to the archbishop. ‘The rash tongues of men slan- derously speaking evil by men whom they never knew nor saw before. xiv THE LIFE, STATE, AND STORY laid him in prison, being in his cure) is unserved; and he hath continued in durance above two months, and is called to no answer, and knoweth not when he shall come to any end, so that this his imprisonment consumeth his substance, will utterly undo him, unless your grace be his good lord.” “I know not the man,” said the arch- bishop, “‘nor what he hath done why he should be thus in trouble.” Said Chersey again: “He only hath offended against your grace, and against no man else, as may well be perceived by the articles objected against him:” the copy whereof the said Chersey then exhibited unto the said archbishop of Canterbury. Who, well perusing the said articles, said: “This is the common talk of all the ignorant papistical priests in England against me. Surely,” said he, “ I was never made privy unto this accusation, nor of his indurance I never heard before this time. Notwith- standing, if there be nothing else to charge him withal, against the prince or any of the council, I will at your request take order with him, and send him home again to his cure to do his duty:” and so thereupon sent his ring to the warden of the Fleet, willing him to send the prisoner unto him with his keeper at afternoon. When the keeper had brought the prisoner at the hour appointed, and Chersey had well instructed his cousin in any wise to submit himself unto the archbishop, confessing his fault, whereby that way he should most easily have an end and win his favour: thus the parson being brought into the garden at Lambeth, and there sitting under the vine, the archbishop demanded of the parson what was the cause of his indurance, and who committed him to the Fleet? The parson answered and said: “That the lord Cromwell sent him thither, for that certain malicious parishioners of his parish, had wrongfully accused him of words which he never spake nor meant.” Chersey, hearing his foolish cousin so far out of the way from his former instruction, said: “Thou dastardly dolt and varlet, is this thy promise that thou madest to me? Is there not a great number of thy honest neighbours’ hands against thee to prove thee a liar? Surely, my lord,” quoth Chersey, “it is pity to do him good. I am sorry that I have troubled your grace thus far with him.” ** Well,” said the archbishop unto the parson, “if you have not offended me, I can do you no good; for I am entreated to help one out of trouble that hath offended against me. If my lord Cromwell hath committed you to prison wrongfully, that lieth in himself to amend, and not in me. If your offence only touch me, I will be bold to do somewhat for your friend’s sake here. If you have not offended against me, then have I nothing to do with you, but that you may go and remain from whence you came.” Lord, what ado his kinsman Chersey made with him, calling him all kind of opprobrious names! In the end, my lord of Canterbury seeming to rise and go his ways, the fond priest fell down on his knees, and said: “I beseech your grace to forgive me this offence ; assuring your grace that I spake those words, bemg drunk, and not well advised.” “Ah!” said my lord, “this is somewhat, and yet it is no good excuse; for drunkenness evermore uttereth that which lieth hid in the heart of man when he is sober,” alleging a text or twain out of the scriptures concerning the vice of drunkenness, which cometh not now to remembrance. “‘ Now therefore,” said the archbishop, “ that you acknowledge somewhat your fault, I am content to commune with you, hoping that you are at this present of an indifferent sobriety. Tell me then,” quoth he, “did you ever see me, or were you ever acquainted with me before this day?” The priest answered and said, that never in his life he saw his grace. ‘“ Why then,” said the archbishop, “ what occasion had you to call me an hosteler; and that I had not so much learning as the goslings which then went on the green before your face? If I have no learning, you may now try it, and be out of doubt thereof: therefore I pray you appose me, either in grammar or in other liberal OF THOMAS CRANMER. XV sciences ; for I have at one time or other tasted partly of them. Or else, if you are a divine, say somewhat that way.” The priest, being amazed at my lord’s familiar talk, made answer and said: “ I ‘the priest's beseech your grace to pardon me. I am altogether unlearned, and understand not the Paes Latin tongue but very simply. My only study hath been to say my service and mass fair and deliberate, which I can do as well as any priest in the country where I dwell, T thank God.” “ Well,” said the other, “if you will not appose me, I will be so bold to appose you, and yet as easily as I can devise, and that only in the story of the bible now in English, in which I suppose that you are daily exercised. Tell me there- Tne mass- riest igno- fore, who was king David's father?” said my lord. The priest stood still pausing a tntin the : scripture. while, and said: “In good faith, my lord, I have forgotten his name.” Then said the other again to him: “If you cannot tell that, I pray you tell me then who was Salomon’s father?” The fond foolish priest, without all consideration what was de- manded of him before, made answer: “Good my lord, bear with me, I am not fur- ther seen in the bible, than is daily read in our service in the church.” The archbishop then answering said: “ This my question may be found well answered in your service. But I now well perceive, howsoever you have judged heretofore of my ‘The guise of learning, sure I am that you have none at all. But this is the common practice of all Se Sh, y is favour not you, which are ignorant and superstitious priests, to slander, backbite, and hate all such Merehgion as are learned and well affected towards God’s word and sincere religion. Common Hi eemeonee reason might have taught you, what an unlikely thing it was, and contrary to all manner of reason, that a prince, having two universities within his realm of well learned men, and desirous to be resolved of as doubtful a question as in these many years was not moved the like within Christendom, should be driven to that necessity for the defence of his cause, to send out of his realm an hosteler, being a man of no better knowledge than is a gosling, in an embassage to answer all learned men, both in the court of Rome and in the emperor’s court, in so difficult a question as toucheth the king’s matrimony, and the divorce thereof. I say, if you were men of any reasonable con- sideration, you might think it both unseemly and uncomely for a prince so to [do.] But look, where malice reigneth in men, there reason can take no place: and therefore I sce ryit-will . . : . never said by it, that you all are at a point with me, that no reason or authority can persuade well. you to favour my name, who never meant evil to you, but your both commodity and profit. Howbeit, God amend you all, forgive you, and send you better minds!” | With these words the priest seemed to weep, and desired his grace to pardon his : fault and frailty, so that by his means he might return to his cure again, and he would sure recant those his foolish words before his parishioners so soon as he came home, and would become a new man. “ Well,” said the archbishop, ‘so you had need.” And giving him a godly admonition to refuse the haunting of the alehouse, and to theareh- z 5 A . Gj a 5 3 5 bishop for- bestow his time better in the continual reading of the scriptures, he dismissed him giveth and ‘ dismisseth from the Fleet. the priest. How little this prelate we speak of was infected with filthy desire of lucre, and ‘the liberal . i ° doings of how he was no niggard, all kind of people that knew him, as well learned beyond de - the seas and on this side, to whom yearly he gave in exhibition no small sums of money, as other, both gentlemen, mean men, and poor men, who had in their neces- sity that which he could conveniently spare, lend, or make, can well testify. And albeit such was his liberality to all sorts of men, that no man did lack whom he | could do for, either in giving or lending; yet nevertheless such was again his cireum- _ spection, that when he was apprehended and committed by queen Mary to the tower, | he ought no man living a penny that could or would demand any duty of him, but _ satisfied every man to the uttermost; where else no small sums of money were owing The arch- bishop clear- ing all his debts before his attainder. The archbishop Cranmer ever constant in defence of Christ’s truth and gospel. The archbishop alone stand- ethin Xvi THE LIFE, STATE, AND STORY to him of divers persons, which by breaking their bills and obligations he freely for- gave and suppressed before his attainder. Insomuch that when he perceived the fatal end of king Edward should work to him no good success touching his body and goods, he incontinently called his officers, his steward and other, commanding them in any wise to pay, where any penny was owing, which was out of hand dispatched. In which archbishop this, moreover, is to be noted, with a memorandum, touching the relief of the poor, impotent, sick, and such as then came from the wars at Bullein', and other parts beyond the seas, lame, wounded, and destitute ; for whom he provided, besides his mansion-house at Beckisborne in Kent, the parsonage barn well furnished with certain lodgings for the sick and maimed soldiers: to whom were also appointed the almosiner, a physician, and surgeon, to attend upon them, and to dress and cure such as were not able to resort to their countries, having daily from the bishop’s kitchen hot broth and meat; for otherwise the common alms of the household was bestowed upon the poor neighbours of the shire. And when any of the impotent did recover, and were able to travel, they had convenient money delivered to bear their charges, according to the number of miles from that place distant. And this good example of mercy and liberal benignity I thought here good not in silence to be suppressed, whereby other may be moved, according to their vocation, to walk in the steps of no less libe- rality than in him in this behalf appeared. Amongst all other his virtues, his constancy in Christ’s cause, and setting forth the gospel purely and sincerely, was such that he would neither for dread or meed, affection or favour, to swerve at any time or in any point from the truth, as appeared by his sundry trials; wherein neither favour of his prince, nor fear of the indignation of the same, nor any other worldly respect, could alienate or change his purpose, grounded upon that infallible doctrine of the gospel. Notwithstanding, his constant defence of God’s truth was ever joined with such meekness toward the king, that he never took occasion of offence against him. At the setting forth® of the six Articles, mention was made before in the story of king Henry’s time, how adventurously this archbishop, Thomas Cranmer, did oppose himself, standing, as it were, post alone against the whole parliament, disputing and replying three days together against the said articles; insomuch that the king, when neither he could mislike his reasons, and yet would needs have these articles to pass, required him to absent himself for the time out of the chamber, while the act should pass, as is already declared before. And this was done during yet the state and time of the lord Cromwell’s authority. And now that it may appear likewise that after the decay of the lord Cromwell, yet his constancy in Christ’s cause did not decay, you shall hear what followed after. For after the apprehension of the lord Cromwell, when the adversaries of the gospel thought all things sure now on their side, it was so appointed amongst them, that ten or twelve bishops, and other learned men, joined together in commission, came to the said archbishop of Canterbury for the establishing of certain articles of our religion, which the papists then thought to win to their purpose against the said archbishop. For having now the lord Cromwell fast and sure, they thought all had been safe and sure for ever: as indeed to all men’s reasonable consideration, that time appeared so dangerous, that there was no manner hope that religion reformed should any one week longer stand, such accompt was then made of the king’s untowardness thereunto: inso- much that of all those commissioners, there was not one left to stay on the archbishop’s [! i.e. Boulogne, which was taken by the English after a siege in the year 1544.) [? At the time of setting forth, Foxe. Ed. 1583.] OF THOMAS CRANMER. XVii part, but he alone against them all stood in defence of the truth; and those that he most jlefeeof the trusted to, namely, bishop Heath, and bishop Skippe, left him in the plain field: who jiy'pRnna” “ 5 ° « Ski for- then so turned against him, that they took upon them to persuade him to their aaeE He archbishop purpose ; and having him down from the rest of the commissioners into his garden at in the plam ea 5 field. The Lambeth, there by all manner of effectual persuasions entreated him to leave off his reaieetite overmuch constancy, and to incline unto the king's intent, who was fully set to have it 2nyypnea otherwise than he then had penned, or meant to have set abroad. When those two his Bpnurenthe familiars, with one or two others his friends, had used all their eloquence and policy, gospel he, little regarding their inconstancy and remissness in God’s cause or quarrel, said unto them right notably: “ You make much ado to have me come to your purpose, alleging The answer ays Ce . Eh | 5 1 bishop to that it is the king’s pleasure to have the articles in that sort you have devised them bishop to to proceed; and now that you do perceive his highness, by sinister information, to be SEL bent that way, you think it a convenient thing to apply unto his highness’s mind. You be my friends both, especially the one of you I did put to his majesty as of trust. Beware, I say, what you do. There is but one truth in our articles to be concluded upon, which if you do hide from his highness by consenting unto a contrary doctrine, and then after in process of time, when the truth cannot be hidden from him, his highness shall perceive how that you have dealt colourably with him, I know his grace’s nature so well,” quoth the archbishop, “that he will never after trust and credit you, or put any good confidence in you. And as you are both my friends, so therefore I will you to beware thereof in time, and discharge your consciences in maintenance of the truth.” But all this would not serve, for they still swerved; and in the end, by dis- charging of his conscience, and declaring the truth unto the king, God so wrought with the king, that his highness joined with him against the rest ; so that the book of articles passing on his side, he won the goal from them all, contrary to all their expectations ; when many wagers would have been laid in London, that he should have been laid up with Cromwell at that time in the Tower, for his stiff standing to his tackle. After that day there could neither councillor, bishop, or papist, win him out of the king’s favour. Notwithstanding, not long after that, certain of the council, whose names need not ‘he papists to be repeated, by the enticement and provocation of his ancient enemy, the bishop of nee 7 in ‘5 a 3 bishop out of Winchester, and other of the same sect, attempted the king against him, declaring credit with plainly, that the realm was so infected with heresies and heretics, that it was dangerous vine for his highness farther to permit it unreformed, lest peradventure by long suffering thearch- such contention should arise and ensue in the realm among his subjects, that thereby acca might spring horrible commotions and uproars, like as in some parts of Germany it ae did not long ago; the enormity whereof they could not impute to any so much as to the archbishop of Canterbury, who by his own preaching and his chaplains’ had filled the whole realm full of divers pernicious heresies. The king would needs know his accusers. ‘They answered, that forasmuch as he was a councillor, no man durst take upon him to accuse him; but, if it please his highness to commit him to the Tower for a time, there would be accusations and proofs enough against him, for otherwise just testimony and witness against him would not appear; “and therefore your highness,” said they, “must needs give us, the council, liberty and leave to commit him to durance.” The king perceiving their importune suit against the archbishop, but yet meaning not to have him wronged and utterly given over unto their hands, granted to them that they should the next day commit him to the Tower for his trial. When night came, the king sent Sir Antony Deny about midnight to Lambeth to the archbishop, The kingsent : : Sir A willing him forthwith to resort unto him at the court. The message done, the arch- Deny at bishop speedily addressed himself to the court, and coming into the gallery where the jij" [CRANMER. | b xviii THE LIFE, STATE, AND STORY The king's. king walked and tarried for him, his highness said: “Ah, my lord of Canterbury, I words and advice for the 2 , 7 0 ive Tele 1 l it i sym ren oa tell you. news. For divers weighty considerations it is determined by me and the ne council, that you to-morrow at nine of the clock shall be committed to the Tower, for that you and your chaplains (as information is given us) have taught and preached, and thereby sown within the realm, such a number of execrable heresies, that it is feared, the whole realm being infected with them, no small contentions and commotions will rise thereby amongst my subjects, as of late days the like was in divers parts of Germany ; and therefore the council have requested me, for the trial of this matter, to suffer them to commit you to the Tower, or else no man dare come forth as witness in these matters, you being a councillor.” The arch- When the king had said his mind, the archbishop kneeled down, and said: “I am bishop’s Aes = O . answerto content, if it please your grace, with all my heart to go thither at your highness’s Pree commandment, and I most humbly thank your majesty that I may come to my trial; for there be that have many ways slandered me, and now this way I hope to try myself not worthy of such a report.” The king, perceiving the man’s uprightness joined with such simplicity, said: “Oh Lord, what manner a man be you! what simplicity isin you! I had thought that you would rather have sued to us to have taken the pains to have heard you and your accusers together for your trial without any such endurance. Do not you know what state you be in with the whole world, and how many great enemies you have? Do you not consider, what an easy thing it is to procure three or four false knaves to witness against you? Think you to have better luck that way than your master The king's Christ had? I see it, you will run headlong to your undoing, if I would suffer you. favourable care and 4 i 1] 1 71 1 1 care and |, Your enemies shall not so prevail against you, for I have otherwise devised with myself toward the archbishop of Canterbury. to keep you out of their hands. Yet, notwithstanding, to-morrow when the council shall sit and send for you, resort unto them; and if in charging you with this matter they do commit you to the Tower, require of them, because you are one of them, a councillor, that you may have your accusers brought before them, and that you may answer their accusations before them without any further endurance, and use for yourself as good persuasions that way as you may devise; and if no entreaty or reasonable Theking request will serve, then deliver unto them this my ring, (which then the king delivered sendeth his ° signet on the unto the archbishop,) and say unto them: ‘If there be no remedy, my lords, but that yehall oO} e archbishop of T must needs go to the Tower, then I revoke my cause from you, and appeal to the Canterbury. J king’s own person by this his token unto you all:’ for,” said the king then unto the archbishop, “‘so soon as they shall see this my ring, they know it so well, that they shall understand that I have resumed the whole cause into mine own hands and deter- mination, and that I have discharged them thereof.” The archbishop, perceiving the king’s benignity so much to him wards, had much ado to forbear tears. ‘“‘ Well,” said the king, “go your ways, my lord, and do as I have bidden you.” My lord, humbling himself with thanks, took his leave of the king’s highness for that night. The arch- On the morrow, about nine of the clock before noon, the council sent a gentleman bishop, bein . 5 oneof the usher for the archbishop, who when he came to the council-chamber door, could not council, made Pp 3 : eae be let in, but of purpose, as it seemed, was compelled there to wait among the pages, e council- e>hamber door eres Lary] . : S89 a = chanper door lackeys, and serving-men all alone. Doctor Butts, the king’s physician, resorting that Doctor Butts, the king’s yhysician, a . ord * friend of the and said: “ My lord of Canterbury, if it please your grace, is well promoted; for now arehbishop. way, and espying how my lord of Canterbury was handled, went to the king’s highness he is become a lackey or a serving-man, for yonder he standeth this half-hour without the council-chamber door amongst them.” “It is not so,” quoth the king, “I trow, nor the council hath not so little discretion as to use the metropolitan of the realm in that OF THOMAS CRANMER. xix ” sort, specially being one of their own number; but let them alone,” said the king, “and we shall hear more soon.” Anon the archbishop was called into the council-chamber, to whom was alleged as The arch- dishop ealled before is rehearsed. The archbishop answered in like sort as the king had advised before the council, him ; and in the end when he perceived that no manner of persuasion or entreaty could serve, he delivered to them the king’s ring, revoking his cause into the king’s hands. ‘rhe council Ei being set The whole council being thereat somewhat amazed, the earl of Bedford with a loud against the archbishop, voice, confirming his words with a solemn oath, said: “When you first began this heshewet > 5 > 5 the king's matter, my lords, I told you what would come of it. Do you think that the king (7.iuh will suffer this man’s finger to ache? much more, I warrant you, will he defend his sates life against brabbling varlets. You do but cumber yourselves to hear tales and fables against him.” And so incontinently, upon the receipt of the king’s token, they all rose and carried to the king his ring, surrendering that matter (as the order and use was) into his own hands. When they were all come to the king’s presence, his highness with a severe coun- The king's tenance said unto them: “Ah, my lords, I thought I had had wiser men of my qouncilin council than now I find you. What discretion was this in you, thus to make the *hPishop. primate of the realm, and one of you in office, to wait at the council-chamber door amongst serving-men? You might have considered that he was a councillor as well as you, and you had no such commission of me so to handle him. I was content that you should try him as a councillor, and not as a mean subject. But now I well perceive that things be done against him maliciously; and if some of you might have had your minds, you would have tried him to the uttermost. But I do you all to wit, and protest, that if a prince may be beholding unto his subject,” (and so solemnly laying his hand upon his breast, said,) “by the faith I owe to God, I take this man here, my lord of Canterbury, to be of all other a most faithful subject unto us, and one to whom we are much beholding,” giving him great commendations other- wise. And with that one or two of the chiefest of the council, making their excuse, declared, that in requesting his indurance, it was rather meant for his trial and his purgation against the common fame and slander of the world, than for any malice conceived against him. ‘‘ Well, well, my lords,” quoth the king, “take him and well use him, as he is worthy to be, and make no more ado.” And with that every man The lords of the council caught him by the hand, and made fair weather of altogethers, which might easily glad to be | : = friends again be done with that man. weRpunOe And it was much to be marvelled that they would go so far with him, thus to seek his undoing, this well understanding before, that the king most entirely loved the hinge great sup- ° . om = : ma im - . orter or him, and always would stand in his defence, whosoever spake against him; as many porter ot other times the king’s patience was by sinister informations against him tried: inso- much that the lord Cromwell was evermore wont to say unto him: ‘“ My lord of The tora romwell’s . on : 7 x 7 r words to the Canterbury, you are most happy of all men: for you may do and speak what you wentishon list, and, say what all men can against you, the king will never believe one word to your detriment or hindrance.” After the death of king Henry, immediately succeeded his son king Edward, un- der whose government and protection the state of this archbishop, being his godfather, was nothing appaired, but rather more advanced. During all this mean time of king Henry aforesaid, until the entering of king Edward, it seemeth that Cranmer was scarcely yet throughly persuaded in the right knowledge of the sacrament, or at least, was not yet fully ripened in the same: wherein shortly after he being more groundly confirmed by conference with bishop Ridley, in process of time did so profit in more riper knowledge, that at last he b—2 The true and ly doc- trine of the sacrament, in five books, set forth by the arch- bishop of Canterbury. An explica- tion by Stephen Gardiner against Cran- mer, arch- bishop of Canterbury. Manet alta mente repos- tum judi- cium Paridis, spreteque injuria ma- tris. Virg. Eneid. 1. This doctor Thornton was after the bishop of Dover, a cruel and wicked per- secutor. XX THE LIFE, STATE, AND STORY took upon him the defence of that whole doctrine, that is, to refute and throw down first, the corporal presence ; secondly, the phantastical transubstantiation ; thirdly, the idolatrous adoration; fourthly, the false error of the papists, that wicked men do eat the natural body of Christ ; and lastly, the blasphemous sacrifice of the mass. Where- upon in conclusion he wrote five books for the public instruction of the church of England, which instruction yet to this day standeth and is received in this church of England. Against these five books of the archbishop, Stephen Gardiner, the arch-enemy to Christ and his gospel, being then in the tower, slubbereth up a certain answer, such as it was, which he in open court exhibited up at Lambeth, being there examined by the archbishop aforesaid, and other the king’s commissioners in king Edward's days, which book was entitled, “An Explication and Assertion of the True Catholic Faith, touching the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, with a Confutation of a Book written against the same.” Against this explication, or rather a cavilling sophistication of Stephen Gardiner, Doctor of Law, the said archbishop of Canterbury learnedly and copiously replying again, maketh answer, as by the discourse thereof renewed in print is evident to be seen to all such as with indifferent eye will read and peruse the same. Besides these books above recited of this archbishop, divers other things there were also of his doing, as the Book of Reformation, with the Book of Homilies, whereof part was by him contrived, part by his procurement approved and published. Where- unto also may be adjoined another writing or confutation of his against eighty- eight articles by the convocation devised and propounded, but yet not ratified nor received, in the reign and time of king Henry’. And thus much hitherto concerning the doings and travails of this archbishop of Canterbury during the lives both of king Henry and king Edward his son; which two kings so long as they continued, this archbishop lacked no stay of maintenance against all his maligners. After the death of king Edward, queen Mary coming now to the crown, and being established in the possession of the realm, not long after came to London; and after she had caused first the two dukes of Northumberland and Suffolk, and their two children, the lady Jane and the lord Guilford, both in age tender and innocent of that crime, to be executed; she put the rest of the nobility to their fines, and forgave them, the archbishop of Canterbury only except. Who, though he desired pardon by mean of friends, could obtain none; insomuch that the queen would not once vouchsafe to see him: for as yet the old grudges against the archbishop, for the divorcement of her mother, remained hid in the bottom of her heart. Besides this divorce, she remembered the state of religion changed : all which was reputed to the archbishop, as the chief cause thereof. While these things were ,in doing, a rumour was in all men’s mouths, that the archbishop, to curry favour with the queen, had promised to say a Dirige mass, after the old custom, for the funeral of king Edward her brother. Neither wanted there some, which reported that he had already said mass at Canterbury; which mass in deed was said by doctor Thornton. This rumour Cranmer thinking speedily to stay, gave forth a writing in his purgation; the tenor whereof being set out at large in the Book of Acts and Monuments, I need not here again to recite. This bill being thus written, and lying openly a window’ in his chamber, cometh in by chance Master Scory, bishop then of Rochester, who after he had read and [! King Henry eight, Foxe, 1583.] [? Openly in a window, ibid.] OF THOMAS CRANMER. XXi perused the same, required of the archbishop to have a copy of the bill. The arch- bishop, when he had granted and permitted the same to Master Scory, by the occa- sion thereof Master Scory lending it to some friend of his, there were divers copies taken out thereof, and the thing published abroad among the common people: insomuch that every scrivener’s shop almost was occupied in writing out the same; and so at length some of those copies coming to the bishops’ hands, and so brought to the council, and they sending it to the commissioners, the matter was known, and so he commanded to appear. Whereupon Dr Cranmer at his day prefixed appeared before the said commissioners, bringing a true inventory, as he was commanded, of all his goods. That done, a bishop of the queen’s privy council, being one of the said commissioners, after the inventory was received, bringing in mention of the bill: “‘ My lord,’ said he, “ there is a bill put forth in your name, wherein you seem to be aggrieved with setting up the mass again: we doubt not but you are sorry that it is gone abroad.” To whom the archbishop answered again, saying: “As I do not deny myself to be the very author of that bill or letter, so must I confess here unto you, con- cerning the same bill, that I am sorry the said bill went from me in such sort as it did. For when I had written it, Master Scory got the copy of me, and is now come abroad, and (as I understand) the city is full of it. For which I am sorry, that it so passed my hands: for I had intended otherwise to have made it in a more large and ample manner, and minded to have set it on Paul’s Church door, and on the doors of all the churches in London, with mine own seal joined thereto.” At which words, when they saw the constantness of the man, they dismissed him, affirming they had no more at that present to say unto him, but that shortly he should hear further. The said bishop declared afterward to one of Dr Cranmer’s friends, that notwithstanding his attainder of treason, the queen’s determination at that time was, that Cranmer should only have been deprived of his archbishoprick, and have had a sufficient living assigned him, upon his exhibiting of a true inventory, with commandment to keep his house without meddling with matters of religion. But how that was true, I have not to say. This is certain, that not long after this he was sent unto the tower, and soon after condemned of treason. Notwithstanding, the “queen, when she could not honestly deny him his pardon, seeing all the rest were discharged, and specially seeing he last of all other subscribed to king Edward’s re- quest, and that against his own will, released to him his action of treason, and accused him only of heresy: which liked the archbishop right well, and came to pass as he wished, because the cause was not now his own, but Christ’s; not the queen’s, but the church’s. Thus stood the cause of Cranmer, till at length it was determined by the queen and the council, that he should be removed from the Tower, where he was prisoner, to Oxford, there to dispute with the doctors and divines. And privily word was sent before to them of Oxford to prepare themselves, and make them ready to dispute. And although the queen and the bishops had concluded before what should become of him, yet it pleased them that the matter should be debated with argu- ments, that under some honest shew of disputation the murder of the man might be covered. Neither could their hasty speed of revengement abide any long delay: and therefore in all haste he was carried to Oxford. What this disputation was, and how it was handled, what were the questions and reasons on both sides, and also touching his condemnation by the university and the prolocutor, because sufficiently it hath been declared in the story at large, we mind now therefore to proceed to his final judgment and order of condemnation, which This bishop was (loector Heath, bishop after of York. Cranmer con- demned of treason. Cranmer released of treason, and accused of heresy. Cranmer had to Oxford. xxii THE LIFE, STATE, AND STORY was the twelfth day of September, anno 1556', and seven days before the condemna- tion of bishop Ridley and Master Latimer. Of this con- After the disputations done and finished in Oxford, between the doctors of both demnation, . oye . = = read inthe universities, and the three worthy bishops, Dr Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, sen- page 1358. tence condemnatory immediately upon the same was ministered against them by Dr Weston and other of the university: whereby they were judged to be heretics, and so committed to the Mayor and Sheriffs of Oxford, by whom he was carried to Bocardo, their common gaol in Oxford. In? this mean time, while the archbishop was thus remaining in durance, (whom they had kept now in prison almost the space of three years,) the doctors and divines of Oxford busied themselves all that ever they could about Master Cranmer, to have him recant, assaying by all crafty practices and allurements they might devise, how to bring their purpose to pass. And to the intent they might win him easily, they had him to the dean’s house of Christ’s Church in the said university, where he lacked no delicate fare, played at the bowls, had his pleasure for walking, and all other things that might bring him from Christ. Over and besides all this, secretly and sleightly, they suborned certain men, which, when they could not expunge him by arguments and disputation, should by entreaty and fair promises or any other means allure him to recantation: perceiving otherwise what a great wound they should receive if the archbishop had stood stedfast in his sentence ; and again on the other side, how great profit they should get, if he, as the principal standard-bearer, should be overthrown. By reason whereof the wily papists flocked about him with threat- ning, flattering, entreating, and promising, and all other means: especially, Henry Sydall, and friar John, a Spaniard, de Villa Garcina, to the end to drive him, to the uttermost of their possibility, from his former sentence to recantation: whose force Thearch- his manly constancy did a great while resist; but at last, when they made no end tented to. of calling and crying upon him, the archbishop being overcome, whether through ag their importunity, or by his own imbecility, or of what mind I cannot tell, at length gave his hand. ‘ Causes mov- It might be supposed that it was done for the hope of life, and better days to oe & come. But as we may since perceive, by a letter of his sent to a lawyer, the most fime. ee cause why he desired his time to be delayed, was that he would make an end of Marcus Antonius, which he had already begun: but howsoever it was, he recanted, though plain against his conscience. The queen's Mary the queen, having now gotten a time to revenge her old grief, received his eat recantation very gladly ; but of her purpose to put him to death she would nothing oe relent. But taking secret counsel how to dispatch Cranmer out of the way, (who as yet knew nothing of her secret hate, and looked for nothing less than death,) appointed The queen doctor Cole, and secretly gave him in commandment, that against the 21st of March wth doer he should prepare a funeral sermon for Cranmer’s burning, and so instructing him Cranmers orderly and diligently of her will and pleasure in that behalf, sendeth him away. burning. mel 7 . Lord Win. of Soon after, the Lord Williams of Thame, and the Lord Shandoys, Sir Thomas Bridges, ee and Sir John Browne were sent for, with other worshipful men and justices, com- — manded in the queen’s name to be at Oxford at the same day, with their servants oe) Browne, = = Pg s i apneiaealtn and retinue, lest Cranmer’s death should raise there any tumult. pore eae Cole, the doctor, having his lesson given him before, and charged by her com- tion. mandment, returned to Oxford ready to play his part, who, as the day of execution _[! So it is printed in ed. 1580, and in Foxe, ed. 1583, p. 1871. ] [? See Foxe, ed. 1583, p. 1884. ] OF THOMAS CRANMER. XXill drew near, even the day before he came into the prison to Cranmer, to try whether he abode in the catholic faith, wherein before he had left him. To whom when Cranmer had answered, that by God’s grace he would daily be more confirmed in the catholic faith ; Cole, departing for that time, the next day following repaired to the archbishop no signification as yet of his death that was prepared ; and therefore in the morning, which was the 2Ist day of March, appointed for Cranmer’s execution, the said Cole coming to him asked, if he had any money. To whom when he answered that he had none, he delivered him fifteen crowns to give the poor to whom he would : and so exhorting him so much as he could to constancy in faith, departed thence about again, giving his business, as to his sermon appertained. By this partly, and other like arguments, the archbishop began more and more to surmise what they went about. Then, because the day was not far past, and the lords and knights that were looked for were not yet come, there came to him the Spanish friar, witness of his recantation, bringing a paper with articles, which Cran- mer should openly profess in his recantation before the people, earnestly desiring that he would write the said instrument with the articles with his own hand, and sign it with his name: which when he had done, the said friar desired that he would write another copy thereof, which should remain with him; and that he did also. } But yet the archbishop, being not ignorant whereunto their secret devices tended, and thinking that the time was at hand, in which he could no longer dissemble the pro- fession of his faith with Christ's people, he put secretly in his bosom his prayer with his exhortation, written in another paper, which he minded to recite to the people, before he should make the last profession of his faith, fearing lest, if they had heard the confession of his faith first, they would not afterward have suffered him to exhort the people. Soon after, about nine of the clock, the Lord Williams, Sir Thomas Bridges, Sir John Browne, and the other justices, with certain other noblemen that were sent of the queen’s council, came to Oxford with a great train of waiting men. Also of the other multitude on every side (as is wont in such a matter) was made a great con- course and greater expectation. In this so great frequence and expectation, Cranmer at length cometh from the prison Bocardo unto St Mary’s church (because it was a foul and a rainy day), the chief church in the university, in this order. The mayor went before, next him the aldermen in their place and degree; after them was Cranmer brought between two friars, which mumbling to and fro certain psalms in the streets, answered one ano- ther, until they came to the church door, and there they began the song of Simeon, Nune dimittis ; and entering into the church, the psalm-saying friars brought him to his standing, and there left him. There was a stage set up over against the pulpit, of a mean height from the ground, where Cranmer had his standing, waiting until Cole made him ready to his sermon. The lamentable case and sight of that man gave a sorrowful spectacle to all christian eyes that beheld him. He that late was archbishop, metropolitan and _pri- mate of England, and the king’s privy councillor, beg now in a bare and ragged gown, and ill-favouredly clothed, with an old square cap, exposed to the contempt of all men, did admonish men not only of his own calamity, but also of their state and fortune. For who would not pity his case, and bewail his fortune, and might not fear his own chance, to sce such a prelate, so grave a councillor, and of so long continued honour, after so many dignities, in his old years to be deprived of his estate, adjudged to die, and in so painful a death to end his life, and now presently from such fresh ornaments to descend to such vile and ragged apparel ? Cranmer writeth and subseribeth the articles with his own ands. Doctor Cran- mer brought to doctor Cole’s ser- mon. Doctor Cran- mer set upon a stage. Doctor Cole's sermon di- vided into three parts. The sum and effect of doctor Cole's sermon at Oxford, If Cole gave this judg- ment upon Cranmer when he had repented, what judg- ment is then to be given of Cole which always hath perdured in error, and never yet repented ? Tf all heretics in England should be burned, where should doctor Cole have been ere now ? Lex non zequalitatis, sed iniqui- tatis. No state in this earth so high nor so sure, but it may fall. XXxiV THE LIFE, STATE, AND STORY In this habit, when he had stood a good space upon the stage, turning to a pillar near adjoining thereunto, he lifted up his hands to heaven, and prayed to God once or twice: till at the length Dr Cole coming into the pulpit, and beginning his sermon, entered first into mention of Tobias and Zachary, Whom after that he had praised in the beginning of his sermon, for their perseverance in the true worshipping of God, he then divided his whole sermon into three parts (according to the solemn custom of the schools), intending to speak first of the mercy of God, secondly of his justice to be shewed, and last of all, how the prince’s secrets are not to be opened. And proceeding a little from the beginning, he took occasion by and by to turn his tale to Cranmer, and with many hot words reproved him, that once he being endued with the favour and feeling of wholesome and catholic doctrine, fell into the contrary opinion of pernicious error, which he had not only defended by writings, and all his power, but also allured other men to the like’ with great liberality of gifts, as it were appointing rewards for error; and after he had allured them, by all means did cherish them. It were too long to repeat all things, that in long order were then pronounced. The sum of this tripartite declamation was, that he said God’s mercy was so tem- pered with his justice, that he did not altogether require punishment according to the merits of offenders, nor yet sometimes suffered the same altogether to go unpunished, yea, though they had repented: as in David, who when he was bidden choose of three kinds of punishments which he would, and he had chosen pestilence for three days, the Lord forgave him half the time, but did not release all: and that the same thing came to pass in him also, to whom although pardon and reconciliation was due according to the canons, seeing he repented from his errors; yet there were causes why the queen and the council at this time judged him to death; of which, lest he should marvel too much, he should hear some. First, that being a traitor, he had dissolved the lawful matrimony between the king her father and mother; besides the driving out of the pope’s authority, while he was metropolitan. Secondly, that he had been an heretic, from whom, as from an author and only fountain, all heretical doctrine and schismatical opinions that so many years have pre- vailed in England, did first rise and spring: of which he had not been a secret favourer only, but also a most earnest defender even to the end of his life, sowing them abroad by writings and arguments, privately and openly, not without great ruin and decay of the catholic church. And further, it seemed meet, according to the law of equality, that as the death of the Duke of Northumberland of late made even with Thomas More, chancellor, that died for the church, so there should be one that should make even with Fisher of Rochester ; and because that Ridley, Hooper, Farrar, were not able to make even with that man, it seemed meet that Cranmer should be joined to them to fill up this part of equality. Beside these, there were other just and weighty causes, which seemed to the queen and the council, which was not meet at that time to be opened to the common people. After this, turning his tale to the hearers, he bad all men beware by this man’s example, that among men nothing is so high, that can promise itself safety on the earth, and that God’s vengeance is equally stretched against all men, and spareth none; therefore they should beware and learn to fear their prince. And seeing the [! To do the like, Foxe, ed. 1583.] OF THOMAS CRANMER. XXV queen’s majesty would not spare so notable a man as this, much less in the like cause she would spare other men; that no man should think to make thereby any defence of his error, either in riches or any kind of authority. They had now an example to teach them all, by whose calamity every man might consider his own fortune; who from the top of dignity, none being more honourable than he in the whole realm, and next the king, was fallen into so great misery, as they might now see; being a man of so high degree, some time one of the chiefest prelates in the church, and an archbishop, the chief of the council, the second person in the realm of long time, a man thought in greatest assurance, having a king on his side; not- withstanding all his authority and defence, to be debased from high estate to a low degree; of a councillor to become a caitiff, and to be set in so wretched a state, that the poorest wretch would not change condition with him; briefly, so heaped with misery on all sides, that neither was left in him any hope of better fortune, nor place for worse. The latter part of his sermon he converted to the archbishop; whom he com- poetor cole forted and encouraged to take his death well, by many places of scripture, as with the arch these and such like: bidding him not mistrust, but he should incontinently receive take his that the thief did to whom Christ said, Hodie mecum eris in Paradiso; that is, “This e"y- day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” And out of St Paul he armed him against the terror of the fire, by this: Dominus fidelis est, non sinet vos tentari ultra quam Jerre potestis; that is, “The Lord is faithful, which will not suffer you to be tempted 1 cor. x. above your strength:” by the example of the three children, to whom God made the flame to seem like a pleasant dew: adding also the rejoicing of St Andrew in his cross, the patience of St Laurence on the fire; assuring him that God, if he called on him, and to such as die in his faith, either would abate the fury of the flame, or give him strength to abide it. He glorified God much in his conversion, because it appeared to be only his work, poctor cole : : : . : rejoiceth in declaring what travail and conference had been with him to convert him, and all pre- the aren- vailed not, till that it pleased God of his mercy to reclaim him and call him home. version, But In discoursing of which place, he much commended Cranmer, and qualified his for- ie not — mer doings, thus tempering his judgment and talk of him, that while the time (said he) he flowed in riches and honour, he was unworthy of his life, and now that he might not live, he was unworthy of death. But lest he should carry with him no comfort, he would diligently labour, he said, and also he did promise in the name of Diniges and all the priests that were present, immediately after his death there should be diriges, m'se@ for masses, and funerals executed for him in all the churches of Oxford for the succour SY" of his soul. Cranmer in all this mean time with what great grief of mind he stood hearing this sermon, the outward shews of his body and countenance did better express than any man can declare; one while lifting up his hands and eyes unto heaven, and then again for shame letting them down to the earth. A man might have seen the very image and shape of perfect sorrow lively in him expressed. More than twenty several pipacares times the tears gushed out abundantly, dropped down marvellously from his fatherly bishop. face. They which were present do testify, that they never saw in any child more tears, than brast out from him at that time, all the sermon while; but specially when he recited his prayer before the people. It is marvellous what commiseration and pity moved all men’s hearts, that beheld so heavy a countenance and such abund- ance of tears in an old man of so reverend dignity. Cole, after he had ended his sermon, called back the people that were ready to depart, to prayers. ‘‘ Brethren,” said he, “lest any man should doubt of this ante XXVi THE LIFE, STATE, AND STORY earnest conversion and repentance, you shall hear him speak before you; and there- Cranmer ~~ fore I pray you, Master Cranmer, that you will now perform that you promised equired to rt eccere his not long ago, namely, that you would openly express the true and undoubted pro- fession of your faith, that you may take away all suspicion from men, and that all Cranmer men may understand that you are a catholic in deed.” “TI will do it” (said the arch- willing to ¢eclarehis bishop), “and with a good will;” who by and by rising up, and putting off his cap, began to speak thus unto the people: The words “T desire you, well-beloved brethren in the Lord, that you will pray to God for me, of the areh bishop to the to forgive me my sins, which above all men, both in number and greatness, I have people committed ; but among all the rest, there is one offence, which of all at this time doth vex and trouble me, whereof in process of my talk you shall hear more in his proper place” and then, putting his hand into his bosom, he drew forth his prayer, which he recited to the people in this sense. THE PRAYER OF DOCTOR CRANMER, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER- BURY, AT HIS DEATH. The prayer Goop christian people, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters in Christ, I beseech pace a you most heartily to pray for me to Almighty God, that he will forgive me all my sins and offences, which be many without number, and great above measure. But yet one thing grieveth my conscience more than all the rest, whereof, God willing, I intend to speak more hereafter. But how great and how many soever my sins be, I beseech you to pray God of his mercy to pardon and forgive them all.” And here, kneeling down, he said: “O Father of Heaven: O Son of God, Redeemer of the world: O Holy Ghost, three persons and one God, have mercy upon me, most wretched caitiff and miserable sinner. I have offended, both against heaven and earth, more than my tongue can express. Whither then may I go, or whither should I fly? To heaven I may be ashamed to lift up mine eyes, and in earth I find no place of refuge or succour. To thee therefore, O Lord, do I run: to thee do I humble my- self, saying: O Lord, my God, my sins be great, but yet have mercy upon me for thy great mercy. The great mystery, that God became man, was not wrought for little or few offences. Thou didst not give thy Son, O heavenly Father, unto death for small sins only, but for all the greatest sins of the world, so that the sinner return to thee with his whole heart, as I do here at this present. Wherefore, haye mercy on me, O God, whose property is always to have mercy; have mercy upon me, O Lord, for thy great mercy. I crave nothing, O Lord, for mine own merits, but for thy name’s sake, that it may be hallowed thereby, and for thy dear Son Jesus Christ’s sake: and now therefore, Our Father of heaven, hallowed be thy name,” &c. And then he rising said: “‘Every man, good people, desireth at that time of their death to give some good The last Scoretion exhortation, that other may remember the same before their death, and be the better putin tothe thereby: so I beseech God grant me grace, that I may speak something at this my people. departing, whereby God may be glorified, and you edified. “First, it is an heavy case to see that so many folk be so much doted upon the love of this false world, and so careful for it, that of the love of God or the Exhortation World to come they seem to care very little or nothing. Therefore this shall be my ofthe world, first exhortation, that you set not your minds overmuch upon this glosing world, but upon God and upon the world to come; and to learn to know what this lesson meaneth, which St John teacheth, ‘That the love of this world is hatred against God.’ OF THOMAS CRANMER. XXVii “The second exhortation is, that next, under God, you obey your king and queen Exhortation willingly and gladly, without murmuring or grudging; not for fear of them only, but much more for the fear of God: knowing that they be God’s ministers, appointed by God to rule and govern you; and therefore, whosoever resisteth them, resisteth the ordinance of God. “The third exhortation is, that you love altogether like brethren and sisters. For, Boa alas! pity it is to see what contention and hatred one christian man beareth to another, !ove not taking each other as brother and sister, but rather as strangers and mortal ene- mies. But, I pray you, learn and bear well away this one lesson, to do good unto all men, as much as in you lieth, and to hurt no man, no more than you would hurt your own natural loving brother or sister. For this you may be sure of, that whosoever hateth any person, and goeth about maliciously to hinder or hurt him, surely, and without all doubt, God is not with that man, although he think himself never so much in God’s favour. “The fourth exhortation shall be to them that have great substance and riches Exhortation to rich men of this world, that they will well consider and weigh three sayings of the of ies to charitable scripture. alin “One is of our Saviour Christ himself, who saith: ‘It is hard for a rich man to Luke xviii. enter into the kingdom of heaven. A sore saying, and yet spoken of him that knoweth the truth. “The second is of St John, whose saying is this: ‘He that hath the substance 1 John iii. of this world, and seeth his brother in necessity, and shutteth up his mercy from him, how can he say that he loveth God? “The third is of St James, who speaketh to the covetous rich man after this James v. manner: ‘Weep you and howl for the misery that shall come upon you: your riches do rot, your clothes be moth-eaten, your gold and silver doth canker and rust, and their rust shall bear witness against you, and consume you like fire: you gather a hoard-or treasure of God’s indignation against the last day.’ Let them that be rich, ponder well these three sentences: for if ever they had occasion to shew their charity, they have it now at this present, the poor people being so many, and victuals so dear. “And now, forasmuch as I am come to the last end of my life, whereupon hangeth all my life past, and all my life to come, either to live with my Master Christ for ever in joy, or else to be in pain for ever with wicked devils in hell, and see before mine eyes presently either heaven ready to receive me, or else hell ready to swallow me up; I shall therefore declare unto you my very faith, how I believe, without any colour or dissimulation: for now is no time to dissemble, whatsoever I have said or written in time past. “First, I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, &c. The arch- And I believe every article of the catholic faith, every word and sentence taught by clareth the rne contes- our Saviour Jesus Christ, his apostles and prophets, in the new and old testament. sion ofhis “And now I come to the great thing that so much troubleth my conscience more NTT than any thing that ever I did or said in my whole life, and that is, the setting abroad HanOD te of a writing contrary to the truth: which now here I renounce and refuse as things former re > written with my hand contrary to the truth which I thought in my heart, and written and repent. | for fear of death, and to save my life, if it might be; and that is, all such bills and papers which I have written or signed with my hand since my degradation ; wherein I have written many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand offended, writing contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished therefore: for, may I come to the fire, it shall be first burned. The areh- bishop re- fuseth the pope as hrist’s enemy, and antichrist. The arch- bishop stand- eth to his book written against Win- chester. The expecta- tion of the papists de- ceived. The papists in a great chafe agiinst the arch- bishop. Cranmer’s answer to the papists. Cranmer pulled down from the stage. Cranmer led to the fire. The arch- bishop brought to the place of execution. M. Fly re- fuseth to give his hand to the arch- bishop. XXVill THE LIFE, STATE, AND STORY “And as for the pope, I refuse him as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine. “And as for the sacrament, I believe as I have taught in my book against the bishop of Winchestér ; the which my book teacheth so true a doctrine of the sacrament, that it shall stand at the last day before the judgment of God, where the papistical doc- trine contrary thereto shall be ashamed to shew her face.” Here the standers by were all astonied, marvelled, were amazed, did look one upon another, whose expectation he had so notably deceived. Some began to ad- monish him of his recantation, and to accuse him of falsehood. Briefly, it was a world to see the doctors beguiled of so great an hope. I think there was never cruelty more notably or better in time deluded and deceived. For it is not to be doubted but they looked for a glorious victory and a perpetual triumph by this man’s retractation: who, as soon as they heard these things, began to let down their ears, to rage, fret, and fume; and so much the more, because they could not revenge their grief; for they could now no longer threaten or hurt him. For the most miserable man in the world can die but once: and whereas of necessity he must needs die that day, though the papists had been never so well pleased; now, being never so much offended with him, yet could he not be twice killed of them. And so, when they could do nothing else unto him, yet lest they should say nothing, they ceased not to object unto him his falsehood and dissimulation. Unto which accusation he answered: “‘ Ah, my masters,” quoth he, “do not you take it so. Always since I lived hitherto I have been a hater of falsehood, and a lover of simplicity, and never before this time have I dissembled :” and in saying this, all the tears that remained in his body appeared in his eyes. And when he began to speak more of the sacrament and of the papacy, some of them began to cry out, yelp, and bawl; and specially Cole cried out upon him, “Stop the heretic’s mouth, and take him away.” And then Cranmer being pulled down from the stage, was led to the fire, accom- panied with those friars, vexing, troubling, and threatening him most cruelly. “ What madness,” say they, “hath brought thee again into this error, by which thou wilt draw innumerable souls with thee into hell?” To whom he answered nothing, but directed all his talk to the people, saving that to one troubling him in the way he spake, and exhorted him to get him home to his study, and apply his book diligently, saying, “if he did diligently call upon God, by reading more he should get knowledge.” But the other Spanish barker, raging and foaming, was almost out of his wits, always having this in his mouth: Non fecisti? “didst thou it not?” But when he came to the place where the holy bishops and martyrs of God, Hugh Latimer and Ridley, were burnt before him for the confession of the truth, kneeling down, he prayed to God; and not long tarrying im prayers, putting off his garments to his shirt, he prepared himself to death. His shirt was made long down to his feet: his feet were bare: likewise his head, when both his caps were off, was so bare, that not one hair could be seen upon it: his beard was long and thick, cover- ing his face with marvellous gravity. Such a countenance of gravity moved the hearts both of his friends and of his enemies. Then the Spanish friars, John and Richard, of whom mention was made before, began to exhort him and play their parts with him afresh, but with vain and lost labour: Cranmer, with steadfast purpose abiding in the profession of his doctrine, gave his hand to certain old men, and other that stood by, bidding them farewell. And when he had thought to have done so likewise to Ely, the said Ely drew back his hand and refused, saying, “it was not lawful to salute heretics, and specially OF THOMAS CRANMER. XXix such a one as falsely returned unto the opinions that he had forsworn; and if he had known before that he would have done so, he would never have used his com- ? pany so familiarly:” and chid those sergeants and citizens, which had not refused to give him their hands. This Ely was a priest lately made, and student in divinity, being then one of the fellows of Brazennose. Then was an iron chain tied about Cranmer, whom when they perceived to be The arch: ishop tie¢ more steadfast than that he could be moved from his sentence, they commanded the Lita a fire to be set unto him. And when the wood was kindled, and the fire began to peer e burn near him, stretching out his arm, he put his right hand into the flame: which pers ie he held so steadfast and immoveable, (saving that once with the same hand he wiped oa his face,) that all men might see his hand burned before his body was touched. His body did so abide the burning of the flame, with such constancy and steadfastness, that standing always in one place without moving of his body, he seemed to move no more than the stake to which he was bound: his eyes were lifted up into heaven, and oftentimes he repeated, his “unworthy right hand,” so long as his voice would The last words of suffer him: and using often the words of Stephen, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,” fryer in the greatness of the flame, he gave up the ghost. This fortitude of mind, which perchance is rare and not used among the Spaniards, when friar John saw, thinking it came not of fortitude but of desperation, (although such manner examples, which are of the like constancy, have been common here in England,) ran to the lord Williams of Thame, crying that “the archbishop was vexed in mind, and died in great desperation.” But he which was not ignorant of the tie Sass archbishop’s constancy, being unknown to the Spaniards, smiled only, and, as it~ were, of Cranmer. by silence rebuked the friar’s folly. And this was the end of this learned archbishop, whom, lest by evil subscribing he should have perished, by well recanting God preserved; and lest he should have lived longer with shame and reproof, it pleased God rather to take him away, to the glory of his name and profit of his church. So good was the Lord both to his church in fortifying the same with the testimony and blood of such a martyr: and so good also to the man, with this cross of tribulation to purge his offences in this world, not only of his recantation, but also of his standing against John Lambert, and M. Allen, or if there were any other with whose burning and blood his hands had been before any thing polluted. But especially he had to rejoice that, dying in such a cause, he was to be numbered amongst Christ’s martyrs, much more worthy the name St Thomas of Canterbury than he whom the pope falsely before did canonize. The end of Cranmer’s life, Archb. of Cant. The following is the list of Archbishop Cranmer’s writings, extracted from Bishop Tanner's Bibliotheca : Scrirsir A Preface to the English Translation of the Bible, Strype in Vita Cranmer. App. p. 241. A catechism of christian doctrine, Mpxivit. by Gualter Lynn. Tempore Edw. VI. typis vulgavit in 8yo. Instruction into the christian religion, Pr. epist. “It is not unknown unto the hole.” Idem hic liber cum Catechismo, quia seepe mentionem facit verborum, “good children.” The ordinances or appointments of the reformed church. Hic liber fuit, The Book of Common Prayer, cum prefat. ‘There was never any thing.” A book of ordaining ministers. Idem cum, The form of ordination, §c. A. mpt. A book concerning the Eucharist, mith Luther. Eccle- stastical Laws in the time of king Edward. Hic liber est Reformatio legum, &c. a 32 delegatis composita, inter quos Cranmerus erat primarius. A defence of the catholic doctrine, Lib. v. Pr. pr. “Our Saviour Christ Jesus, according to the will.” London, mpu. 4to. Emde mpivn. 8vo. Latine per Joh. Chekum, cui Archiepiscopus Latinam prefationem addidit ded. regi Edw. VI. pro cura dominici gregis, Lond. mpimt. Vide hac versione Hospinian. Histor. Sacram. par. 11. p. 246. a. Transtulit hune librum etiam Johannes Young, Cantabr. The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, Lib. 1. Against the error of transubstantiation, Lib. 1. How Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper, Lib. 1. Concerning eating the Lord’s Supper, Lib. 1. Concerning the offering up of Christ, Lib. 1. Hee sunt argumenta quinque librorum Defensionis Catholice Doc- trine, Sc. Responsionem ad sophisticam Gardineri cavillationem contra veram doc- trinam de corpore et sanguine Christi in eucharistia, Lib. v. Anglice. Pr. “I thinke it good, gentle reader,” Lond. mpi. 4to. mpixxx. fol. Et Latine per Joh. Fox. MS. penes Jo. Strype. Cui libro replicabat Steph. Gardiner sub nomine M. Ant. Constantii, cui etiam libro Cranmer respondere voluit, nisi mors prevenisset. Tres tamen libros responsorios contexuit, quorum duo priores Oxonie perierunt. A book of christian homelies. Est sc. prima pars homiliarum libri tempore Edw. VI. edit. A book in answer to the calumnies of Richard Smith. Pr. “I have now obtained.” Lond. mpi. 4to. MDLXXX. fol. Confutations of unwritten verities; written against Rich. Smith’s book De Veritatibus non scriptis, qui liber Latine scriptus, sed nunquam, ut mihi quidem videtur, in ea lingua impressus fuit. Pr. translationis, “ Ye shal put nothyng to the word.” Anglice per E.P. cum prefatione doctissima, Lond. mptxxxu. 4to. J'welve books of common places taken out of the doctors, concerning the unlawfulness of marrying the brother's wife, Lib. 1. Hic liber primus esse videtur, quem jussu regis Hen. VIII. conscripsit. In MS. Cotton. Vespas. B.5. sunt articuli xii., ex quibus demonstratur divortium inter Hen. VIII. et reginam Catharinam necessario esse faciendum. Pr. “ Affinitas.” Against the pope’s supremacy, Lib. 1. Hee forte fuit declaratio episco- porum, A. MDXXXvI. contra suprematum papa, et contra Poli Ecclesiasticam unionem Against the pope’s purgatory, Lib. 1. Concerning justification, Lib. u. Hi duo ultimi videntur esse tractatus hujus argumenti ad finem libri, The institution of a christian man. Pious prayers, Lib. 1. forte orarium sive libellus precationum a rege et clero editus, A.mpxty. Against the sacrifice of Mass ; and against the adoration of the bread, Lib. 1. Scriptus hic liber in carcere, et videtur esse pars prima Responsi ad Gardinerum, sub nomine Constantii. XII Questions about alms, fasting, the mass, &c. by archb. Cranmer, MS. C. C. C. Cantabr. Mise. B. p. 231. His declaration concerning the slanderous reports of his setting up mass again, Ibid. p. 321. et Strype in Vita Cranmer. p. 305. Pr. “As the devil.” Disputationes Oxoniew, April. 16, mpttv, Fox. p. 1430, seqq. LIST OF CRANMER’S WRITINGS. XXX Submissiones et recantationes ejus VI. cum oratione ad populum ante mortem. Vis. et exam. per Edm. epise. London, Extant Angl. et Latine London mptyt. 4to. Protesta- tionem contra jurisdictionem episcopi Romani. Extat in Concil. M. Brit. et Hib. Vol. IIL. p. 757. Mandatum de festo S. Marci enangeliste celebrando, Ibid. p. 826. Aliud de non celebrandis festis diebus in concil. province. abrogatis. Tbid. p. 827. Literam commissionalem Rich. episcopo Dovor. Ibid. p. 828. seq. et Strype in Vita Cranmer. App. p. 41. Injunctions given to the diocese of Hereford, Ibid. p. 843. Mandatum de nominibus beneficiatorum et beneficiorum. Ibid. p. 857. Statutum de numero procuratorum curiae Cant. confirmatum a T.C. Ibid. p. 858. seq. Constitu- tionem de moderato apparatu escarum. Ibid. p. 862. Mandatum pro orationibus pro cessatione pluvie. Ibid. p. 868. Epistolas varias. 1. M. Bucero post mortem Fagii, MS. C. C. C. Cantabr. Miscell. II. p. 27. Epistole due ad M. Parkerum. Ibid. Miscell. I. 391. quarum una extat Strype in Vita Parker, p. 28. Epistola Lat. Jo. Vadiano Mpxxxvul., super controversia de coena Domini orta. Strype in Vila Cranm. App. n. xxv. etiam edit. per Colomesium, Lond. mpcxcty. 12mo. Epistole VI. extant ad finem Responsionis ad Gardinerum, Lond. mpixxx. fol. Epistole due ad reginam, et altera ad doct. Martin, et Story ex carcere Oxon. Pr. prime, “ It may please your majesty.” . . .. mpLvi. 8vo. Epistola ad Edwardum principem, Fox. 1395. Epistola ad consilium sacrum e carcere Oxon. Fox. 1464. LEpistole XVII. Anglice et III. Latin extant apud Strype in Vita Cranmer. in Append. et in libro ipso VI. ejus Epistole. Protestationem contra juramentum pape prestitum, Strype in Vita Cranm. Append. n. Vv. Three discourses of faith, justification, and forgiveness of injuries, occasioned upon his review of the king’s book, intitl. The erudition of a christian man. Strype, Cranm. App. n. xxxt. Other discourses ; De consolatione Christianorum contra metum mortis. Item, Exhortation to take adversity and sickness patiently. Ibid. n. xxxu. Answers to the XV articles of the rebells, Devon. A. mpxurx. Ibid. n. xu. Notes for an homily against the rebellion. Ibid. n. xu. Speech at the coronation of k. Edward, Strype in Vita Cranmer, p. 144. Articles in the visitation of the diocese of Canterbury, A. 2. Edw. VI. Pr. “First whether parsons, vicars.” Extant in Collect. canon. Sparrow Bal. VIIT. 90. H. Holland. Herool. p. 161. A fuller account of the writings of Cranmer, with the list of those printed in Dr Jenkyns’s edition, will be given with the biographical memoir in the other volume of this collection. pp pea? .¥ Naar ws : acal : ert ae 5 ¢- Or 6 a he. AF sda es : . Pry #5 r I he i Se =) « is Ler ' i a 7 Seg Wee . eee Maly , — > Aa: (he aa sae y te ek ae ' - i. fk “ Rich als (eae Fads ae » 4 : i ‘ “4 a + a) latdeat; - sir hag) 4 ; P Ale ys Laie elem ; > 7 at é «i i mi 7 : i f “ ’ = + ie . ' t bet = L) “, + ase i f \ J t co q AN ANSWER UNTO A CRAFTY AND SOPHISTICAL CAVILLATION, DEVISED BY STEPHEN GARDINER, DOCTOR OP LAW, LATE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, AGAINST THE TRUE AND GODLY DOCTRINE OF THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. BY THE REVEREND FATHER IN GOD THOMAS CRANMER, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND, AND METROPOLITAN. [cRANMER. | 1 AN AVASVWV ESE BY THE REVEREND FATHER in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitane, Vnto a craftie and Sophisticall cauillation, deuised by Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law, late Byshop of Winchester agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament, of the body and bloud of our Sauiour IESV CHRIST. @Aberein ts also, as occasion serueth, aunstwuered such pla- res of the booke of Bort, Richard Smith, as map seeme anp thpng horthp the aunswerpng. Were ts also the true Copy of the booke foritten, and in open Court delt- uered, bp D. Stephen Gardiner, not one fyord addcd or Diminished, but faptbfullpy in all pointes aareepng With the @riqtnall. Reuised, and corrected by the sapd Archbyshop at Oyford before his Martyrvame: Wherein Hee hath heauttfiey Gardiner’s Doynges, with asmuch Diligence as might be, by applying otes tn the Margent, and markes to the Boctours saying: whitch b efore Wanted in the first Hmpresston. Wereunto ts prefiped the Wiseourse of the sayd Arehhyshaps Ipfe, anv Martyrdome, briefly collected out of his Hystory of the Actes and Monumentes, anv tr the end is added certaine Notes, Mherein Gardiner barted, both from him selfe, and other Paptstes, gathered bp the sapd Archbyshoy. CS Read with Judgement, and conferre with viligence, laping aside all affection on cither partic, and thou shalt easelp petceaue (good Reader) Pow slender and weake the allegations an¥ perswasions of the Papistes are, where- with thep goe about to Defende their erroncous and false Doctrine, and to impugne the truth. Anno. M.D.LI. AT LONDON Printed by Iohn Daye, dwellyng ouer Al- dersgate beneath S. Martines. Anno. 1580. cei] Cum gratia & Priuilegio, Regie Maiestatis. PREFACE TO THE READER. [ Prefixed to the edition of 1551. ] A I rarx it good, gentle reader, here in the beginning, to admonish thee of certain words and kinds of speeches, which I do use sometimes in this mine answer to the late bishop of Winchester’s book, lest in mistaking thou do as it were stumble at them. First, this word “sacrament” I do sometimes use (as it is many times taken among writers and holy doctors) for the sacramental bread, water, or wine; as when they say, that sacramentum est sacre rei signum, “a sacrament is the sign of an holy thing.” But where I use to speak sometimes (as the old authors do) that Christ is in the sacraments, I mean the same as they did understand the matter; that is to say, not of Christ’s carnal presence in the outward sacrament, but sometimes of his sacramental presence. And sometime by this word “sacrament” I mean the whole ministration and receiving of the sacraments, either of baptism, or of the Lord’s supper: and so the old writers many times do say, that Christ and the Holy Ghost be present in the sacraments; not meaning by that manner of speech, that Christ and the Holy Ghost be present in the water, bread, or wine, (which be only the outward visible sacraments,) but that in the due ministration of the sacra- ments according to Christ's ordinance and institution, Christ and his holy Spirit be truly and indeed present by their mighty and sanctifying power, virtue, and grace, in all them that worthily receive the same. Moreover, when I say and repeat many times in my book, that the body of Christ is present in them that worthily receive the sacrament; lest any man should mistake my words, and think that I mean, that although Christ be not corporally in the outward visible signs, yet he is corporally in the persons that duly receive them, this is to advertise the reader, that I mean no such thing; but my meaning is, that the force, the grace, the virtue and benefit of Christ’s body that was erucified for us, and of his blood that was shed for us, be really and effectually present with all them that duly receive the sacraments: but all this I understand of his spiritual presence, of the which he saith, “I will be with you until the world’s end ;” and, “‘ wheresoever two or three be gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them;” and, “he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” Nor no more truly is he corporally or really present in the due ministration of the Lord’s supper, than he is in the due ministration of baptism; [that is to say, in both spiritually by grace. And wheresover in the scripture it is said that Christ, God, or the Holy Ghost is in any man, the same is understood spiritually by grace.|' The third thing to admonish the reader of is this, that when I name Doctor Stephen Gardiner bishop of Winchester’, I mean not that he is so now; but foras- bishoprick Feb. 14, 1550.; (Strype. Memorials of [N.B.—Wherever the asterisk is placed in the | Cranmer, Vol. 1. p. 322. Oxford ed. 1840.) but margin, it is to signify that the side-note only occurs in the edition of 1580. ‘The figures in the margin denote the paging of the edition of 1580.] {' This passage is only found in the edition of 1580. ] | [° Gardiner had been virtually deprived of his | the positive deprivation did not take place till April 18, in the same year.—( Burnet. His. of Reforma- tion, Vol. 11. p. 340. Oxford ed. 1829.) The sentence itself is preserved in Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, Vol. 11. pp. 738, 9, ed. 1631.] eis Sacrament. *Matt. xxviii. Christ's pre- sence in the godly re- ceiver. Matt. vi. Matt. xviii. John vi. The naming of the late bishop of Winchester. 4 A PREFACE. much as he was bishop of Winchester at the time when he wrote his book against me, therefore I answer his book as written by the bishop of Winchester, which else needed greatly none answer for any great learning or substance of matter that is in it. be real pre- The last admonition to the reader is this, where the said late bishop thinketh Christ sh should that he hath sufficiently proved transubstantiation, (that is to say, that the sub- transubstan. stance of bread and wine cannot be in the sacrament, if the body and blood of wine." Christ were there, because two bodies cannot be together in one place,) although the truth be, that in the sacrament of Christ’s body there is corporally but the substance of bread only, and in the sacrament of the blood the substance of wine only, yet how far he is deceived, and doth vary from the doctrine of other pa- pists, and also from the principles of philosophy (which he taketh for the foun- dation of his doctrine in this point), the reader hereby may easily perceive. For if we speak of God’s power, the papists affirm, that by God's power two bodies may be together in one place, and then why may not Christ’s blood be with the wine in the cup, and his flesh in the same place where the substance of the bread is? And if we consider the cause wherefore two bodies cannot be together in one place by the rules of nature, it shall evidently appear, that the body of Christ may rather be in one place with the substance of the bread, than with the accidents thereof, and so likewise his blood with the wine. For the natural cause wherefore two bodies cannot be together in one place (as the philosophers say) is their accidents, their bigness, and thickness, and not their substances. And then by the very order of nature it repugneth more, that the body of Christ should be present with the accidents of bread, and his blood with the accidents of wine, than with the substances either of bread or wine. This shall suffice for the admonition to the reader, joining thereto the preface in my first book, which is this : A PREFACE TO THE READER. [ Prefixed to the original edition of the “Defence of the True and Catholick Doctrine of the Sacrament,” 1550. | Our Saviour Christ Jesus, according to the will of his eternal Father, when the time thereto was fully accomplished, taking our nature upon him, came into this world from the high throne of his Father, to declare unto miserable sinners good news, to heal them that were sick, to make the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak, to set prisoners at liberty, to shew that the time of grace and mercy was come, to give light to them that were in darkness and in the shadow of death, and to preach and give pardon and full remission of sin to all his elected. And to perform the same he made a sacrifice and oblation of his own body upon the cross, which was a full redemption, satisfaction, and propitiation for the sins of the whole world. And to commend this his sacrifice unto all his faithful people, and to confirm their faith and hope of eternal salvation in the same, he hath ordained a perpetual memory of his said sacrifice, daily to be used in the church to his perpetual laud and praise, and to our singular comfort and consola- tion; that is to say, the celebration of his holy supper, wherein he doth not cease to give himself, with all his benefits, to all those that duly receive the same supper according to his blessed ordinance. But the Romish antichrist, to deface this great benefit of Christ, hath’ that his sacrifice upon the cross is not sufficient ‘hereunto, without any other® sacrifice devised by him, and made by the priest, or else without indulgences, beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such other pelfray, to supply Christ’s imperfection: and that christian people cannot apply to themselves the benefits of Christ's passion, but that the same is in the distribution of the bishop of Rome; or else that by Christ we have no full remission, but be delivered only from sin, and yet remaineth temporal pain in purgatory due for the same, to be remitted after this life by the Romish antichrist and his ministers, who take upon them to do for us that thing, which Christ either would not or could not do. O heinous blasphemy and most detestable injury against Christ! O wicked abomination in the temple of God! O pride intolerable of antichrist, and most mani- fest token of the son of perdition, extolling himself above God, and with Lucifer exalting his seat and power above the throne of God! For he that taketh upon him to supply that thing which he pretendeth to be unperfect in Christ, must needs make himself above Christ, and so very antichrist. For what is this else, but to be against Christ, and to bring him in contempt, as one that either for lack of charity would not, or for lack of power he could not, with all his blood- shedding and death, clearly deliver his faithful, and give them full remission of their sins, but that the full perfection thereof must be had at the hands of antichrist of Rome and his ministers? What man of knowledge and zeal to God’s honour can with dry eyes see this injury to Christ, and look upon the estate of religion brought in by the papists, perceiving the true sense of God’s words subverted by false glosses of man’s devising, the true christian religion turned into certain hypo- [' hath taught. Ed. 1551.] |? another, 1551. ] *The errone- ous doctrine of the papists obseuring the saine. *The state of religion brought in by the papists. Matt. xv. *The chief roots of all er.ors, *What moy- ed the author to write. 6 A PREFACE. critical and superstitious sects, the people praying with their mouths, and hearing with their ears, they wist not what, and so ignorant in God’s word, that they could not discern the hypocrisy and superstition from true and sincere religion? This was of late years the face of religion within this realm of England, and yet remaineth in divers realms. But thanks be to Almighty God and to the king’s majesty, with his father, a prince of most famous memory! the superstitious sects of monks and friars, that were in this realm, be clean taken away; the scripture is restored unto the proper and true understanding; the people may daily read and hear God’s heavenly word, and pray in their own language which they understand, so that their hearts and mouths may go together, and be none of those people whom! Christ complained, saying: “These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts be far from me.” Thanks be to God! many corrupt weeds be plucked up, which were wont to rot the flock of Christ, and to let the growing of the Lord’s harvest. But what availeth it to take away beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such other like popery, so long as two chief roots remain unpulled up? whereof, so long as they remain, will spring again all former impediments of the Lord’s harvest, and corruption of his flock. The rest is but branches and leaves, the cutting away whereof is but like topping and lopping of a tree, or cutting down of weeds, leaving the body standing and the roots in the ground; but the very body of the tree, or rather the roots of the weeds, is the popish doctrine of transubstantiation, of the real presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the sacrament of the altar (as they call it), and of the sacrifice and oblation of Christ made by the priest, for the salvation of the quick and the dead. Which roots if they be suffered to grow in the Lord’s vineyard, they will overspread all the ground again with the old errors and superstitions. These injuries to Christ be so intolerable, that no christian heart can willingly bear them. Wherefore, seeing that many have set to their hands, and whetted their tools, to pluck up the weeds, and to cut down the tree of error, I, not knowing otherwise how to excuse myself at the last day, have in this book set to my hand and axe with the rest, to cut down this tree, and to pluck up the weeds and plants by the roots, which our hea- venly Father never planted, but were grafted and sown in his vineyard by his adver- sary the devil, and antichrist his minister. The Lord grant, that this my travail and labour in his vineyard be not in vain, but that it may prosper and bring forth good fruits to his honour and glory! For when I see his vineyard overgrown with thorns, brambles and weeds, I know that everlasting woe appertaineth unto me, if I hold my peace, and put not to my hands and tongue to labour in purging his vineyard. God I take to witness, who seeth the hearts of all men thoroughly unto the bottom, that I take this labour for none other consideration, but for the glory of his name, and the discharge of my duty, and the zeal that I bear toward the flock of Christ. I know in what office God hath placed me, and to what purpose; that is to say, to set forth his word truly unto his people, to the uttermost of my power, without respect of person, or regard of thing in the world, but of him alone. I know what account I shall make to him hereof at the last day, when every man shall answer for his vocation, and receive for the same good or ill, according as he hath done. I know how antichrist hath obscured the glory of God, and the true knowledge of his word, overcasting the same with mists and clouds of error and ignorance through false glosses and interpretations. It pitieth me to see the simple and hungry flock of Christ led into corrupt pastures, to be carried blindfold they know not whither, and to be fed with poison in the stead of wholesome meats. And moved by the duty, [' of whom, 1541.] A PREFACE. 7 office, and place, whereunto it hath pleased God to call me, I give warning in his ne waning name unto all that profess Christ, that they flee far from Babylon, if they will save author. Rev. xiv. their souls, and to beware of that great harlot, that is to say, the pestiferous see of {oy Ss, Rome, that she make you not drunk with her pleasant wine. Trust not her sweet pi promises, nor banquet not with her; for instead of wine she will give you sour dregs, and for meat she will feed you with rank poison. But come to our Redeemer and Saviour Christ, who refresheth all that truly come unto him, be their anguish and heaviness never so great. Give credit unto him, in whose mouth was never found Tea Ii guile nor untruth. By him you shall be clearly delivered from all your diseases, of — — — him you shall have full remission @ pena et a culpa. He it is that feedeth continually all that belong unto him, with his own flesh that hanged upon the cross, and giveth them drink of the blood flowing out of his own side, and maketh to spring within them water that floweth unto everlasting life. Listen not to the false incantations, sweet whisperings, and crafty juggling? of the subtle papists, wherewith they have this many years deluded and bewitched the world; but hearken to Christ, give ear unto his words, which lead’ you the right way unto everlasting life, there with him to live ever as heirs of his kingdom. AMEN. Joun VI. It ts the spirit that giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing. [? jugglings, 1551.] [* shall lead, 1551.] I. PARKHURSTI.* Accire preclarum, Lector studiose, libellum, Quem tibi Cranmerus scripserat ante rogos. Hic docta sanctam tractat ratione synaxin, Insistens, Patres quas docuere, viis. Hic, Gardnere, tuas phaleratas detegit artes, Detrahit et larvam, seve tyranne, tuam: Atque tuo ipsius jugulum transverberat ense, Ut jaceas veluti sensibus absque fera. Denique rixosis hic obstruit ora Papistis, Rixandi posset si tamen esse modus. Solvitur in cineres corpus, mens scandit ad astra ; Fama superstes erit tempus in omne memor. {* These verses are only in the edition of 1580. ] A CRAFTY AND SOPHISTICAL CAVILLATION, DEVISED BY M. STEPHEN GARDINER, DOCTOR OF LAW, LATE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, AGAINST THE TRUE AND GODLY DOCTRINE OF THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR SAVIOUR CHRIST (CALLED BY HIM “AN EXPLICATION AND ASSERTION THEREOF’), WITH AN ANSWER UNTO THE SAME, MADE BY THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, THOMAS ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN. THE TITLE OF THE BOOK OF STEPHEN GARDINER, LATE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER : AN EXPLICATION AND ASSERTION OF THE TRUE CATHOLIC FAITH, TOUCHING THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR, WITH CONFUTATION OF A BOOK WRITTEN AGAINST THE SAME.! THE ANSWER OF THOMAS ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, &c. Here before the beginning of your book you have prefixed a goodly title; but it agreeth with the argument and matter thereof, as water agreeth with the fire. For your book is so far from an explication and assertion of the true catholic faith in the matter of the sacrament, that it is but a crafty cavillation and subtle sophistication, to obscure the truth thereof, and to hide the same, that it should not appear. And in your whole book, the reader (if he mark it well) shall easily perceive, how little learning is shewed therein, and how few authors you have alleged, other than such as I brought forth in my book, and made answer unto: but there is shewed what may be done by fine wit and new devices to deceive the reader, and by false interpretations to avoid the plain words of scripture and of the old authors. Wherefore, inasmuch as I purpose, God willing, in this defence of my former book, not only to answer you, but by the way also to touch D. Smith,? two things I would wish in you both: the one is truth with simplicity; the other is, that either of you both had so much learning as you think you have, or else that you thought of yourself no more than you have in deed. But to answer both your books in few words: the one sheweth nothing else, but what railing without reason or learning, the other what frowardness armed with wit and eloquence, be able to do against the truth. And Smith, because he would be vehement, and shew his heat in the manner of speech, where the matter is cold, hath framed in a manner all his sentences throughout his whole book by interrogations. But if the reader of both your books do no more, but diligently read over my book once again, he shall find the same not so slenderly made, but that I have foreseen all that could be said to the contrary; and that I have fully answered beforehand all that you both have said, or is able to say. [’ “ Made by Stephen, bishop of Winchester,— [° Dr Smith’s book was set forth under this and exhibited by his own hand for his defence to | title: ‘‘ A confutation of the true and Catholic the King’s Majesty's Commissioners at Lambeth.’’ | Doctrine, &c.’’—Strype, Memorials of Cranmer. p. Original edition. | 1089. Oxford edition, 1840. App. Ixi. p. 900. ] 10 THE FIRST BOOK WINCHESTER, Forasmuch as among other mine allegations for defence of myself in this matter, moved against me by occasion of my sermon! nude before the king’s most excellent majesty, touching partly the catholic faith of the most precious sacrament of the altar, which I see now im- pugned by a book set forth under the name of my lord of Canterbury's grace; I have thought expedient for the better opening of the matter, and considering I am by name touched in the mI would as said book, the rather to utter partly that I have to say by confutation of that book; wherein be do my due J think nevertheless not requisite to direct any speech by special name to the person of him to mematter that is entitled author, because it may possibly be that his name is abused, wherewith to set Sorth the matter, being himself of such dignity and authority in the commonwealth, as for that respect should be inviolable. For which consideration, I shall in my speech of such reproof as the untruth of the matter necessarily requireth, omitting the special title of the author of the book, speak only of the author in general, being a thing to me greatly to be marvelled at, that such matter should now be published out of my lord of Canterbury's pen; but because he is a man, I will not wonder, and because he is such a man, I will reverently use him, and forbearing further to name him, talk only of the author by that general name. . CANTERBURY. Beaver The first entry of your book sheweth to them that be wise, what they may look za ee been for in the rest of the same, except the beginning vary from all that followeth. Now the beginning is framed with such sleight and subtlety, that it may deceive the reader notably in two things: the one, that he should think you were called into judgment before the king’s majesty’s commissioners at Lambeth? for your catholic faith in the sacrament ; the other, that you made your book for your defence therein, which be both utterly untrue. For your book was made or ever ye were called before the said commissioners ; and after you were called, then you altered only two lines in the beginning of your book, and made that beginning which it hath now. This am I able to prove, as well otherwise, as by a book which I have of your own hand-writing, wherein appeareth plainly the alteration of the beginning. And as concerning the cause wherefore ye were called before the commissioners, whereas by your own importune suit and procurement, and as it were enforcing the matter, you were called to justice for your manifest contempt and continual disobe- dience from time to time, or rather rebellion against the king’s majesty, and were justly deprived of your estate for the same, you would turn it now to a matter of the sacrament, that the world should think your trouble rose for your faith in the sacrament ; which was no matter nor occasion thereof, nor no such matter was objected against you, wherefore you need to make any such defence. And where you would make that matter the occasion of your worthy deprivation and punishment, (which was no cause thereof,) and cloke your wilful obstinacy and disobedience (which was the only cause thereof), all men of judgment may well perceive, that you could mean no goodness thereby, neither to the king’s majesty, nor to his realm. But as touching the matter now in controversy, I impugn not the true catholic 3. faith which was taught by Christ and his apostles (as you say I do), but I impugn the false papistical faith, invented, devised, and imagined by antichrist and his ministers. And as for further forbearing of my name, and talking of the author in general (after that you have named me once, and your whole book is directed against my book, openly set out in my name), all men may judge that your doing herein is not for reverence to be used unto me, but that by suppressing of my name, you may the more unreverently and unseemly use your scoffing, taunting, railmg, and defaming of the author in general; and yet shall every man understand that your speech is directed to me in especial, as well as if you had appointed me with your finger. And [) Preached on St Peter’s-day, June 29, 1548, | p. 340. Vol. 111. p. 379. Oxford ed. 1829. See which he “ chose, because the gospel agreed to his | Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, Vol. 11. p. 726, ed. purpose.” The causes of accusation against him } 1631.] are set forth in Burnet’s Hist. Reform. Vol. 11. [2 See p. 3, note 2.] OF THE SACRAMENT. ll your reverent using of yourself, before the king’s highness’ commissioners of late, doth plainly declare what reverent respect you have to them that be in dignity and authority in the commonwealth. WINCHESTER. This author denieth the real presence of Christ's most precious body and blood in the fthesum of sacrament, This author denieth transubstantiation. This author denieth evil men to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament. These three denials only impugn and tend to destroy that faith, which this author term- eth the popish to err in, calling now all popish that believe either of these three articles by him denied, the truth whereof shall hereafter be opened. Now, because faith afirmeth some certainty: if we ask this author, what is his faith which *Because the he calleth true and catholic, it is only this, as we may learn by his book, that in our Lord’s eunene | supper be consecrate bread and wine, and delivered as tokens only to signify Christ's body the catholic and blood: he calleth them holy tokens, but yet noteth that the bread and wine be never ape Oe the holier: he saith nevertheless they be not bare tokens, and yet concludeth, Christ not to be Peo Ee spiritually present in them, but only as a thing is present in that which signifieth it (which juncerectot is the nature of a bare token), saying in another place, there is nothing to be worshipped, gio eneth for there is nothing present but in figure and in a sign: which whosoever saith, calleth the a ouue Te- thing in deed absent. And yet the author saith, Christ is in the man that worthily receiveth, spiritually present, who eateth of Christ's flesh and his blood reigning in heaven, whither the good believing man ascendeth by his faith: and as our body is nourished with the bread and wine received in the supper, so the true believing man is fed with the body and blood of Christ. And this is the sum of the doctrine of that faith, which this author calleth the true catholic faith. CANTERBURY. I desire the reader to judge my faith not by this short, envious, and untrue col- lection and report, but by mine own book, as it is at length set out in the first part, from the 8th unto the 16th chapter. And as concerning holiness? of bread and wine (whereunto I may add the water Bread, wine, in baptism) how can a dumb or an insensible and lifeless creature receive into itself Tee any food, and feed thereupon? No more is it possible that a spiritless creature should xed receive any spiritual sanctification or holiness. And yet do I not utterly deprive the outward sacraments of the name of holy things, because of the holy use whereunto they serve, and not because of any holiness that lieth hid in the insensible creature. Which although they have no holiness in them, yet they be signs and tokens of the mar- vellous works and holy effects, which God worketh in us by his omnipotent power. And they be no vain or bare tokens, as you would persuade, (for a bare token is 4. that which betokeneth only and giveth nothing, as a painted fire, which giveth neither ines peer light nor heat;) but in the due ministration of the sacraments God is present, working with his word and sacraments. And although (to speak properly) in the bread and wine be nothing in deed to be worshipped, yet in them that duly receive the sacraments is Christ himself inhabiting, and is of all creatures to be worshipped. And therefore you gather of my sayings unjustly, that Christ is in deed absent; for christ is pre- I say (according to God’s word and the doctrine of the old writers) that Christ is eee present in his sacraments, as they teach also that he is present in his word, when he worketh mightily by the same in the hearts of the hearers. By which manner of speech it is not meant that Christ is corporally present in the voice or sound of the speaker (which sound perisheth as soon as the words be spoken), but this speech meaneth that he worketh with his word, using the voice of the speaker, as his instrument to work by; as he useth also his sacraments, whereby he worketh, and therefore is said to be present in them. [* the holiness, 1551. ] *A catholic faith. * This au- thor's faith hath no point of a catholic faith. * Untrue re- rt. Scripture in letter favour- eth not this author's faith. *My doctrine is eatholic by your own de- seription. 1 Cor. x. John vi. John xvi. Heb. vii. ix. x. Christ is spi- ritually pre- sent. An issue. 12 THE FIRST BOOK WINCHESTER. Now a catholic fuith is an universal fuith, taught and preached through all, and so received and believed, agreeable and consonant to the scriptures, testified by such as by all ages have in their writings given knowledge thereof, which be the tokens and marks of a true catholic faith, whereof no one can be found in the faith this author calleth catholic. First, there is no scripture that in letter maintaineth the doctrine of this author’s book. For Christ saith not that the bread doth only signify his body absent, nor St Paul saith not so in any place, nor any other canonical scripture declareth Christs words so. As for the sense and understanding of Christ's words, there hath not been in any age any one approved and known learned man, that hath so declared and expounded Christ's words in his supper, that the bread did only signify Christ’s body, and the wine his blood, as things absent. CANTERBURY. The first part of your description of a catholic faith is crafty and full of subtlety ; for what you mean by “all” you do not express. The second part is very true, and agreeth fully with my doctrine in every thing, as well in the matter of transubstantiation, of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, and of the eating and drinking of him, as in the sacrifice propitiatory. For as I have taught in these four matters of controversy, so learned I the same of the holy scripture; so is it testified by all old writers and learned men of all ages ; so was it universally taught and preached, received and believed, until the see of Rome, the chief adversary unto Christ, corrupted all together, and by hypocrisy and simulation in the stead of Christ erected antichrist ; who, being the son of perdition, hath extolled and advanced himself, and sitteth in the temple of God, as he were God himself, loosing and binding at his pleasure, in heaven, hell, and earth ; condemning, absolving, canonising, and damning, as to his judgment he thinketh good. But as concerning your doctrine of transubstantiation, of the real, corporal and natural presence of Christ's body in the bread, and blood in the wine; that ill men do eat his flesh and drink his blood; that Christ is many times offered; there is no scripture that in letter maintaineth any of them (as you require in a catholic faith), but the scripture in the letter doth maintain this my doctrine plainly, that the bread remaineth, Panis quem frangimus, nonne communicatio corporis Christi est? ‘Is not the bread which we break the communion of Christ’s body?’ And that evil men do not eat Christ’s flesh, nor drink his blood; for the scripture saith expressly: “ He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him,” which is not true of ill men. And for the corporal absence of Christ, what can be more plainly said in the letter than he said of himself, ‘‘ that he forsook the world?’ besides other scriptures which I have alleged in my third book, the fourth chapter. And the scripture speaketh plainly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ was never more offered than once. But here you take such a large scope, that you flee from the four proper matters that be in controversy, unto a new scope devised by you, that I should absolutely deny the presence of Christ, and say, that the bread doth only signify Christ’s body absent ; which thing I never said nor thought. And as Christ saith not so, nor Paul saith not so, even so likewise I say not so; and my book in divers places saith clean contrary, that Christ is with us spiritually present, is eaten and drunken of us, and dwelleth within us, although corporally he be departed out of this world, and is ascended up into heaven. WINCHESTER. And to the intent every notable disagreement from the truth may the more evidently appear, T will here in this place (as I will hereafter likewise when the case occurreth) join as it were an issue with this author, that is to say, to make a stay with him in this point triable (as they say) by evidence and soon tried. For in this point the scriptures be already by the author brought forth, the letter whereof proveth not his faith. And albeit he travaileth and bringeth forth the saying of many approved writers, yet is there no one of them that writeth ————EO OF THE SACRAMENT. 13 in express words the doctrine of that faith, which this author calleth the faith catholic. And to make the issue plain, and to join it directly, thus I say: No author known and approved, that is to say, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Irene, Ter- *No writer tullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Emissen, Ambrose, Cyril, pa den Jerome, Augustine, Damascene, Theophylact, none of these hath this doctrine in plain terms, Wits faith. that the bread only signifieth Christ's body absent; nor this sentence, that the bread and ‘he issue. wine be never the holier after consecration, nor that Christ's body is none otherwise present in the sacrament, but in a signification; nor this sentence, that the sacrament is not to be worshipped, because there is nothing present but in a sign. And herein what the truth is, may soon appear, as it shall by their works never appear to have been taught and preached, * Outward received and believed universally, and therefore can be called no catholic faith (that is to aid say) allowed in the whole, through and in outward teaching, preached and believed. CANTERBURY. In your issues you make me to say what you list, and take your issue where you Yourdoe- trine is not list; and then if twelve false varlets pass with you, what wonder is it? But I will one re join with you this issue, that neither scripture nor ancient author writeth in express scription. words the doctrine of your faith. And to make the issue plain, and to join directly with you therein, thus I say: that no ancient and catholic author hath your doctrine in plain terms. And because I will not take my issue in bye matters (as you do), I will make it in the four principal points, wherein we vary, and whereupon my book | resteth. This therefore shall be mine issue: that as no scripture, so no ancient author known 6. and approved, hath in plain terms your transubstantiation: nor that the body and “Y's blood of Christ be really, corporally, naturally, and carnally under the forms of bread and wine: nor that evil men do eat the very body and drink the very blood of Christ : nor that Christ is offered every day by the priest a sacrifice propitiatory for sin. Wherefore by your own description and rule of a catholic faith, your doctrine and teaching in these four articles cannot be good and catholic, except you can find it in plain terms in the scripture and old catholic doctors; which when you do, I will hold up my hand at the bar, and say, “guilty”: and if you cannot, then it is reason that you do the like, per legem talionis. WINCHESTER. Tf this author, setting apart the word “catholic”, would of his own wit go about to prove, howsoever scripture hath been understanded hitherto, yet it should be understanded indeed as he now teacheth, he hath herein divers disadvantages and hindrances worthy consideration, which I will particularly note. First, the prejudice and sentence, given as it were by his own mouth against himself, now «4 notable in the book called the Catechism in his name set forth. mmanteene Secondly, that about seven hundred years ago one Bertram (if the book set forth in his Bole name be his) enterprised secretly the like, as appeareth by the said book, and yet prevailed former writings. not. pees onfessed to Thirdly, Berengarius, being indeed but an archdeacon, about five hundred years past, after be of this he had openly attempted to set forth such like doctrine, recanted, and so failed in his purpose. Fourthly, Wicklif, not much above an hundred years past, enterprised the same, whose teaching God prospered not. Fifthly, how Luther in his works handled them that would have in our time raised up «ris the same doctrine in Germany, it is manifest by his and their writings; whereby appeareth (uinors doe the enterprise that hath had so many overthrows, so many rebuts, so often reproofs, to be Ficcted as desperate, and such as God hath not prospered and favoured to be received at any time openly as his true teaching. Herein whether I say true or no, let the stories try me; and it is matter worthy to be noted, because Gamaliel’s observation written in the Acts of the Apostles is allowed to acts y. mark, how they prosper and go forward in their doctrine, that be authors of any new teaching. » My Cate- chism. Bertram. Berengarius. Wickit. Luther. The papists have been the cause why the ca- tholie doc- trine hath been hin- dered, and hath not had good suc- cess these late years. 14 THE FIRST BOOK CANTERBURY. I have not proved in my book my four assertions by mine own wit, but by the collation of holy scripture, and the sayings of the old holy catholic authors. And as for your five notes, you might have noted them against yourself, who by them have much more disadvantage and hindrance than I have. As concerning the Catechism by me set forth, I have answered in my fourth book, the eighth chapter, that ignorant men for lack of judgment and exercise in old —— mistake my said Citeahines And as for Bertram, he did nothing else but, at the request of king Charles, set out the true doctrine of the holy catholic church, from Christ unto his time, concerning the sacrament. And I never heard nor read any man that condemned Bertram before this time; and therefore I can take no hindrance, but a great advantage at his hands: for all men that hitherto have written of Bertram, have much commended him. And seeing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles's request, it is not like that he would write against the received doctrine of the church in those days. And if he had, it is without all doubt that some learned man, either in his time or sithence, would have written against him, or at the least not have commended him so much as they have done. Berengarius of himself had a godly judgment in this matter, but by the tyranny of Nicholas the Second he was constrained to make a devilish recantation, as I have declared in my first book, the seventeenth chapter. And as for John Wickliff, he was a singular instrument of God in his time to set forth the truth of Christ's gospel; but antichrist, that sitteth in God’s temple boasting himself as God, hath by God's sufferance prevailed against many holy men, and sucked the blood of martyrs these late years. And as touching Martin Luther, it seemeth you be sore pressed, that be fain to pray aid of him, whom you have hitherto ever detested. The fox is sore hunted that is fain to take his burrow, and the wolf that is fain to take the lion’s den for a shift, or to run for succour unto a beast which he most hateth. And no man condemneth your doctrine of transubstantiation, and of the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, more severely and earnestly than doth Martin Luther. But it appeareth by your conclusion, that you have waded so far in rhetorick, that you have forgotten your logic. For this is your argument: Bertram taught this doctrine and prevailed not; Berengarius attempted the same, and failed in his purpose; Wickliff enterprised the same, whose teaching God prospered not; therefore God hath not prospered and favoured it to be received at any time openly as his true teaching. I will make the like reason. The prophet Osea taught in Samaria to the ten tribes the true doctrine of God, to bring them from their abominable superstitions and ido- latry: Joel, Amos, and Micheas attempted the same, whose doctrine prevailed not ; God prospered not their teaching among those people, but they were condemned with their doctrine ; therefore God hath not prospered and favoured it to be received at any time openly as his true teaching. If you will answer (as you must needs do), that the cause why that among those people the true teaching prevailed not, was by reason of the abundant superstition and idolatry that blinded their eyes, you have fully answered your own argument, and have plainly declared the cause, why the true doctrine in this matter hath not prevailed these five hundred years, the church of Rome (which all that time hath borne the chief swing) being overflown and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry, and therefore might not abide to hear of the truth. And the true doctrine of the sacra- ment (which I have set out plainly in my book) was never condemned by no council, nor your false papistical doctrine allowed, until the devil caused antichrist his son and heir, Pope Nicholas the Second, with his monks and friars, to condemn the truth and confirm these your heresies. And where of Gamaliel’s words you make an argument of prosperous success in this matter, the scripture testifieth how antichrist shall prosper and prevail against saints no short while, and persecute the truth. And yet the counsel of Gamaliel OF THE SACRAMENT. 15 was yery discreet and wise. For he perceived that God went about the reformation of religion grown in those days to idolatry, hypocrisy and superstition, through tradi- 8. tions of Pharisees; and therefore he moved the rest of the council to beware, that they did not rashly and unadvisedly condemn that doctrine and religion which was approved by God, lest in so doing they should not only resist the apostles, but God himself. Which counsel if you had marked and followed, you would not have done so unsoberly in many things as you have done. And as for the prosperity of them that have professed Christ and his true doc- trine, they prospered with the papists as St John Baptist prospered with Herod, and our Saviour Christ with Pilate, Annas, and Caiphas. Now which of these prospered best, say you? Was the doctrine of Christ and St John any whit the worse, because the cruel tyrants and Jews put them to death for the same ? WINCHESTER. But all this set apart, and putting aside all testimonies of the old church, and resorting «these only to the letter of the scripture, there to search out an understanding, and in doing thereof ee a to forget what hath been taught hitherto: how shall this author establish upon scripture that Bods dts he would have believed? What other teat is there in scripture that encountereth with these the Seen words of scripture, “ This is my body,” whereby to alter the signification of them? There *Untrve re- is no scripture saith, Christ did not give his body, but the figure of his body; nor the giving oe author . n a oO of Christ's body in his supper, verily and really so understanded, doth not necessarily im- words of : : ; ; seriptu pugn and contrary any other speech or doing of Christ, expressed in scripture. For the ERO ‘ . . , his faith. great power and omnipotency of God excludeth that repugnance which man’s reason would deem, of Christ's departing from this world, and placing his humanity in the glory of his Father. CANTERBURY. The scripture is plain, and you confess also that it was bread that Christ. spake «this is my of when he said, “This is my body.” And what need we any other scripture to pody; sn? encounter with these words, seeing that all men know that bread is not Christ’s body, °°" the one having sense and reason, the other none at all? Wherefore in that speech must needs be sought another sense and meaning, than the words of themselves do give, which is (as all old writers do teach, and the circumstances of the text declare) that the bread is a figure and sacrament of Christ’s body. And yet, as he giveth the bread to be eaten with our mouths, so giveth he his very body to be eaten with our faith. And therefore I say, that Christ giveth himself truly to be eaten, chewed, and digested ; but all is spiritually with faith, not with mouth. And yet you would bear me in hand, that I say that thing which I say not; that is to say, that Christ did not give his body, but the figure of his body. And because you be not able to confute that I say, you would make me to say that you can confute. As for the great power and omnipotency of God, it is no place here to dispute God's omni- potency. what God can do, but what he doth. I know that he can do what he will, both in iar cy. heayen and in earth, and no man is able to resist his will. But the question here is *°™™ of his will, not of his power. And yet if you can join together these two, that one nature singular shall be here and not here, both at one time,.and that it shall be gone hence when it is here, you have some strong syment', and be a cunning geome- trician; but yet you shall never be good logician, that would set together two contra- dictories: for that, the schoolmen say, God cannot do. ' WINCHESTER. Tf this author without force of necessity would induce it, by the like speeches, as when 9. Christ said, “I am the door,” “TI am the vine,” “he is Helias,’ and such other; and because pert it is a figurative speech in them, it may be so here, which maketh no kind of proof’ that speeches in ae F F = é 5 er) ance. it is so here; but yet, if by way of reasoning I would yield*to him therein, and call it whe faith of a figurative speech, as he doth; what other point of faith is there then in the matter, but to Hit tolbehieve believe the story, that Christ did institute such a supper, wherein he gave bread and wine for *The Lord's a token of his body and blood, which is now after this understanding no secret mystery at dere {' Cement. } it by this author's un- derstanding. *No promise made toa token in the supper, or in John vi. Injury to baptism. Matt. ult. Mark ult. *Tokens be but tokens, howsoever they be gar- nished with gay words without scripture. =Untrue re- port. *Every spe- cial sacra- ment hath promise annexed and hath a secret hidden truth. 10. Bread is not a vain and bare token. 16 THE FIRST BOOK all, or any ordinance above reason? For commonly men use to ordain in sensible things remembrances of themselves when they die or depart the country. So as in the ordinance of this supper, after this understanding, Christ shewed not his omnipotency, but only benevolence, that he loved us, and would be remembered of us. For Christ did not say, Whosoever eateth this token eateth my body, or eateth my flesh, or shall have any profit of it in special, but, “Do this in remembrance of me.” CANTERBURY. I make no such vain inductions, as you imagine me to do, but such as be established by scripture and the consent of all the old writers. And yet both you and Smith use such fond inductions for your proof of transubstantiation, when you say, God can do this thing, and he can make that thing; whereof ye would conclude, that he doth clearly take away the substance of bread and wine, and putteth his flesh and blood in their places, and that Christ maketh his body to be corporally in many places at one time; of which doctrine’ you have not one iota in all the whole scripture. And as concerning your argument made upon the history of the institution of Christ’s supper, like fond reasoning might ungodly men make of the sacrament of baptism, and so scoff out both these high mysteries of Christ. For when Christ said these words after his resurrection, “Go into the whole world, and preach unto all people, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost :” here might wicked blasphemers say, What point of faith is in these words, but to believe the story, that Christ did institute such a sacrament, wherein he commanded to give water for a token? which is now, after this understanding, no secret mystery at all, or any ordinance above reason: so as in the ordinance of this sacrament, after this understanding, Christ shewed not his omnipotence. For he said not then, Whosoever receiveth this token of water, shall receive remission of sin, or the Holy Ghost, or shall have any profit of it in especial, but, “Do this.” WINCHESTER. And albeit this author would not have them bare tokens, yet and” they be only tokens, they have no warrant signed by scripture for any apparel at all. For the sixth of John speaketh not of any promise made to the eating of a token of Christ’s flesh, but to the eating of Christ's very flesh, whereof the bread (as this author would have it) is but a figure in Christ's words, when he said, “This is my body.” And if it be but a figure in Christ's words, it is but a figure in St Paul’s words, when he said, “The bread which we break, is it not the communication of Christ's body?” that is to say, a figure of the communication of Christ's body (if this author’s doctrine be true), and not the communication indeed. Where- Sore, if the very body of Christ be not in the supper delivered in deed, the eating there hath no special promise, but only commandment to do it in remembrance. After which doctrine why should it be noted absolutely for a sacrament and special mystery, that hath nothing hidden in it, but a plain open ordinance of a token for a remembrance; to the eating of which token is annexed no promise expressly, nor any holiness to be accompted to be in the bread or wine (as this author teacheth), but to be called holy, because they be deputed to an holy use? If I ask the use, he declareth to signify. If I should ask what to signify? There must be a sort of good words framed without scripture. For scripture expresseth no matter of signification of special effect. CANTERBURY. If I granted for your pleasure that the bare bread (having no further respect) were but only a bare figure of Christ’s body, or a bare token (because that term liketh you better, as it may be thought for this consideration, that men should think that I take the bread in the holy mystery to be but as it were a token of ‘I recom- mend me unto you), but if I grant, I say, that the bare bread is but a bare token of Christ's body, what have you gained thereby? Is therefore the whole use of the bread in the whole action and ministration of the Lord’s holy supper but a naked or nude and bare token? Is not one loaf being broken and distributed among faithful people in the Lord’s supper, taken and eaten of them, a token that the body of Christ [> doctrines, 1551.] (2ive. aii] a OF THE SACRAMENT. 17 was broken and crucified for them; and is to them spiritually and effectually given, and of them spiritually and fruitfully taken and eaten, to their spiritual and heavenly comfort, sustentation and nourishment of their souls, as the bread is of their bodies? And what would you require more? Can there be any greater comfort to a christian man than this? Is here nothing else but bare tokens ? But yet importune adversaries, and such as be wilful and obstinate, will never be satisfied, but quarrel farther, saying, What of all this? Here be a great many of gay words framed together, but to what purpose? For all be but signs and tokens as concerning the bread. But how can he be taken for a good christian man, that thinketh that Christ did ordain his sacramental signs and tokens in vain, without effectual grace and operation? For so might we as well say, that the water in bap- tism is a bare token, and hath no warrant signed by scripture for any apparel at all: for the scripture speaketh not of any promise made to the receiving of a token or figure only. And so may be concluded, after your manner of reasoning, that in baptism is no spiritual operation in deed, because that washing in water in itself is but a token. But to express the true effect of the sacraments: As the washing outwardly in water is not a vain token, but teacheth such a washing as God worketh inwardly, in them that duly receive the same; so likewise is not the bread a vain token, but sheweth and preacheth to the godly receiver, what God worketh in him by his almighty power secretly and invisibly. And therefore as the bread is outwardly eaten indeed in the Lord’s supper, so is the very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten indeed of all them that come thereto in such sort as they ought to do, which eating nourisheth them into everlasting life. And this eating hath a warrant signed by Christ himself in the sixth of John, 4 warrant. where Christ saith: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath life Jonn vi. everlasting.” But they that to the outward eating of the bread, join not thereto an inward eating of Christ by faith, they have no warrant by scripture at all, but the bread and wine to them be vain, nude, and bare tokens. And where you say that scripture expresseth no matter of signification [of] special 11. effect in the sacraments of bread and wine, if your eyes were not blinded with popish errors, frowardness, and self-love, ye might see in the twenty-second of Luke, where Christ himself expresseth a matter of signification, saying: Hoc facite in mei commemo- Luke xxii. rationem: “Do this in remembrance of me.” And St Paul likewise, 1 Cor. xi., 1 Cor. xi. hath the very same thing; which is a plain and direct answer to that same your last question, whereupon you triumph at your pleasure, as though the victory were all yours. For ye say, when this question is demanded of me, What to signify? ‘“‘ Here must be a sort of good words framed without scripture.” But here St Paul answereth your question in express words, that it is the Lord’s death that shall be signified, 1 cor. xi represented, and preached in these holy mysteries, until his coming again. And this remembrance, representation and preaching of Christ’s death, cannot be without special effect, except you will say that Christ worketh not effectually with his word and sacraments. And St Paul expresseth the effect, when he saith: “The bread which we 1 Cor. x. break is the communion of Christ’s body.” But by this place and such like in your book, ye disclose yourself to all men of judgment, either how wilful in your opinion, or how slender in knowledge of the scriptures you be. WINCHESTER. And therefore like as the teaching is new, to say it is an only figure, or only signi- * Anew OD c ° % 3 teaching o fieth; 80 the matter of signification must be newly devised, and new wine have new bottles, only figure. . ames i “an 2 and be thoroughly new, after fifteen hundred and fifty years, in the very year of jubilee (as fathbe they were wont to call it) to be newly erected and builded in Englishmen’s hearts. paledicethe beginneth to be published now. CANTERBURY. It seemeth that you be very desirous to abuse the people’s cars with this term, “new,” and with the “year of jubilee,” as though the true doctrine of the sacrament by me taught should be but a new doctrine, and yours old (as the Jews slandered Mark i. Lcoranmen. ] D) 12. 18 THE FIRST BOOK the doctrine of Christ by the name of newness); or else that in this year of jubilee, you would put the people in remembrance of the full remission of sin, which they were wont to have at Rome this year, that they might long to return to Rome for pardons again, as the children of Israel longed to return to Egypt for the flesh that they were wont to have there. But all men of learning and judgment know well enough that this your doctrine is no older than the bishop of Rome’s usurped supremacy, which though it be of good age by number of years, yet is it new to Christ and his word. If there were such darkness in the world now, as hath been in that world which you note for old, the people might drink new wine of the whore of Babylon’s cup, until they were as drunk with hypocrisy and superstition, as they might well stand upon their legs, and no man once say, black is their eye. But now, (thanks be to God!) the light of his word so shineth in the world, that your drunkenness in this year of jubilee is espied, so that you cannot erect and build your popish kingdom any longer in Englishmen’s hearts, without your own scorn, shame and confusion. The old popish bottles must needs burst, when the new wine of God’s holy word is poured into them. WINCHESTER. Which new teaching, whether it proceedeth from the spirit of truth or no, shall more plainly appear by such matter as this author uttereth wherewith to impugn the true faith taught hitherto. For among many other proofs, whereby truth after much travail in con- *Tokenshow tention at the last prevaileth and hath victory, there is none more notable, than when the to discern truth from falsehood. * 1 Kings iii. A lesson of Solomon’s judgment. * Truth need- eth no aid of lies. * Truth loveth simpli- eity and plainness. The church of Kome is not the true ynother of the catholic faith. * Absurda et falsa. very adversaries of truth (who pretend, nevertheless, to be truth’s friends) do by some evident untruth bewray themselves. According whereunto, when the two women contended before king Solomon for the child yet alive, Solomon discerned the true natural mother from the other, by their speeches and sayings; which in the very: mother were ever conformable unto nature, and in the other, at the last evidently against nature. The very true mother spake always like herself, and never disagreed from the truth of nature, but rather than the child should be killed (as Solomon threatened when he called for a sword) required? it to be given whole alive to the other woman. The other woman that was not the true mother cared more for victory than for the child, and therefore spake that was in nature an evidence that she lied calling herself mother, and saying, “ Let it be divided,’ which no® natural mother could say of her own child. Whereupon proceedeth Solomon's most wise judgment, which hath this lesson in it,—ever where contention is, on that part to be the truth, where all sayings and doings appear uniformly consonant to the truth pretended; and on what side a notable lie appeareth, the rest may be judged to be after the same sort. For truth needeth no aid of lies, craft, or sleight, wherewith to be supported or* maintained. So as in the entreating of the truth of this high and ineffable mystery of the sacrament, on what part thou, reader, seest craft, sleight, shift, obliquity, or in any one point an open manifest lie, there thou mayest consider, whatsoever pretence be made of truth, yet the victory of truth not to be there intended, which loveth simplicity, plainness, direct speech, without admixtion of shift or colour. CANTERBURY. If either division or confusion may try the true mother, the wicked church of Rome (not in speech only, but in all other practices) hath long gone about to oppress, confound and divide the true and lively faith of Christ, shewing herself not to be the true mother, but a most cruel stepmother, dividing, confounding and counterfeiting all things at her pleasure, not contrary to nature only, but chiefly against the plain words of scripture. For here in this one matter of controversy between you, Smith, and me, you divide against nature the accidents of bread and wine from their substances, and the substance of Christ from his accidents; and contrary to the scripture you divide our eternal life, attributing unto the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross only the beginning thereof, and the continuance thereof you ascribe unto the sacrifice of popish priests. [! In the very true mother, 1551. | | [? No true natural mother, 1551.] [? Required rather, 1551.] | [4 Supported and maintained, 1551. ] OF THE SACRAMENT. 19 And in the sacraments you separate Christ's body from his spirit, affirming that in baptism we receive but his spirit, and in the communion but his flesh: and_ that Christ’s spirit reneweth our life, but increaseth it not; and that his flesh increaseth our life, but giveth it not. And against all nature, reason, and truth, you confound the substance of bread and wine with the substance of Christ’s body and blood, in such wise as you make but one nature and person of them all. And against scrip- ture and all conformity of nature, you confound and jumble so together the natural members of Christ's body in the sacrament, that you leave no distinction, proportion, nor fashion of man’s body at all. And can your church be taken for the true natural mother of the true doctrine Bao of Christ, that thus unnaturally speaketh, divideth, and confoundeth Christ’s body ? — mother. If Solomon were alive, he would surely give judgment that Christ should be taken 13. from that woman, that speaketh so unnaturally, and so unlike his mother, and be given to the true church of the faithful, that never digressed from the truth of God’s word, nor from the true speech of Christ’s natural body, but speak according to the same, that Christ’s body, although it be inseparable, annexed unto his Godhead, yet it hath all the natural conditions and properties of a very man’s body, occupying one place, and being of a certain height and measure, haying all members distinct and set in good order and proportion. And yet the same body joined unto his divinity, is 2 not only the beginning, but also the continuance and consummation of our eternal and celestial life. By him we be regenerated, by him we be fed and nourished from time to time, as he hath taught us most certainly to believe by his holy word and sacraments, which remain in their former substance and nature, as Christ doth in his, without mixtion or confusion. This is the true and natural speaking in this matter, like a true natural mother, and like a true and right believing christian man. Marry, of that doctrine which you teach, I cannot deny but the church of Rome Rome is the is the mother thereof, which in scripture is called Babylon, because of commixtion the papistical or confusion: which in all her doings and teachings so doth mix and confound yee error with truth, superstition with religion, godliness with hypocrisy, scripture with traditions, that she sheweth herself alway uniform and consonant, to confound all the doctrine of Christ, yea, Christ himself, shewing herself to be Christ's stepmother, and the true natural mother of antichrist. And for the conclusion of your matter here, I doubt not but the indifferent reader shall easily perceive what spirit moved you to write your book. For seeing that your book is so full of crafts, sleights, shifts, obliquities, and manifest untruths, it may be easily judged, that whatsover pretence be made of truth, yet nothing is less intended, than that truth should either have victory, or appear and be seen at all. WINCHESTER, And that thou, reader, mightest by these marks judge of that is here entreated by the author * Thames © © € 0) against the most blessed sacrament, I shall note certain evident and manifest untruths, which this great, where- : i 2 - eae iy A with to put author is not afraid to utter, (a matter wonderful, considering his dignity, if he that is named be men to the author indeed,) which should be a great stay of contradiction, if anything were to be regarded eae against the truth. First, I will note unto the reader, how this author termeth the faith of the real and substantial “Heal ane presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament to be the faith of the papists: which saying, what foundation it hath, thou mayest consider of that followeth. Luther, that professed openly to abhor all that might be noted popish, defended stoutly the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, and to be present really and substantially, even with the same words and terms. Bucer, that is here in England, in a solemn work that he writeth wpon the Gospels, professeth the same faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ's body in the sacra- ment, which he afirmeth to have been believed of all the church of Christ from the beginning hitherto. * The faith of Ji ° . * r - , the sacra- ustus Jonas hath translated a catechism out of Dutch into Latin, taught in the city of ment in the . c A ee : mis “_“. eatechism im- Nuremberg in Germany, where Hosiander is chief preacher, in which catechism they be accounted proveth this ae 0 * . author's doc- Sor no true christian men, that deny the presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament. The words trine now. 2—2 20 THE FIRST BOOK “really” and “ substantially” be not expressed as they be in Bucer, but the word “truly” is there, and, as Bucer saith, that is, substantially. Which catechism was translated into English 14. in this author's name about two years past. Philip Melancthon, no papist nor priest, writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to (Ecolampadius, and signifying soberly his belief of the presence of Christ’s very body in the sacrament ; and to prove the same to have been the faith of the old church from the beginning, allegeth the sayings of Irene, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Hilary, Cyril, Ambrose, Theophylact, which authors he esteemeth both worthy credit, and to affirm the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament plainly without ambiguity. He answereth to certain places of St Augustine, and saith all Gfcolampadius’ enterprise to depend wpon conjectures, and arguments applausible to idle wits, with much more wise matter, as that epistle doth purport, which is set out in a book of a good volume among the other epistles of Gicolampadius, so as no man may suspect anything counterfeit in the matter. One Hippinus, or Cipinus, of Hamburgh, greatly esteemed among the Lutherans, hath written a book to the king’s majesty that now is, published abroad in print, wherein much inveighing against the church of Rome, doth in the matter of the sacrament write as followeth: “Bucharistia is called by itself a sacrifice, because it is a remembrance of the true sacrifice offered upon the cross, and that in it is dispensed the true body and true blood of Christ, which is plainly the same in essence, that is to say substance, and the same blood in essence signifying, though the manner of presence be spiritual, yet the substance of that is present, is the same with that in heaven.” Erasmus, noted a man that durst and did speak of all abuses in the church liberally, taken Jor no papist, and among us so much esteemed, as his paraphrases of the gospel is ordered eerasms ny to be had in every church of this realm, declareth in divers of his works most manifestly his tothe world fivith of the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, and by his epistles recommendeth to the work of Algerus upon the world the work of Algerus in that matter of the sacrament, whom he noteth well exercised ment. in the scriptures, and the old doctors, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Basil, * . . . . Chonan Chrysostom. And for Erasmus’ own judgment, he saith we have an inviolable foundation of ne the Christ’s own words, “This is my body,” rehearsed again by St Paul: he saith further, the 2 ate body of Christ is hidden under those signs; and sheweth also wpon what occasions men have Oe aa ent, that erred in reading the old fathers, and wisheth that they which have followed Berengarius in tliow oo “error would also follow him in repentance. I will not, reader, encumber thee with more words of Erasmus. * Peter Mar- Peter Martyr, of Oxford, taken for no papist, in a treatise he made of late of the sacrament, cme which is now translated into English, sheweth how as touching the real presence of Christ's body, thesatm. it is not onl, ly the sentence of the papists, but of other also; whom the said Peter nevertheless doth a with as many shifts and lies as he may impugn for that point, as well as he doth the papists for transubstantiation, but yet he doth not, as this author doth, impute that faith of the real presence Anissue. Of Christ's body and blood to the only papists. Whereupon, reader, here I join with the author an issue, that the faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament is not the device of papists, or their faith only, as this author doth considerately slander it to be, and desire therefore that according to Solomon’s judgment this may serve for a * This author note and mark, to give sentence! for the true mother of the child. For what should this mean, so Would with without. shame openly and untruly to call this faith popish, but only with the envious word of pists oppress papist to overmatch the truth? the tr CANTERBURY. This explication of the true catholic faith noteth to the reader certain evident and manifest untruths uttered by me (as he saith), which I also pray thee, good reader, to note for this intent, that thou mayest take the rest of my sayings for true, which he noteth not for false, and doubtless they should not have escaped noting as well as the other, if they had been untrue, as he saith the other be. And if I can prove these things also true, which he noteth for manifest and evident untruths, then me thinketh’ it is reason that all my sayings should be allowed for true, if those be proved 15. true which only be rejected as untrue. But this untruth is to be noted in him generally, that he either ignorantly mistaketh, or willingly misreporteth almost all that I say. But now note, good ‘reader, the evident and manifest untruths which I [’ For to give sentence, 1551. ] '2 Me think, 1551. ] _ OF THE SACRAMENT. 21 utter, as he saith. The first is, that the faith of the real presence is the faith of Pour mani the papists. Another is, that these words, “ My flesh is verily meat,” I do translate thus: “My flesh is very meat.” Another is, that I handle not sincerely the words of St Augustine, speaking of the eating of Christ's body. The fourth is, that by these words, “This is my body,” Christ intendeth not to make the bread his body, but to signify that such as receive that worthily be members of Charist’s body. These be the heinous and manifest errors which I have uttered. As touching the first, that the faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ's he Gt une body and blood in the sacrament is the faith of the papists, this is no untruth, but a the ors most certain truth. For you confess yourself, and defend in this book, that it is your sence is the aith 0} 1¢ faith: and so do likewise all the papists. And here I will make an issue with you, papists. that the papists believe the real, corporal, and natural presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament. Answer me directly without colour, whether it be so or not. If they believe not so, then they believe as I do, for I believe not so: and then let them openly confess that my belief is true. And if they believe so, then say I true when I say that it is the papists’ faith. And then is my saying no manifest untruth, but a mere truth ; and so the verdict in the issue passeth upon my side by your own confession. And here the reader may note well, that once again you be fain to fly* for succour unto M.° Luther, Bucer, Jonas, Melancthon, and C£pinus, whose names® were wont Luthier ucer, to be so hateful unto you, t that you could never with patience abide the hearing of Jonas. them: and yet their sayings help you nothing at all. For although these men in nue. this and many other things have in times past, and yet peradventure some do (the veil of old darkness not clearly in every point removed from their eyes), agree with the papists in part of this matter, yet they agree not in the whole: and_ therefore it is true nevertheless, that this faith which you teach is the papists’ faith. For if you would conclude, that this is not the papists’ faith, because’? Luther, Bucer, and other, believe in many things as the papists do, then by the same reason you may conclude that the papists believe not that Christ was born, crucified, died, rose again, and ascended into heaven, which things Luther, Bucer and the other, constantly both taught and believed: and yet the faith of the real presence may be called rather the faith of the papists than of the other, not only because the papists do so believe, but specially for that® the papists were the first authors and inventors of that faith, and have been the chief spreaders abroad of it, and were the cause that other were blinded with the same error. But here may the reader note one thing by the way, that it is a foul clout that you would refuse to wipe your nose withal, when you take such men to prove your matter, whom you have hitherto accounted most vile and filthy heretics. And yet now you be glad to fly* to them for succour, whom you take for God’s enemies, and to whom you have ever had a singular hatred. You pretend that you stay yourself upon ancient writers: and why run you now to such men for aid, as be not only new, but also as you think, be evil and corrupt in judgment; and to such as think you, by your writings and doings, as rank a papist as is any at Rome ? And yet not one of these new men (whom you allege) do thoroughly agree with — 16. your doctrine, either in transubstantiation, or in carnal eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood, or in the sacrifice of Christ in the mass, nor yet thoroughly in the real presence. For they affirm not such a gross presence of Christ’s body, as expelleth the substance of bread, and is made by conversion thereof into the substance of Christ’s body, and is eaten with the mouth. And yet if they did, the ancient authors that were next unto Christ’s time (whom I have alleged) may not give place unto these new men in this matter, although they were men of excellent learning and judgment, howsoever it liketh you to accept them. But I may conclude that your faith in the sacrament is popish, until such time as you can prove that your doctrine of transubstantiation and of the real presence was [* I translate thus, 1541.] [® Whose names before were wont, 1501. | [4 Flee, 1551. ] {7 Because that Luther, 1551. ] [° Martin Luther, 1551. ] [® But for that specially, that the papists, 1551. | 22 THE FIRST BOOK universally received and believed, before the bishops of Rome defined and determined the same. And when you have proved that, then will I grant that in your first note you have convinced me of an evident and manifest untruth, and that I untruly charge you with the envious name of a papistical faith. But in your issue you term the words at your pleasure, and report me otherwise than I do say: for I do not say that the doctrine of the real presence is the papists’ » Mine issue. faith only, but that it was the papists’ faith, for it was their device. And herein will I join with you an issue: that the papistical church is the mother of transubstantiation, and of all the four principal errors which I impugn in my book. WINCHESTER. It shall be now to purpose to consider the scriptures touching the matter of the sacrament, which the author pretending to bring forth faithfully as the majesty thereof requireth, in the rehearsal of the words of Christ out of the gospel of St John, he beginneth a little too low, and passeth over that pertaineth to the matter, and therefore should have begun a little higher at this (John vi] Clause: “ And the bread which I shall give you is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strived between themselves, saying, How can this man give his flesh to be eaten? Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is very meat, and my blood very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: even so he that eateth me shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.” Here is also a fault in the translation of the text, which should be thus in one place: “ For my flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink.” In which speech the verb that cowpleth the words “ flesh” and “meat” together, knitteth them together in their proper signification, so as the flesh of Christ is verily meat, and not figuratively meat}, as the author would persuade. And in these words of Christ may appear plainly, how Christ taught the mystery of the food of his humanity, which he promised to give for food, even the same flesh that he said he would give Sor the life of the world; and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me wholly brought forth, that is to say, “and the bread which I shall give you is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world ;” and so is it? plain that Christ spake of flesh in the same sense that St John speaketh in, saying, “ The word was made flesh,” signifying by flesh the whole *Cyriland humanity. And so did Cyril agree to Nestorius, when he upon these texts reasoned how this Nestorius. eating is to be wnderstanded of Christ's humanity, to which nature in Christ's person is properly ra attribute to be eaten as meat spiritually to nourish man, dispensed and given in the sacrament. And between Nestorius and Cyril was this diversity in understanding the mystery, that Nestorius esteeming of each nature in Christ a several person, as it was objected to him, and so dissolving the ineffable unity, did so repute the body of Christ to be eaten as the body of a man separate. Cyril maintained the body of Christ to be eaten as a body inseparable, united to the Godhead, and Sor the ineffable mystery of that union the same to be a flesh that giveth life. And then as Christ saith, “If we eat not the flesh of the Son of man, we have not life in us,” because Christ hath ordered the sacrament of his most precious body and blood, to nowrish such as be by his holy *In baptism Spirit regenerate. And as in baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ, for the renewing of our Christ's spirit (1/e, 80 do we in this sacrament of Christ’s most precious body and blood receive Christ's very flesh, to give lite.,, and drink his very blood, to continue and preserve, increase and augment, the life received. supper we ree = And therefore in the same form of words Christ spake to Nicodemus of baptism, that ceive his flesh and blood to he speaketh here of the eating of his body and drinking of his blood, and in both sacraments giveth, dispenseth, and exhibiteth indeed, those celestial gifts in sensible elements, as Chrysostom saith. And because the true, faithful, believing men do only by faith know the Son of man to be in unity of person the Son of God, so as for the unity of the two natures in Christ, in one person, the flesh of the Son of man is the proper flesh of the Son of God. Saint Augustine said well when he noted these words of Christ, “ Verily, verily, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” &¢., to be a figurative speech, because after the bare letter it seemeth unprofitable, considering that flesh profiteth nothing in itself, esteemed in the own nature [' These words, “and not figuratively meat,” | [? And so it is, 1551.] are not found in the 1451. ed. of Winchester’s book. ] ee OF THE SACRAMENT. 23 alone; but as the same flesh in Christ is united to the divine nature, so is it, as Christ said, (after Cyril’s exposition,) spirit and life, not changed into the divine nature of the spirit, but for the ineffable wnion in the person of Christ thereunto. It is vivificatrix, as Cyril said, and as the holy Ephesine council decreed: “ A flesh giving life,” according to Christ's words: “ Who eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the latter day.” And then to declare unto us, how in giving this life to us Christ useth the instrument of his very human body, it followeth: “ For my flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink3.” So like as Christ sanctifieth by his godly Spirit, so doth he sanctify us by his godly flesh, and therefore repeateth again, to inculcate the celestial thing of this mystery, and saith: “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him,” which is the natural and corporal union between us and Christ. Whereupon followeth, that as Christ is naturally in his Father, and lis Father im him, so he that eateth verily the jlesh of Christ, he is by nature in Christ, and Christ is naturally in him, and the worthy receiver hath life increased, augmented, and confirmed by the participation of the flesh of Christ. And because of the ineffable union of the two natures, Christ said, “This is the food that came down from heaven,” because God (whose proper flesh it is) came down from heaven, and hath another virtue than manna had, because this giveth life to them that worthily re- ceive it: which manna (being but a figure thereof) did not, but being in this food Christ's very flesh, inseparably united to the Godhead, the same is of such efficacy, as he that worthily eateth of it shall live for ever. And thus I have declared the sense of Christ's words, brought forth out of the gospel of St John. Whereby appeareth, how evidently they set forth the doc- trine of the mystery of the eating of Christ's flesh, and drinking his blood in the sacrament, which most needs be understanded of a corporal eating, as Christ did after order in the i- stitution of the said sacrament, according to his promise and doctrine here declared. CANTERBURY. Here before you enter into my second untruth (as you call it), you find fault by the way, that in the rehearsal of the words of Christ, out of the Gospel of St John, I begin a little too low. But if the reader consider the matter for the which I allege St John, he shall well perceive that I began at the right place where I ought to begin. For I do not bring forth St John for the matter of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, whereof is no mention made in that chapter; and as it would not have served me for that purpose, no more doth it serve you, although you cited the whole gospel. But I bring St John for the matter of eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood, wherein I passed over nothing that pertaineth to the matter, but rehearse the whole fully and faithfully. And because the reader may the better understand the matter, and judge between us both, I shall rehearse the words of my former book, which be these. *Tue supper of the Lord, otherwise called the holy communion or sacra- ment of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, hath been of many men, and by sundry ways very much abused, but specially within these four or five hundred years. Of some it hath been used as a sacrifice propitiatory for sin, and otherwise superstitiously, far from the intent that Christ did first ordain the same at the beginning, doing therein great wrong and injury to his death and passion. And of other some it hath been very lightly esteemed, or rather contemned and despised as a thing of small or of none effect. And thus between both the parties hath been much variance and contention in divers parts‘ of christendom. Therefore to the intent that this holy sacrament or Lord’s supper may hereafter neither of the one party be contemned or lightly esteemed, nor of the other party be abused to any other purpose than Christ himself did first appoint and ordain the same, and that so the contention on both parties may be quieted and ended, the most sure and plain way is to cleave unto [? My blood verily drink, 1551. ] | doctrine and use of the Sacrament of the Body and ~ The title of this book 1uns*thus in the original | Blood of our Saviour Christ.’’] edition: ‘ The first book is of the true and Catholic | [* Places, 1651.] 18. [Book 1.] Chap. I. The abuse of the Lord's supper. 24 THE FIRST BOOK holy scripture: wherein whatsoever is found, must be taken for a most sure ground, and an infallible truth; and whatsoever cannot be grounded upon the same, touching our faith, is man’s device, changeable and uncertain. And there- fore here are set forth the very words that Christ himself and his apostle St Paul spake, both of the eating and drinking of Christ’s body and blood, and also of the eating and drinking of the sacrament of the same. First, as con- Chap. —_ cerning the eating of the body and drinking of the blood of our Saviour Christ, The eati 2 ° . . . : the body of he speaketh himself in the sixth chapter of St John in this wise : John vi. “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and Iin him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, even so he that eateth me, shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.” Here have I rehearsed the words of Christ faithfully and fully, so much as per- taineth to the eating of Christ’s flesh, and drinking of his blood. And I have begun 19 neither too high nor too low, but taking only so much as served for the matter. paceecnel But here have I committed a fault (say you) in the translation, for “ verily meat” > 10) ° » ies : . “verily translating “‘ very meat.” And this is another of the evident and manifest untruths meat, E = 5 ae translating | by me uttered, as you esteem it. Wherein a man may see, how hard it is to escape ee ane reproaches of Momus. For what an horrible crime (trow you) is committed here, * Origenesin to call “very meat” that which is “ verily meat”! As who should say, that “very Levit. Hom. : . . . . vu. Prop- meat” is not “verily meat,” or that which is “ verily meat” were not “very meat.” caro ejus ve- The old authors say “ very meat,” adn6rs Bpwow, verus cibus, in a hundred places. ee And what skilleth it for the diversity of the words, where no diversity is in the ejus verus est “ ” foes Bip ig . tus. Etin sense? and whether we say, “very meat,” or “verily meat,” it is a figurative speech xin Cao” in this place, and the sense is all one. And if you will look upon the New Testament eee lately set forth in Greek by Robert Stevens, you shall see that he had three Greek ee copies, which in the said sixth chapter of John have a@dn6ys and not danfas. So in Beek, cap. that I may be bold to say, that you find fault here where none is. verisata. And here in this place you shew forth your old condition (which you use much in verus est ci- fingiens this book) in following the nature of a cuttle’. ‘The property of the cuttle,” saith Pliny, ‘Augustin “is to cast out a black ink or colour, whensoever she spieth herself in danger to be Cavmes taken, that the water being troubled and darkened therewith, she may hide herself and ctangus” SO escape untaken.” After like manner do you throughout this whole book ; for when tus est. Da” you see no other way to fly and escape, then you cast out your black colours, and mask et xo yourself so in clouds and darkness, that men should not discern where you be come, Ubus can Which is a manifest argument of untrue meaning: for he that meaneth plainly, speaketh fis est potus, Plainly; e¢ qui sophistice loguitur, odibilis est, saith the wise man. For he that pom. speaketh obscurely and darkly, it is a token that he goeth about to cast mists before ene men’s eyes that they should not see, rather than to open their eyes that they may ctsaveuss, Clearly see the truth. Thesstareor And therefore to answer you plainly, the same flesh that was given in Christ's last 2S Sy. ix, Supper was given also upon the cross, and is given daily in the ministration of the ay sacrament. But although it be one thing, yet it was diversely given. For upon the eet e. eross Christ was carnally given to suffer and to die; at his last supper he was spiritually Eenunthe? given in a promise of his death; and in the sacrament he is daily given in remembrance bervetarx. Of his death. And yet it is all but one Christ that was promised to die, that died ritually. indeed, and whose death is remembered; that is to say, the very same Christ, the eternal Word that was made flesh. And the same flesh was also given to be spiritually eaten, and was eaten in deed, before his supper, yea, and before his incarnation also. [' Of the cuttle, 1551.] OF THE SACRAMENT. 25 Of which eating, and not of sacramental eating, he spake in the sixth of John: “ My Jonn vi. flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” And Cyril, I grant, agreed to Nestorius in the substance of the thing that was Cyril. anathe- eaten, (which is Christ’s very flesh,) but in the manner of eating they varied. For °°" "" Nestorius imagined a carnal eating (as the papists do) with mouth, and tearing with teeth. But Cyril in the same place saith, that Christ is eaten only by a pure faith, and not that he is eaten corporally with our mouths, as other meats be, nor that he is eaten in the sacrament only. And it seemeth you understand not the matter of Nestorius, who did not esteem 20. Christ to be made of two several natures and several persons, (as you report of him;) lead but his error was, that Christ had in him naturally but one nature and one person, affirming that he was a pure man, and not God by nature, but that the Godhead by grace inhabited, as he doth in other men. And where you say that in baptism we receive the spirit of Christ, and in the Injury to sacrament of his body and blood we receive his very flesh and blood; this your saying dia is no small derogation to baptism, wherein we receive not only the spirit of Christ, but also Christ himself, whole body and soul, manhood, and Godhead, unto everlasting life, as well as in the holy communion. For St Paul saith, Quicunque in Christo Gal. ii. baptizati estis, Christum induistis: “ As many as be baptized in Christ, put Christ upon them:” nevertheless, this is done in divers respects; for in baptism it is done in respect of regeneration, and in the holy communion in respect of nourishment and augmentation. But your understanding of the sixth chapter of John is such as never was uttered In the sixth chapter of of any man before your time, and as declareth you to be utterly ignorant of God’s Jon, christ mysteries. For who ever said or taught before this time, that the sacrament was the eaee cause why Christ said, “If we eat not the flesh of the Son of man, we have not life Join vi in us?” The spiritual eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood by faith, by digesting his death in our minds, as our only price, ransom, and redemption from eternal dam- nation, is the cause wherefore Christ said: “ That if we eat not his flesh, and drink not his blood, we have not life in us; and if we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we have everlasting life.” And if Christ had never ordained the sacrament, yet should we have eaten his flesh, and drunken his blood, and have had thereby everlasting life; as all the faithful did before the sacrament was ordained, and do daily when they receive not the sacrament. And so did the holy men that wandered in the wilderness, and in all their life-time very seldom received the sacrament; and many holy martyrs, either exiled, or kept in prison, did daily feed of the food of Christ's body, and drank daily the blood that sprang out of his side, or else they could not have had everlasting life, as Christ himself said in the gospel of St John, and yet they were not suffered with other christian people to have the use of the sacrament. And therefore your argument in this place is but a fallax a non causa, ut causa, which is another trick of the devil’s sophistry. And that in the sixth of John Christ spake neither of corporal nor sacramental eating of his flesh, the time manifestly sheweth. For Christ spake of the same present time that was then, saying: “The bread which I will give is my flesh,” and, “ He Jonn vi. that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, and hath everlasting life:” at which time the sacramental bread was not yet Christ’s flesh. For the sacrament was not then yet ordained; and yet at that time all that believed in Christ, did eat his flesh, and drink his blood, or else they could not have dwelled in Christ, nor Christ in them. Moreover, you say yourself, that in the sixth of St John’s gospel, when Christ John vi. said, “The bread is my flesh,” by the word “flesh” he meant his whole humanity, (as is meant in this sentence, “The word was made flesh,”) which he meant not in Jonni. the word “body,” when he said of bread, “This is my body ;’ whereby he meant not — * his whole humanity, but his flesh only, and neither his blood nor his soul. And in the sixth of John Christ made not bread his flesh, when he said, “The bread is my flesh :” but he expounded in those words, what bread it was that he meant of, when 26 THE FIRST BOOK he promised them bread that should give them eternal life. He declared in those words, that himself was the bread that should give life, because they should not have their fantasies of any bread made of corn. And so the eating of that heavenly bread could not be understanded of the sacrament, nor of corporal eating with the mouth ; but of spiritual eating by faith, as all the old authors do most clearly expound and declare. And seeing that there is no corporal eating, but chewing with the teeth or swallowing (as all men do know), if we eat Christ corporally, then you must confess that we either swallow up Christ's flesh, or chew and tear it with our teeth, (as pope Nicholas constrained Berengarius to confess,) which St Augustine saith is a wicked and heinous thing. But in few words to answer to this second evident and manifest untruth (as you object against me), I would wish you as truly to understand these words of the sixth chapter of John, as I have truly translated them. WINCHESTER. Now, where the author, to exclude the mystery of corporal manducation, bringeth forth of St Augustine such words as entreat of the effect and operation of the worthy receiving of the sacrament; the handling is not so sincere as this matter requireth. For, as hereafter shall be entreated, that is not worthily and well done, may (because the principal intent faileth) be called not done, and so St Augustine saith: “Let him not think to eat the body of Christ, that dwelleth not in Christ ;” not because the body of Christ is not received, which by St Augustine's mind evil men do to their condemnation, but because the effect of life Jaileth. And so the author by sleight, to exclude the corporal manducation of Christ's most precious body, uttereth such words, as might sound Christ to have taught the dwelling in Christ to be an eating: which dwelling may be without this corporal manducation in him that cannot attain the use of it, and dwelling in Christ is an effect of the worthy mandu- cation, and not the manducation itself, which Christ doth order to be practised in the most precious sacrament institute in his supper. Here thou, reader, mayest see how this doctrine of Christ (as I have declared it) openeth the corporal manducation of his most holy flesh, and drinking of his most precious blood, which he gave in his supper under the form of bread and wine. CANTERBURY. he thind ane This is the third evident and manifest untruth, whereof you note me. And be- handing the cause you say that in citing of St Augustine in this place, I handle not the matter oe so sincerely as it requireth, Mice here be an issue between you and me, which of us Mmessve- both doth handle this matter more sincerely ; and I will bring such manifest evidence for me, that you shall not be able to open your mouth against it. For I allege St Augustine justly as he speaketh, adding nothing of myself. The words in my book be these. August. in “ Of these words of Christ it is plain and manifest, that the eating of Christ’s tat xxv body’, and drinking of his blood, is not like the eating and drinking of other meats and drinks. For although without meat and drink man cannot live, yet it followeth not that he that eateth and drinketh shall live for ever. But as touching this meat and drink of the body and blood of Christ it is true, 22. both he that eateth and drinketh them hath everlasting life; and also he rae oag that eateth and drinketh them not, hath not everlasting life. For to eat that siti 2 21. meat, and drink that drink, is to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him; and therefore no man can say or think that he eateth the body of Christ or drinketh his blood, except he dwelleth in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in him. Thus have you heard of the eating and drinking of the very flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ.” Thus allege I St Augustine truly, without adding any thing of mine own head, or taking any thing away. And what sleight I used is easy to judge: for I cite di- [? Flesh, 1351.] ———— OF THE SACRAMENT. 27 rectly the places, that every man may see whether I say true or no, And if it be not true, quarrel not with me, but with St Augustine, whose words I only rehearse. And that which St Augustine saith, spake before him St Cyprian, and Christ him- self also plainly enough; upon whose words I thought I might be as bold to build a true doctrine for the setting forth of God's glory, as you may be to pervert both the words of Cyprian, and of Christ himself, to stablish a false doctrine to the high dishonour of God, and the corruption of his most true word. For you add this word “ worthily,” whereby you gather such an unworthy meaning of St Augustine’s Worthily. words as you list yourself. And the same you do to the very words of Christ him- self, who speaketh absolutely and plainly, without adding of any such word as you put thereto. What sophistry this is, you know well enough. Now if this be per- mitted unto you, to add what you list, and to expound how you list, then you may say what you list without controlment of any man, which it seemeth you look for. And not of like sort, but of like evilness do you handle (in reprehending of my second untruth, as you call it) another place of St Augustine in his book de doctrina August. de Christiana, where he saith, that the eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood Christiana, is a figurative speech: which place you expound so far from St Augustine’s mean- ea in ing, that whosoever looketh upon his words, may by and by discern that you do oe oe not, or will not, understand him. But it is most like (the words of him being so plain and easy) that purposely you will not understand him, nor nothing else that is against your will, rather than you will go from any part of your will and re- ceived opinion. For it is plain and clear that St Augustine in that place speaketh not one word of the separation of the two natures in Christ; and although Christ’s flesh be never so surely and inseparably united unto his Godhead (without which union it could profit nothing), yet being so joined, it is a very man’s flesh, the eating whereof (after the proper speech of eating) is horrible and abominable. Wherefore the eating of Christ’s flesh must needs be otherwise understanded, than after the proper and common eating of other meats with the mouth, which eating after such sort could avail nothing. And therefore St Augustine in that place de- clareth the eating of Christ’s flesh to be only a figurative speech. And he openeth the figure so as the eating must be meant with the mind, not with the mouth, that is to say, by chewing and digesting in our minds, to our great consolation and profit, that Christ” died for us. Thus doth St Augustine open the figure and meaning of Christ, when he spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. And his flesh being thus eaten, it must also be joined unto his divinity, or else it could not give everlasting life, as Cyril and the council Ephesine truly decreed. But St Au- — 23. gustine declared the figurative speech of Christ to be in the eating, not in the union. And whereas, to shift off the plain words of Christ, spoken in the sixth of John, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him,” Jom vi. you say that dwelling in Christ is not the manducation; you say herein directly against St Cyprian, who saith, Quod mansio nostra in ipso sit manducatio, “That our Cyprian. in dwelling in him is the eating:” and also against St Augustine, whose words be these: cena. Dae Hoc est ergo manducare escam illam, et illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, et ‘Aug. in Joan. illum manentem in se habere: “This is to eat that meat, and drink that drink, to“ **” dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him.” And although the eating and drinking of Christ be here defined by the effect, (for the very eating is the believing,) yet wheresoever the eating is, the effect must be also, if the definition of St Augus- tine be truly given. And therefore, although good and bad eat carnally with their teeth bread, being the sacrament of Christ’s body; yet no man eateth his very flesh, which is spiritually eaten, but he that dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him. And where in the end you refer the reader to the declaration of Christ’s words, it is an evil sequel: you declare Christ's words thus, ergo, they be so meant. For by like reason might Nestorius have prevailed against Cyril, Arius against Alex- ander, and the Pope against Christ. For they all prove their errors by the doctrine [? Was crucified and died, 1551. ] 28 THE FIRST BOOK of Christ after their own declarations, as you do here in your corporal manducation. But of the manducation of Christ’s flesh, I have spoken more fully in my fourth book, the second, third, and fourth chapters. Now before I answer to the fourth untruth which I am appeached of, I will rehearse what I have said in the matter, and what fault you have found. My book hath thus. [Book 1] « Now as touching the sacraments of the same, our Saviour Christ did in- stitute them in bread and wine at his last supper which he had with his apostles, The eating of the night before his death, at which time, as Matthew saith, ‘ When they were et ha eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave EY age to Mbis disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new testament, that is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’ ” This thing is rehearsed also of St Mark in these words. vk xiv. * As they did eat, Jesus took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave it to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And taking the cup, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it, and he said to them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” The evangelist St Luke uttereth this matter on this wise. Luke xxi “When the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, I have greatly desired to eat this Pascha with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, henceforth I will not eat of it any more, 24. until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among you: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God come. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it unto them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you: this do in remem- brance of me. Likewise also when he had supped, he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Hitherto you have heard all that the evangelists declare, that Christ spake or did at his last supper, concerning the institution of the communion and sacrament of his body and blood. Now you shall hear what St Paul saith concerning the same, in the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians, where he writeth thus: 1 Cor. x. “Ts not the cup of blessing, which we bless, a communion of the blood of Christ? Is not the bread, which we break, a communion of the body of Christ ? We being many, are one bread, and one body: for we all are par- takers of one bread, and one cup.” And in the eleventh he speaketh on this manner. 1 Cor. xi. «That which I delivered unto you I received of the Lord. For the Lord Jesus the same night in the which he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also he took the OF THE SACRAMENT. 29 cup, when supper was done, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood. Do this, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me: for as oft as you shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, you shew forth the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat of this bread, or drink of this cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But: let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he maketh no difference of the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sick among you, and many do sleep.” By these words of Christ rehearsed of the evangelists, and by the doctrine also of St Paul, which he confesseth that he received of Christ, two things specially are to be noted. First, that our Sayiour Christ called the material bread which he brake, chap. rv. his body; and the wine, which was the fruit of the vine, his blood. And _ yet christ catiea he spake not this to the intent that men should think that the material bread brea his is his very body, or that his very body is material bread; neither that wine i made of grapes is his very blood, or that his very blood is wine made of. grapes : but to signify unto us, as St Paul saith, that the cup is a communion of j cor. x. Christ’s blood that was shed for us, and the bread is a communion of his flesh that was crucified for us. So that although in the truth of his human nature, gark ult. Christ be in heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, yet whosoever eateth of the bread in the supper of the Lord, according to Christ’s institution and ordinance, is assured of Christ’s own promise and testament, that he is a member of his body, and receiveth the benefits of his passion which he suffered for us upon the cross. And likewise he that drinketh of that holy cup in the supper of the Lord, according to Christ’s institution, is certified by Christ’s legacy and testament, that he is made partaker of the blood of Christ which was shed for us. And this meant St Paul, when he saith, “Is not the 25. eup of blessing which we bless a communion of the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a communion of the body of Christ?” so that no man can contemn or lightly esteem this holy communion, except he contemn also Christ’s body and blood, and pass not whether he have any fellowship with him or no. And of those men St Paul saith, “that they eat and drink j cor. xi. their own damnation, because they esteem not the body of Christ.” The second thing which may be learned of the foresaid words of Christ chap. v. and St Paul is this: that although none eateth the body of Christ and drinketh his blood, but they have eternal life, (as appeareth by the words before recited of St John,) yet both the good and the bad do eat and drink the bread and wine, which be the sacraments of the same. But beside the sacraments, the kEvil men do good eat’ everlasting life, the evil everlasting death. Therefore St Paul saith: thet, butt « Whosoever shall eat of the bread, or drink of the cup of the Lord unworthily, Christ. ; he shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Here St Paul saith 1 cor. xi not, that he that eateth the bread, or drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, eateth and drinketh the body and blood of the Lord; but, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But what he eateth and drinketh St Paul declareth, saying: “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation.” Thus is declared the sum of all that scripture speaketh of the eating and drinking both of the body and blood of Christ, and also of the sacrament of the same. And as these things be most certainly true, because they be spoken by gnap, vi. {’ Eateth, 1551.] These things suffice for a christian man’s faith concerning this sacra- ment. Chap. vit. The sacra- ment which was ordained to make love and concord is turned into the occasion of variance and discord. 26. Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. 1 Cor. x. 1 Cor. xi. 30 THE FIRST BOOK Christ himself, the author of all truth, and by his holy apostle St Paul, as he received them of Christ; so all doctrines contrary to the same be most certainly false and untrue, and of all christian men to be eschewed, because they be con- trary to God’s word. And all doctrine concerning this matter, that is more than this, which is not grounded upon God’s word, is of no necessity, neither ought the people’s heads to be busied, or their consciences troubled with the same. So that things spoken and done by Christ, and written by the holy evangelists and St Paul, ought to suffice the faith of Christian people, as touch- ing the doctrine of the Lord’s supper, and holy communion or sacrament of his body and blood. Which thing being well considered and weighed, shall be a just occasion to pacify and agree both parties, as well them that hitherto have contemned or lightly esteemed it, as also them which have hitherto for lack of knowledge or otherwise ungodly abused it. - Christ ordained the sacrament to move and stir all men to friendship, love, and concord, and to put away all hatred, variance, and discord, and to testify a brotherly and unfeigned love between all them that be the members of Christ : but the devil, the enemy of Christ and of all his members, hath so craftily juggled herein, that of nothing riseth so much contention as of this holy sacrament. God grant that, all contention set aside, both the parties may come to this holy communion with such a lively faith in Christ, and such an unfeigned love to all Christ’s members, that as they carnally eat with their mouths this sacra- mental bread, and drink the wine, so spiritually they may eat and drink the very flesh and blood of Christ which is in heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of his Father; and that finally by his means they may enjoy with him the glory and kingdom of heaven! Amen. WINCHESTER. Now let us consider the texts of the evangelists, and St Paul, which be brought in by the author as followeth. “ When they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, giving it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this is my blood of the new testament, that is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” “ As they did eat, Jesus took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave it to them, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And taking the cup, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” “ When the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him; and he said unto them, I have greatly desired to eat this Pascha with you, before I suffer: for I say unto you, henceforth I will not eat of it any more, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among you: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God come. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it unto them, say- ing, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also when he had supped, he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” “Ts not the cup of blessing which we bless a communion of the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a communion of the body of Christ? We, being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of one bread, and of one cup.” “That which I delivered unto you, I received of the Lord. For the Lord Jesus, the same night in the which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and OF THE SACRAMENT. 31 said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also he took the cup when supper was done, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: do this, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shew forth the Lord’s death till he come. Where- Sore whosoever shall eat of this bread, or drink of this cup wunworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh wnworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation; because he maketh no difference of the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sick among you, and many do sleep.” | After these texts brought in, the author doth in the fourth chapter begin to traverse Christ's * The fourth intent, that he intended not by these words, “ This is my body,” to make the bread his body, by thes nae | words, oe but to signify that such as receive that worthily be members of Christ's body. The catholic est corpus church, acknowledging Christ to be very God and very man, hath from the beginning of these um, Christ texts of scripture confessed truly Christ's intent, and effectual miraculous work to make the make Le bread his body, and the wine his blood, to be verily meat and verily drink, using therein his o4y- humanity wherewith to feed us, as he used the same wherewith to redeem us; and as he doth sanctify us by his holy Spirit, so to sanctify us by his holy divine flesh and blood; and as | life is renewed in us by the gift of Christ's holy Spirit, so life to be increased in us by the | gift of his holy flesh. So he that believeth in Christ, and receiveth the sacrament of belief, which is baptism, receiveth really Christ's Spirit: and likewise! he that, having Christ's Spirit, receiveth also the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, doth really receive in the same, and also effectually, Christ's very body and blood. And therefore Christ in the institution of this sacra- ment said, delivering that he consecrated: “This is my body,” &c. And likewise of the cup: “This is my blood,” &c. And although to man’s reason it seemeth strange that Christ, stand- ing or sitting at the table, should deliver them his body to be eaten: yet when we remember 27. Christ to be very God, we must grant him omnipotent, and by reason thereof, repress in our thoughts all imaginations how it might be, and consider Christ's intent by his will, preached unto us by scriptures, and believed universally in his church. But if it may now be thought seemly for us to be so bold, in so high a mystery, to begin to discuss Christ's intent: what should move us to think that Christ would use so many words, without effectual and real signification, as he rehearsed touching the mystery of this sacrament? First, in the sixth of John, when Christ had taught of the eating of him?, being the bread descended from heaven, and declaring that eating to signify believing, whereat was no mur- muring, that then he should enter to speak of giving of his flesh to be eaten, and his blood to be drunken, and to say that® he would give a bread, that is, his flesh, which he would give for the life of the world. In which words Christ maketh mention of two gifts; and therefore | as he is truth, must needs intend to fulfil them both. And therefore* as we believe the gift of his flesh to the Jews to be crucified; so we must believe the gift of his flesh to be eaten, and of that gift, livery” and seisme®, as we say, to be made of him, that is in his promises faith- Jul (as Christ is) to be made in both. And therefore when he said in his supper, “ Take, eat, this is my body,” he must needs intend plainly as his words of promise required. And these words in lus supper purport to give as really then his body to be eaten of us, as he gave his body indeed to be crucified for us; aptly nevertheless, and conveniently for each effect, and therefore in manner of giving diversely, but in the substance of the same™ given, to be as his words bear witness, the same, and therefore said, “ This is my body that shall be betrayed Sor you;” expressing also the use, when he said, “ Take, eat:” which words, in delivering of material bread, had been superfluous; for what should men do with bread when they take it, but eat it, specially when it is broken? But as Cyril saith: “ Christ opened there unto them the practice of that doctrine he spake of in the sixth of St John, and because he said he would give his flesh for food, which he would give for the life of the world, he for fulfilling of his promise said: “ Take, eat, this is my body,’ which words have been taught and believed to be of effect, and operatory, and Christ under the form of bread to have been’ his very body. According whereunto St Paul noteth the recewer to be guilty, when he doth not esteem it our Lord’s body, wherewith it pleaseth Christ to feed such as be in him regenerate, to the intent that as man was redeemed fae So he;”’ original ed. of Winchester’s book.] [® Livery : i.e. the act of giving. ] [? Himself, 1551.] [° Seisme: i.e. seizin, the act of taking. ] [* To say he would give, 1551. ] {7 The same body given, 1551. ] [‘ Wherefore, 1551. ] [* Given, 1551.] 32 THE FIRST BOOK by Christ, suffering in the nature of his humanity, so to purchase for man the kingdom of heaven, lost by Adam’s fall. Even likewise in the nature of the same humanity, giving it to be eaten, he ordained it! to nourish man, and make him strong to walk, and continue his journey, to enjoy that kingdom. And therefore to set forth lively unto us the communication of the substance of Christ’s most precious body in the sacrament, and the same to be indeed delivered, Christ used plain words, testified by the evangelists. St Paul also rehearsed the same words in the same plain terms in the eleventh to the Corinthians; and in the tenth, giving (as it were) an exposition of the effect, useth the same proper words, declaring the effect to be the communication of Christ’s body and blood. And one thing is notable touching the scripture, that in such notable speeches uttered by Christ, as might have an ambiguity, the evangelists by some circumstance declared it, or sometime opened it by plain interpretation: as when Christ said “he would dissolve the temple, and within three days build it again ;” the evangelist by and by addeth for interpretation: “This he said of the temple of his body.” And when Christ said, “He is Elias,” and “I am the true vine,’ the circumstance of the text openeth the ambiguity. * Neither St But to shew that Christ should not mean of his very body when he so spake?, neither St Paul, nor the Evangelists, Paul after, nor the evangelists in the place, add any words or cirewmstances, whereby to take word there away the proper signification of the words “body” and “blood,” so as the same might seem away the sig. not in deed given (as the catholic faith teacheth), but in signification, as the author would have en it. For, as for the words of Christ, “The Spirit giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing,” be ag to declare the two natures in Christ, each in their property apart considered, but not as they be in Christ's person united the mystery of which union such as believed not Christ to be God could not consider, and yet to insinuate that unto them, Christ made mention of his descension from heaven, and after of his ascension thither again, whereby they might under- stand him very God, whose flesh taken in the virgin’s womb, and so given spiritually to be eaten of us, is (as I have before opened) vivifick, and giveth life. And this shall suffice here to shew how Christ’s intent was to give verily (as he did in deed) his precious body and blood to be eaten and drunken, according as he taught them to be verily meat and drink; and yet gave and giveth them so under form of visible creatures to us, as we may conveniently and without horror of our nature receive them, Christ therein condescending to our infirmity. As for such other wrangling as is made in understanding of the words of Christ, shall after be spoken of by further occasion. CANTERBURY. Syne fourth Now we be come to the very pith of the matter, and the chief point whereupon ee the whole controversy hangeth, whether in these words, “‘ This is my body,” Christ called Pees bread his body: wherein you and Smith agree like a man and woman that dwelled in body,”to Lincolnshire, as I have heard reported, that what pleased the one misliked the other, make the a saving that they both agreed in wilfulness. So do Smith and you agree both in The: variance this point, that Christ made bread his body, but that it was bread which he called and Smith. his body, when he said, “This is my body,” this you grant, but Smith denieth it. nee And because all Smith’s buildings clearly fall down, if this his chief foundation be overthrown, therefore must I first prove against Smith, that Christ called the material bread his body, and the wine which was the fruit of the vine his blood. “For why Christ called did you not prove this, my Lord?” saith Smith: “would you that men should take body. you for a prophet, or for one that could not err in his sayings ?” First I allege against Smith’s negation your affirmation, which, as it is more true in this point than his negation, so for your estimation is able* to countervail his saying, if there were nothing else: and yet, if Smith had well pondered what I have written in the second chapter of my second book, and in the seventh and eighth chapters of my third book, he should have found this matter so fully proved, that he neither is, nor never shall be able to answer thereto. For I have alleged the scripture, I have alleged the consent of the old writers, holy fathers, and martyrs, to prove that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood. For the evangelists, | Matt. xxvi. speaking of the Lord’s supper, say, that “he took bread, blessed it, brake it, and gave Lukexxii. it to his disciples, saying, This is my body. And of the wine he said, Take this, [! To be eaten, ordained to neurish, 1551.] [3 In the understanding, 1551.) [2 He so spake these words in his supper, 1551.] (4 Is it able, 1551. ] OF THE SACRAMENT. 33 divide it among you, and drink it: this is my blood.” I have alleged Irene’, saying teneus. that “Christ confessed bread to be his body, and the cup to be his blood.” I have cited Tertullian, who saith in many places that “Christ called bread his body.” — [ Tertullianus. have brought in for the same purpose Cyprian, who saith that “Christ called such Cyprianus. bread as is made of many corns joined together, his body: and such wine he named his blood, as is pressed out of many grapes.” I have written the words of Epipha- Epiphanius. nius, which be these, that ‘Christ speaking of a loaf which is round in fashion, and can neither see, hear, nor feel, said of it, ‘This is my body.’” And St Jerome, writing Heong, ad Hedibiam, saith that “Christ called the bread which he brake his body.” And St Augustine saith, that “Jesus called meat his body, and drink his blood.” And Augustinus. Cyril saith more plainly, that “Christ called the pieces of bread his body.” And Cyillvs- last of all I brought forth Theodorete, whose saying is this, that “when Christ gave Theodoretus. the holy mysteries, he called bread his body, and the cup mixed with wine and water he called his blood.” All these authors I alleged, to prove that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood. Which because they speak the thing so plainly as nothing can be more, and Smith seeth that he can devise nothing to answer these authors, like a wily fox, he stealeth away by them softly, as he had a flea in his ear, saying nothing to all these authors, but that they prove not my purpose. If this be a sufficient answer, let the reader be judge; for in such sort I could® make a short answer to Smith’s whole book in this one sentence, that nothing that he saith proveth his purpose. And as for proofs of his saying, Smith hath utterly none but only this fond reason: that if Christ had called bread his body, then should bread have been crucified for us, because Christ added these words: “This is my body, which shall be given to death for you.” If such wise reason shall take place, a man may not take a loaf in his hand made of wheat that came out of Dantzic, and say this is wheat that grew in Dantzic, but it must follow, that the loaf grew in Dantzic. And if the wife shall say, This is butter of my own cow, Smith shall prove by this speech that her maid milked butter. But to this fantastical or rather frantic reason, I have spoken more in mine answer to Smith’s preface. Howbeit, you have taken a wiser way than this, granting that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood: but adding thereto, that Christ’s calling was making. Yet here may they that be wise learn by the way, how evil-favouredly you and Smith agree’ among yourselves. And forasmuch as Smith hath not made answer unto the authors by me alleged in this part, I may justly require that for lack of answer in time and place where he ought to have answered, he may be condemned as one that standeth mute. And being condemned in this his chief demur, he hath after nothing to answer at all: for this foundation being overthrown, all the rest falleth down withal. Wherefore now will I return to answer you in this matter, which is the last of the evident and manifest untruths, whereof you appeach me. I perceive here how untoward you be to learn the truth, being brought up all your life in papistical errors. If you could forget your law, which hath been your chief profession and study from your youth, and specially the canon law which purposely corrupteth the truth of God’s word, you should be much more apt to understand and receive the secrets of holy scripture. But before those scales fall from your Saulish eyes, you neither can nor will perceive the true doctrine of this holy sacrament of Christ's body and blood. But yet I shall do as much as lieth in me, to teach and instruct you, as occasion shall serve; so that the fault shall be either in your evil bringing up altogether in popery, or in your dulness, or froward- ness, if you attain not true® understanding of this matter. 29. [° These references are given and verified in the { the second book against transubstantiation.”’ | reprint of the ‘* Defence of the Sacrament,” which [® could 1, 1551.] is inserted in the body of this book (Book 111, [7 do agree, 1551.] cap. 8.), and will be found in the “ Confutation of [® the true understanding, 1551. [CRANMER. | God's mira- eculous works in the sacra- ment. 30. Injury to baptism. Mine issue. God's omni- potency. Matt. xxvi. Gen. i. 31. 34 THE FIRST BOOK Where you speak of the miraculous working of Christ, to make bread his body, you must first learn that the bread is not made really Christ’s body, nor the wine his blood, but sacramentally. And the miraculous working is not in the bread, but in them that duly eat the bread, and drink that drink. For the marvellous work of God is in the feeding; and it is christian people that be fed, and not the bread. And so the true confession and belief of the universal church, from the beginning, is not such as you many times affirmed, but never can prove: for the catholic church acknowledgeth no such division between Christ's holy flesh and his Spirit, that life is renewed in us by his holy Spirit, and increased by his holy flesh; but the true faith confesseth that both be done by his holy Spirit and flesh jointly together, as well the renovation, as the increase of our life. Wherefore you diminish here the effect of baptism, wherein is not given only Christ’s Spirit, but whole Christ. And herein I will join an issue with you. And you shall find, that although you think I lack law wherewith to follow my plea, yet I doubt not but I shall have help of God’s word enough, to make all men perceive that you be but a simple divine, so that for lack of your proofs, I doubt not but the sentence shall be given upon my side by all learned and indifferent judges, that understand the matter which is in controversy between us. And where you say that we must repress our thoughts and imaginations, and by reason of Christ's omnipotency judge his intent by his will, it is a most certain truth that God’s absolute and determinate will is the chief governor of all things, and the rule whereby all things must be ordered, and thereto obey. But where (I pray you) have you any such will of Christ, that he is really, carnally, corporally, and naturally, under the forms of bread and wine? There is no such will of Christ set forth in the scripture, as you pretend by a false understanding of these words, “This is my body.” Why take you then so boldly upon you to say, that this is Christ’s will and intent, when you have no warrant in scripture to bear you ? It is not a sufficient proof in scripture, to say, God doth it, because he can do it. For he can do many things which he neither doth, nor will do. He could have sent more than twelve legions of angels to deliver Christ from the wicked Jews, and yet he would not do it. He could have created the world and all things therein in one moment of time, and yet his pleasure was to do it in six days. In all matters of our christian faith, written in holy scripture, for our instruction and doctrine, how far soever they seem discrepant from reason, we must repress our imaginations, and consider God’s pleasure and will, and yield thereto, believing him to be omnipotent; and that by his omnipotent power, such things are verily so as holy scripture teacheth. Like as we believe that Christ was born of the blessed virgin Mary, without company of man: that our Saviour Christ the third day rose again from death: that he in his humanity ascended into heaven: that our bodies at the day of judgment shall rise again; and many other such like things, which we all that be true christian men, do believe firmly, because we find these things written in scrip- ture. And therefore we (knowing God’s omnipotency) do believe that he hath brought some of the said things to pass already, and those things that are yet to come, he will by the same omnipotency without doubt likewise bring to pass. Now if you can prove that your transubstantiation, your fleshly presence of Christ’s body and blood, your carnal eating and drinking of the same, your propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, are taught us as plainly in the scripture, as the said articles of our faith be, then I will believe that it is so in deed. Otherwise, neither I nor any man that is in his right wits, will believe your said articles, because God is omnipotent, and can make it so. For you might so, under pretence of God’s omni- potency, make as many articles of our faith as you list, if such arguments might take place, that God by his omnipotent power can convert the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his flesh and blood: ergo he doth so indeed. And although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine, yet Christ used not so many words, in the mystery of his holy supper, without effectual signification. For he is effectually present, and effectually worketh not in the bread and wine, but in the OF THE SACRAMENT. 35 godly receivers of them, to whom he giveth his own flesh spiritually to feed upon, and his own blood to quench their great inward thirst. And here I would wish you to mark very well one true sentence which you have Fating signi- uttered by the way, which is, that Christ declared that eating of him signified believing, ing. iat and start not from it another time. And mark the same, I pray fie: gentle reader. For this one sentence assoileth almost all the arguments that be brought by this lawyer, in his whole book against the truth. And yet to the said true saying you have joined another untruth, and have yoked them Three un- both together 1 in one sentence. For when Christ had taught of the eating of him, being by ar he the bread descended from heaven, there was no murmuring thereat, say you. Which one your saying I cannot but wonder at, to see you so far deceived in a matter so plain and manifest. And if I had spoken such an evident and manifest untruth, I doubt the first. not but it should have been spoken of to Rome gates. For the text saith there plainly, Murmurabant Judai de illo, quod dixisset, Kgo sum panis vivus, qui de caelo descendi: Jom vi. “The Jews murmured at him because he said, ‘I am the bread of life that came from heaven.” But when you wrote this, it seemeth you looked a little too low, and should have looked higher. ‘And here by this one place the reader may gather of your own words your intent and meaning in this your book, if that be true which you said before, that ever where contention is, on what part the reader seeth in any one point an open manifest lie, there he may consider (whatsoever excuse be made of truth) yet the victory of truth not to be there intended. Another untruth also followeth incontinently, that when Christ said, ‘“‘ The bread The second. which I will give you is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world ;” eo these words, say you, Christ maketh mention of two gifts. But what be those tiered gifts, I pray you? and by what words is the diversity of those two gifts expressed? If the giving, as Smith saith, be giving to death, then those two gifts declare that Christ died for us twice. And if one of Christ’s gifts have livery and seisin, why hath not the other likewise? And when was then that livery and seisin given? And if eating of Christ be believing, as you said even now, then livery and seisin is given when we first believe, whether it be in baptism, or at any other time. But what you mean by these words, that Christ gave in his supper his body as really to be eaten of us, as he did to be crucified for us, I understand not, except you would have Christ so really eaten of his apostles at his supper with their teeth, as he was after crucified, whipped, and thrust to the heart with a spear. But was he not then so really and corporally crucified, that his body was rent and torn in pieces? And was not he so crucified then, that he never was crucified after? Was he not so slain then, that he never died any more*? And if he were so eaten at his supper, then did — 32. his apostles tear his flesh at the supper, as the Jews did the day following? And then how could he now be eaten again? or how could he be crucified the day following, if the night before he were after that sort eaten all up? But “ aptly,” say you, “and con- veniently.” Marry, Sir, I thank you; but what is that “aptly and conveniently,” but spiritually and by faith, as you said before, not grossly with the teeth, as he was crucified? And so the manner was diverse, I grant, and the substance all one. But when Christ said, ‘The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give The third, for the life of the world,” if he had fulfilled this promise at his supper, as you say he fulfilled not did, then what needed he after to die that we might live, if he fulfilled his promise of ey taints life at his supper? Why said the prophets, that he should be wounded for our iniquities, se and that by his wounds we should be healed, if we had life, and were healed before he was wounded? Why doth the catholic faith teach us to believe that we be redeemed John vi. by his blood-shedding, if he gave us life (which is our redemption) the night before he Bomn, ii. Heb. ix. shed his blood? And why saith St Paul that there is no remission without blood- Gat’v shedding? Yea, why did he say*, Absit mihi gloriari, nisi in cruce? “God forbid [' The edition of 1551 omits this paragraph [2 no more, 1551. ] altogether: it seems to have been an addition made [? did St Paul say, 1551. | by Cranmer in the revision of the work. ] Rom. i. Heb. ii. Eph. i. John iii. Gal. vi. Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. 1 Cor. x. 33. A warrant for apparel. Christ's ambi- guous speech- es were not always open- ed by the evangelists. Luke xii. Luke ix. John xii. Matt. xiii. Psal. Ixxvii. <«This is my body”, is no proper speech. 36 THE FIRST BOOK that I should rejoice, but. in the cross only.” Why did he not rather say, Absit mihi gloriari, nisi in cena Domini’? “God forbid that I should rejoice, but in the Lord’s supper :” whereat, as you say, the promise of life was fulfilled. This is godly doctrine for such men to make, as being ignorant in God’s word, wander in fantasies of their own devices, and putanies se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt. But the true faithful believing man professeth, that Christ by his death overcame him that was the author of death, and hath reconciled us to his Father, making us his children, and heirs of his kingdom ; that as many as believe in him should not perish, but have life everlasting. Thus saith the true christian man, putting his hope of life and eternal salvation neither in Christ’s supper, (although the same be to him a great confirmation of his faith,) nor in any thing else, but with St Paul saith®, Mihi absit gloriari, nisi in cruce Domini nostri Jesu Christi: “God save me that I rejoice in nothing, but in the cross of our — Lord Jesu Christ.” | And when this true believing man cometh to the Lord’s supper, and (according to — Christ's commandment) receiveth the bread broken, in remembrance that Christ's body was broken for him upon the cross, and drinketh the wine in remembrance of the effusion of Christ’s blood for his sins, and unfeignedly believeth the same, to him the words . of our Saviour Christ be effectuous and operatory: “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for thee: and drink of this, for this is my blood which is shed for thee, to the remission of thy sins.” And as St Paul saith, “the bread unto him is the communion of Christ's body, and the wine the communion of his blood.” For the effect of his godly eating (as you truly herein gather of St Paul’s words) is the communication of Christ's body and blood, but to the faithful receiver, and not to the dumb creatures of bread and wine, under whose forms the catholic faith teacheth not the body and blood of Christ invisibly to be hidden. And as to the godly eater (who duly esteemeth Christ’s body, and hath it in such price and estimation as he ought to have) the effect is the communication of Christ’s body; so to the wicked eater, the effect is damnation and everlasting woe. And now I am glad that here yourself have found out a warrant for the apparel of bread and wine, that they shall not go altogether naked, and be nude and bare tokens, but have promises of effectual signification, which now you have spied® out both in the words of Christ and St Paul. Now for the ambiguity of Christ’s speeches, it is not always true, that such speeches of Christ as might have ambiguity, the evangelists either plainly or by circumstances open them. For Christ speaking so many things in parables, similes, allegories, meta- phors, and other tropes and figures, although sometime Christ himself, and sometime the evangelists open the meaning, yet for the most part the meaning is left to the judgment of the hearers, without any declaration. As when Christ said: “Gird your loins, and take light candles in your hands.” And when he said: “No man that setteth his hand to the plough, and looketh behind him, is meet for the kingdom of God.” And when he said: ‘‘ Except the grain of wheat falling upon the ground, die, it remaineth sole.” And as St Matthew saith: “ Christ spake not to the people with- out parables, that the scriptures might be fulfilled, which prophesied of Christ, that he should open his mouth in parables.” And although some of his parables Christ opened to the people, some to his apostles only, yet some he opened to neither of beth, as can appear, but left them to be considered by the discretion of the hearers. And when Christ called Herod a fox, Judas a devil, himself a door, a way, a vine, a well; neither he nor the evangelists expounded these words, nor gave warning to the hearers that he spake in figures : for every man that had any manner of sense or reason, might well perceive that these sentences could not be true in plain form of words, as they were spoken. For who is so ignorant, but he knoweth that a man is not a fox, a devil, a door, a way, 2 vine, a well? And so likewise when Christ brake the bread, and commanded his disciples to [!} Misi cena dominica, 1551. ] [* espied, 1551. ] [2 but saith with St Paul, 1551. ] OF THE SACRAMENT. 37 eat it, and said, “This is my body;” and of the wine he said, “ Divide it among you, drink it, this is my blood:” no man that was there present was so fond, but he knew well that the bread was not Christ’s body, nor the wine his blood. And therefore they might well know that Christ called the bread his body, and the wine his blood for some figure, similitude, and property of the bread and wine unto his flesh and blood: for as bread and wine be foods to nourish our bodies, so is the flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ, (being annexed unto his deity,) the everlasting food of our souls. And although the evangelists in that place do not fully express the words in this sense, yet adjoining the sixth chapter of John (speaking of the spiritual manducation of Christ) to the circumstances of the text in the three evangelists, reciting Christ’s last supper, the whole matter is fully gathered, as old authors of the church have declared. For do not the circumstances of the text, both before and after the eating and drinking, declare that there is very bread and wine? Is not that which is broken and eaten bread? and that which is divided, drunken? And the fruit of the vine, is it not very wine? And doth not the nature of sacraments require that the sensible elements should remain in their proper nature, to signify an higher mystery and secret working of God inwardly, as the sensible elements be ministered outwardly ? And is not the visible and corporal feeding upon bread and wine a convenient and apt figure and similitude to put us in remembrance, and to admonish us how we be fed invisibly and spiritually by the flesh and blood of Christ, God and man? And is not the sacrament taken away, when the element is taken away? Or can the acci- dents of the element be the sacrament of substantial feeding? Or did ever any old author say, that the accidents were the sacramental signs without the substances ? But for the conclusion of your matter, here I would wish that you would once truly understand me. For I do not say that Christ’s body and blood be given to us in signification, and not in deed. But I do as plainly speak as I can, that Christ’s body and blood be given to us in deed, yet not corporally and carnally, but spiritually and effectually, as you confess yourself within twelve lines after. WINCHESTER. The author uttereth a great many words, from the eighth to the seventeenth chapter of the first book, declaring spiritual hunger and thirst, and the relieving of the same by spiritual Seeding in Christ, and of Christ, as we constantly believe in him, to the confirmation of which belief, the author would have the sacraments of baptism, and of the body and blood of Christ, to be adminicles* as it were, and that we by them be preached unto, as in water, bread, and wine, and by them all our sins®, as it were, spoken unto, or properly touched ; which matter in the gross, although there be some words by the way not tolerable, yet if those words set apart, the same were in the sum granted, to be good teaching and wholesome exhortytion, it containeth so no more but good matter not well applied. For the catholic church that professcth the truth of the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, would therewith use that declaration of hunger of Christ, and that spiritual refreshing in Christ, with the effect of Christ's passion and death, and the same to be the only mean of man’s regeneration and Seeding also, with the differences of that feeding from bodily feeding, for continuing this earthly life. But this toucheth not the principal potnt that should be entreated: whether Christ so ordered to feed such as be regenerate in him, to give to them in the sacrament the same his body, that he gave to be crucified for us. The good man is fed by faith, and by merits of Christ's passion, being the mean of the gift of that faith, and other gifts also, and by the suffering of the body of Christ, and shedding of his most precious blood on the altar of the cross: which work and passion of Christ is preached unto us by words and sacraments, and the same doctrine received of us by faith, and the effect of it also. And thus far goeth the doctrine of this author. But the catholic teaching by the scriptures goeth further, confessing Christ to feed such as be regenerate in him, not only by his body and blood, but also with his body and blood, delivered in this sacrament by him in deed to us, which the faithful, by his institution and commandment, [* adminicles; i. . helps, supports. ] [> senses, 1551.] 34. [Beck i.) hap. Vill. Chap. 1x. The spiritual hunger and thirstiness of the soul. Eph. ii. Rom. iii. Psal. xiii. Psal. Ixiii. Rom. iv. Rom. vil. Rom. viii. 38 THE FIRST BOOK receive with their faith and with their mouth also, and with those special dainties be fed specially at Christ's table. And so God doth not only preach in his sacraments, but also worketh in them, and with them, and in sensible things giveth celestial gifts, after the doctrine of each sacrament, as in baptism the Spirit of Christ, and in the sacrament of the altar the very body and blood of Christ, according to the plain sense of his words which he spake: “ This is my body,” &c. And this is the catholic faith, against which, how the author will fortify that he would have called catholic, and confute that he improveth, I intend hereafter more particularly to touch in discussion of that is said. CANTERBURY. I mistrust not the indifferency of the reader so much, but he can well perceive how simple and slender a rehearsal you have made here of my eight annotations, and how little matter you have here to say against them, and how little your sayings re- quire any answer. And because this may the more evidently appear to the reader, I shall rehearse my words here again. Although in this treaty of the sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, I have already sufficiently declared the institution and meaning of the same, according to the very words of the gospel and of St Paul; yet it shall not be in vain somewhat more at large to declare the same, according to the mind, as well of holy scripture, as of old ancient authors, and that so sincerely and plainly, without doubts, ambiguities, or vain questions, that the very simple and unlearned people may easily understand the same, and be edified thereby. And this by God’s grace is mine only intent and desire, that the flock of Christ dispersed in this realm (among whom I am appointed a special pastor) may no longer lack the commodity and fruit, which springeth of this heavenly knowledge. For the more clearly it is understood’, the more sweetness, fruit, comfort, and edification it bringeth to the godly receivers thereof. And to the clear understanding of this sacrament, divers things must be considered. First, that as all men of themselves be sinners, and through sin be in God’s wrath, banished far away from him, condemned to hell and everlasting dam- nation, and none is clearly innocent, but Christ alone: so every soul inspired by God is desirous to be delivered from sin and hell, and to obtain at God’s hands mercy, favour, righteousness, and everlasting salvation, And this earnest and great desire is called in scripture, “the hunger and thirst of the soul:” with which kind of hunger David was taken, when he said: « As an hart longeth for springs of water, so doth my soul long for thee, O God.” “My soul thirsteth® after God, who is the well of life. My soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh wisheth for thee.” And this hunger the silly poor sinful soul is driven unto by means of the law, which sheweth unto her the horribleness of sin, the terror of God’s indig- nation, and the horror of death and everlasting damnation. And when she seeth nothing but damnation for her offences by justice and accusation of the law, and this damnation is ever before her eyes, then in this great distress the soul beg pressed with heaviness and sorrow, seeketh for some comfort, and desireth some remedy for her miserable and sorrowful estate. And this feeling of her damnable condition, and greedy desire of re- freshing, is the spiritual hunger of the soul. And whosoever hath this godly hunger is blessed of God, and shall have {} understand, 1551.] [° hath thirsted, 1551.] OF THE SACRAMENT. 39 meat and drink enough, as Christ himself said: “ Blessed be they that hunger Matt. v. and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled full.’ And on the other side, they that see not their own sinful and damnable estate, but think them- selyes holy enough, and in good case and condition enough, as they haye no spiritual hunger, so shall they not be fed of God with any spiritual food. For as Almighty God feedeth them that be hungry, so doth he send away empty Lukei. all that be not hungry. But this hunger and thirst is not easily perceived of the carnal man. For when he heareth the Holy Ghost speak of meat and drink, his mind is by and by in the kitchen and buttery, and he thinketh upon his dishes and pots, 36. his mouth and his belly. But the scripture in sundry places useth special words, whereby to draw our gross minds from the phantasying of our teeth and belly, and from this carnal and fleshly imagination. For the apostles and disciples of Christ, when they were yet carnal, knew not what was meant by this kind of hunger and meat; and therefore when they desired him to eat, (to withdraw their minds from carnal meat) he said unto them: “I have other meat to eat which you know not.” And why knew they it not? Forsooth, because their minds were Jomiv. gross as yet, and had not received the fulness of the Spirit. And therefore our Saviour Christ, minding to draw them from this grossness, told them of ' another kind of meat than they phantasied, (as it were) rebuking them, for that | they perceived not that there was any other kind of eating and drinking, besides that eating and drinking which is with the mouth and throat.® Likewise when he said to the woman of Samaria, ‘ Whosoever shall drink Jonniv. of that water that I shall give him, shall never be thirsty again;” they that heard him speak those words, might well perceive that he went about to make them well acquainted with another kind of drinking, than is the drinking with the mouth and throat. For there is no such kind of drink, that with once drinking can quench the thirst of a man’s body for ever. Wherefore, in saying he shall never be thirsty again, he did draw ther minds from drinking with | the mouth unto another kind of drinking, whereof they knew not, and unto | another kind of thirsting, wherewith as yet they were not acquainted. And‘ also, when our Saviour Christ said, “ He that cometh to me shall not hunger, Jonn vi. and he that believeth on me shall never be thirsty ;” he gave them a plain watchword, that there was another kind of meat and drink than that where- with he fed them at the other side of the water, and another kind of hungering _ and thirsting than was the hungering and thirsting of the body. By these _ words therefore he drove the people to understand another kind of eating and drinking, of hungering and thirsting, than that which belongeth only for the preservation of temporal life. Now then as the thing that comforteth the body is called meat and drink, of a like sort the scripture calleth the same thing that comforteth the soul meat and drink. Wherefore as here before in the first note is declared the hunger and chap. x. drought of the soul, so is it now secondly to be noted, what is the meat, drink, The spiritual and food of the soul. soul. The meat, drink, food, and refreshing of the soul is our Saviour Christ, as he said himself: “Come unto me all you that travail and be laden, and Matt. xi. I will refresh you.” And, “If any man be dry,” saith he, “let him come to John wii. me and drink. He that believeth in me, floods of water of life shall flow out [® and the throat, 1551. ] [* Also when, 1551.] John vi. 37. (John vi. 1551.) John vi. Gal. il. Chap. x1. Christ far excelleth all corporal food. 40 THE FIRST BOOK of his belly.” And, “Tam the bread of life,” saith Christ; “he that cometh to me, shall not be hungry: and he that believeth in me, shall never be dry.” For as meat and drink do comfort the hungry body, so doth the death of Christ’s body and the shedding of his blood comfort the soul, when she is after her sort hungry. What thing is it that comforteth and nourisheth the body? Forsooth, meat and drink. By what names then shall we call the body and blood of our Saviour Christ (which do comfort and nourish the hungry soul) but by the names of meat and drink? And this similitude caused our Saviour to say: “My flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink.” For there is no kind of meat that is comfortable to the soul, but only the death of Christ’s blessed body; nor no kind of drink that can quench her thirst, but only the blood-shedding of our Saviour Christ, which was shed for her offences. For as there is a carnal generation, and a carnal feeding and nourish- ment; so is there also a spiritual generation, and a spiritual feeding. And as every man by carnal generation of father and mother, is carnally begotten and born unto this mortal life: so is every good Christian spiritually born by Christ unto eternal life. And as every man is carnally fed and nourished in his body by meat and drink, even so is every good christian man spiritually fed and nourished in his soul by the flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ. [And as the body liveth by meat and drink, and thereby ‘inereaseth and groweth from a young babe unto a perfect man, (which thmg experience teacheth us;) so the soul liveth by Christ himself, by pure faith eating his flesh and drinking his blood?.] And this Christ himself teacheth us in this sixth? of John, saying: “ Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; even so he that eateth me, shall live by me.” And this St Paul confessed* himself, saying: “That I have life, I have it by faith in the Son of God. And now it is not I that live, but Christ liveth in me.” The third thing to be noted is this, that although our Saviour Christ resembleth his flesh and blood to meat and drink, yet he far passeth and excelleth all corporal meats and drinks. For although corporal meats and drinks do nourish and continue our life here in this world, yet they begin not our life. For the beginning of our life we have of our fathers and mothers: and the meat, after we be begotten, doth feed and nourish us, and so preserveth us for a time. But our Saviour Christ is both the first beginner of our spiritual life, (who first begetteth us unto God his Father,) and also afterward he is our lively food and nourishment. Moreover meat and drink do feed* and nourish only our bodies, but Christ is the true and perfect nourishment both of body and soul. And besides that, bodily food preserveth the life but for a time, but Christ is such a spiritual and perfect food, that he preserveth both body and soul for ever; as he said [: This passage is omitted in both the 1551 and [2 in the sixth of John, 1551.] 1580 editions, as well as in ed. Embd. 1557. It [° confessed of himself, 1551.] is here inserted from the original edition of the [4 doth, 1551.] “ Defence.’ | OF THE SACRAMENT. 4 unto Martha: “Tama resurrection’ and life. He that believeth in me, although John xi. he die, yet shall he live. And he that liveth and believeth in me, shall not die for ever.” Fourthly it is to be noted, that the true knowledge of these things is Chap. xu. the true knowledge of Christ, and to teach these things is to teach Christ. te saera- ments were And the believing and feeling of these things is the believing and feeling of ordained to. Christ in our hearts. And the more clearly we see, understand, and believe fit. these things, the more clearly we see and understand Christ, and have more fully our faith and comfort in him. And although our carnal generation and our carnal nourishment be known to all men by daily experience, and by our common senses; yet this our spiritual generation and our spiritual nutrition be so obscure and hid unto us, that we cannot attain to the true and perfect knowledge and feeling of them, but only by faith, which must be grounded upon God’s most holy word and sacraments. And for this consideration our Saviour Christ hath not only set forth these 38. things most plainly in his holy word, that we may hear them with our ears, but he hath also ordained one visible sacrament of spiritual regeneration in water, and another visible sacrament of spiritual nourishment in bread and wine, to the infent, that as much as is possible for man, we may see Christ with our eyes, smell him at our nose, taste him with our mouths, grope him with our hands, and perceive him with all our senses. For as the word of God preached putteth Christ into our ears, so likewise these elements of water, bread, and wine, joined to God’s word, do after a sacramental manner put Christ into our eyes, mouths, hands, and all our senses. And for this cause Christ ordained baptism in water, that as surely as we see, feel, and touch water with our bodies, and be washed with water, so assuredly ought we to believe, when we be baptized, that Christ is verily present with us, and that by him we be newly born again spiritually, and washed from our sins, and grafted in the stock of Christ’s own body, and be apparelled, clothed, and harnessed with him, in such wise, that as the devil hath no power against Christ, so hath he none against us, so long as we remain grafted in that stock, and be clothed with that apparel, and harnessed with that armour. So that the washing in water of baptism is, as it were, shewing of Christ before our eyes, and a sensible touching, feeling, and groping of him, to the confirmation of the inward faith, which we have in him. And in like manner Christ ordained the sacrament of his body and blood in bread and wine, to preach unto us, that as our bodies be fed, nourished, and preserved with meat and drink, so as touching our spiritual life towards God we be fed, nourished, and preserved by the body and blood of our Saviour Christ; and also that he is such a preservation unto us, that neither the devils of hell, nor eternal death, nor sin, can be able to prevail against us, so long as by true and constant faith we be fed and nourished with that meat and drink. And for this cause Christ ordained this sacrament in bread and wine (which Hugo ces. we eat and drink, and be chief nutriments of our body), to the intent that as craienti : surely as we see the bread and wine with our eyes, smell them with our noses, cap. touch them with our hands, and taste them with our mouths, so assuredly [Rabanus de ought we to believe that Christ is a spiritual® life and sustenance of our souls, rm. 1ib. 1. like as the said bread and wine is the food and sustenance of our bodies. And hard de cana Domini, no less ought we to doubt, that our souls be fed and live by Christ, than i Hen [° I am resurrection, 1551.] [° is our spiritual life, 1551.] Chap. XUI. Wherefore this sacra- ment was ordained in bread and wine. 39. Hugo de S. Vict. de Sa- cramentis, Tractat. v1. cap. 3. Chap. X1v- The unity of Christ’s mys- tical body. 1 Cor. x. Dionysius, *Eccl. Hier. eap. 2 Chap. xv. This saera- ment moveth all men to love and friendship. 42 THE FIRST BOOK that our bodies be fed and live by meat and drink. Thus our Saviour Christ, knowing us to be in this world, as it were, but babes and weaklings in faith, hath ordained sensible signs and tokens whereby to allure and to draw us to more strength and more constant faith in him. So that the eating and drinking of this sacramental bread and wine is, as it were, shewing' of Christ before our eyes, a smelling of him with our noses, feeling* and groping of him with our hands, and an eating, chewing, digesting, and feeding upon him to our spi- ritual strength and perfection. Fifthly, it is to be noted, that although there be many kinds of meats and drinks which feed the body, yet our Saviour Christ (as many ancient authors write) ordained this sacrament of our spiritual feeding in bread and wine, rather than in other meats and drinks, because that bread and wine do most lively represent unto us the spiritual union and knot of all faithful people, as. well unto Christ, as also among themselves. For like as bread is made of a great number of grains of corn, ground, baken, and so joined together, that thereof is made one loaf; and an infinite number of grapes be pressed together in one vessel, and thereof is made wine; likewise is the whole multi- tude of true christian people spiritually joined, first to Christ, and then among themselves together in one faith, one baptism, one Holy Spirit, one knot and bond of love. Sixthly, it is to be noted, that as the bread and wine which we do eat be turned into our flesh and blood, and be made our very flesh and very blood, and so be* joined and mixed with our flesh and blood, that they be © made one whole body together; even so be all faithful Christians spiritually turned into the body of Christ, and so be* joined unto Christ, and also to- gether among themselves, that they do make but one mystical body of Christ, as St Paul saith: “ We be one bread and one body, as many as be partakers of one bread and one cup.” And as one loaf is given among many men, so that every one is partaker of the same loaf; and likewise one cup of wine is distributed unto many persons, whereof every one is partaker; even so our Saviour Christ (whose flesh and blood be represented by the mystical bread and wine in the Lord’s supper) doth give himself unto all his true members, spiritually to feed them, nourish them, and to give them continual life by him. And as the branches of a tree, or member of a body, if they be dead, or cut off, they neither live, nor receive any nourishment or sustenance of the body or tree; so likewise ungodly and wicked people, which be cut off from Christ’s mystical body, or be dead members of the same, do not spi- ritually feed upon Christ’s body and blood, nor have any life, strength, or sustentation thereby. Seventhly, it is to be noted, that whereas nothing in this life is more ac- ceptable before God, or more pleasant unto man, than christian people to live together quietly in love and peace, unity and concord, this sacrament doth most aptly and effectuously move us thereunto. For when we be made all partakers of this one table, what ought we to think, but that we be all mem- bers of one spiritual body, whereof Christ is the head; that we be joined together in one Christ, as a great number of grains of corn be jomed to- gether in one loaf? Surely, they have very hard and stony hearts, which with these things be not moved: and more cruel and unreasonable be they than brute beasts, that cannot be persuaded to be good to their christian bre- thren and neighbours, for whom Christ suffered death, when in this sacra- [! a shewing, 155]. ] [? a feeling, 1551.] [? be so, 158]. | OF THE SACRAMENT. 43 ment they be put in remembrance that the Son of God bestowed his life for his enemies. For we see by daily experience, that eating and drinking to- gether maketh friends, and continucth friendship: much more then ought the table of Christ to move us so to do. Wild beasts and birds be made gentle by giving them meat and drink: why then should not christian men wax meek and gentle with this heavenly meat of Christ? Hereunto we be stirred / and moyed, as well by the bread and wine in this holy supper, as by the words of holy scripture recited in the same. Wherefore, whose heart soever this holy sacrament, communion, and supper of Christ will not kindle with love unto his neighbours, and cause him to put out of his_heart all envy, hatred, and malice, and to grave in the same all amity, friendship, and con- cord, he deceiveth himself, if he think that he hath the Spirit of Christ dwelling within him. But all these foresaid godly admonitions, exhortations, and comforts, do the papists (as much as heth in them) take away from all christian people by their transubstantiation. For if we receive no bredd nor wine in the holy communion, then all 40. these lessons and comforts be gone, which we should learn and receive by otteansub eating of the bread, and drinking of the wine: and that fantastical imagi- doth clean | nation giveth an occasion utterly to subvert our whole faith in Christ. For fithin | seeing that this sacrament was ordained in bread and wine (which be foods _ for the body) to signify and declare unto us our spiritual food by Christ ; _ then if our corporal feeding upon the bread and wine be but fantastical, (so that there is no bread nor wine‘ there indeed to feed upon, although they appear there to be,) then it doth us to understand, that our spiritual feeding in Christ is also fantastical, and that mdeed we feed not of him: which sophistry is so devilish and wicked, and so much injurious to Christ, that it could not come from any other person, but only from the devil himself, and from his special minister antichrist. The eighth thing that is to be noted is, that this spiritual meat of Christ’s chap. xv:. body and blood is not received in the mouth, and digested in the stomach, The spiritual _ (as corporal meats and drinks commonly be,) but it is received with a pure the Neart, not heart and a sincere faith. And the true eating and drinking of the said te” | body and blood of Christ is, with a constant and lively faith to believe, that | Christ gave his body, and shed his blood upon the cross for us, and that he doth so jom and incorporate himself to us, that he is our head, and we his members, and flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, having him dwelling in us, and we in him. And herein standeth the whole effect and strength of this sacrament. And this faith God worketh inwardly in our hearts by his holy Spirit, and confirmeth the same outwardly to our ears by hearing of his word, and to our other senses by eating and drinking of the sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper. What thing then can be more comfortable to us, than to eat this meat, and drink this drink? whereby Christ certifieth us, that we be spiritually, and truly, fed and nourished by him, and that we dwell in him, and he in us. Can this be shewed unto us more plainly, than when he saith himself, sonn vi. “He that eateth me shall live by me?” Wherefore, whosoever doth not contemn the everlasting life, how can he but highly esteem this sacrament? How can he but embrace it as a sure pledge of his salvation? And when he seeth godly people devoutly receive [* bread and wine, 1551.] 41. Luke xxii. 1 Cor. xi. * Matt. xxv Luke xxii. * Mark xiv. 44 THE FIRST BOOK the same, how can he but be desirous oftentimes to receive it with them? Surely no man that well understandeth, and diligently weigheth these things, can be without a great desire to come to this holy supper. All men desire to have God’s favour, and when they know the contrary, that they be in his indignation, and cast out of his favour, what thing can comfort them? How be their minds vexed! What trouble is in their con- sciences! All God’s creatures seem to be against them, and do make them afraid, as things being ministers of God’s wrath and indignation towards them, and rest or comfort can they find none, neither within them, nor without them. And in this case they do hate as well God, as the devil; God, as an un- merciful and extreme judge, and the devil as a most malicious and cruel tormentor. And in this sorrowful heaviness, holy scripture teacheth them, that our heavenly Father can by no means be pleased with them again, but by the sacrifice and death of his only-begotten Son, whereby God hath made a per- petual amity and peace with us, doth pardon the sins of them that believe in him, maketh them his children, and giveth them to his first-begotten Son Christ, to be incorporate into him, to be saved by him, and to be made heirs of heaven with him. And in the receiving of the holy supper of our Lord, we be put in remembrance of this his death, and of the whole mystery of our redemption. In the which supper is made mention of his testament, and of the aforesaid communion of us with Christ, and of the remission of our sins by his sacrifice upon the cross. Wherefore in this sacrament, (if it be rightly received with a true faith,) we be assured that our sins be forgiven, and the league of peace and the testament of God is confirmed between him and us, so that whosoever by a true faith doth eat Christ’s flesh, and drink his blood, hath everlasting life by him. Which thing when we feel in our hearts at the receiving of the Lord’s supper, what thing can be more joyful, more pleasant, or more com- fortable unto us? All this to be true is most certain by the words of Christ himself, when he did first institute his holy supper, the night before his death, as it appeareth as well by the words of the evangelists, as of St Paul. “Do this,” saith Christ, “as often as you drink it, im remembrance of me.” And St Paul saith: “As often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you shall shew the Lord’s death until he come.” And again Christ said: ‘“ This cup is a new testament in mine own blood, which shall be shed for the remission of sins.” This doctrine here recited may suffice for all that be humble and godly, and seek nothing that is superfluous, but that is necessary and profitable: and therefore, unto such persons may be made here an end of this book. But unto them that be contentious papists and idolaters, nothing is enough. And yet, because they shall not glory in their subtle inventions and deceivable doctrine (as though no man were able to answer them), I shall desire the readers of patience to suffer me a little while, to spend some time in vain, to confute their most vain vanities. And yet-the time shall not be altogether spent in vain, for thereby shall more clearly appear the light from the dark- ness, the truth from false sophistical subtleties, and the certain word of God from men’s dreams and fantastical inventions. Although I need make no further answer, but the rehearsal of my words, yet thus much will I answer, that where you say, that I speak some words by the way not tolerable, if there had been any such they should not have failed to be expressed and named to their reproach, as other have been. Wherefore the reader may take a OF THE SACRAMENT. 45 day with you before he believe you, when you reprove me for using some intoler- able words, and in conclusion name not one of them. And as for your catholic confession, that Christ doth indeed feed such as be re- generated in him, not only by his body and blood, but also with his body and blood at his holy table, this I confess also: but that ne feedeth Jews, Turks, and infidels, if they receive the sacrament, or that he corporally feedeth our mouths with his Aesth and blood, this neither I confess, nor any scripture or ancient writer ever taught ; but they teach that he is eaten spiritually in our hearts and by faith, not with mouth and teeth, except our hearts be in our mouths, and our faith in our teeth. Thus you have laboured sore in this matter, and/spun a fair thread, and brought ! this your first book to a goodly conclusion. For you conclude your book with blas- phemous words against both the sacrament of baptism and the Lord’s supper, nig- gardly pinching God’s gifts, and diminishing his liberal promises made unto us in ‘them. For where Christ hath promised in both the sacraments to be assistant with us whole both in body and Spirit (in the one to be our spiritual regeneration and apparel, and in the other to be our spiritual meat and drink), you clip his liberal benefits in such sort, that in the one you make him to give but only his Spirit, and in the other but only his body. And yet you call your book an explication and assertion of the true catholic faith. Here you make an end of your first book, leaving unanswered the rest of my book. And yet, forasmuch as Smith busieth himself in this place with the answer thereof, he may not pass unanswered again, where the matter requireth. The words of my book be these. But these things cannot manifestly appear to the reader, except the prin- cipal’ points be first set out, wherein the papists vary from the truth of God’s word, which be chiefly four. First, the papists say, that in the supper of the Lord, after the words of consecration, (as they call it,) there is none other substance remaining, but the substance of Christ’s flesh and blood, so that there remaineth neither bread to be eaten, nor wine to be drunken. And although there be the colour of bread and wine, the savour, the smell, the bigness, the fashion, and all other (as they call them) accidents, or qualities and quantities of bread and wine, yet, say they, there is no very bread nor wine, but they be turned into the flesh and blood of Christ. And this conversion they call “ transubstantiation,” that is to say, “turning of one substance into another substance.” And although all the accidents, both of the bread and wine, remain still, yet, say they, the same accidents be in no manner of thing, but hang alone in the air, without anything to stay them upon. For in the body and blood of Christ, say they, these accidents cannot be, nor yet in the air; for the body and blood of Christ, and the air, be neither of that bigness, fashion, smell, nor colour, that the bread and wine be. Nor in the bread and wine, say they, these accidents cannot be; for the substance of bread and wine, as they affirm, be clean gone. And so there remaineth whiteness, but nothing is white: there remaineth colours, but nothing is coloured therewith: there remaineth roundness, but nothing is round: and there is bigness, and yet nothing is big: there is sweetness, with- out any sweet thing; softness, without any soft thing; breaking, without any thing broken; division, without anything divided: and so other qualities and quantities, without anything to receive them. And this doctrine they teach as .a necessary article of our faith. But it is not the doctrine of Christ, but the subtle invention of antichrist, first decreed by Innocent the third, and after more at large set forth by school authors, whose dee was ever to defend and set abroad to the world all [’ The first is of oars caion, 1551 .] Tnjury to both sacraments. 42. D, Smith. [Book i.] Chap. xvii. Four princi- pal errors of the papists. The first is of! the presence of Christ. * yaaa De summa Trin. et fide eatholica. (* Firmiter, paragrapho una. } The second is of the pre- sence of Christ in the sacrament. De consecra. dist. 1. Ego Bereng. * Lege Roffen. contra (Ecol. in precemio. lib. 3. eorro- borat. 5. * Christ isnot eorporally in earth. John xvi. Matt. xxvi. 46 THE FIRST BOOK such matters as the bishop of Rome had once decreed. And the devil, by his minister antichrist, had so dazzled the eyes of a great multitude of christian people in these latter days, that they sought not for their faith at the clear light of God’s word, but at the Romish antichrist, believing whatsoever he prescribed unto them, yea, though it were against all reason, all senses, and God’s most holy word also. For else he could not have been very antichrist indeed, except he had been so repugnant unto Christ, whose doctrine is clean contrary to this doctrine of antichrist. For Christ teacheth that we receive very bread and wine in the most blessed supper of the Lord, as sacraments to admonish us, that as we be fed with bread and wine bodily, so we be fed with the body and blood of our Saviour Christ spiritually: as in our baptism we receive very water, to signify unto us, that as water is an element to wash the body outwardly, so be our souls washed by the Holy Ghost inwardly. The second principal thing, wherein the papists vary from the truth of God’s word, is this: They say, that the very natural flesh and blood of Christ, which suffered for us upon the cross, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is also really, substantially, corporally, and naturally, im or under the accidents of the sacramental bread and wine, which they call the forms of bread and wine. And yet here they vary not a little among themselves, for some say, that the very natural body of Christ is there, but not naturally, nor sensibly. And other say, that it is there naturally and sensibly, and of the same bigness and fashion that it is in heaven, and as the same was born of the blessed virgin Mary, and that it is there broken and torn in pieces with our teeth. And this appeareth partly by the school authors, and partly by the confession of Berengarius', which Nicholas the second constrained him to make, which was this: That of the sacraments of the Lord’s table the said Berengarius should promise to hold that faith which the said pope Nicholas and his council held, which was, that not only the sacraments of bread and wine, but also the very flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are sensibly handled of the priest in the altar, broken and torn with the teeth of the faithful people. But the true catholic faith, grounded upon God’s most infallible word, teacheth us, that our Saviour Christ (as concerning his man’s nature and bodily presence) is gone up unto heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father, and there shall he tarry until the world’s end, at what time he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead, as he saith himself in many scriptures: “I forsake the world,’ saith he, “and go to my Father.” And in another place he saith: ‘“ You shall ever have poor men among you, but me shall not you” ever have.” And again he [! Ego Berengarius indignus sancti Mauritii Andegavensis ecclesiz Diaconus cognoscens veram, catholicam, et apostolicam fidem, anathematizo omnem heresim, precipue eam, de qua hactenus infamatus sum: que astruere conatur panem et vinum, que in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem solummodo sacramentum, et non verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, nec posse sensualiter, nisi in solo sacramento, manibus sacerdotum tractari, vel frangi, aut fidelium denti- bus atteri. Consentio autem sancte Romane et apostolice Sedi: et ore et corde profiteor de sacra- mentis Dominica mense eandem fidem me tenere, quam dominus et venerabilis Papa Nicolaus et hee sancta Synodus auctoritate evangelica et apos- tolica tenendam tradidit, mihique firmavit: scilicet panem et vinum, que in altari ponuntur, post con- secrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, et sensualiter, non solum sacramento, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, et fidelium dentibus atteri: Jurans per sanctam et homousion Trinitatem, per hec sacrosancta Christi evangelia. Eos vero, qui contra hance fidem vene- rint, cum dogmatibus et sectatoribus suis aterno anathemate dignos esse pronuntio. Quod si ego ipse aliquando contra hee aliquid sentire aut pre- dicare presumpsero, subjaceam canonum severitati. Lecto et perlecto sponte subscripsi.—Corpus Juris Canonici. Gratiani Decreti tertia pars. ‘‘ De Con- secrat.”” Dist. 11. c. xlii. cols. 1932, 3. Ed. Lugd. 1618. | {2 you shall not, 1551.] OF THE SACRAMENT. 47 saith : “Many hereafter shall come and say, look here is Christ, or look there matt. xxiv. he is, but believe them not.” And St Peter saith in the Acts, that ‘heaven must Aets iii. receive Christ until the time that all things shall be restored.” And St Paul, writing to the Colossians, agreeth hereto, saying: “Seek for things that be cot. ii. above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father.’ And St Paul, speaking of the very sacrament, saith: “ As often as you shall eat this 1 cor. xi. bread, and drink this cup, shew forth the Lord’s death until he come.” “ Till he come,” saith St Paul, signifying that he is not there corporally present. For what speech were this, or who useth of him that is already present to say, “until he come?” For, “until he come*,” signifieth that he is not yet present. This is the catholic faith, which we learn from our youth in our common ereed, and which Christ taught, the apostles followed, and the martyrs confirmed with their blood. And although Christ in his human nature, substantially, really, corporally, naturally, and sensibly, be present with his Father in heaven, yet sacramentally and spiritually he is here present‘. For in water, bread, and wine, he is pre- sent, as in signs and sacraments ; but he is indeed spiritually in those faithful, christian people, which according to Christ’s ordinance be baptized, or receive the holy communion, or unfeignedly believe in him. Thus have you heard the second principal article, wherein the papists vary from the truth of God’s word and from the catholic faith. Now the third thing, wherein they vary, is this. The papists say, that evil and ungodly men receive in this sacrament the 44. very body and blood of Christ, and eat and drink the selfsame thing that these ea eat and drink the good and godly men do. But the truth of God’s word is contrary, that the very body all those that be godly members of Christ, as they corporally eat the bread Christ. and drink the wine, so spiritually they eat and drink Christ’s very flesh and blood. And as for the wicked members of the devil, they eat the sacramental bread, and drink the sacramental wine, but they do not spiritually eat Christ’s flesh, nor drink his blood, but they eat and drink their own damnation. The fourth thing, wherein the popish priests dissent from the manifest The fourth is word of God, is this. They say that they offer Christ every day for remission sacrifice 0 of sin, and distribute by their masses the merits of Christ’s passion. But the _ prophets, apostles, and evangelists, do say that Christ himself in his own person made a sacrifice for our sins upon the cross, by whose wounds all our diseases were healed, and our sins pardoned; and so did never no priest, man, nor creature, but he, nor he did the same never more than once. And the benefit hereof is in no man’s power to give unto any other, but every man must receive it at Christ’s hands himself, by his own faith and belief, as the Abacuk ii. prophet. saith. Here Smith findeth himself much grieved at two false reports, wherewith he saith p. smith. that I untruly charge the papists. One, when I write that some say, that the very that chistis natural body of Christ is in the sacrament naturally and sensibly ; which thing Smith (euany™ utterly denieth any of them to say, and that I falsely lay this unto their charge. And ™"* moreover it is’ very false, saith he, that you lay unto our charges, that we say, that Christ's body is in the sacrament as it was born of the virgin, and that it is broken and torn in pieces with our teeth. This also Smith saith® is a false report of me. But whether I have made any untrue report or no, let the books be judges. As [* until I come, 1551.] ally in the faithful christian people, 1551.] iy He is here present in water, bread, and wine, [° it is also very false, 1551. ] as in signs and sacraments, but he is indeed spiritu- {® saith Smith, 1551.] 48 THE FIRST BOOK touching the first, the bishop writeth thus in his book of the Devil’s Sophistry, the fourteenth leaf: ‘Good men were never offended with breaking of the host, which they daily saw, being also persuaded Christ’s body to be present in the sacrament naturally and really.” And in the eighteenth leaf he saith these words: “Christ, God and man, is naturally present in the sacrament.” And in ten or twelve places of this, his last book, he saith, “that Christ is present in the sacrament ‘naturally, ‘corporally,’ ‘sensibly,’ and ‘carnally,’ as shall appear evidently in the reading thereof.” So that I make no false report herein, who report no otherwise’ than the papists have written and published openly in their books. And it is not to be passed over, but worthy to be noted, how manifest falsehood is used in the printing of this bishop’s book, in the one hundred and thirty-sixth leaf. For where the bishop wrote (as I have two copies to shew, one of his own hand, and another exhibited by him in open court before the king’s commissioners), that Christ’s body in the sacrament is truly present, and therefore really present, corporally also, and naturally ; the printed book now set abroad hath changed this word “naturally,” and in the stead thereof hath put these words, “but yet supernaturally,” corrupting and manifestly falsifying the bishop’s book’. Who was the author of this untrue act, I cannot certainly define; but if conjectures may have place, I think the bishop himself would not command to alter the book in the printing, and then set it forth with this title, that it was the same book that was exhibited by his own hand, for his defence, to the king’s majesty’s commissioners at Lambeth. And I think the printer, being a Frenchman, would not have enterprised so false a deed of his own head, for the which he should have no thanks at all, but be accused of the author as a falsifier of his book. Now forasmuch as it is not like, that either the bishop or the printer would play any such pranks, it must then be some other, that was of counsel in the printing of the book ; which being printed in France (whither you be now fled from your own native country), what person is more like to have done such a noble act than you? who being so full of craft and untruth im your own country, shew yourself to be no changeling, wheresoever you be come. And the rather it seemeth to me to be you than any other person, because that the book is altered in this word “ naturally,” upon which word standeth the reproof of your saying. For he saith that Christ is in the sacrament “naturally,” and you deny that any man so saith, but that Christ is there “supernaturally.”. Who is more like therefore to change in his book “natu- rally” into “supernaturally” than you, whom the matter toucheth, and no man else? But whether my conjectures be good in this matter I will not determine, but refer it to the judgment of the indifferent reader. Now as concerning the second untrue report, which I should make of the papists, rentandtom T have alleged the words of Berengarius’ recantation, appointed by pope Nicholas the sacra- the second, and written De consecrat. dist. 2, which be these, “that not only the sacra- ments of bread and wine, but also the very flesh and blood of our Lord Jesu Christ, are sensibly handled of the priest in the altar, broken, and torn with the teeth of the faithful people.” Thus the reader may see that I misreport not the papists, nor charge them with any other words than they do write; that is to say, “that the body of Christ is naturally and sensibly in the sacrament, and broken and torn in pieces with our teeth.” “ But,” saith Smith, “the meaning of Berengarius in his recantation was otherwise, that the forms of bread® and wine are broken and torn with our teeth, but Christ is received wholly, without breaking of his body, or tearing with our teeth.” Well, whatsoever the meaning of Berengarius was, his words be as I report; so that I make A manifest, falsehood in the printing of the bish- op’s book. & Some sa that Christ is [} none otherwise, 1551.] reader, however, is directed in the “certain faults [? In the 1551 edition of Winchester’s Expli- cation, p. 136, the passage is thus given: ‘It is truly present, and therefore really present, corpo- rally also, and but yet supernaturally, with relation to the truth of the body present, and not to the manner of presence, which is spiritual.” The escaped in the printing,”’ appended to the beginning of the book, to read ‘‘ naturally ”’ for ‘“‘supernatu- rally.”’ Cranmer’s version of these renderings, it is evident, is the only one which can make the sense clear and distinct. ] [® the forms only of bread, 1551.] OF THE SACRAMENT. 49 no false report of the papists, nor untruly charge them with that they say not. But how should men know what the papists mean, when they say one thing, and mean another? Tor Berengarius said, “that not only the sacraments be broken and torn with our teeth,’ and you say he meant contrary, “that only the sacraments be broken and torn with our teeth.” Berengarius said, “that also the very flesh and blood of Christ be broken and torn,” and you say he meant clean contrary, “that the flesh and blood of Christ be not broken and torn.” Well, then would I fain learn, how it may be known what the papists mean, if they mean yea, when they say nay, and mean nay, when they say yea. And as for St John Chrysostom, and other old authors, by whom you would ex- euse this manner of speech, they help you herein nothing* at all. For not one of them speak after this sort that Berengarius doth. For although they say sometimes that we see Christ, touch him, and break him, (understanding that speech not of Christ himself, but of the sacraments which represent him,) yet they use no such form of speech as was prescribed to Berengarius, that we see, feel, and break, not only the sacraments, but also Christ himself. And likewise of Loth®, Abraham, Jacob, Joshua, Mary Magdalene, and the apostles, whom you bring forth in this matter, there is no such speech in the scripture as Berengarius useth. So that all these things be brought out in vain, having no colour to serve for your purpose, saving that something you must say to make out your book. And as for all the rest that you say in this process, concerning the presence of Christ visible and invisible, needeth no answer at all, because you prove nothing of all that you say in that matter, which may easily therefore’ be denied by as good authority as you affirm the same. And yet all the old writers that speak of the diversity of Christ’s substantial presence and absence, declare this diversity to be in the diversity of his two natures, (that in the nature of his humanity he is gone hence, and present in the nature of his divinity,) and not that im divers respects and qualities of one nature he is both present and absent; which I have proved in my third book, the fifth chapter. And forasmuch as you have not brought one author for the proof of your saying, but your own bare words, nor haye answered to the authorities alleged by me in the foresaid place of my third book, reason would that my proofs should stand and have place, until such time as you have proved your sayings, or brought some evident matter to improve mine. And this, I trust, shall suffice to any indifferent reader, for the defence of my first book. WINCHESTER. Wherein I will keep this order. First, to consider the third book, that speaketh against the faith of the real presence of Christs most precious body and blood in the sacrament: then against the fourth, and so return to the second, speaking of transubstantiation, whereof to talk, the real presence not being discussed, were clearly superfluous. And finally, I will somewhat say of the fifth book. also. CANTERBURY. But now to return to the conclusion of the bishop’s book. As it began with a marvellous sleight and subtlety, so doth he conclude the same with a like notable subtlety, changing the order of my books, not answering them in such order as I wrote them, nor as the nature of the things requireth. For seeing that, by all men’s confessions, there is bread and wine before the consecration; the first thing to be discussed in this matter is, whether the same bread and wine remain still after the consecration, as sacraments of Christ’s most precious body and blood. And next, by order of nature and reason, is to be discussed, whether the body and blood of Christ, [* nothing herein, 1551.] | {° which may therefore easily, 1551.] [° i.e. Lot.] [cRANMER. | 46. Why the or- der of my book was changed by the bishop. 50 THE FIRST BOOK OF THE SACRAMENT. represented by those sacraments, be present also with the said sacraments: and what manner of presence Christ hath, both in the sacraments, and in them that receive the sacraments. But for what intent the bishop changed this order, it is easy to perceive. For he saw the matter of transubstantiation so flat and plain against him, that it was hard for him to devise an answer in that matter, that should have any appearance of truth, but all the world should evidently see him clearly overthrown at the first onset. Wherefore he thought, that although the matter of the real presence hath no truth in it at all, yet forasmuch as it seemed to him to have some more appearance of truth than the matter of transubstantiation hath, he thought best to begin with that first, trusting so to juggle in the matter, and to dazzle the eyes of them that be simple and ignorant, and specially of such as were already persuaded in the matter, that they should not well see nor perceive his legerdemain. And when he had won credit with them in that matter, by making them to wonder at his crafty juggling, then thought he, it should be a fit and meet time for him to bring in the matter of transubstantiation. For when men be amazed, they do wonder rather than judge: and when they be muffled and blindfolded, they cannot find the right way, though they seek it never so fast, nor yet follow it, if it chance them to find it; but give up clearly their own judgment, and follow whomsoever they take to be their guide. And so shall they lightly follow me in this matter of transubstan- tiation, (thought the bishop,) if I can first persuade them and get their good wills in the real presence. This sleight and subtlety thou mayest judge certainly, good reader, to be the cause, and none other, wherefore the order of my book is changed with- out ground or reason. The end of the first book. THE CONFUTATION OF THE THIRD BOOK. | WINCHESTER. | IN the beginning of the third book, the author hath thought good to note certain differences, 48. which I will also particularly consider. {t followeth in him thus. pie Oe “They teach that Christ is in the bread and wine: but we say, according to the truth, that nen he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine.” Note here, reader, even in the entry of the comparison of these differences, how wntruly (rhe answer, the true faith of the church is reported, which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and eee wine (which was the doctrine of Luther); but the true faith is, that Christ's most precious ?™ body and blood is, by the might of his word and determination of his will, which he declareth by his word, in his holy supper present under form of bread and wine. The substance of which natures of bread and wine is converted into his most precious body and blood, as it is truly believed and taught in the catholic church, of which teaching this author cannot be ignorant. So as the author of this book reporteth an untruth wittingly against his conscience, to say they teach (calling them papists) that Christ is in the bread and wine, but they agree in form of teaching with that the church of England teacheth at this day, in the distribution of the holy *The teach- communion, in that it is there said, the body and blood of Christ to be under the form of ing bith this bread and wine. And thus much serveth for declaration of the wrong and untrue report Oe of the faith of the catholic church, made of this author in the setting forth of this difference Irn in on that part, which it pleaseth him to name papists. peers And now to speak of the other part of the difference on the author's side, when he would varists. tell what he and his say, he conveyeth a sense craftily in words to serve for a difference, such *Crafty con- as no catholic man would deny. For every catholic teacher granteth, that no man can receive Tec worthily Christ's body! and blood in the sacrament, unless he hath by faith and charity Christ aie ti dwelling in him. For otherwise, such one as hath not Christ in him, receiveth Christ's body in the sacrament unworthily, to his condemnation. Christ cannot be received worthily, but *Worthy re- into his own temple, which be ye, Saint Paul saith; and yet, he that hath not Christ's Spirit Christ's pre: in him, is not his. As for calling it bread and wine, a catholic man forbeareth not that aod name, signifying what those creatures were before the consecration in substance. Wherefore 1 Cor. vi. appeareth, how the author of this book, in the liew and place of a difference, which he pretendeth he would shew, bringeth in that under a “ but”, which every catholic man must needs confess, that Christ is in them who worthily eat and drink the sacrament of his body and blood, or the bread and wine, as this author speaketh. But as? this author would have spoken plainly, and compared truly the difference of the *A difference two teachings, he should in the second part have said somewhat contrary to that the catholic ace church teacheth, which he doth not; and therefore as he sheweth untruth in the first report, so he sheweth a sleight and shift in the declaration of the second part, to say that repugneth not to the first matter, and that no catholic man will deny, considering the said two teachings be not of one matter, nor shoot not, (as one might say.) to one mark. For the first part is of the substance of the sacrament to be received, where it is truth, Christ to be present, God and man. The second partis of Christ's spiritual presence in the man that receiveth, which indeed must be in him before he receive the sacrament, or he cannot receive the sacrament worthily, as before? is said, which two parts may stand well without any repugnancy; and so both the differences thus taught make but one catholic doctrine. Let us see what the author saith further. CANTERBURY. Now the crafts, wiles, and untruths of the first book being partly detected, after I have also answered to this book, I shall leave to the indifferent reader to judge 49. whether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answer, I shall {! Christ’s precious body, 1541.] {2 But and this author, 1551. ] [? Afore, 1551. ] 4—2 [ Book iii.!] Shap. 1. The presence of Christ in the sacra- ment. Christ cor- porally is as- cended into heaven. Acts iii. Chap. 1. The differ- ence between the true and apistical octrine con- cerning the presence of Christ's body. The first com- parison. 52 THE THIRD BOOK. rehearse the words of mine own third book, which you attempt next, out of order, to impugn. My words be these: Now this matter of transubstantiation being, as I trust, sufficiently resolved, (which is the first part before rehearsed, wherein the papistical doctrine varieth from the catholic truth,) order requireth next to entreat of the second part, which is of the manner of the presence of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ in the sacrament thereof; wherein is no less contention than in the first part. For a plain explication whereof, it is not unknown to all true faithful christian people, that our Saviour Christ, (being perfect God, and in all things equal and coeternal with his Father.) for our sakes became also a_ perfect man, taking flesh and blood of his blessed mother and virgin Mary, and, saving sin, being in all things like unto us, adjoining unto his divinity a most perfect soul [and a most perfect body: his soul being endued with life, sense, will, reason, wisdom, memory, and all other things required to the perfect soul*] of man: and his body being made of very flesh and bones, not only having all members of a perfect man’s body, in due order and proportion, but also being subject to hunger, thirst, labour, sweat, wea- riness, cold, heat, and all other like infirmities and passions of a man, and unto death also, and that the most vile and painful upon the cross; and after his death he rose again, with the selfsame visible and palpable body, and appeared therewith, and shewed the same unto his apostles, and especially to Thomas, making him to put his hands into his side, and to feel his wounds. And with the selfsame body he forsook this world, and ascended into heayen, (the apostles seeing and beholding his body when it ascended,) and now sit- teth at the right hand of his Father, and there shall remain until the last day, when he shall come to judge the quick and dead. This is the true catholic faith, which the scripture teacheth, and the universal church of Christ hath ever believed from the beginning, until within these four or five hundred years last passed, that the bishop of Rome, with the assistance of his papists, hath set up a new faith and belief of their own devising, that the same body, really, corporally, naturally, and sensibly, is in this world still, and that in an hundred thousand places at one time, being inclosed in every pix, and bread consecrated. And although we do affirm (according to God’s word), that Christ is in all persons that truly believe in him, in such sort, that with his flesh and blood he doth spiritually nourish* and feed them, and giveth them everlasting life, and doth assure them thereof, as well by the promise of his word, as by the sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper, which he did insti- tute for the same purpose; yet we do not a little vary from the heinous errors of the papists. For they teach, that Christ is in the bread and wine; but we say (according to the truth), that he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine. Here it pleaseth you to pass over all the rest of my sayings, and to answer only to the difference between the papists and the true catholic faith. Where in the first* ye find fault that I have untruly reported the papistical faith, (which you call° the faith of the church,) which teacheth not, say you°, that Christ is in the bread and wine, but under the forms of bread and wine. But to answer you’, I say, that the [’ In the original edition this is the heading of [® Nourish them, and, 1551. the third book: ‘‘ The third book teacheth the [* Wherein first ye find, 1551. ] manner how Christ is present in his supper.’’] [> He calleth, 1551.] ; [* This passage appears only in the edition, [{® Saith he, 1551.] 1551, being entirely omitted in that of 1580. ] {7 To answer him, 1551. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 53 papists do teach, that Christ is in the visible signs, and whether they list to call them bread and wine, or the forms of bread and wine, all is one to me; for the truth is, that he is neither corporally in the bread and wine, nor in or under the forms and figures of them, but is corporally in heaven, and spiritually in his lively members, 60. which be his temples where he inhabiteth. And what untrue report is this, when I Misreport of bread and speak of bread and wine to the papists, to speak of them in the same sense that the paneiay Mie Orms anc papists mean, taking bread and wine for the forms and accidents of bread and wine ? peace And yourself also do teach, to understand by the bread and wine, not their sub- stances, but accidents. And what have I offended then, in speaking to you after your own manner of speech, which yourself doth approve and allow by and by after, saying these words? “As for calling it bread and wine, a catholic man forbeareth not that name.” If a catholic man forbeareth not that name, and catholic men be true men, then true men forbear not that name. And why then charge you me with an untruth, for using that name, which you use yourself, and affirm catholic men to use; but that you be given altogether to find faults rather m other, than to amend your own, and to reprehend that in me, which you allow in yourself and other, and pur- posely will not understand my meaning, because ye would seek occasion to carp and controul ? For else what man is so simple that readeth my book, but he may know well, that I mean not to charge you for affirming of Christ to be in the very bread and wine? For I know that you say, there is neither bread nor wine, (although you say untruly therein ;) but yet forasmuch as the accidents of bread and wine you call bread and wine, and say that in them is Christ, therefore I report of you, that you say Christ is in the bread and wine, meaning, as you take bread and wine, the accidents thereof. Yet D. Smith was a more indifferent reader of my book than you in this place, smytn. who understood my words as I meant and as the papists use, and therefore would not purposely calumniate and reprehend that was well spoken. But there is no man so dull as he that will not understand. For men know that your wit is of as good eapacity as D. Smith’s is, if your will agreed to the same. But as for any untrue report made by me herein willingly against my conscience (as you untruly report of me), by that time* I have jomed with you throughout your book, you shall right well perceive, I trust, that I have said nothing wittingly, but that my conscience shall be able to defend at the great day, in the sight of the everliving God, and that I am able before any learned and indifferent judges to justify by holy scriptures, and the ancient doctors of Christ’s church, as I will appeal the consciences of all godly men, that be any thing indifferent, and ready to yield to the truth, when they read and consider my book. And as concerning the form of doctrine used in this church of England in the rhe book of holy communion, that the body and blood of Christ be under the forms of bread and prayer. wine, when you shall shew the place where this form of words is expressed, then shall you purge yourself of that, which in the meantime I take to be a plain untruth. Now for the second part of the difference, you grant that our doctrine is true, The second that Christ is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine; and if it?” differ not from yours, then let it pass as a thing agreed upon by both parties. And yet if I would captiously gather of your words, I could as well prove. by this second part, that very bread and wine be eaten’ and drunken after consecration, as you could prove by the first, that Christ is in the very bread and wine. And if a catholic man call that bread and wine'’, (as you say in the second part of the difference,) what meant you then in the first part of this difference, to charge me with so heinous a crime (with a note to the reader), as though I had sinned against the Holy Ghost, because I said, “that the papists do teach that Christ is in the bread and wine?” Do not you affirm here yourself the same that I report? that the papists (which you call the catholics), do not forbear to call the sacrament, (wherein they put the real and [® By that time that I have, 1551.] [® Ed. 1551, omits the words “eaten and”’. | ['° Called bread and wine, 1551. | *The differ- ence. Repugnan- ces. Or bo 54 THE THIRD BOOK. corporal presence,) bread and wine? Let the reader now judge, whether you be caught in your own snare or no. But such is the success of them that study to wrangle in words, without any respect of opening the truth. But letting that matter pass, yet we vary from you in this difference. For we say not, as you do, that the body of Christ is corporally, naturally, and carnally, either in the bread and wine, or forms of bread and wine, or in them that eat and drink thereof. But we say, that he is corporally in heaven only, and spiritually in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine. But you make an article of the faith, which the old church never believed nor heard of. And where you note in this second part of the difference a sleight and craft, as you note an untruth in the first; even as much craft is in the one as untruth in the other, being neither sleight nor untruth in either of both. But this sleight, say you, I use, putting that for a difference, wherein is no difference at all, but every catholic man must needs confess. Yet once again, there is no man so deaf as he that will not hear, nor so blind as he that will not see, nor so dull as he that will not under- stand. But if you had indifferent ears, indifferent eyes, and indifferent judgment, you might well gather of my words a plain and manifest difference, although it be not in such terms as contenteth your mind. But because you shall see that I mean no sleight nor craft, but go plainly to work, I shall set out the difference truly as I meant, and in such your own terms as I trust shall content! you, if it be possible. Let this therefore be the difference. They say that Christ is corporally under, or in the forms of bread and wine: we say, that Christ is not there, neither corporally, nor spiritually; but in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine, he is spiritually, and corporally in heaven?. Here, I trust, I have satisfied, as well the untrue report wittingly made, as you say, in the first part of the difference against my conscience, as the craft and sleight used in the second part. But what be you eased now by this? We say as the scripture teacheth, that Christ is corporally ascended into heaven, and nevertheless he is so* in them that worthily eat the bread and drink the wine, given and distributed at his holy supper, that he* feedeth and nourisheth them with his flesh and blood unto eternal life. But we say not (as you do, clearly without ground of scripture), that he is cor- porally under the forms of bread and wine, where his presence should be without any profit or commodity, either to us, or to the bread and wine. And here in this difference, it seemeth that you have either clearly forgotten, or negligently overshot yourself, uttering that thing unawares which is contrary to your whole book. For the first part (which is of the beimg of Christ in the sacramental bread and wine,) is of the substance of the sacrament to be received, say you, where it is true, Christ to be present God and man. The second part, say you, which is of the being of Christ in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine, is of Christ’s spiritual presence. Of your which words® I see nothing to be gathered, but that as concerning his substantial presence, Christ is received into the sacramental bread and wine; and as for them that worthily receive the sacrament, he is in them none otherwise than after a spiritual presence: for else why should ye say, that the second part is of Christ’s spiritual presence, if it be as well of his corporal, as of his® spiritual presence? Wherefore, by your own words, this difference should be under- standed of two different beings of Christ, that in the sacrament he is by his substance, and in the worthy receivers spiritually, and not by his substance; for else the differences repugn not, as you object against me. Wherefore either you write one thing and mean another, or else, as you write of other, God so blindeth the adversaries of the truth, that in one place or other they confess the truth unawares. Now follow my words in the second comparison. [! I trust to content you, 1551.] | [4 Ed. 1551, omits the words “that he”’, and [® He is spiritually, but not corporally, 1551. ] adds, ‘‘in whom he is not in vain but, ”’.] [* Ed. 1541, entirely omits the words, ‘‘ corpo- [> Of which your words, 1551.] rally ascended into heaven, and nevertheless he [6 Ed. 1551, omits “ of his.”’} is so.’’] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 55 comparison. Christ gocth into his mouth or stomach with the bread and wine, and no further. But we say, that Christ is in the whole man, both in body and soul of him that worthily eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup, and not in his mouth or stomach only. They say, that when any man eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup, The second WINCHESTER. In this comparison, the author termeth the true catholic teaching at lis pleasure, to bring it in contempt: which doing in rude speech would be called otherwise than I will terin it. Truth it is, as St Augustine saith, we receive in the sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth; and such speech other use, as a book set forth in the archbishop of Canterbury's name, called a Catechism, willeth children to be taught that they receive with their bodily mouth the body and blood of Christ: which I allege, because it shall appear it is a teaching set forth among us of late, as hath been also, and is by the book of common prayer, being the most true catholic doctrine of the substance of the sacrament, in that itis there so catholicly spoken of : which book this author doth after specially allow, howsoever all the sum of his teaching doth improve it in that point. So much is he contrary to himself in this work, and here in this place, not caring what he saith, reporteth such a teaching in the first part of this difference, as I have not heard of before. There was never man of learning that I have read termed the matter so, that Christ goeth into the stomach of the man that received’, and no further. For that is written contra Stercoranistas, is nothing to this teaching; nor the speech of any gloss, *A sect re- if there be any such, were herein to be regarded. The catholic doctrine is, that by the holy ve calens communion in the sacrament we be joined to Christ really, because we receive in the holy supper eT ee the most precious substance of his glorious body, which is a flesh giving life. And that is not digested into our flesh, but worketh in us and attempereth by heavenly nurture our body and soul, being partakers of his passion, to be conformable to his will, and by such spiritual food to be made more spiritual. In the receiving of which food in the most blessed sacrament, our body and soul, in them that duly communicate, work together in due order, without other dis- cussion of the mystery than God hath appointed; that is to say, the soul to believe as it is taught, and the body to do as God hath ordered, knowing that glorious flesh by our eating cannot be conswined or suffer, but to be most profitable unto such as do accustome worthily to receive the same. But to say that the chwrch teacheth how we-receive Chvst at our mouth, and he goeth into our stomach and no further, is a report which by the just judgment of God is suffered to come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mystery. Now where this author in the second part, by an adversative with a “but” to make the comparison, telleth what he and his say, he telleth in effect that which every catholic man must needs 98. and doth confess. For such as receive Christ’s most precious body and blood in the sacrament worthily, they have Christ dwelling in them, who comforteth both body and soul; which the church hath ever taught most plainly. So as this comparison of difference in his two parties is made of one open untruth, and a truth disguised, as though it were now first opened by this author and his; which manner of handling declareth what sleight and shift is used in the matter. CANTERBURY. In the first part of this comparison I go not about to term the true catholic faith, for the first part in all the comparisons is the papistical faith, which I have termed none otherwise than I learned of their own terming; and therefore if my terming please you not (as indeed it ought to please no man), yet lay the blame in them that were the authors and inventors of that terming, and not in me, that against them do use their own terms, terming the matter as they do themselves, because they should not find fault with me, as you do, that I term their teaching at my pleasure. And as for receiving of the body of Christ with our mouths, truth it is, that St Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and other use such speeches, that we receive the body of Christ with our mouths, see him with our eyes, feel him with our hands, break him and tear him with our teeth, eat him and digest him, (which speech I have [7 Receiveth, 1551.) The book of common prayer. That the pa- pists say, that Christ goeth no further than the mouth or stomach. Thomas Bo- naventura. *ReadSmith, folio 64. Hugo. Inno- centius III. * Lib. eap. 15. 54, The second part. eo uocen Bus lll. Jakes. 56 THE THIRD BOOK. also used in my catechism ;) but yet these speeches must be understand figuratively, (as I have declared in my fourth book, the eighth chapter, and shall more fully declare hereafter,) for we do not these things to the very body of Christ, but to the bread whereby his body is represented. And yet the book of common prayer neither useth any such speech nor giveth any such doctrine, nor I in no point improve that godly book, nor vary from it. But yet glad am I to hear that the said book liketh you so well, as no man can mislike it, that hath any godliness in him joined with knowledge. But now to come to the very matter of this article: it is marvel that you never read, that Christ goecth into the mouth or stomach of that man that receiveth, and no further, being a lawyer, and seemg that it is written in the gloss of the law, De consecrat. dist. 2. Tribus gradibus, in these words: “It is certain that as soon as the forms be torn with the teeth, so soon the body of Christ is gone up into heaven*.” And in the chapter, Von iste*, is another gloss to the same purpose. And if you had read Thomas de Aquino and [ees enture, great clerks and holy saints of the pope’s own making, and other school-authors, then Ghould you have known what the papists do say in this matter. For some say, that the body of Christ remaineth so long as the form and fashion of bread remaineth, although it be in a dog, mouse, or in the And some say, it is not in the mouse nor jakes, but remaineth only in the person that eateth it, until it be digested in the stomach, and the form of bread be gone. Some say, it remaineth no longer than the sacrament is in the eating, and may be felt, seen, and tasted in the mouth. And this, besides Hugo, saith pope Innocentius himself, who was the best learned and the chief doer in this matter of all the other popes. Read you never none of these authors, and yet take upon you the full knowledge of this matter? Will you take upon you to defend the papists, and know not what they say? Or do you know it, and now be ashamed of it, and for shame will deny it ? And seeing that you teach, that ‘‘ we receive the body of Christ with our mouths,” I pray you, tell whether it go any further than the mouth or no? and how far it goeth ?— that I may know your judgment here: and so shall you be charged no further than with your own saying, and the reader shall perceive what excellent knowledge you have in this matter. And where you say, “that to teach that we receive Christ at our mouth, and he goeth into our stomach, and no further, cometh out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mystery :’ here, like unto Caiphas, you prophesy the truth unawares. For this doctrine cometh out of the mouth of none, but of the papists, which fight against the holy catholic truth of the ancient fathers, saying, that Christ tarrieth no longer than the proper forms of bread and wine remain, which cannot remain after perfect digestion in the stomach. And I say not that the church teacheth so, as you feign me to say, but that the papists say so. Wherefore I should® wish you to report my words as I say, and not as you imagine me to say, lest you hear again (as you have heard heretofore), of your wonderful learning and practice in the devil’s sophistry. Now as concerning the second part of this comparison, here you grant that my saying therein is true, and that every catholic man must needs, and doth confess the same. By which your saying, you must also condemn almost all the school-authors and lawyers, that have w ritten of this matter, with Innocent the third also, as men not catholic, because they teach that Christ goeth no further, nor tarrieth no longer, than the forms of bread and wine go, and remain in their proper kind. [! “Certum est, quod species quam cito dentibus | mentum, quandiu est corpus Christi. Sed quandiu teruntur, tam cito in celum rapitur corpus Christi.” —Corpus Juris Canonici: Decreti tertia pars : “‘de consecrat.”’ Dist. 11. ‘* Tribus gradibus,”’ col. 1922. Lugduni, 1618. ] [2 “Hug. species tamen bene vadunt in corpus. Sed nunquid ibi est sacramentum ? Non, quia desi- nit ibi esse corpus Christi: et tandiu est ibi sacra- hoc sit, id est, usque ad quem locum procedat per gulam, nescio. Sed licet non sit sacramentum, cum est in corpore, si tamen evomerit illud, cum venera- tione est servandum, quia sacramentum fuit.”—Ib. Dist. 11. “‘ Non iste panis,”’ col. 1942. I1b.] [® Would, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 57 And yet now your doctrine, as far as I can gather of your obscure words, is this: that Christ is received at the mouth, with the forms of bread and wine, and goeth with them into the stomach. And although they go no further in their proper kinds, yet there Christ leaveth them, and goeth himself further into every part of the man’s body, and into his soul also: which your saying seemeth to me to be very strange. For I have many times heard, that a soul hath gone into a body, but I never heard that a body went into a soul. But I ween, of all the papists you shall be alone in this matter, and find never a fellow to say as you do. And of these things which I have here spoken, I may conclude, that this com- parison of difference is not made of an open untruth and a truth disguised, except you will confess the papistical doctrine to be an open untruth. Now the words. of my third comparison be these. They say, that Christ is received in the mouth, and entereth in with the bread and wine. We say that he is received in the heart, and entercth in by faith. WINCHESTER. Here is a pretty sleight in this comparison, where both parts of the comparison may be understanded on both sides, and therefore here is by the author in this comparison no issue joined. For the worthy receiving of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament is both with mouth and heart; both in fact and faith. After which sort, St Peter in the last supper received Christ's body, whereas in the same* Judas received it with mouth and in fact only ; whereof St Augustine speaketh in this wise: Non dicunt ista, nisi qui de mensa Domini 55, yitam sumunt, sicut Petrus, non judicium, sicut Judas, et tamen ipsa utrique fuit una, August. con- sed non utrique valuit ad unum, quia ipsi non erant unum5. Which words be thus much Hp, Sea af to say: “That they say not so, (as was before entreated), but such as receive life of our Lord’s table, as Peter did, not judgment, as Judas, and yet the table was all one to them both; but it was not to all one effect in them both, because they were not one.” Here St Augustine noteth the difference in the receiver, not in the sacrament received, which being received with the mouth only, and Christ entering in mystery only, doth not sanctify us, but is the stone of stumbling, and our judgment and condemnation ; but if he be received with mouth and body, with heart and faith, to such he bringeth life and nowrishment. Wherefore in this comparison, the author hath made no. difference, but with divers terms the catholic teaching is divided into two members, with a “ but,’ fashioned nevertheless in another phrase of speech than the church hath used, which is so common in this author, that I will not hereafter note it any more Sor a fault. But let us go further®. CANTERBURY. There is nothing in this comparison worthy to be answered; for if you can find no difference therein, yet every indifferent reader can. For when I report the papists’ wheter a teaching, that they say Christ is received in the mouth, and entereth in with the ceived in the bread and wine, and for an adversative thereto I say, that we, (which follow the , scriptures and ancient writers), say that he is received in the heart, and entereth in by faith, every indifferent reader understandeth this adversative upon our side, that we say Christ is not received in the mouth, but in the heart, specially seeing that in my fourth book, the second and third chapters, I make purposely a process thereof, to prove that Christ is not eaten with mouths and teeth. And yet to eschew all such occasions of sleight as you impute unto me in this comparison, to make the comparison more full and plain, let this be the comparison. They say that Christ is received with the mouth, and entereth in with the bread and wine: we say that he is not received with the mouth, but with heart, and en- #?heditter- tereth in by faith. And now, I trust, there is no sleight in this comparison, nor both the parts may not be understand on both sides, as you say they might before. And as for St Augustine, serveth nothing for your purpose, to prove that Christ’s August. con- body is eaten with the mouth. For he speaketh not one word in the place by you lib Sree ae: [* In the same supper, 1551.] [° August. Opera, Tom. VIII. p. 107. Ed. Paris. 1535.] [° Let us go further, 155]. ] August. con- tra lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 47. John xiii. 1 Cor. x. The fourth comparison. *Pugnateum alils papistis. * Christ is the bodv of all the figures. 58 THE THIRD BOOK. alleged, neither of our mouths, nor of Christ’s body. But it scemeth you have so fervent desire’ to be domg im this matter, that you be like to certain men, which have such a fond delight in shooting, that so they be doing, they pass not how far they shoot from the mark. For in this place of St Augustine against the Donatists, he shooteth not at this butt®, whether Christ’s very natural body be received with our mouths, but whether the sacraments in general be received both of good and evil. And there he declareth, that it is all one water, whether Simon Peter, or Simon Magus be christened in it; all one table of the Lord, and one cup, whether Peter sup thereat, or Judas; all one oil, whether David or Saul were anointed therewith. Wherefore he concludeth thus : Memento ergo sacramentis Dei nihil obesse mores malorum hominwum, quo illa vel omnino non sint, vel minus sancta sint, sed ipsis malis hominibus, ut hee habeant ad testimonium damnationis, non ad adjutorium sanitatis®. ‘“ Remember, there- fore,” saith St Augustine, “that the manners of evil men hinder not the sacraments of God, that either they utterly be not, or be less holy; but they hinder the evil men themselves, so that they have the sacraments to witness of their damna- tion, not to help of their salvation.” And all the process spoken there by St Augustine is spoken chiefly of baptism, against the Donatists, which said, that the baptism was naught, if either the minister or the receiver were naught. Against whom St Augustine concludeth, that the sacraments of themselves be holy, and be all one, whether the minister or receiver be good or bad. But this place of St Augustine proveth as well your purpose, that Christ’s body is received by the mouth, as it proveth that Paul’s steeple is higher than the cross in Cheap*. For he speaketh not one word of any of® them all. And therefore in this place where you pretend to shoot at the butt, you shoot quite at rovers®, and clean from the mark. And yet if Judas received Christ with the bread, as you say, and the devil en- tered with the bread, as St John saith, then was the devil and Christ in Judas both at once. And then how they agreed I marvel: for St Paul saith, that Christ and Belial cannot agree. O! what a wit had he need to have, that will wittingly maintain an open error, directly against God and his word, and all holy ancient writers! Now followeth the fourth comparison in my book. They say, that Christ is really in the sacramental bread, being reserved a whole year, or so long as the form of bread remaineth: but after the receiving thereof he flieth up, say they, from the receiver unto heaven, as soon as the bread is chewed in the mouth, or changed in the stomach: but we say, that Christ remaineth in the man that worthily receiveth it, so long as the man remaineth a member of Christ. WINCHESTER. This comparison is like the other before, whereof the first part is garnished and embossed with untruth ; and the second part is that the church hath ever taught most truly, and that all must believe: and therefore that piece hath no untruth in the matter, but in the manner only, being spoken as though it differed from the continual open teaching of the church, which is not so. Wherefore in the manner of it in utterance signifieth an untruth, which in the matter itself is nevertheless most true. For undoubtedly Christ remaineth in the man that worthily receiveth the sacrament, so long as the man remaimeth a member of Christ. In this jirst part there is a fault in the matter of the speech; for explication whereof I will ecamine it particu- larly. This author saith, “they say, that Christ is really in the sacramental bread, being reserved an whole year, &e.” The church giving faith to Christ's word, when he said, “ This is my body,” &c., teacheth the body of Christ to be present in the sacrament under the form of bread; unto which words when we put the word “really,” it serveth only to express that truth in open words, which was before? to be understanded in sense. For in Christ, who was the body of all the shadows and figures of the law, and who did exhibit and give in his sacraments of the [! Fervent a desire, 1551. ] [4 In the Cheap, 155].] [? Butt: i.e. a mark.] [> OF none of, 1551. ] [§ August. Opera, Tom. VII. p. 107. Ed. [© At rovers: i.e, at random. ]} Paris. 1535.] | [7 Afore, 1541. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 59 new law the things promised in his sacraments of the old law, we must understand his words in the institution of his sacraments without figure, in the substance of the celestial thing of them: and therefore when he ordered his most precious body and blood to be eaten and drunken of us, under the forms of bread and wine; we profess and believe, that truly he gave us his most precious body in the sacrament for a celestial food, to comfort and strengthen us in this miserable life. And for certainty of the truth of his work therein, we profess he giveth us his body really, that is to say, in deed his body, the thing itself, which is the heavenly part of the *Really, that sacrament, called Eucharistia; having the visible form of bread and wine, and containing ee ey invisibly the very body and blood of our Saviour Christ, which was not wont to be reserved otherwise, but to be ready for such as in danger of death call for it, and the same, so long as it may be used, is still the same sacrament, which only time altereth not. Whereof Cyril wrote 57. to this sense many hundred years past, and Hesychius also, and what ought to be done when adie by negligence of the minister it were reserved overlong. Marry, where it liketh the author of episcopum. these differences, to say the church teacheth, Christ to flee up from the receiver unto heaven, in Levit.” so soon as the bread is chewed in the mouth, or changed in the stomach, this manner of speech Tie la implieth as though Christ left the seat of his majesty in heaven, to be present in the sacrament, which is most untrue. The church acknowledgeth, believeth, and teacheth truly, that Christ Sennen sitteth on the right hand of his Father in glory, from whence he shall come to judge the world ; sacrament, is and also teacheth Christ's very body and blood, and Christ himself God and man, to be present time present in the sacrament, not by shifting of place, but by the determination of his will, declared in sao scriptures, and believed of the catholic church; which articles be to reason impossible, but possible to God omnipotent: so as being taught of his will, we should humbly submit all owr senses and reason to the faith of his will and work declared in his scriptures. Tn the belief of which mysteries is great benefit and consolation, and in the wnreverent search and curious discussion of them, presumptuous boldness and wicked temerity. I know by faith Christ to be present, but the particularity how he is present, more than I am assured he is truly present, and therefore in substance present, I cannot tell; but present he is, and truly is, and verily is, and so in deed, that is to say, really is, and unfeignedly is, and therefore in substance is, and, as we term it, substantially is present. For all these adverbs, really, substantially, *Truly. with the rest, be contained in the one word “is,” spoken out of his mouth, that speaketh as Soe he meaneth, truly and certainly, as Christ did, saying: “ This is my body that shall be a betrayed for you;” who then carried himself in his hands after a certain manner, as St Augustine saith, which never man besides him could do, who in that his last supper gave himself AuaUSEIn to be eaten without consuming. The ways and means whereof no man can tell, but humble spirits, as they be taught, must constantly believe it, without thinking or talking of flying, of stying® of Christ again unto heaven, where Christ is in the glory of his Father continually, and is nevertheless, because he will so be, present in the sacrament, whole God and man, and dwelleth corporally in him that receiveth him worthily. Wherefore, reader, when thow shalt again well consider this comparison, thow shalt find *Whatis found ina true, how the first part is disguised with untrue report of the common teaching of the church, lind gloss, may not be howsoever some gloss or some private teacher might speak of it; and the second part, such eee for Ve a 5 teaching o: as hath been ever so taught. One thing I think good to admonish the reader, that whatsoever the church; I affirm, or precisely deny, I mean within the compass of my knowledge; which I speak a anead of : om ‘ never not because I am in any suspicion or doubt of that I affirm, or deny, but to avoid the “eisinaian temerity of denying as “never,” or affirming as “ever,” which be extremities. And I mean Se eerone te) also of public doctrine by consent received, so taught, and believed, and not that any one P% ancien mi li ri uttering A ) or hi ay they be true, man might blindly write, as uttering his fancy, as this cuthor doth for his pleasure. There anes followeth in the author thus. him suspect of presump- tion. CANTERBURY. Because this comparison, as you say, is like the other, therefore it is fully an- How tong ; . Christ tarri- swered before in the other comparisons. And here yet again it is to be noted, that eth with the in all these four comparisons you approve and allow for irath the second part of the fae comparison which we say. And where you say that Christ undoubtedly remaineth ””” in the man that worthily receiveth the sacrament, so long as that man remaineth a member of Christ: how agreeth this with the common saying of all the papists, that Christ is contained under the forms of bread and wine, and remaineth there no longer [® Stying: i.e. soaring, ascending. | Metonymia. The fathersin the old law received the same things in their sacra- ments that we do in ours. Reservation. Cyril. Hesychius. De consecrat. d. 2. ** Tribus gra- dibus.” . oo. The benefit and comfort in this saera- ment. 60 THE THIRD BOOK. than the forms of bread and wine remain? Wherefore in this point all the whole rout of the papists will condemn for untruth that which you so constantly affirm to be undoubtedly true. And when the papists teach, that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament under the form of bread, they speak not this, giving faith to Christ his words, as you say they do, for Christ never spake any such words; and as for this saying of Christ, “This is my body,” it is a figurative speech, called metonymia, when one thing is called by the name of another which it signifieth, and it hath no such sense as you pretend; for there is a great diversity between these two sayings, “This is my body,” and “the body of Christ is really in the sacrament under the form of bread.” But the papists have set Christ’s words upon the tenters', and stretched them out so far, that they make his words to signify as pleaseth them, not as he meant. And this is a marvellous doctrine of you, to say that Christ was the body of all the shadows and figures of the law, and did exhibit and give in his sacraments of the new law the things promised in the sacraments of the old law. For he is the body of all the figures, as well of the new law as of the old; and did exhibit and give his promises in the sacraments of the old law, as he doth now in the sacraments of the new law. And we must understand the words spoken in the in- stitution of the sacraments in both the laws, figuratively, as concerning the sacraments, and without figure, as concerning the things by them promised, signified, and exhibited : as in circumcision was given the same thing to them that is given to us in baptism, and the same by manna that we have at the Lord’s table. Only this difference was between them and us, that our redemption by Christ’s death and passion was then only promised, and now it is performed and past. And as their sacraments were figures of his death to come, so be our’ figures of the same now past and gone. And yet it was all but one Christ to them and us’; who gave life, comfort, and strength to them by his death to come, and giveth the same to us by his death passed. And he was in their sacraments spiritually and effectually present, and for so much truly and really present, that is to say, in deed, before he was born, no less than he is now in our sacraments present after his death and ascension into heaven. But as for carnal presence, he was to them not yet come: and to us he is’ come, and gone again unto his Father, from whom he came, And as for the reservation of the sacrament, neither Cynl nor Hesychius speak any word what ought to be done with the sacrament, when by negligence of the minister it were reserved over long, But Hesychius sheweth plainly, that nothing ought to be reserved, but to be burned whatsoever remained. And as for the “flying of Christ up into heaven, so soon as the bread is chewed in the mouth, or changed in the stomach,” I say not that the church teacheth so, but that papists say so; which forasmuch as you say that it liketh me to report this most untruly, read what the gloss saith upon the chapter, Z’ribus gradibus, de Consecrat. dist. 2, and there you shall find these words : Certum est, quod species quam cito dentibus teruntur, tam cito in celum rapitur corpus Christi‘. And if this gloss be false and erroneous, why was it published and set out by the authority of the papists? Why hath it been written and printed in soymany countries, and so many years without reproof, or any fault found therein by any man? But here may wise men learn to beware of your doctrine. For you reprove those papists which have written of this matter four or five hundred years past, and do invent a new device of your own. And therefore wise men, when they see you teach one doctrine, and the papists that were before your time teach another, they will believe none of you all. And where you say, that in the belief of this mystery is great benefit and con- solation: what benefit, I beseech you, is it to us, if Christ be really and corporally in the forms of bread and wine a month or two, or a year or two? And if we receive him really and corporally with the bread and wine into our mouths or stomachs, [} Upon the tenters ; i.e. upon the stretch. ] [? And to us, 158].] [? Ours, 1541.] [4 Vide supra, p. 56. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 6] and no further, and there he tarrieth not in that sort, but departeth away from us by and by again, what great benefit or comfort, I pray you, is such a corporal presence unto us? And yet this is the teaching of all the papists, although you seem to vary from them in this last point, of Christ’s sudden departure. But when the matter shall be throughly answered, I ween you will agree with the rest of the papists, that as concerning his carnal presence, Christ departeth from us, at the least when the forms of bread and wine be altered in the stomach. And then, I pray you, declare what comfort and benefit we have by this carnal presence, which by and by is absent, and tarrieth not with us? Such comfort have weak and sick consciences at the papists’ hands, to tell them that Christ was with them, and now he is gone® from them. Nevertheless, in the belief of this mystery, (if it be understanded according to God’s word,) is great benefit and consolation ; but to believe your addition unto God’s word, is neither benefit nor wisdom. And I pray you, shew in what place the scripture saith, “that under the forms of bread and wine is the body of Christ, really, corporally, and naturally ;’ or else ac- knowledge them to be your own addition, beside®’ God’s word, and your stout assertion herein to be but presumptuous boldness and wicked temerity, affirming so arrogantly that thing, for the which you have no’ authority of God’s word. And where you seem to be offended with the discussion of this matter, what hurt, I pray you, can gold catch in the fire, or truth with discussing? Lies only fear dis- cussing. The devil hateth the light, because he hath been a liar from the beginning, and is loth that his lies should come to light and trial. And all hypocrites and papists be of a like sort afraid, that their doctrine should come to discussing, whereby it may evidently appear that they be endued with the spirit of error and lying. If the papists had not feared that their doctrines should have been espied, and their opinions have come to discussing, the scriptures of God had been in the vulgar and English tongue many years ago. But, God be praised! at the length your doctrine is come to discussing, so that you cannot so craftily walk in a cloud, but the light of God’s word will always shew where you be. Our Saviour Christ, in the fifth of John, willeth us to search Jon v. the scriptures, and to try out the truth by them. And shall not we then with humble reverence search the truth in Christ’s sacraments ? And if we cannot® tell how Christ is present, why do you then say, “that he is The manner substantially present, corporally present, naturally and carnally present ?” ews And how sure be you, that Christ is in substance present, because he is truly present? Are you assured that this your doctrine agreeth with God’s word? Doth _ 60. not God’s word teach a true presence of Christ in spirit, where he is not present in his corporal substance? As when he saith: “ Where two or three, be gathered Matt. xviii. together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” And also when he saith: “TJ shall be with you till® the end of the world.” Was it not a true presence that Christ in these places promised? And yet can you not of this true presence gather such a corporal presence of the substance of Christ’s manhood, as you unlearnedly, contrary to the scriptures, go about to prove in the sacrament. For when Christ said, “This is my body,” it was bread, which is called'® his body in a figurative speech, as all old authors’ teach, and as I have proved in my third book, the eighth and eleventh chapters. And the manner how Christ carried himself in his own hands, St Augustine declareth it to be figuratively. And because you can find no repugnance between the two parts of this comparison, to make them more plain, I shall fill them up with more words, as I did the other comparisons before. This, therefore, shall be the comparison. They say, that Christ is really and corporally in the sacramental bread being re- The compari- served, so long as the form of bread remaineth, although it be an whole year and °°” more: but after the receiving thereof, he flieth up from the receiver into heayen, as soon as the bread is chewed in the mouth or digested in the stomach. But we say, Matt. xxviii- [° And now is gone, 1551. ] [9 Until, 1551.] [§ Besides, 1551. ] ['° Which he called, 1551.] {7 None, 1551.] | [!" As all the old authors, 1551.] {® And if you cannot, 1551. ] ! The fifth comparison. 61. *Pugnat cum aliis papistis. 62 THE THIRD BOOK. that after what manner Christ is received of us, in the same wise he remaineth in us, so long as we remain the members of Christ. And where in the end you admonish the reader, that whatsoever you affirm or precisely deny, you mean within the compass of your knowledge, and of public doctrine, and of doctrine by consent received: what do you here else, but devise cer- tain sleights, and prepare for yourself privy holes to start out at, whensoever you should be taken with a manifest lie? So that you should not be compelled to abide by any word that you say. For by these crafty sleights and shifts, of the compass of your knowledge, and of public doctrine, and of doctrine by common consent received, you mean to say ever what you list. ‘And though never so manifest a lie or untruth be laid to your charge, yet shall no man never be able to prove it so manifestly against you, but you shall have one of these three shifts to flee out at for your defence. Now followeth in my book the fifth comparison. They say, that in the sacrament the corporal members of Christ be not distant in place one from another, but that wheresoever the head is, there be the feet; and wheresoever the arms be, there be the legs: so that in every part of the bread and wine is altogether whole head, whole feet, whole flesh, whole blood, whole heart, whole lungs, whole breast, whole back, and altogether whole, confused and mixed without distinction or diver- sity. O what a foolish and an abominable invention is this, to make of the most pure and perfect body of Christ such a confuse and monstrous body! And yet can the papists imagine nothing so foolish, but all christian people must receive the same as an oracle of God, and as a most certain article of their faith, without whispermg to the contrary. WINCHESTER. This 7s a marvellous rhetoric, and such as the author hath overseen himself in the utterance of it, and confesseth himself prettily abused, to the latter end of his years to have believed that he now calleth so foolish. But to the purpose. In the book of common prayer, now at this time set forth in this realm, “It is ordered to teach the people, that in each part of the bread consecrate, broken, is the whole body of our Saviour Christ, which is agreeable to the catholic doctrine.” Upon occasion hereof, it liketh this author to multiply language by enumeration of parts; and because reason without faith directeth the bodily eye to so litile a visible quantity in the host, this author beareth in hand the catholic church to say and teach all that fond reason deviseth ; whereas the church in the doctrine of this mystery, denieth all that reason without faith deviseth: and therefore when we acknowledge by faith Christ's body present, although we say it is present truly, really, substantially, yet we say, our senses be not privy to that presence, or! the manner of it, but by instruction of faith; and therefore we say Christ's body to be not locally present, not by manner of quantity, but invisible2, and in no sensible manner, but marvellously in a sacrament and mystery truly, and in such a@ spiritual manner as we cannot define and determine, and yet by faith we know his body present, the parts of which be in themselves distinct one from another, in their own subsiance, but not by circumscription of several places to be comprehended of our capacity; which parts we can by no demonstration? place, nor by imagination displace, diminish, alter, or confound, as this author for his pleasure reporteth, who writeth monstrously in so high a mystery, and impu- dently beareth in hand the catholic church to teach that he listeth to bear in hand, may by wanton reason be deduced of the teaching+; whereas all true christian men believe simply Christ's words, and trouble not their heads with such consequences as seem to strive with reason. This is in the author no whispering, but plainly railing, wherein if he had remem- bered himself well, he would not have spoken of all christian men in the receipt of that he intendeth to disprove. And if he would say he spake it by an irony or scorn, yet it im- plieth that all had received that he thus mocketh, which, after the sort he writeth, was never [! Nor, 1551.] * [* The original copy of Winchester’s book [? Invisibly, 1541.] reads, ‘of their teaching.’ {* We cannot by demonstration, 1551. ] ee OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 63 devised by papist or other to be so taught, otherwise than as this author might read it, as an idle argument, to shew absurdity in reason. For in Giod’s works, as the sacraments be, *What is re- . G r . . - ane ceived of all we must think all seemliness in deed without deformity, even as we believe all God’s judg- christian men s F 5 ate ie hath therein ments just and true, although reason conclude in them evident iniquity. Man’s reason, when a'manitest it seemeth most gallant, is full of spots and folly. God’s works be all seemliness, without (kin confusion, monster, or any such absurdity, as this author swpposeth. Although I cannot in the sacrament with the eye of my reason locally distinct Christ's head from his foot, his legs from his arm. And where in the book of common prayer it is truly said, im each part of the bread consecrate broken to be Christ's whole body, if one of curiosity would question with me, and I of folly would answer him, first, where is Christ's head? TI should say, here, pointing with my finger, he-would think it first, a little head. Then he would ask, fItisa folly where is his foot? and I should say there, and point im the same place again, for there is eanoaatE none other left. If he replied, that I pointed before the same for the head, might not the third, a catholic man, that stood by, trow you, wisely call us both mad, to go about to discuss that we must grant we see not; and when by faith we know only the being present of Christ's most precious body, then by blind reason to discuss the manner of being in the situation of such parts as we do not see? Now if there came among us a fourth man as a mediator, and would do as king Alexander did, when he could not open the knot of Quintus urtius Gordius, he did cut it with his sword, if this man should say, I will relieve this matter. smaketh’ ‘ You believe Christ's body is present indeed, really and substantially, Leave out “really and ENG substantially,” and say his body is present in signification, and then it may be easily conceived, Faith of God by reason, that Christ's body, being never so great, may be as well signified by a little piece of bread, aa ee as by a great piece of bread: even as a man may write a great man’s name, as well in small Hea letters short, as in great letters at length. And to commend further his device unto us, would Mifcation. percase® tell how many absurdities, as he thinketh, and inconveniences might be avoided by it. This fourth man I speak of, making himself a mediator, but in deed unmeet therefore, because he hath no participation with faith; yet if our religion and faith were man’s invention, as that of Numa Pompilius was, he should not utter this his conceit all idly. For he speaketh of a 62. jolly easy way, without any mystery or marvel at all. But our faith is of hearing, as hath been preached continually from the beginning, grounded wpon the most sure truth of the word of God, and therefore cannot be attempered as man would devise it, to exclude travail in carnal reason. For then the Sabellians were to be hearkened unto, who by their heresy Sabellians. took away all the hard and difficile® questions in the mystery of the Trinity. The Arians also relieved much man’s reason in consideration of Christ's death, denying Arians. him to be of the same substance with his Father, which was a pestilent heresy. Now in the sacrament to say, Christ's body is present only by signification, as it relieveth in some men’s judgments the absurdities in reason, which ought not to be relieved, so it condemneth all the true public faith, testified in the church from the beginning hitherto, and sheweth the learned holy men to have wondered in their writings at that which hath no wonder at all, to ordain one thing to be the signification of another, which is practised daily among men. But from the beginning the mystery of the sacrament hath been with wonder marvelled at, how Christ made bread his body, and wine his blood, and under the figure of those visible creatures gave invisibly his precious body and blood presently there. And as he gave, saith St Bernard’, saares ooh his life for us, so he gave his flesh to us, in that mystery to redeem us, in this to feed us.” Which doings of Christ we must understand to have been perfected, not in an imagination of a figure and signification, but really in very deed, truly and wunfeignedly; not because we be- lieve it so, but because he wrought it so; whose works we must believe to be most perfectly true, according to the truth of the letter, where no absurdity in scripture driveth us from it, howsoever it seem repugnant to our reason, be we never so wise and witty; which man’s reason now-a-days inflamed with fury of language, is the only adversary against the most blessed sacrament, as it may appear by these comparisons of differences throughly’ considered. CANTERBURY. Did not you believe, IT pray you, many years together, that the bishop of Rome was Christ’s vicar, and the head of his church ? [° Percase : i.e. perchance, perhaps. ] | ipse pascua est, ipse redemptio.””—Bernardus, sw- [° Difficile: i.e. difficult.] | per Cant. Serm. xxxi. col. 664. Lutet. Paris. 1640.] {7 “ Animam pro illis, carnem illis. Dlam in | (® Thoroughly, 1541.] pretium, istam in cibum. Res mira: ipse pastor, | It is good at all times to convert from error to truth. 1 Tim. i. 63. The book of common prayer. The papists say, that whole Christ is in every part of the consecrated bread. Thomas, 3. part. sum. q. 76. art. 3. Innocentius III. *lib. 4. cap. 8. 64 THE THIRD BOOK. If you did not, you wittingly and willingly defended a false error in the open puliament. But sithens that time, you have called that belief, as it is indeed, very foolish, And if you confessed your ignorance in that matter, be no more abashed to confess it in this, if you have respect more unto God’s truth, than to your own estimation. It is lawful and commendable for a man to learn from time to time, and to go from his ignorance, that he may receive and embrace the truth. And as for me, I am not, I grant, of that nature that the papists for the most part be, who study to devise all shameful shifts, rather than they will forsake any error wherewith they were infected in youth. I am glad to acknowledge my former ignorance (as St Paul, St Cyprian, St Augustine, and many other holy men did, who now be with Christ), to bring other to the knowledge of the truth, of whose ignorance I have much ruth’ and pity. I am content to give place to God’s word, that the victory may be Christ’s. What a member had the church of God lost, if Paul would have been as froward as some papists be, that will stick to their error tooth and nail, though the scripture and ancient writers be never so plain and flat against them! Although St Paul erred, yet because his error was not wilful, but of ignorance, so that he gave place to the truth when it was opened unto him, he became of a most cruel persecutor a most fervent setter forth of the truth, and apostle of Christ. And would God I were as sure that you be changed indeed in those matters of religion, wherein with the alteration of this realm you pretend a change, as I am glad even from the bottom of my heart, that it hath pleased Almighty God, in this latter end of my years, to give me knowledge of my former error, and a will to embrace the truth, setting apart all manner of worldly respects, which be special hinderances, that hold back many from the free profession of Christ and his word. And as for the book of common prayer, although it say, that in each part of the bread broken is received the whole body of Christ, yet it saith not so of the parts unbroken, nor yet of the parts or whole reserved, as the papists teach. But as in baptism we receive the Holy Ghost, and put Christ upon us, as well if we be christened in one dish full of water taken out of the font, as if we were christened in the whole font or river; so we be as truly fed, refreshed, and comforted by Christ, receiving a piece of bread at the Lord’s holy table, as if we did eat an whole loaf. For as in every part of the water in baptism is whole Christ and the Holy Spirit, sacramentally, so be they in every part of the bread broken, but not corporally and naturally, as the papists teach. And I bear not the catholic church in hand, as you report of me, that it saith and teacheth that whole Christ is in every part of the bread consecrated, but I say that the papists so teach. And because you deny it, read the chief pillars of the papists,—Duns, and Thomas de Aquino, which the papists call St Thomas; who say, that Christ is whole under every part of the forms of bread and wine, not only when the host is broken, but when it is whole also. ‘‘ And there is no distance,” saith he, “of parts one from another, as of one eye from another, or of the eye from the ear, or the head from the feet.” These be Thomas’s words: Christus totus est sub qualibet parte specierum panis et vini, non solum cum frangitur hostia, sed etiam cum integra manet. Nec est distantia partium ab invicem, ut oculi ab oculo, aut oculi ab aure, aut capitis a pedibus, sicut est in aliis corporibus organicis. Talis enim distantia est in ipso corpore Christi vero, sed non prout est in hoc sacramento*. And not only the papists do thus write and teach, but the pope himself, Innocentius the quia conversio substantie panis directe terminatur [} Ruth: i.e. sorrow. | ad substantiam corporis Christi, secundum cujus [2 ConcLusio.—Cum corpus Christi sit in hoc sacramento eo modo quo substantia est sub dimen- sionibus, manifestum est, totum Christum sub qua- libet parte specierum panis aut vini contineri, sive frangatur hostia, sive integra remaneat.—Et ideo manifestum est, quod totus Christus est sub qua- libet parte specierum panis, etiam hostia integra manente, et non solum cum frangitur.—Et ideo modum proprie et directe est in hoc sacramento corpus Christi, talis distantia partium est quidem in ipso corpore Christi vero: sed non secundum hanc distantiam comparatur ad hoc sacramentum, sed secundum modum sue substantie, Thos. Aquinas, Tertia pars. Quest. Ixxvi. Art. ili. p. 190. Ed. Antwerp. 1624.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 65 third. And so bear I in hand, or report of the papists nothing but that which they say indeed. And yet you say, the church saith not so; which I affirm also: and then it must needs follow, that the doctrine of the papists is not the doctrine of the church. Which papists, not by reason without faith, but against as well reason as faith, would direct our minds to seek in every little crumb of bread, whole Christ, and to find him in so many places there, as be small crumbs in the bread. And where you traverse the matter of the judgment of our senses herein, it is quite and clean from the matter, and but a crafty shift, to convey the matter to another thing that is not in question; like unto crafty malefactors, which perceiving them- selves to be sore pursued with a hound, make a new train to draw the hound to another fresh suit. For I speak not of the judgment of our senses in this matter, whether they perceive any distinction of parts and members or no; but whether in- deed there be any such distinction in the sacrament or no, which the papists do deny. And therefore I say not untruly of them, that in the sacrament they say, ‘‘ There is no distance of parts, one from another.” And if the parts in their substance be distinct one from another, as you say, and be not so distinct in the sacrament, as Thomas saith, then must it follow that the parts in their own substance be not in the sacrament. And if this distinction of parts be in the true body of Christ, and not in the sacrament, as Thomas saith, then fol- loweth it again, that the true body of Christ is not in the sacrament. And forasmuch as I speak not one word of the comprehension of our senses, to what purpose do you bring this in, if it be not to draw us to a new matter, to avoid that which is in controversy? You do herein as if James should buy of John a parcel of land, and by his attorney take state and possession therein; and_ after, John should traverse the matter, and say that there was never no state delivered, and thereupon join their issue; and when James should bring forth his witnesses for the state and possession, then should John run to a new matter, and say that James saw the’ possession delivered: what were this allegation of John to the pur- pose of the thing that was in issue, whether the possession were delivered indeed or no? Were this any other thing than to avoid the issue craftily by bringing in a new matter‘? And yet this shift is a common practice of you in this book, and this is another point of the devil’s sophistry, wherein it is pity that ever such a wit as you have should be occupied. Again you say, that impudently I bear the catholic church in hand, to teach that I list to bear in hand may by wanton reason be deduced of their teaching, whereas all true christian men believe simply Christ’s words, and trouble not their heads with such consequences. “This is in the author no whispering, but plain railing,” say you. This is your barking eloquence, wherewith your book is well furnished: for as dogs bark at the moon without any cause, so do you in this place. For I do no more but truly report what the papists themselves do write, and no® otherwise ; not bearing the catholic church in hand that it so teacheth, but charging the papists that they so teach; not bearing the papists in hand what I list, or what by wanton reason may be deduced of their teaching, but reporting only what their own words and sayings be. And if they be no true christian men that trouble their heads with such matters, as you affirm they be not, then was Innocent the third, the chief author of your doctrine both of transubstantiation and of the real presence, no true christian man, as I believe well enough: then was your St Thomas no true christian man: then Gabriel, Duns, Durand, and the great rabblement of the school-authors, which taught your doctrine of transubstantiation and of the real presence, were not true christian men. And in few words to comprehend the whole, then were almost® none that taught that doctrine true christian men, but yourself alone. For almost all with one consent do teach, that whole Christ is really in every part of the host. [% Saw not, 1551. ] [> None otherwise, 1551. ] [* Of a new matter, 1551.] [® Then was almost, 1551.] a [cRANMER. ] 64. A subtil sleight. Wanton reason. True ehris- tian men. 65. * A dialogue. Whatis to be wondered at in the sacra- ment. 66. % 66 THE THIRD BOOK. But your terms here of railing, mocking, and scorning, I would have taken patiently at your hand, if your tongue and pen had not overshot themselves in bragging so far, that the truth by you should be defaced. But now I shall be so bold as to send those terms thither, from whence they came. And for the matter itself, I am ready to jom an issue with you, notwithstanding all your stout and boasting words. “But in God’s works,” say you, “tas the sacraments be, we must think all seem- liness indeed without deformity.” But what seemliness is this in a man’s body, that the head is where the feet be, and the arms where the legs be? which the papists do teach, and yourself seem to confess, when you say, that the parts of Christ’s body be distinct in themselves, one from another in their own substance, but not by cir- eumscription of several places. And yet you seem again to deny the same in your wise dialogue, or quadrilogue, between the curious questioner, the foolish answerer, your wise catholic man standing by, and the mediator. In which dialogue you bring in your wise catholic man to condemn of madness all such as say, that Christ’s head is there where his feet be; and so you condemn of madness not only all the scholastical doctors, which say that Christ is whole in every part of the consecrated bread, but also your own former saying, where you deny the distinction of the parts of Christ’s body in several places. Wherefore the mediator seemeth wiser than you all, who, loosing this knot of Gordius, saith, that ‘“ Christ’s body, (how big soever it be,) may be as well signified by a little piece of bread as by a great:” and so, as concerning the reason of a sacrament, all is one, whether it be an whole bread, or a piece of it, as it skilleth not whether a man be christened in the whole font, or in a part of the water taken out thereof. For the respect and consideration of the sacrament is all one in the less and more’. But this fourth man, say you, hath no participation with faith, condemning all the true public faith testified in the church from the beginning hitherto, which hath ever with wonder marvelled at the mystery of the sacrament, which is no wonder at all, if bread be but a signification of Christ’s body. This is a wonderful saying of you, as of one that understood nothing utterly what a sacrament meaneth, and what is to be wondered at im the sacrament. For the wonder is, not how God worketh in the outward visible sacrament, but his marvellous work is m the worthy receivers of the sacraments. The wonderful work of God is not in the water, which only washeth the body; but God by his omnipotent power worketh wonderfully im the receivers thereof, scouring, washing, and making them clean inwardly, and, as it were, new men and celestial creatures. This have all old authors wondered at; this wonder passeth the capacities of all men’s wits, how damnation is turned into salvation, and of the son of the devil condemned into hell is made the son of God and inheritor of heaven. This wonderful work of God all men may marvel and wonder at, but no creature is able sufficiently to comprehend it. And as this is wondered at in the sacrament of baptism, how he that was subject unto death receiveth life by Christ and his holy Spirit: so is this wondered at in the sacrament of Christ’s holy table, how the same life is continued and endureth for ever by continual feeding upon Christ’s fiesh and his blood. And these wonderful works of God towards us we be taught by God’s holy word, and his sacraments of bread, wine, and water; and yet be not these wonderful works of God in the sacraments, but in us. And although many authors use this manner of speech, that Christ maketh bread his body, and wine his blood, and wonder thereat; yet those authors mean not of the bread and wine in themselves, but of the bread and wine eaten and drunken of faithful people. For when Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood, he spake not those words to the bread and wine, but to the eaters and drinkers of them, saying, “ Eat, this is my body; drink, this is my blood: signifying to them that worthily do eat that bread and drink that cup, that they be inwardly and invisibly fed with Christ’s flesh and blood, as they outwardly and visibly receive the sacraments of them. To be short, here in this process you use plenty of words at your pleasure, to make the reader believe that I should suppose confusion, monstrousness, absurdity, {' The less and the more, 1551. ] OF THE. PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 67 and unscemliness to be in God’s holy sacraments, where as I do no more but tell what monstrous absurdities and errors the papists do teach in the sacraments. But if the reader take good heed to your talk, he shall find that you, lacking good matter to answer this comparison, do fall unto railing, and enforce your pen to invent such stuff as might bring me into hatred undeserved ; which kind of rhetoric is called Canina facundia, and is used only of them that hunt for their own praise by the dispraise of their adversary, which is yet another trick of the devil’s sophistry. And because you would bring me into more extreme hatred, you couple me with Sabellius. Sabellius and Arrius, whose doctrines, as you say, were facile and easy, as here you id ais confess mine for to be. But if all such expositions as make the scriptures plain should by and by be slanderously compared to the doctrines of Arrius and Sabellius, then should all the expositions of the doctors be brought in danger, because that by their pains they have made hard questions facile and easy. And yet, whether the doctrine which I set forth be easy to understand or not, I cannot define, but it seemeth so hard that you cannot understand it; except you will put all the fault in your own wilfulness, that you can, and will not understand it. Now followeth the sixth comparison. Furthermore, the papists say, that a dog or a cat eateth” the body of Christ. if they by chance do eat the sacramental bread. We say, that no earthly creature can eat the body of Christ, nor drink his blood, but only man. WINCHESTER. T have read that some3 entreat these chances of dogs and cats, but I never heard any of *The contra- that opiniont, to say or write so, as a doctrine, that a dog or a cat eateth the body of ry Dereon Christ, and set it forth for a teaching, as this author most impudently supposeth; and [ °c marvel much that such a word, and such a report, can come out of a christian man’s mouth, and therefore this is by the author a marvellous surmise, whereupon to take occa- sion to bring the adversative “but” for the author's part, being such a saying on that side as all christendom hath ever taught, that no creature can eat the body and drink the blood® of *Pugnat cum Christ, but only man. But this abominable surmised untruth in the former part of his® com- Sa parison, may be taken for a proof, whether such beastly asseverations proceed from the spirit of truth or no; and whether truth be there intended, where such blasphemy is surmised. But let us see the rest. CANTERBURY. Yet still in these comparisons you grant that part of the difference to be true which I affirm; but you say that I report untruly of the papists, impudently bearing them in hand, to say such abominable and beastly asseverations as you never heard. Whereby appeareth your impudent arrogancy in demial of that thing which either you know whether a the papists do say, or you are in doubt whether they say or say not, having not read eke Rody what it is that they say. For why do they reject the Master of the Sentences in °% “+ this point, that he said, “‘a mouse or brute beast receiveth’ not the body of Christ, 67. although they seem to receive it?” Wherein if you say, as the Master did, that #zin. 4. ais the mouse receiveth not the body of Christ, look for no favour at the papists’ hands, BES ABeO Tl but to be rejected as the Master was, unless they forbear you upon favour, and because *Vide Mar- that in other matters you have been so good a captain for them, they will pardon (minor you this one fault. And so is this first part of the difference no untrue surmise of bee me, but a determination of the papists, condemning whosoever would say the contrary. And this is a common proposition among the school divines, that the body of Christ remaineth so long as the form of the bread is remaining, wheresoever it be, whereof (? Eat, 1551, and Orig. Ed.] [° Can eat the body and blood, 1551.) [? Some that, 1551.] [° Of this comparison, Orig. Ed. Winchester, {* Of that abominable opinion, Orig. Ed. Win- | 1551.] chester, 1551. ] | {7 Receive, 1551, ] Thomas, part. sum. | q. 80. art. fii. Peryn. *A demur upon this issue. August. con- tra Literas Petil. lib. 20. * Marcus Con- stantius dicit quod ethnici idem fortasse sumunt quod bruti in sacra- mentum tantum. *The word “*very” may make wran- gling. 68. 68 THE THIRD BOOK. your St Thomas writeth thus: Quidam vero dixerunt, quod quam primum sacramentum sumitur a mure vel cane, desinit ibi esse corpus Christi. Sed hoe derogat veritati hujus sacramenti. Substantia enim panis sumpta a peccatore tamdiu manet, dum per calorem naturalem est in digestione: igitur tamdiu manet corpus Christi sub speciebus sacra- mentalibus'. And Perin®, in his book printed and set abroad in this matter for all men to read, saith: “That although the mouse, or any other beast, do eat the sacra- ment, yet nevertheless the same is the very and real body of Christ.” And he asketh, “‘what inconvenience it is against the verity of Christ’s real body in the sacrament, though the impassible body lie in the mouth or maw of the beast? Is it not there- fore the body of Christ? Yes, undoubtedly,” saith he. So that now these abominable opinions and beastly asseverations, (as you truly term them, meaning thereby to bite me, as appeareth,) be fit terms, and meet for the papists, whose asseverations they be. Now followeth the seventh comparison. They say, that every man, good and evil, eateth the body of Christ. We say, that both do eat the sacramental bread, and drink the wine; but none do eat the very body of Christ, and drink his blood, but only they that be lively members of his body. WINCHESTER. In this comparison the former part, speaking of such men as be by baptism received into Christ's church, is very true, confirmed by St Paul, and ever since affirmed in the church; in the proof whereof here in this book I will not travel, but make it a demur as it were in law, whereupon to try the truth of the whole matter. IPf that doctrine, called by this author the doctrine of the papists, and is indeed the catholic doctrine, be not in this point true, let all be so judged for me. If it be true, as it is most true, let that be a mark whereby to judge the rest of this author's untrue asseverations. For undoubtedly St Augustine saith : “We may not of men’s matters esteem the sacraments: they be made by him whose they be; but worthily used they bring reward, unworthily handled they bring judgment. He that dis- penseth the sacrament worthily, and he that useth it wunworthily, be not one; but that thing is one, whether it be handled worthily or unworthily, so as it is neither better ne worse, but life or death of them that use it.” Thus saith St Augustine, and therefore be the receivers* worthy or unworthy, good or evil, the substance of Christ's sacrament is all one, as being God’s work, who worketh uniformly, and yet is not in all that receive of like effect, not of any alteration or diminution in it, but for the diversity of him that receiveth. So as the report made here of the doctrine of the catholic church under the name of papists is a very true report, and for want of grace reproved by the author as though it were no true doctrine. And the second part of the comparison on the author's side, contained under “we say” by them that in hypocrisy pretend to be truth’s friends, containeth an untrith to the simple reader, and yet hath a matter of wrangling to the learned reader, because of the word “very,” which, referred to the effect of eating the body of Christ, whereby to receive life, may be so spoken, that none receive the body of Christ with the very effect of life, but such as eat the sacrament spiritually, that is to say, with true faith worthily. And yet evil men, as = [2 Cranmer here, as above, p. 64, quotes the sub- ; naturalem digeratur. Unde tamdiu corpus Christi stance of Thomas Aquinas, rather than his exact words, which run thus: “ Quidam antiqui errave- runt, dicentes, quod corpus Christi nec etiam sacra- mentaliter a peccatoribus sumitur, sed quam cito labiis peccatoris contingitur, tam cito sub speciebus sacramentalibus desinit esse corpus Christi. Sed hoc est erroneum: derogat enim veritati hujus sa- cramenti, ad quam—pertinet quod manentibus spe- ciebus corpus Christi sub eis esse non desinat. Species autem manent, quamdiu substantia panis maneret, sibi ibi adesset. Manifestum est autem quod substantia panis assumpta a peccatore, non statim esse desinit, sed manet quandiu per calorem sub speciebus sacramentalibus manet a peccatoribus sumptis.”—Tertia pars, p. 204. Art. iii. q. 80. Antverp. 1624.] [2 Dr Peryn was master of the Black-friars in Smithfield. He submitted to voluntary exile during the reign of Henry VIII.; and after twenty years returned home in the reign of Mary, and opposed the reformed religion. He preached and published four sermons on the Eucharist. Vid. Strype’s Eccl. Mem. Vol. 111. Part 2. p. 116. Ed. Oxford, 1822.] [® Receiver, 1551.] [* For any alteration, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. by Judas, receive the same very body, touching the truth of the presence thereof, that St Peter did. For in the substance of the sacrament, which is God’s work, is no variety, who ordaineth all (as afore) uniformly; but in man is the variety, amongst whom he that receiveth wor- thily Christ's body, receiveth life, and he that receiveth wunworthily, receiveth condemnation. There followeth further. CANTERBURY, I thank you for this demur, for I myself could have chosen no better for my *A demur. purpose. And I am content that the trial of the whole matter be judged hereby, Rb aN as you desire. You say, that “all that be baptized, good and evil, eat the body of Baton Christ ;’ and I say, only the good, and not the evil. Now must neither I nor you be judges m our own causes: therefore let Christ be judge between us both, whose judgment it is not reason that you refuse. Christ saith: ‘‘ Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in Jonn vi. him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, even so he that eateth me shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.” Now I ask you this question, Whether evil men shall live for ever? Whether they live by Christ? Whether they dwell in Christ ? and have Christ dwelling in them? If you say nay, (as you must needs if you will say the truth,) then have I proved my negative (wherein stood the demur), that ill men eat not Christ’s body nor drink his blood; for if they did, then by Christ’s own words they should live for ever, and dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in them. And what proofs will you require more upon my part in this demur? For if Christ be with me, who can be able to stand against me ? But you allege for you St Paul, who speaketh for you nothing at all. For the messenger will not speak against him that sent him. I know that St Paul in the eleventh to the Corinthians, speaketh expressly of the unworthy eating of the bread, but 1 Cor. xi. in no place of the unworthy eating of the body of Christ. And if he do, shew the place, or else the demur passeth against you, and the whole matter tried with me, by your own pact and covenant. And yet for further proof of this demur, I refer me to the Ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th chapters of my fourth book. And where you bring St Augustine to be witness, his witness in that place helpeth August. con- i : tra Lit. Petil. nothing your cause. For he speaketh there generally of the using of the sacraments lib. 2. cap. 37. well or ill, as the diversity of men be, rehearsing by name the sacrament of circum- cision, of the paschal lamb, and of baptism. Wherefore if you will prove any real and corporal presence of Christ by that place, you may as well prove that he was cor- porally present in circumcision, in eating of the paschal lamb, and in baptism, as in the Lord’s supper. And here ye use such a subtilty to deceive the simple reader, that he hath good cause to suspect your proceedings, and to take good heed of you in all your writings, who do nothing else but go about to deceive him. For you conclude the matter of the substance of the sacrament, that the reader might think that place to speak only of the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, and to speak of the substance thereof, where St Augustine neither hath that word “substance,” nor speaketh not one word specially of that sacrament ; but all his process goeth chiefly of baptism, which is all one, (saith St Augustine against the Donatists, which reproved baptism for the vice of the 69. minister,) whether the minister be good or ill, and whether he minister it to good or to ill. For the sacrament is all one, although the effect be diverse, to good and to evil. And as for them whom ye say that in hypocrisy pretend to be truth’s friends, Truth’s feign- all that be learned and have any judgment, know that it is the papists, which no a a few years past, by hypocrisy and feigned religion, have uttered and sold their lies and fables instead of God’s eternal truth, and in the place of Christ have set up idols and antichrist. And for the conclusion of this comparison, in this word “very” you make such Very. a wrangling, (where none occasion is given,) as neyer was had before this time of any August. in Joan. Tra. 59. Smith. The eighth comparison. *Three man- ner ofeatings. *Cause of error. *God's pro- mises an- nexed to his sacraments. *We must, in teaching, exalt the sa- craments after their dignity. 70. Three man- nerofeatings. 70 THE THIRD BOOK. learned man. For who heard ever before this time that an adjective was referred to a verb, and not to his proper substantive, of any man that had any learning at all? And as for the matter of Judas is answered before. For he received not the bread that was the Lord, as St Augustine saith, but the bread of the Lord. Nor no man can receive the body of Christ unworthily, although he may receive un- worthily the sacrament thereof. And hitherto D. Smith hath found no fault at all in my comparisons, whereby the reader may see how nature passeth art, seeing here much more ‘captiousness in a subtil sophistical wit, than in him that hath but learned the sophistical art. Now followeth the eighth comparison. They say, that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, only at that time when they receive the sacrament. We say, that they eat, drink, and feed of Christ continually, so long as they be members of his body. WINCHESTER. What forehead, I pray you, is so hardened, that can utter this among them that know any thing of the learning of Christ's church? In which it is a most common distinction, that there is three manner of eatings of Christ's body and blood: one spiritual only, which is here affirmed in the second part of “we say,’ wherein the author and his say as the church saith: another eating is both sacramentally and spiritually, which is when men worthily communicate in the supper: the third is sacramentally only, which is by men unworthy, who eat and drink in the holy supper to their condemnation only. And the learned men in Christ's church say, that the ignorance and want of observation of these three manner of eatings causeth the error in the understanding of the scriptures and such fathers’ sayings, as have written of the sacrament. And when the church speaketh of these three manner of eatings, what an impudency is it to say, that the church teacheth good men only to eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, when they receive the sacrament, being the truth otherwise: and yet a diversity there is of eating spiritually only, and eating spiritually and sacramentally, because in the supper they receive his very flesh and\ blood indeed, with the effects of all graces and gifts to such as receive it spiritually and worthily; whereas out of the supper, when we eat only spiritually by faith, God that worketh without his sacraments, as seemeth to him, doth relieve those that believe and trust in him, and suffereth them not to be desti- tute of that is necessary for them, whereof we may not presume contemning the sacrament, but ordinarily seek God, where he hath ordered himself to bé sought, and there to assure ourself of his covenants and promises, which be most certainly annexed to his sacraments, whereunto we ought to give most certain trust and confidence: wherefore to teach the spiritual manducation to be equal with the spiritual manducation and sacramental also, that is to diminish the effect of the institution of the sacrament, which no christian man ought to do. CANTERBURY. Who is so ignorant that hath read any thing at all, but he knoweth that distinction of three eatings? But no man that is of learning and judgment, understandeth the three diverse eatings in such sort as you do, but after this manner: that some eat only the sacrament of Christ’s body, but not the very body itself; some eat his body and not the sacrament; and some eat the sacrament and body both together. The sacrament (that is to say, the bread) is corporally eaten and chewed with the teeth in the mouth: the very body is eaten and chewed with faith in the spirit. Un- godly men, when they receive the sacrament, they chew in their mouths, like unto Judas, the sacramental bread, but they eat not the celestial bread, which is Christ. Faithful christian people, such as be Christ’s true disciples, continually from time to time record in their minds the beneficial death of our Saviour Christ, chewing it by faith in the cnd of their spirit, and digesting it in their hearts, feeding and com- f} Very flesh and very blood, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. ah forting themselves with that heavenly meat, although they daily receive not the sacra- ment thereof; and so they eat Christ’s body spiritually, although not the sacrament thereof. But when such men for their more comfort and confirmation of eternal life, given unto them by Christ's death, come unto the Lord’s holy table; then, as before they fed spiritually upon Christ, so now they feed corporally also upon the sacramental bread: by which sacramental feeding in Christ’s promises, their former spiritual feeding is increased, and they grow and wax continually more strong in Christ, until at the last they shall come to the full measure and perfection in Christ. This is the teaching of the true catholic church, as it is taught by God’s word. And therefore St Paul, speaking of them that unworthily eat, saith, that they eat the bread, but not that they eat the body of Christ, but their own damnation. And where you set out with your accustomed rhetorical colours a great impu- dency in me, that would report of the papists that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his blood only when they receive the sacrament, seeing that I know that the papists make a distinction of three manner of eatings of Christ’s body, whereof one is without the sacrament: I am not ignorant indeed, that the papists grant a spiritual eating of Christ’s body without the sacrament ; but I mean of such an eating of his body, as his presence is in the sacrament, and as you say he is there eaten, that is to say, corporally. Therefore to express my mind more plainly to you, that list not understand, let this be the comparison. They say that after such a sort as Christ is in the sacrament, and there eaten, so good men cat his body and blood only when they receive the sacrament. [We say, that as they eat and drink Christ in the sacrament,|’ so do they eat, drink, and feed upon him continually, so long as they be members of his body. Now the papists say, that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament, and is so eaten only when men receive the sacrament. But we say, that the presence of Christ in his holy supper is a spiritual presence: and as he is spiritually present, so is he ‘spiritually eaten of all faithful christian men, not only when they receive the sacra- ment, but continually so long as they be members spiritual of Christ’s mystical body. And yet this is “really” also, (as you have expounded the word,) that is to say, in deed and effectually. And as the Holy Ghest doth not only come to us in baptism, and Christ doth there clothe us, but they do the same to us continually so long as we dwell in Christ; so likewise doth Christ feed us so long as we dweil in him and he in us, and not only when we receive the sacrament. So that as touching Christ himself, the presence is all one, the clothing all one, and the feeding all one, although the one for the more comfort and consolation have the sacrament added to it, and the other be without the sacrament. The rest that is here spoken is contentious wrangling to no purpose. But now cometh in Smith with his five eggs, saying that I have made here five lies in these comparisons. ‘The first lie is,” saith he, “that the papists do say, that good men do eat and drink Chnist’s body and blood only when they receive the sacrament :” which thing Smith saith the papists do not say, but that they then only do eat Christ’s body and drink his blood corporally, which sufficeth for my purpose. For I mean no® other thing, but that the papists teach such a corporal eating of Christ’s body as endureth not, but vanisheth away, and ceaseth at the furthest within few hours after the sacrament is‘ received. But forasmuch as Smith agreeth here with you, the answer made before to you will serve for him also. And yet Smith here shall serve me in good stead against you, who have imputed unto me so many im- pudent lies, made against the papists in the comparisons before rehearsed: and Smith saith that this is the first lie, which is in the eighth comparison, And so shall Smith, (being mine adversary and your friend,) be such a witness for me, as you cannot except against, to prove that those things which before you said were impudent lies, be no lies at all. For this “is the first le,” saith Smith ; and then my sayings before must be all true, and not impudent lies. {? The 1580 Ed. omits this sentence. ] {4 Sacrament be received, lool. | {% None other, 1551. | True sacra- mental eat- ing. 1 Cor. xi. Whether Christ be really eaten without the sacrament. *The com- parison. 71. Really. Smith. 72 | THE THIRD BOOK. Now to the ninth comparison. They say, that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament, hath his own proper form and quantity. We say, that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually, without form or quantity. WINCHESTER. Wiseh.1551.] there is mention of the body of Christ, which is proper of the humanity of Christ. In the second Body ean part, which is of “we say,” there is no mention of Christ's body, but of Christ, who in his divine dertanded nature is understanded present without a body. Now the sacrament is institute of Christ's humanity. body and blood; and because the divine nature in Christ continueth the unity with the body of athe unityof Christ, we must needs confess where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ, God and man. hoodand And when we speak of Christ's body, we must understand a true body, which hath both form Soe “Gand quantity ; and therefore such as confess the true catholic faith, they afirm of Christ's body all truth of a natural body, which although it hath all those truths of form and quantity, yet they say, Christ's body is not present after the manner of quantity, nor in a visible form, as it was conversant in this present life: but that there is truly in the sacrament the very true body of Christ, which good men believe upon the credit of Christ that said so, and knowledge therewith the manner of that presence to be an high mystery, and the manner so spiritual, as the carnal man cannot by discourse of reason reach it, but in his discourse shall (as this author doth) think it a vanity and foolishness: which foolishness nevertheless overcometh the wisdom of the world. And thus have I opened what they say on the catholic part. *A marvel- Now for the other part, whereof this author is, and with his faith “we say,” the words seem to prs saying of imply, that Christ's human body is not in the sacrament, in that it is said, “Christ to be there canuae. sacramentally and spiritually, without form or quantity,” which saying hath no scripture for it. eae For the scripture speaketh of Christ's body which was betrayed for us, to be given us to be eaten. tint Ree ey a : . 5 > ae institution of Where also Christ’s divinity is present, as accompanying his humanity, which humanity is per anaes specially spoken of, the presence of which humanity when it is denied, then is there no text to oe aa prove the presence of Christ's divinity specially, that is to say, otherwise than it is by his [The answer. In this comparison is both sleight and craft: in the first part of it, which is that “ they say,” ig. E body." ™Y omnipotency present every where. And to conclude this piece of comparison, this manner of Pail. ii. speech was never, I think, read, that Christ is present in the sacrament without form or quantity. And St Paul speaketh of a form in the Godhead, Qui quum in forma Dei esset, “ Who when he was in the form of God.” So as if Christ be present in the sacrament without all form, then is he there neither as God nor man; which is a stranger teaching than yet hath been heard or read of: but into such absurdities indeed do they fall, who entreat irreverently and untruly this high mystery. This is here worthy a special note, how by the manner of the speech im the latter part of this difference the teaching seemeth to be, that Christ is spiritually present *There, in the sacrament, because of the word “there,” which thou, reader, mayest compare how it agreeth contrariety With the rest of this author's doctrine. Let us go to the net. in the author. CANTERBURY. Such is the nature of many, that they can find many knots in a plain rush, and doubts where no doubts ought to be found. So find you “sleight and craft,” where I meant all things simply and plainly. And to avoid such sleight and craft as you gather of my words, I shall express them plainly thus. *The compa- The papists say, that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament, hath his own oar proper form and quantity. We say, that the body of Christ hath not his proper form and quantity, neither in the sacrament, nor in them that receive the sacrament ; but is in the sacrament sacramentally, and in the worthy receivers spiritually, without the proper form and quantity of his body. This was my meaning at the first, and no man that had looked of this place indifferently, would have taken the second part of this comparison to be understanded of Christ’s divine nature: for the bread and Theodoret. wine be sacraments of his body and blood, and not of his divinity, as Theodoretus ‘ saith ; and therefore his divine nature is not sacramentally in the sacrament, but his human nature only. And what manner of speech had this been, to say of_Christ’s divine nature, that it is in the sacrament withont quantity, which hath in it no manner OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 73 of quantity wheresoever it be? And where I set forth these comparisons to shew wherein we vary from the papists, what variance had been in this comparison, if I had understanded the first part of Christ's humanity, and the second of his divinity ? The reader by this one place, among many other, may easily discern, how captious you be to reprehend whatsoever I say, and to pervert every thing into a wrong sense : so that in respect of you, Smith is a very indifferent taker of my words, although D. Smith. indeed he far passeth the bounds of honesty. But to come directly to the matter, if it be true that you say, that in the sacrament Whether, in the sacra- Christ’s body hath all the forms and quantities of a natural body, why say you then ment, Christ’ ody ha that his body is not there present after the manner of quantity ? Declare what difference his proper is between form and quantity, and the manner of quantity. And if Christ’s body quantity. in the sacrament have the same quantity, that is to say, the same length, breadth, and thickness, and the same form, that is to say, the same due order and proportion ; of the members and parts of his body, that he had when he was crucified, and hath now in heaven, (as he hath by your saying here in this place,) then I pray you declare 73, further, how the length, breadth, and thickness of a man, should be contained in quantity within the compass of a piece of bread, no longer nor broader than one or two inches, nor much thicker than one leaf of paper: how an inch may be as long as an ell, and an ell as short as an inch: how length and roundness shall agree in one proportion ; and a thick and thin thing be both of one thickness: which you must warrant to be brought to pass, if the form and quantity of Christ’s body be contained under the form and quantity of such bread and wine as we now use. But as Smith in the last comparison did me good service against you, so shall D. smith. you in this comparison do me good service against him. For among the five lies wherewith he charges me in these comparisons, he accounteth this for one, that I report of the papists, that Christ’s body in the sacrament hath his proper form and quantity, which you say is a truth. And therefore, if I make a lhe herein, as Smith saith I do, yet I lie not alone, but have you to bear me company. And yet once again more may the reader here note, how the papists vary among themselves. And it is untrue that you say, that good men believe upon the credit of Christ, that there is truly in the sacrament the very true body of Christ. or Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood, (which, as the old authors say, must needs be understanded figuratively ;) but he never said that his true body is truly in the sacrament, as you here report of him. And the manner of his presence you call so high a mystery, that the carnal man cannot reach it. And indeed, as you feign the matter, it is so high a mystery, that never man could reach it but yourself alone. For you make the manner of Christ being in the sacrament so spiritual, that you say his flesh, blood, and bones be there really and carnally; and yet you confess in your book, that you never read in any old author that so said. And this manner of handling of so pure a mystery is neither godly foolishness nor wordly, but rather a mere frenzy and madness. And although the scripture speak of Christ’s body to be eaten of us, yet that is understanded of spiritual and not of corporal eating, and of spiritual not of cor- poral presence. The scripture saith, that Christ hath forsaken’ the world, and is John xvi. ascended into heaven. Upon which words St Augustine, Vigilius, and other ancient epee authors do prove, that as concerning the nature of his manhood, Christ is gone hence, ““*” and is not here, as I declared in my third book, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th chapters. And where you think that this matter of speech was never read, that Christ is present in the sacrament without form or quantity, I am sure that it was never read in any approved author, that Christ hath his proper form and quantity in the sacrament. And Duns saith, “that his quantity is in heaven, and not in the sacra- scotus, 4. ment.” inate And when J say that Christ is in the sacrament sacramentally, and without form and quantity, who would think any man so captious, so ignorant, or so full [' Ed. 1541 reads “forsaken ;’’—Hd. 1580 reads ‘‘ forespoken,’’—which is evidently a misprint. ] There. *A riddle may contain truth of nay and yea, being in ap- pearance two contraries. * Augustinus. *A special difference in St Augustine. *Joanof Kent's obsti- Nnacy. pate io. 74 THE THIRD BOOK. of sophistry, to draw my words to the form of Christ's divinity, which I speak most plainly of the form and quantity of his body and humanity? as I have before declared. And although some other might be so far overseen, yet specially you ought not so to take my words; forasmuch as you said not past sixteen lines before, that my words seem to imply, that I meant of Christ’s human body. And because it may appear how truly and faithfully you report my words, you add this word “all,” which is more than I speak, and marreth all the whole matter. And you gather thereof such absurdities as I never spake, but as you sophistically do gather, to make a great matter of nothing. And where of this word “there” you would conclude repugnance in my doctrine, that where in other places I have written that Christ is spiritually present in them that receive the sacrament, and not in the sacraments of bread and wine, and now it should scem that I teach contrary, that Christ is spiritually present in the very bread and wine ; if you pleased to understand my words rightly, there is no repug- nance in my words at all. For by this word “there,” I mean not in the sacra- ments of bread and wine, but in the ministration of the sacrament, as the old authors for the most part, when they speak of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, they mean in the ministration of the sacrament. Which my saying varicth from no doctrine that I have taught in any part of my book. Now followeth the tenth comparison. They say, that the fathers and prophets of the old testament did not eat the body, nor drink the blood of Christ. We say, that they did eat his body and drink his blood, although he was not yet born nor incarnated. WINCHESTER. This comparison of difference is clerkly conveyed, as it were of a riddle, wherein nay and yea, when they be opened, agree and consent. The fathers did eat Christ's body and drink his blood in the! truth of promise, which was effectual to them of redemption to be wrought, not in truth of presence (as we do) for confirmation of redemption already wrought. They had a certain promise, and we a certain present payment: they did eat Christ spiritually, believing in him that was to come, but they did not eat Christ's body present in the sacrament, sacramentally and spiritually, as we do. Their sacraments were figures of the things, but owrs contain the very things. And therefore albeit in a sense to the learned men it may be verified, that the fathers did eat the body of Christ, and drink his blood; yet there is no such form of words in scripture, and it is more agreeable to the simplicity of scripture, to say the fathers before Christ's nativity did not eat the body and blood of Christ, which body and blood Christ himself truly took of the body of the virgin Mary. For although St Paul, in the tenth to the Corinthians, be so understanded of some, as the fathers should eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink that we do, to which understanding all do not agree, yet following that understanding, we may not so press the words, as there should be no difference at all; and this one? difference St Augustine noteth, how their sacraments contained the promise of that, which in our sacrament is given. Thus he saith: “And this is evident of itself, how to us in the holy supper Christ saith, * This is my body that shall be betrayed for yous take, eat? which was never said to the fathers, although their faith in substance agreed with ours, having all one Christ and Mediator, which they looked for to come, and we acknowledge to be already come.” ‘Come, and ‘to come, as St Augustine saith, differeth. But Christ is one, by whom all was created, and mans fall repaired, from whom is all feeding, corporal and spiritual, and in whom all is restored in heaven and in earth. In this faith of Christ, the fathers were fed with heavenly spiritual food, which was the same with ours in respect of the restitution by Christ, and redemption by them hoped, which is achieved by the mystery of the body and blood of Christ; by reason whereof I deny not, but it may be said in a good sense, how they did eat the body and blood of Christ, before he was incarnate: but, as I said before, scripture speaketh not so, and it is no wholesome fushion of specch at this time, which furthereth in sound to the ears of the rude the pestilent heresy whercin Joan of [! In truth of promise, 1551.] [° This one special difference, 155] .] [° Create, 1451. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 75 Kent obstinately died, that is to say, that Christ took nothing of the virgin, but brought his body with him from above; being a thing worthy to be noted, how the old heresy, denying the true taking of the flesh of Christ in the virgin’s womb, at the same time to revive, when the true deliverance of Chirist’s flesh in the holy supper, to be of us eaten, is also denied. For as it is a mere truth without figure, and yet an high mystery, God's work in the incarnation of Christ, wherein our flesh was of Christ truly taken of the virgin’s substance: so is it a mere truth, without figure, in the substance of the celestial thing, and yet an high mystery and God's work, in the giving of the same true flesh, truly to be in the supper eaten. When I exclude figure in the sacrament, I mean not of the visible part, which is called a figure of the celestial invisible part, which is truly there without figure, so as by that figure is not impaired the truth of that presence; which I add to avoid eavillation. And tot make an end of this comparison, this I say, that this article declareth wantonness, to make a difference in words, where none is in the sense rightly taken, with a novelty of speech not necessary to be uttered now. CANTERBURY. Note well here, reader, how the cuttle cometh in with his dark colours. Where I speak of the substance of the thing that is eaten, you turn it to the manner and circumstances thereof, to blind the simple reader, and that you may make thereof a riddle of yea and nay, as you be wont to make black white, and white black; or one thing yea and nay, black and white at your pleasure. But to put away your dark colours, and to make the matter plain, this I say, that the fathers and prophets did eat Christ’s body and drink his blood in promise of redemption to be wrought, and we eat and drink the same flesh and blood in confirmation of our faith in the redemption already wrought. But as the fathers did eat and drink, so did also the apostles at Christ’s supper, in promise of redemption to be wrought, not in confirmation of redemption already wrought. So that if wrought and to be wrought make the diversity of presence and not presence, then the apostles did not eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ really present, because the redemption was not then already wrought, but promised the next day to be wrought. And although before the crucifying of his flesh and effusion of his blood our re- demption was not actually wrought by Christ, yet was he spiritually and sacra- mentally present, and spiritually and sacramentally eaten and drunken, not only of the apostles at his last supper before he suffered his passion, but also of the holy patriarchs and fathers before his incarnation, as well as he is now of us after his ascension. And although in the manner of signifying there be great difference between their sacraments and ours, yet, as St Augustine saith, both we and they receive one thing in the diversity of sacraments’. And our sacraments contain presently the very things signified, no more than theirs did. For in their sacraments they were by Christ presently regenerated and fed, as we be in ours; although their sacraments were figures of the death of Christ to come, and ours be figures of his death now past. And as it is all one Christ that was to be born and to die for us, and after- ward was born indeed and died indeed, whose birth and death be now past; so was the same Christ, and the same flesh and blood eaten and drunken of the faith- ful fathers before he was born or dead, and of his apostles after he was born and before he was dead, and of faithful christian people is now daily eaten and drunken after that both his nativity and death be past. And all is but one Christ, one fiesh, and one blood, as concerning the substance, yet that which to the fathers was to come, is to us past. And nevertheless the eating and drinking is all one; for neither the fathers did, nor we do eat carnally and corporally with our mouths, but both the fathers did, and we do eat spiritually by true and lively faith. The body [* Soed. 1551. In that of 1580 40 is omitted. ] August. in Joannem, Tract. xxvi. Pars 1x. Ed. . [°“Sacramenta illa fnerunt: in signis diversa | Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506.] sunt, sed in re quz significatur paria sunt.”— *Novelty of speech. The fathers did eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood. The diversity of the saera- ments of the new and old testament. August. in Joan. Tract. 26. 76. The fathers did eat Christ’s body and drink his blood be- fore he was born. 1 Cor. x. August. de Util. Peeni- ten. august, Psal. xxvii. August. in Jcan. Tract. 26. lille August. con- tra Faustum, lib. 19. eap. 16. et 20. cap. 21. 76 THE THIRD BOOK. of Christ was and is all one to the fathers and to us, but corporally and locally he was not’ yet born unto them, and from us he is gone, and ascended up into heaven, So that to neither he was nor is carnally, substantially, and corporally present, but to them he was, and to us he is spiritually present, and sacramentally also; and of both sacramentally, spiritually, and effectually eaten and drunken, to eternal salva- tion and everlasting life. And this is plainly enough declared in the scripture to them that have willing minds to understand the truth. For it is written in the old testament, Ecclus. xxiy. in the person of Christ thus: “They that eat me, shall yet hunger, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty.” And St Paul writeth to the Corinthians, saying: “Our fathers did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; and they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, which rock was Christ.” These words St Au- gustine expounding, saith: “‘ What is to eat the same meat, but that they did eat the same which we do? Whosoever in manna understood Christ, did eat the same spiritual meat that we do, that is to say, that meat which was received with faith, and not with bodies. Therefore to them that understood and believed, it was the same meat and the same drink. So that to such as understood not, the meat, was only manna, and the drink only water; but to such as understood, it was the same that is now. For then was Christ to come, who is now come. To come and is come, be divers words, but it is the same Christ.” These be St Augustine's sayings’. And because you say, “that it is more agreeable to the scripture to say, that the fathers before Christ’s nativity did not eat the body and drink the blood of Christ” ; I pray you, shew me one scripture that so saith. And shew me also one approved author that disallowed St Augustine’s mind by me here alleged, because you say, “that all do not agree to his understanding.” And in the seventy-seventh Psalm, St Augustine saith also: “The stone was Christ.” Therefore the same was the meat and drink of the fathers in the mystery, which is ours; but in signification the same, not in outward form. For it is one Christ himself, that to them was figured in the stone, and to us manifestly appeared in flesh. And St Augustine saith plainly, “that both manna and our sacrament signifieth Christ, and that although the sacra- ments were divers, yet in the thing by them meant and understand they were both like.” And so after the mind of St Augustine it is clear, that the same things were given to the faithful receivers in the sacraments of the old testament that be given in the new: the same to them was circumcision, that to us is baptism; and to them by manna was given the same thing, that now is given to us in the sacra- mental bread. , And if I would grant for your pleasure, that im their sacraments Christ was promised, and that in ours he is really given; doth it not then follow as well that Christ is given in the sacrament of baptism, as that he is given in the sacrament of his flesh and blood? And St Augustine, contra Fausiwm, esteemeth them mad, that think diversity between the things signified in the old and new testament, because the signs be diverse*; and expressing the matter plainly, saith, “that the flesh and blood of our sacrifice before Christ's coming was promised by sacrifices of similitudes, in his passion was given indeed, and after his ascension is solemnly put in our memory by the sacrament’.” [) Here again it is necessary to follow ed. 1551. | et venit, diversa verba sunt, sed idem Christus.” The 1580 ed. omits not. j [? “ Eundem, inquit, cibum spiritalem mandu- cayerunt. Quid est ‘ eundem,’ nisi quia eum quem etiam nos ?—Quicunque in manna Christum intel- lexerunt, eundem quem nos cibum spiritalem man- ducaverunt: id est, qui fide capiebatur, non qui corpore hauriebatur.—Et eundem ergo cibum, eun- dem potum, sed intelligentibus et credentibus. Non intelligentibus autem, illud solum manna, illa sola aqua: credenti autem idem qui nunc. Tune enim Christus venturus, modo Christus venit. Venturus —August. de Utilitate Ponitentia, Lib. 1. Pars x.] [° “ Quanto errore delirent, qui putant signis sa- cramentisque mutatis, etiam res ipsas esse diver- sas.” August. contra Faustum, Lib. X1x. cap. Xvi. Pars iv.] [4 “ Hujus sacrificii caro et sanguis ante adven- tum Christi per victimas similitudinum promit- tebatur: in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur: post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoria celebratur."’—Ibid. Lib. xx. cap. xxi.] » OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 77 And the thing which you say St Augustine’ noteth to be given in the sacraments of the new testament, and to be promised in the sacraments of the old, St Augustine expresseth the thing which he meant, that is to say, salvation and eternal life by Christ. And yet in this mortal life we have not eternal life in possession, but in promise, as the prophets had. But St Augustine saith, that we have the promise, because we have Christ already come, which by the prophets was promised before that he should come; and therefore St John the baptist was called more than a pro- phet, because he said: “Here is the Lamb of God already present, which the prophets taught us to look for until he came.” The effect therefore of St Augustine’s words plainly to be expressed, was this, that the prophets in the old testament promised a Saviour to come and redeem the world, which the sacraments of that time testified until his coming: but now he is already come, and hath by his death performed that was promised, which our sacraments testify unto us, as St Augustine declareth more plainly in his book, De fide ad Petrum, the 19th chapter’. So that St Augustine speaketh of the giving of Christ to death, (which the sacraments of the old testament testified to come, and ours testify to be done,) and not of the giving of him in the sacraments. And forasmuch as St Augustine spake generally of all the sacraments, therefore if you will by his words prove, that Christ is corporally in the sacrament of the holy communion, you may as well prove, that he is corporally in baptism; for St Augustine speaketh no more of the one than of the other. But where St Augustine speaketh generally of all the sacraments, you restrain the matter particularly to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper only, that the ignorant reader should think, that St Augustine spake of the corporal presence of Christ in the sacraments, and that only in the sacraments of bread and wine; whereas St Augustine himself speaketh only of our salvation by Christ, and of the sacraments in general. And nevertheless, as the fathers had the same Christ and Mediator that we have, (as you here confess,) so did they spiritually eat his flesh and drink his blood as we do, and spiritually feed of him, and by faith he was present with them, as he is with us, although carnally and corporally he was yet to come unto them, and from us is gone up to his Father into heaven. This, besides St Augustine, is plainly set out by Bertram above six hundred years past, whose judgment in this matter of the sacrament although you allow not (because it utterly condemneth your doctrine therein,) yet forasmuch as hitherto his teaching was never reproved by none, but by you alone, and that he is commended of other as an excellent learned man in holy scripture, and a notable famous man, as well in living as learning, and that among his excellent works this one is specially praised, which he wrote of the matter of the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, therefore I shall rehearse his teaching in this point, how the holy fathers and prophets, before the coming of Christ, did eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood: so that, although Bertram’s saying be not esteemed with you, yet the indif- ferent reader may see what was written in this matter, before your doctrine was in- [® “Sacramenta non eadem, quia alia sunt sa- cramenta dantia salutem, alia promittentia Salvato- rem. Sacramenta novi testamenti dant salutem, sacramenta veteris testamenti promiserunt Salvato- rem. Cum ergo jam teneas promissa, quid queris promittentia ? Salvatorem habens jam in hoc teneas promissa, non quod jam acceperimus vitam zter- nam, sed quia jam venerit Christus, qui per prophe- tas prenunciabatur.”—August. in Psal. Ixxiii. Tom. VIII. p. 327. Ed. Paris. 1635.] [° “‘ Firmissime tene, et nullatenus dubites, ip- sum unigenitum Deum, Verbum carnem factum, se pro nobis obtulisse sacrificium et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis : cui cum Patre et Spiritu sancto a patriarchis, prophetis, et sacerdotibus tempore veteris testamenti animalia sacrificabantur; et cui nunc, id est, tempore noyi testamenti, cum Patre et Spiritu sancto, cum quibus illi est una divinitas, sacrificium panis et vini in fide et caritate sancta ecclesia catholica per universum orbem terre offerre non cessat. In illis enim carnalibus victimis figu- ratio fuit carnis Christi, quam pro peccatis nostris ipse sine peccato fuerat oblaturus, et sanguinis quem erat effusurus in remissionem peccatorum nostrorum. In isto autem sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi, quam pro nobis obtulit, et sanguinis quem pro nobis idem Deus effudit.’’—August. de fide ad Petrum diaco- num, Cap. xix. Pars x. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506. In Ed. Paris. 1635. Tom. ITI. p. 391, 2. This trea- tise is censured by Erasmus as spurious; and the author is said to be Fulgentius.—Vid. Riveti Critica Sacra, p. 389. Geney. 1626. ‘‘Coci censura Pa- trum,” pp. 341, 2. Helm, 1683. ] August. in Psal. Ixxiil. John i. August. de Fide ad Pet. cap. 19. Bertram. Smith. Joan of Kent. The eleventh comparison. 78 THE THIRD BOOK. vented. And although his authority be not received of you, yet his words may serve against Smith, who herein more learnedly, and with more judgment than you, ap- proveth this author. This is Bertram’s doctrine’. “ St Paul saith, that all the old fathers did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink. But peradven- ture thou wilt ask, which the same? Even the very same that christian people do daily eat and drink in the church. For we may not understand divers things, when it is one and the self-same Christ, which in times past did feed with his flesh, and made to drink of his blood, the people that were baptized in the cloud and sea, in the wilderness, and which doth now in the church feed christian people with the bread of his body, and giveth them to drink the flood of his blood. When he had not yet taken man’s nature upon him, when he had not yet tasted death for the salvation of the world, not redeemed us with his blood, nevertheless even then our forefathers, by spiritual meat and invisible drink, did eat his body in the wilderness and drink his blood, as the apostle beareth witness, saying: ‘The same spiritual meat, the same spiritual drink.’ For he that now in the church, by his omnipotent power, doth spiritually convert bread and wine into the flesh of his body, and into the flood of his own blood, he did then invisibly so work, that manna which came from heaven was his body, and the water his blood.” Now by the things here by me al- leged it evidently appeareth, that this is no novelty of speech to say, that the holy fathers and prophets did eat Christ’s flesh, and drink his blood. For both the serip- ture and old authors use so to speak, how much soever the speech mislike them that like no fashion but their own’. And what doth this further the pestilent heresy of Joan of Kent? Is this a good argument? The fathers did eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood spiritually before he was born; ergo after he was not corporally born of his mother? Or be- cause he was corporally born, is he not therefore daily eaten spiritually of his faithful people? Because he dwelt in the world corporally from his incarnation unto his as- cension, did he not therefore spiritually dwell in his holy members before that time, and hath so done ever sithens, and will do to the world’s end? Or if he be eaten in a figure, can you induce thereof that he was not born without a figure? Do not such kind of arguments favour the error of Joan of Kent? Yea, do they not manifestly approve her pestiferous heresy, if they were to be allowed? What man that meaneth the truth, would bring in such manner of reasoning to deface the truth? And yet it is not to be denied, but that Christ is truly eaten, as he was truly born; but the one corporally and without figure, and the other spiritually and with a figure. Now followeth my eleventh comparison. They say, that the body of Christ is every day many times made, as often as there be masses said, and that then and there he is made of bread and wine. We say, that Christ’s body was never but once made, and then not of the nature and substance of bread and wine, but of the sub- stance of his blessed mother. [' “* Cum cibus vel potus ille futuri corporis Christi | et jam nostri patres in deserto per escam spiritualem sanguinisque mysterium quod celebrat ecclesia | potumque invisibilem ejus corpus manducabant, premonstraret, eandem tamen escam spiritualem | et ejus sanguinem bibebant, velut testis existit manducasse, et eundem potum spiritualem bibisse | apostolus, clamans: ‘eandem escam spiritualem patres nostros sanctus Paulus asseverat. Quris | manducasse, eundem potum spiritualem bibisse pa- fortasse, quam eandem? nimirum ipsam quam | tres nostros.? Ipse namque qui nunc in ecclesia hodie populus credentium in ecclesia manducat et | omnipotenti virtute panem et vinum in sui corporis bibit. Non enim licet diversa intelligi, quoniam | carnem et proprii cruoris undam spiritualiter con- unus idemque Christus est, qui et populum in de- | vertit, ipse tunc quoque manna de ceelo datum cor- serto, in nube et in mari baptizatum sua carne pa- | pus suum, et aquam de petra profusam proprium vit, suo sanguine tune potavit, et in ecclesia nunc | sanguinem invisibiliter operatus est.’’ Bertram. credentium populum sui corporis pane, sui sanguinis | Lib. de Corp. et Sang. Dom. Cap. xxii. xxiii. xxv. unda pascit ac potat. Mirum certe, quoniam incom- | pp. 12—14.—Ed. Oxford, 1838.] prehensibile et inestimabile: nondum hominem [? That like no fashion of speech but their own, assumpserat, nondum pro salute mundi mortem | 155]. ] degustaverat, nondum sanguine suo nos redemerat ; OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 79 WINCILESTER, The body of Christ is by God's omnipotency, who so worketh in his word, made present unto us at such time, as the church pray? it may please him so to do, which prayer is ordered to be made in the book of common prayer now set forth+. Wherein we require of God, the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified, and to be to us the body and blood of Christ, which they cannot be, unless God worketh it, and make them so to be: in which mystery it was never taught, us this author willingly misreporteth, that Christ's most precious body is made of the matter of bread, but in that order exhibited and made present unto us, by con- version of the substance of bread into his precious body; not a new body made of a new matter of bread and wine, but a new presence of the body, that is never old, made present there, where the substance of bread and wine was before. So as this comparison of difference is mere wrangling, and so evident as it needeth no further answer but a note. Lo, how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter, and without cause by wrong terms to bring the truth in slander, if it were possible. May not this be accounted as a part of God's punishment, for men of knowledge to write to the people such matter seriously, as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer devised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part? CANTERBURY. Christ is present whensoever the church prayeth unto him, and is gathered to- gether in his name. And the bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ, (as it is in the book of common prayer,) but not by changing the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s natural body and blood, but that in the godly using of them they be unto the receivers Christ’s body and blood: as of some the scripture saith, that their riches is their redemption, and to some it is their damnation; and as God's word to some is life, to some it is death and a snare, as the prophet saith. And Christ himself to some is a stone to stumble at, to some is a raising from death, not by conversion of substances, but by good or evil use: that thing which to the godly is salvation, to the ungodly is damnation. So is the water in baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper, to the worthy receivers Christ himself and eternal life, and to the unworthy receivers everlasting death and damnation, not by conversion of one substance into another, but by godly or ungodly use thereof. And therefore, in the book of the holy communion, we do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body and blood of Christ, but that unto us in that holy mystery they may be so; that is to say, that we may so worthily receive the same, that we may be partakers of Christ’s body and blood, and that therewith in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished. And a like prayer of old time were all the people wont to make at the communion of all such offerings as at that time all the people used to offer, praying that their offerings might be unto them the body and blood of Christ. And where you say, “it was never taught as I say, that Christ’s body is made of the matter of bread,” you knowingly and willingly misreport me. For I say not of the matter of bread, but of bread; which when you deny that the papists so say, it seemeth you be now ashamed of the doctrine, which the papists have taught this four or five hundred years. For is it not plainly written of all the papists, both lawyers and school-authors, that the body of Christ in the sacrament is made of bread, and his blood of wine? And they say not that his body is made present of bread and wine, but is made of bread and wine. Be not their books in print ready to be shewed? Do they not say, that the substance of the bread neither re- maineth still, nor is turned into nothing, but into the body of Christ? And do not [* Prayeth, 1551.] creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto [* Winchester here refers to these words in the | us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved first Service Book of Edward VI., in the prayer of | Son Jesus Christ.” In the second Service Book of consecration: ‘*With thy holy Spirit and word | Edward VI. the passage was changed, as it now youchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and stands. ] 79. *The book of common prayer in this realm. *Christ’s body in the sacrament is not made of the matter of bread. The book of common prayer. Prov. xiii. James i. Isai. viii. Matt. xxii. 1 Pet. ii. John xi. *Domin. 3. post Trin. Secret. Munera tibi, Domine, quibus oblata sane- tifica, ut tui nobis unige- niti corpus et sanguis fiant ad medelam. Whether the body of Christ be made of bread. 80. *Pugnatcum aliis papistis. Making by conversion. * Gen. ii. * John ii. 81. 80 THE THIRD BOOK. yourself also say here in this place, that the substance of bread is converted into Christ’s precious body? And what is that else but the body of Christ to be made of bread, and to be made of a new matter’? For if the bread do not vanish away into nothing, but be turned into Christ’s body, then is Christ’s body made of it; and then it must needs follow that Christ’s body is made of new’, and of another substance than it was made of in his mothers womb: for there it was made of her flesh and blood, and here it is made of bread and wine. And the papists say not (as you now would shift off the matter) that Christ’s body is made present of bread, but they say plainly without addition, that it is made of bread. Can you deny that this is the plain doctrine of the papists, Hx pane fit Corpus Christi, “Of bread is made the body of Christ,” and that the substance of bread is turned into the substance thereof? And what reason, sentence, or English, could be in this saying, “ Christ’s body is made present of bread?” Marry, to be present in bread might be some sentence, but that speech will you in nowise admit. And this your saying here, if the reader mark it well, turneth over quite and clean all the whole papistical doctrine in this matter of the sacrament, as well touching transubstantiation, as also the carnal presence. For their doctrine with one whole consent and agreement is this: That the substance of bread remaineth not, but is turned into the substance of Christ’s body, and so the body of Christ is made of it. But this is false, say you, and “ not tolerable to be by a scoffer devised in a place*, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.” And so the whole doctrine of the papists, which they have taught these four or five hundred years, do you condemn with condign reproaches, as a teaching intolerable, not to be devised by a scoffer in a play. Why do you then take upon you to defend the papistical doctrine, if it be so intolerable? Why do you not forsake those scoffers and players, which have juggled with the world so long, and embrace the most certain truth, that Christ's body is not made of bread? And seeing that you embrace it here in this one place, why stand you not constantly therem, but go from it again in all the rest of your book, defending the papistical doctrine, clean contrary to yours in this point, in that they teach that Christ's body is made of bread ? And you vary so much from yourself herein, that although you deny the papists’ sayings‘ in words, that Christ’s body is made of bread, yet in effect you grant and maintain the same, which you say is intolerable, and not to be devised by a scofter ina play. For you say, that Christ calleth bread his body, and that his calling is making: and then if he make bread his body, it must needs follow that he maketh his body of the bread. Moreover, you say, that Christ’s body is made present by conversion, or turning of the substance of bread into the substance of his precious body ; whereof must follow’, that his body is made of bread. For whensoever one substance is turned into another’, then the second is made of the first: as, because earth was turned into the body of Adam, we say that Adam was made of earth; and that Eve was made of Adam’s rib, and the wine in Galilee made of water, because the water was turned into wine, and the mb of Adam’s side into the body of Eve. If the water had been put out of the pots, and wine put in for the water, we might have said that the wine had been made present there, where the water was before. But then we might not have said that the wine had been made of the water, because the water was emptied out, and not turned into wine. But when Christ turned the water into the wine, then by reason of that turning we say that the wine was made of the water. So likewise if the bread be turned into the substance of Christ’s body, we must not only say that the body of Christ is present where the bread was before, but also that it is made of the bread, because that the substance of the bread is converted and turned into the substance of his body. Which thing the papists saw must needs follow, and therefore they plainly confessed that the body of Christ [1 And to be made anew of a new matter, {| See Winchester in the preceding page. ] 1551. ] [* Saying, 1551.] {2 Is made new, 1551.] [®° Must also follow, 1551.] [* Play, 1551. Evidently the correct reading. [© Into another substance, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 81 was made of bread ; which doctrine, as you truly say in this place, is intolerable, and not to be devised by a scoffer in a play, when his fellow had forgotten his part. And yet you so far forget yourself in this book, that throughout the same, what- soever you say here, you defend the same intolerable doctrine, not to be devised by a scoffer. And where Smith accounteth here my fourth lie, that I say, that the papists say, that Christ’s body is made of bread and wine; here Smith and you agree both together in one lie. For it is truth and no lie, that the papists so say and teach ; as Smith in other parts of his book saith, that Christ’s body is made of bread, and that priests do make Christ’s body. 7My twelfth comparison is this. They say, that the mass is a sacrifice satisfactory for sin, by the de- votion of the priest that offereth, and not by the thing that is offered. But we say, that their saying is a most heinous*, yea, and detestable error against the glory of Christ: for the satisfaction for our sins is not the deyotion nor offering of the priest, but the only host and satisfaction for all the sins of the world is the death of Christ, and the oblation of his body upon the cross, that is to say, the oblation that Christ himself offered once upon the cross, and never but once, nor never any but he*. And _ there- fore that oblation which the priests make daily in their papistical masses, cannot be a satisfaction for other men’s sins by the priest’s devotion: but it is a mere illusion, and subtle craft of the devil, whereby antichrist hath many years blinded and deceived the world. WINCHESTER. This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christ’s most precious body in the sacrament, which presence this author, in the first part of his comparison, seemeth by implication to grant, when he findeth fault that the priest's devotion should be a sacrifice satisfactory, and not the thing that is offered; which manner of doctrine I never read, and I think myself it ought to be improved, if any such there be to make the devotion of the priest a satisfaction. For undoubtedly Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully, who hath paid our whole debt to God the Father, for the appeasing of his just wrath against us, and hath cancelled the bill obligatory, as St Paul saith, that was against us. For further opening whereof, if it be asked how he satisfied; we answer as we be taught by the scriptures: By the accomplishment of the will of his Father, in his innocent, willing, and obedient suffering: the miseries of this world without sin, and the violent persecution of the world, even to the death of the cross, and shedding of his most precious blood. Wherein was perfected the willing sacrifice that he made of himself to God the Father for us, of whom it was written in the beginning of the book, that he should be the body and perfect accomplishment of all sacrifices, as of whom all other sacrifices before were shadows and figures. And here is to be considered, how the obedient will in Christ's sacrifice is specially to be noted, who suffered because he would: which St Paul setteth forth in declaration of Christ’s humility. And although that willing obedience was ended and perfected on the cross, to the which it continued from the beginning, by reason whereof the oblation is in St Paul's specch attributed thereunto: yet as in the sacrifice of Abraham, when he offered Isaac, the earnest will of offering was accounted for the offering indeed, whereupon it is said in scripture that Abraham offered Isaac, and the declaration of the will of Abraham is called the offering ; so the declaration of Christ's will in his last supper was an offering of him to God the Father, assuring there his apostles of his will and determination, and by them all the world, that his body should be betrayed for them and us, and his precious blood shed for remission of sin, which his word he confirmed then with the gift of his precious body to be eaten, and his precious blood to be drunken. In which mystery he declared his body and blood to be [? Now my twelfth comparison, 1551.] {1° I think it myself it ought to be improved, [* A most heinous lie, and detestable error, | 1551, and Orig. ed. Winchester. } Orig. ed.] {*! In his innocent suffering, his willing and |” Nor never none but he, 1551, and Orig. ed.] | obedient suffering, 1551, and Orig. ed. Winch, } [CRANMER. | : D. Smith. fate znswer. . Ed Winchester j *Christ 1s our satisfaction. *How Christ satisfied. 82. *Christ’swill. *Christ’s once offering. Phil. ii. Rom. xii. 85. 82 THE THIRD BOOK. the very sacrifice of the world, by him offered to God the Father, by the same will that he said his body should be betrayed for us; and thereby ascertained us that to be in him) willing, that the Jews on the cross seemed to execute by violence and force against his will. And therefore as Christ offered himself on the cross, in the execution of the work of his will; so he offered himself in his supper, in declaration of his will, whereby we might be the more assured of the effect of his death, which he suffered willingly and determinately for the redemption of the world, with a most perfect oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the world, exhibited and offered by him to God the Father, for the reconciliation of man’s nature to God’s favour and grace. And this I write, because this author speaketh so precisely how Christ offered himself never but once. Whereby if he mean by once offering the whole action of our redemption, which was consummate and perfected upon the cross, all must confess the substance of that work of redemption by the oblation of Christ on the cross? to have been absolutely finished, and so once offered for all. But there is no scripture whereupon we might conclude, that Christ did in this mortal life, but in one particular moment of time, offer himself to his Father. For St Paul describeth it to the Philippians, under the word of humiliation, to have continued the whole time of Christ's conversation here, even to the death, the death of the cross. And that this obedience to God in humility is called offering, appeareth by St Paul, when he exhorted? us to offer our bodies, which meaneth a continual obedience in the observation of God’s will, and he calleth oblationem gentium, to bring them to the faitht. And Abraham's willing obedience, ready at God’s commandment to offer Isaac, is called the offering of Isaac, and is in very deed a true offering. And every man® offereth himself to God when he yieldeth to God’s calling, and presenteth himself ready to do God’s will and commandment, who then may be said to offer his service, that is to say, to place his service in sight, and before him, before whom it should be done. And because our Saviour Christ, by the decree of the whole Trinity, took man’s nature upon him, to suffer death for our redemption; which death, in his last supper, he declared plainly he would suffer: we read in St Cyprian how Christ offered himself in his swpper, ful- filling the figure of Melchisedech, who by the offering of bread and wine signified that high mystery of Christ's supper, in which Christ, under the form of bread and wine, gave his very body and blood to be eaten and drunken, and in the giving thereof declared the determination of his glorious passion, and the fruit and effect thereof. Which doing was a sweet and pleasant oblation to God the Father, containing a most perfect obedience to God’s will and pleasure. And in the mystery of this supper was written, made, and sealed, a most perfect testimony Sor an effectual memory of Christ's offering of himself to his Father, and of his death and passion, with the fruit thereof. And therefore Christ ordained this supper to be observed and continued for a memory of his coming®: so as we that saw not with our bodily eyes Christ's death and passion, may, in the celebration of the supper, be most surely ascertained of the truth out of Christ's own mouth, who still speaketh in the person of the minister of the church, “This is my body that is betrayed for you; this is my blood that is shed for you in remission of sin :? and therewith maketh his very body and his precious blood truly present’, to be taken of us, eaten, and drunken. Whereby we be assured, that Christ is the same to us that he was to them, and useth us as familiarly as he did them; offereth himself to his Father for us as well as for them; declareth his will in the fruit of his death to pertain as well to us as to them. Of which death we be assured by his own mouth, that he suffered the same to the effect he spake of; and by8 the continual feeding in this high mystery of the same very body that suffered, and feeding of it without consumption, being continually exhibited unto us a living body and a lively blood, not only our soul is specially and spiritually comforted, and our body thereby reduced to more conformable obedience to the soul, but also we, by the partici- pation of this most precious body and blood, be ascertained of the resurrection and regeneration of our bodies and flesh, to be by God's power made incorruptible and immortal, to live, and have fruition in God, with our souls? for ever. Wherefore having this mystery of Christ's supper, so many truths in it, the church hath [{? Ascertained us to be in him, Orig. ed. Win- [© A memory to his coming, 1551.] chester. ] [7 His very body truly present, and his pre- {2 Of Christ’s body on the cross, 1551.] cious blood truly present, 1551.] [® Exhorteth, Orig. ed. Winch.] [® By supplied from Orig. ed. Winch. It is {* To faith. Ibid.] wanting in both editions of Cranmer. | [° And each man, 155].] {2 With our soul, 1451.) OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 83 celebrate them all, and knowledged them all of one certainty in truth, not as figures, but really oe and in deed; that is to say, as our bodies shall be in the general resurrection regenerate in together. deed, so we believe we feed here of Christ's body in deed. And as it is true that Christ's body in deed is betrayed for us, so it is true that he giveth us to eat his very body in deed. And as it is true that Christ was in earth, and did celebrate this supper: so it is true that he com- manded it to be celebrated by us till he come. And as it is true that Christ was very God | omnipotent, and very man: so it is true that he could do that he affirmed by his word himself | to do. And as he is most sincere truth: so may we be truly assured that he would, and did, as he said. And as it is true that he is most just: so it is true that he assisteth the doing of his commandment in the celebration of the holy supper. And therefore, as he is author of this most holy sacrament of his precious body and blood: so is he the maker of it, and is the invisible priest, who, as Emissene saith, by his secret power, with his word, changeth the visible Banieens _ ereatures into the substance of his body and blood. Wherein man, the visible priest and invisible minister, by order of the church, is only a dispenser of the mystery, doing and saying as the heaniay: Holy Ghost hath taught the church to do and say}. Finally, as we be taught by faith all these to be true: so when wanton reason (faith being asleep) goeth about by curiosity to impair any one of these truths, the chain is broken, the links | sparkle abroad, and all is brought in danger to be scattered and scambled at. Truths have been abused, but yet they be true, as they were before; for no man can make that is true false: and abuse is man’s fault, not the thing’s'3, Seripture in speech giveth to man as God’s minister the name of that action which God specially worketh in that mystery. So it pleaseth God | to honour the ministry of man in his church, by whom it also pleaseth him to work effectually. And Christ said, “ They that believe in me, shall do the works that I do, and greater.” When all *Exrors. this honour is given to man, as spiritually to regenerate, when the minister saith “I baptize thee,” and to remit sin to such as fall after, to be also a minister in consecration of Christ's most precious body, with the ministration of other sacraments, benediction!4, and prayer: if man should then wax proud, and glory as of himself, and extol his own devotion in these ministries ; such men should bewray their own naughty hypocrisy, and yet thereby impair not the very dignity of the ministry, ne the very true fruit and effect thereof. And therefore when the church by the minister, and with the minister, prayeth that the creatures of bread and wine, set on the altar (as the book of common prayer in this realm hath ordered), may be unto us the body and blood of our Saviour Christ; we require then the celebration of the same supper, which Christ made to his apostles, for to be the continual memory of his death, with all fruit and effect, such as the same had in the first institution. Wherefore when the minister pronounceth Christ's words, as spoken of his mouth, it is to be believed, that Christ doth now, as he did then. And it is to be noted, that although in the sacrament of baptism the minister saith, “I baptize thee,” yet in the celebration of his supper \6 the words be spoken in Christ's person, as saying himself, “This is my body that is broken Jor you,” which is to us not only a memory, but an effectual memory, with the very presence of Christ's body and blood, our very sacrifice: who doing now, as he did then, offereth himself to his Father as he did then, not to renew that offering, as though it were imperfect, but *One offering continually to refresh us, that daily fall and decay. And as St John saith, “ Christ is our oad aa advocate and entreateth for us,’ or pleadeth for us, not to supply any want on God’s behalf, ee but to relieve our wants in edification, wherein the ministry of the church travaileth to bring man to perfection in Christ, which Christ himself doth assist, and absolutely perform in his 84. church, his mystical body. Now when we have Christ's body thus present in the celebration of the holy supper, and by Christ's mouth present unto us, saying, “ This is my body which is betrayed for you,” then have we Christ's body recommended wnto us as our sacrifice, and a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, being the only sacrifice of Christ's church, the pure and clean sacrifice whereof the prophet Malachi spake, and whereof the fathers in Mal. i. Christ's church have since the beginning continually written; the very true presence whereof, most constantly believed, hath increased from time to time such ceremonies as have been used in the celebration of that supper, in which by Christ's own mouth we be ascertained of his most glorious death and passion, and the self same body that suffered, delivered unto us in mystery, to be eaten of us, and therefore so to be worshipped and acknowledged of us as | [’° But really in deed, 1551.] [\4 Benedictions, Orig. ed. Winch. ] | [1 As our body, 1551.] ['° Orig. ed. Winch. omits the words, ‘and with (2 To be done and said, 1551.] the minister.’ ] ['* Man’s fault, and not the things, 1551. ] [}S Of this supper, Orig. ed. Winch. | 6—2 84 THE THIRD BOOK. our very only sacrifice, in whom, by whom, and for whom, our other private gifts and sacrifices be acceptable, and no otherwise}. * Errors. And therefore, as Christ declareth in the supper himself an offering, and sacrifice for our “The whole sin, offering himself to his Father as our mediator, and so therewith recommendeth to his h by : ; : : fu pacer, Father the church, his body, for which he suffereth: so the church at the same supper in their ome “offering of lauds and thanks, with such other gifts as they have received from God, join Christ presen themselves with their head Christ, presenting and offering him, as one by whom, for whom, as a sacrifice A oa a and in whom, all that by God’s grace man can do well, is available and acceptable, prewedour,, and without whom nothing by us done can be pleasant in the sight of God. Whereupon this persuasion hath been duly conceived, which is also in the book of common prayer in the celebration of the holy swpper retained, that it is very profitable at that time, when the memory of Christ’s death is solemnized, to remember with prayer all estates of the church, and to recommend them to God, which St Paul to Timothy seemeth to require. At which time, as Christ signifieth unto us by the certainty of his death, and giveth us to be eaten, as it were in pledge, the same his precious body that suffered: so we, for declaration of our confidence in the death and sacrifice, do kindly remember with thanks his special gifts, and charitably remember the rest of the members of Christ's church with prayer, and, as we are able, should with our bodily goods remember at that time specially to relieve such as have need by poverty. And again, as Christ putteth us in remembrance of his great benefit, so we should throughly remember him for our part, with the true confession of this mystery, wherein is recapitulate a memorial of all gifts and mysteries that God in Christ hath wrought for us. In the consideration and estimation whereof, as there hath been a fault in the security of such as, so their names were remembered in this holy time of memory, they cared not how much they Sorgat themselves: so there may be a fault in such as, neglecting it, care not whether they be remembered there at all, and therefore would have it nothing but a plain eating and drinking. How much the remembrance in prayer may avail, no man can prescribe; but that it availeth, every christian man must confess. Man may nothing arrogate to his devotion. But St James Jamesv. _— said truly, Multum valet oratio justi assidua. J¢ is to be abhorred to have hypocrites that counterfeit devotion, but true devotion is to be wished of God and prayed for, which is God's gift, not to obscure his glory, but to set it forth; not that we should then trust in men’s merits and prayers, but laud and glorify God in them: qui talem potestatem dedit ho- minibus, one to be judged able to relieve another with his prayer, referring all to proceed Jrom God, by the mediation of our Saviour and Redeemer, Jesus Christ. I have tarried long in this matter, to declare that, for the effect of all celestial or worldly gifts to be obtained of God in the celebration of Christ's holy supper, when we call it the communion, is now prayed for to be present, and is present, and with God's favour shall be obtained, if we devoutly, reverently, charitably, and quietly use and frequent the same, without other innovations than the order of the book prescribeth. Now to the last difference. CANTERBURY. How is “this comparison out of the matter of the presence of Christ’s most precious 85. body in the sacrament,” when the papists say that the mass is not a sacrifice pro- pitiatory, but because the presence of Christ’s most precious body being presently there? And yet if this comparison be out of the matter (as you say it is), why do you then wrestle and wrangle with it so much? And do I “seem to grant the presence of Christ’s body in the first part of my comparison,” when I do nothing there but re- hearse what the papists do say? But because all this process (which you bring in here out of tune and time) belongeth to the last book, I will pass it over unto the proper place, only by the way touching shortly some notable words. ‘Whether the Although you “never read that the oblation of the priest is satisfactory by devo- mass be satis- factory by | tion of the priest,” yet nevertheless the papists do so teach, and you may find it in Lh cle their St Thomas, both in his Sum, and upon the fourth of the sentences; whose words* 3.4-7-art. have been read in the universities almost these three hundred years, and never until this day reproved by any of the papists in this pot. He saith: Quod sacrificium [’ And none otherwise, 1541.] habet vim satisfactivam, &c. Thomas Aquinas, (? Works, 1551.] Pars 111. Quest. Ixxix. Art. 5. p. 202. Antverp. [* Hoc sacramentum simul est sacrificium et | 1624.] sacramentum.—In quantum vero est sacrificium OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 85 sacerdotis habet vim satisfactivam, sed in satisfactione magis attenditur affectus offe- rentis, quam quantitas oblationis. Ideo satisfactoria est illis pro quibus offertur, vel etiam offerentibus, secundum quantitatem swe devotionis, et non pro tota pana. But here the reader may see in you, that the adversaries of the truth sometime be enforced to say the truth, although sometime they do it unawares; as Caiaphas prophesied the truth, and as you do here confess, that Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully. And yet the reader may note your inconstancy. For afterward, in the last book, you give Christ such a nip, that of that whole satisfaction you pinch half away from him, and ascribe it to the sacrifice of the priest, as I shall more fully declare in my answer to the last book. For you say there, “that the sacrifice of Christ giveth us life, and that the sacrifice of the priest continueth our life.” And here, good reader, thou art to be warned, that this writer in this place goeth about craftily to draw thee from the very work of our full redemption, wrought by our Saviour Christ upon the cross, unto a sacrifice (as they say) made by him the night before at his last supper. And forasmuch as every priest (as the papists say) maketh the same sacrifice in his mass, therefore, consequently, it followeth by this writer, that we must seek our redemption at the priest’s sacrifice. And so Christ’s blessed passion (which he most obediently and willingly suffered for our salvation upon the cross,) was not the only and sufficient sacrifice for remission of our sins, The only will, I grant, both in good things and evil, is accepted* or rejected before God, and sometime hath the name of the fact®, as the will of Abraham to offer his son is called the oblation of his son; and Christ called him an adulterer in his heart, that desireth another man’s wife, although there be no fact committed in deed. And yet Abraham’s will alone was not called the oblation of his son, but his will declared by many facts and circumstances: for he carried his son three days’ journey to the place where God had appointed him to slay and offer his son Isaac, whom he most entirely loved. He cut wood to make the fire for that purpose, he Jaid the wood upon his son’s back, and made him carry the same wood wherewith he should be brent®. And Abraham himself (commanding his servants to tarry at the foot of the hill) carried the fire and sword, wherewith he intended (as God had com- manded) to kill his own son,’ whom he so deeply loved. And by the way as they went, his son said unto his father: “ Father, see, here is fire and wood, but where is the sacrifice that must be killed?” How these words of the son pierced the father’s heart, every loving father may judge by the affection which he beareth to his own children. For what man would not have been abashed and stayed at these words? thinking thus within himself: ‘“ Alas! sweet son, thou dost ask me where the sacrifice is, thyself art the same sacrifice that must be slain, and thou (poor inno- cent) carriest thine own death upon thy back, and the wood wherewith thyself must be brent. Thou art he whom I must slay, which art most innocent, and never offended.” Such thoughts, yon may be sure, pierced through Abraham’s heart, no less than the very death of his son should have done: as David lamentably bewailed his son lying in the pangs of death, but after he was dead he took his death quietly and comfortably enough. But nothing could alter Abraham’s heart, or move him to dis- obey God; but forth on he goeth with his son to the place which God had appointed, and there he made an altar, and laid the wood upon it, and bound his son, and laid him upon the heap of the wood in the altar, and took the sword in his hand, and lifted up his arm to strike and kill his son, and would have done so in deed if the angel of God had not letted* him, commanding him in the stead of his son to take a ram that was fast by the horns in the briars. This obedience of Abraham unto God's commandment in offering of his son, declared by so many acts and cir- cumstances, is called in the scripture the offering of his son, and not the will only. [* Be accepted, 1551.] (7 To kill his son, 1551.] [° Have the names of the fact, 1551. ] |*® Letted, i. e. hindered, prevented. | [" Brent, i. ¢. burnt. ] Joh, xi. The decla- ration of Christ’s will to die, was not a sacrifice propitiatory for sin. Heb. xi. Matt. v. Gen. XXil. 86. 2 Kings xii. [2 Sam. ] Matt. xx. Mark x. Luke xviii. John ii. John vi. John x. Heb. viii. 87. *Rom. vi. * Heb. vii. ix. x= *1 Pet. iii. Heb. ix. ¥Ibidem. Phil. ii. Cyprianus, lib. 2. epist. 3. 86 THE THIRD BOOK. Nor the scripture calleth not the declaration of Christ’s will in his last supper to suffer death by the name of a sacrifice satisfactory for sin, nor saith not that he was there offered in deed. For the will of a thing is not in deed the thing. And if the declaration of his will to die had been an oblation and sacrifice propitiatory for sin, then had Christ been offered not only in his supper, but as often as he declared his will to die. As when he said, long before his supper many times, that he should be betrayed, scourged, spit upon, and crucified, and that the third day he should rise again: and when he bade them destroy the temple of his body, and he would build it up again within three days: and when he said that he would give his flesh for the life of the world, and his life for his sheep. And if these were sacrifices propitiatory or satisfactory for remission of sin, what needed he then after to die, if he had made the propitiatory sacrifice for sin already ? For either the other was not vailable thereto, or else his death was in vain, as St Paul reasoneth of the priests of the old law, and of Christ. And it is not read in any scripture, that Christ’s will, declared at his supper, was effectuous and sufficient for our redemption, but that his most willing death and passion was the oblation sufficient to endure for ever and ever, world without end. But what sleights and shifts this writer doth use to wind the reader into his error, it is wonder to see, by devising to make two sacrifices of one will; the one by declaration, the other! by execution ; a device such as was never imagined before of no man, and meet to come out of a fantastical head. But I say precisely, that Christ offered himself never but once, because the scripture so precisely and so many times saith so; and having the same for my warrant, it maketh me the bolder to stand against you, that deny that thing which is so often times repeated in scripture. And where you say, that “there is no scripture whereupon we might conclude that Christ did in this mortal life, but in one particular moment of time, offer himself to the Father :” to what purpose you bring forth this moment of time I cannot tell, for I made no mention thereof, but of the day of his death; and the scripture saith plainly, that as it is ordained for every man to die but once, so Christ was offered but once; and saith further, that sin is not forgiven but by effusion of blood, and therefore if Christ had been offered many times, he should have died many times. And of any other offering of Christ's body for sin, the scripture speaketh not. For although St Paul to the Philippians speaketh of the humiliation of Christ by his incarnation, and so to worldly miseries and afflictions, even unto death upon the cross ; yet he calleth not every humiliation of Christ a sacrifice and oblation for remis- sion of sin, but only his oblation upon Good Friday, which as it was our perfect redemption, so was it our perfect reconciliation, propitiation, and satisfaction for sin. And to what purpose you make here a long process of our sacrifices of obedience unto God’s commandments, I cannot devise. For I declare in my last book, that all our whole obedience unto God’s will and commandments is a sacrifice acceptable to God, but not a sacrifice propitiatory: for that sacrifice Christ only made, and by that his sacrifice all our sacrifices be acceptable to God, and without that none is acceptable to him. And by those sacrifices all christian people offer themselves to God, but they offer not Christ again for sin; for that did never creature but Christ himself alone, nor he never but upon Good Friday. For although he did institute the night before a remembrance of his death*, under the sacraments of bread and wine, yet he made not at that time the sacrifice of our redemption and satisfaction for our sins, but the next day following. And the declaration of Christ at his last supper, that he would suffer death, was not the cause wherefore Cyprian said that Christ offered himself in his supper. For I read not in any place of Cyprian, to my remembrance, any such words that Christ offered himself in his supper; but he saith, that Christ offered the same thing which Melchisedech offered®*. And if Cyprian say im any place [) And the other, 1551.] | Deo patri obtulit, et obtulit hoc idem quod Mel- [? A sacrament of his death, 1551. ] chisedech obtulerat, id est, panem et vinum, suum [* Nam quis magis sacerdos Dei summi, quam | scilicet corpus et sanguinem.—Cyprian. ad Cz- Dominus noster Jesus Christus? qui sacrificium | cilium, Epist. lxiii. p. 143. Paris. 1574.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 87 that Christ offered himself in his supper, yet he said not that Christ did so for this cause, that in his supper he declared his death. And therefore here you make a deceitful fallax in sophistry, pretending to shew that thing to be a cause, which is not the true cause indeed. For the cause why Cyprian, and other old authors, say that Christ made an oblation and offering of himself in his last supper, was not that he declared there that he would suffer death, (for that he had declared many times before ;) but the cause was, that there he ordained a perpetual memory of his death, which he would all faithful christian people to observe from time to time, remem- bering his death, with thanks for his benefits, until his coming again. And _there- fore the memorial of the true sacrifice made upon the cross, as St Augustine saith, is called by the name of a sacrifice, as a thing that signifieth another thing is called by the name of the thing which it signifieth, although in very deed it be not the same*. And the long discourse that you make of Christ’s true presence, and of the true eating of him, and of his true assisting us in our doing of his commandment, all these be true. For Christ's flesh and blood be in the sacrament truly present, but spiritu- ally and sacramentally, not carnally and corporally. And as he is truly present, so is he truly eaten and drunken, and assisteth us. And he is the same to us that he was to them that saw him with their bodily eyes. But where you say, that he is as familiar with us as he was with them, here I may say the French term which they use for reverence sake, Save vostre grace. And he offered not himself then for them upon the cross, and now offereth himself for us daily in the mass; but upon the cross he offered himself both for us and for them. For that his one sacrifice of his body, then only offered, is now unto us by faith as available as it was then for them. “For with one sacrifice,’ as St Paul saith, “he hath made perfect for ever them that be sanctified.” And where you speak of the participation of Christ’s flesh and blood, if you mean of the sacramental participation only, that thereby we be ascertained of the regenera- tion® of our bodies, that they shall live, and have the fruition of God with our souls for ever, you be in an hormible error. And if you mean a spiritual participation of Christ’s body and blood, then all this your process is in vain, and serveth nothing for your purpose to prove that Christ’s flesh and blood be corporally in the sacra- ment, under the forms of bread and wine, and participated of them that be evil, as you teach; which be no whit thereby the more certain of their salvation, but of their damnation, as St Paul saith. And although the holy supper of the Lord be not a vain or fantastical supper, wherein things should be promised, which be not performed, to them that worthily come thereunto, but Christ’s flesh and blood be there truly eaten and drunken in deed ; yet that mystical supper cannot be without mysteries and figures. And although we feed in deed of Christ's body, and drink in deed his blood, yet not corporally, quanti- tatively, and palpably, as we shall be regenerated at the resurrection, and as he was betrayed, walked here in earth, and was very man. And therefore, although the things by you rehearsed be all truly done, yet all be not done after one sort and fashion ; but some corporally and visibly, some spiritually and invisibly. And therefore to all your comparisons or similitudes here by you rehearsed, if there be given to every one his true understanding, they may be so granted all to be true. But if you will link all these together in one sort and fashion, and make a chain thereof, you shall far pass the bonds of wanton reason, making a chain of gold and copper together, con-. founding and mixing together carporal and spiritual, heavenly and earthly things, and bring all to very madness and impiety, or plain and manifest heresy. And because one single error pleaseth you not, shortly after you link a number of errors almost together in one sentence, as it were to make an whole chain of errors, saying not only that Christ's body is verily present in the cclebration of the holy supper, meaning of corporal presence, but that it is also our very sacrifice, and sacri- fice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, and that it is the only sacrifice of the [‘ See the passage which is quoted at length [° Of our regeneration of our bodies, 1551.] below, p. 124.] | [° Together almost, 1551.] August. ad Bonifacium, epist. 23. 88. Heb. x. 1 Cor. xi. A chain of errors. Mal. i. 89. Isai Iii. Heb. vil. 90. 88 THE THIRD BOOK. church, and that it is the pure and clean sacrifice, whereof Malachi spake, and that Christ doth now in the celebration of this supper as he did when he gave the same to his apostles, and that he oftereth himself now as he did then, and that the same offering is not now renewed again. This is your chain of errors, wherein is not one link of pure gold, but all be copper', feigned, and counterfeit: for neither is Christ’s body verily and corporally present in the celebration of his holy supper, but spiritually ; nor his body is not the very sacrifice, but the thing whereof the sacrifice was made ; and the very sacrifice was the crucifying of his body, and the effusion of his blood unto death. Wherefore of his body was not made a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world at his supper, but the next day after upon the cross. Therefore saith the prophet, that we were made whole by his wounds: Livore ejus sanate sumus. Nor that sacrifice of Christ in the celebration of the supper is not the only sacri- fice of the church, but all the works that christian people do to the glory of God be sacrifices of the church, smelling sweetly before God. And they be also the pure and clean sacrifice whereof the prophet Malachi did speak. For the prophet Malachi spake of no such sacrifices as only priests make, but of such sacrifice as all christian people make both day and night, at all times and in all places. Nor Christ doth not now as he did at his last supper, which he had with his apostles ; for then, as you say, he declared his will, that he would die for us: and if he do now as he did then, then doth he now declare that he will die for us again. But as for offering himself now as he did then, this speech may have a true sense, being like to that which sometime was used at the admission of unlearned friars and monks unto their degrees in the universities: where the doctor that presented them, deposed that they were meet for the said degrees, as well in learning as in virtue. And yet that deposition in one sense was true, when indeed they were meet neither in the one nor in the other. So likewise, in that sense Christ offereth himself now as well as he did in his supper; for indeed he offered himself a sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sin in neither of both, but only upon the cross, making there a sacrifice full and perfect for our redemption, and yet by that sufficient offering made only at that time he is a daily intercessor for us to his Father for ever. Finally, it is not true that the offering in the celebration of the supper is not renewed again. For the same offering that is made in one supper is daily renewed and made again in every supper, and is called the daily sacrifice of the church. Thus have I broken your chain, and scattered your links, which may be called the very chain of Beelzebub, able to draw into hell as many as come within the com- pass thereof. And how would you require that men should give you credit, who within so few lines knit together so many manifest lies? It is another untruth also which you say after, that Christ declared in the supper himself an offering and sacri- fice for sin; for he declared in his supper, not that he was then a sacrifice, but that a sacrifice should be made of his body, which was done the next day after, by the voluntary effusion of his blood: and of any other sacrificing of Christ for sin the scripture speaketh not. For although the scripture saith that our Saviour Christ is a continual intercessor’ for us unto his Father, yet no scripture calleth that intercession a sacrifice for sin, but only the effusion of his blood, which it seemeth you make him to do still, when you say that he suffereth ; and so by your imagination he should now still be crucified, if he now suffer, as you say he doth. But it seemeth you pass not greatly what you say, so that you may multiply many gallant words to the admiration of the hearers. But forasmuch as you say that Christ offereth him- self in the celebration of the supper, and also that the church offereth him, here I would have you declare how the church offereth Christ, and how he offereth him- self, and wherein those offerings stand, in words, deeds, or thoughts, that we may know what you mean by your daily offerings of Christ. Of offering ourselves unto God in all our acts and deeds, with lauds and thanksgiving, the scripture maketh {' One link true gold, but all copper be, 1551. } {? Is now a continual intercessor, 1351. | OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 89 mention in many places: but that Christ himself in the holy communion, or that the priests make any other oblation than all christian people do, because these be papistical inventions without scripture, I require nothing but reason of you, that you should so plainly set out these devised offerings, that men might plainly understand what they be, and wherein they rest. Now in this comparison, truth it is, as you say, that you have spent many words, but utterly in vain, not to declare, but to darken the matter. But if you would have followed the plain words of scripture, you needed not® to have tarried so long, and yet should you have made the matter more clear a great deal. Now followeth my last comparison. They say, that Christ is corporally in many places at one time, affirming The thir that his body is corporally and really present in as many places as there parison. be hosts consecrated. We say, that as the sun corporally is ever in heaven, and no where else, and yet by his operation and virtue the sun is here in earth, by whose influence and virtue all things in the world be corporally regenerated, increased, and grow to their perfect state; so likewise our Saviour Christ bodily and corporally is in heaven, sitting at the right hand of his Father, although spiritually he hath promised to be present with us upon earth unto the world’s end. And whensoever two or three be gathered toge- ther in his name, he is there in the midst among them, by whose supernal* grace all godly men be first by him spiritually regenerated, and after increase and grow to thew spiritual perfection in God, spiritually by faith eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, although the same corporally be in heaven, far distant from our sight. WINCHESTER. The true teaching is, that Christ's very body is present under the form of bread, in as eee many hosts as be consecrate, in how Hea places soever the ess be consecrate, and is there Wikchester.] really and substantially, which words “really and substantially” be implied, when we say, truly "Really, sub- present. The word “corporally” may have an ambiguity and doubleness in respect and rela- fee tion: one is to the truth of the body present, and so it may be said, Christ is corporally feo present in sacrament; if the word® corporally be referred to the manner of the presence, then we should say, Christs body were present after a corporal manner, which we say not, but *Manner of in @ spiritual manner; and therefore not locally nor by manner of quantity, but in such rae manner as God only knoweth, and yet doth us to understand by faith the truth of the very presence, exceeding our capacity to comprehend the manner “how.” This is the very true *The true teaching to affirm the truth of the presence of Christ's very body in the sacrament, even of svle ie rine of the f the same body that suffered, in plain, simple, evident terms and words, such as cannot by Phrist’s body cavillation be mistaken and construed, so near as possibly man’s infirmity permitteth and inthe acre suffereth. Now let us consider in what sort the author and his company, which he calleth 91. “we say,” do understand the sacrament, who go about to express the same by a similitude of the creature of the sun, “which sun,” this author saith, “is ever corporally in heaven, and no where else, and yet by operation and virtue is here in earth: so Christ is corporally in heaven, &c.” In this matter of similitudes, it is to be taken for a truth undoubted, that there *Goa's is no creature by similitude, ne any language of man able to express God and his myste- ™Ytenss, ries. For and things that be seen or heard might throughly express God’s invisible m yste- pate Lae vies, the nature whereof is that they cannot throughly be expressed, they were no m ysteries ; Similitudes. and yet it is true, that of things visible, wherein God worketh wonderfully, there may be great resemblances®, some shadows, and as it were inductions, to make a man astonied in consideration of things invisible, when he seeth things visible so wonderfully wrought, and to have so marvellous effects. And divers good catholic devout men have by divers natural things gone about to open unto us the mystery of the Trinity, partly by the sun, as the au- thor? doth in the sacrament, partly by fire, partly by the soul of man, by the musicians {* You needed not indeed, 1551. ] &c., 1551.] [* Supernal, i. e. heavenly. ] [®° Some resemblances, 1551. } [° Present in the sacrament, but if the word, {7 As this author, 1001. | Bucerus. Bucerus in Matt. cap. XXVI. 90 THE THIRD BOOK. science, the art, the touch with the player's fingers, and the sound of the chord, wherein wit' hath all travailed the matter, yet remaineth dark, ne cannot be throughly set forth by any similitude. But to the purpose of this similitude of the sun, which sun, this author saith, “is only corporally in heaven, and no where else,” and in the earth the operation and virtue of the sun: so as by this author’s supposal, the substance of the sun should not be in earth, but only bu operation and virtue: wherein if this author erreth, he doth the reader to wn- derstand, that if he err in consideration of natural things, it is no marvel though he err in heavenly things. For, because I will not of myself begin the contention with this author of the natural work of the sun, I will bring forth the saying of Martin Bucer, now resi- dent at Cambridge, who vehemently, and for so much truly, afirmeth the true real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament: for he saith, Christ said not, this is my spirit, this és my virtue, but, “this is my body:” wherefore, he sith, we must believe Christ's body to be there, the same that did hang wpon the cross, our Lord himself, which in some part to de- clare, he useth the similitude of the sun for his purpose, to prove Christ's body present really and substantially in the sacrament, where this author useth the same similitude to prove the body of Christ really absent. I will write in here as Bucer speaketh it in Latin, exapound- ing the twenty-sixth chapter of St Matthew, and then I will put the same in English. Bucer’s words be these: Ut sol vere uno in loco cceli visibilis circumscriptus est, radiis tamen suis preesens vere et substantialiter exhibetur ubilibet orbis: ita Dominus etiamsi circumscribatur uno loco ceeli arcani et divini, id est glorie Patris, verbo tamen suo et sacris symbolis vere et totus ipse Deus et homo presens exhibetur in sacra ccena, eoque substantialiter ; quam preesentiam non minus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini et symbolis, quam oculi vident et habent solem praesentem demonstratum et exhibitum sua corporali luce. Res ista arcana est, et novi Testamenti, res fidei: non sunt igitur huc admittendee cogitationes de prasentatione corporis, quae constat ratione hujus vite etiamnum patibilis et fluxee. Verbo Domini simpliciter inherendum est, et debet fides sensuum defectui prebere supplementum. Which is thus much in English: “As the sun is truly placed de- terminately in one place of the visible heaven, and yet rs truly and substantially present by means of his beams elsewhere in the world abroad: so our Lord, although he be comprehended in one place of the secret and divine heaven, that is to say, the glory of his Father, yet nevertheless by his word and holy tokens he is exhibit present truly whole God and man, and therefore in substance in his holy supper; which presence man’s mind, giving credit to his words and tokens, with no less certainty acknowledgeth, than our eyes see, and have the sun present, exhibited, and shewed with his corporal light. This is a deep secret matter, and of the new testament, and a matter of faith; and therefore herein thoughts be not to be re- ceived of such a presentation of the body as consisteth in the manner of this life transitory, and subject to suffer. We must simply cleave to the word of Christ, and faith must relieve the default of our senses.” Thus hath Bucer expressed his mind, whereunto, because the similitude of the sun doth not answer in all parts, he noteth wisely in the end, how this is a matter of faith, and therefore upon the foundation of faith we must speak of it, thereby to supply where our senses fail. For the presence of Christ, and whole Christ, God and man, is true, although we cannot think of the manner “how.” The chief cause why I bring in Bucer is this, to shew how, in his judgment, we have not only in earth the operation and virtue of the sun, but also the substance of the sun, by mean of the sun-beams, which be of the same substance with the sun, and cannot be divided in substance from it; and therefore we have in earth the substantial presence of the sun, not only the operation and virtue. And howsoever the sun above in the distance appeareth unto us of another sort, yet the beams that touch the earth be of the same substance with it, as clerks say, or at the least as Bucer saith, whom I never heard accompted papist; and yet for the real and substantial presence of Christ's very body in the sacrament, writeth pithily and plainly, and here encountereth this author with his simi- litude of the sun directly; whereby may appear, how much soever Bucer is esteemed other- wise, he is not with this author regarded in the truth of the sacrament, which is one of the high mysteries in our religion. And this may suffice for that point of the similitude, where this author would have Christ none otherwise present in the sacrament, than he promised to be in the assembly of such as be gathered together in his name: it is a plain abolition of the mystery of the sacrament, in the words whereof Christ's human body is exhibit and made [? Wherein when wit, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 91 present with his very flesh to feed us, and to that singular and special effect? the other pre- sence of Christ in the assembly made in his name is not spoken of; and it hath no appearance of learning in scriptures, to conclude wnder one consideration a specialty and a generality. And therefore it was well answered of him that said, “If I could tell reason, there were no faith: if I could shew the like, it were not singular. Which both be notable in this sa- crament, where condemning all reason, good men both constantly believe that Christ sitteth on the right hand of his Father, very God and man, and also without change of place doth nevertheless make himself by his power present, both God and man, under the form of bread and wine, at the prayer of the church and by the ministry of the same, to give life to such as with faith do according to his institution in his holy supper worthily receive him, and to the condemnation of such as do unworthily presume to receive him there. For the worthy receiving of whom we must come endued with Christ, and clothed with him seemly in that garment, to receive his most precious body and blood, Christ whole God and man, whereby he then dwelleth in us more abundantly, confirming in us the effects of his passion, and es- tablishing our hope of resurrection, then to enjoy the regeneration of our body, with a full redemption cf body and soul, to live with God in glory for ever. CANTERBURY. In this comparison I am glad that at the last we be come so near together; for you be almost right heartily welcome home, and I pray you let us shake hands to- gether®. For we be agreed, as me seemeth, that Christ’s body is present, and the same body that suffered: and we be agreed also of the manner of his presence. For you say that the body of Christ is not present but after a spiritual manner, and so say I also. And if there be any difference between us two, it is but a little and in this point only: that I say that Christ is but spiritually in the ministration of the sacrament, and you say that he is but after a spiritual manner in the sacrament. And yet you say that he is corporally in the sacrament, as who should say that there were a difference between spiritually, and a spiritual manner; and that it were not all one, to say that Christ is there only after a spiritual manner, and not only spiritually. But if the substance of the sun be here corporally present with us upon earth, then I grant that Christ’s body is so likewise: so that he of us two that erreth in the one, let him be taken for a vain man, and to err also in the other. Therefore I am content that the reader judge indifferently between you and me, in the corporal presence of the sun; and he that is found to err, and to be a fool therein, let him be judged to err also in the corporal presence of Christ’s body. But now, master Bucer, help this man at need: for he that hath ever hitherto cried out against you, now being at a pinch driven to his shifts, crieth for help upon you: and although he was never your friend, yet extend your charity to help him in his necessity. But master Bucer saith not so much as you do: and yet if you both said that the beams of the sun be of the same substance with the sun, who would believe either of you both? Is the light of the candle the substance of the candle? or the light of the fire the substance of the fire? Or is the beams of the sun any thing but the clear light of the sun? Now, as you said even now of me, if you err so far from the true judgment of natural things, that all men may perceive your error, what marvel is it if you err in heavenly things? And why should you be offended with this my saying, that’ Christ is spiritually present in the assembly of such as be gathered together in his name? And how can you conclude hereof, that this is a plain abolition of the mystery of the sacrament, because that in the celebration of the sacrament I say that Christ is spiritually present ? Have not you confessed yourself that Christ is in the sacrament but after a spiritual manner? And after that manner he is also among them that be assembled together in his name. And if they that say so do abolish the mystery of the sacra- ment, then do you abolish it yourself, by saying that Christ is but after a spiritual [? Special effect, which in the other, 1591. ] [° Together omitted, 1551.] August. serm. de tempore. 159. A coneord in the spiritu- al presence. The presence of the sun. 93. M. Bucer. Gal. ui. 94. Three parts made of two. The true mo- ther of the child. 92 THE THIRD BOOK. manner in the sacrament, after which manner you say also that he is in them that be gathered together in his name, as well as I do, that say he is spiritually in both. But he that is disposed to pick quarrels, and to calumniate all things, what can be spoken so plainly, or meant so sincerely, but he will wrest it unto a wrong sense? I say that Christ is spiritually and by grace in his supper, as he is when two or three be gathered together in his name, meaning that with both he is spi- ritually, and with neither corporally ; and yet I say not that there is no difference, For this difference there is, that with the one he is sacramentally, and with the other not sacramentally, except they be gathered together in his name to receive the sacra- ment. Nevertheless the selfsame Christ is present in both, nourisheth and feedeth both, if the sacrament be rightly received. But that is only spiritually, as I say, and only after a spiritual manner, as you say. And you say further, that before we receive the sacrament, we must come endued with Christ, and seemly clothed with him. But whosoever is endued and clothed with Christ hath Christ present with him after a spiritual manner, and hath received Christ whole both God and man, or else he could not have everlasting life. And therefore is Christ present as well in baptism as in the Lord’s supper. For in baptism be we endued with Christ, and seemly clothed with him, as well as in his holy supper we eat and drink him. WINCHESTER. Thus I have perused these differences, which, well considered, methink sufficient to take away and appease all such differences as might be moved against the sacrament, the faith whereof hath ever prevailed against such as have impugned it. And I have not read of any that hath written against it, but somewhat hath against his enterprise in his writings appeared, whereby to confirm it, or so evident untruths affirmed, as whereby those that be as indifferent to the truth as Salomon was in the yudgment of the living child, may discern the very true mother Jrom the other, that is to say, who plainly intend the true child to continue alive, and who could be content to have it be destroyed by division. God of his infinite mercy have pity on us, and grant the true faith of this holy mystery uniformly to be conceived in our understandings, and in one form of words to be uttered and preached, which in the book of common prayer is well termed, not distant from the catholic fuith in my judgment. CANTERBURY. You have so perused these differences, that you have made more difference than ever was before: for where before there were no more but two parts, the true catholic doctrine, and the papistical doctrine, now come you in with your new fantastical in- ventions, agreeing with neither part, but to make a song of three parts, you have devised a new voluntary descant, so far out of tune, that it agreeth neither with the tenor nor mean, but maketh such a shameful jar, that godly ears abhor to hear it. For you have taught such a doctrine as never was written before this time, and uttered therein so many untruths and so many strange sayings, that every indifferent reader may easily discern that the true christian faith in this matter is not to be sought at your hands. And yet in your own “ writings appeareth something to confirm the truth, quite against your own enterprise,” which maketh me have some hope, that after my answer heard, we shall in the principal matter no more strive for the child, seeing that yourself have confessed that Christ is but after a spiritual manner present with us. And there is good hope that God shall prosper this child to live many years, seeing that now I trust you will help to foster and nourish it up as well as I. And yet if division may shew a step-mother, then be not you the true mother of the child, which in the sacrament make so many divisions. For you divide the substances of bread and wine from their proper accidences, the substances also of Christ’s flesh and blood from their accidences, and Christ’s very flesh sacramentally from his very blood, although you join them again per concomitantiam; and you divide the sacrament so that the priest receiveth both the sacrament of Christ’s body and of his blood, and the lay people (as you call them) receive no more but the sacra- ment of his body, as though the sacrament of his blood and of our redemption pertained only to the priests. And the cause of our eternal life and salvation you OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 93 divide in such sort between Christ and the priest, that you attribute the beginning thereof to the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, and the continuance thereof you attri- bute to the sacrifice of the priest in the mass, as you do write plainly in your last book. Oh! wicked step-mothers, that so divide Christ, his sacraments, and his people! After the differences followeth the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters of my book, which you bind as it were altogether in one fardel’, and cast them quite away, by the figure which you call “rejection,” not answering one word to any scripture or 9b, old writer, which I have there alleged for the defence of the truth. But because the reader may see the matter plainly before his eyes, I shall here rehearse my words again, and join thereto your answer. My words be these. Now to return to the principal matter, lest it might be thought a new device ppoox iii] Chap. 11. of us, that Christ, as concerning his body and his human nature, is in heaven, ‘crvist vor- and not in earth; therefore by God’s grace it shall be evidently proved, that this heaven, and is no new devised matter, but that it was ever the old faith of the catholie™ "” church, until the papists invented a new faith, that Christ really, corporally, naturally, and sensibly is here still with us in earth, shut up in a box, or within the compass of bread and wine. This needeth no better nor stronger proof than that which the old authors che proof bring for the same, that is to say, the general profession of all christian our prot sion in our people in the common creed, wherein, as concerning Christ’s humanity, they common be taught to believe after this sort: That he was conceived by the Holy is Ghost, born of the virgin Mary: that he suffered under Pontius Pilate: was enucified, dead and buried: that he descended into hell, and rose again the third day, that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his almighty Father, and from thence shall come to judge the quick and dead. This hath been ever the catholic faith of christian people, that Christ (as concerning his body and his manhood) is in heaven, and shall there continue until he come down at the last judgment. And forasmuch as the creed maketh so express mention of the article of his ascension, and departing hence from us, if it had been another article of our faith, that his body tarrieth also here with us in earth, surely in this place of the creed was so urgent an occasion given to make some mention thereof, that doubtless it an not have been passed over in our creed with silence. For if Christ (as concerning his humanity) be both here, and gone hence, and both these two be articles of our faith, when mention was made of the one in the creed, it was necessary to make mention of the other, lest by professing the one we should be dissuaded from believing the other, being so contrary the one to the other. To this article of our creed accordeth holy scripture, and all the old ancient chap. tw. ne proof doctors of Christ’s church. For Christ himself said, “I leave the world, and gO to hereof by the se ripture. my Father.” And also he said, “ You shall ever have poor folks with VOU; Dit seme oe you shall not ever have me with you.” And he gave warning of this error beforehand, saying that the time would come when many econ should be Matt. xxiv. in the world, and say, “ Here is Christ, and there is Christ, but believe them not,” said Christ. And St Mark writeth in the last chapter of his gospel, that the mark xvi. Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father. And St Paul exhorteth all men to seek for things that be above in Col. iii heaven, ‘“‘ where Christ,” saith he, “ sitteth at the right hand of God” his Father. Also he saith, that “we have such a bishop, that sitteth in heaven at the Heb. viii right hand of the throne of God’s majesty;” and that he, “ having offered Heb. x. {} Fardel, i.e. a bundle. } 94 THE THIRD BOOK. one sacrifice for sins, sitteth continually at the right hand of God, until his enemies be put under his feet as a footstool.” And hereunto consent all the old doctors of the church. Chap. v. First Origen upon Matthew! reasoneth this matter, how Christ may be 96. called a stranger that is departed into another country, secing that he is with The proof thereof by ancient au- thors. us alway unto the world’s end, and is among all them that be gathered to- gether in his name, and also in the midst of them that know him not; and thus he reasoneth: If he be here among us still, how can he be gone hence asa stranger departed into another country ? whereunto he answereth, that Christ is both God and man, having in him two natures. And as a man he is not with us unto the world’s end, nor is present with all his faithful that be gathered together in his name: but his divine power and spirit is ever with us. Paul, saith he, was absent from the Corinthes in his body, when he was present with them in his spirit: so is Christ, saith he, gone hence, and absent in his humanity, which in his divine nature is every where. And in this saying, saith Origen, we divide not his humanity, (for St John writeth, that “no spirit that divideth Jesus can be of God,”) but we reserve to both his natures their own properties. In these words Origen hath plainly declared his mind, that Christ’s body is not both present here with us, and also gone hence and estranged from us. For that were to make two natures of one body, and to divide the body of Jesus, forasmuch as one nature cannot at one time be both with us, and absent from us. And therefore saith Origen, that the presence must be under- standed of his divinity, and the absence of his humanity. Origen. in Matt. Hom. 33. {1 John iv.] August ad And according hereunto St Augustine writeth thus in an Epistle 4d Darda- erst. gum: “ Doubt not but Jesus Christ as concerning the nature of his manhood is now there, from whence he shall come. And remember well and believe the pro- fession of a christian man, that he rose from death, ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of his Father, and from that place, and none other, shall he come to judge the quick and the dead. And he shall come, as the | Hune 1o- angels said, as he was seen go into heaven, that is to say, in the same form Fo aae and substance, unto the which he gave immortality, but changed not nature. probandum After this form, (saith he, meaning his man’s nature,) we may not think that vera jor. he is every where. For we must beware, that we do not so stablish tatrepitola, his divinity, that we take away the verity of his body.” These be St Au- tota epistola, forma accipi- tur pro ee gustine’s plain words. And by and by after he addeth these words: “The mba. 1557.) Lord Jesus as God is every where, and as man is in heaven*.” And finally he concludeth this matter in these few words: ‘ Doubt not but our Lord Jesus Christ is every where as God, and as a dweller he is in man that is the temple of God, and he is in a certain place in heaven, because of the measure of 499 a very body*. [! Secundum hane divinitatis sue naturam non | est, illa angelica voce testante, quemadmodum ire peregrinatur, sed peregrinatur secundum dispensa- tionem corporis quod suscepit.—Hec autem dicen- tes non solvimus suscepti corporis hominem, cum sit scriptum apud Johannem, “‘ Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum, non est ex Deo :”’ sed unicuique sub- stantia proprietatem servamus.—Origen. in Matt. cap. xxv. Tract. 33. Ed. Bened. Tom. III. p. 883.] [2 Noli itaque dubitare ibi nunc esse hominem Christum Jesum, unde venturus est, memoriterque recole et fideliter tene Christianam confessionem, quo- niam resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in celum, sedet ad dexteram Patris, nec aliunde quam inde venturus est ad vivos mortuosque judicandos. Et sic venturus visus est in celum, id est, in eadem carnis forma atque substantia, cui profecto immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit. Secundum hane formam non est putandus ubique diffusus. Cavendum est enim, ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus.—August. de Presentia Dei, ad Dardanum, (Epist. lvii.) Lib. 1. cap. iii, Pars vi1t. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506. ] [? Una enim persona Deus et homo est, et utrumque est unus Christus Jesus, ubique per id quod Deus est, in colo autem per id quod homo. —Ibid. cap. iv. ] [* Et ubique totum presentem esse (i. e. Chris- OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 95 And again St Augustine writeth upon the gospel of St John: “ Our Saviour Jesus Christ,” saith St Augustine, “is above, but yet his truth is here. His body wherein he arose is in one place, but his truth is spread every where’.” And in another place of the same book St Augustine expounding these words of Christ, “ You shall ever have poor men with you, but me you shall not ever have,” saith, that “Christ spake these words of the presence of his body®. For,” saith he, “as concerning his divine majesty, as concerning his providence, as concerning his infallible and invisible grace, these words be fulfilled which he spake, ‘I am with you unto the world’s end.’ But as concerning the flesh which he took in his carnation’, as concerning that which was born of the virgin, as concerning that which was apprehended by the Jews, and crucified upon a tree, and taken down from the cross, lapped in linen clothes and buried, and rose again, and appeared after his resurrection ; as concerning that* flesh, he said, ‘You shall not ever have me with you.’ Wherefore seeing that as concerning his flesh he was conversant with his disciples forty days, and they accompanying, seeing, and not following him*®, he went up into heaven, both he is not here (for he sitteth at the right hand of his Father), and yet he is here, for he departed not hence as concerning the presence of his divine majesty. As concerning the presence of his majesty, we have Christ ever with us; but as concerning the presence of his flesh, he said truly to his disciples, ‘ Ye shall not ever have me with you.’ For as concerning the presence of his flesh, the church had Christ but a few days; yet now it holdeth him fast by faith, though it see him not with eyes.” All these be St Augustine’s words. Also in another book", entitled to St Augustine, is written thus: “We must believe and confess that the Son of God (as concerning his divinity) is invisible, without a body, immortal, and incircumscriptible : but as concerning his huma- nity, we ought to believe and confess that he is visible, hath a body, and is contained in a certain place, and hath truly all the members of a man.” Of these words of St Augustine it is most clear, that the profession of the catholic faith is, that Christ (as concerning his bodily substance and nature of man) is in heaven, and not present here with us in earth. For the nature and property of a very body is to be im one place, and to occupy one place, and not to be everywhere, or in many places at one time. And though the tum Jesum) non dubites tanquam Deum, et in eodem templo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem Deum, et in loco aliquo celi propter veri cor- poris modum.—Ibid. cap. xx.] [® Sursum est Dominus, sed etiam hic est ve- ritas Dominus. Corpus enim Domini, in quo resur- rexit, uno loco esse potest: veritas ejus ubique dif- fusa est.—August. in Evangelium Joannis, Tract. xk) Pars 1x.] {© Loguebatur enim de presentia corporis sui. Nam secundum majestatem suam, secundum provi- dentiam, secundum ineftabilem etinvisibilem gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est, Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem sx- culi, Secundum carnem vero quam verbum assump- sit, secundum id quod de virgine natus est, secun- dum id quod a Judwis comprehensus est, quod ligno confixus, quod de cruce depositus, quod linteis in- yolutus, quod in sepulchro conditus, quod in resur- rectione manifestatus, non semper habebitis me yobiscum. Quare? Quoniam conversatus est se- eundum corporis presentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipulis suis, et eis deducentibus videndo, non sequendo, ascendit in celum, et non est hic. Ibi enim sedet ad dexteram Patris: et hic est. Non enim recessit presentia majestatis. Aliter. Secundum presentiam majestatis semper habemus Christum : secundum presentiam carnis recte dictum est disci- pulis, Me autem non semper habebitis. Habuit enim illum ecclesia secundum presentiam carnis paucis diebus: modo fide tenet, oculis non videt. —Ibid. Tract. 1. Pars 1x.] [7 Incarnation, 1551.] [® The, 1551.] [{° And following him, 155]. This is evidently a misprint in that edition, which Cranmer appears to have corrected as it was printed in the 1580 edition, since the words of Augustine are, “ videndo, non sequendo.’’ See note 6.] [1° Et idcirco eundem Dei filium secundum substantiam divinitatis suze invisibilem et incor- poreum et immortalem et incircumscriptum nos credere et confiteri oportet. Juxta humanitatem vero visibilem, corporeum, localem, atque omnia membra humana veraciter habentem credere convenit et con- fiteri.—August. de Essentia Divinitatis, Pars x. Ibid. This treatise is censured as spurious. Vid. “ James’ Corruptions of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers.” p. 53. Lond. 1843. Riveti Crit. Sacr. p- 395. Geneva, 1626.] In Johan. Tract. 30. Tract. 50. Sle De Essentia Divinitatis. Cyrillus in Johan. lib. vi. eap. 14. Lib. ix. cap. 21. Ambrosius in Lucam, lib. x. cap. 24. Gregorius in Hom. Paseha- tis. Vid. Embd. 2d. in fine toini hujus. } 98. 96 THE THIRD BOOK. body of Christ after his resurrection and ascension was made immortal, yet this nature was not taken away, for then, as St Augustine saith, it were no very body. And further St Augustine sheweth both the manner and form how Christ is here present with us in earth, and how he is absent, saying that he is present by his divine nature and majesty, by his providence, and by grace; but by his human nature and very body he is absent from this world, and present in heaven. Cyrillus likewise, upon the gospel of St John', agreeth fully with St Augus- tine, saying: ‘ Although Christ took away from hence the presence of his body, yet in majesty* of his Godhead he is ever here, as he promised to his disciples at his departing, saying, ‘I am with you ever unto the world’s end.” And in another place of the same book St Cyril saith thus: “ Christian people must believe, that although Christ be absent from us as concerning his body, yet by his power he governeth us and all things, and is present with all them that love him. Therefore he said: ‘Truly, truly I say unto you, where- soever there be two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.’ For like as when he was conversant here in earth as a man, yet then he filled heaven, and did not leave the company of angels; even so being now in heaven with his flesh, yet he filleth the earth, and is in them that love him. And it is to be marked, that although Christ should go away only as concerning his flesh, (for he is ever present in the power of his divinity,) yet for a little time he said he would be with his disciples*.” These be the words of St Cyril. St Ambrose also saith, that “we must not seek Christ upon earth, nor in earth, but in heaven, where he sitteth at the right hand of his Father*.” And likewise St Gregory writeth thus: ‘“ Christ,” saith he, “is not here by the presence of his flesh, and yet he is absent no where by the presence of his majesty°.” What subtlety, thinkest thou, good reader, can the papists now imagine to defend their pernicious error, that Christ his human nature® is bodily here in earth, in the consecrated bread and wine; seeing that all the old church of Christ believed the contrary, and all the old authors wrote the contrary ? For they all affirmed and believed, that Christ, being but one person, hath nevertheless in him two natures or substances, that is to say, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhood. They say further- [! Ovrw craxerodpeba povoovtes dp0as, bt. xav | cic ev pecw a’tav. “Qotep yap avOpwrots Ere €k TOU Kécpouv Yévi|Tat dia THY CapKa, TapéocTat | cuvdLatTwpeEvos, Kal éwl Ys UTapXwY META GapKos, maw ovdéev 1)TTOV TOs Ev a’TH, Kai émMLGTAaTHGEL | éwArpov fev Odpavods, cuVRV d& TOTE TOTS aylols tots dos 1) Yeia TE Kai appntos alTov piots.— | ayyéAoLs, OvK aTrEELTETO TE TOY GVW: XWpwY LUTH Cyril. Alex. in Evangelium Joannis. Lib. vi. | Kai vov imapywv év odpavots peta Tis idias cap- Tom. IV. p. 600. Ed. Aubert. Paris. 1638.—But | Kos, mAnpot péev THY Hv, civecte OE Tois EavTOD Cranmer’s quotation is evidently made from the | yvwpimois. éwitTiper 0€ OTWS, KalTOL KaTa povnY Latin edition, which readsas follows: Sed diligen- | 7jv capxad ywpifecbat mpoodoxwv, (avvertt yap ter hic animadvertendum, quod etsi corporis sui | miv 7H dvvduer THs OedTnTOSs bid TavTos,) Et presentiam hinc subduxerit, majestate tamen divi- | pixpov xpovov jel’ ajuav éeoecbar dyoi.—tlbid. nitatis semper adest : sicut ipse a discipulis abiturus | Lib. rx. cap. xxi. Tom. IV. p. 747.] pollicetur : Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus {* Ergo non supra terram, nec in terra, nec se- usque ad consummationem seculi.—Tom. I. col. | cundum carnem te querere debemus, si volumus 323. Basil. 1566. } invenire. Nunc enim secundum carnem jam non [2 In his majesty, 1551.] novimus Christum. Denique Stephanus non supra [% AcaxetoBar dé detv dvayKaioy clvat pypt tovs | terram quesivit, qui stantem te ad dexteram Dei ot ye povovaw op0as, Kai idpupévnv éxovor tyv | Vidit.— Ambros. in Lucam, Lib. x. cap. xxiv. TloTW, ws ci Kai ETECTLY Huw@Y TH TapKl, Tijv moos | Tom. III. p. 109. Colon. Agrip. 1616.] Ocov Kai Tatépa oreihamevos A7rodnpmiav, ad’ ovv [> Non est hic, dicitur, per presentiam carnis, 7H Yeia duvaper TWepléemer TA GiuTavTa, Kai cuu- | qui tamen nusquam deerat per presentiam majesta- mupectt Tos ayaTw@ow aitov. Ai@ yap To. Touro | tis.—Gregorii Pape Op. Homil. xx1. Tom. II. Kal €pacKev’ Apijy, aduijv, \éyw byiv, brov éav | p. 123, J. Anty. 1672.] auvaxUevTes wot cto i} TpeEts Eis TO EMov OVOMA, EKET {© That Christ in his human nature, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 97 more, that Christ is both gone hence from us unto heaven, and is also here with us in earth, but not in his human nature, (as the papists would have us to believe,) but the old authors say that he is in heaven, as concerning his man- hood, and nevertheless both here and there, and every where, as concerning his Godhead. For although his divinity be such, that it is finite, without measure, compass, or place, so that as concerning that nature he is circumscribed with no place, but is every where, and filleth all the world: yet as concerning his human nature, he hath measure, compass, and place, so that when he was here upon earth, he was not at the same time in heaven; and now that he has ascended into heayen, as concerning that nature he hath now forsaken the earth, and is only in heayen. For one nature that is circumscribed, compassed, and measured, cannot be in divers places at one time. That is the faith’ of the old catholic church, as appeareth as well by the authors before rehearsed, as by these that hereafter followeth. St Augustine, speaking that a body must needs be in some place, saith, that if it be not within the compass of a place, it is nowhere; and if it be nowhere, then it is not’. And St Cyril, considering the proper nature of a very body, said, that if the nature of the Godhead were a body, it must needs be in a place, and have quantity, greatness, and circumscription’. If then the nature of the Godhead must needs be circumscribed, if it were a body, much more must the nature of Christ’s manhood be circumscribed, and contained within the compass of a certain place. Didymus also, in his book de Spiritu Sancto, which St Jerome did translate, proveth, that the Holy Ghost is very God, because he is in many places at one time, which no creature can be. For, saith he, all creatures, visible and invisible, be circumscribed and environed either within one place, (as corporal and visible things be,) or within the propriety of their own substance, (as angels and invisible creatures be;) so that no angel, saith he, can be at one time in two places. And forasmuch as the Holy Ghost is in many men at one time, therefore, saith he, the Holy Ghost must needs be God". The same afirmeth St Basil, that the angel which was with Cornelius, was not at the same time with Philip; nor the angel which spake to Zachary in the altar, was not the same time in his proper place in heaven. But the Holy Ghost was at one time in Habakkuk, and in Daniel in Babylon, and with Jeremy in prison, and with Ezekiel in Chober; whereby he proveth that the Holy Ghost is God". Wherefore the papists, (which say, that the body of Christ is in an infinite number of places at one time.) do make his body to be God, and so confound the [7 This is the faith, 1551, and Orig. ed.] {® Nam spatia locorum tolle corporibus, nus- quam erunt; et quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt. scribantur loco et finibus invisibiles creature, tamen proprietate substantia finiuntur. Spiritus autem sanctus, cum in pluribus sit, non habet substan- Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit ubi sint, et ideo necesse est ut non sint.—August. ad Dardanum, cap. viii. Pars viii. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506.] [° Ei yép ows tops re Kal pepiopou, Kal wv exeivor paciv, 7 Bela piois dvéxerat, voeicbw Kai wpa" ei CE TOUTO, Kal év TOTwW TdvTwWS Tov, Kai év peyéber, Kat moow.—Cyril. cum Hermia Dialo- gus de Trinitate, Lib. 11. (corpora non sunt sine loco et circumscriptione). Tom. V. Pars 1. p- 447. Ed. Aubert. Paris. 1638.] [’° Ipse Spiritus sanctus, si unus de creaturis esset, saltem circumscriptam haberet substantiam, Sicut universa que facta sunt. Nam etsi non circum- [CRANMER. | tiam circumscriptam.—Didymus de Spiritu Sancto, Lib. 1. cap. i. ad calcem Hieron. Ed. Villars. Tom. IT. p. 105.] [2 'O yap t& KopynXiw ériotas ayyedos ovd« qv év TaUTH Kai Tapa TW PiiinTw OvdE 6 amd TOU Guctactnpiov tw Layapia dvadeyopuevos kata Tov aitov Katpov Kal év olpave THY olketay oTaoW ETA3|- pov. TO ev ToL TrvEvjLa Omov TE Kal év ABBaKodu évepyet, Kal év Aavuj\ ért ths BaBudwvias TweTi- orevTal’ Kal ev TH KaTappaKTy [elpnrar] elvat peta “Tepepuiou, kat peta leCexind émi Tov XoBap. mvev- pa yap Kupiov wemArjpwKe Tv olkovuévnv. Basil. de Spiritu Sancto, cap. xxii. Tom. II. p. 342. Paris. 1637. | Z Chap. vi. One body cannot be in divers places at one time. Ad Darda- num. Cyrillus de Trin. Lib. i. Didymus de Spiritu Sane- to, Lib. i. e. 1. Basilius de Spiritu Sane- to, cap. 22, Fulgentius ad Trasi- mundum Regem, Lib. ii. Vigilius contra Euty- chen, Lib. 1. John xiv. John xvi. 98 THE THIRD BOOK. two natures of Christ, attributing to his human nature that thing which belong- eth only to his divinity; which is a most heinous and detestable heresy. Against whom writeth Fulgentius in this wise, speaking of the distinction and diversity of the two natures in Christ: “One and the self-same Christ,” saith he, “of mankind was made a man, compassed in a place, who of his Father is God, without measure or place. One and the self-same person, as concerning his man’s substance, was not in heaven, when he was in earth, and forsook the earth when he ascended into heaven: but as concerning his godly substance, which is above all measure, he neither left heaven when he came from heaven, nor he left not the earth, when he ascended into heaven: which may be known by the most certain word of Christ himself, who, to shew the placing of his humanity, said to his disciples, ‘I ascend up to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ Also when he had said of Lazarus that he was dead, he added, saying: ‘I am glad for your sakes, that you may believe, for I was not there.’ But to shew the unmeasurable compass of his divinity, he said to his disciples, ‘Behold, I am with you always unto the world’s end.’ Now how did he go up into heaven, but because he is a very man, contained within a place? Or how is he present with faithful people, but because he is very God, being without measure '?” Of these words of Fulgentius it is declared most certainly, that Christ is not here with us in earth but by his Godhead, and that his humanity is in heaven only, and absent from us. Yet the same is more plainly shewed, if more plainly can be spoken, by Vigilius, a bishop and an holy martyr. He writeth thus against the heretic Eutyches, which denied the humanity of Christ, holding opimion that he was only God, and not man: whose error Vigilius confuting, proveth that Christ had in him two natures jomed together in one person, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhood. Thus he writeth?: “Christ said to his disciples, ‘If you loved me you would be glad, for I go unto my Father.’ And again he said, ‘It is expedient for you that I go, for if I go not, the Comforter shall not come unto you.’ And yet surely the eternal Word of God, the virtue of God, the wisdom of God, was ever with his Father, [’ Unus idemque secundum carnem de matre temporaliter natus, qui secundum divinitatem de Patre permanet sempiternus: unus idemque homo localis ex homine, qui est Deus immensus ex Pa- tre: unus idemque secundum humanam substan- tiam absens ceelo, cum esset in terra, et derelinquens terram, cum ascendisset in celum; secundum divi- nam vero immensamque substantiam, nec celum dimittens, cum de celo descendit, nec terram dese- rens, cum ad celum ascendit. Quod ipsius Domini certissimo potest cognosci sermone; qui ut localem ostenderet humanitatem suam, dicit discipulis suis, ** Ascendo ad Patrem meum et ad Patrem vestrum, Deum meum et Deum vestrum.” De Lazaro quo- que cum dixisset, ‘‘ Lazarus mortuus est,’ ad- junxit dicens : “Et gaudeo propter vos, ut credatis, quoniam non eram ibi.’”’ Immensitatem vero sue divinitatis ostendens discipulis dicit: ‘‘ Ecce ego vo- biscum sum omnibus diebus, usque ad consumma- tionem seculi.’” Quomodo autem ascendit in celum, nisi quia localis et verus est homo? aut quomodo adest fidelibus suis, nisi quia idem immensus et verus est Deus?—Fulgent. ad Trasimundum Re- gem. Lib. 11. cap. xiii. p. 107. Paris. 1684. ] [? Ait discipulis suis, ‘Si diligeretis me, gaude- retis, quia vadoad Patrem, quia Pater major me est.” Et iterum : “ Expedit vobis ut ego eam; si enim ego non abiero, Paracletus ad vos non veniet.” Et certe verbum Dei, virtus Dei, sapientia Dei, semper apud Patrem et in Patre fuit, etiam quando in nobis nobiscum fuit. Neque enim cum terrena misericor- diter incoluit, de celesti habitatione recessit. Cum Patre enim ubique est totus pari divinitate, quem nullus continet locus. Plena sunt quippe omnia Filio, nec est aliquis locus divinitatis ejus presentia vacuus. Unde ergo et quo se iturum dicit, aut quomodo se ad Patrem perrecturum adserit, a quo sine dubio nunquam recessit? Sed hoc erat ire ad Patrem et recedere a nobis, auferre de hoc mundo naturam quam susceperat ex nobis. Vides ergo ei- dem nature proprium fuisse, ut auferretur et abiret a nobis, que in fine temporum reddenda est nobis, secundum attestantium vocem angelorum, “ Hic Jesus, qui receptus est a vobis, sic veniet, quemad- modum vidistis eum euntem in celum.” Nam vide miraculum, vide utriusque proprietatis mysterium : Dei Filius, qui secundum humanitatem suam recessit a nobis, secundum divinitatem suam ait nobis, ‘Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem seculi.’’—Vigilius Afer Ad- versus Eutychen, Lib. 1. Tom. V. p. 712. Colon. Agrip. 1618. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 99 and in his Father, yea, even at the same time when he was with us, and in us. For when he did mercifully dwell in this world, he left not his habitation in heaven: for he is every where whole with his Father, equal in divinity, whom no place can contain; for the Son filleth all things, and there is no place that lacketh the presence of his divinity. From whence then, and whither did he say he would go? Or how did he say, that he went to his Father, from whom doubt- less he never departed; but that to go to his Father, and from us, was to take from this world that nature which he received of us? Thou seest therefore that it was the property of that nature to be taken away and go from us, which in the end of the world shall be rendered again to us, as the angels witnessed, saying: ‘This Jesus which is taken from you, shall come again like as you saw him going up into heaven.’ For look upon the miracle, look upon the mystery of both the natures: the Son of God, as concerning his humanity, went from us; as concerning his divinity, he said unto us: ‘ Behold, I am with you all the days unto the world’s end.’” Thus far have I rehearsed the words of Vigilius, and by and by he con- cludeth thus*: ‘“ He is with us, and not with us. For those whom he left, and went from them, as concerning his humanity, those he left not, nor forsook them not, as touching his divinity. For as touching the form of a servant, which he took away from us into heaven, he is absent from us; but by the form of God, which goeth not from us, he is present with us in earth, and nevertheless, both present and absent, he is all one Christ.” Hitherto you have heard Vigilius speak, that Christ, as concerning his bodily presence and the nature of his manhood, “is gone from us, taken from us, is gone up into heaven, is not with us, hath left us, hath forsaken us.” But as concerning the other nature of his deity, “he is still with us,” so that he is both “with us, and not with us, with us in the nature of his deity, and not with us in the nature of his humanity.” And yet more clearly doth the same Vigilius declare the same thing in another place, saying‘: “Tf the word and flesh were both of one nature, seeing that the word is every where, why is not the flesh then every where? For when it was in earth, then verily it was not in heaven: and now when it is in heaven, it is not surely in earth. And it is so sure that it is not in earth, that as concerning it we look for him to come from heaven, whom as concerning his eternal word we believe to be with us in earth. Therefore by your doctrine,” saith Vigilius unto Eutyches, who defended that the divinity and humanity in Christ was but one nature, “either the word is contained in a place with his flesh, or else the flesh is every where [® Sed et nobiscum est, et non est nobiscum. Quia quos reliquit, et a quibus discessit humanitate sua, non reliquit nec deseruit divinitate sua. Per verbum ubique est, caro autem ejus ubique non est, apparet unum eundemque Christum utriusque esse nature; et esse quidem ubique secundum naturam formam enim servi, quam abstulit a nobis in celum, absens est nobis: per formam Dei, que non recedit a nobis, in terris presens est nobis; tamen et prae- sens et absens ipse unus idemque est nobis.—Ibid. ] [* Si verbi et carnis una natura est, quomodo, cum verbum ubique sit, non ubique inveniatur et caro? Namque quando in terra fuit, non erat utique in celo: et nunc, quia in celo est, non est utique in terra, et in tantum non est, ut secundum ipsam Christum spectemus venturum de clo, quem se- cundum verbum nobiscum esse credimus in terra. Igitur secundum vos, aut verbum cum came sua loco continetur, aut caro cum verbo ubique est, quando una natura contrarium quid et diversum non recipit in se ipsa, Diversum est autem et longe dissimile circumscribi loco, et ubique esse; et quia divinitatis sue, et loco contineri secundum naturam humanitatis sue: creatum esse, et initium non ha- bere: morti subjacere, et mori non posse: quod unum illi est ex natura verbi, qua Deus est, aliud ex natura carnis, qua idem Deus homoest. Igitur unus Dei Filius, idemque hominis factus Filius; habet initium ex natura carnis sue, et non habet initium ex natura divinitatis sue: creatus est per naturam carnis sue, et non est creatus per naturam divinita- tis sue: circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis suze et loco non capitur per naturam divinitatis sue: minor est etiam angelis per naturam carnis sue, et equalis est Patri secundum naturam divinitatis sue: mortuus est natura carnis sue, et non est mortuus natura divinitatis suez.—Ibid. Lib. 1v. p. 722. 7-2 Acts 1. Matt. ult. 100. Contra Euty- ehen, Lib. iv. 101. 100 THE THIRD BOOK. with the word. For one nature cannot receive in itself two diverse and contrary things. But these two things be diverse and far unlike, that is to say, to be contained in a place, and to be every where. Therefore inasmuch as the word is every where, and the flesh is not every where, it appeareth plainly, that one Christ himself hath in him two natures; and that by his divine nature he is every where, and by his human nature he is contained in a place; that he is created, and hath no beginning; that he is subject to death, and cannot die: whereof one he hath by the nature of his word, whereby he is God, and the other he hath by the nature of his flesh, whereby the same God is man also. Therefore one Son of God, the self-same was made the son of man; and he hath a beginning by the nature of his flesh, and no beginning by the nature of his Godhead. He is created by the nature of his flesh, and not created by the nature of his Godhead. He is comprehended in a place by the nature of his flesh, and not comprehended in a place by the nature of his Godhead. He is inferior to angels in the nature of his flesh, and is equal to his Father in the nature of his Godhead. He died by the nature of his flesh, and died not by the nature of his Godhead. This is the faith and catholic confession, which the apo- stles taught, the martyrs did corroborate, and faithful people keep unto this day.” All these be the sayings of Vigilius, who according to all the other authors before rehearsed, and to the faith and catholic confession of the apostles, martyrs, and all faithful people unto his time, saith, that as concerning Christ’s humanity, when he was here on earth, he was not in heayen, and now when he is in heaven, he is not in earth; for one nature cannot be both contained in a place in heaven, and be also here in earth at one time. And forasmuch as Christ is here with us in earth, and also is contained in a place in heaven, he proveth thereby, that Christ hath two natures in him, the nature of a man, whereby he is gone from us, and ascended into heaven, and the nature of his Godhead, whereby he is here with us in earth. So that it is not one nature that is here with us, and that is gone from us, that is ascended into heaven and there contained, and that is permanent here with us in earth. Wherefore the papists (which now of late years have made a new faith, that Christ’s natural body is really and naturally present both with us both here in earth’, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father in heaven,) do err in two very horrible heresies: The one, that they confound his two natures, his Godhead and his manhood, attributing unto his humanity that thing which appertaineth only to his divinity, that is to say, to be in heaven, earth’, and in many places at one time. The other is, that they divide and separate his human nature or his body, making of one body of Christ two bodies and two natures, one which is in heaven, visible and palpable, having all members and proportions of a most perfect. natural man; and another which they say is in earth here with us, in every bread and wine that is consecrated, having no distinction, form, nor proportion of members: which contrarieties and diversities, as this holy martyr Vigilius saith, cannot be together in one nature. WINCHESTER. These differences end in the forty-eighth leaf, in the second column. I intend now to touch the further matter of the book with the manner of handling of it®, and where an evident untruth is, there to join an issue, and where sleight and craft is, there to note it in the whole. The matter of the book, from thence unto the fifty-sizth leaf, touching the being of Christ in {! Both with us here in earth, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] [2 In heaven and earth, 1551, Orig. ed.] {* Of the handling of it, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 101 heaven and not in earth, is out of purpose superfluous. The article of our creed that Christ ascended to heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of his Father, hath been and is most con- stantly believed of true christian men, which the true faith of Christ's real presence in the sacrament doth not touch or impair. Nor Christ being whole God and man in the sacra- ment, is thereby either out of heaven, or to be said conversant in earth, because the conver- *Christ's as- ° A Aso ' ‘< > . » z+. eension the sation is not earthly, but spiritual and godly, being the ascension of Christ, the end of his end of his s u -p . a . . ” Ts, i rn conversation in earth; and therefore all that reasoning of the author is clearly void, to pe ds ag travail to prove that is not denied, only for a sleight to make it seem as though it were *sieight. denied. CANTERBURY. Here is such a sleight used by you, as is worthy to be noted of all men. For [ A sleight to | go not only about to prove in this place only that Christ, as concerning his human ine. nature, is in heaven, (which I know you deny not,) but I prove also that he is so in heaven, that he is not in earth, which you utterly deny, and it is the chief point in contention between us. But by this craft of appeaching me of sleight, that I go about to prove that thing which you deny not, (which is untrue,) you have used such a sleight, that you pass over eight leaves of my book together, wherein I prove that Christ, as concerning his corporal presence, is not here in earth, and you answer not one word to any of my arguments. And I pray thee note, good reader, what a strange manner of sleight this is, to pass over eight leaves together clearly unanswered, and that in the chief point that is in variance between us, under pretence that I use sleight, where in deed I use none, but prove plainly that Christ is not bodily in heaven and in earth, both at one time. If he had but touched mine arguments glancing by them, it had been somewhat: but utterly to fly away‘, and not once to touch them, I think thou wilt judge no small sleight and craft therein. And methink in good reason, the matter ought to be judged against him for default of answer, who being present answereth nothing at all to the matter whereof he is accused; secing that the law saith: Qui tacet, consentire videtur. Yet Smith is to be commended in respect of you, who attempteth at the least to smitn. see what shifts he could make to avoid my proofs, and busieth himself rather than he would stand mute, to say something to them. And yet in deed it had been as good for him to have said nothing at all, as to say that which is nothing to the purpose. First to the scriptures by me alleged particularly, he utterly answereth nothing. Origen. To Origen and St Augustine by name, and to all the other authors by me alieged, “102. he maketh this brief answer in general, that whatsoever those authors say, they mean no more, but that Christ is not here in earth visibly, naturally, and by circumscrip- Smidhisvem tion, and yet nevertheless he is in the sacrament above nature, invisibly, and without ; circumscription. This subtle distinction hath Smith devised, (or rather followeth other papists therein,) to answer the authors which I have alleged. And yet of Smith’s own distinction it followeth, that Christ is not in the sacrament carnally and corporally. For if Christ be in the sacrament but supernaturally, invisibly, and without circum- scription, then he is not there carnally and corporally, as St Augustine reasoneth ad Dardanum’. But yet Smith only saith that the authors so meant, and proveth not one word of his saying, supposing that the old holy writers be like to the papists, which write one thing, and when they list, not, or cannot defend it, they say they mean another. For those authors make no such distinction as Smith speaketh of, affirming divers and contrary things to be in one nature of Christin divers respects; but their dis- tinction is of the two natures in Christ, that is to say, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhood. And they affirm plainly, that the diversity whereof they spake cannot be in one nature, as you say it is, but must needs argue and prove diversity of natures. And therefore by that diversity and instinction® in Christ they prove against the heretics that Christ hath two natures in him; which were utterly [* To flee away, 1551. ] [5 See note 8, p. 97.] [° Distinetion, 1551. ] 102 THE THIRD BOOK. no proof at all, if one nature in divers respects might have that diversity: for the heretics should have had a ready answer at hand, that such diversity proveth not that Christ had two natures, for one nature may have such diversity, if it be true that Smith saith. And so Smith, with other papists which saith as he doth, putteth a sword in the heretics’ hands to fight against the catholic faith. This, good reader, thou shalt easily perceive, if thou do no more but read the authors which I have in this place alleged. And yet, for thy more ready instruction, I shall make a brief rehearsal of the How both Chief effect of them, as concerning this matter. To answer this question, how it can Seated bar be said that Christ is a stranger, and gone hence into heaven, and yet is also here that ast with us in earth, Smith and other papists resolve this matter by divers respects in amtasogone one nature of Christ; but the old catholic writers which I alleged, resolve the matter et by two natures in Christ, affirming most certainly that such two diverse things cannot author have place both in one nature. And therefore say they, that Christ is gone hence writing in this matter. and is absent in his humanity, who in his deity is still here with us. They say also that as concerning his man’s nature, the catholic profession in our creed teacheth us to believe that he hath made it immortal, but not changed the nature of a very man’s body; for his body is in heaven, and in one certain place of heaven, because that so requireth the measure and compass of a very man’s body. It is also, say they, visible, and hath all the members of a perfect man’s body. And further they say, that if Christ’s body were not contained within the compass of a place, it were no body, insomuch that if the Godhead were a body, it must needs be in a place, and have quantity, bigness, and circumscription. For all crea- 103, tures, say they, visible and invisible, be circumscribed and contained within a certain compass, either locally within one place, as corporal and visible things be, or else within the property of their own substance, as angels and invisible creatures be. And this is one strong argument whereby they prove that the Holy Ghost is God, because he is in many places at one time, which no creature can be, as they teach. And yet they say moreover, that Christ did not ascend into heaven but by his humanity, nor is not here in earth but by his divinity, which hath no compass nor measure. And finally they say, that to go to his Father from us, was to take from us that nature which he received of us: and therefore when his body was in earth, then surely it was not in heaven; and now when it is in heaven, surely it is not in earth. For one nature cannot have in itself two sundry and contrary things. All things’ here rehearsed be written by the old ancient authors which I have alleged, and they conclude the whole matter in this wise, that this is the faith and catholic confession, which the apostles taught, the martyrs did corroborate, and faithful people keep unto this day. Whereby it appeareth evidently, that the doc- trine of Smith and the papists at that day was not yet sprung, nor had taken no root. Wherefore diligently ponder and weigh, I beseech thee, gentle reader, the sayings of these authors, and see whether they say, that one nature in Christ may be both in heaven and in earth, both here with us and absent from us at one time; and whether they resolve this matter of Christ’s being in heaven and in earth, as Smith doth, to be understand of his manhood in diversity of these respects visible and in- visible. And when thou hast well considered the authors’ sayings, then give credit to Smith as thou shalt see cause. But this allegation of these authors hath made the matter so hot, that the bishop of Winchester durst not once touch it, and Smith, as soon as he had touched it, felt it so scalding hot, that he durst not abide it, but shrank away by and by for fear of burning his fingers. Now hear what followeth further in my book. Ohi: Wii But now, seeing that it is so evident a matter, both by the express the rapa,” words of scripture, and also by all the old authors of the same, that our Saviour alleg fe . . : ° * a . them these Christ (as concerning his bodily presence) is ascended into heaven, and is words ; - . . > . * “Thisismy not here in earth; and seeing that this hath been the true confession of Jody. c [} All these things, 1561. | OF THE PRESENCE OF .CHRIST. 103 the catholic faith ever since Christ’s ascension; it is now to be considered what moved the papists to make a new and contrary faith, and what serip- tures have they*® for their purpose. What moved them I know not, but their own iniquity, or the nature and condition of the see of Rome, which is of all other most contrary to Christ, and therefore most worthy to be called the see of antichrist. And as for scripture, they allege none but only one, and that not truly understanded, but to serve their purpose wrested out of tune, whereby they make it to jar and sound contrary to all other scriptures pertaining to the matter. “Christ took bread,” say they, ‘blessed, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, This is my body.” These words they ever still repeat and beat upon, that Christ said, “This is my body.” And this saying they make their sheet-anchor, to prove thereby as well the real and natural pre- sence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, as their imagined transubstantiation. For these words of Christ, say they, be most plain and most true. Then forasmuch as he said, “ This is my body,” it must needs be true that that thing which the priest holdeth in his hands is Christ’s body. And if it be Christ’s body, then can it not be bread. Whereof they gather by their reason- ing, that there is Christ’s body really present, and no bread. Now forasmuch as all their proof hangeth only upon these words, “This is my body:’ the true sense and meaning of these words must be examined. But, say they, what need they any examination? what words can be more plain, than to say, “This is my body ?” Truth it is indeed, that the words be as plain as may be spoken; but that the sense is not so plain, it is manifest to every man that weigheth substantially the circumstances of the place. For when Christ gave bread to his disciples, and said, “This is my body,” there is no man of any dis- cretion, that understandeth the English tongue, but he may well know by the order of the speech that Christ spake those words of the bread, calling it his body : as all the old authors also do affirm, although some of the papists deny the same. Wherefore this sentence cannot mean as the words seem and purport, but there must needs be some figure or mystery in this speech, more than appeareth in the plain words. For by this manner of speech plainly understand without any figure, as the words lie, can be gathered none other sense, but that bread is Christ’s body, and that Christ’s body is bread; which all christian ears do abhor to hear. Wherefore in these words must needs be sought out another sense and meaning than the words of themselves do bear. And although the true sense and understanding of these words be suf- ficiently declared before, when I spake of transubstantiation, yet to make the matter so plain that no scruple or doubt shall remain, here is occasion given more fully to entreat thereof: in which process shall be shewed, that these sentences of Christ, “This is my body,” “This is my blood,” be figurative speeches. And although it be manifest enough by the plain words of the gospel, and proved before in the process of transubstantiation, that Christ spake of bread, when he said, “This is my body ;” likewise that it was very wine which he called his blood; yet lest the papists should say, that we suck this out of our own fingers, the same shall be proved by testimony of the old authors, to be the true and old faith of the catholic church: whereas the school authors and papists shall not be able to shew so much as one word of any ancient author to the contrary. [* They have, 1551, and Orig. ed.] The argu- ment of the papists. 104. The answer. The interpre- tation of these words : «This is my body.” Chap. vit. Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood. Tren. contra Valent. Lib. iv. capp. 32. 34. 57. Lib. v. Tertul. adversus . Judzos. 105. Cyprian. a See yibe i. Epist. De Lib. ii. Epist. Epiphan. in Ancorat. Hier. ad Hedibiam. 104 THE THIRD BOOK. First, Ireneeus, writing against the Valentinians, in his fourth book saith, | that “Christ confessed bread (which is a creature) to be his body, and the cup to be his blood.” And in the same book he writeth thus also: “The bread wherein the thanks be given is the body of the Lord.” And yet again in the same book he saith, that Christ taking “bread of the same sort that our bread is of, confessed that it was his body; and that that thing which was tempered in the chalice was his blood.’ And in the fifth book he writeth further, “that of the chalice (which is his blood) a man is nourished, and doth grow by the bread,” which is his body’. These words of Irenzeus be most plain, that Christ taking very material bread, a creature of God, and of such sort as other bread is which we do use, called that his body, when he said, “This is my body;” and the wine also which doth feed and nourish us, “he called his blood.” Tertullian likewise, in his book written against the Jews, saith that “ Christ called bread his body*.” And in his book against Marcion he oftentimes re- peateth the self-same words. And St Cyprian, in the first book of his epistles, saith the same thing, that “ Christ called such bread as is made of many corns joined together his body, and such wine he called his blood, as is pressed out of many grapes, and made into wine*.”’ And in his second book he saith these words: ‘ Water is not the blood of Christ, but wine*.” And again in the same epistle he saith, that “it was wine which Christ called his blood; and that if wine be not in the chalice, then we drink not of the fruit of the vine®.”” And in the same epistle he saith, that “‘ meal alone, or water alone, is not the body of Christ, except they be both joined together, to make thereof bread®.” Epiphanius also saith that Christ, speaking of a “loaf which is round in fashion, and cannot see, hear, nor feel, said of it: ‘This is my body’’.” And St Jerome, writing ad Hedibiam, saith these words: “ Let us mark that the bread which the Lord brake, and gave to his disciples, was the body of our Saviour Christ, as he said unto them: ‘Take and eat; this is my body*.’” [' Sed et suis discipulis dans consilium, primi- ; ad Magnum. Lib. 1. Epist. vi. p. 208. Paris. tias Deo offerre de suis creaturis, non quasi indi- | 1574.] genti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint, [* Sanguis Christi non aqua est utique, sed vi- eum qui eX creatura est panis accepit, et gratias | num.—Id. ad Cacilium. Lib. 11. Epist. iii. p. 143.] egit, dicens : ‘‘ Hoc est corpus meum.”’ Et calicem [> Vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit. similiter, qui est ex ea creatura, que est secundum | Quomodo autem de creatura vitis novum vinum cum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est, et novi Testa- | Christo in regno patris bibemus, si in sacrificio Dei menti novam docuit oblationem.—Irenzus, contr. | patris et Christi vinum non offerimus nec calicem Valent. Lib. 1v. cap. 32, p. 323. Quomodo autem | Domini dominica traditione miscemus ? — Ib. p, constabit eis, eum panem in quo gtatie acte sint, | 145.] corpus esse Domini sui—Quemadmodum enim qui [© Quomodo nec corpus Domini potest esse fa- est a terra panis, percipiens invocationem Dei, jam | rina sola, aut aqua sola, nisi utrumque adunatum non communis panis est, sed eucharistia, ex duabus | fuerit et copulatum, et panis unius compage solida- rebus constans, terrena et celesti. Cap. 34. pp. | tum.—Ib. 146.] 326, 7. Quando ergo et mixtus calix et factus pa- [7 ’Avéorn ev To deirvw, kal EXaBe Tade* Kai nis percipit verbum Dei, et fit eucharistia sanguinis | edyapiotijoas elwe, TOUTO Mov éoTi TOOE Kai opw- et corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur et consistit carnis nostra substantia. Lib. v. cap. ii. p. 397. | eixov, ov TH aopatw BedTnTL, ov TOIs YapaxTApot ed. Oxon. 1702. ] THY MEA@Y; TO meV ‘yap EoTL TTpoyyuAvceELdés Kai [2 Sic enim Christus revelavit, panem corpus | avaicOnrov, ws mpos Tv sivauw* Kai 18Ancev suum appellans. ‘Tertullian. adversus Judzos, | yapite ciwetv, tovTS ov éoti T6de.—Epiphanius, p- 196, et adversus Marcionem, Lib. 1v. p. 458. | in Ancorato, Cap. lvii. Tom. Il. p. 60. Ed. Patav. Lutetie Paris. 1664.] Paris. 1622. ] [* Nam quando Dominus corpus suum panem [® Nos autem audiamus panem, quem fregit vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum ; | Dominus, deditque discipulis suis, esse corpus et quando sanguinem suum vinum appellat, de bo- | Domini Salvatoris, ipso dicente ad eos : “‘ Accipite tris atque acinis plurimis expressum atque in unum | et comedite, hoc est corpus meum.’’—Hieron. He- coactum. (Editio Erasmica in vinum).—Cyprian. | dibiz. Quest. ii. Tom. III. p. 95. Francof. 1684.] ” a er aes. sane > ~s ’ ev OTL OVK LOOV EGTLY, OUOE OMOLOV, OV TI] EVTOAPKW OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 105 And St Augustine also saith, “that although we may set forth Christ by mouth, by writing, and by the sacrament of his body and blood, yet we call 4 neither our tongue, nor words, nor ink, letters, nor paper, the body and blood of Christ; but that we call the body and blood of Christ, which is taken of the fruit of the earth, and consecrated by mystical prayer.” And also he saith: “ Jesus called meat his body, and drink his blood’.” Moreover Cyril upon St John saith, that “Christ gave to his disciples pieces of bread, saying: ‘Take, eat ; this is my body".’” Likewise Theodoretus saith: “ When Christ gave the holy mysteries, he ealled bread his body, and the cup mixed with wine and water, he called his blood!!.” By all these foresaid authors and places, with many more, it is plainly proved, that when our Saviour Christ gave bread unto his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body;”’ and likewise when he gave them the cup, saying, “Divide this among you, and drink you all of this, for this is my blood;” he called then the very material bread his body, and the very wine his blood. That bread, I say, that is one of the creatures here in earth among us, and that groweth out of the earth, and is made of many grains of corn beaten into flour, and mixed with water, and so baken and made into bread, of such sort as other our bread is, that hath neither sense nor reason, and finally that feedeth and nourisheth our bodies; such bread Christ called his body, when he said, “This is my body:”’ and such wine as is made of grapes pressed together, and thereof is made drink, which nourish” the body, such wine he called his blood. This is the true doctrine, confirmed as well by the holy scripture, as by all ancient authors of Christ’s church, both Greeks and Latins; that is to say, that when our Saviour Christ gave bread and wine to his disciples, and spake these words, “This is my body, this is my blood,” it is very bread and wine which he called his body and blood. Now let the papists shew some authority for their opinion, either of scrip- ture, or of some ancient author. And let them not constrain all men to follow their fond devices, only because they say it is so, without any other ground or authority, but their own bare words. For in such wise credit is to be given to God’s word only, and not to the word of man. As many of them as I have read (the bishop of Winchester only excepted) do say, that Christ called not bread his body, nor wine his blood, when he said, “This is my body, this is my blood.” And yet in expounding these words they vary among them- selves; which is a token that they be uncertain of their own doctrine. For some of them say, that by this pronoun demonstrative “this” Christ understood not the bread and wine, but his body and blood. And other some say, that by the pronoun “this” he meant neither the bread nor wine, nor his body nor blood; but that he meant a particular thing un- [® Potuit tamen significando predicare Dominum Jesum Christum, aliter per linguam suam, aliter per epistolam, aliter per sacramentum corporis et Sanguinis ejus. Nec linguam quippe ejus, nec membranas, nec atramentum, nec significantes sonos lingua editos, nec signa literarum conscrip- ta pelliculis, corpus Christi et sanguinem dici- mus, sed illud tantum quod ex fructibus terre accep- tum et prece mystica consecratum.—Augustin. de Trinitate. Lib. 111. cap. 4. Pars v. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506.] [)° Tots yap 6n memiatevKdor draxkhacas Tov dptov édidov, Néywv' AaBete, pdyere’ ToVTO éott TO owmad pov.—Cyrill. in Joannem. Lib. iv. cap. 14. Tom. IV. p. 360. Ed. Aubert. Paris. 1638. In the Latin version, fragmenta panis dedit. | [Ev 6é ye 7H TGV pvoTnpiwy Tapaddcer cwpa Tov aptov éka\ece, Kal aipa 7d Kpaua.—Theo- doretus in Dialogo 1, Tom. IV. p. 26. Halx 1769-94. ] ['2 Nourisheth, 1551, and Orig ed.] Aug. de Trin Lib. iii. cap. De Verbis Apostol. Serm. 2. Cyrill. in Joan, Lib. iv. cap. 14. Theodoretus in Dialog. 1. 106. Rom. iv. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Rom. cap. iv. Tertullian. adversus Marcionem, ib. iv. Cyprianus de Ceena Do- mini. An issue. 107. Another sleight. 106 THE THIRD BOOK. certain, which they call individuum vagum, or individuum in genere; 1 trow some mathematical quiddity, they cannot tell what’. But let all these papists together shew any one authority, either of serip- ture or of ancient author, either Greek or Latin, that saith as they say, that Christ called not bread and wine his body and blood, but individiuwn vagum ; and for my part I shall give them place and confess that they say true. And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquity, but only their own bare words, then it is reason that they give place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities, both of scripture and of ancient writers, which is, that Christ called very material bread his body, and very wine made of grapes his blood. WINCHESTER. After this the author occwpieth a great number of leaves, that is to say, from the fifty- seventh leaf unto the seventy-fourth, to prove Christs words, “ This is my body,” to be a figu- rative speech. Sleight and shift is used in the matter, without any effectual consecution, to him that is learned. First, the author saith, Christ called “bread” his body, confessed? “bread” his body. To this is answered, Christ's calling is a making, as St Paul saith: Vocat ea quee non sunt, tanquam ea que sint; “He calleth that be not as they were.” And so his calling (as Chry- sostom3 and the Greek commentaries say) is a making; which also the catechism teacheth, translated by Justus Jonas in Germany, and after by this author in English. Tertullian saith: “ Christ made bread his body ;” and it is all one speech in Christ being God, declaring his ordinances, whether he use the word “call,” or “make;” for in his mouth to call is to make#. Cyprian saith® according hereunto, how bread is by God's omnipotency made flesh : whereupon also this speech, * Bread is flesh, is as much to say as ‘made flesh; not that bread being bread is flesh, but that was bread is flesh by God’s omnipotency; and so this author, entreating this matter as he doth, hath partly opened the faith of transubstantiation. For indeed bread being bread is not Christ's body, but that was bread is now Christ's body, because bread is made Christ's body, and because Christ called bread his body, which was in Christ to make bread his body. When Christ made water wine, the speech is very proper to say, water is made wine. For after like manner of speech we say, Christ justifieth a wicked man, Christ saveth sinners, and the physician hath made the sick man whole, and such diet will make an whole man sick. All these speeches be proper and plain, so as the construction® be not made captious. and sophistical, to join that was to that now is, forgetting the mean work. When Christ said, “ This is my body,” there is no™ necessity that the demonstration “ this” should be referred to the outward visible matter, but may be referred to the invisible sub- stance. As in the speech of God the Father upon Christ in baptism: “ This is my Son.” And here, when this author taketh his recreation to speak of the feigning of the papists, T shall join this issue in this place, that he wnderstandeth not what he saith, and if his knowledge be no better than is uttered here in the pen, to be in this point clearly condemned of ignorance. CANTERBURY. Here is another sleight, such as the like hath not lightly been seen. For where I wrote that when Christ said, “This is my body,” it was bread that he called his body, you turn the matter to make a descant upon these two words, “ calling” and dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei.—Tertullian, adversus Marcionem. Lib. iv. pp. 457, 8. Lu- tetia Paris. 1664. ] [! The various opinions may be found collected by bishop Jewell in his Reply to Harding, Article 24. on Individuum vagum, p. 462, &c.] [® Christ confessed bread, 1551.] [° éta Touro ovdE EiTweE, Kai TapayovTos Ta ovK outa, d\\a KaXouvTos, THv TEtova EVKONiav OnN@V. womep yap, k. T. €.—Chrysost. in Epist. ad Rom. Hom. viii. Tom. 1X. p. 504. Ed. Bened. ] {* Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, hoe est corpus meum [° Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrige- bat, non effigie sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est caro.—Cyprian. (Arnoldi) De Cena Domini. p. 468. Paris. 174. ] [° So as construction, but not made captious, Orig. ed. Winch.] [7 no inserted from edit. 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CIIRIST. 107 “making,” that the minds of the readers should be so occupied with the discussion of these two words, that in the meantime they should forget what thing it was that was called and made. Like unto men that dare larks*, which hold up an hoby, that the larks’ eyes being ever upon the hoby, should not see the*net that is laid on their heads. And yet finally you grant that which Smith denieth, that it was bread which Christ called his body, when he said, “This is my body.” And so that which was not his body in deed he called his body, who calleth things that be not, as they were the things in deed. And if his calling be making, then his calling bread his body is making bread his body: and so is not only Christ’s body made present, but also the bread is made his body, because it is called his body; and so must bread be the thing whereof Christ’s body is made: which before you denied in the eleventh comparison, calling that saying so foolish, that it were “not tolerable to be devised by a scoffer in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.” And thus should you conclude yourself, if Christ's calling were making, which in deed is not true: for then should Christ have made himself a vine, when he called himself a vine; and have made St John the blessed virgin Mary’s son, when he called him her son; and should have made his apostles vine-branches, when he called them so; and should have made Peter a devil, when he called him devil. After, when you come to make answer unto the authors cited by me in this place, first you skip over Irene, the eldest author of them all, because, I think, he is too hard meat for you well to digest, and therefore you will not once taste of him. In Tertullian and Cyprian you agree again, that when Christ said, “This is my body,” it was bread that he called his body. And so when he said “this” he meant the bread, making demonstration upon it: as before you have said more at large in your book, which you named, “The Detection of the Devil’s Sophistry®.” And herein you say more truly than the other papists do, (which deny that the de- monstration was made upon the bread,) although you say not true in the other part that Christ's calling was making. And if his calling be changing of the bread and making it the body of Christ, yet then it is not true to speak of the bread, and to say that it is the body of Christ. For when one thing is changed into another, the first still remaining, it may be said both that it is made the other thing, and that it is the other thing, (as when cloth is made a gown, we may say this cloth is made a gown, and also this cloth is a gown ;) but when the former matter or state remaineth not, it may be said that it is made the other thing, but not that it is the other thing: as when Christ had turned water into wine’®. And likewise, although we say, a wicked man is made just, a sick man is made whole, or an whole man sick, yet it is no true speech to say a wicked man is just, a sick man is whole, or an whole man is sick; because the former state remaineth not. And therefore, although it might in speech be allowed that the bread is made Christ’s body, when the bread is gone, yet can it not be proper and approved speech to say, it is his body, except the bread remain still. For of that thing which is not, it cannot be said that it is Christ’s body. For if it be his body, it must needs be by the rule of logic, @ tertio adjacente ad secundum adijacens. And I marvel how you have overshot yourself in this place, when you teach how and after what manner bread is made Christ’s body. ‘Not that bread (say you) being bread is his body, but that which was bread is now made his body :” whereof it followeth necessarily that his body is made of bread. For as the wine in the Cana of Galilee was made of water, when the substance of water was turned into the substance of wine; so if in the sacrament the substance of bread be turned into the substance of Christ’s body, then is his body in the sacrament made of bread: which [® To dare larks, i.e. to frighten in order to | replied to by Hooper and others before the publi- catch them. An hoby, i.e. a species of hawk.] cation of Cranmer’s first book on the Sacrament. ] [° Gardiner’s “Detection of the Devil’s So- ['° In Ed. 1551, after “‘as when Christ had phistrie, wherwith he robbeth the unlearned people | turned water into wine,” follow these words, “ It of the true byleef in the most blessed Sacrament of | was true to say water is made wine, but not to say the aulter,” was first published in 1546, and was | water is wine.’’] Rom. iv. Whether Christ's call- ing be making. John xv. John xix. John xv. Matt. xvi. Trenaus. Tertullian. Cyprian. Whether bread be called Christ’s body. Conversion two manner of ways. *John ii. 108. Christ’s body made of bread. John it. Whether Christ called bread his body. Smith. 109. * Mine issue. Smith. Matt. xiv. 108 THE THIRD BOOK. in’ the eleventh comparison you affirmed to be so foolish a saying, as were “not tolerable to be devised by a scoffer in a play to supply when his fellow had for- - gotten his part.” Therefore I have not here “partly opened the faith of transubstantiation,” as you — say of me; but you have here manifestly opened the wisdom of the papistical doctrine, which is more foolish than were to be devised by a scoffer in a play. But what need I much to contend with you in this place, seeing that you grant the thing for the which I cited all these authors, that is to say, that Christ called bread his body when he said, “ This is my body?” And in your “Detection of the Devil’s Sophistry,” as you call it, you say that — Christ spake plainly, “This is my body,” making demonstration of the bread when he said, “This is my body.” But it seemeth you be sorry that you have granted so much, and that you spake those words unadvisedly, before you knew what the papists had written in this matter*; and now, when you perceive bow far you vary from them, you would fain call your words back again, and prepare a way for the same, saying thus: “ When Christ said, ‘This is my body,’ there is no necessity that the demonstration ‘this’ should be referred to the outward visible matter, but — may be referred to the invisible substance.” In these your words it seemeth you begin to doubt in that thing which before you certainly affirm without all doubt. And when you have confessed the whole matter that I do here prove, which is only this, that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood, when he said, “‘ This is my body, this is my blood:” yet you conclude your answer with an issue of mine ignorance, that it is so great that I “understand not what I say, if my know- ledge be no better than is uttered here in my pen.” And yet my words be so plain, — that the least child, as they say, in the town may understand them. For all my study is to speak plain, that the truth may be known, and not with dark speeches, as you do, to hide the truth. But when I had made a plain issue against all the papists in general, it had been your part to have joined in the said issue, and not to devise new issues. But because neither you nor Smith dare join with me in mine issue, I shall re- peat mine issue again, and take it for confessed of you both, because neither of you dare say the contrary, and join an issue with me therein. My issue is this: “ Let — all the papists together shew any one authority, either of scripture or of ancient author, either Greek or Latin, that saith as they say, that Christ called not bread and wine his body and blood, but individuum cagum ; and for my part I shall give them place and confess that they say true. And if they can shew nothing for them of anti- quity, but only their own bare words, then it is reason that they give place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities, both of scripture and of ancient writers, which is, that Christ called very material bread his body, and very wine made of grapes his blood.” Now it shall not be much amiss to examine here the wise device of M. Smith, what he can say to this matter, that the opinion of divers doctors may be known, as well of Doctor Smith, as of Doctor Gardiner. “It is very false,” saith Smith to me, “that you do say, that as these words ‘This is my body’ do he, there can be gathered of them none other sense, but that bread is Christ's body, and that Christ’s body is — bread. For there can no such thing be gathered of those words, but only that Christ gave his disciples his very body to eat, into which he had turned the bread, when he spake those words.” First, Smith useth here a great and manifest falsehood in reciting of my sentence, leaving out those words, which should declare the truth of my saying. For I say, that by this manner of speech plainly understand without any figure, there can be gathered none other sense, but that bread is Christ's body. In which my sentence he leaveth out these words, “by this manner of speech plainly un- derstand without any figure;” which words be so material, that in them resteth the pith and trial of the whole sentence. When Christ took the five loaves and two fishes, and looking up into heaven [: Zs in, edit. 1580. by a manifest error. ] [2 In that matter, 1551. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 109 blessed them, and brake them, and gave them unto his disciples, that they should Mark vi. Luke ix. distribute them unto the people, if he had then said, Eat; this is meat, which shall John vi. satisfy your hunger: by this manner of speech, plainly understand without any figure, could any other sense have been gathered, but that the bread and fishes which he gave them was meat? And if at the same time he had blessed wine, and commanding them to drink thereof, had said, “This is drink which shall quench your thirst :” what could have been gathered of those words, plainly understand without any figure, but that he called wine drink? So likewise when he blessed bread and wine, and gave them to his disciples, saying, “ Eat, this is my body ;” “Drink, this is my blood:” what can be gathered of this manner of speech, plainly understand without any figure, but that he called the bread his body, and wine his blood? For Christ spake not one word there of any changing or turning of the substance of the bread, no more than he did when he gave the loaves and fishes. And therefore the manner of speech is all one, and the changing of the substances can no more be proved by the phrase and fashion of speech, to be in the one than in the other, whatsoever you papists dream of your own heads without scripture, that the substance of the bread is tured into the sub- stance of Christ’s body. But Smith bringeth here news, using such strange and novelty of speech, as other papists use not; which he doth either of ignorance of his grammar, or else that he dissenteth far from other papists in judgment. For he saith, that Christ had turned the bread when he spake these words, “This is my body.” And if Smith remember his accidence, the preterpluperfect tense signifieth the time that is more than perfectly past; so that if Christ had turned the bread when he spake those words, then was the turning done before and already past, when he spake those words, which the other papists say was done after, or in the pronunciation of the words. And therefore they use to speak after this sort, that when he had spoken the words, the bread was turned, and not that he had turned the bread when he spake the words. ' Another novelty of speech Smith useth in the same place, saying, that Christ called his body bread, because he tumed bread into it; it seemeth and appeareth still to be it, it hath the quality and quantity of bread, and because it is the food of the soul, as corporal meat is of the body. These be Smith’s words, which if he understand of the outward form of bread, it is a novelty to say, that it is the food of the soul; and if he mean of the very body of Christ, it is a more strange novelty to say, that it hath the quantity and quality of bread. For there was never man, I trow, that used that manner of speech, to say that the body of Christ hath the quantity and quality of bread, although the papists use this speech, that the body of Christ is contained under the form, that is to say, under the quantities and qua- lities of bread. Now when Smith should come to make a direct answer unto the authorities of the old writers, which I have brought forth to prove that Christ called bread his body, when he said, “This is my body;” Smith answereth no more but this: ‘The doctors which you, my lord, allege here for you, prove not your purpose.” Forsooth, a substantial answer, and well proved, that the doctors by me alleged prove not my purpose; for Smith saith so. I looked here, that Smith should have brought forth a great number of authors to approve his saying, and to reprove mine, specially seeing that I offered fair play to him, and to all the papists joined with him in one troop. For after that I had alleged for the proof of my purpose a great many places of old authors, both Greeks and Latins, I provoked the papists to say what they could to the contrary. “Let all the papists together,” said I, ‘‘shew any one autho- rity for them, either of scripture or ancient author, either Greek or Latin, and for my part I shall give them place. And if they can shew nothing for them of anti- quity, then is it reason that they give place to the truth, confirmed by so many authorities, both of scripture and of ancient writers, which is, that Christ called very material bread his body, and very wine made of grapes his blood.” Now I refer to thy judgment, indifferent reader, whether I offered the papists Smith. 110. 111. Chap. Ix. “* Bread is my ody,” ““ wine is my blood,” be figurative speeches. Chap. x. “To eat Christ's flesh” and “ drink his blood,” be figurative speeches. John vi. (Ed. 1551.) 110 THE THIRD BOOK. reason or no; and whether they ought not, if they had any thing to shew, to have brought it forth here: and forasmuch as they have brought nothing, (being thus provoked with all their counsel,) whether thou oughtest not to judge, that they have nothing in deed to shew, which if they had, without doubt we should have heard of it in this place. But we hear nothing at all, but these their bare words, “‘ Not one of all these doctors saith as ye do, my Lord.” Which I put in thy discretion, indif- ferent reader, to view the doctor's words by me alleged, and so to judge. But they say not that there is only bread in the sacrament, saith Smith, and not Christ’s body: what then? What is that to purpose here in this place, I pray you? For I go not about in this place to prove that only bread is in the sacra- ment, and not Christ’s body: but in this place I prove only, that it was very bread, which Christ called his body, and very wine which he called his blood, when he said, “This is my body, this is my blood:” which Smith with all his rablement' of the papists deny, and yet all the old authors affirm it with doctor Stephen Gar- diner, late bishop of Winchester also, who saith, “that Christ made demonstration upon the bread, when he said, ‘This is my body’.” And as all the old authors be able to countervail the papists, so is the late bishop able to match Smith in this matter; so that we have, at the least, a Rowland for an Oliver. But shortly to comprehend the answer of Smith: where I have proved my sayings, a dozen leaves together, by the authority of scripture and old catholic writers, is this a suf- ficient answer, only to say without any proof, that all my travail is lost ? and that all that I have alleged is nothing to the purpose? Judge indifferently, gentle reader, whether I might not, by the same reason, cast away all Smith’s whole book, and reject it quite and clean with one word, saying, “ All his labour is lost, and to no purpose.” Thus Smith and Gardiner being answered, I will return again to my book, where it followeth thus. Now this being fully proved, it must needs follow consequently, that this manner of speaking is a figurative speech. or in plain and proper speech, it is not true to say that bread is Christ’s body, or wine his blood. For Christ’s body hath a soul, life, sense, and reason: but bread hath neither soul, life, sense, nor reason. Likewise in plain speech it is not true, that we eat Christ’s body, and drink his blood. For eating and drinking, in their proper and usual signi- fication, is with the tongue, teeth, and lips, to swallow, divide, and chaw in pieces: which thing to do to the flesh and blood of Christ, is horrible to be heard of any Christian. So that these speeches, “To eat Christ’s body and drink his blood,” “to call bread his body, and wine his blood*,’ be speeches not taken in the proper signification of every word, but by translation of these words, “ eating” and “drinking,” from the signification of a corporal thing to signify a spiritual thing; and by calling a thing that signifieth by the name of the thing which is signified thereby. Which is no rare nor strange thing, but an usual man- ner and phrase in common speech. And yet, lest this fault should be im- puted unto us, that we do feign things of our own heads without authority, (as the papists be accustomed to do,) here shall be cited sufficient authority, as well of scriptures* as of old ancient authors, to approve the same. First, when our Saviour Christ, in the sixth of John, said, that he was the bread of life, which whosoever did eat, should not die, but live for ever; and that the bread which he would give us, was his flesh; and therefore whosoever should eat his flesh, and drink his blood, should have everlasting [} With all the rablement, 1551. ] | words, ‘to call bread his body, and wine his blood.”’] [2 Ed. 1551, and also the Orig. ed., omit these [3 As well of scripture, 1551, and Orig. ed.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. li life; and they that should not eat his flesh, and drink his blood, should not have everlasting life: when Christ had spoken these words, with many — 112. more, of the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood, both the Jews, and many also of his disciples, were offended with his words, and said: ‘“ This is an hard saying. For how can he give us his flesh to be eaten?” Christ, perceiving their murmuring hearts, (because they knew none other eating of his flesh, but by chawing and swallowing,) to declare that they should not eat his body after that sort, nor that he meant of any such carnal eating, he said thus unto them: “What if you see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that giveth life, the flesh availeth nothing: the words which I spake unto you be spirit and life.” These words our Saviour Christ spake, to lift up thei minds from earth to heaven, and from carnal to spiritual eating, that they should not phantasy that they should with their teeth eat him present here in earth: for his flesh so eaten, saith he, should nothing profit them. And yet so they should not eat him, for he would take his body away from them, and ascend with it into heaven; and there by faith, and not with teeth, they should spiritually eat him, sitting at the right hand of his Father. And therefore, saith he, “The words which I do speak be spirit and life:” that is to say, are not to be understand, that we shall eat Christ with our teeth, grossly and car- nally, but that we shall spiritually and ghostly with our faith eat him, being carnally absent from us in heaven; and in such wise as Abraham and other holy fathers did eat him, many years before he was incarnated and_ born, as St Paul saith: “That all they did eat the same spiritual meat that we 1 Cor. x. do, and drink* the same spiritual drink; that is to say, Christ.” For they spiritually by their faith were fed and nourished with Christ’s body and blood, and had eternal life by him, before he was born, as we have now, that come after his ascension. Thus have you heard the declaration of Christ himself, and of St Paul, that the eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood is not taken in the common signification, with mouth and teeth to eat and chaw a thing, being present, but by a lively faith in heart and mind to chaw and digest a thing, being absent, either ascended hence into heaven, or else not yet born upon earth. WINCHESTER. In the sixtieth leaf the author entreateth, whether it be a plain speech of Christ to say, “Eat and drink,’ speaking of his body and blood. I answer, the speech of itself is proper, commanding them present to eat and drink that is proponed for them: and yet it is not requi- site that the nature of man should with like common effect work, in eating and drinking that heavenly meat and drink, as it doth in earthly and carnal meats. In this mystery man doth as Christ ordained, that is to say, receive with his mouth that is ordered to be received with his mouth, granting it nevertheless of that dignity and estimation, that Christ's words affirm : and whether he so doth or no, Christ's ordinance is as it is in the substance of itself alone, whereof no good man judgeth carnally or grossly, ne discusseth the unfaithful question “how,” which he cannot conceive, but leaveth the deepness thereof, and doth as he is bidden. This mystery receweth no man’s thoughts. Christ's institution hath a property in it, which cannot be discussed by man’s sensual reason. Christ's words be spirit and life, which this author wresteth with his own gloss, to exclude the truth of the eating of Christs flesh in his supper. (Terms meet And yet for a shift, if a man would join issue with him, putteth to his speech the words Hae Coe “grossly” and “carnally,” which words in such a rude understanding be terms meeter to ex- paunetes press how dogs devour paunches, than to be inculked in speaking of this high mystery. Wherein ei ao . « « oO. {* Drank, 1551, and Orig. ed.] Ne issue. ed. 1551.) The eating of Christ’s body is not with teeth. *Luke xix. John vi. 114. 112 THE THIRD BOOK. I will make the issue with this author, that no catholic teaching is so framed! with such terms, as though we should eat Christ's most precious body grossly, carnally, joining those words so together. For else “carnally” alone may have a good signification, as Hilary useth it: but contrariwise speaking in the catholic teaching of the manner of Christ’s presence, they call it a spiritual manner of presence, and yet there is present by God’s power the very true natural body and blood of Christ, whole God and man, without leaving his place in heaven: and in the holy supper men use their mouths and teeth, following Christ's commandment in the receiving of that holy sacrament, being in faith sufficiently instruct, that they cannot, ne do not tear, consume, or violate that most precious body and blood, but unworthily receiving it, are cause of their own judgment and condemnation. CANTERBURY. Eating and drinking with the mouth being so plain a matter, that young babes learn it, and know it before they can speak, yet the cuttle here with his black colours and dark speeches goeth about so to cover and hide the matter, that neither young nor old, learned nor unlearned, should understand what he meancth. But for all his masking, who is so ignorant but he knoweth, that eating in the proper and usual signification is to bite and chaw in sunder with the teeth? And who knoweth not also, that Christ is not so eaten? Who can then be ignorant that here you speak a manifest untruth, when you say that Christ's body to be eaten is of itself a proper speech, and not figurative? Which is by and by confessed by yourself, when you say that we do not eat that heavenly meat as we do other carnal meats, which is by chawing and dividing with the mouth and teeth. And yet we receive with the mouth that is ordained to be received with the mouth, that is to say, the sacra- mental bread and wine, esteeming them nevertheless unto us, when we duly receive them, according unto Christ’s words and ordinance. But where you say, that of the substance of Christ’s body no good man judgeth carnally, ne discusseth the unfaithful question “how”: you charge yourself very sore in so saying, and seem to make demonstration upon yourself, of whom may be said, Ex ore tuo te judico. For you both judge carnally in affirming a carnal presence, and a carnal eating; and also you discuss this question “how,” when you say that Christ’s body is in the sacrament really, substantially, corporally, carnally, sensibly, and naturally, as he was born of the virgin Mary, and suffered on the cross. And as concerning these words of Christ, “The: words which I do speak be spirit and life;” I have not wrested them with mine .own gloss, as you misreport, but I have cited for me the interpretation of the catholic doctors and holy fathers of the church, as I refer to the judgment of the reader. But you teach such a carnal and gross eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood, as is “more meet to express how dogs devour paunches, than to set forth the high mystery” of Christ’s holy supper. For you say that Christ’s body is present really, substantially, corporally, and carnally, and so is eaten; and that we eat Christ’s body as eating is taken in common speech: but in common speech it is taken for chawing and gnawing, as dogs do paunches: wherefore of your saying it followeth, that we do so eat Christ’s body, as dogs eat paunches; which all christian ears abhor for to hear. But why should I join with you here an issue in that matter which I never spake ? For I never read, nor heard no man that said, saving you alone, that we do eat Christ grossly, or carnally, or as eating is taken in common speech without any figure ; but all that ever I have heard or read say quite clean contrary. But you, who affirm that we eat Christ carnally, and as eating is taken in common speech, (which is car- nally and grossly to chew with the teeth,) must needs consequently grant, that we eat him grossly and carnally, as dogs eat paunches. And this is a strange thing to hear, that where before you said, that Christ is present but after a spiritual manner, now you say that he is eaten carnally. [? So formed, Orig. ed. Winch.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 113 And where you say, that in the holy supper men use their mouth and_ teeth, truth it is that they so do, but to chaw the sacrament, not the body of Christ. And if they do not tear that most precious body and blood, why say you then that they eat the body of Christ, as eating is taken in common speech? And wherefore doth that false papistical faith of pope Nicholas, (which you wrongfully call catholic,) teach that Christ’s body is torn with the teeth of the faithful? De Conseer. dist. 2. Higo*. Now follow the particular authorities which I have alleged for the interpretation of Christ’s words, which if you had well considered, you would not have said, as you do, that I wrested Christ's words with mine own gloss. For’ I begin with Origen, saying : And Origen, declaring the said eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood not to be understand as the words do sound, but figuratively, writeth thus upon these words of Christ: ‘Except you eat my flesh, and drink my blood, you shall not have life in you.” “Consider,” saith Origen’, “that these things written in God’s books are figures, and therefore examine and understand them as spiritual, and not as carnal men. For if you un- derstand them as carnal men, they hurt you, and feed you not. For even in the gospels is there found letter that killeth. And not only in the old testament, but also in the new is there found letter that slayeth him, that doth not spiritually understand that which is spoken. For if thou follow the letter or words of this that Christ said, ‘Except you eat my flesh, and drink my blood,’ this letter killeth.” Who can more plainly express in any words, that the eating and drink- ing of Christ’s flesh and blood are not to be taken in common signification, as the words pretend and sound, than Origen doth in this place ? WINCHESTER. Now I will touch shortly what may be said to the particular authorities brought in by this author. Origen is noted (among other writers of the church) to draw the text to alle- gories, who doth not thereby mean to destroy the truth of the letter, and therefore when he speaketh of a figure, saith not there is only a figure®, which exclusive “only” being away, (as i is not found by any author catholic taught that the speech of Christ of the eating of his flesh to be only a figure.) this author hath nothing avanced his purpose. As for spiritual understanding meaneth not any destruction of the letter where the same may stand with the rules of our faith®, All Christ's words be life and spirit, containing in the letter many times that is above our capacity, as specially in this place of the eating of his flesh, to discuss 5) the particularities of “how ;” and yet we must believe to be true that Christ saith, (although we cannot tell how:) for when we go about to discuss of God’s mystery “how,” then we fall Srom faith, and wax carnal men, and would have God’s ways like owrs. CANTERBURY. Here may every man that readeth the words of Origen plainly see, that you seek in this weighty matter nothing but shifts and cavillations. For you have nothing answered 2 . . A 0 C c D state [* Ego Berengarius.....anathematizo omnem | dicuntur, Si enim quasi carnales ista suscipitis, heresin, .... qua astruere conatur panem et vinum, quz in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem solum- modo sacramentum, et non verum corpus et sangui- nem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, et non posse sensualiter, nisi in solo sacramento, manibus sacer- dotum tractari vel frangi, aut fidelium dentibus at- teri. Decret. Gratian. Pars 111. De Consecr. Dist. 2. col. 2021. Anty. 1573. ] [? First, 1551.] [* Agnoscite quia figure sunt, que in divinis yoluminibus scripta sunt, et ideo tanquam spiritales et non tanquam carnales examinate et intelligite que Loranmer. | ledunt vos, et non alunt. Est enim et in evangeliis litera que occidit : non solum in veteri Testamento occidens litera deprehenditur. Est et in novo Tes- tamento litera, que occidat eum, qui non spiritaliter que dicuntur adverterit. Si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est, ‘* Nisi man- ducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum,”’ occidit hee litera. Origen. in Levit. Hom. vir. Tom. II. p. 225. ed. Bened. | [{° There is a only figure, 1551. ] [® The rule of our faith, Orig. ed. Winch. | 8 Nicholas the second, De Conseer. dist. 2. Ego. Origen. in | Levit. Ho. 7. John vi. Origenes. 16s, 114 THE THIRD BOOK. directly to Origen, although he directly writeth against your doctrine, For you say that the eating of Christ’s flesh is taken in the proper signification without a figure. Origen saith there is a figure. And Origen saith further, that it is only a figurative speech, although not adding this word “only,” yet adding other words of the same effect. For he saith, that we may not understand the words as the letter soundeth : and saith further, that if we understand the words of Christ in this place as the Now who knoweth not, that to say these words, ‘not as the letter soundeth,” and “the letter killeth,’ be as much to say, as only spiritually, and only otherwise than the letter soundeth? Wherefore you must spit upon your hands and take better hold, or else you cannot be able.to pluck Ongen so shortly from me. And I marvel that you be not ashamed thus to trifle with the ancient authors in so serious a matter, and such places, where the reader only look- ing upon the author’s words may see your dealing. The next is Chrysostom, whom I cite thus. letter soundeth, the letter killeth. in Johannem Chrysostom And St John Chrysostom’ affirmeth the same, saying, that “if any man Hom. 46. ynderstand the words of Christ carnally, he shall surely profit nothing thereby. For what mean these words, ‘the flesh availeth nothing’? He meant not of flesh’, (God forbid!) but he meant of them that fleshly and carnally understood those things that Christ spake. But what is carnal understanding? To understand the words simply as they be spoken, and nothing else. For we ought not so to understand the things which we see, but all mysteries must be considered with inward eyes, and that is spiritually to understand them.” In these words St John Chrysostom sheweth plainly that the words of Christ concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, are not to be understand simply, as they be spoken, but spiritually and figuratively. WINCHESTER. Chrysostom St Chrysostom declareth himself, how mysteries must be considered with inward eyes, which is a spiritual understanding, whereby the truth of the mystery is not (as it were by a figurative speech) impaired, but with an humility of understanding in a certain faith of the truth marvelled at. And here the author of this book® useth a sleight to join figuratively to spiritually, as though they were always all one, which is not so. CANTERBURY. As you have handled Origen before, even so do you handle Chrysostom. Where- fore I only refer the reader to look upon the words of Chrysostom recited in my book, who saith, that to understand the words of eating of Christ’s flesh, simply as they be spoken, is a carnal understanding. And then can it be no proper speech, (as you say it is,) because it cannot be understand as the words be spoken, but must have another understanding spiritually. Then followeth next St Augustine, of whom I write thus: Augustinus And yet most plainly of all other St Augustine doth declare this matter de doetrina oer 3-in his book De doctrina Christiana, in which book he instructeth christian ’ people how they should understand those places of scripture which seem hard and obscure. “ Seldom,” saith he, “is any difficulty in proper words, but either the cireum- stance of the place, or the conferring of divers translations, or else the original ons fo) ot Aleem iret bi [) "Eav yap av’ro capxikms tis éxXaBor, obdev wee re et eit Ao anrwvato. Ti ovv, obK EaTL 4 Cape aiTou capt; ; oa eke api Pe mi am ; Kai opodpa pév ovv. Kal Tes Eltrev, ) Tape ovK wperet ovGEv; ov Tepi THS EavTOU capKds éywu" pa) ‘yevoito* adda wept Tay capKuKws éxXapPavov- Twv Ta Leyomeva. Ti O€ EoTL TO TAapPKIK@S VOHTAL; 70 am\ws eis Ta Tpokeipmeva Opav, Kal wy TAEOV TL pavratecbar, TovTo yap éoTt capKikas. xp 6 uy otTw Kpivery Tois Opwpévots, d\\a Tavta Ta puotipia Tors Evdov 6pSadpots KaTorTEvELV. TOUTO yap éo71 mvevpatixws.—Chrysost. in Joannem. Hom. xlvii. (al. 46.) Tom. VIII. p. 278. Ed. Bened. | [2 Of his flesh, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [? Of the book, Orig. ed. Winch. | OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 115 tongue wherein it was written, will make the sense plain. But in words that be altered from their proper signification, there is great diligence and heed to be taken. And specially we must beware, that we take not literally any thing that is spoken figuratively : nor contrariwise, we must not take for a figure any thing that is spoken properly.” “Therefore must be declared,” saith St Augustine, “the manner how to discern a proper speech from a figurative. Wherein,” saith he, “must be observed this rule, that if the thing which is spoken be to the furtherance of charity, then it is a proper speech, and no figure. So that if it be a commandment that forbiddeth any evil or wicked act, or ecommandeth any good or beneficial thing, then it is no figure. But if it command any ill or wicked thing, or forbiddeth* anything that is good and beneficial, then it is a figurative speech. Now, this saying of Christ, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you,’ seemeth to command an heinous and wicked thing: therefore it is a figure, commanding us to be partakers of Christ’s passion, keeping in our minds, to our great comfort and profit, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us’.” This is briefly the sentence of St Augustine in his book De doctrina Christiana. And the like he writeth in his book De catechisandis rudibus®, and in his book Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum’, and in divers other places, which for tediousness I pass over. For if I should rehearse all the authorities of St Augustine and others, which make mention of this matter, it would weary the reader too much. Wherefore to all them that by any reasonable means will be satisfied, these things before rehearsed are sufficient to prove, that the eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood is not to be understand simply and plainly (as the words do properly signify), that we do eat and drink him with our mouths: but it is a [* forbid, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [® De sacramento sane quod accepit, cum ei [® Rarissime igitur et difficillime inveniri potest | bene commendatum fuerit, signacula quidem re- ambiguitas in propriis verbis, quantum ad libros | rum divinarum esse visibilia, sed res ipsas invisi- divinarum scripturarum spectat, quam non aut cir- | biles in eis honorari: nec sic habendam esse illam cumstantia ipsa sermonis qua cognoscitur scripto- | speciem benedictione sanctificatam, quemadmodum Tum intentio, aut interpretum collatio, aut prece- | habetur in usu quolibet. Dicendum etiam quid sig- dentis lingue solvat inspectio. Sed verborum | nificet et sermo ille quem audivit, quid in illo con- translatorum ambiguitates, de quibus deinceps lo- | diat [condatur], cujus illa res similitudinem gerit. quendum est, non mediocrem curam industriamque | Deinde monendus est ex hac occasione, ut si quid desiderant. Nam in principio cavendum est, ne | etiam inscripturis audiat quod carnaliter sonet, etiam figuratam locutionem ad literam accipias.—Neque | si non intelligit, credat tamen spiritale aliquid signi- illud quod proprio verbo significatur, refert ad aliam | ficari, quod ad sanctos mores futuramque vitam per- Significationem.—Augustin. de Doctrina Christiane, tineat. Hoc autem ita breviter discet, ut quicquid Lib. 111. Cap. iv. v. Parsiv. Basil. ap Amer- | audierit ex libris canonicis, quod ad dilectionem bach. 1506. Demonstrandus est igitur prius modus | a@temitatis et veritatis et sanctitatis et ad dilecti- inveniendz locutionis, propriane an figurata sit. Ib. | onem proximi referre non possit, figurate dictum yel Cap. x. Servabitur ergo in locutionibus figuratis | gestum esse credat; atque ita conetur intelligere ut regula hujusmodi, ut tam diu versetur diligenti con- | ad illam geminam referat dilectionem.—Augustin. sideratione quod legitur, donec adregnum charitatis | de Catechizandis rudibus, Cap. xxvi. Pars tv. | interpretatio perducatur. Si autem hoc jam proprie [7 Sicut mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem sonat, nulla putetur figurata locutio. Si precep- | Christum Jesum, carnem suam nobis manducan- tiva locutio est, aut flagitium aut facinus vetans, | dam bibendumque sanguinem dantem, fideli corde aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens; non est | atque ore suscipimus: quamvis horribilius videatur figurata: si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur | humanam carmem manducare, quam perimere, et jubere, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, | humanum sanguinem potare quam fundere: atque figurata est. ‘Nisi manducaveritis,’ inquit, ‘carnem | in omnibus sanctis scripturis, secundum sanz fidei Filii hominis et sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis | regulam figurate dictum vel factum si quid exponi- Vitam in vobis :’ facinus vel flagitium videter ju- | tur, de quibuslibet rebus et verbis que sacris pagi- bere. Figura est ergo, precipiens passioni Domini | nis continentur, expositio illa ducatur, non asper- esse communicandum, et suaviter atque utiliterre- | nanter sed sapienter audiamus.— Augustin. contra condendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus | adversarium legis et Prophetarum, Lib. 11. Cap. ix. crucifixa et vulnerata sit. Ib. Cap. xv. xvi.] Pars vitt.] g—2 De eatech. rudi. cap. 26. Contra adver- sar. legis et Prophet. lib. ii. cap. 9. Augustinus. 117. *Contrary. 116 THE THIRD BOOK. figurative speech spiritually to be understand, that we must deeply print and fruitfully believe in our hearts, that his flesh was crucified and his blood shed for ow redemption. And this our belief in him is to eat his flesh and drink his blood, although they be not present here with us, but be ascended into heayen : as our forefathers before Christ’s time did likewise eat his flesh and drink his blood, which was so far from them, that he was not yet then born. WINCHESTER. St Augustine, according to his rules of a figurative and proper speech, taketh this speech, “ Except ye eat,” &c., for a figurative speech; because it seemeth to command in the letter carnally understanded an heinous and wicked thing to eat the flesh of a man, as man’s carnal imagination conceiveth it: as appeared by the Capharnaites, who murmured at it. And therefore because only faithful men can by faith understand this mystery of the eating of Christ's flesh in the sacrament, in which we eat not the carnal flesh of a common man, as the letter soundeth, but the very spiritual flesh of Christ, God and man, as faith teacheth ; it is in that respect well noted for a figurative speech, for that it hath such a sense in the letter as is hidden from the unfaithful: so as the same letter being to faithful men spirit and life (who in humility of faith understandeth the same), is to the faithful’ a figure, as containing such a mystery as by the outward bark of the letter they understand not: wpon which consideration it seemeth probable that the other fathers, also signifying a great secrecy in this mystery of the sacrament, wherein is a work of God ineffable, such as the ethnick ears could not abide, they termed it a figure, not thereby to diminish the truth of the mystery, as the proper and special name of a figure doth, but by the name of a figure reverently to cover so great a secrecy, apt only to be wnderstanded of men believing: and therefore the said fathers, in some part of their works, in plain words express and declare the truth of the mystery, and the plain doctrine thereof according to the catholic faith, and in the other part pass it over with the name of a figure, which consideration in St Augustine's writings may be evidently gathered: for in some place no man more plainly openeth the substance of the sacrament than he doth, speaking expressly of the very body and blood of Christ contained init; and yet therewith in other places noteth in those words a figure, not thereby to contrary his other plain sayings and doctrine, but meaning by the word “figure” to signify a secret deep mystery hidden from carnal understanding. For avoiding and expelling of which carnality he giveth this doctrine here of this text: “ Kacept ye eat,” &c., which, as I said before, in the bare literal sense implieth to carnal judgment other carnal circumstances to attain the same flesh to be eaten, which in that carnal sense cannot be but by wickedness. But what is this to the obeying of Christ's commandment in the institution of his supper, when he himself? delivereth his body and blood in these mysteries, and biddeth “eat and drink 2” There can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth, and therefore St Augustine’s rule pertaineth not to Christ's supper, wherein when Christ willeth us to use our mouth, we ought to dare do as he biddeth; for that is spiritual understanding, to do as is conmmanded without carnal thought or murmuring in our sensual device how it can be so. And St Augustine in the same place, speaking de communicando passionibus Christi, declareth plainly he meaneth of the sacrament. CANTERBURY. If thou takest not very good heed, reader, thou shalt not perceive where the cuttle becometh. He wrappeth himself so about in darkness, and he cometh not near the net by a mile, for fear he should be taken. But I will draw my net nearer to him that he shall not escape. I say that the words which Christ spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood were spoken by a figure, and he would avoid the matter by saying, that “those words have a spiritual mystery im them ;” which is most true, and nothing contrary to my saying, but confirmeth the same. For the words of eating and drinking be figurative speeches, because they have a secret and hid spiritual mystery in them, and cannot be taken otherwise than in that spiritual mystery, which is a [! Unfaithful, 1551. See p. 118, at the beginning. ] [® When himself delivereth, 1551. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. Wy figure. And, moreover, you plainly here confess, that to eat Christ’s flesh and to drink his blood be figurative speeches. But you traverse the cause, wherefore they be figu- rative speeches; which is not material in this place, where my process is only to prove that they be figurative speeches. And forasmuch as you grant here all that I take upon me to prove, which is that they be figurative speeches, what needeth all this superfluous multiplication of words, when we agree in the matter which is here in question ? And as for the cause of the figure, you declare it far otherwise than St Augustine doth, as the words of St Augustine do plainly shew to every indifferent reader, For the cause, say you, is this, that “in the sacrament we eat not the carnal flesh of a common man, as the letter soundeth, but the very spiritual flesh of Christ, God and man, and in that respect it is well noted for a figurative speech.” In which one sentence be three notable errors or untruths. The first is, that you say “the letter soundeth that we eat the carnal flesh of a common man;” which your saying the plain words of the gospel do manifestly reprove. For Christ, separating himself in that speech from all other men, spake only of himself, saying, “‘ My flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.” The second is, that you call the flesh of Christ a “spiritual flesh,” as before you said that he is spiritually eaten. And so by your doc- trine his flesh is spiritual, and is spiritually eaten, and all is spiritual: which hath need of a favourable interpretation, if it should be counted a sound and catholic teach- ing. And if all be spiritual and done spiritually, what meaneth it then that in other places you make so often mention that he is present and eaten carnally, corporally, and naturally ? The third is, that you say “the speech. of Christ is noted figurative in respect of the eating of the flesh of a common man,” which is utterly untrue. For the authors note not the figurative speech in that respect ; but as Christ spake of his own flesh joined unto his divinity, whereby it giveth life, even so do the authors note a figurative speech in respect of Christ’s own flesh, and say thereof that the letter cannot be true without a figure. For although Christ be both God and man, yet his flesh is a very man’s flesh, and his blood is truly man’s blood, (as is the flesh and blood of his blessed mother,) and therefore cannot be eaten and drunken properly, but by a figure. For he is not meat and drink of the body, to be eaten corporally with mouth and teeth, and to be digested in the stomach: but he is the meat of the soul, to be received spiritually in our hearts and minds, and to be chawed and digested by faith. And it is untrue that you here say, that “the proper and special name of a figure diminisheth the truth of the mystery.” For then Christ in vain did ordain the figures, if they diminish the mysteries. And the authors term it here a figure, not thereby to “cover the mystery,” but to open the mystery, which was indeed in Christ’s words by figurative speeches understand. And with the figurative speech were the ethnick and carnal ears offended, not with the mystery, which they understood not. And not to the ethnick and carnal, but to the faithful and spiritual ears, the words of Christ be figurative, and to them the truth of the figures be plainly opened and declared by the fathers: wherein the fathers be worthy much commendation, because they travailed to open plainly unto us the obscure and figu- rative speeches of Christ. And yet in their said declarations they taught us, that these words of Christ, concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, are not to be understanded plainly, as the words properly signify, but by a figurative speech. Nor St Augustine never wrote in all his long works, as you do, that Christ is in the sacrament corporally, carnally, or naturally, or that he is so eaten, nor, I dare boldly say, he never thought it. For if he had, he would not have written so plainly, as he doth in the places by me alleged, that we must “beware that we take not literally any thing that is spoken figuratively.” And specially he would not have expressed by name the words of “eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood,’ and have said that they be figurative speeches. But St Augustine doth not only tell how we may not take those words, but also he declareth how we ought to take and under- stand the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood, which, as he saith, is this : “To keep in our minds, to our great comfort and profit, that Christ was crucified and “ 118. John vi. US: 118 THE THIRD BOOK. shed his blood for us, and so to be partakers of his passion. This,” saith St Augustine, “is to eat his flesh and to drink his blood.” And St Augustine saith not as you do, that Christ’s words be “figurative to the unfaithful ;” for they be figurative rather to the faithful than to the unfaithful. For the unfaithful take them for no figure or mystery at all, but rather carnally, as the Capernaites did. And there is indeed no mystery nor figure in eating with the mouth (as you say Christ’s flesh is eaten), but in eating with the soul and spirit is the figure and mystery. For the eating and drinking with the mouth is all one to the faithful and unfaithful, to the carnal and spiritual, and both understand in like what is eating and drinking with the mouth. And therefore in no place do the doctors declare, that there is a figure or mystery in eating and drinking of Christ’s body with our mouths, or that there is any truth in that mystery; but they say clean contrary, that he is not eaten and drunken with our mouths. And if in any place any old author write, that there is a figure or mystery in eating and drinking of Christ with August. de our mouths, shew the place if you will have any credit. St Augustine specially (whom niserm. 3%, you do here allege for your purpose) saith directly against you: Nolite parare fauces In Io. Tract. ~ : ” * 25. sed cor, “ Prepare not your mouth or jaws, but your heart.” And in another place he saith, Quid paras ventrem et dentem? Crede et manducasti: “Why dost thou prepare thy belly and teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” But to avoid the saying of St Augustine by~me alleged, you say that St Augus- tine’s rule pertaineth not to Christ’s supper: which your saying is so strange, that you be the first that ever excluded the words of Christ from his supper. And St Augustine meant as well at the supper as at all other times, that the eating of Christ’s flesh is not to be understanded carnally with our teeth (as the letter signi- fieth), but spiritually with our minds, as he in the same place declareth. And how can it be that St Augustine’s rule pertaineth not to Christ's supper, when by the rule’ he expoundeth Christ's words in the sixth of John, which you say Christ spake of his supper? Did Christ speak of his supper, and St Augustine’s words expounding the same pertain not to the supper? You make St Augustine an expositor like yourself, that commonly use to expound both doctors and scriptures clean from the purpose, either for that by lack of exercise in the scriptures and doctors you under- stand them not, or else that for very frowardness you will not understand? any thing that misliketh you. And where you say that we must do as Christ commanded us, without carnal thought or sensual device, is not this a carnal thought and sensual device which you teach, that we eat Christ corporally with our teeth; and contrary to that which you said before, that Christ's body in the sacrament is a spiritual body, and eaten only spiritually? Now how the teeth can eat a thing spiritually, I pray you tell me. Now thou seest, good reader, what avail all those glosses of “carnal flesh and spiritual flesh,” of ‘‘the flesh of Christ, and the flesh of a common man,” of “‘a figure to the un- faithful, and not to the faithful,” that “the fathers termed it a figure, because else the 120. ethnick ears could not ‘abide it,” and “because they would reverently cover the mystery.” And when none of these shifts will serve, he runneth to his sheet-anchor, that St Augustine’s rule pertaineth nothing to Christ’s supper. Thus mayest thou see, with what sincerity he handleth the old writers. And yet he might nght well have spared all his long talk in this matter, seeing that he agreeth fully with me in the state of the whole cause, that to eat Christ’s flesh and to drink his blood be figurative speeches. For he that declareth the cause why they be figurative speeches agreeth in the matter that they be figurative speeches. And so have I my full purpose in this article. Now hear what followeth in my book. Chap. xr. The same authors did say also, that when Christ called the bread his body, this i body, and the wine his blood, it was no proper speech that he then used ; my blood, be figurative hut as all sacraments be figures of other things, and ye have the very names speeches, [) By that rule, 1581.] (2 You will understand, 1381. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 119 of the things which they do signify; so Christ instituting the sacrament of his most precious body and blood, did use figurative speeches, calling the bread by the name of his body, and the wine he called his blood, because it represented his blood. Tertullian herein writing against Marcion*, saith these words: ‘Christ did not reprove bread, whereby he did represent his very body.” And in the same book he saith, that Jesus “taking bread and distributing it amongst his disciples made it his body, saying, ‘This is my body;’ that is to say,” saith Tertullian, “a figure of my body.” And therefore, saith Tertullian, “that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood,” because that in the old testament bread and wine were figures of his body and blood. WINCHESTER. Tertullian speaking of the representation of Christ's very body, in which place he termeth “the same body,” speaketh catholicly in such phrase as St Jerome speaketh: and then Ter- tullian saith afterward, as this author therein truly bringeth him forth, that Christ made the bread his body, which bread was in the mouth of the prophet a figure of his body. Wherefore it followeth by Tertullian’s confession, when Christ made the bread his body, that Christ ended the figure, and made it the truth, making now his body that was before the figure of his body. For if Christ did no more but make it a figure still, then did he not make it his body, as Tertullian himself saith he did. And Tertullian therefore, being read thus, as appeareth to me most probable, that “that is to say” in Tertullian should be only referred to the explication of the first “this;” as when Tertullian had alleged Christ's words, saying “this is my body,” and putteth to of his own, “ that is to say, the figure of my body,” these words, “that is to say,” should serve to declare the demonstration “this” in this wise, “that is to say, this,’ which the prophet called the figure of the body, is now my body. And so Tertullian said before that Christ had made bread his body, which bread was a figure of his body with the prophet, and now endeth in the very truth, being made his body by con- version (as Cyprian sheweth) of the nature of bread into his body. Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionists; and because a figure in the prophet signifieth a certain unfeigned truth of that is signified, seeing Christ's body was figured by bread in the prophet Jeremy, it appeareth Christ had a true body; and that the bread was of Christ approved for a jigure, he made now his very body4*. And this may be said evidently to Tertullian, who reasoning against heretics useth the commodity of arguing, and giveth no doctrine of the sacrament to further this author's purpose. Tertullian, if he should mean that these words, “ This is my body,” had only this sense, ‘ this is the figure of my body, having himself said before that Christ made bread his body? If so plain speech, to make bread his body, containeth no more certainty in understanding but the figure of a body, why should not they say, that a body in Christ should ever be spoken of a body in a figure, and so no certainty of any true body in Christ by Tertullian’s words ? This place of Tertullian is no secret point of learning, and hath been of Uscolampadius and other alleged, and by other catholic men answered unto it; whereof this author may not think now as wpon a wrangling argument to satisfy a conjecture devised, thereby to confirm a new teaching. Finally, Tertullian termeth it not an only figure, which this author must prove, or else he doth nothing. eee 5 , ae [® Sed ille quidem usque nunc nec aquam repro- | ut panis crucifigeretur. Cur autem panem corpus And what advantage should the heretics have of bavit—nec panem, quo ipsum corpus suum repre- sentat. Tertullianus, Adversus Marcionem. Lib. i. p- 872. Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, ‘Hoc est corpus meum’ di- cende, id est, figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Ceterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset. Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit, quia corporis carebat veritate: ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis. Faciebat ad unitatem Marcionis, suum appellat, et non magis peponem, quem Mar- cion cordis loco habuit? Non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis Christi, dicentis per Hieremiam, “‘adversus me cogitaverunt cogitatum dicentes, Venite, conjiciamus lignum in panem ejus ;”” scilicet crucem in corpus ejus. Itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tune voluerit significasse panem satis declaravit, corpus suum vocans panem, Ibid. Lib. iv. pp. 457, 8. Paris. 1664. ] {* he made it now his very body, 1551.j The bread representeth Christ’s body and the wine his blood. Tertullianus eontra Mar- cionem. Lib. 1. Tertullianus. * The author had left out «« the saine.”” Tertullian saith not ‘an only figure.” 122. 120 THE THIRD BOOK. CANTERBURY. Oh what a wrangling and wresting is here made! what crooks be cast! what leaping about is here, to avoid a foil! And yet I refer to any indifferent man that shall read the place of Tertullian, to judge whether you have truly expounded him, or in the wrestling with him be quite overthrown, and have a flat fall upon your back. For Tertullian saith not, that the bread was a figure of Christ’s body only in the prophet, as you expound Tertullian, but saith, “that bread and wine were figures in the old testament, and so taken in the prophets, and now be figures again in the new testament, and so used of Christ himself in his last supper.” And where Tertullian saith, that Christ made bread his body, he expoundeth him- self how Christ made bread his body, adding by and by these words, “that is to say, a figure of his body.” But if thou canst forbear, good reader, (when thou readest the fond handling of Tertullian by this ignorant and subtle lawyer,) I pray thee laugh not; for it is no matter to be laughed at, but to be sorrowed, that the most ancient authors of Christ’s church should thus be eluded in so weighty causes. O Lord, what shall these men answer to thee at the last day, when no cavillations shall have place ? These be Tertullian’s words: “Jesus taking bread, and distributing it among his dis- ciples, made it his body, saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is to say, a figure of my body.” Here Tertullian expoundeth not the saying of the prophet, but the saying of Christ, “This is my body.” And where Tertullian hath but once the word “this,” you say “the first this.” And so you make a wise speech to say “the first,’ where is but one. And Tertullian speaketh of “this” in Christ’s words, when he said, “This is my body ;” and you refer them to the prophet’s words, which be not there, but be spoken of long after. And if you had not forgotten your grammar and all kind of speech, or else hurled away all together purposely to serve your own wilful device, you would have referred the demonstration’ of his antecedent before, and not to a thing that in order cometh long after. And “bread” in the prophet was but a figurative speech, but in Christ’s words was not only a figurative speech, but also a figurative thing; that is to say, very material bread, which by a figurative speech Christ ordained to be a figure and a sacrament of his body. For as the prophet by this word “bread” figured Christ’s body, so did Christ himself institute very material bread to be a figure of his body in the sacrament. But you refer “this” to the bread in the prophet, which Christ spake, as Tertullian saith, of the bread in the gospel. And Christ's words must needs be understanded of the bread which he gave to his apostles, in the time of the gospel, after he had ended the supper of the law. And if Christ made the bread in the prophet his very body, which was no material bread, but this word “bread,” then did Christ make this word bread his body, and converted this word bread into the substance of his body. This is the conclusion of your subtle sophisti- cation of Tertullian’s words. Now, as concerning St Cyprian, whom you here allege, he spake of a sacramental, and not of a corporal and carnal conversion, as shall be plainly declared, when I come to the place of Cyprian, and partly I have declared already in mine other book. And Tertullian proved not in that place the verity of Christ’s body by the figure of the prophet, but by the figure which Christ ordained of his body in his last supper. For he went not about to prove that Christ should have a body, but that he had then a true body, because he ordained a figure thereof, which could have had no figure, as Tertullian saith, if it had been but a fantastical body, and no true body in deed. Wherefore this which you say, in answering to the plain words of Tertullian, may be said of them that care not what they say; but it cannot be “said evidently,” that is spoken so sophistically. But “if so plain speech” of Tertullian, say you, that Christ “‘made bread his body, contain no more certainty in understanding but the figure of a body, why should not the body of Christ ever be taken for a figure, and so no certainty of any true body to [! The demonstrative, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 121] be in Christ?” This reason had been more fit to be made by a man that had lost both his wit and reason. [or in this place Tertullian must needs be so understand, that by the body of Christ is understand the figure of his body, because Tertullian so expoundeth it himself. And must it be always so, because it is here so? Must ever Christ’s body be taken for a figure, because it is here taken for a figure, as Tertullian saith? Have you so forgotten your logic, that you will make a good argument, @ particulari ad universale? By your own manner of argumentation, because you make a naughty argument here in this place, shall I conclude that you never make none good? Surely this place of Tertullian, as you have handled it, is neither secret nor manifest point either of learning, wit, or reason, but a mere so- phistication, if it be no worse. What other papists have answered to this place of Tertullian, I am not igno- rant, nor I am sure you be not so ignorant but you know that never none answered as you do. But your answer varieth as much from all other papists’, as yours and theirs also do vary from the truth. Here the reader may note by the way, how many foul shifts you make to avoid the saying of Tertullian. First you say, that “bread was a figure in the prophet’s mouth, but not in Christ’s words.” Second, that the thing which the prophet spake of was not that which Christ spake of. Third, that other have answered this place of Tertullian before. Fourth, that you call this matter but “a wrangling argument.” Fifth, that if Tertullian call bread a figure, yet he “termeth it not only figure’.” These be your shifts. Now let the reader look upon Tertulhan’s plain words, which I have rehearsed in my book, and then let him judge whether you mean to declare Tertullian’s mind truly, or no. And it is not requisite for my purpose to prove that bread is only a figure, for I take upon me there to prove no more but that the bread is a figure representing Christ’s body, and the wine his blood. And if bread be a figure, and not only a figure, then must you make bread both the figure and the truth of the figure. Now hear what other authors I do here allege. And St Cyprian the holy martyr saith of this matter, that “ Christ’s blood is shewed in the wine, and the people in the water that is mixed with the wine; : so that the mixture of the water to the wine signifieth the spiritual commixtion and joining of us unto Christ’*.” By which similitude Cyprian meant not that the blood of Christ is wine, or the people water, but as the water doth signify and represent the people, so doth the wine signify and represent Christ’s blood; and the uniting of the water and wine together signifieth the uniting of Christian people unto Christ himself. And the same St Cyprian in another place, writing hereof, saith, that “Christ in his last supper gave to his apostles with his own hands bread and wine, which he called his flesh and blood; but in the cross he gave his very body to be wounded with the hands of the soldiers, that the apostles might declare to the world, how and in what manner bread and wine may be the flesh and blood of Christ.” And the manner he straightways declareth thus, that “those things which do signify, and those things which be signified by them, may be both called by one name‘*.” [? He termeth it not an only figure, 1551.] [* Videmus in aqua populum intelligi, in vino yero ostendi sanguinem Christi. Quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur, et credentium plebs ei, in quem credidit, copulatur et conjungitur.—Cyprian. Epist. Ixiii. Cecilio fratri. (Lib, 11. Epist. iii.) p. 146. Par. 1574.] [* Dedit itaque Dominus noster in mensa, in qua ultimuin cum Apostolis participavit convivium, pro- priis manibus panem et vinum : in cruce vero mani- bus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum; ut in Apostolis secretius impressa sincera veritas, et vera sinceritas, exponeret gentibus, quomodo vinum et panis caro esset et sanguis, et quibus rationibus cause effectibus convenirent, et diversa nomina vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam, et signifi- cantia et significata eisdem vocabulis censerentur. Cyprian. De unctione Chrismatis, p. 477. This Cyprianus, Lib. il. Epist. 3. De unctione Chrismatis. Chrys. in Ps. XXL. Jero.in Matt. XXViL Ambros, de his qui mys- teriis initian- tur, cap. ult. De Saera-_ mentis, Lib. vi. cap. 1. Lib. iv. cap. 4. Lib. iv. cap. 5 (Ut nullus horror cru- oris sit : et pretiuin tamen opere- tur redemp- tionis. Emb. Ed. 1557. ) 1 Cor. xi. 124, 122 THE THIRD BOOK. Here it is certain, by St Cyprian’s mind, wherefore and in what wise bread is called Christ’s flesh, and wine his blood; that is to say, because that every thing that representeth and signifieth another thing, may be called by the name of the thing which it signifieth. And therefore St John Chrysostom saith, that “Christ ordained the table of his holy supper for this purpose, that in that sacrament he should daily shew unto us bread and wine for a similitude of his body and blood?.” St Jerome likewise saith upon the gospel of Matthew, that “Christ took bread, which comforteth man’s heart, that he might represent thereby his very body and blood*.” Also St Ambrose, if the book initiantur, saith, that “ before the be his that is entitled De his qui mystertis consecration another kind is named, but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified. Christ said his blood: before the consecration it is called another thing, but after the consecration is signified the blood of Christ®.” And in his book De Sacramentis, if that be also his, he writeth thus: “Thou dost receive the sacrament for a similitude of the flesh and blood of Christ, but thou dost obtain the grace and virtue of his true nature‘.” «And receiving the bread, in that food thou art partaker of his godly substance.” And in the same book he saith: “As thou hast in baptism received the similitude of death, so likewise dost thou in the sacrament drink the similitude of Christ’s precious blood®.” And again he saith in the said book: “The priest saith, ‘Make unto us this oblation to be acceptable,’ which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesu Christ.” And upon the epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians he saith, “that in eating and drinking the bread and wine, we do signify the flesh and blood, which were offered for us. And the old testament,’ he saith, “was instituted in blood, because that blood was a witness of God’s benefit ; in signification and figure whereof we take the mystical cup of his blood, to the tuition 7 of our body and soul’. Of these places of St Chrysostom, St Jerome, and St Ambrose, it is clear, that in the sacramental bread and wine is not really and corporally the very Treatise is spurious.—Vid. James’ Corruptions of Scripture, &c. p. 19. Lond. 1843. ] [! The passage is not in the Greek of Chrysos- tom. It stands as follows in the Homily, ‘‘ incerto auctore,’’ printed in the Latin edition of Chrysos- tom, Paris. 1570. Tom. I. col. 720. Et quia istam mensam preparavit servis et ancillis in conspectu eorum, ut quotidie in similitudinem corporis et san- guinis Christi panem et vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in sacramento, ita di- cit, Parasti in conspectu meo mensam adversus eos qui tribulant me. [2 Cenantibus autem eis, accepit Jesus panem, §c. Postquam typicum pascha fuerat impletum, et agni carnes cum apostolis comederat, assumit panem, qui confortat cor hominis, et ad verum pasche transgreditur sacramentum ; ut quomodo in prefiguratione ejus Melchisedec, summi Dei sacer- dos, panem et vinum offerens fecerat, ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis et sanguinis reprsentaret.— Hieronymus, Commentarii in Matt. Lib. 1v. cap. 26. Tom. IX. p. 64. Francof. 1684.] [* Ipse clamat Dominus Jesus ; Hoc est corpus meum, Ante benedictionem verborum celestium species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur. Ipse dicit sanguinem suum, Ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post consecra~ tionem sanguis nuncupatur. Ambros. de Initiandis. Tom. IV. p. 166. Ed. Colon. Agrip. 1616.] {* Ideo in similitudine quidem accipis sacra- mentum, sed vere nature gratiam virtutemque con- sequeris: tu, qui accipis carnem, divine ejus sub- stantie in illo participaris alimento. De Sacram. Lib. vi. cap. i. Tom. IV. p. 176.] [° Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis.— Lib. tv. cap. iv. Tom. IV. p. 173. ] [® Dicit sacerdos : Fac nobis, inquit, hance obla- tionem adscriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem ; quod sit in figuram corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi.—Ib. Lib. rv. cap. v. Tom. 1V. p. 173.] [7 Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus, hu- jus rei memores, in edendo et potando carnem et san- guinem, que pro nobis oblata sunt, significamus.— Testamentum ergo sanguine coustitutum est, quia beneficii divini sanguis testis est. In cujus typum nos calicem mysticum sanguinis ad tuitionem cor- poris et anime nostre percipimus.—Id. in 1 Co- rinth. xi. Tom. III. p. 184. But these comnien- taries are considered to be spurious. | OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 123 natural substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, but that the bread and wine Signs and . 1° . . . . . 2 igures have — be similitudes, mysteries and representations, significations, sacraments, figures, ee of schngs and signs of his body and blood: and therefore be called, and have the name of which they signify. his very body*, flesh, and blood. WINCHESTER. Cyprian shall be touched after, when we speak of him again. Cyprianus. Chrysostom shall open himself hereafter plainly. Ghivecatomn: St Jerome speaketh here very pithily, using the word “represent,” which signifieth a true Mieronym. real exhibition: for St Jerome speaketh of the representation of the truth of Christ's body, which truth excludeth an only figure. For howsoever the visible matter of the sacrament be a figure, the invisible part is a truth: which St Jerome saith is here represented, that is to say, made present, which only signification doth not. St Ambrose shall after declare himself: and it is not denied, but the authors in speaking of Ambrosius. the sacrament used these words, “sign,” “figure,” “similitude,’ “token ;” but those speeches ea- *No author . . 5 . 4 saith an only clude not the verity and truth of the body and blood of Christ, for no approved author hath figure. this exclusion®, to say an only sign, an only token, an only similitude, or an only signifi- cation, which is the issue with this author. 92 66 CANTERBURY. Here you shift off St Cyprian and Chrysostom with fair promise to make answer Hieronymus. to them hereafter, who approve plainly my saying, that the bread representeth Christ’s body, and the wine his blood; and so you answer here only to St Jerome. In answering to whom you were loth, I sce well, to leave behind any thing that might have any colour to make for you, that expound this word “represent” in St Jerome to signify Represent. real exhibition. Here appeareth that ye can, when you list, change the signification of words, that can make vocare to signify facere, and facere to signify sacrificare, as you do in your last book. And why should you not then in other words (when it will serve for like purposes) have the like liberty to change the signification of words when you list? And if this word “represent” in St Jerome's words sig- nify real exhibition, then did Melchisedech really exhibit Christ’s flesh and blood, who, as the same St Jerome saith, did represent his flesh and blood by offering bread and wine. And yet in the Lord’s supper, rightly used, is Christ's body exhibited indeed spiritually, and so really, if you take really to signify only a spiritual and not a Really. corporal and carnal exhibition. But this real and spiritual exhibition is to the receivers of the sacrament, and not to the bread and wine. And mine issue in this place is no more, but to prove that these sayings of Christ, “This is my body, this is my blood,” be figurative speeches, signifying that the bread representeth Christ's body, and the wine his blood; which forasmuch as you confess, there needed no great contention in this point, but that you would seem in words to vary, where we agree in the substance of the matter, and so take occasion to make a long book, where a short would have served. And as for the exclusion’? “only,” many of the authors, as I proved before, have 125. the same exclusive, or other words equivalent thereto. . And as for the sacramental signs, they be only figures. And of the presence of Christ's body yourself hath this exclusive, that Christ is but after a spiritual manner present, and I say he is but spi- ritually present. Now followeth St Augustine. And yet St Augustine sheweth this matter more clearly and fully than any Augustinus : . : : . . ad Bonita- of the rest, specially in an epistle which he wrote ad Bonifacium, where he cium. pist. 23, [® Lhe Original ed., and that of 1541, omit the | (® This exclusive, 1651.] word “body” in this sentence. ] [{!° The exclusive, 1501.] 124 THE THIRD BOOK. saith: “That a day or two before Good Friday, we use in common speech to say thus, ‘To-morrow, or this day two days, Christ suffered his passion ;’ where in very deed he never suffered his passion but once, and that was many years past. Likewise upon Easter-day we say, ‘This day Christ rose from death ;’ where in very deed it is many hundred years sithens he rose from death. Why then do not men reprove us as liars, when we speak in this sort, but because we call these days so, by a similitude of those days wherein these things were done in deed? And so it is called that day, which is not that day in deed, but by the course of the year it is a like day. And such things be said to be done that day for the solemn celebration of the sacrament, which things in deed were not done that day, but long before. Was Christ offered any more but once? And he offered himself: and yet in a sacrament or representation, not only every solemn feast of Easter, but every day he is offered to the people; so that he doth not lie that saith, ‘He is every day offered.’ For if sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of those things whereof they be sacraments, they could in no wise be sacraments. And for their similitude and likeness, commonly they have the name of the things, whereof they be sacraments. Therefore, as after a certain manner of speech the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood; so likewise the sacrament of faith is faith, And to believe is nothing else but to have faith; and therefore when we answer for young children in their baptism, that they believe, which have not yet the mind to believe, we answer that they have faith, because they have the sacrament of faith. And we say also that they turn unto God, because of the sacrament of conversion unto God; for that answer pertaineth to the cele- bration of the sacrament. And likewise speaketh the apostle of baptism, saying, that ‘by baptism we be buried with him into death: he saith not that we signify burial, but he saith plainly, that we be buried. So that the sa- crament of so great a thing is not called but by the name of the thing itself!.” Hitherto I have rehearsed the answer of St Augustine unto Boniface, a learned bishop, who asked of him, how the parents and friends could answer for a young babe in baptism, and say in his person that he believeth and converteth unto God, when the child can neither do nor think any such things. Whereunto the answer of St Augustine is this: that forasmuch as baptism is the sacrament of the profession of our faith, and of our conversion unto [} Nempe sezpe ita loquimur, ut pascha pro- pinquante dicamus, crastinam vel perendinam Do- mini passionem, cum ille ante tam multos annos passus sit, nec omnino nisi semel illa passio facta sit. Nempe ipso die Dominico dicimus, ‘ Hodie Dominus resurrexit,’ cum ex quo resurrexit tot anni transierunt. Cur nemo tam ineptus est, ut nos ita loquentes arguat esse mentitos, nisi quia istos dies secundum illorum quibus hee gesta sunt similitu- dinem nuncupamus, ut dicatur ipse dies qui non est ipse, sed revolutione temporis similis ejus; et dicatur illo die fieri, propter sacramenti celebra- tionem, quod non illo die, sed jam olim factum est? Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso ? et tamen in sacramento non solum per omnes pasche solemnitates, sed omni die populis immo- latur, nec utique mentitur qui interrogatus eum responderit immolari, Si enim sacramenta quan- dam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacra- menta sunt non haberent, omnino sacramenta non | essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina aceipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Nihil est autem aliud credere quam fidem habere. Ac per hoc cum respondetur par- vulus credere, qui fidei nondum habet affectum, respondetur fidem habere propter fidei sacramentum, et convertere se ad Deum propter conversionis sacramentum, quia et ipsa responsio ad celebra- tionem pertinet sacramenti. Sicut de ipso baptismo Apostolus, ‘Consepulti,’ inquit, ‘sumus Christo per baptismum in mortem.’ Non ait, sepulturam significavimus : sed prorsus ait, ‘ Consepulti sumus.’ Sacramentum ergo tante rei non nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncupavit. Augustin. ad Bonifacium de Bapt. parvul. Epist. xxiii. Tom. II. p. 36. Paris. 1637. | OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 125 God, it becometh us so to answer for young children coming thereunto, as to the? sacrament appertaineth, although the children m deed have no knowledge of such things. And yet in our said answers we ought not to be reprehended as vain men or liars, forasmuch as in common speech we use daily to call sacraments and figures by the names of the things that be signified by them, although they be not the same thing indeed. As every Good Friday, as often as it returneth from year to year, we call it the day of Christ’s passion: and every Haster-day we call the day of his resurrection: and every day in the year, we say that Christ is offered: and the sacrament of his body, we call it his body: and the sacrament of his blood, we call it his blood: and our baptism St Paul ealleth our burial with Christ. And yet in very deed Christ never suffered but once, never arose but once, never was offered but once, nor in very deed in baptism we be not buried, nor the sacrament of Christ’s body is not his body, nor the sacrament of his blood is not his blood. But so they be called, because they be figures, sacraments, and representations of the things themselves, which they signify, and whereof they bear the names. Thus doth St Augustine most plainly open this matter in his epistle to Bonifacius. 126. Of this manner of speech, (wherem a sign is called by the name _ of super Leviti- the thing which it signifieth,) speaketh St Augustine also right largely in his questions super Leviticum, et contra Adamantium, declaring how blood in scripture is called the soul. “A thing which signifieth,” saith he, “is wont to be called by the name of the thing which it signifieth, as it is written in the scripture: ‘The seven ears be seven years. The scripture saith not, ‘signifieth seven years.’ ‘And seven kine be seven years, and many other like. And so said St Paul, ‘that the stone was Christ,’ and not that it signified Christ, but even as it had been he indeed, which nevertheless was not Christ by substance, but by signification, Even so,” saith St Augustine, “because the blood signifieth and representeth the soul, therefore in a sacra- ment or signification it is called the soul®.” And contra Adamantium he writeth much like, saying: “In such wise is blood the soul, as the stone was Christ; and yet the apostle saith not that the stone signified Christ, but saith it was Christ. And this sentence, ‘blood is the soul, may be under- stand to be spoken in a sign or figure; for Christ did not stick to say, ‘This is my body,’ when he gave the sign of his body*.” Here St Augustine, rehearsing divers sentences, which were spoken figu- ratively, that is to say, when one thing was called by the name of another, and yet was not the other in substance, but in signification, as “the blood is the soul;” “seven kine be seven years;” “seven ears be seven years ;” “the stone was Christ ;” among such manner of speeches, he rehearseth those [? That, Orig. ed. and 1551.] [? Solet autem res que significat, ejus rei nomine quam significat nuncupari, sicut scriptum est, “Septem spice septem anni sunt.’? Non enim dixit, Septem annos significant. ‘It septem boves septem anni sunt:’ et multa hujusmodi. Hine est quod dictum est: ‘Petra erat Christus.’ Non enim dixit, petra significat Christum, sed tanquam hoc esset, quod utique per substantiam non hoc erat, sed per Significationem. Sic et sanguis, quoniam propter vitalem quandam corpulentiam animam significat, in sacramentis anima dictus est.—Augustin. super Levit. Lib. r11. Quest. lvii. Tom. IV. p. 95.] {4 Sic est enim sanguis anima, quomodo petra erat Christus :—de quibus [loquebatur] Apostolus cum hee diceret, nec tamen ait, ‘ petra significabat Christum,’ sed ait, ‘petra erat Christus.’ Que rur- sus ne carnaliter acciperetur, spiritalem ille vocat : id est, eam spiritaliter intelligi docet. Possum etiam interpretari preceptum illud in signo esse positum. Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere, ‘Hoc est corpus meum,’ cum signum daret corporis sui.—Ibid. contra Adamantium, cap. 12, pars iii. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506. The position of these quotations is reversed by Cranmer. ] cum, Quest. 57. Lev. xvii. Gen. xli. 1 Cor. x. Contra Ada- mantium, eap. 12. Lev. xvii. Matt. xxvi. Contra Maxi- minum, Lib. lil. cap. 22. In Lib. Sen- tentiarum Prosperi de Consecrat. Dist. 2. “* Hoe est.” Bueerus, * Authors for doctrine should be read where they expound the matter without contention. M. Bucer. 126 THE THIRD BOOK. words which Christ spake at his last supper, “This is my body.” Which de- clareth plainly St Augustine’s mind, that Christ spake those words figura- tively, not meaning that the bread was his body by substance, but by sig- nification. And therefore St Augustine saith, contra Maximinum, that “in the sacra- ments we must not consider what they be, but what they signify; for they be signs of things, bemg one thing and we another'.” Which he doth shew specially of this sacrament, saying: ‘“ The heavenly bread, which is Christ’s flesh, by some manner of Seay is called Christ’s body, when in very deed it is the sacrament of his body. And that offering of the flesh, which is done by the priest’s hands, is called Christ’s passion, death, and crucifying, not in very deed, but in a mystical signification”. WINCHESTER. As for St Augustine ad Bonifacium, the author shall perceive his fault at Martin Bucer’s hand, who in his epistle dedicatory of his enarrations of the gospels, rehearseth his nind of St Augustine in this wise. Est (scribit divus Augustinus) secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi; sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi. At secundum quem modum? Ut significet tantum corpus et sanguinem Domini absentia? Absit: honorari enim et percipi in symbolis visibilibus corpus et sanguinem Domini, idem passim seribit. These words of Bucer may be thus Englished: “ St Augustine writeth : * The sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certain manner the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ, the blood of Christ. But after what manner? that it should signify only the body and blood absent? Absit, in no wise; for the same St Augustine writeth in many places, the body and blood of Christ to be honoured, and to be received in those visible tokens.” Thus saith Bucer, who understandeth not St Augustine to say the sacrament of Christ's body, to be Christ's body after a certain manner of speech, as this author doth: nor St Augustine hath no such words, but only, secundum quendam modum, after a certain manner, whereunto to put “ of speech” is an addition more than truth required of necessity. In these words of Bucer may appear his whole judgment concerning St Augustine, who afirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the sacrament; which truth established in the matter, the calling it a sign, or a token, a figure, a similitude, or a shewing, maketh no matter when we understand the thing really present that is signified. Which and it were not indeed in the sacrament, why should it, after Bucer’s true understanding of St Augustine, be honoured there? Arguing wpon men’s speeches may be without end; and the authors® upon diverse respects speak of one thing diversely. Therefore we should resort to the pith and knot of the matter, and see what they say im ex- pounding the special place, without contention, and not what they utter in the heat of their dispu- tation, ne to search their dark and ambiguous places, wherewith to confound that they speak openly and plainly. CANTERBURY. What need you to bring Martin Bucer to make me answer, if you could answer yourself? But because you be ashamed of the matter, you would thrust Martin Bucer in your place, to receive rebuke* for you. But in this place he easeth you nothing at all; for he saith no more but that the body and blood of Christ be exhibited unto the worthy receivers of the sacrament, which is true, but yet spiritually, not cor- porally. [! Hee enim sacramenta sunt, in quibus non | sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors, cruci- quid sit, sed quid ostendant semper attenditur: quo- niam signa sunt rerum, aliud existentia, aliud sig- nificantia.—Ibid. contra Maximinum, Lib. 111. cap. 22. pars x1. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506.] [2 Sicut ergo ceelestis panis, qui vere Christus caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius vide- licet, quod visibile, palpabile, mortale in cruce est | suspensum ; vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, que | fixio, nom rei yeritate, sed significante mysterio. Corpus Juris Canonici. Gratiani Decreti, tert. pars. De consecrat. Dist. ii. ‘* Hoc est.’’ cap. xlviii. Tom. I. col. 1937. Lugd. 1618.—Cranmer quoted this passage from the Corpus Juris Canonici, and not from Augustine. | [? Thauctour, 1551.] [* To receive the rebuke for you, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 127 And I never said that Christ is utterly absent, but I ever affirmed that he is truly the true and spiritually present, and truly and spiritually exhibited unto the godly receivers : bf Christ. but corporally is he neither in the receivers, nor in or under the forms of bread or wine, as you do teach clearly without the consent of master Bucer, who writeth no such thing. And where I allege of St Augustine, that the sacrament of Christ’s body is called Christ’s body, after a certain manner of speech, and you deny that St Augustine meant of a certain manner of speech, but saith only after a certain manner: read the place of St Augustine who will, and he shall find that he speaketh of the manner of speech, and that of such a manner of speech, as calleth one thing by the name of another, where it is not the very thing in deed. For of the manner of speech is all the process there, as appeareth by these his words: “‘A day or two before Good Friday, we use in common speech to say, To-morrow, or this day two days, Christ suffered, &c. Likewise upon Easter-day we say, This day Christ rose. And why do no men reprove us as liars, when we speak in this sort? And we call those days so by a similitude, &c. And so it is called that day, which is not that day in deed. And sacraments commonly have the name of the things whereof they be sacraments. Therefore as after a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ’s body ; so likewise the sacrament of faith is faith. And likewise saith St Paul, that in baptism we be buried, he saith not that we signify burial, but he saith plainly that we be buried: so that the sacrament of so great a thing is called by the name of the thing.” 128. All these be St Augustine’s words, shewing how in the common use of speech one thing may have the name of another. Wherefore when Doctor Gardiner saith that St Augustine spake not of the manner of speech, thou mayest believe him hereafter as thou shalt see cause, but if thou trust his words too much, thou shalt soon be deceived. As for the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, I grant that he is really pre- sent after such sort as you expound really in this place, that is to say, in deed, and Reaity. yet but spiritually. For you say yourself, that he is but after a spiritual manner there, and so is he spiritually honoured, as St Augustine saith. But as concerning heat of disputation, mark well the words of St Augustine, good reader, cited in my book, and thou shalt see clearly that all this multiplication of words is rather a juggling than a direct answer. For St Augustine writeth not in heat of disputation, but temperately and gravely, to a learned bishop, his dear friend, who demanded a question of him. And if St Augustine had answered in heat of disputation, or for any other respect otherwise than the truth, he had not done the part of a friend, nor of a learned and godly bishop. And whosoever judgeth so of St Augustine, hath small estimation of him, and sheweth himself to have little know- ledge of St Augustine. But in this your answer to St Augustine, you utter where you learned a good part of your divinity, that is, of Albertus Pighius, who is the father of this shift, and aypertus with this sleight eludeth St Augustine when he could no® otherwise answer: as ‘""* you do now shake off the same St Augustine, resembling as it were in that point the lively countenance of your father Pighius. Next in my book followeth Theodoret. And to this purpose it is both pleasant, comfortable, and profitable to read Theodoretus Theodoretus in his dialogues, where he disputeth and sheweth at length how ¥e the names of things be changed in scripture, and yet things remain still. And for example he proveth that the flesh of Christ is in the scripture sometime called a vail or covering, sometime a cloth, sometime a vestment, and sometime a stole: and the blood of the grape is called Christ’s blood, and the names of bread and wine, and of his flesh and blood, Christ doth so change, that sometime he calleth his body corn or bread, and sometime [> none, 1551.] 128 THE THIRD BOOK. contrary he calleth bread his body. And likewise his blood sometime he calleth wine, and sometime contrary he calleth wine his blood. For the more plain understanding whereof it shall not be amiss to re- ‘cite his own sayings in his foresaid dialogues, touching this matter of the In the first dialogue. John xii. 129: Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. John xy. John xii. Matt. xxvi. John xv. Gen. xlvi. John vi. (OrtH. Por- ro si sunt vera, corpus holy sacrament of Christ’s flesh and blood. The speakers in these dialogues be Orthodoxus, the right believer, and Eranistes, his companion, but not under- standing the right faith. Orthodoxus saith to his companion: 'Dost thou not know that God ealleth bread his flesh? Eran. I know that. Orrx. And in another place he calleth his body corn. Eran. I know that also, for I have heard him say: “ The hour is come that the Son of man shall be glorified,” &c. “ Except the grain of corn that falleth in the ground die, it remaineth sole; but if it die, then it bringeth forth much fruit.” Ort. When he gave the mysteries or sacraments, he called bread his body, and that which was mixt in the cup he called his blood. Eran. So he called them. Ortru. But that also which was his natural body may well be called his body, and his very blood also may be called his blood. Eran. It is plain. OrtH. But our Saviour without doubt changed the names, and gaye to the body the name of the sign or token, and to the token he gave the name of the body. And so when he called himself a vine, he called blood that which was the token of blood. Eran. Surely thou hast spoken the truth. But 1 would know the cause wherefore the names were changed. Ortu. The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion. For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments, should not set their minds upon the nature of the things which they see, but by the changing of the names should believe the things which be wrought in them by grace. For he that called that, which is his natural body, corn and — bread, and also called himself a vine, he did honour the visible tokens and signs with the names of his body and blood, not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature. Eran. Sacraments be spoken of sacramentally, and also by them be manifestly declared things which all men know not. OrrH. Seeing then that it is certain that the patriarch called the Lord’s body a vestment and apparel, and that now we be entered to speak of godly sacraments, tell me truly of what thmg thinkest thou this holy meat to be a token and figure; of Christ’s divinity, or of his body and blood? Eran. It is clear that it is the figure of those things whereof it beareth the name. Ortu. Meanest thou of his body and blood? Eran. Even so I mean. Ortu. Thou hast spoken as one that loveth the truth: for the Lord | when he took the token or sign, he said not, This is my divinity; but “ This is my body,” and “This is my blood.” And in another place: “The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” : Eran. These things be true, for they be God’s words. [! Theodoretus, in Dialogo i. Tom. IV. pp. 25-27. Hale. 1769-94. | OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 129 All these writeth Theodoretus in his first dialogue. MEE MBDES And in the second he writeth the same in effect, and yet in some thing? {\%.J\i. more plainly, against such heretics as affirmed, that after Christ’s resurrection ia and ascension his humanity was changed from the very nature of man* and faters ilum turned into his divinity. Against whom thus he writeth’: corn Bi Orrn. Corruption, health, sickness, and death, be accidents, for they Dialogue 2. go and come. Eran. It is meet they be so called. Orrn. Men’s bodies after their resurrection be delivered from corrup- tion, death, and mortality, and yet they lose not their proper nature. Eran. Truth it is. Ortu. The body of Christ therefore did rise quite clean from all cor- Christ's ruption and death, and is impassible, immortal, glorified with the glory of fied hath his God, and is honoured of the powers of heaven, and it is® a body, and hath a the same bigness that it had" before. Eran. Thy saying’ seem true and according to reason; but after he was ascended up into heaven, I think thou wilt not say, that his body was 180. not turned*® into the nature of his Godhead °. Ort. I would not so say for the persuasion of man’s reason: nor I am not so arrogant and presumptuous to affirm any thing which scripture passeth over in silence. But I have heard St Paul ery, “that God hath ordained aets xvii. a day when he will judge all the world in justice by that man which he appointed before, performimg his promise to all men, and raising him from death.’ I have learned also of the holy angels, that he will come after acti. that fashion, as his disciples saw him go to heaven. But they saw a nature of a certain bigness, not a nature which had no bigness. I heard further- more the Lord say: ‘“ You shall see the Son of man come in the clouds of Mate. xxiv. heaven.” And I know that every thing that men see hath a certain bigness: for that nature that hath no bigness cannot be seen. Moreover to sit in the throne of glory, and to set the lambs upon his right hand, and the goats upon his left hand, signifieth a thing that hath quantity and bigness. Hitherto have I rehearsed Theodoretus’ words, and shortly after Eranistes saith!?: Kran. We must turn every stone, as the proverb saith, to seek out the truth, but specially when godly matters be propounded. Ortu. Tell me then the sacramental signs which be offered to God by his priests, whereof be they signs, sayest thou ? Eran. Of the Lord’s body and blood. Ortu. Of a very body? or not of a very body ? Eran. Of a very body. Ortu. Very well, for an image must be made after a true pattern : for painters follow nature, and paint the images of such things as we see with our eyes. Eran. Truth it is. Orru. If therefore the godly sacraments represent a true body, then is the Lord’s body yet still a body, not converted into the nature of his God- head, but replenished with God’s glory. [° Things, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] of 1580.] {* Of a man, 1551, and Orig. ed.] {7 Sayings, 1551, and Orig. ed. } {* Id. in Dialogo ii. Tom. IV. pp. 122, 3.] [® Was turned, 1551, and Orig. ed. | ty And yet it is, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [9 Of the Godhead, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [° Hath, 1551. The Orig. ed. reads with that (2° Theodoret. ubi supra, pp. 122, 3.] [oranmrr. ] 9 130 THE THIRD BOOK. iran. It cometh in good time that thou makest mention of God’s sacra- ments; for by the same I shall prove that Christ’s body is turned into another nature. Answer therefore unto my questions. Ortu. I shall answer. Eran. What callest thou that which is offered before the invocation of the priest ? Ortu. We must not speak plainly; for it is like that some be present which have not professed Christ. Eran. Answer covertly. Ortu. It is a nourishment made of seeds that be like. Eran. Then how call we the other sign ? Ortu. It is also a common name that signifieth a kind of drink. Eran. But how dost thou call them after the sanctification ? Ortru. The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. Eran. And dost thou believe that thou art made partaker of Christ’s body and blood ? Ortnu. I believe so. Eran. Therefore as the tokens of God’s body and blood be other things 131. before the priest’s invocation, but after the invocation they be changed, and be other things; so also the body of Christ after his assumption is changed into his divine substance. Ortu. Thou art taken with thine own net. For the sacramental signs go not from their own nature after the sanctification, but continue in their former substance, form, and figure, and may be seen and touched as well as before: yet in our minds we do consider what they be made, and do repute and esteem them and haye them in reverence, according to the same things that they be taken for. Therefore compare their images to the pattern, and thou shalt see them like. For figure’ must be like to the thing itself. For Christ’s body hath his former fashion, figure, and bigness, and, to speak at one word, the same substance of his body: but after his resurrection it was made immortal, and of such power, that no corruption nor death could come unto it; and it was exalted unto that dignity, that it was set at the right hand of the Father, and honoured of all creatures, as the body of him that is the Lord of nature. Eran. But the sacramental token changeth his former name; for it is no more called as it was before, but is called Christ’s body. Therefore must his body after his ascension be called God, and not a body. [Jesus enim Ortu. Thou seemest to me ignorant: for it is not called his body Christus heri ethodieille only, but also the bread of life, as the Lord called it. So the body of Christ ipse, et in gtemum- we call a godly body, a body that giveth life, God’s body, the Lord’s body, EH our master’s body; meaning® that it is not a common body, as other men’s bodies be, but that it is the body of our Lord Jesu Christ, both God and man. This have I rehearsed of the great clerk and holy bishop Theodoretus, whom some of the papists perceiving to make so plainly against them, have defamed, saying that he was infected with the error of Nestorius. Here the papists shew their old accustomed nature and condition, which is even ina manifest matter rather to lie without shame, than to give place unto the truth, and confess their own error. And although his adversaries [? a figure, 1551.] [? So the Orig. edit. and 1551; that of 1580 has name ning.] 2 EOE OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 131 falsely bruited such a fame against him, when he was yet alive, nevertheless (Quem Leo primus he was purged thereof by the whole council of Chaleedon, about eleven hundred episto. 1. sharissimum ears: ago. pellet, Prob, And furthermore in his book which he wrote against heresies, he specially #1" eondemneth Nestorius by name. And also all his three books of his dialogues before rehearsed he wrote chiefly against Nestorius, and was never herein noted of error this thousand year, but hath ever been reputed and taken for an holy bishop, a great learned man, and a grave author, until now at this present time, when the papists have nothing to answer unto him, they begin in excusing of themselves to defame him. Thus much have I spoken for Theodoretus, which I pray thee be not weary to read, good reader, but often and with delectation, deliberation, and good advertisement to read. For it containeth plainly and briefly the true instruction of a christian man, concerning the matter, which in this book we treat upon. First, that our Saviour Christ in his last supper, when he gave bread and wine to his apostles, saying, “This is my body; this is my blood;” it was bread [rive prin- cipal things which he called his body, and wine mixed in the cup which he called his blood : to be noted in Theodoret. so that he changed the names of the bread and wine, which were the mysteries, £4 151.1 sacraments, signs, figures, and tokens of Christ’s flesh and blood, and called 182. them by the names of the thimgs which they did represent and signify ; that is to say, the bread he called by the name of his very flesh, and the wine by the name of his blood. Second, that although the names of bread and wine were changed after sanctification, yet, nevertheless, the things themselves remained the selfsame that they were before the sanctification, that is to say, the same bread and wine in nature, substance, form, and fashion. The third, seeing that the substance of the bread and wine be not changed, why be then their names changed, and the bread called Christ’s flesh, and the wine his blood? Theodoretus sheweth that the cause thereof was this, that we should not have so much respect to the bread and wine (which we see with our eyes, and taste with our mouths) as we should have to Christ himself, in whom we believe with our hearts, and feel and taste him by our faith, and with whose flesh and blood (by his grace) we believe that we be spiritually fed and nourished. These things we ought to remember and revolve in our minds, and to lift up our hearts from the bread and wine unto Christ that sitteth above. And because we should so do, therefore after the con- secration they be no more called bread and wine, but the body and_ blood of Christ. The fourth, it is in these sacraments of bread and wine, as it is in the very body of Christ. For as the body of Christ before his resurrection and after is all one in nature, substanee, bigness, form, and fashion; and yet it is not called as another common body, but with addition, for the dignity of his exaltation, it is called a heavenly, a godly, an immortal, and the Lord’s body: so likewise the bread and wine before the consecration and after is all one in nature, substance, bigness, form, and fashion; and yet it is not called as other common bread, but for the dignity whereunto it is taken, it is called with addition, heavenly bread, the bread of life, and the bread of _ thanksgiving. The fifth, that no man ought to be so arrogant and presumptuous to affirm for a certain truth in religion any thing which is not spoken of in holy scripture. And this is spoken to the great and utter condemnation of g—2 138. Theodoretus. P, Martyr. 132 THE THIRD BOOK. the papists, which make and unmake new articles of our faith from time to time at their pleasure, without any scripture at all, yea, quite and clean contrary to scripture. And yet will they have all men bound to believe whatsoever they invent, upon peril of damnation and everlasting fire. And yet will they constrain’ with fire and fagot all men to consent (contrary to the manifest words of God) to these their errors in this matter of the holy sacrament of Christ’s body and blood: First, that there remaineth no bread nor wine after the consecration, but that Christ’s flesh and blood is made of them. Second, that Christ’s body is really, corporally, substantially, sensibly, and naturally in the bread and wine. Thirdly, that wicked persons do eat and drmk Christ’s very body and blood. Fourthly, that priests offer Christ every day, and make of him a new sacrifice propitiatory for sin. Thus for shortness of time I do make an end of Theodoretus, with other old ancient writers, which do most clearly affirm that to eat Christ’s body and to drink his blood be figurative speeches. And so be these sen- tences likewise which Christ spake at his supper: ‘This is my body ;” “this is my blood.” WINCHESTER. The author bringeth in Theodoret, a Greek, whom to discuss particularly were long and tedious: one notable place there is in him which toucheth the point of the matter, which place Peter Martyr allegeth in Greek, and then translateth it into Latin, not exactly as other have — done to the truth; but as he hath done, I will write here?. And then will I write the same, translated into English by one that hath translated Peter Martyr's book; and then will I add the translation of this author, and finally, the very truth of the Latin, as I will abide by, and join an issue with this author in it, whereby thou, reader, shalt perceive with what sin- cerity things be handled. Peter Martyr hath of Theodoret this in Latin, which the same Theodoret, in a disputation with an heretic, maketh the catholic man to say: Captus es iis que tetenderas retibus. Neque enim post sanctificationem mystica symbola illa propria sua natura egrediuntur ; manent enim in priori sua substantia, et figura, et specie, adeoque et videntur, et pal- pantur, quemadmodum et antea. Intelliguntur autem que facta sunt, et creduntur, et adorantur tanquam ea existentia, que creduntur. He that translateth Peter Martyr in English, doth express these words thus: “ Lo, thou art now caught in the same net which thow hadst set to catch me in. For those same mystical signs do not depart away out of their own proper nature after the hallowing of them. For they remain still in their former substance, and their former shape, and their former kind, and are even® as well seen and felt as they were afore. But the things that are done are wnderstanded, and are believed, and are wor- shipped, even as though they were in very deed the things that are believed.” This is the common translation into English of Peter Martyr's book translated, which this author doth translate after his fashion thus: “ Thow art taken with thine own net; for the sacramental signs go not from their own nature after the sanctification, but continue in their former substance, form, and figure, and be seen and touched as well as before. Yet in our minds we do consider what they be made, and do repute and esteem them and have them in reverence according to the same things that they be taken for.” Thus is the translation of this author. Mine English of this Latin is thus: “Thou art taken with the same nets thow didst lay forth. For the mystical tokens after the sanctification go not away out of their proper nature. For they abide in their former substance, shape, and form, and so far forth, that they may be seen and felt as they might before. But they be wnderstanded that they be made, and are believed, and are worshipped, as being the same things which be believed.” This is my translation, who in the first sentence [} And they would constrain, 1551, and Orig. ed. | | [3 Ever, 1551. Orig. ed. Winch. reads with ed. — [* I will write in here, 1551.] 1580. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CIRIST. ‘133 mean not to vary from the other translations touching the remain of substance, shape, form, or figure: Iwill use all those names. But in the second part, where Theodoret speaketh of our belief what the tokens be made, and where he saith those tokens be worshipped, as being the same things which be believed, thow mayest see, reader, how this author flieth the words “believe” and “worship,” which the common translation in English doth plainly and truly express, howsoever the translator4 swerved by colour of the word tanquam, which there, after the Greek, signifieth the truth, and not the similitude only; like as St Paul, Vocat ea quee non sunt, tanquam sint, which is to make to be in deed, not as though they were. And the Greek is there és dvra, as it is here domep exeiva bvta®, And it were an absurdity to believe things other- wise than they be, as though they were, and very idolatry to worship wittingly® that is not, as though it were in deed. And therefore in these two words, that they believed? that they be made and be worshipped, is declared by Theodoret his faith of the very true real presence of Christ's glorious flesh, whereunto the Deity is united, which flesh St Augustine, consonantly to this Theodoret, said must be worshipped before it be received. The word “worshipping” put here in English is to express the word adorantur, put by Peter in Latin, signifying adoring, being the verb in Greek of such signification, as is used to express godly worship with bowing of the knee. Now, reader, what should I say by this author, that conveyeth these two words of believing and worshipping, and instead of them cometh in with reverence, taking, reputing, and esteem- ing? whereof thow mayest esteem how this place of Theodoret pinched this author, who could not but see that adoring of the sacrament signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to be adored, which else were an absurdity; and therefore the author took pain to ease it with other words of calling, believing, reputing, and esteeming, and for adoration, reverence. Con- sider what praise this author giveth Theodoret, which praise condemneth this author sore. For Theodoret, in his doctrine, would have us believe the mysiery, and adore the sacrament, where this author after in his doctrine professeth there is nothing to be worshipped at all. Tf one should now say to me, “ Yea, sir, but this Theodoret seemeth to condemn transubstan- 2? tiation, because he speaketh so of the bread: thereunto shall be answered when I speak of transubstantiation, which shall be after the third and fourth book discussed’. For before the truth of the presence of the substance of Christ's body may appear, what should we talk of transubstantiation? I will travail no more in Theodoret, but leave it to thy judgment, reader, what credit this author ought to have, that handleth the matter after this sort. CANTERBURY. This bladder is so puffed up with wind, that it is marvel it brasteth not. But be patient awhile, good reader, and suffer until the blast of wind be past, and thou shalt see a great calm, the bladder broken, and nothing in it but all vanity. There is no difference between your translation and mine, saving that mine is more plain, and giveth less occasion of error; and yours, as all your doings be, is dark and obscure, and containeth in it no little provocation to idolatry. For the words of Theodoret, after your interpretation, contain both a plain untruth and also manifest idolatry : for the signs and tokens which he speaketh of, be the very forms and sub- stances of bread and wine. For the nominative case to the verb of adoring, in Theodoret, is not the body and blood of Christ, but the mystical tokens, by your own translation: which mystical tokens if you will have to be the very body and blood of Christ, what can be spoken more untrue or more foolish? And if you will have them to be wor- shipped with godly worship, what can be greater idolatry? Wherefore I, to eschew such occasions of error, have translated the words of Theodoretus faithfully and truly as his mind was, and yet have avoided all occasions of evil: for tanguam, or worep exeiva ovra, signifieth not the truth, as you say, but is an adverb of similitude, as it is likewise in this place of St Paul: Vocat ea que non sunt, tanquam sint. For St [* that translator, 1551.] [° The original of Theodoret is as follows : | supra, p. 126.] OPO. ‘Ealws ais tpyves dpxuaw. ovdé yep [® Orig. ed. Winch. omits the word “‘ wittingly.”” ] META TOV aYLacpOV TA pUSTIKA TIUBO\A THs oiKELas {7 they be believed, 155]. ] ekiotarat cpicews. péver yatp emi THs Tpotépas {® Orig, ed. Winch. instead of, ‘* which shall be odoias, Kai TOU FXiMaATOS, Kal TOU Etdous, Kul bpata | after the third and fourth book discussed,” reads, eer, Kai amTd, ola Kat TpoTEpov wv vocitat de | “which shall be the last.’’] AMEP EYEVETO, KL WLOTEVETAL, Kal MpooKuvEITat, ws éxelva évta drep mioteverat. Theodoret. ubi 134. * Adoration of the sacra- ment, Rey. xiii. Psal. 1xxxiii. 2 Pet. ili. August. de Doct, Christ. Lib. ili. cap. 2, 135. 134 THE THIRD BOOK. Paul saith, ‘as though they were ;” which indeed were not, as he said the next word before, non sunt, “they be not.” And nevertheless unto God all things be present; and those things which in their nature be not yet present, unto God were ever present, in whom be not these successions of time, before and after: for Christ the Lamb in his present was slain before the world began; and a thousand year to his eyes be but as it were yesterday; and one day before him is as it were a thousand year, and a thousand year as one day. And if you had read and considered a saying of St Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, Lib. m1. cap. 9, you might have understand this place of Theodoret better than you do. ‘He serveth under a sign,” saith St Augustine, ‘“‘ who worketh or worshippeth any sign, not knowing what it signifieth. But he that worketh or worshippeth a pro- fitable sign ordained of God, the strength and signification whereof he understandeth, he worshippeth not that which is seen and is transitory, but rather that thing whereto all such signs ought to be referred.” And anon after he saith further: ‘‘ At this time when our Lord Jesus Christ is risen, we have a most manifest argument of our freedom, and be not burdened with the heavy yoke of signs which we understand not; but the Lord and the teaching of his apostles hath given to us a few signs for many, and those most easy to be done, most excellent in understanding, and in performing most pure; as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of our Lord, which every man when he receiveth knoweth whereunto they be re- ferred, being taught that he worship not them with a carnal bondage, but rather with a spiritual freedom. And as it is a vile bondage to follow the letter, and to take the signs for the things signified by them; so to interpret the signs to no profit, is an error that shrewdly spreadeth abroad’.” These words of St Augustine, being con- ferred with the words of Theodoret, may declare plainly what Theodoret’s meaning was. For where he saith that we may not worship with a carnal bondage the visi- ble signs, (meaning of water in baptism, and of bread and wine in the holy communion,) when we receive the same, but rather ought to worship the things whereunto they be referred, he meant that although those signs or sacraments of water, bread, and wine ought highly to be esteemed, and not to be taken as other common water, baker’s bread, or wine in the tavern, but as signs dedicated, consecrated, and referred to an holy use; and by those earthly things to represent things celestial ; yet the very true honour and worship ought to be given to the celestial things, which by the visi- ble signs be understand, and not to the visible signs themselves. And nevertheless, both St Augustine and Theodoret count it a certain kind of worshipping the signs, the reverent esteeming of them above other common and profane things, and yet the same principally to be referred to the celestial things represented by the signs ; and therefore saith St Augustine potius, “rather.” And this worship is as well in the sacrament of baptism, as in the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood. And there- fore, although whosoever is baptized unto Christ, or eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood in his holy supper, do first honour him; yet is he corporally and carnally nei- ther in the supper, nor in baptism, but spiritually and effectually. Now where you leave the judgment of Theodoret to the reader, even so do I also, not doubting but the indifferent reader shall soon espy, how little cause you have so to boast, and blow out your vain-glorious words as you do. But hear now what followeth next in my book. [! Sub signo enim servit qui operatur aut vene- ratur aliquam rem significantem, nesciens quid sig- nificet : qui vero aut operatur, aut veneratur utile signum divinitus institutum, cujus vim significa- tionemque intelligit, non hoc veneratur quod videtur et transit, sed illud potius quo talia cuncta refe- renda sunt.—Hoc vero tempore posteaquam resur- rectione Domini nostri manifestissimum indicium nostrz libertatis illuxit, nec eorum quidem signorum, que jam intelligimus, operatione gravionerati sumus; sed quedam pauca pro multis, eademque factu fa- cillima, et intellectu augustissima, ct observatione castissima ipse Dominus et apostolica tradidit dis- ciplina: sicuti est baptismi sacramentum, et cele- bratio corporis et sanguinis Domini. Que unusquis- que cum percipit, quo referantur imbutus agnoscit, ut ea non carnali servitute, sed spiritali potius libertate veneretur. Ut autem literam sequi, et signa pro rebus que iis significantur accipere, servilis in- firmitatis est; ita inutiliter signa interpretari, male vagantis erroris est. Augustin. De doctrina Christiana, Lib. 111. cap.9. Pars rv. Basil. ap- Aimerbach. 1806. ] ee OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 135 And marvel not, good reader, that Christ at that time spake in figures, Chap. xu. Figurative when he did institute that sacrament, seeing that it is the nature of all sacra- eae ments to be figures. And although the scripture be full of schemes, tropes, and figures, yet specially it useth them when it speaketh of sacraments. When the ark, which represented God’s majesty, was come into the army of the Israelites, the Philistines said that God was come into the army. And isan. iv. God himself said by his prophet Nathan, that from the time that he had 2sam. vi. brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, he dwelled not in houses, but that he was carried about in tents and tabernacles. And yet was not God himself so carried about, or went in tents or tabernacles: but because the ark, which was a figure of God, was so removed from place to place, he 136, spake of himself that thing, which was to be understand of the ark. And Christ himself oftentimes spake in similitudes, parables, and figures ; christ nim- O pn . Gi 4 self used as when he said: “The field is the world, the enemy is the devil, the seed figurative speeches. is the word of God;” “John is Elias;” “I am a vine, and you be the a branches ;” “I am bread of life;” “my Father is an husbandman, and he «v*- r) > e John xv. John vi. hath his fan in his hand, and will make clean his floor, and gather the 3p wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will cast into everlasting fire;” “I have John fy, a meat to eat which you know not;” “work not meat that perisheth, but habeo man that endureth unto everlasting life;” “I am a good shepherd “the Son Vos nese of man will set the sheep at his right hand, and the goats at his left hand;” Jom “Tam a door, one of you is the devil;” “ whosoever doeth my Father’s will, Jol x. he is my brother, sister, and mother:’ and when he said to his mother Matt xi. and to John, “ This is thy son,” “this is thy mother.” John’ xix: These, with an infinite number of like sentences, Christ spake in parables, metaphors, tropes, and figures. But chiefly when he spake of the sacraments, he used figurative speeches. As when in baptism he said, “that we must be baptized with the Holy actsi. Ghost,” meaning of spiritual baptism. And like speech used St John the Baptist, Matt ii. saying of Christ, “that he should baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire.” And Christ said, “that we must be born again, or else we cannot see the Jonniii kingdom of God.” And said also: “ Whosoever shall drink of that water which gonn iv. I shall give him, he shall never be dry again. But the water which I shall soatuwauae give him, shall be made within him a well, which shall spring into ever- bide. lasting life’ And St Paul saith, “that in baptism we clothe us with Christ, rom. vi. and be buried with him.” This baptism and washing by the fire and the Holy ae Ghost, this new birth, this water that springeth in a man and floweth into everlasting life, and this clothing and burial, cannot be understand of any material baptism’, material washing, material birth, clothing, and burial; but by translation of things visible into things invisible, they must be understand spiritually and figuratively. After the same sort the mystery of our redemption, and the passion of our Saviour Christ upon the cross, as well in the new as in the old testa- ment, is expressed and declared by many figures and figurative speeches. As the pure paschal lamb without spot signified Christ, the effusion of te Pas- the lamb’s blood signified the effusion of Christ’s blood; and the salvation lies: of the children of Israel from temporal death by the lamb’s blood signified our salvation from eternal death by Christ’s blood. And as Almighty God, passing through Egypt, killed all the Egyptians’ heirs: in every house, and left not one alive, and nevertheless he passed by ” 223 ? 3 {* Of any baptism, 1551.] The Lord’s Supper. Matt xxvi. 1 Cor. xi. Exod. xii. Matt. xxvi. What figura- tive speeches were used at Christ’s last supper. Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. 136 THE THIRD BOOK. the children of Israel’s houses, where he saw the lamb’s blood upon the doors, and hurted none of them, but saved them all by the means of the lamb’s blood ; so likewise at the last judgment of the whole world, none shall be passed over and saved but that shall be found marked with the blood of the most pure and immaculate Lamb, Jesus Christ. And forasmuch as the shedding of that lamb’s blood was a token and figure of the shedding of Christ’s blood then to come; and forasmuch also as all the sacraments and figures of the old testament ceased and had an end in Christ; lest by our great unkindness we should peradventure be forgetful of the great benefit of Christ, therefore at his last supper, (when he took his leave of his apostles to depart out of the world,) he did make a new will and testament, wherein he bequeathed unto us clean remission of all our sins, and the everlasting inheritance of heayen. And the same he confirmed the next day with his own blood and death. And lest we should forget the same, he ordained not a yearly memory, (as the paschal lamb was eaten but once every year,) but a daily remembrance he ordained thereof in bread and wine, sanctified and dedicated to that purpose, saying: “This is my body; this cup is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins: do this in remembrance of me ;:’—admonishing us by these words, spoken at the making of his last will and testament, and at his departing out of the world, (because they should be the better remembered,) that when- soever we do eat the bread in his holy supper, and drink of that cup, we should remember how much Christ hath done for us, and how he died for our sakes. Therefore saith St Paul: “ As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, you shall shew forth the Lord’s death until he come.” And forasmuch as this holy bread broken, and the wine divided, do repre- sent unto us the death of Christ now past, as the killing of the paschal lamb did represent the same yet to come; therefore our Saviour Christ used the same manner of speech of bread and wine, as God before used the paschal lamb’. For as in the old testament God said, “This is the Lord’s pass-by, or passover”; even so saith Christ in the new testament, “This is my body ;. this is my blood.” But in the old mystery and sacrament the lamb was not the Lord’s very passover or passing by, but it was a figure which repre- sented his passing by: so likewise in the new testament the bread and wine be not Christ’s very body and blood, but they be figures, which by Christ’s institution be unto the godly receivers thereof sacraments, tokens, significations, and representations of his very flesh and blood; instructing their faith, that ~ as the bread and wine feed them corporally and continue this temporal life, so the very flesh and blood of Christ feedeth them spiritually, and giveth everlasting life. And why should any man think it strange to admit a figure in these speeches, “This is my body,” “this is my blood;” seeing that the communi- cation the same night, by the papists’ own confessions, was so full of figura- tive speeches? For the apostles spake figuratively when they asked Christ, “where he would eat his passover or pass-by :” and Christ himself used the same figure, when he said: “I have much desired to eat this passover with you.” Also, to eat Christ’s body and to drink his blood, I am sure they will not say that it is taken properly, to eat and drink, as we do eat other meats and drinks. And when Christ said, “This cup is a new testament in my blood,” here in one sentence be two figures: one in this word, “ cup,” which is not taken for the cup itself, but for the thing contained in the cup: another is in this word, [' OF the Paschal Lamb, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 137 “testament ;” for neither the cup, nor the wine contained in the cup, is Christ’s testament, but is a token, sign, and figure, whereby is represented unto us his testament, confirmed by his blood. And if the papists will say, as they say indeed, that by this cup is neither meant the cup, nor the wine contained in the cup, but that thereby is meant Christ’s blood contained in the cup, yet must they needs grant that there is a figure. For Christ’s blood is not in proper speech the new testament, but it is the thing that confirmed the new testament. And yet by this strange interpre- 138, tation the papists make a very strange speech, more strange than any figurative speech is. For this they make the sentence: “This blood is a new testament in my blood.” Which saying is so fond and so far from all reason, that the foolishness thereof is evident to every man. WINCHESTER. As for the use of figurative speeches to be accustomed in scripture is not denied. But Philip Melancthon in an epistle to CEcolampadius of the sacrament, giveth one good note of Melancthon. . . . . A *The speec observation in difference between the speeches in God’s ordinances and commandments, and in scnneine® eG op. ° . here God otherwise?. For if in the understanding® of God’s ordinances and commandments figures may vommandeth be often received; truth shall by allegories be shortly subverted, and all our religion reduced speleualig te to significations. There is no speech so plain and simple but it hath some piece of a figurative Derconsiders speech, but such as expresseth the common plain understanding; and then the common use Of «¥igurative the figure cuuseth it to be taken as a common proper speech. As these speeches, “drink up speech Oy this cup,” or “eat this dish*,” is indeed a figurative speech, but by custom made so common Proper that it is reputed the plain speech, because it hath but one only understanding commonly received. And when Christ said, “ This cup is the new testament,” the proper speech thereof in letter hath an absurdity in reason, and faith also. But when Christ said, “This is my body,” although the truth of the literal sense hath an absurdity in carnal reason, yet hath it no absurdity in humility of faith, nor repugneth not to any other truth of scripture. And seeing it is a singular miracle of Christ whereby to exercise us in the faith, wnderstanded as the plain words signify in their proper sense, there can no reasoning be made of other figurative speeches to make this to be their fellow and like unto them. No man denieth the use of figurative speeches in Christ’s supper, but such as be equal with plain proper speech, or be expounded by other evangelists in plain speech. CANTERBURY. I see well you would take a dung-fork to fight with, rather than you would lack a weapon. For how highly you have esteemed Melancthon in times past, it is not unknown. But whatsoever Melancthon saith, or howsoever you understand Melancthon, where is so convenient a place to use figurative speeches as when figures and sacraments be instituted? And St Augustine giveth a plain rule how we may know when God’s commandments be given in figurative speeches’, and yet shall neither the truth be subverted, nor our religion reduced to significations. And how can it be but that in the understanding of God's ordinances and commandments figures must needs be often received, (contrary to Melancthon’s saying,) if it be true that you say, “that there is no speech so plain and simple, but it hath some piece of a figurative speech?” But now be all speeches figurative, when it pleaseth you. What need I then to travail any more to prove that Christ in his supper used figurative speeches, seeing that all that he spake was spoken in figures by your saying ? And these words “This is my body,” spoken of the bread, and “This is my blood,” [? The epistle referred to appears to be that in- ; cur eam deseramus.” pp. 14, 15. The letter is serted in Gcolampadii Dialogus, Quid de Kucharis- | dated Spires, an. 1529. ] tia veteres tum Graci tum Latini senserint, Basil. [° For if theunderstanding, 1551. Evidently 1699. “Nullam enim firmam rationem invenio, | an error of the press. ] que conscientie discedenti a proprietate verborum [* Eat up this dish, 1551. Orig. ed. reads as ed. Satisfaciat...... Cum proprietas verborum cum nullo | 1580.) atticulo fidei pugnet, nulla satis magna causa est | [° See before, p. 115, note 5. ] 1389, Chap. XIII. Answer to the authori- ties and ar- guments of the papists. Chap. xIv. One brief answer to all. 138 THE THIRD BOOK. spoken of the cup, express no plain common understanding, whereby the common use of these figures should be equal with plain proper speeches, or cause them to be taken as common proper speeches: for you say yourself, “that these speeches in letter have an absurdity in reason.” And as they have absurdity in reason, so have they “absurdity in faith.” For neither is there any reason, faith, miracle, nor truth, to say that material bread is Christ’s body. For then it must be true that his body is material bread, a conversa ad convertentem ; for of the material bread spake Christ those words, by your confession'. And why have not these words of Christ, “This is my body,” an absurdity both in faith and reason, as well as these words, “This cup is the new testament,” secing that these words were spoken by Christ as well as the other, and the credit of him is all one whatsoever he saith ? But if you will needs understand these words of Christ, ‘‘This is my body,” as the plain words signify in their proper sense, (as in the end you scem to do, repugning therein to your own former saying,) you shall see how far you go, not only from reason, but also from the true confession of the christian faith. Christ spake of bread, say you, “This is my body ;” appointing by this word “ this” the bread: whereof followeth, as I said before, if bread be his body, that his body is bread: and if his body be bread, it is a creature without sense and reason, having neither life nor soul ; which is horrible of any christian man to be heard or spoken. Hear now what followeth further in my book. Now forasmuch as it is plainly declared and manifestly proved, that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood, and that these sentences be figurative speeches ; and that Christ, as concerning his humanity and bodily presence, is ascended into heaven with his whole flesh and blood, and is not here upon earth; and that the substance of bread and wine do remain still, and be received in the sacrament, and that although they remain, yet they have changed their names, so that the bread is called Christ’s body, and the wine his blood; and that the cause why their names be changed is this, that we should hft up our hearts and minds from the things which we see unto the things which we believe and be above in heaven; whereof the bread and wine have the names, although they be not the very same things in deed: these things well considered and weighed, all the authorities and arguments, which the papists feign to serve for their purpose, be clean wiped away. For whether the authors, which they allege, say that we do eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood; or that the bread and wine is converted into the substance of his flesh and blood; or that we be turned into his flesh; or that in the Lord’s supper we do receive his very flesh and blood; or that in the bread and wine is received that which did hang upon the cross; or that Christ hath left his flesh with us; or that Christ is in us and we in him; or that he is whole here and whole in heaven; or that the same thing is in the chalice, which flowed out of his side; or that the same thing is received with our mouth, which is believed with our faith; or that the bread and wine after the consecration be the body and blood of Christ; or that we be nourished with the body and blood of Christ; or that Christ is both gone hence and is still here; or that Christ at his last supper bare himself in his own hands: these and all other like sentences may not? be understanded of Christ’s humanity literally and carnally, as the words in common speech do properly signify ; for so doth no man eat Christ’s flesh, nor drink his blood, nor so is not the bread and wine? after the conse- cration his flesh and blood, nor so is not his flesh and blood whole here in earth eaten with our mouths, nor so did not Christ take himself in his own hands. [? By your own confession, 1551.] | words, “turned into his flesh and blood, nor we into [2 Not omitted in edit. 1580.] him ; nor so isthe bread and wine,”’ and the passage [® The Orig. ed. and ed. 1581, add the following then runs on as above, ‘* after the consecration,” &c.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 139 But these and all other like sentences, which declare Christ to be here in earth, and to be eaten and drunken of christian people, are to be understanded either — 140. of his divine nature, (whereby he is everywhere,) or else they must be under- standed figuratively, or spiritually. For figuratively he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine; but really, carnally, and corporally, he is only in heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and dead. This brief answer will suffice for all that the papists can bring for their purpose, if it be aptly applied. And for the more evidence hereof, I shall apply the same to some such places, as the papists think do make most for them, that by the answer to those places the rest may be the more easily answered unto. WINCHESTER. In the seventy-fourth leaf this author goeth about to give a general solution to all that may be said of Christ's being in earth, in heaven, or in the sacrament ; and giveth instructions how these words of Christ's divine nature, figuratively, spiritually, really, carnally, corporally, may be placed: and thus he saith: “ Christ in his divine nature may be said to be in the earth, figuratively in the sacrament, spiritually in the man that receiveth, but really, carnally, cor- porally, only in heaven.” Let us consider the placing of these terms. When we say Christ is in his divine nature everywhere, is he not really also everywhere, according to the true *Really. essence of his Godhead? in deed everywhere? That is to say, not in fantasy, nor imagination, but verily, truly, and therefore really, as we believe, so in deed every where? And when Christ is spiritually in good men by grace, is not Christ in them really by grace? but in fantasy and imagination? And therefore whatsoever this author saith, the word “really” may not have such restraint to be referred only to heaven, unless the author would deny that substance of the Grod- head, which as it comprehendeth all, being incomprehensible, and is everywhere without limitation of place, so as it is, truly it is, in deed is, and therefore really is; and therefore of Christ must be said, wheresoever he is in his divine nature by power or grace, he is there really, whether we speak of heaven or earth. As for the terms “carnally” and “corporally,’ as this author seemeth to use them in other *carnally. places of this book to express the manner of presence of the human nature in Christ, I marvel oe by what seripture he shall * prove that Christ’s body is so carnally and corporally in heaven, We be assured by faith, grounded upon the scriptures, of the truth of the being of Christ's flesh and body there, and the same to be a true flesh and a true body; but yet in such sense as this author useth the terms carnal and corporal against the sacrament to imply a grossness, he cannot so attribute those terms to Christs body in heaven. St Augustine after the gross sense of carnally, saith: “ Christ reigneth not carnally in heaven.” And Gregory Nazianzen saith : August. de “ Although Christ shall come in the last day to judge, so as he shall be seen; yet there is in him Gauge Na- no grossness,” he saith, and referreth the manner of his being to his knowledge only. “ And our Pantano! ' resurrection, St Augustine saith, “although it shall be of our true flesh, yet it shall not be car- nally.” And when this author had® defamed as it were the terms “carnally” and “corporally,” as terms of grossness, to whom he used always to put as an adversative the term “spiritually,” as though carnally and spiritually might not agree in one; now for all that he would place them both in heaven, where is no carnality, but all the manner of being spiritual, where is no grossness at all, the secrecy of the manner of which life is hidden from us, and such as eye hath not seen, or ear heard, or ascended into the heart and thought of man. I know these terms carnally and corporally may have a good understanding out of the *How Christ mouth of him that had not defamed them with grossness, or made them adversaries to spiritual ; ape and aman may say Christ is corporally in heaven because the truth of his body is there, and a carnally in heaven because his flesh is truly there: but in this understanding both the words '*%*™ carnally and corporally may be coupled with the word spiritually, which is against this author's teaching, who appointeth the word spiritually to be spoken of Christ's presence in the man that received the sacrament worthily, which speech I do not disallow; but as Christ is spiritually in the man that doth receive the sacrament worthily, so is he in him spiritually before he receive, or else 14.1, he cannot receive worthily, as I have before said. And by this appeareth how this author, to [* Will, 1551.] [> Hath, 1591.] ® Christ is pre- sent in the sacrament as he is in heaven. Really- Carnally and corporally. 142. Grossly. Augustinus. 140 THE THIRD BOOK. Srame his general solution, hath used neither of the terms “really,” “carnally,” and “corporally},” or “ spiritually,” in a convenient order, but hath in his distribution misused them notably. For Christ in his divine nature is really everywhere, and in his human nature is carnally and cor- porally, as these words signify substance of the flesh and body, continually in heaven to the day of judgment, and nevertheless after that signification present in the sacrament also. And in those terms in that signification the fathers have spoken of the? effect of the eating of Christ in the sacrament, as in the particular solutions to the authors hereafter shall appear. Marry as touching the use of the word “ figuratively,” to say that Christ is figuratively in the bread and wine, is a saying which this author hath not proved at all, but is a doctrine before this divers times reproved, and now by this author in England renewed. CANTERBURY. Although my chief study be to speak so plainly that all men* may understand every thing what I say, yet nothing is plain to him that will find knots in a rush. For when I say that all sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth, and to be eaten and drunken of christian people, are to be understanded either of his divine nature, (whereby he is everywhere,) or else they must be understanded figuratively or spiritually ; (for figuratively he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine; but really, carnally and corporally, he is only in heaven ;) you have termed these my words as it liketh you, but far otherwise than I either wrote or meant, or than any indifferent reader would have imagined. For what indifferent reader would have gathered of my words, that Christ in his divine nature is not really in heaven? For I make a disjunctive, wherein I declare a plain distinction between his divine nature and his human nature. And of his divine nature I say in the first member of my division, which is in the beginning of my aforesaid words, that by that nature he is everywhere. And all the rest that followeth is spoken of his human nature, whereby he is carnally and corporally only in heaven. And as for this word “really,” in such a sense as you expound it, (that is to say, not in fantasy nor imagination, but verily and truly,) so I grant that Christ is really, not only in them that duly receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, but also in them that duly receive the sacrament of baptism, and in all other true christian people at other times when they receive no sacrament. For all they be the members of Christ’s body, and temples in whom he truly inhabiteth, although corporally and really (as the papists take that word “really”) he be only in heaven, and not in the sacrament. And although in them that duly receive the sacrament he is truly and in deed, and not by fancy and imagination, and so really, (as you understand “ really,”) yet is he not in them corporally, but “spiritually,” as I say, and “only after a spiritual manner,” as you say. And as for these words, “‘ carnally” and “‘corporally,” I defame them not; for I mean by carnally and corporally none otherwise than after the form and fashion of a man’s body, as we shall be after our resurrection, that is to say, visible, palpable, and cir- cumscribed, having a very quantity with due proportion and distinction of members, in place and order, one from another. And if you will deny Christ so to be in heaven, I have so plain and manifest scriptures against you, that I will take you for no christian man, except that you revoke that error. For sure I am that Christ's natural body hath such a grossness, or stature and quantity, if you will so call it, because the word gross- ness, grossly taken, as you understand it, soundeth not well in an incorruptible and immortal body. Marry, as for any other grossness, as of eating, drinking, and gross avoiding of the same, with such other like corruptible grossness, it is for gross heads to imagine or think either of Christ, or of any body glorified. And although St Augustine may say, that Christ reigneth not carnally in heaven, yet he saith plainly, that his body is of such sort that it is circumscribed and contained in one place. [) Carnally, corporally, or spiritually, 1551.] | the intermediate words. ] [2 Of the sacrament, Orig. ed. Winch. omitting | [? So that all men, 1351. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 14] And Gregory Nazianzen meant that Christ should not come at the last judgment in a corruptible and mortal flesh, as he had before his resurrection, and as we have in this mortal life, (for such grossness is not to be attributed to bodies glorified ;) but yet shall he come with such a body as he hath since his resurrection, absolute and perfect in all parts and members of a man’s body, having hands, feet, head, mouth, side and wounds, and all other parts of a man visible and sensible, like as we shall all appear before him at the same last day, with this same flesh in substance that we now have, and with these same eyes shall we see God our Saviour. Marry to what fineness and pureness our bodies shall be then changed, no man knoweth in the peregrination of this world, saving that St Paul saith, “that he shall change this vile body, that he may make it like unto his glorious body.” all members, and a due proportion of men’s natural bodies, the scripture manifestly declareth, whatsover you can by a sinister gloss gather of Nazianzen to the contrary, that glorified bodies have no flesh nor grossness. But see you not how much this saying of St Augustine (that our resurrection shall not be carnally) maketh against yourself? For if we shall not mse carnally, then is not Christ risen carnally, nor is not in heaven carnally. And if he be not in heaven carnally, how can he be in the sacrament carnally, and eaten and drunken carnally with our mouths, as you say he is? And therefore, as for the terms “ car- nally and corporally,” it is you that defame them by your gross taking of them, and not I, that speak of none other grossness, but of distinction of the natural and sub- stantial parts, without the which no man’s body can be perfect. And whereas here, in this process, you attribute unto Christ none other presence in heayen but spiritual, without all manner of grossness or carnality, so that all manner of being is spiritual, and none otherwise than he is in the sacrament, here I join an issue with you for a joint, and for the price of a fagot. I wondered all this while that you were so ready to grant, that Christ is but after a spiritual manner in the sacrament; and now I wonder no more at that, seeing that you say he is but after a spiritual manner in heaven. And by this means we may say that he hath but a spiritual manhood, as you say that he hath in the sacrament but a spiritual body. And yet some carnal thing and grossness he hath in him, for he hath flesh and bones, which spirits lack; except that to all this impiety you will add, that his flesh and bones also be spiritual things, and not carnal. And it is not with- out some strange prognostication, that you be now waxed altogether so spiritual. Now as concerning the word “ figuratively,” what need this any proof, that Christ is in the sacraments figuratively ? which is no more to say but sacramentally. And you grant yourself that Christ, under the figure of visible creatures, gave invisibly his precious body. And you say that Christ said, “This is my body,” using the outward signs of the visible creatures. And this doctrine was never reproved of any catholic man, but hath at all times and of all men been allowed without contra- diction, saving now of you alone. Now followeth my answer to the authors parti- eularly. And first, to St Clement. My words be these. They allege St Clement, whose words be these, as they report: “The sacraments of God’s secrets are committed to three degrees: to a priest, a deacon, and a minister: which with fear and trembling ought to keep the leavings of the broken pieces of the Lord’s body, that no corruption be found in the holy place, lest by negligence great injury be done to the portion of the Lord’s body.” And by and by followeth: “So many hosts must be offered in the altar as will suffice for the people. And if any remain, they must not be kept until the morning, but be spent and consumed of the clerks with fear and trembling. And they that consume the residue of the Lord’s body may not by and by take other common meats, lest they should mix that holy portion with the meat, which is digested by the belly, and avoided by the fundament. Therefore if the Lord’s portion be eaten in the morning, But that we shall have diversity of Nazianzenus. Phil. tii. Whether Christ be in heaven but after a spiri- tual manner. An issue. 143. Figuratively. Chap. xv. The answer to Clemens, Epist. 2. 144. Clement. 142 THE THIRD BOOK. the ministers that consume it must fast unto six of the clock; and if they do take it at three or four of the clock, the minister must fast until the evening.” Thus much writeth Clement of this matter: if the epistle which they allege were Clement’s, (as in deed it is not, but they have feigned many things in other men’s names, thereby to stablish their feigned purposes,) nevertheless whosesoever the epistle was, if it be thoroughly considered, it maketh much more against the papists than for their purpose. For by the same epistle appeareth evidently three special things against the errors of the papists. The first is, that the bread in the sacrament is called the Lord’s body, and the pieces of the broken bread be called the pieces and fragments of the Lord’s body, which cannot be understand but figuratively. The second is, that the bread ought not to be reserved and hanged up, as the papists everywhere do use. The third is, that the priests ought not to receive the sacrament alone, (as the papists commonly do, making a sale thereof unto the people,) but they ought to communicate with the people. And here is diligently to be noted, that we ought not unreverently and unadyisedly to approach unto this meat’ of the Lord’s table, as we do to other common meats and drinks, but with great fear and dread, lest we should come to that holy table unworthily, wherein is not only represented, but also spiritually given unto us, very Christ himself. And therefore we ought to come to that board of the Lord with all reve- rence, faith, love, and charity, fear, and dread, according to the same. WINCHESTER. Let us now consider what particular answers this author deviseth to make to the fathers of the church ; and first what he saith to St Clement's Episile, his handling whereof is worthy to be noted. First, he saith the episile is not Clement's, but feigned, as he saith many other things be for their purpose, he saith, which solution is short and may be soon learned of naughty men, and naughtily applied further as they list. But this I may say, if this epistle were feigned of the papists, then do they shew themselves fools that could feign no better, but so as this author might of their feigned epistle gather three notes against them. This author's notes be these: first, “ that the bread in the sacrament is called the Lord’s body, and that the broken bread be called the pieces and fragments of the Lord’s body.” Mark well, reader, this note that speaketh so much of bread, where the words of the epistle in the part here alleged name no bread at all. If this author hath read so much mention of bread in another? part of the epistle, why bringeth he not that forth to fortify his note? I have read after the same epistle, panes sanctuarii, but they would not help this author's note; and yet for the other matter joined with them, they would slander another way. And therefore seeing this author hath left them out, I will go no Surther than is here alleged. The calling of bread by enunciation for a name is not material, because it signifieth that was, but in that is here alleged is no mention of bread to prove the note; and to faithful men the words of the epistle reverently express the remain of the mysteries, in which when many hosts be offered in the altar, according to the multitude that should communicate, those many hosts after consecration be not many bodies of Christ, but of many breads one body of Christ. And yet, as we teach in England now in the book of common prayer, in every part of that is broken is the whole body of our Saviour Christ. Man's words cannot suffice to express God’s mysteries, nor can* utter them so, as froward reason shall not find matter to wrangle. And yet to stay reason may suffice, that as in one loaf of bread broken every piece broken is a piece of that bread, and every piece of the bread broken is in itself a whole piece of bread, and so whole bread, for every piece hath an whole substance of bread in it: so we truly speak of the host consecrated, to avoid [! The meat, 1551, and Orig. ed.] | [* In the same, 154].] [2 Any other, 1531.] [* Cannot, Orig. ed. Winch. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 143 the fantasy of multiplication of Christ's body, which in all the hosts, and all the parts of the hosts, is but one, not broken nor distribute by pieces, and yet in a speech, to tell and signify that is broken, called in name the leaving “ pieces of the body,” “portion of the body,’ “ residue of the body ;” in which nevertheless each one piece is Christ's whole body. So as this speech having a figure, hath it of necessity to avoid the absurdity, whereby to signify a multitude of bodies, which is not so, and the sound of the speech christian ears do abhor. But this I ask, where is the matter of this author's note, that bread is called Christ's body 2? where there is no word of bread in the words alleged; and if there were, as there is not, it were worthy no note at all. For that name is not abhorred, and the catholic faith teacheth that the fraction is in the outward sign, and not in the body of Christ, invisibly present, and signified so to be present by that visible sign. The second note of this author is touching reserving, which Clement might seem to deny, because he ordered the remain to be received of the clerks, thinking so best; not declaring expressly that nothing might be reserved to the use of them that be absent. The contrary whereof appeareth by Justin the Martyr®, who testifieth a reservation to be sent to them that were sick, who and they dwell far from ~ the church, as they do in some places, it may by chance in the way, or trouble in the sick man, tarry till the morning or it be received. And Cyril® writeth expressly, that in case it so doth, the mystical benediction, by which terms he calleth the sacrament, remaineth still in force. When this author findeth fault at hanging up of the sacrament, he blameth only his own country and the isles hereabout; which fault Linehood’, after he had travelled other countries Sound here, being the manner of custody in reservation otherwise used than in other parts. But one thing this author should have noted of Clement's words when he speaketh of fearing and trembling, which and the bread were never the holier, as this author teacheth, and but only a signification, why should any man fear or tremble more in their presence than he doth when he heareth of Christ's supper, the gospel read, or himself or any other saying his creed, which in words signify as much as the bread doth, if it be but a signification? And Peter Martyr saith, that words signify more clearly than these signs do, and saith further in his disputation with Chedsay, that we receive the body of Christ, no less by words than by the sacramental signs; which teaching if it were true, why should this sacrament be trem- bled at? But because this author noteth the epistle of Clement to be feigned, I will not make with him any foundation of it, but note to the reader the third note, gathered by this author of Clements words, which is, “that priests ought not to receive alone,’ which the words of the epistle prove not. It sheweth indeed what was done, and how the feast is indeed prepared for the people as well as the priest. And I never read any thing of order in law or ceremony forbidding the people to com- municate with the priest, but all the old prayers and ceremonies sounded as the people did communicate with the priest. And when the people is prepared for, and then come not, but Searing and trembling forbear to come, that then the priest might not receive his part alone, the words of this epistle shew not. And Clement, in that he speaketh so of leavings, seemeth to think of that case of disappointment of the people that should come, providing in that case the clerks to receive the residue; whereby should appear, if there were no store of clerks, but only one clerk, as some poor churches have no more, then a man might rather make a note of Clement's mind, that in that case one priest might receive all alone’, and so upon a chance keep the feast alone. But whatsoever we may gather, that note of this author remaineth unproved, that the priest ought not to receive alone. And here I dare therefore join an issue with this author, that none of his three feigned notes is grounded of any words of this that he noteth a feigned epistle, taking only words® that he allegeth here. This author wpon occasion of this epistle, which he calleth feigned, speaketh more reverently of the sacrament than he doth in other places, which methink worthy to be noted of me. Flere he saith that very Christ himself is not only represented, but also spiritually given unto us [° Kai x diddomts Kai petd\niis dad Tav evxaptotnlevtTwy ExdoTw yiveTat, Kai Tots ob Tap- oUoL OLa THY OLakovov Téuwerar, Just. Op. Par. 742. Apol. 1. (al. 11.) 67. p. 83.] [° Axotw 6é bre cis dytacpoy dmpaxreiv paciv wiv puaotiKijy cioyiay, el arropévot Neiavov aitis, els ETEpav ijépav. jraivovTar 6& Tata NéyorTes. ob yap a\XowovTar Xpiatds, ov6é TO Kytov a’Tou capa perapr7OjoceTar, dX’) THs choyias dbva- pus, Kal 1) Cworrads xapis Oujvekns éoTti ev adTwo.— Cyrillus, ad Calosyrium. Ed. Aubert. Tom. VI. p- 365. Ed. Par. 1638.) {7 Linehood or Lindwood compiled the Pro- vincial Constitutions in the time of king Henry VI. and is referred to by Beal, clerk of the Council, as an authority, in Strype, Whitgift, II. p. 138.] [{® Receive alone, Orig. ed. Winch.] {° The only words, 1551.] Justin. Apol. 2 Cyrillus ad Calosyrium. * Linehood wrote a com- ment of the constitutions rovincial of ngland. 145. Peter Martyr. *A marvel- lous speech of Peter Martyr, unless he be a sacramen- tary,and then he speaketh like himself. An issue. Acts xvi. 1 Cor. x. 2 Tim. iii. 146. Clement's epistles feigned. 144 THE THIRD BOOK. in this table; for so I understand the word “wherein.” And then if very Christ himself’ be represented and given in the table, the author meaneth not the material table, but by the word “table” the meat upon the table; as the word mensa, “a table,” doth signify in the 16th of the Acts, and the 10th of the Corinthians!. Now if very Christ himself be given in the meat, then is he present in the meat to be given. So as by this teaching very Christ himself is not only Jiguratively in the table, that is to say, the meat of the table, which this author now calleth repre- senting, but is also spiritually given in the table, as these words sound to me. But whether this author will say very Christ himself is given spiritually in the meat, or by the meat, or with the meat, what scripture hath he to prove that he saith, if the words of Christ be only a figurative speech, and the bread only signify Christ's body? For if the words of the institution be but in Figure, man cannot add of his device any other substance or effect than the words of Christ purport: and so this supper, after this author's teaching in other places of his book, where he would have it but a signification, shall be a bare memory of Christ's death, and signify only such communication of Christ, as we have otherwise by faith in that benefit of his passion, * without any special communication of the substance of his flesh in this sacrament, being the same only a figure, if it were true that this author would persuade in the conclusion of this book, although by the way he saith otherwise, for fear percase and trembling, that he conceiveth even of an epistle which he himself saith is feigned. CANTERBURY. It is no marvel, though this epistle feigned by the papists many years passed do vary from the papists in these latter days. For the papistical church at the beginning was not so corrupt as it was after, but from time to time increased in errors and cor- ruption more and more, and still doth, according to St Paul’s saying: “ Evil men and deceivers wax ever worse, both leading other into error, and erring themselves.” For at the first beginning they had no private masses, no pardons in purgatory, no reser- vation of the bread; they knew no masses of Scala Celi, no lady psalters, no transub- stantiation ; but of later days all these, and an infinite number of errors besides, were invented and devised without any authority of God’s word. As yourself have newly invented® a great sort of new devices contrary to the papists before your time, as that Christ is in the sacrament carnally and naturally; that the demonstration was made upon the bread when Christ said, “This is my body ;” that the word “satisfactory” signifieth no more but the priest to do his duty; with many other things, which here for shortness of time I will omit at this present, purposing to speak of them more hereafter. And the epistles of Clement were feigned before the papists had run so far in errors as they be now. For yet at that time was not invented, as I said, the error of transubstantiation, nor the reservation of the sacrament, nor the priests did not communicate alone without the people. But that the said epistle of Clement was feigned, be many most certain arguments. For there be five epistles of Clement so knit together, and referring one to another, that if one be feigned, all must needs be feigned. Now neither Eusebius in Ecclesiastica Historia, nor St Jerome, nor Gennadius, nor any other old writer, maketh any mention of those epistles ; which authors, in rehearsing what works Clement wrote, (not leaving out so much as one epistle of his,) would surely have made some mention of the five epistles, which the papists long before our time feigned in his name, if there had been any such in their time. Moreover those epistles make mention, that Clement at James’s request wrote unto him the manner of Peter’s death: but how could that be, seeing that James was dead seven years before Peter? For James died the seventh year, and Peter the fourteenth year, of Nero the emperor. Thirdly, it is contained in the same epistles, that Peter made Clement his successor, which could not be true, forasmuch as next to Peter succeeded Linus, as all the his- tories tell. Fourthly, the author of those epistles saith, that he made the book called /tinerarium {' To the Corinth. 1551.] {2 As yourself newly invented, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 145 Clementis, which was but feigned in Clement’s name, as it is declared, Dist. xv., Sancta*. And then it followeth likewise of the other epistles. Fifthly, the author of those epistles taketh upon him to instruct St James in the sacraments, and in all manner fashion‘ how he should use himself in his vocation, as he® should say, that James, who learned of Christ himself, knew not how to use himself in the necessary points of Christ’s religion, except Clement must teach him. Sixthly, there be few things in those epistles that either be observed at this day, or were at any time observed sithens Christ’s religion first began. Seventhly, a great number of scriptures in those epistles be so far wrested from the true sense thereof, that they have an evil opinion of Clement that think that he would do such injury to God’s word. Highthly, those epistles spake of palls, and archdeacons, and other inferior orders, 147. which is not like that those things began so soon, but (as the histories®) were in- vented many years after Peter's time. And finally, in one of those epistles is contained a most pernicious heresy, that all things ought to be common, and wives also, which could not be the doctrine of Clement, being the most pestilent error of the Nicolaites, whom the Holy Ghost doth hate, as Rev. ii. he testifieth in the Apocalypse. Now, all these things considered, who, having either wit or good opinion of the apostles and their disciples, can think that they should write any such epistles ? But the epistle of St Clement, say you, speaketh not of bread. What was it then, Clement pake of I pray you, that he meant, when he spake of the broken pieces in the Lord’s supper ? bread. If it were not bread, it must be some other thing which Christ did eat at that supper. Peradventure you ail say, as some stick not to say now-a-days, that Christ had some other meat at that supper than bread, as, if he fared daintily, (which we never read,) you might imagine he had capon, partridge, or pheasant; or, if he fared hardly, at the least you would say he had cheese to eat with his bread, because you will defend that he did not eat dry bread alone. Such vain phantasies men may have, that will speak without God’s word, which maketh mention in that holy supper of nothing but of bread and wine. But let it be that Christ had as many dishes as you can devise, yet I trust you will not say, that he called all those his body, but only the bread. And so St Clement, speaking of the broken pieces of the Lord’s body, of the residue and frag- ments of the Lord’s body, of the portion and leaving of the Lord’s body, must needs speak all this of bread. And thus is it manifest false that you say, that the epistle of Clement speaketh nothing of bread. And then, forasmuch as he calleth the leavings of the same the broken pieces of the Lord’s body, and the fragments and portion thereof he calleth the fragments and portion of the Lord’s body, he sheweth that the bread remaineth, and that the calling thereof the Lord’s body is a figurative speech. The body of Christ hath no fragments nor broken pieces, and therefore the calling here is so material, that it Pearcl fully Calling of the matter, that to call bread Christ’s body is a figurative speech. And although to storia avoid the matter you devise subtle cavillations, saying that calling is not material, because it signifieth that was; yet they that have understanding, may soon discern what a vain shift this is, imagined only to blind the ignorant readce eyes. But if that which is bread before the consecration be after no bread, and if it be against the christian faith to think that it is still bread, what occasion of error should this be, to call it still bread after consecration? Is not this a great occasion of error to call it bread still, if it be not bread still ? And yet in this place of Clement the calling can in no wise signify that was before consecration, but must needs signify that is after consecration. For this place speaketh of fragments, broken pieces, and leavings, which can have no true understanding before consecration, at what time there be yet no broken pieces, fragments, nor leavings, but be all done after consecration. [* Item Itinerarium nomine Petri Apostoli, quod | Tom. tr. col. 57. Lugd. 1618.] appellatur sancti Clementis, Lib. vi1r. apocryphum. (* In all manner and fashion, 1551.] —Corpus Juris Canonici. Gratian. Decreti Prima [® As who should say, 1551. ] pars. Dist. xv.cap.3. “‘Sancta Romana Ecclesia.” [© As the histories tell, 1551.] [cranmer. ] 10 146 THE THIRD BOOK. But you wrangle so much in this matter to ayoid absurdities, that you snarl your- 148. self into so many and heinous absurdities, as you shall never be able to wind yourself out. For you say that Christ’s body, (which in all the hosts and in all the parts of the hosts is but one, not broken, nor distributed,) is called the leaving pieces of the body, portion of the body, residue of the body, and yet every piece is Christ's whole body ; which things to be spoken of Christ's body christian ears abhor for to hear. And if you will say that your book is false, that you meant all these leaving pieces, portion, and residue, to be understand of the hosts, and not of Christ’s body, then you confess the hosts, which be broken, to be called by name the leavings or pieces of Christ’s body, the portion of his body, the residue of his body, by a figurative speech, which is as much as I speak in my first note. And so appeareth how vainly you have travailed for the confutation of my first note. Of reserva: Now as touching the second note: Clement declareth expressly, that nothing might be reserved. For where he saith, that “if any thing remain, it must not be kept until the morning, but be spent and consumed of the clerks ;’ how could he declare more plainly that nothing might be reserved, than by those words ? And as for Justin, he speaketh not one word of sick persons, as you report of him. And concerning Cyril ad Calosyrium*, would to God that work of Cyril might come abroad! for I doubt not but it would clearly discuss this matter; but I fear that some papists will suppress it, that it shall never come to light. And where you say, that Linehood found fault with his own country of England, and blamed this realm because they hanged up the sacrament, contrary to the use of other countries ; you have well excused me that I am not the first finder of this fault, but many years ago that fault was found, and that it was not the use of other countries to hang it up. And yet the use of other countries was fond enough, even as they had charge and commandment from Innocentius III. and Honorius [11.* Receiving And as for the receiving of the sacrament with fear and trembling, ought not they beer as that be baptized in their old age, or in years of discretion, come to the water of baptism with fear and trembling, as well as to the Lord’s supper? Think you that Simon Magus was not in as great damnation for the unworthy receiving of baptism, as Judas was for the unworthy receiving of the Lord’s supper? And yet you will not say that Christ is really and corporally in the water, but that the washing in the water is an outward signification and figure, declaring what God worketh inwardly in them that truly be baptized. And likewise speaketh this epistle of the holy communion. For every good christian man ought to come to Christ’s sacraments with great fear, humility, faith, love, and charity. Aug. 50, And St Augustine saith that the gospel is to be received or heard with no less Hom.26. fear and reverence than the body of Christ. Whose words be these: Jnterrogo vos, fratres et sorores, dicite mihi: Quid? vobis plus esse videtur verbum Dei an corpus Christi? Si vere vultis respondere, hoc utique dicere debetis, quod non sit minus verbum Dei quam corpus Christi. Ht ideo quanta solicitudine observamus, quando nobis corpus Christi ministratur, ut nihil ex ipso de nostris manibus in terram cadat, tanta solicitudine observemus, ne verbum Dei quod nobis erogatur, dum aliquid aut cogitamus 149. aut loquimur, de corde nostro pereat: quia non minus reus erit qui verbum Dei negli- genter audierit, quam ille qui corpus Christi in terram cadere sua negligentia per- miserit. “Task this question of you, brethren and sistern,” saith St Augustine, “ answer me, Whether you think greater, the word of God, or the body of Christ? If you will answer the truth, verily, you ought to say thus: That the word of God is no less than the body of Christ. And therefore with what carefulness we take heed, when the body of Christ is ministered unto us, that no part thereof fall out of our hands on the earth, with as great carefulness let us take heed, that the word of God which is ministered unto us, when we think or speak of vain matters, perish not out of our hearts. For he that heareth the word of God negligently shall be guilty of no less fault than he that suffereth the body of Christ to fall upon the ground through his [’ This Treatise was published in 1605, with a [° Decretal. Greg. Lugd. 1618. Lib. 111. Tit. translation in Latin by Bonavent. Vulcanius.—Vid. | xliv. cap. i. and Tit. xli. cap. x.] To, Geo, Walch. Biblioth. Patrist. p. 446.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 147 negligence.” This is the mind of St Augustine. And as much we have in scripture for the reverent hearing and reading of God’s holy word, or the neglecting thereof, as we have for the sacraments. But it seemeth by your pen and utterance of this matter, that you understand not The causes of the ground and cause, whereupon should arise the great fear and trembling in their fe ene: hearts, that come to receive the sacraments ; for you shew another consideration thereof than the scripture doth. For you seem to drive all the cause of fear to the dignity of the body of Christ, there corporally present and received ; but the scripture declareth the fear to rise of the indignity and unworthiness of the receivers. “‘ He that eateth and drinketh unworthily,” threateneth God’s word, “ eateth and drinketh his own damnation.” And Centurio, considering his own unworthiness, was abashed to receive Christ into Matt. viii. his house, saying: “ Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under the covering of my house.” And the same thing made Peter afraid to be near unto Christ, and to say: “Go from me, O Lord, for I ama sinner.” And all christian men ought not to Luke v. fear and tremble only, when they receive the sacraments, but whensoever they hear God’s word, and threatenings pronounced against sinners. Now as concerning the third note, thou shalt see plainly, good reader, that here® is The people nothing here answered directly, but mere cavillations sought, and shift to avoid. For the pnests. if all the old prayers and ceremonies sound, as the people did communicate with the priest, (as you say they do, and so they do indeed, and that as well in the communion of drinking as eating,) then either the people did communicate with them in deed, and received the sacrament under both the kinds, or else the prayers had been false, and the ceremonies frustrate and in vain. And is it like, that the priests in that time would have used unto God such untrue prayers, as should declare that the people did commu- nicate with them, if in deed none did communicate with them? as it should have been by your imagined chances and cases. But it appeareth by the words of the epistle, that the whole multitude of the people that was present did communicate at those days, so that the priest could not commu- nicate alone, except he would communicate when no man was in the church. But by the answer of this sophister here in this place, thou mayest see an experience, good reader, whether he be as ready to see those things that make against him, as he is painful and‘studious to draw (as it were) by force all things to his purpose, to make — 150. them, at the least, to seem to make for him, although they be never so much against ~ him. As appeareth by all these his suppositions, that all the people which were pre- pared for should in those days withdraw themselves from the communion, and not one of them come unto it; that the clerks should receive all that was provided for the people; that one clerk should receive that which many clerks ought to have received. And so in conclusion by only his feigned suppositions he would persuade, that the priest should receive all alone. By such pretty cases, of the people disappointing the priests, and of lack of store of clerks, you might daily find* cavillations with all godly ordinances. For whereas God *rhe paschal ordained the paschal lamb to be eaten up clean in every house; and where there were iat not enough in one house to eat up the lamb, they should call of their neighbours so many as should suffice to eat up the whole lamb, so that nothing should remain: here you might bring in your “upon a chance,” that they that lacked company to eat up a whole lamb, dwelt alone far from other houses, and could not come together ; or could not get any such lamb as was appointed for the feast, or if their neighbours lacked company also. And what if they had no spit to roast the lamb? And whereas it was commanded, that they should be shoed, what if perchance they had no shoes? And if perchance a man’s wife were not at home, and all his servants falled sick of the sweat or plague, and no man durst come to his house, then must he turn the spit himself, and eat the lamb all alone. Such chances you purposely devise, to establish your private mass, that the priest may eat all alone. But by such a like reason as you make here, a man might prove, that the priest should preach or say matins to himself alone, in case, as you say, that the people, which should come, would disappoint him. For what [* That there is nothing, 1551. ] [* Dayly, and find, 1501.] 10—2 Hieron. adversus Joyinianum. Lib. i. 151. *Mine issue. , Bare signifi- cations. Ignatius in episto. ad Ephesianos. Irenzus Lib. v. contra Valentin. Ignatius. Irenzus. 148 THE THIRD BOOK. if the people disappoint the priest, say you, and come not to the communion? What if the people disappoint the priest, say I, and come not to matins nor sermon? shall he therefore say matins and preach, when no man is present but himself alone? But your imagined case hath such an absurdity in it, as is not tolerable to be thought to have been in christian people in that time, when Clement’s epistles were written, that when all the people should receive the communion with the priest, yet not one would come, but all would disappoint him. And yet in that case I doubt not but the priest would have abstained from ministration unto more opportunity, and more access of christian people, as he would have done likewise in saying of matins and preaching. Wherefore in your case I might well answer you, as St Jerome answered the argument made in the name of the heretic Jovinian, which might be brought against the com- mendation of virginity, “ What if all men would live virgins, and no man marry? how should then the world be maintained?” ‘ What if heaven fall,” said St Jerome ? What if no man will come to the church? is your argument ; for all that came in those days received the communion. What if heaven fall? say I. For I have not so evil opinion of the holy church in those days, to think that any such thing could chance among them, that no one would come, when all ought to have come. Now when you come to your issue, you make your case too strait for me to join an issue with you, binding me to the bare and only words of Clement, and refusing utterly his mind. But take the words and the mind together, and I dare adventure an issue to pass by any indifferent readers, that I have proved all my three notes. And where you say, that upon occasion of this epistle I speak more reverently of the sacrament than I do in other places: if you were not given altogether to calum- niate and deprave my words, you should perceive in all my book through, even from the beginning to the end thereof, a constant and perpetual reverence given unto the sacraments of Christ, such as of duty all christian men ought to give. Nevertheless you interpret this word ‘“ wherein” far from my meaning. For I mean not that Christ is spiritually either in the table, or in the bread and wine that be set upon the table; but I mean that he is present in the ministration and receiving of that holy supper, according to his own institution and ordinance: like as in baptism, Christ and the Holy Ghost be not in the water, or font, but be given in the minis- tration, or to them that be truly baptized in the water. And although the sacramental tokens be only significations and figures, yet doth Almighty God effectually work, in them that duly receive his sacraments, those divine and celestial operations which he hath promised, and by the sacraments be signified. For else they were vain and unfruitful sacraments, as well to the godly as to the ungodly. And therefore I never said of the whole supper, that it is but a significa- tion or a bare memory of Christ's death; but I teach that it is a spiritual refreshing, wherein our souls be fed and nourished with Christ’s very flesh and blood to eternal life. And therefore bring you forth some place in my book, where I say that the Lord’s supper is but a bare signification without any effect or operation of God in the same; or else eat your words again, and knowledge that you untruly report me. But hear what followeth further in my book. Here I pass over Ignatius and Ireneus, which make nothing for the papists’ opinions, but stand in the commendation of the holy communion, and in exhor- tation of all men to the often and godly receiving thereof. And yet neither they, nor no man else, can extol and commend the same sufficiently, according to the dignity thereof, if it be godly used as it ought to be. WINCHESTER. This author saith he passeth over Ignatius and Ireneus; and why? Because they make nothing, he saith, for the papists’ purpose. With the word “ papist” the author playeth at his pleasure. But it shall be evident that Irene doth plainly confound this author's purpose, in the denial of the true presence of Christ’s very flesh in the sacrament; who, although he use not the words “real and substantial,” yet he doth effectually comprehend in his speech of the sacrament the virtue and strength of those words. And for the truth of the sacrament is OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 149 Trenceus specially alleged, insomuch as Melancthon, when he writeth to Gicolampadius, that Philip. Me- : he will allege none but such as speak plainly}, he allegeth Irenceus for one, as appeareth by his said epistle to Qicolampadius, And Afcolampadius himself is not troubled so much with answering any other to shape any manner of evasion, as to answer Irenceus, in whom he notably stumbleth. And Peter Martyr, in his work, granteth Irenee to be specially alleged, to whom when he goeth about to answer, a man may evidently see how he masketh himself. And this author bringeth in Clements epistle, of which no great count is made, although it be not contemned, and passeth over Irenceus, that speaketh evidently in the matter, and was as old as Clement, or not much younger. And because Ignatius was of that age, and is alleged by Theodoret to have written in his epistle ad Smyrnenses, whereof may appear his fuith of the mystery of the sacrament, it shall serve to good purpose to write in the words of the same Ignatius here upon the credit of the said Theodoret?, whom this author so much Theodoret. commendeth: the words of Ignatius be these: Kucharistias et oblationes non admittunt, quod. ag non confiteantur eucharistiam esse carnem servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, quee pro peccatis nostris passa est, quam Pater sua benignitate suscitavit. Which words be thus much in English ; “They do not admit eucharistias and ‘oblations, because they do not confess eucharistiam to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesu Christ: which flesh suffered for our sins, which flesh the Father by his benignity hath stirred up.” These be Ignatius’ words, which I have not throughly Englished, because the word eucharistia cannot be well Englished, being a word of mystery, and signifieth (as Irenceus openeth) both the parts of the sacrament, heavenly and earthly, visible and invisible. But in that Ignatius openeth his faith thus, he taketh? eucharistia to be the flesh of our Saviour Christ that suffered for us, he declareth the sense of Christ's words, “This is my body,’ not to be figurative only, but to express the truth of the very flesh there given; and therefore (Ignatius saith) eucharistia is the flesh of our Saviour Christ, the same that suffered and the same that rose again. Which words of Ignatius so pithily open the matter, as they declare therewith the faith* also of Theodoret that doth allege him, so as if the® author would make so absolute a work as to peruse all the fathers’ sayings, he should not thus leap over Ignatius, nor Irene neither, as I have before declared. But this is a colour of rhetoric called “ rejection” of that is hard to answer, and is here w pretty shift or sleight, *sieight. whereby thou, reader, mayest consider how this matter is handled. 152. | CANTERBURY. It shall not need to make any further answer to you here as concerning Irenzus, but only to note one thing, that if any place of Ireneus had served for your purpose, you would not have failed here to allege it. But because you have nothing that maketh for you in deed, therefore you allege nothing in especial, (lest in the answer it should evidently appear to be nothing,) and so slide you from the matter, as though all men should believe you, because you say it is so. And as for the place of Irence alleged by Melancthon in an epistle, Gicolampadius® Irene. (without any such troubling of himself as you imagine) maketh a plain and easy answer thereto; although Melancthon wrote not his said epistle to C&colampadius, (as you, negligently looking upon their works, be deceived,) but to Fridericus Myconius. And [} Nonnulli sine delectu maximum numerum testimoniorum congesserunt, in quibus pleraque sunt ambigua et obscura: nos tantum ea recitavi- mus, que videbantur esse guam maxime perspicua. Melancth. Epist. Frid. Myconio. This Epistle is inserted in Gcolampadius’s Dialogue referred to above, p. 137. The above quotation will be found in p. 33 of the edition there described. ] [? Evxapiorias Kat trpoaopas ov amodéxov- Tat™, dia TO pa) Opooyely Tijy evyaptoTiay odépKa eivat TOV LwTHpos nuwy 'Incov Xpiorov, tijv b7rEp ToV anapTiav npav Taovcay, ijv TH XpnoToTHTL 6 Mario jyeipev. Theodoretus, Dialog. iii. Tom. IV. p. 231. Hale. 1769-94.] [? Thus as he taketh, 1551.] [* Therewith that faith, Orig. ed, Winch.] [° So as if this author, 1551.] [° The passages of Ireneus quoted by Melanc- thon are from the 4th and 5th books contra Valenti- num: Treneus dicit, Calicem eucharistie commu- nicationem sanguinis Domini, et panem quem frangimus communicationem corporis ejus. Item dicit: Calicem, qui est creatura, suum corpus con- firmavit, ex quo auget corpora nostra, Quando ergo et mistus calix et factus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit eucharistia sanguinis et corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur et subsistit carnis nostre substantia, ...[dem et alio loco dicit: Quomodo dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire, et non percipere vitam, qu a corpore Domini et sanguine alitur? The “plain and easy answer” of Gicolampadius begins thus: At si ego essem Valentinus vel Manicheus, nihil terrerer, si sic argueres: Panis est corpus Christi, vel, Christi corpus edimus carnaliter ; igitur resurrecturi sumus. Inutilis enim esset conse- quentia, Gicolampad. Dialog, pp. 41, 52, 188, seqq.] * Ed. Patrum Apostol. Opera Tubingw, 1842. (Hefele.) Ignatii Epist. ad Smyrneos, p. 172, for mpooopds ov amobéxovra, reads mpogevxijs améxovra. 153. Why bread is called Christ's body and wine his blood. Smyth. Eph. v. Eph. i. iv. Col. i. 1 Cor. xv. Peter Martyr. 150 THE THIRD BOOK. the words of Trenee alleged by Melancthon mean in effect no more, but to prove that our bodies shall rise again, and be joined unto our souls, and reign with them in the eternal life to come. For he wrote against Valentine, Marcion, and other heretics, which denied the resurrection of our bodies, from whom it seemeth you do not much dissent, when you say that our bodies shall rise spiritually’, if you mean that they shall rise without the form and fashion of men’s bodies, without distinction and proportion of members. For those shall be marvellous bodies, that shall have no shape nor fashion of bodies, as you say Christ’s body is in the sacrament, to whose body ours shall be like after the resurrection. But to return to answer Irenee clearly and at large, his meaning was this, that as the water in baptism is called agua regenerans, “the water that doth regenerate,” and yet it doth not regenerate in deed, but is the sacrament of regeneration wrought by the Holy Ghost, and called so to make it to be esteemed above other common waters: so Christ confessed the creatures of bread and wine, joined unto his words in his holy supper, and there truly ministered, to be his body and blood; meaning thereby, that they ought not to be taken as common bread, or as bakers’ bread, and wine drunken in the tavern, (as Smith untruly jesteth of me throughout his book ;) but that they ought to be taken for bread and wine wherein we give thanks to God, and therefore be called eucharistia corporis et sanguinis Domini, “the thanking of Christ’s body and blood,” as Irenee termeth them; or mysteria corporis et sanguinis Domini, “the mysteries of Christ’s? flesh and blood,” as Dionysius calleth them; or sacramenta corporis et sanguinis Domini, “the sacraments of Christ’s flesh and blood,” as divers other authors use to call them. And when Christ called bread and wine his body and blood, why do the old authors change, in many places, that speech of Christ, and call them eucharistia, mysteria, et sacramenta corporis et sanguinis Domini, “the thanksgiving, the mysteries, and the sacraments of his flesh and blood,” but because they would clearly expound the meaning of Christ’s speech, that when he called the bread and wine his flesh and blood, he meant to ordain them to be the sacraments of his flesh and blood?—according to such a speech as St Augustine expresseth, how the sacraments of Christ’s flesh and blood be called his flesh and blood, and yet in deed they be not his flesh and blood, but the sacraments thereof, signifying unto the godly receivers, that as they corporally feed of the bread and wine, (which comfort’ their hearts and continue this corruptible life for a season,) so spiritually they feed of Christ’s very flesh, and drink his very blood. And we be in such sort united unto him, that his flesh is made our flesh, his holy Spirit uniting him and us so together, that we be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and make all one mystical body, whereof he is the head, and we the members. And as feeding, nourishing, and life, cometh from the head, and runneth into all parts of the body ; so doth eternal nourishment and life come from Christ unto us completely and fully, as well into our bodies as souls, And therefore if Christ our head be risen again, then shall we that be the members of his body surely rise also; forasmuch as the members cannot be separated from the head, but seeing that as he is our head and eternal food, we must needs by him live with him for ever. This is the argument of Irence against those heretics which denied the resurrection of our bodies. And these things the sacraments of bread and wine declare unto us: but neither the carnal presence, nor the carnal eating of Christ’s flesh, maketh the things so to be, nor Irenee meant no such thing. For then should all manner of persons that receive the sacraments, have everlasting life, and none but they. Thus have I answered to Ivence plainly and shortly, and CEcolampadius needed not to trouble himself greatly with answering this matter. For by the corporal eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood, Irenee could never have proved the resur- rection of our bodies to eternal life. And Peter Martyr‘ maketh the matter so plain, that he concludeth Ireneus’ words to make directly against the doctrine of the papists. _ [> Spiritual, 1551.] [3 Comforteth their hearts, and continueth, 1551.] [? His, 1551.] | [4 Ireneus adversus hereticos Valentinianos, OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 15] The answer also is easily made to the place which you allege out of Ignatius, _ 154. where he calleth eucharistia the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. For he meaneth Be" 1531] no more but that it is the sacrament of his flesh, or the mystery of his flesh, or, as Trenee said, eucharistia of his flesh, as even now [I declared in mine answer to Trenee. And your long process here may have a short answer gathered of your own words. This word eucharistia, say you, “cannot be well Englished:” but the body of Christ is good and plain English ; and then if ewcharistia be such a thing as cannot be well Englished, it cannot be called the body of Christ, but by a figurative speech. And how can you then conclude of Ignatius’ words, that “This is my body,” is no figura- tive speech? It seemeth rather that the clean contrary may be concluded. For if these two speeches be like and of one sense, (“‘eucharistia is Christ’s body,” and “This is my body,”) and the first be a declaration of the second, is this a good argument, The first is a figure, ergo, the second is none? Is it not rather to be gathered upon the other side thus, The first is a declaration of the second, and yet the first is a figure, ergo, the second is also a figure? And that rather than the first; because the declaration should be a more plain speech than that which is declared by it. And as for your “colour of rhetoric,’ which you call “rejection,” it is so familiar with yourself, that you use it commonly in your book, when I allege any author, or speak any thing that you cannot answer unto. And yet one thing is necessary to admonish the reader, that Ignatius in this epistle entreateth not of the manner of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, but of the manner of his very body, as he was born of his mother, crucified, and rose again, appeared unto his apostles, and ascended into heaven: which things divers heretics said were not done verily in deed, but apparently to men’s sights, and that in deed he had no such carnal and corporal body, as he appeared to have. And against such errors speaketh that epistle, and not of the real and corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament ; although eucharistia, or the sacrament, be ordained for a remembrance of that very body, and so hath the name of it, as the sacraments*® have the names of the things which they signify. But by this so manifest writhing’ of the mind of Ignatius from that true sense’ and purpose that was meant, to another sense and purpose that was not meant, may appear the truth of the papists, who wrast and misconstrue all old ancient writers and holy doctors to their wicked and ungodly purposes. Next in my book followeth mine answer to Dionysius. Dionysius also, whom they allege to praise and extol this sacrament, (as The answer to Dionysius indeed it is most worthy, being a sacrament of most high dignity and per- de Eecles. fection, representing unto us our most perfect spiritual conjunction unto Christ, “? ** and our continual nourishing, feeding, comfort, and spiritual life in him,) yet he never said that the flesh and blood of Christ was in the bread and wine, really, corporally, sensibly and naturally, (as the papists would bear us in hand;) but he calleth ever the bread and wine signs, pledges, and tokens, declaring unto the faithful receivers of the same, that they receive Christ spiritually, and that they spiritually eat his flesh and drink his blood. And although the bread and wine be figures, signs, and tokens of Christ’s flesh and blood, (as 8. Dionyse calleth them, both before the consecration and after,) yet the Greek annotations upon the same Dionyse do say, that the very things themselves be above in heaven, And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the papists’ opinions in this point 155. ‘Panis terrenus,’ inquit, ‘accepta vocatione 4 verbo Dei, non amplius est communis panis, sed efficitur eucharistia, que constat ex duabus rebus, nimirum terrena et ccelesti.’ In primis non negat eucharis- tiam panem esse, nisi illum communem feceris. Postea dicit, ex duabus rebus constare, quarum una terrestris est, ut panis, altera ceelestis, ut corpus Christi. Atque ut ex una parte retinetur veritas, scilicet quoad corpus Domini, ita in altera est con- servanda, videlicet quoad panem. Et addit per si- militudinem, ita corpora nostra illam sumentia, non sunt amplius corruptibilia.— Peter Martyr. De sacramento Eucharistie, p. 94,5. Tiguri. 1552.] [> As sacraments, 1551.] [© Writing, 1551.] [7 From the true sense, 151. ] [® This treatise is spurious; for proof of which see “‘ James’ Corruptions of Scripture,” &c. p. 7; Ed. London, 1843. ] 152 THE THIRD BOOK. of Christ’s real and corporal presence, so in divers other things he maketh quite and clean against them, and that specially in three points; in transubstantiation, in reservation of the sacrament, and in the receiving of the same by the priest alone. WINCHESTER. Dionysius. = _As touching Dionysius, a wise reader may, without any note of mine, see how this author is troubled in him, and calleth for aid the help of him that made the Greek commentaries upon Dionysius, and pleadeth therewith the form of the words “ really,” “ corporally,” “ sensibly,” and “naturally,” whereof two, that is to say, “really” and “sensibly,” the old authors in syllables used not, for so much as I have read, but “corporally” and “naturally” they used speaking of this sacrament. This Dionyse spake of this mystery after the dignity of it, not contending with any other for the truth of it as we do now, but extolling it as a marvellous high mystery, which, if the bread be never the holier, and were only a signification, (as this author teacheth,) were no high mystery at all. As for the things of the sacrament to be in heaven, the church teacheth so, and yet the same things be in deed present in the sacrament also, which is a mystery so deep and dark from man’s natural capacity, as is only to be believed supernaturally, without asking of the question “how,” whereof St Chrysostom maketh an exclamation in this wise: Chrysostom. “ Notes be descant, 1551.] Bovropévors mepixti~acbat xai awepiiaBetv.— (® Descant voluntary : i.e. a song or tune com- Chrysostom. de Sacerdotio. Lib. 111. Tom. I. | posed in parts, played at will without any settled p- 382. Ed. Bened.] tule or rhythm. ] [* At once, not only, &c, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 153 ho is in the bread and wine corporally nor naturally. No, never no papist said, that Christ’s body is in the sacrament naturally nor camally, but you alone, (who be the first author of this gross error, which Smith himself condemneth, and denieth smitn. that ever? Christian man so taught,) although some say that it is there “ really,” some “substantially,” and some “sensibly.” Now as concerning the high mystery which St Denys speaketh of, he declareth the same to be in the marvellous and secret working of God in his reasonable creatures, (being made after his image, and being his lively temples, and Christ’s mystical body,) and not in the unreasonable and unsensible and unlively creatures of bread and wine, wherein you say the deep and dark mystery standeth. But notwithstanding any holiness or godliness Holiness in the sacra- wrought in the receivers of them, yet they be not the more holy or godly in themselves, ments. but be only tokens, significations, and sacraments of that holiness, *which Almighty God by his omnipotent power worketh in us. And for their holy significations they have the name of holiness**, as the water in baptism is called agua sanctificans, unda regenerans, “hallowing or regenerating water,” because it is the sacrament of regenera- tion and sanctification. Now as concerning Chrysostom’s saying, that Christ is in our hands, Chrysostom christ in our saith, (as I have rehearsed in my book,) not only that he is in our hands, but also that we see him with our eyes, touch him, feel him, and grope him, fix our teeth in his flesh, taste it, break it, eat it, and digest it, make red our tongues, and dye them with his blood, &c.; which things cannot be understand of the body and blood of Christ but by a figurative speech, as I have more at large declared in my fourth book, the eighth chapter. saith clean contrary to Chrysostom, that we touch not Christ with our hands : tangimus Dominum,” saith he. This speech therefore of Chrysostom declareth not the inward work of God in the substance of the visible sacrament, but signifieth what God worketh inwardly in true believers. And whereas you say, that my notes “be descant voluntary without the tenor part,” I have named both the book and chapter where St Dionyse telleth, how the priest, when he cometh to the receiving of the sacraments, he divideth the bread in pieces, and distributeth the same to all that be present; which one sentence containeth suf- ficiently all my three notes. So that if you be disposed to call my notes descant, there you may find the plain song or tenor part of them. And it is no marvel that you cannot judge well of my descant, when you see not, or will not see, the plain song, whereupon the descant was made. Now followeth Tertullian, of whom I write thus: Furthermore they do allege Tertullian’, that he constantly affirmeth that in the sacrament of the altar we do eat the body and drink the blood of our Saviour Christ. To whom we grant, that our flesh eateth and drinketh the bread and wine, which be called the body and blood of Christ, because, as Tertullian saith, they do represent his body and blood, although they be not really the same in very deed. And we grant also, that our souls by faith do eat his very body and blood”, but that is spiritually, sucking out of the same everlasting life. But we deny that unto this spiritual feeding is requiring" any real and corporal presence. And therefore this Tertullian speaketh nothing against the truth of our [7 Ever any, 1551. | [® The words between asterisks are printed twice over by mistake in edit. 1580.] [® Denique, cum anima Deo allegitur, ipsa est que efficit, ut anima allegi possit. Scilicet caro abluitur, ut anima emaculetur. Caro ungitur, ut anima consecretur. Caro signatur, ut et anima muniatur. Caro manus impositione adumbratur, ut et anima spiritu illuminetur. Caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo sagi- netur. Non possunt ergo seperari in mercede, quas opera conjungit. —Tertullian. De Resurrectione car- nis, cap. 6, p. 330. Lutetia Paris. 1664. Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, ‘ Hoc est corpus meum’ dicendo, id est, figura corporis méi...... Cur autem panem corpus suum appellat, et non magis peponem, quem Marcion cordis loco habuit, non intelligens yeterem fuisse istam figuram corporis Christi, Ady. Marcion. Lib. Iv. cap. 40.] [® And drink his blood, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] [) Required, 155i, and Orig. ed. ] hands. And therefore St Augustine, De Verbis Domini sermone xxxiil. Augustin. de cc AT... Yerbis Domi- Non ni sermone 33. 157. The answer to Tertullia- nus de Re- surrectione carnis. 154 THE THIRD BOOK. catholic doctrine, but he speaketh many things most plainly for us, and against the papists, and specially in three points: First, in that he saith that Christ called bread his body. The second, that Christ called it so, because it representeth his body. The third, in that he saith, that by these words of Christ, “ This is my body,” is meant, “This is a figure of my body.” WINCHESTER. Of Tertullian I have spoken before, and so hath this author also 1 forgotten here one Tertullianus. motable thing in Tertullian, where Tertullian saith, that “Christ made the bread his body,? not only called it so, as appear? by Tertullian’s words, reported by this author before. This note that I make now of Tertullian maketh against this author's purpose, but yet it maketh with the truth, which this author should not impugn. The second note gathered of Tertul- lian, by this author, is not true; for Christ called it his body, and made it his body, as Tertullian saith. And the third note of this author is in controversy of reading, and must be so understanded, as may agree with the rest of Tertullian’s sayings, which, after my reading, doth evidently prove, and at the least doth not improve, the catholic doctrine of Christ’s church wniversally received, although it improveth that which this author calleth here our catholic doctrine, most imprudently3 and untruly reporting the same. CANTERBURY. I desire no more but that the reader will look upon the place of Tertullian before mentioned, and see what you speak there, and what is mine answer thereto, and so confer them together and judge. And that the reader will note also, that here covertly you have granted my first note, that Christ called bread his body, but so slyly, that the reader should not by your will perceive it. And where you deny my second note upon Tertullian, that Christ called it his body, because it represented his body, the words of Tertullian be these: “That Christ reproveth not bread, wherein he representeth his own body*.” As for my third note, yet once again, reader, I beseech thee turn back and look upon the place, how this lawyer hath expounded Tertullian, if thou canst with patience abide to hear of so foolish a gloss. And where he saith that this author Tertullian “must be so understand as may agree with the rest of his sayings,” would to God you would so do not only in Tertullian, but also in all other authors! for then our controversy should be soon at a point. And it is a most shameless impudency of you, to affirm that the catholic church universally 158. teacheth that Christ is really, sensibly, corporally, naturally, carnally, and substantially, present in the visible forms of bread and wine, seeing that you cannot prove any one of these your sayings, either by scripture, or by the consent of the catholic church, but only by the papistical church, which now many years hath borne the whole swing. Now followeth Origen, to whom I answer thus. pee acbwer Moreover they allege for them Origen, (because they would seem to have Numer. “many ancient authors favourers of their erroneous doctrme,) which Origen is most clearly against them. For although he do say, as they allege, that those things which before were signified by obscure figures, be now truly, in deed, and in their very nature and kind, accomplished and fulfilled; and for the declaration thereof he bringeth forth three examples, one of the stone that floweth water, another of the sea and cloud, and the third of manna, which in the old testament did signify Christ to come, who is now come in deed, and is manifested and exhibited unto us, as it were face to face and sensibly, in his word, in the sacrament of regeneration, and the sacraments of bread and wine: {! Also, and forgotten here, 1551. ] bavit Creatoris,....nec panem, quo ipsum corpus [? May appear, 1541.] suum representat, etiam in sacramentis propriis [° Impudently, 1551.] | egens mendicitatibus Creatoris. Adv. Marcion. [* Sed ille quidem usque nune nec aquam repro- | Lib. 1. cap. 14.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 155 yet Origen meant not that Christ is corporally either in his word, or in the water of baptism, or in the bread and wine; nor that we carnally and cor- porally be regenerated and born again, or eat Christ’s flesh and blood. | For our regeneration in Christ is spiritual, and our eating and drinking is a spiritual feeding; which kind of regeneration and feeding requireth no real and corporal presence of Christ, but only his presence in spirit, grace, and effectual operation. And that Origen thus meant that Christ’s flesh is a spiritual meat, and his blood a spiritual drink, and that the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood may not be understand literally, but spiritually, it is manifested by Origen’s own words, in his seventh homily upon the book called Leviticus; where he inlet sheweth that those words must be understand figuratively, and whosoever un- derstandeth them otherwise, they be deceived, and take harm by their own gross understanding. WINCHESTER, Origen’s words be very plain, and meaning also, which speak of manifestation and exhi- Origenes. bition, which be two things to be verified three ways in our religion, that is to say, in the word, and regeneration, and the sacrament of bread and wine, as this author termeth it: which Origen saith not so, but thus, “the flesh of the word of God,’ not meaning in every of these after one sort, but after the truth of the scripture in each of them. Christ in his word is manifested and exhibited unto us, and by faith, that is, of hearing, dwelleth in us spirtually; for so we have his Spirit. Of baptism St Paul saith, “as many as be baptized be clad in Christ.” Now, in the sacrament of bread and wine, by Origen’s rule, Christ should be manifested and exhibited unto us after the scriptures, so as the sacrament of bread and wine should not only signify Christ, that is to say, preach him, but also exhibit him * Origen hath facie ad sensibly, as Origen’s words be reported here to be. So as Christ’s words, “This is my faciem,” but body,” should be words not of figure or shewing, but of exhibiting Christ’s body unto us, and } take this uthor as he sensibly, as this author allegeth him, which should signify, to be received with owr mouth, as ones” Christ commanded, when he said, “ Take, eat, &c.” diversely from the other two ways, in *B: which by Christ's Spirit we be made participant of the benefit of his passion wrought in when t say . . . oa a7 . +, “by his man- his manhood. But in this sacrament we be made participant of his Godhead, by his humanity yoea exhibit unto us for food: and so, im this mystery, we receive him man and God; and in the ally anc yril other, by mean of his Godhead, be participant of the effect of his passion suffered in his manhood. sPeaketh. In this sacrament Christ's manhood is represented and truly present, whereunto the God- head is ‘most certainly united, whereby we receive a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh, to be in the general resurrection spiritual with our soul, as we have been in baptism made spiritual by regeneration of the soul: which in the full redemption of our bodies shall be made perfect. And therefore this author may not compare baptism with the sacrament throughly; in which baptism Christ's manhood is not really present, although the virtue and effect of his most precious blood be there: but the truth of the mystery of this sacrament is to have Christ's body, his flesh and blood, exhibited, whereunto eating and drinking is, by Christ in his supper, appropriate. In which supper Christ said, “This is my body,’ which Bucer noteth; and that Christ said not, “ This is my spirit,’ “ This is my virtue.” Wherefore, 159. after Origen’s teaching, if Christ be not only manifested, but also exhibited “sensibly” in the *Sensibly. ° 6 : ° 3 *Really. sacrament, then is he in the sacrament in deed, that is to say, “ really ;” and then is he there *Substanti- “ substantially,” because the substance of the body is there; and is there “ corporally” also, * lly. Corporally, . - *Naturally. because the very body is there; and “naturally,” because the natural body is there; not wn- NEEM) derstanding corporally and naturally in the manner of presence, nor sensibly neither. For then were the manner of presence within man’s capacity, and that is false: and therefore the catholic teaching is, that the manner of Christ's presence in the sacrament is spiritual and supernatural, not corporal, not carnal, not natural, not sensible, not perceptible, but only spiritual, the “how”? and manner whereof God knoweth; and we, assured by his word, know only the truth to be so, that it is there in deed, and therefore really to be also received with our hands and mouths; and so sensibly there, the body that suffered, and therefore his natural body there, the body of very flesh, and therefore his carnal body, the body truly, and there- Sore his corporal body there. But as for the manner of presence, that is only spiritual, as T said before, and here in the inculeation of these words. I am tedious to a learned reader, but yet this author enforceth me therewnto, who with these words, “ carnally,” “corporally,” “grossly,” 160. As it were. 156 THE THIRD BOOK. “sensibly,” “naturally,” applying them to the manner of presence, doth maliciously! and craftily carry away the reader from the simplicity of his faith; and by such absurdities, as these words grossly understanded import, astonisheth the simple reader in consideration of the mat- ter, and useth these words, as dust afore their eyes, which to wipe away, I am enforced to repeat the understanding of these words oftener than elsewhere necessary. These things well considered, no man doth more plainly confound this author than this saying of Origen, as he allegeth it, whatsoever other sentences he would pick out of Origen, when he useth liberty of allegories to make him seem to say otherwise. And as I have declared afore, to wnderstand Christ's words spiritually, is to understand them as the Spirit of God hath taught the church, and to esteem God's mysteries most true in the substance of the thing so to be, although the manner exceedeth our capacities, which is a spiritual understanding of the same. And here also this author putteth in for “ figuratively,” “ spiritually?” to deceive the reader. CANTERBURY. You observe my words here concerning Origen so captiously, as though I had gone about scrupulously to translate his sayings word by word, which I did not; but because they were very long, I went about only to rehearse the effect of his mind briefly and plainly, which I have done faithfully and truly, although you captiously carp and reprehend the same. And whereas, craftily to alter the sayings of Origen, you go about to put a diversity of the exhibition of Christ in these three things, in his word, in baptism, and in his holy supper, as though in his word and in baptism he were exhibited spiritually, and in his holy supper sensibly to be eaten with our mouths: this distinction you have dreamed in your sleep, or imagined of purpose. For Christ after one sort is exhibited in all these three, in his word, in baptism, and in the Lord’s supper; that is to say, spiritually, and for so much in one sort, as before you have confessed yourself. And Origen putteth no such diversity as you here imagine, but declareth one manner of giving of Christ unto us in his word, in baptism, and in the Lord’s supper; that is to say, in all these three secundum spectem; that as unto the Jews Christ was given in figures, so to us he is given in specie, that is to say, im rei veritate, in his very nature: meaning nothing else but that unto the Jews he was promised in figures, and to us, after his incarnation, he is married and joimed in his proper kind, and in his words and sacraments as it were sensibly given. But howsoever I report Origen, you captiously and very untruly do report me. For whereas I say, that in God’s word, and in the sacraments of baptism and of the Lord’s supper, Christ is manifested and exhibited unto us, as it were face to face and sensibly, you, leaving out these words, “as it were,” make a quarrel to this word “sensibly ;” or rather, you make that word “sensibly” the foundation of all your weak building, as though there were no difference between “sensibly,” and “as it were sensibly ;” and as it were all one thing a man to lhe sleeping, and as he were sleeping; or dead, and as he were dead. Do not I write thus in my first book, “that the washing in the water of baptism is as it were a shewing of Christ be- fore our eyes, and a sensible touching, feeling, and groping of him?” And do these words import that we see him and grope him in deed? And further I say, “that the eating and drinking of the sacramental bread and wine is as it were a shewing of Christ before our eyes, a smelling of him with our noses, and a feeling and groping of him with our hands.” And do we therefore see him in deed with our corporal eyes, smell him with our noses, and put our hands in his side and feel his wounds? If it were so in deed, I would not add these words, “as it were.” For what speech were this, of a thing that is in deed to say, “as it were?” For these words, “as it were,” signify that it is not so in deed. So now likewise in this place of Origen, where it is said, ‘‘that Christ in his words and sacraments is manifested and exhibited unto us, as it were face to face and sensibly,” it is not meant that Christ is so exhi- bited in deed face to face and sensibly, but the sense is clean contrary, that he is 7 {! Orig. ed. Winch. omits the words “ma- [? For “spiritually,” “ figuratively,’ Orig. ed. liciously and.’’] Winch. | —— ron oe OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 157 not there given sensibly, nor face to face. Thus it appeareth how uprightly you handle this matter, and how truly you report my words. But the further you pro- ceed in your answer, the more you shew crafty juggling, legerdemain, pass a God’s name to blind men’s eyes, strange speeches, new inventions, not without much impiety as the words sound, but what the meaning is no man can tell but the maker himself. But as the words be placed, it seemeth you mean, that in the Lord’s supper we be not “made by Christ's Spirit participant of the benefit of his passion ;” nor by baptism or God’s word we be not “made participant of his Godhead by his humanity:” and furthermore by this distinction, (which you feign without any ground of Origen,) we receive not “man and God” in baptism; nor in the Lord’s supper we be not “ by means of his Godhead made participant of the effect of his passion.” In baptism also, by your distinction, we receive not “a pledge of the resurrection of our flesh,” but in the Lord’s supper; nor Christ is not truly present in baptism. Which your said differ- ences do not only derogate and diminish the effect and dignity of Christ’s sacraments, 161. but be also blasphemous against the ineffable unity of Christ’s person, separating his divinity from his humanity. Here may all men of judgment see by experience, how divinity is handled when it cometh to the discussion of ignorant lawyers. And in all these your sayings (if you mean as the words be), I make an issue # Three issue with you for the price of a fagot. And where you say, that “our flesh in the ee general resurrection shall be spiritual,” here I offer a like issue, except you under- An issue. stand a spiritual body to be a sensible and palpable body, that hath all perfect members distinct ; which thing in sundry places of your book you seem utterly to deny. And where you make this difference between baptism and this sacrament, that «The third in baptism Christ is not really present, expounding “really present” to signify no more but to be in deed present, yet after a spiritual manner, if you deny that presence to be in baptism; yet the third fagot I will adventure with you, for your strange and ungodly doctrine within twenty lines together ; who may in equality of error contend with the Valentines, Arians, or Anabaptists. But when you come here to your “lies” (declaring the words, “sensibly,” “really,” ¢*Adver “substantially,” “corporally,” and “naturally”), you speak so fondly, unlearnedly, and erie ignorantly, as they that know you not might think that you understood neither grammar, English, nor reason. For who is so ignorant but he knoweth that adverbs that end in “ly” be adverbs of quality, and being added to the verb they express the manner, form, and fashion how a thing is, and not the substance of it? As speaking wisely, learnedly, and plainly, is to speak after such a form and manner as wise men, learned, and plain men, do speak: and to do wisely and godly is to do in such sort and fashion as wise and godly men do. And sometime the adverb “ly” signifieth the manner of a thing that is in deed, and sometime the manner of a thing that is not. As when a man speaketh wisely, that is wise indeed: and yet sometimes we say, “fools speak wisely ;” which although they be not wise, yet they utter some speeches in such sort as though they were wise. The king, we say, useth himself princely in all his doings, (who is a prince in deed,) but we say also of an arrogant, wilful, and proud man, that he useth himself princely and imperiously, although he be neither prince nor emperor: and yet we use so to speak of him, because of the manner, form, and fashion of using himself. And if you answer foolishly and unlearnedly, be you there- fore a fool and unlearned? Nay, but then your answers be made in such wise, manner, sort, and fashion, as you were neither learned nor wise. Or if you send to Rome or receive private letters from thence, be you therefore a papist ? God is judge thereof ; but yet do you popishly, that is to say, use such manner and fashion as the papists do. But where the form and manner lacketh, there the adverbs of quality in “ly” have no place, although the thing be there in deed. As when a wise man speaketh not in such a sort, in such a fashion and wise, as a wise man should speak, not- withstanding that he is wise in deed, yet we say not that he speaketh wisely, but foolishly. And the godly king David did ungodly when he took Bersabe, and slew 9 gam, xi, Urie her husband, because that manner of doing was not godly. So do all Englishmen understand by these words, “sensibly,” “substantially,” ‘“corporally,” “naturally,” “car- 162 nally,” “spiritually,” and such like, the manner and form of being, and not the thing itself Luke iv. The answer to Cyprian, Lib. i. Epist. 3. 163. Gen. ix. Gen. xiv. 158 THE THIRD BOOK. without the said forms and manners. For when Christ was born, and rose from death, and wrought miracles, we say not that he did these things naturally, because the mean and manner was not after a natural sort, although it was the selfsame Christ in nature. But we say that he did eat, drink, sleep, labour, and sweat, talk, and speak naturally, not because only of his nature, but because the manner and fashion of doing was such as we use to do. Likewise when Jesus passed through the people, and they saw him not, he was not then sensibly and visibly among them; their eyes being letted in such sort that they could not see and perceive him. And so in all the rest of your adverbs, the speech admitteth not to say that Christ is there sub- stantially, corporally, carnally, and sensibly, where he is not after a substantial, cor- poral, carnal, and sensual form and manner. This the husbandman at his plough, and his wife at her rock’, is able to judge, and to condemn you in this point, and so can the boys in the grammar-school, that you speak neither according to the English tongue, grammar, nor reason, when you say that these words and adverbs, “sensibly,” “corporally,” and “naturally,” do not signify a corporal, sensible, and natural manner. I have been here somewhat long and tedious, but the reader must pardon me; for this subtile and evil device of your own brain, without ground or autho- rity, containeth such absurdities, and may cast such mists before men’s eyes to blind them that they should not see, that I am constrained to speak thus much in this matter, and yet more shall do, if this suffice not. But this one thing I wonder much at, that you being so much used and accustomed to lie, do not yet know what “ly” meaneth. But at length in this matter, (when you see none other shift,) you be fain ‘to fly to the church for your shot-anchor®. And yet it is but the Romish church. For the old and first church of Christ is clearly against you. And Origen saith not as you do, that “to understand the said words of Christ spiritually is to understand them as the Spirit of God hath taught the church ;” but to understand them spiritually is to understand them otherwise than the words sound: “for he that understandeth them after the letter,’ saith Origen, “ understandeth them carnally, and that under- standing hurteth and destroyeth. For in plain understanding of eating and drinking without trope or figure, Christ’s flesh cannot be eaten, nor his blood drunken.” Next followeth in order St Cyprian, of whom I write thus: And likewise meant Cyprian, in those places which the adversaries of the truth allege of him, concerning the true eating of Christ’s very flesh and drinking of his blood. For Cyprian spake of no gross and carnal eating with the mouth, but of an inward spiritual and pure eating with heart and mind: which is to believe in our hearts that his flesh was rent and torn for us upon the cross, and his blood shed for our redemption; and that the same flesh and blood now sitteth at the right hand of the Father, making continual intercession for us: and to imprint and digest this in our minds, putting our whole affiance and trust in him, as touching our salvation, and offering ourselves clearly unto him, to love and serye him all the days of our life ; this is truly, sincerely, and spiritually to eat his flesh, and to drink his blood. And this sacrifice of Christ upon the cross was that oblation, which Cyprian saith was figured and signified before it was done, by the wine which Noe drank, and by the bread and wine which Melchisedech gave to Abraham, and by many other figures which St Cyprian there rehearseth. And now when Christ is come, and hath accomplished that sacrifice, the same is figured, signified, and represented unto us by that bread and wine, which faithful people receive daily in the holy communion. Wherein like as with their mouths carnally they eat the bread and drink the wine, so by their faith [! Rock : i.e. a distaff, or staff, held in the hand, | twirling a spindle below. ] from which, in spinning, the wool was spun by [2 Shot-anchor, the same as sheet-anchor. | OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 159 spiritually they eat Christ’s very flesh and drink his very blood. And hereby it appeareth, that St Cyprian clearly affirmeth the most true doctrine, and is wholly upon our side. And against the papists he teacheth most plainly, that the communion ought to be received of all men under both kinds: and that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood: and that there is not transubstantiation, but that bread remaineth there as a figure to represent Christ’s body, and wine to represent his blood, and that those which be not the lively members of Christ do eat the bread and drink the wine, and be not nourished* by them ; but the very flesh and blood of Christ they neither eat nor drink. Thus have you declared the mind of St Cyprian. WINCHESTER, As touching Cyprian, this author maketh an exposition of his own device, which he would have taken for an answer unto him. Whereas Cyprian of all other, like as he is ancient within two hundred and fifty years of Christ, so did he write very openly in the matter; and therefore Melancthon, in his epistle to G2colampadius, did choose him for one whose words in the affirmation of Christ's true presence in the sacrament had no ambiguity. And like judgment doth Hippinus, in his book before alleged, give of Cyprianus’ faith in the sacra- ment: which two I allege to countervail the judgment of this author, who speaketh of his own head as it liketh him, playing with the words “gross” and “carnal,” and using the word “repre- sent,” as though it expressed a figure only. Hippinus, in the said book, allegeth Cyprian to say, (Lib. iii. ad Quirinum4) “ that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh,” meaning, as Hippinus saith, “eucharistiam,’ wherein St Augustine, (as Hippinus saith further.) in the prayer for his mother, speaking of the bread and wine of eucharistia, saith, “that in it is dispensed the holy host and sacrifice, whereby was cancelled the bill obligatory that was against us.” And further, Hippinus saith, that “the old men called the bread and wine of our Lord’s supper a sacrifice, an host, and oblation, for that specially, because they believed and taught the true body of Christ and his true blood to be distribute in the bread and wine of eucha- ristia;’ and, as St Augustin saith, ad Januarium, “to enter in, and be received with the mouth of them that eat.” These be Hippinus’ very words, who, because he is, I think, in this author's opinion, taken for no papist, I rather speak in his words than in mine own, whom in another part of this work this author doth, as it were for charity, by name slander to be a papist. Wherefore the said Hippinus’ words shall be, as I think, more weighty to oppress this author's talk than mine be; and therefore, howsoever this author handleth before the words of St Cyprian (de Unctione Chrismatis), and the word “ shewing” out of his epis- tles, yet the same Cyprianvs faith appeareth so certain otherwise, as those places shall need no further answer of me here, having brought forth the judgment of Hippinus and Melancthon how they understand St Cyprian’s faith, which thou, reader, oughtest to regard more than the assertion of this author, specially when thow hast read how he hath handled Hilary, Cyril, Theophylact, and Damascene, as I shall hereafter touch. CANTERBURY. Whether I “make an exposition of Cyprian by mine own device,” I leave to the judgment of the indifferent reader. And if I so do, why do not you prove the same substantially against me? For your own bare words, without any proof, I trust the indifferent reader will not allow, having such experience of you as he hath. And if Cyprian of all other had writ’ most plainly against me, as you say without proof, who thinketh that you would have omitted here Cyprian’s words, and have fled to Melancthon and Epinus for succour? eee a C And be nourished, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] thios prima: Quicunque ederit panem, aut biberit [* Cum timore et honore Eucharistiam accipien- | calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et san- dam. In Levitico: Anima autem quacunque man- guinis Domini.—Cyprian. “ad Quirinum,” Lib. rr. ducaverit ex carne sacrificii salutaris, quod est | cap. 94. p.390. Paris. 1574. | Domini, et immunditia ipsius super ipsum est, [° Had written, 1551. } peribit anima illa de populo suo. Item ad Corin- Cyprianus. Melancthon. Hippinus Cyprian. Lib. iil. ad Quiri- num. Augustinus. 164, Melancthone Epinus. Cyprian ad Quirinum. cap. 94. The answer to Hilarius. 8. de Trinitate. 165. 160 THE THIRD BOOK. And why do you allege their authority for you, which in no wise you admit when they be brought against you? But it seemeth that you be faint-hearted in this matter, and begin to shrink ; and like one that refuseth the combat, and findeth the shift to put another in his place, even so it seemeth you would draw back your- self from the danger, and set me to fight with other men, that in the mean time you might be an idle looker on. And if you as grand captain take them but as mean soldiers to fight in your quarrel, you shall have little aid at their hands; for their writings declare openly that they be against you more than me, although in this place you bring them for your part, and report them to say more and otherwise than they say indeed. And as for Cyprian and St Augustine, here by you alleged, they serve nothing for your purpose, nor speak nothing against me, by Epinus’ own judgment. For Kpinus saith, “That ewcharistia is called a sacrifice, because it is a remembrance of the true sacrifice which was offered upon the cross, and that in it is dispensed the very body and blood, yea, the very death of Christ, (as he allegeth of St Augustine in that place,) the holy sacrifice whereby he blotted out and cancelled the obligation of death, which was against us, nailing it upon the cross, and in his own person won the victory, and triumphed against the princes and powers of darkness.” This passion, death, and victory of Christ is dispensed and distributed in the Lord’s holy supper, and daily among Christ's holy people. And yet all this requireth no corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament, nor the words of Cyprian ad Quirinum neither. For if they did, then was Christ's flesh corporally present in the sacrifice of the old testa- ment fifteen hundred years before he was born; for of those sacrifices speaketh that text alleged by Cyprian ad Quirinum, whereof Epinus and you gather these words, “that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh.” And howsoever you wrest Melancthon or Epinus, they condemn clearly your doctrine, that ‘Christ's body is corporally contained under the forms or accidents of bread and wine.” Next in my book is Hilarius. But Hilarius, think they, is plainest for them in this matter, whose words hey translate thus’: “Tf the word were made very fiesh®, and we verily receive the word being flesh, in our Lord’s meat, how shall not Christ be thought to dwell naturally in us ? who being born man, hath taken unto him the nature of our flesh, that cannot be severed, and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity under the sacrament of the communion of his flesh unto us. For so we be all one, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us. Wherefore whosoever will deny the Father to be naturally in Christ, he must deny first either himself to be naturally in Christ, or Christ to be naturally in him. For the being of the Father in Christ, and the being of Christ in us, maketh us to be one in them. And therefore if Christ have taken verily the flesh of our body, and the man that was verily born of the virgin Mary is Christ, and also we receive under the true mystery the flesh of his body, by means whereof we shall be one, (for the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us,) how shall that be called the unity of will, when the natural property, brought to pass by the sacrament, is the sacrament of unity ?” [! Si enim vere Verbum caro factum est, et nos | in his esse nos faciunt. Si vere igitur carnem cor- vere Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quo- modo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est, qui et naturam carnis nostrz jam inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpsit, et naturam carnis sue ad naturam eteritatis sub sacramento nobis com- municande carnis admiscuit? Ita enim omnes unum sumus, quia et in Christo Pater est, et Christus in nobis est. Quisquis ergo naturaliter Patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius non natu- raliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse ; quia in Christo Pater, et Christus in nobis, unum poris nostri Christus assumpsit, et vere homo ille, qui ex Maria natus fuit, Christus est, nosque vere sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, et per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est, et ille in nobis, quomodo voluntatis unitas aperitur, cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfecte sa- cramentum sit unitatis? Hilarius De Trinitate. Lib. vurt. pp. 133, 134. Ed. Basil. 1585.] (2 If the word was made verily flesh, 155 , and Orig. ed.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 161 Thus doth the papists, (the adversaries of God’s word and of his truth,) allege the authority of Hilarius, either perversely and purposely, as it seemeth, untruly reciting® him and wresting his words to their purpose, or else not truly understanding him. For although he saith that Christ is naturally in us, yet he saith also that we be naturally in him. And nevertheless, in so saying he meant not of the natural and corporal presence of the substance of Christ’s body and of ours, (for as our bodies be not after that sort within his body, so is not his body after that sort within our bodies;) but he meant, that Christ in his incarnation received of us a mortal nature, and united the same unto his divinity, and so be we naturally in him. And the sacraments of baptism and of his holy supper, (if we rightly use the same,) do most assuredly certify us, that we be partakers of his godly nature, having given unto us by him immortality and life everlasting; and so is Christ naturally in us. And so be we one with Christ, and Christ with us, not only in will and mind, but also in very natural properties. And so concludeth Hilarius against Arius, that Christ is one with his Father, not in purpose and will only, but also in very nature. And as the union between Christ and us in baptism is spiritual, and requireth no real and corporal presence; so likewise our union with Christ in his holy supper is spiritual, and therefore requireth no real and corporal presence. And therefore Hilarius, speaking there of both the sacraments, maketh no difference between our union with Christ in baptism, and our union with him in his holy supper: and saith further, that as Christ is in us, so be we in him; which the papists cannot understand corporally and really, except they will say, that all our bodies be corporally within Christ’s body. Thus is Hilarius answered unto, both plainly and shortly. WINCHESTER. This answer to Hilary, in the seventy-eighth leaf, requireth a plain, precise issue, worthy to be tried® apparent at hand. The allegation of Hilary toucheth specially me, who do say and maintain that T cited Hilary truly (as the copy did serve), and® translate him truly in English after the same words in Latin. This is one issue which I qualify with the7 copy, because I have Hilary now better correct, which better correction setteth forth more lively the truth than the other did, and therefore that I did translate was not so much to the advantage of that I alleged Hilary for, as is that in the book that I have now better correct. Hilary's words in the book newly corrected be these: Si enim yere Verbum caro factum est, et nos vere Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est: qui et naturam carnis nostre jam inseparabilem sibi homo natus as- sumpserit ®, et naturam carnis suze ad naturam zternitatis sub sacramento nobis communi- cand carnis admiscuit? Ita enim omnes unum sumus, quia et in Christo pater est, et Christus in nobis est. Quisquis ergo naturaliter Patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius non naturaliter vel se in Christo vel Christum sibi inesse, quia in Christo Pater et Christus in nobis unum in iis? esse nos faciunt. Si vere igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus sumpsit!°, et vere homo ille qui ex Maria natus fuit Christus est, nosque vere sub mys- terio carnem corporis sui sumimus, et per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est et ille in nobis, quomodo yoluntatis unitas asseritur, cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfect" sacramentum sit unitatis? My translation is this: “If the word was made verily flesh, and we verily receive the word, being flesh, in our Lord’s meat, how shall not Christ be thought to dwell naturally in us, who, being born man, hath taken unto him the nature of [® Citing, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] [8 In Hilary, and in Orig. ed. Winch. “as- [* i.e. of the original edition. } sumpsit.’”] [° and apparent, 1551.] [? In Hilary, ‘‘his.’”] (° Did, 1551.] [2° “* Assumpsit,” 1551, as in Hilary. | [7 A copy, 1551.] [1 In Hilary, “‘ perfecta.”’] 11 [oranmer. ] An issue. Hilarius. 166. An issue. *Unity in faith. *Unity in baptism. *Unity in flesh. Hilarius. 167. *Carnally. Naturally. 162 THE THIRD BOOK. our flesh that cannot be severed, and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity, under the sacrament of the communion of his flesh unto us? for so we be all one, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us. Wherefore, whosoever will deny the Father to be naturally in Christ, must deny, first, either himself to be naturally in Christ, or Christ not to be naturally in him; for the being of the Father in Christ, and the being of Christ in us, maketh us to be one in them. And therefore, if Christ hath taken verily the flesh of our body, and the man that was born of the virgin Mary is verily Christ, and also we verily receive under a mystery the flesh of his body, by means whereof we shall be one, for the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us; how shall that be called the unity of will, when the natural propriety brought to pass by the sacrament is the sacrament of perfect unity?” This translation differeth from mine other, whereat this author findeth fault; but wherein? The word vero was in the other copy an adjective, and I joined it with mysterio, and there- Sore said “the true mystery:” which word “ mystery” needed no such adjective “ true,” for every mystery is true of itself. But to say, as Hilary truly correct saith, “ that we receive under the mystery, truly, the flesh of Christ's body,” that word “truly,” so placed, setteth forth lively the real presence and substantial presence of that is received, and repeateth again the same that was before said, to the more vehemency of it. So as this correction is better than my first copy, and according to this correction is Hilarius alleged by Melancthon to C2colam- padius for the same purpose I allege him. Another alteration in the translation thow seest, reader, in the word pertectze, which in my copy was perfecta, and so was joined to proprietas, which now in the genitive case, joined to unitatis, giveth an excellent sense to the dignity of the sacrament, how the natwral propriety by the sacrament is a sacrament of perfect unity, so as the perfect unity of us with Christ is to have his flesh in us, and to have Christ bodily and naturally dwelling in us by his manhood, as he dwelleth in us spiritually by his G'od- head: and now I speak in such phrase as Hilary and Cyril speak, and use the words [as they use them,]! whatsoever this author saith, as I will justify by their plain words. And so I join now with this author an issue, that I have not perversely used the allega- tion of Hilary, but alleged him as one that speaketh most clearly of this matter; which Hilary, in his eighth book de Trinitate, entreateth how many divers ways we be one in Christ, among which he accompteth faith for one: then he cometh to the unity in baptism, where he handleth the matter above some capacities; and because there is but one baptism, and all that be baptized be so regenerate in one dispensation, and do the same thing, and be one in one, they that be one by the same thing be, as he saith, in nature one. From that unity in baptism he cometh to declare our unity with Christ in flesh, which he calleth the sacra- ment of perfect wnrity, declaring how it is when Christ, who took truly our flesh mortal in the virgins womb, delivereth us the same flesh glorified truly to be communicate with our flesh, whereby as we be naturally in Christ, so Christ is naturally in us: and when this is brought to pass, then the unity between Christ and us is perfected. For as Christ is natu- rally in the Father of the same essence by the divine nature, [and God the Father naturally in Christ his Son, very God of the same essence in the divine nature:]? so we be naturally in Christ by our natural flesh which he took in the virgin’s womb, and he naturally in us by the same flesh in him glorified, and given to us, and received of us in the sacrament. For Hilary saith in plain words, how Christ's very flesh and Christ's very blood, received and drunken (accepta et hausta), bring this to pass. And it is notable, how Hilary compareth together the “truly” in Christ's taking of our flesh in the virgin’s womb, with the “truly” of our taking of his flesh (in cibo dominico) in owr Lord’s meat: by which words he expresseth the sacrament, and after reproveth those that said, we were only united by obedience and will of religion to Christ, and by him so to the Father, as though by the sacrament of flesh and blood no propriety of natural communion were given unto us: whereas both by the honour given unto us we be the sons of God, and by the Son dwelling carnally in us, and we being corporally and inseparably unite in him, the mystery of true and natural unity is to be preached. These be Hilary's words. For this latter part, where thow hearest, reader, the Son of God to dwell carnally in us, not after man’s gross imagination, for we may not so think of godly mysteries, but “carnally” is referred to the truth of Christ's flesh, given to us in this sacrament; and so is “naturally” to be understanded, that we receive Christ's natural flesh for the truth of it, as Christ received our natural flesh of the virgin, although we receive Christ's flesh glorified incorruptible, very spiritual, and in a spiritual manner delivered unto us. Here is mention made of the word “corporal ;” but Ishall speak of that [} These words are omitted in the 1580. ed. ] {2 This clause is found only in the Orig. ed. Winch. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CIIRIST. 163 in the discussion of Cyril. This Hilary was before St Augustine, and was known both of him and St Jerome, who called him Tubam Latini eloquii against the Arians. Never man found fault at this notable place of Hilary. Now let us consider how the author of this book forgetteth himself, to call Christ in us naturally by his Godhead, which were then to make us all gods by nature, which is over-great an absurdity, and Christ in his divine nature dwelleth only in his Father naturally, and in us by grace. But as we receive him in the sacrament of his flesh and blood, if we receive him worthily, so dwelleth he in us naturally, for the natural® communication of our nature and his. And therefore, where this author reporteth Hilary to make no difference between our union to Christ in baptism, and in the supper, let him trust int him no more that told him so: or if this author will take upon him as of his own knowledge, then I must® say, and (if he were another) would say, an answer in French, that I will not express. And hereupon will I join in® the issue, that in Hilary the matter is so plain otherwise than this author rehearseth, as it hath no colour of defence to the contrary. And what Hilary speaketh of baptism and our unity therein, I have before touched; and this unity in flesh is after treated apart. What shall I say to this so manifest untruth, but that it confirmeth that I have im other observed, how there was never one of them that I have read writing against the sacrament, but hath in his writings said somewhat so evidently in the matter, or out of the matter, dis- erepant from truth, as might be a certain mark to judge the quality of his spirit ? CANTERBURY. Here you confess that you cited Hilary untruly, but you impute the fault to your copy. What copy you had I know not, but as well the citation of Melancthon, as all the printed books that ever I saw, have otherwise than you haye written; and therefore it seemeth that you never read any printed book of Hilarius. Marry it might be that you had from Smith a false copy written, who informed me that you had of him all the authorities that be in your book: and having all the authorities that he had with great travail gathered, by and by you made your book, and stole from him all his thank and glory, like unto Esop’s chough, which plumed himself with other birds’ feathers. But wheresoever you had your copy, all the books set forth by public faith have otherwise than you have cited. And although the false allegation of Hilary toucheth you somewhat, yet chiefly it toucheth Smith, who hath erred much worse in his translation than you have done, albeit neither of you both handle the matter sincerely and faithfully, nor agree the one with the other. But I trow it be your chance to light upon false books. For whereas in this sen- tence, Quisquis ergo naturaliter Patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius naturaliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse, one false print for naturaliter hath non natu- raliter; it seemeth that you chanced upon that false print. For if you have found Hilary truly corrected, as you say you have, your fault is the more, that out of a true copy would pick out an untrue translation. And if you have so done, then by putting in a little pretty “not,” where none ought to be, with that little pretty trip you have clean overthrown yourself. For if it be an cra to deny that Christ is not naturally in us, (as it is rehearsed’ for an error,) then must it be an error to affirm “that Christ is naturally in us.” For it is all one thing to deny® that he is not, and to affirm that “he is naturally in us.” And so by your own translation you overthrow yourself quite and clean, in that you say in many places of your book, that ‘“ Christ is naturally in us,” and ground your saying upon Hilary: whereas now, by your own translation, Hilary rejecteth that clearly as an heinous error. And as concerning this word “truly,” it setteth not lively forth a real and sub- stantial presence, as you say it doth; for Christ is truly in all his faithful people, and they’ truly eat his flesh and drink his blood, and yet not by a real and corporal, but by a spiritual and effectual presence. And as concerning the word perfecta or perfecte'’, in the print which I have of your [® Mutual, Orig. ed. Winch.] | [7 As it is here rehearsed, 1551. ] [* Trust him, 1551.] | [8 To deny, omitted in ed. 1580. ] [° I would say, (if he were another,) an answer [° There, 1580.] in French, Orig. ed. Winch. | [\° Perfecta or perfect, ed. 151. ] [° Join the issue, 1551.] 11l—2 An issue. Smith. Non natura- liter. 168. Truly. Perfecta. * Mine issue. John xiv. John v. John vi. Naturally. 169. 164 THE THIRD BOOK. book, is neither of both, but be left quite out. Nevertheless that fault I impute to no untruth in you, but rather to the negligence either of your pen or of the printer. But for the perfectness of the unity between Christ and us, you declare here the' perfect unity to be that which is but the one half of it. For the perfect unity of us with Christ is, not only to have Christ corporally and naturally dwelling in us, but likewise we to dwell corporally and naturally in him. And Hilary declareth the second part to pertain to our unity with Christ, as well as the first; which of sleight and policy you leave out purposely, because it declareth the meaning of the first part, which is not that Christ is in them that receive the sacrament, and when they receive the sacrament only, but that he naturally tarrieth and dwelleth in all them that per- tain to him, whether they receive the sacrament or no. And as he dwelleth natu- rally in them, so do they in him. And although you have excused your perversity by your false copy, yet here I will join an issue with you, that you did neither allege Hilary's words before truly, nor yet now do truly declare them. As for the first part, you have confessed your- self that you were deceived by a false copy: and therefore, in this part, I plead that you be guilty by your own confession. And as concerning the second part, Hilary speaketh not of the unity of Christ with the sacrament, nor of the unity of Christ with us only when we receive the sacrament, nor of the unity of us with Christ only, but also with his Father; by which unity we dwell in Christ and Christ in us, and also we dwell in the Father and the Father in us. For as Christ being in his Father, and his Father in him, hath life of his Father, so he being in us, and we in him, giveth unto us the nature of his eternity, which he received of his Father; that is to say, im- mortality and life everlasting, which is the nature of his Godhead. And so haye we the Father and the Son dwelling in us naturally, and we in them, forasmuch as he giveth to us the nature of his eternity which he had of his Father, and honoureth us with that honour which he had of his Father. But Christ giveth not this nature of eternity to the sacrament, except you will say that the sacrament shall have ever- lasting life; as you must needs say, if Christ dwell naturally in it, after Hilary’s manner of reasoning. For by the saying of Hilary, where Christ dwelleth, there dwelleth his Father, and giveth eternal life by his Son. And so be you a goodly saviour, that can bring to everlasting life both bread and drink, which never had life. But as this nature of eternity is not given to the sacrament, so is it not given to them that unworthily receive the sacrament, which eat and drink their own damnation. Nor it is not given to the lively members of Christ only when they receive the sacrament, but so long as they spiritually feed upon Christ, eating his flesh and drinking his blood, either in this life or in the life to come : for so long have they Christ naturally dwelling in them, and they in him. And as the Father naturally dwelleth in Christ, so by Christ doth he naturally dwell in us. And this is Hilary’s mind, to tell how Christ and his Father dwell naturally in his faithful members, and what unity we have with them, (that is to say, an unity of nature, and not of will only), and not to tell how Christ dwelleth in the sacrament, or in them that unworthily receive* it, that he dwelleth in them at that time only, when they receive the sacrament. And yet he saith that this unity of faithful people unto God is by faith taught by the sacrament of baptism and of the Lord’s table, but wrought by Christ by the sacrament and mystery of his incarnation and redemption, whereby he humbled himself unto the lowliness of our feeble nature, that he might exalt us to the dignity of his godly nature, and join us unto his Father in the nature of his eternity. Thus is plainly declared Hilary’s mind, who meant nothing less than, as you say, to entreat how many divers ways we be one in Christ, but only to entreat and prove that we be naturally in Christ, and Christ in us. And this one thing he proveth by our faith, and by the sacrament of baptism, and of the Lord’s supper, and still he saith as well that we be naturally and corporally in him, as that he is naturally in us. And where you speak of the unity in baptism, and say that Hilary “handleth that matter above some capacities ;’ howsoever Hilary handleth the matter, you handle it [' Here to be the, edit. 1580. ] receive it, that he dwelleth, &c., 1551.] [? Receive the sacrament: or if they worthily OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 165 in such sort as I think passeth all men’s capacities, unless yourself make a large com- mentary thereto. For what these your words mean, “ Because there is but one baptism, and all that be baptized be so regenerate in one dispensation, and do the same thing, and be one in one, they that be one by the same thing be, as he saith, in nature one ;’ and what that one thing is which they do that be baptized; I think no man can tell, except you read the riddle yourself. And now to your issue. If you can shew of the words of Hilary in this place, that Christ is naturally in the sacraments of bread and wine, or in wicked persons, or in godly persons only when they receive the sacrament, then will I confess the issue to pass upon your side, that you have declared this author truly, and that he maketh most clearly for you against me. And if you cannot shew this by Hilary’s words, then must you hold up your hand and say, “ Guilty !” And yet furthermore, when Hilary saith that we be naturally in Christ, he meaneth not that our bodies be contained within the compass of his body, but that we receive 170. his natural eternity. And so likewise, when he saith that Christ dwelleth naturally and carnally in us, he meaneth not that his body is contained corporally within the compass of our mouths or bodies, (which you must prove by his plain words, if you will justify your issue, that he speaketh most clearly for you,) but he meaneth that Christ communi- cateth and giveth unto us the nature of his eternity or everlasting life. And he dwelleth in us by his incarnation, as St John saith: Verbwm caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis, Jom i. “The word was made flesh, and dwelled in us.” And as he may be said to dwell in us by receiving of our mortal nature, so may we be said to dwell in him by receiving the nature of his immortality. And “never man found fault,” as you truly say, “at this notable place of Hilary ;” nor, again, never learned man hitherto expounded him as you do. And when I said that Christ is in us naturally by his Godhead, I forgat not what I said, as you say of me; for I plainly expounded what I meant by naturally, that is to say, not by natural substance to make us gods, but by natural condition giving unto us immortality and everlasting hfe which he had of his Father, and so making us par- takers of his godly nature, and uniting us to his Father. And if we attain to the unity of his Father, why not unto the unity of the Godhead, not by natural substance, but by natural propriety? As Cyril saith that we be made the children of God and heavenly men by participation of the divine nature, as St Peter also teacheth. And so be we one 2 pet. i. in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. And where you say that we “receive Christ in the sacrament of his flesh and blood, if we receive him worthily ;” here you have given good evidence against yourself, that we receive him not, and that he dwelleth not in us naturally, except we receive him worthily. And therefore where you say that there is “none that writeth against the truth in the sacrament, but he hath in his writings somewhat discrepant from truth, that might be a certam mark to judge his spirit ;” this is so true, that yourself differ not only from the truth in a number of places, but also from your own sayings. And where you bid me “trust him no more that told me that Hilary maketh no difference between our union in Christ in baptism, and in his holy supper,” it was very Iilary himself of whom J learned it, who saith that in both the sacraments the union is natural, and not in will only. And if you will say the contrary, I must tell you the “French answer” that you would tell me. And herein I will not refuse your issue. *Mine issue. Now come we to Cyril, of whom I write as followeth. And this answer to* Hilarius will serve also unto Cyril, whom they allege meanswer to speak after the same sort that Hilarius doth, that Christ is naturally in us. pea The words which they recite be these*: “We deny not,” saith Cyril against the [* Of, 1551, and Orig. ed.] eye, Ws ovdels yuiv cvvadelas THs Kata oupKa [* “Ore peév yap dtabécer 7H vooupevy Kata Ti\v | mpos aiTdv 6 AoOyos, OoKMijpws amadov Tais Heo- Tée\elav ayarny, op0n Te Kal ddtactpodpw TicTEL, | MvEebaToLs ypadpats éridciEopev. THS yap av dugi- piiapéetw Te Kal citikpwet Noyicp@ cuvevotpeba | Noyov, 1 Tis dv ONWS EvdoLacat TWOTE TMV EV poveiv TveupatiKkas TH XpioT@, oldapas cEapyyceTar TAY | ciwOdTwy, ws duTeEOS MEV EOTLKATA TOUTO XpioTos* Tap ijpiv doypatwv 0 Gyos* cuvEepoUpey yap OTL | rmets yap KAnuaTwWY amoTENOUYTES OXHMA THY EE Oj wdda TovTO pacw aplas' TO dé ye KaTabaponca | adtov Kal map’ alTov Cwijy eis adtovs KouiConeba 166 THE THIRD BOOK. heretic, “but we be spiritually joined to Christ by faith and sincere charity ; but that we should have no manner of conjunction in our flesh with Christ, that we utterly deny, and think it utterly discrepant from God’s holy scrip- tures. For who doubteth but Christ is so the vine-tree, and we so the branches, 171. as we get thence our life? Hear what St Paul saith: ‘We be all one body with Christ, for though we be many, we be one in him: all we participate in one food.’ Thinketh this heretic that we know not the strength and virtue of the mystical benediction? which when it is made in us, doth it not make Christ by communication of his flesh to dwell corporally in us? Why be the members of faithful men’s bodies called the members of Christ? ‘Know you not,’ saith St Paul, ‘that your members be the members of Christ? And shall I make the members of Christ parts of the whore’s body? God forbid.’ And our Saviour also saith: ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.’’ Although in these words Cyril doth say, that Christ doth dwell corporally in us when we receive the mystical benediction, yet he neither saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread, nor that he dwelleth in us corporally only at such times as we receive the sacrament, nor that he dwelleth in us and not we in him; but he saith as well, that we dwell in him, as that he dwelleth in us. Which dwelling is neither corporal nor local, but an heavenly, spiritual, and supernatural dwelling, whereby so long as we dwell in him and he in us, we have by him everlasting life. And therefore Cyril saith in the same place, that Christ is the vine, and we the branches, because that by him we have life. For as the branches receive life and nourishment of the body of the vine, so receive we by him the natural property of his body, which is life and immortality, and by that means we, being his members, do live and are spiritually nourished. And this meant Cyril by this word “ corporally,’ when he saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in us. And the same meant also St Hilarius by this word “naturally,” when he said that Christ dwelleth naturally in us. And as St Paul, when he said that in Christ dwelleth the full divinity “ corporally,” by this word “ corporally” he meant not that the divinity is a body, and so by that body dwelleth bodily in Christ. But by this word “ corporally” he meant, that the divinity is not in Christ accidentally, lightly, and slenderly, but substantially and perfectly, with all his might and power: so that Christ was not only a mortal man to suffer for us, but also he was immortal God able to redeem us. So St Cyril, when he said that Christ is in us “ corporally,” he meant that we have him in us, not lightly and to small effect and purpose, but that we have him in us substantially, pithily, and effectually, in such wise that we have by him redemption and everlasting life. And this I suck not out of mine own fingers, but have it of Cyril’s own «A little benediction draweth the whole man to 1 Cor. vi. John vi. John xv. Col. ii. In Johan. Lib. iv. eap. 17. express words, where he saith’: Kaito: tov Ilav\ou Aeyovros, Oi yap wavres Ev | Gta rroiav aitiav i ydp|nces en | EN, A TOU Xprorov 7a oixkeia, coua eouev ev Xpiora@, OTL cis apros ot Tro\Xol éamev” ot yap Tavtes Ek TOU Evds apToU METEXopeD. NeyéTw yap Tis jutv Ty aitiav, Kai didacKéTw wape\0wv THs puotiKns et\oyias Hy Obvautv. yierat rp év nutv va Ti; ap’ ovyi Kai Taper Kes nyt EvoIKiCoveg Tov Xpiorev 7 ™7 pederer Kal Koww- via vis aylas ai’toU capKxés; aXX’ ociuat eye bpbas" yeaper yap o IaiXos yeyevijcba: ta Ebvyn ciocopa Kal CUMMETOXE Kal ouyKAnpovona Xpr- oTOU. ciccwna Tovyapouv Kata Toto avrepavbn TpOTov ; afvwbevra yap Merasxely THs evNoyias THS BUoTLKTS, ev pos airov yeyove cwua, xabamrep ameXer Kal Tov ayiov ExacTos aToscTo\wy, ere ma@\Xov 6 TA TavTWY, ws aUTOU KaT! Twvopace BEXa 5 ypader yap olTws’ ovK oidaTe OTL TA BEAN Juav nehn Xpuorove éotiv; dpas ovv Ta eAN TOU Xpiorov, Toujow mopyns MEAN 5 1) ‘yevorro- @\Xq@ Kai aires 0 cwriip, o Tpuy wy pou TH odpka, pnci, kai tivwy pou 76 aima, év éuoi pévet, Keyw év abt@.—Cyrill. In Joannem. Lib. x. cap. 13. Tom. IV. pp. 862, 3.— Ed. Aubert. Paris. 1638.] E Otrws dduyiorn wahw cidoyia copmas rime els Eautiy avadiper TO copa, Kat THs idias évepycias dvarXnpot, oUTw Te év nui yiverat Xpuictos, Kai tjuets av wa\w év abtw@.—Cyril. in Joannem, Lib. Iv. cap. 17. Ib. p. 365. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 167 God, and filleth him with his* grace, and after this manner Christ dwelleth in us, and we in Christ.” But as for corporal eating and drinking with our mouths, and digesting with our bodies, Cyril never meant that Christ doth so dwell in us, as he plainly declareth. “Our sacrament,” saith he, ‘ doth not affirm the eating of a man, drawing wickedly christian people to have gross imaginations and carnal fantasies of such things as be fine and pure, and received only with a sincere faith *. * But as two waxes, that be molten and put together, they close so in one, that eyery part of the one is joined to every part of the other, even so,” saith Cyril, “he that receiveth the flesh and blood of the Lord, must needs be so joined with Christ, that Christ must be in him, and he in Christ*.”’ By these words of Cyril appeareth his mind plainly, that we may not grossly and rudely think of the eating of Christ with our mouths, but with our faith, by which eating, (although he be absent hence bodily, and be in the eternal life and glory with his Father,) yet we be made partakers of his nature, to be immortal, and have eternal life and glory with him. And thus is declared the mind as well of Cyril as of Hilarius. WINCHESTER. The author saith, such answer as he made to Hilary will serve for Cyril; and indeed, to say truth, it is made after the same sort, and hath even such an error as the other had, saving it may be excused by ignorance. For where the author travaileth here to expound the word “corporally,” which is a sore word in Cyril against this author, and therefore taketh labour to temper it with the word corporaliter in St Paul, applied to the dwelling of the divinity in Christ; and yet not content therewith, maketh further search, and would gladly have somewhat to confirm his fancy out of Cyril himself, and seeketh in Cyril where it is not to be found, and seeketh not where it is to be found: (for Cyril telleth himself plainly, what he meaneth by the word “corporally,’ which place and this author had found, he might have spared a great many of words uttered by divination; but then the truth of that place hindereth and quaileth in manner all the book :) Iwill at my peril bring forth Cyril’s own words truly wpon the 17th chapter of St John. Corporaliter Filius per benedictionem mysticam nobis ut homo unitur, spiritualiter autem ut Deus®. Which be in English thus much to say: “ The Son is unite as man cor- porally to us by the mystical benediction, spiritually as God.” These be Cyril's words, who nameth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ the mystical benediction, and sheweth in this sentence, how himself understandeth the words “ corporally” and “ spiritually ;” that is to say, when Christ uniteth himself to us as man, which he doth giving his body in this sacrament to such as worthily receive it, then he dwelleth in them corporally, which Christ was before in them spiritually, or else they could not worthily receive him to the effect of that unity corporal and corporal dwelling; by which word “ corporal’ is understanded no grossness at all, which the nature of a mystery excludeth, and yet keepeth truth still, being the understanding only attained by faith. But where the author of the book allegeth Cyril [? With grace, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] , oe ‘ avtov evpickeTat ouvavakipydpevos woTep Kal 3974 [® Ap’ obv, ws Erepov Tiva vidv, Kat Xptorov Tapa Tov EK Oeod Néyov, TOv atvdpevov elvat 6taBeBarobmevos* w Kal povw TO THs dtrocTO\s Tpocveveunke Xpipa, ovK av0pwrodaylav juav aropaivet TO jvoTipiov, TapiaTds avociws eis eEitiAous évvolas Tay TioTEVeadvTwY TOY VoUV" Kal Noytcpots avilpwrivois bropépew émtyeipwv, & poves Kal a€nti\Tw iotTer TpochapBavetar ;—Ib. Apologet. adv. Orient. Anath. xi. Def. Cyril. Yom. VI. p. 193. ] [* “Qoaep yap eitis knpov Erépw cuvdyete KnPw, mavTws Ormou Kal Erepov év ETépw yeyovdra KaTo- Werar’ Tov avTov, olpat, TpOTOV Kai 6 THY GapKa OeXopmevos TOU cwTHpos Hyav Xpictov, Kat wivwv aitou 70 Tiptov aipa, Kabd cyow aitos, Ev ws pds advapryvipevos avt@ dua THs peTaln ews, ws év Xpictw pév aitov etpicxecOar, Xpiotov dé ad maw év avto.—Id. in Joannem. Lib. Iv. cap. ii. Tom. IV. pp. 364, 5.] [° Tiverar pév yap év tiv 0 vl0s, cwmaTiKas jev ws avOpwros, cuvavakipvapevos TE Kal cuVEvOUMEVOS OU ei\oylas THs puoTiKys’ WvEupAaTLKG@s 6€ av Tahw ws Oeds, TH TOU Ldiov TrEetbmaTos Evepyela, Kai XapLTL TO év hiv advaxtlGwv mvevpa Tpds KaWOTHTE Cw7js, Kat THs elas aitou picews Kowwvois Kabioras. civeecnos oly dpa THS EVOTHTOS Lav THs pds Ocdv Kal rarépa Ovadpaiverar Xpiords, EavTov pév ids éEaptijcas ws avOpwros, Oew@ dé ws Oeds évu- Tapxwv puatkwas TH idiw yevyntopt.—ld. in Joan- nem. Lib. rx. cap. xlvii. Ib. pp. 1001, 2.] Anathema- tismo xi. In Johan. Lib. iv. cap. ihe Cyril. *Lege Cyril- lum in Joh. Lib. ix. cap. 47. [Cyrillus in Joan. cap. 17. Orig. ed. Winch. | * dvaBeBa- @v. > P tatodpatvet TO LUST = plov ijj@v, t aapic- THWV. || emeyec~ pov. § [AcuBa- veTat>.] 168 THE THIRD BOOK. im words to deny the eating of a man, and to affirm the receiving in this sacrament to be only by JSaith; it shall appear, I doubt not, upon further discussion, that Cyril saith not so, and the translations of Cyril into Latin after the print of Basil, in a book called “ Antidotum,” and of whole Cyrils works printed at Cologne, have not in that place such sentence: so as following the testimony of those books set forth by public faith in two sundry places, I should call the allegation of Cyril made by this author in this point untrue, as it is indeed in the matter untrue. And yet because the original error proceedeth from Cicolampadius, it shall serve to good purpose to direct the original fault to him; as he well deserveth to be, as he is noted guilty of it, whose reputation deceived many in the matter of the sacrament; and being well noted how the same Ccolampadius corrupteth Cyril, it may percase somewhat work with this author, to consider how he hath in this place been deceived by him. I will write here the very words of Cyril in Greek, as they be of CEcolampadius brought forth and published in his name; whereby the reader that wunderstandeth the Greek, as many do at this time, may judge of Ccolampadius’ conscience in handling this matter. The words of Cyril be alleged of (Ecolampadius to be these in Greek: “Ap otv os Erepdv twa vidy Kai Xpiotov mapa Tov €k Oeot Oedv Adyov tov avdpevov etvar SiaBeBaodvra, @ Kal TO Tis amoaTOARs mpoogveveuntar xphua, ovk avOparopayiay nuady amodpaiver TO puatnpioy, mapiatav dvooiws eis e€tTHous evvolas TOY miaTEVdyT@Y vovY, Kal Noyirpois avOpemivors emxyeipav, a povn Kal YH kal aQnmT® Tote. hapBaverac. These words be by Cicolampadius translated in this wise: Nonne igitur eum qui videtur filium et Christum, alium a Deo verbo, qui ex Deo esse affirmant, cui apostolatus functio tributa sit? Non enim sacramentum nostrum hominis manducationem asserit, mentes credentium ad crassas cogitationes irreligiose introtrudens, et humanis cogitationibus subjicere enitens ea quee sola, et pura, et inexquisita fide capiuntur. This is Cicolam- padius’ translation of the Greek, as the same is by Cicolampadius alleged. Which, com- pared with the Greek, and the congruity and phrase of the Greek tongue considered, doth plainly open a corruption in the Greek text. First, in the word S.aBeBavovvra, which should be a participle in the singular number biaBeBady, as mapictav, and emyepov, all which participles depend of the third person reproved of Cyril, and nominative case to the verb aropaiver, which hath the noun pvotnpiov his accusative case; for congruity will not suffer puotnpioy to be the nominative case, as Cicolampadius maketh it, because mapiorav and emtxeipav should then depend on it, which be the masculine gender, and pvartnp.oy the neuter: and besides that, the sense hath so no good reason to attribute assertion to the mystery by the way of declaration: the mystery of nature secret hath need of declaration, and maketh none, but hideth rather; and the mystery cannot declare properly that should lead or subdue men to vain imagination. But Cyril, intending to reprove the conclusion of him that attri- buteth to that is seen in Christ the natwre! (meaning the person of his humanity,) the office of the apostle, and so thereby seemeth to make in Christ two several persons, esteeming that is seen another son from the second person, sheweth how that man so concluding* doth affirm an absurdity, that is to say, declaretht that mystery of owr humanam commixtionem, for so hath the public translation, and not avOpwropayiav, which should signify eating of a man, as Cicolampadius would have it, and cannot with this construction to make pvornpioy the accusative case have any sense; and then that man so concluding may be said therewith leading} the mind of them that believe into slender and dark imaginations or thoughts, and soll going about to bring under man’s reasonings such things as be taken§ or wnderstanded by an only simple, bare, and no curious faith. And this is uttered by Cyril by interrogation, “Ap odv, which continueth unto the last word of all that is here written in Greek, ending in the word hapBavera. But Cicolampadius, to frame these words to his purpose, corrupteth the participle SiaBeBady, and maketh it dvaBeBaovvra, whereby he might cut off the interroga- tive; and then is he yet fain to add evidently that is not in the Greek, a copulative causal enim; and then when pvorjprov is, by the cutting off the interrogation and the addition of enim, made the nominative case, then cannot mapicrav and emxeipav depend of it, because of the gender, and 16 pvornproy, because of the article, determineth the principal mystery in Christ's person; and after® public translation, it should seem the Greek word was not avépo- mopaylay, but avOpamouyiay, which in the public translation is expressed with these two words, humanam commixtionem. This one place, and* there were no more like, may shew [' ‘* The nature of his humanity,”’ omitting the | Orig. ed. Winch.] intermediate words, Orig. ed. Winch. ] [° After the public, 1551.] [* AauwBaverar at the side is only found in the {4 And: here and elsewhere for if. | ' OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 169 with what conscience CEcolampadius handled the matter of the sacrament, who was learned in the Greek tongue, much exercised in translations, and had once written a grammar of the Greek; and yet in this place abuseth himself and the reader in perverting Cyril against all congruities of the speech, against the proper significations of the words, against the con- venient connection of the matter, with depravation of the phrase and corruption of certain words, all against the common and public translation; and when he hath done all this, con- cludeth in the end that he hath translated the Greek faithfully, when there is by him used no good faith at all, but credit and estimation of learning by him abused to deceive well- meaning simplicity, and serveth for some defence to such as be bold to use and follow his authority in this matter: as the author of the book seemeth to have followed him herein, for else the public authentic translations which be abroad, as I said, of the prints of Basil and Cologne, have no such matter; and therefore the fault of the author is to leave public truth and search matter whispered in corners. But thus much must be granted, though in the prin- cipal matter, that in the mystery of the sacrament we must exclude all grossness, and yet for the truth of God's secret work in the sacrament grant also, that> in such as receive the sacra- ment worthily, Christ dwelleth in them corporally, as Cyril saith, and naturally and carnally, as Hilary saith. And with this true understanding, after the simplicity of a Christian faith, which was in these futhers, Hilary and Cyril, the contention of these three envious words, in gross capacities grossly taken, “natural,” “carnal,” and “corporal,” which carnality hath engendered, might soon be much assuaged: and this author also, considering with himself how much he hath been overseen in the understanding of them, and the speciality in this place of himself and (Ecolampadius, might take occasion to repent and call home himself, who wonderfully wan- dereth in this matter of the sacrament, and having lost his right way, breaketh wp hedges, and leapeth over ditches, with a wonderous travail to go whither he would not, being not yet (as appeareth) determined where he would rest, by the variety of his own doctrine, as may ap- pear in sundry places, if they be compared together. CANTERBURY. I said very truly when I said, that such answer as I made to Hilary will serve for Cyril; for so will it do indeed, although you wrangle and strive therein never so much: for Cyril and Hilary entreat both of one matter, that we be united together and with Christ, not only in will, but also in nature, and be made one, not only in consent of godly religion, but also that Christ, taking our corporal nature upon him, hath made us partakers of his godly nature, knitting us together with him unto his Father and to his holy Spirit. Now let the indifferent reader judge whether you or I be in error, and whether of us both hath most need to excuse himself of ignorance. Would God you were as ready humbly to yield in those manifest errors which be proved against you, as you be stout to take upon you a knowledge in those things, wherein ye be most ignorant! But ¢:Aavtia® is a perilous witch. Now whereas I have truly expounded this word “‘corporally” in Cyril, when he saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in us, and have declared how that word “ corporally,” as Cyril understandeth it, maketh nothing for your purpose, that Christ’s flesh should be corporally contained (as you understand the matter) under the form of bread, (for he neither saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread, nor that he dwelleth in them corporally that be not lively members of his body, nor that he dwelleth in his lively members at such time only as they receive the sacrament, nor that he dwelleth in us corporally, and not we in him; but he saith as well that we dwell in him, as that he dwelleth in us;) and when I have also declared that Cyril’s meaning was this, that as the vine and branches be both of one nature, so the Son of God, taking unto him our human nature, and making us partakers of his divine nature, giving unto us immortality and everlasting life, doth so dwell naturally and corporally in us, and maketh us to dwell naturally and corporally in him; and where, as I have proved this by Cyril’s own words, as well in that place in his tenth book upon St John’s Gospel, the thirteenth chapter, as in his fourth book, the seventeenth chapter; you answer no more to all this, but say that I “seek in Cyril where it is not to be found, and seek not where it is to be found.” A substantial answer, be you sure, and a learned. For you do here like a keeper which I knew once, required to [° Orig. ed. Winch. omits the words, “grant also that.’’] [° Self-love. ] 174. Corporally- *Cyril. in Johan. Lib. ix. cap. 5. ult. Ita ego naturaliter presum quia ex ipso natus, vos autem ex me, et ego in vobis etiam natu- raliter, ea ratione qua homo factus sum. 1 Tim. iii. Ephes. iii. 170 THE THIRD BOOK. follow a suit with his hound, after one that had stolen a deer; and when his hound was in his right suit, and had his game fresh before him, and came near to the house and place where the deer was indeed, after he had a little inkling that it was a special friend of his that killed the deer, and then being loth to find the suit, he plucked back his hound, being in the right way, and appointed him to hunt in another place where the game was not, and so deceived all them that followed him, as you would here do to as many as will follow you. For you promise to bring the reader to a place where he shall find the meaning of this word “corporally;’ and when he cometh to the place where you appoint, the word is spoken of there, but the meaning thereof is not declared, neither by you nor by Cyril in that place: and so the reader, by your fair promise, is brought from the place where the game is truly indeed, and brought to another place where he is utterly disappointed of that he sought for. For where you send the reader to this place of Cyril, “The Son is united as man corporally unto us by the mystical benediction, spiritually as God”: here indeed in this sentence Cyril nameth this word “corporally,” but he telleth not the meaning thereof, which you promised the reader that he should find here. Nevertheless Cyril meaneth no more by these words, but that Christ is united unto us two manner of ways, by his body and by his Spirit. And he is also a band and knot to bind and join us to his Father, being knit in nature unto both; to us as a natural man, and to his Father as natural God, and himself knitting us and God his Father together. And although Cyril say that Christ is united unto us corporally by the mystical benediction, yet in that place the material’ benediction may well be understand of his incarnation, which as Cyril and Hilary both call ‘tan high mystery,” so was it to us a marvellous “‘ benediction,” that he that was immortal God would become for us a mortal man ; which mystery St Paul saith was “ without controversy great,” and was hid from the world, and at the last opened, that gentiles should be made partakers of the pro- mises in Christ, which by his flesh came down unto us. But to give you all the advantage that may be, I will grant for your pleasure, that by “the mystical benediction” Cyril understood the sacrament of Christ's flesh and blood, as you say, and that Christ is thereby united corporally unto us. Yet saith not Cyril, that this unity is only when we receive the sacrament, nor extendeth to all that receive the sacrament, but unto them that, being renewed to a new life, be made partakers of the divine nature, which nature Cyril himself upon the sixth chapter of John declareth to be life. But he speaketh not one word of the corporal presence of Christ in the forms of bread and wine, nor no more doth Hilary. And therefore I may well approve that I said, that the answer made unto Hilary will very well also serve for Cyril. And yet neither of them both hath one word that serveth for your purpose, that Christ’s flesh and blood should be in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine. And where you say that Christ uniteth himself to us as man, when he giveth his body in the sacrament to such as worthily receive it, if you will speak as Cyril and other old authors used to do, Christ did unite himself to us as man at his incarna- tion. And here again you give evidence against your own issue, affirming our unity unto Christ no further than we receive the sacrament worthily. And then they that receive it unworthily be not united corporally unto Christ, nor eat his flesh, nor drink his blood; which is the plain mind both of Hilary and also of Cyril, and directly with the state of my fourth book, and against your answer to the same. And here you, pretending to declare again what is meant by this word “corporal,” do tell the negative, that there is “no grossness meant thereby,” but the affirmative, what is meant thereby, you declare not as you promised. But if you mean plainly, speak plainly, whether Christ’s body, being in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, have head, feet, arms, legs, back and belly, eyes, ears and mouth, distinct and in due order and proportion? Which if he lack, the simplest man or woman knoweth that it cannot be a perfect corporal man’s body, but rather an imaginative {} Mystical, 1551. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 171 or phantastical body, as Marcion and Valentine taught it to be. Express here fully and plainly what manner of body you call this corporal body of Christ. And where you say that I “allege Cyril to deny in words the eating of a man, and to affirm the receiving in this sacrament to be only by faith,” and yet it shall appear by further discussing’, say you, that Cyril saith not so: if you had not rubbed shame out of your forehead, you would not have said that he saith not so, and be taken with so manifest an untruth. For although you, like a grammarian, ruffle in your cases, genders, numbers, and persons, and in matters of no learning trouble the reader to shew yourself learned, corrupting the Greek, Latin, and English, to draw them to your purpose; yet shall you never prove that Cyril speaketh of any other eating of Christ, but by faith. And to make the matter plain, which it seemeth you yet understand not, I shall shortly rehearse, as well the argument of Nestorius as the answer of Cyril. Nesto- rius, the heretic, said that Christ was but a pure man, and not God, and that he had but a common body such as other men have, whereunto the Godhead was only assistant, as it is to other men. And to prove the same, he alleged Christ’s own words, when he said: “ He that eateth my flesh, &c.” and “He that eateth me,” and “‘ As the living Father sent me.” And forasmuch as Christ said, that he had flesh, and was eaten and sent, and God cannot be eaten nor sent, said Nestorius, therefore con- cluded he, that Christ was not God, but man, whose flesh might be eaten and sent: whose gross argumentation Cyril confuting saith, “that by his rude reasoning of eat- ing, he draweth men’s minds wickedly to fancy of the eating of man’s flesh, (meaning of the eating thereof with tooth and mouth,) and so to imagine carnally and grossly such things of Christ as be understand to be done with an only and pure faith.” And as Nestorius made his argument of the eating of man’s flesh, even so did Cyril make his answer of the eating of the same, and not of the commixtion thereof. For unto what purpose should commixtion serve in that place, and whereunto should Christ’s body be commixted? Or why should Cyril charge Nestorius with commixtion in Christ, seeing that he was charged with the clean contrary, as you say, that he separated the natures in Christ, and did not confound and commixt them? And furthermore, if Nestorius had made his argument of the eating, and Cyril had made his answer of the commixtion, they had foughten Andabatarwm more, as the proverb saith, “like two blind men, that when one striketh in one place, the other holdeth up his buckler to defend in another place.” Therefore may all men judge, that have any judgment at all, how unjustly you judge and condemn that godly and excellent learned man, C&co- lampadius, for this word avOpwropayiav, which you say would be avOpwropvyiav, which word in Greek I think was never read, nor hath in that place neither sense nor reason. And what an heady and intolerable arrogancy is this of you, of your own vain con- jecturing to alter the Greek text without any Greek copy to ground yourself upon, altering avOpwropayiav into avOpwromiyiav, and GiafeBaovvra into CiafeBcamy, con- trary to the translations of Cicolampadius and Musculus, not “ whispered in corners,” as you with your railing words would defame the matter, but published abroad to the world. And at the end you conclude altogether with interrogation, contrary to the two translations which yourself do allege, being printed, the one at Basil and the other at Cologne. And you, using such a licence to alter and change all things at your plea- sure, are offended with CEcolampadius for changing of any case, gender, number, verb or participle, yea, for one tittle or prick of interrogation, which liberty hath ever been suffered in all interpreters, so they went not from the true sense. But you can spy a little mote in another man’s eye, that cannot see a great block in your own. Nevertheless, if I should divine without the book, as you do, I would rather think that draeBaovvra should be oiaBeBaovra:, (for such small errors in one letter be easily committed in the printing,) and then concluding with an interrogation, as you would have it, the sense of the Greek should be this in English: ‘* Doth not Nestorins affirm, that he who was seen and sent is another Son and Christ beside the Word, which is God of God? Doth not he say, that our sacrament is the eating of a man, unreyerently leading faithful minds unto vain and gross imaginations, and going about [? Discussion, 15951. | Nestorius. John vi. 177. 172 THE THIRD BOOK. to compass with man’s phantasy those things which be received only with a pure and simple faith?” Where Cyril in these penis reproveth Nestorius, in that he said that our sacrament is the eating of a man. Doth not he himself affirm the contrary, that our sacrament is not the eating of a man, as I said in my book? For else why ‘should he reprehend Nestorius for saying the contrary? And doth not Cyril say also, 178. Basilius, Nyssenus,and Nazianzeuus. Basilius, Grego. Nisse- nus. Grego. Nazianzenus. [ Berenga- rius. Ber- trame. Orig. ed. Winch. } Messaliani heretici. Authropo- morphite. Nestoriani. *Only. that this sacrament “Sis received only with a pure and simple faith?” And yet you find fault with me, because I say that Cyril affrmeth the receiving in this sacrament to be only by faith; which your saying being so manifest contrary to Cyril’s words, I refer me to the judgment of all indifferent readers, what trust is to be given to you in this matter. And as for Ccolampadius, if the printer in the stead of wapiorov made zapiotev, and for émcyeipov printed émyeipav, which may soon chance in printing, then may puotypiov be the nominative case, notwithstanding all your vehement in- veighing and vain babbling against C&colampadius. Yet after your scurrility and railing against CEcolampadius, you temper yourself somewhat, saying that “in such as receive the sacrament worthily, Christ dwelleth corporally, as Cyril saith; and naturally and carnally, as Hilary saith.” This is the third evidence which you give against yourself, signifying that Christ is not corpo- rally in them that receive not the sacrament worthily. “And here you begin to smack of some true understanding, when you say that Christ dwelleth in them that worthily receive the sacrament, so that you would add thereto, that he dwelleth not only in them when they receive the sacrament, but when- soever by a lively faith they spiritually eat his flesh and drink his blood. And where you say, that “by the variety of my doctrine it appeareth that I am not yet determined whither to go,” you keep still your old conditions, and shew your- self to be always one man, in this point to charge other men with your own faults. For whereas my doctrine is throughly uniform and constant, yours is so variable and uncertain, that you agree with no man, nor with yourself neither, as I intend by God’s grace particularly to set out in the end of my book. And in these two authors, Hilary and Cymil, you vary three times from your answer unto my fourth book. For here you say no more, but that Christ is cor- porally in them that receive the sacrament worthily: and in the answer to my fourth book you say, that he is corporally in all them that receive the sacrament, whether it be w orthily or unworthily. Now followeth thus in my book. And here may be well enough passed over Basilius, Gregorius Nyssenus, and Gregorius Nazianzenus, partly because they speak little of this matter, and par tly because they may be easily answered unto, by that which is before de- clared and often repeated ; which is, that a figure hath the name of the thing whereof it is the figure, and therefore of ches figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing itself. ne as concerning the eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his Hood they spake of the ape taal eating ead drinking thereof by pith, and not of corporal eating and drinking with the mouth and teeth. WINCHESTER. As for Basil, Gregory Nyssen, and Gregory Nazianzen, this author saith they speak little of this matter, and indeed they spake! not so much as other do: but that they speak is not discrepant, nor contrarieth not that other afore them had written. For in the old church the truth of this mystery was never impugned openly and directly that we read of, before Berengarius, five hundred years past, and secretly by one Bertram before that, but only by the Messalians, who said the corporal eating did neither good nor hurt. The Anthropomorphites also, who said the virtue of the mystical benediction endured not to the next day, of whom Cyril speaketh, and the Nestorians by consecution of their learning, that divided Christ's flesh from the deity. And where this author would have taken for a true swpposal, that Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Nyssen, should take the sacrament to be figurative only, that is to be denied. And likewise it is not true that this author teacheth, [} Speak, Orig. ed. Winch.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CIIRIST. fe that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing itself: And that IT will declare thus. Of the thing itself, that is, Christs very body being present in deed, it may be said, “Adore it, worship it there,” which may not be said of the figure. Tt may be said of the very thing being present there, that “it is a high miracle to be there,” “it is above nature to be there,” “it is an high secret mystery to be there.” But none of these speeches can be conveniently said of the only figure, that it is such a miracle, so above nature, so high a mystery to be a figure. And therefore it is no true doctrine to teach, that we may say the same of the figure, that may be said of the thing itself. And where this author speaketh of the spiritual eating, and corporal eating, he remaineth in his ignorance what the word “corporal” meaneth, which I have opened in discussing of his answer to Cyril. Faith is required in him that shall eat spiritually, and the corporal eating institute in Christ’s supper requireth the reverent use of man’s mouth, to receive our Lord’s meat and drink, his own very flesh and blood, by his omnipotency prepared in that supper, which not spiritually, that is to say, not innocently? (as St Augustine? in one place expoundeth “ spiritually”) received, bringeth judgment and condemnation, according to St Paul’s words. CANTERBURY. Where you say that “in the old church the truth of this mystery was never im- pugned openly,” you say herein very truly; for the truth which I have set forth, was openly received and taught of all that were catholic without contradiction, until the papists devised a contrary doctrine. And I say further, that the untruth which you teach, was not at that time improved of no man, neither openly nor privily. For how could your doctrine be impugned in the old church, which was then neither taught nor known ? And as concerning Bertram, he did not write secretly; for he was required by king Charles to write in this matter, and wrote therein as the doctrine of the church was at that time, or else some man would have reprehended him, which never none did before you, but make mention of his works unto his great praise and commendation. And the Massalians were not reproved for saying, that “corporal eating doth neither good nor hurt,” neither of Epiphanius, nor of St Augustine, nor Theodoret, nor of any other ancient author that I have read. Marry, that the sacraments do neither good nor hurt, and namely baptism, is laid unto the Massalians’ charge; and yet the cor- poral receiving without the spiritual availeth nothing, but rather hurteth very much, as appeared in Judas and Simon Magus. And as for the three heresies of the Mas- salians, Anthropomorphites, and Nestorians’, I allow none of them, although you report them otherwise than either Epiphanius or St Augustine doth. And where you say that I “would have taken for a supposal, that Basil, Nazianzen, and Nyssene should take the sacrament to be figurative only,” still you charge me untruly with that I neither say nor think. For I knowledge, as all good christian men do, that Almighty God worketh effectually with his sacraments. And where you report me to say another untruth, “that of a figure may be spoken the same thing, that may be spoken of the thing itself,” that I say true therein wit- nesseth plainly St Augustine and Cyprian. And yet I speak not universally, nor these examples that you bring make anything against my sayings. For the first example may be said of the figure, if Dr Smith say true. And because you two write both against my book, and agree so evil one with another, as it is hard for untrue sayers to agree in one tale; therefore in this point I commit you together, to see which of you is most valiant champion. And as for your other three examples, it is not true of the thing itself, that Christ's body is present in the sacrament “ by miracle or above nature,” although by miracle and above nature he is in the ministration of his holy supper among them that godly be fed thereat. And thus be your frivolous cavil- lations answered. And where you say that I am ignorant what this word, “ corporal,” meaneth, [? Innocently, Orig. ed. Winch. ] esu victimarum veteris legis docemur Christi car- [* Videte ergo, fratres, panem celestem spiri- | nem corporaliter edendam esse. ] taliter manducare, innocentiam ad altare apportare. [° An account of the Messalians, or Euchites, Augustin. in Joan, Tractat. xxvi.] may be found in Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. Cent. tv. {* i.e. Fisher’s (bishop of Rochester) book | Chap. V. § 24; of the Anthropomorphites, ibid. against CEcolampadius, De Veritate Corporis, &c. | Cent. x. Chap. V. § 4; of the Nestorians, ibid. Colon, 1527. The title of this 13th chapteris: Ex Jent. v. Chap. V. § 12.] 179. *OF corporal manduea tion, lege Roffeum ady. Cicolampa- dium, Lib. iii. cap. 13.4 August. in Joan. tract. XXvi. Bertram. * Messaliani, *De iis ha- betur mn Hist. Trip. Lib. vil. cap. 11. et in Theodoreto, Lib. iv, eap. ll. x *Smith. Corporal. 180. The answer to Emissenus. Emissen. *Only. 181. 174 THE THIRD BOOK. surely then I have a very gross wit, that am ignorant in that thing, which every ploughman knoweth. But you make so fine a construction of this word “ corporal,” that neither you can tell what you mean yourself, nor no man can understand you, as I have opened before in the discussing of Cyril’s mind. And as for “‘ the reverent use of man’s mouth” in the Lord’s holy supper, the bread and wine outwardly must be reverently received with the mouth, because of the things thereby represented, which by faith be received inwardly in our hearts and minds, and not eaten with our mouths, as you untruly allege St Paul to say, whose words be of the eating of the sacramental bread, and not of the body of Christ. Now followeth next mine answer to Eusebius Emissenus, who is as it were your chief trust and sheet-anchor. ; Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly answered unto: for he speaketh not of any real and corporal conversion of bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood; nor -of any corporal and real eating and drinking of the same; but he speaketh of a’sacramental conversion of bread and wine, and of a spiritual eating and drinking of ‘the body and blood. After which sort Christ is as well present in baptism, as the saiire Eusebius plainly there declareth, as he is in the Lord’s table: which is not carnally-and corporally, but by faith and spiri- tually. But of this author is spoken before more at large in the matter of transubstantiation. WINCHESTER. This author saith that Emissen is shortly answered unto, and so is he, if a man care not what he saith, as Hilary was answered and Cyril. But else, there can no short or long answer con- found the true plain testimony of Emissen, for the common true faith of the church in the sacrament. Which Emissen hath this sentence, “ That the invisible priest, (by the secret power with his word.) turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood, saying thus: ‘This is my body’; and again repeating the same sanctification, ‘This is my blood.’ Wherefore as at the beck of him commanding the heights of heavens, the deepness of the floods, and largeness of lands were founded of nothing: by like power in spiritual sacraments, where virtue commandeth, the effect of the truth serveth.” These be Emissen’s words, declaring his faith plainly of the sacrament, in such terms as cannot be wrested or writhed, who speaketh of a turning and conversion of the visible creatures into the substance of Christ's body and blood: he saith not into the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, nor figure of Christ's body and blood, whereby he should mean a only sacramental conversion, as this author would have it; but he saith, “into the substance of Christ's body and blood [declaring the truth of Christ's body and blood?] to be in the sacrament.” For the words “ substance” and “truth” be of one strength, and shew a difference from a figure, wherein the truth is not in deed present, but signified to be absent. And because it is a work supernatural, and a great miracle, this Emissen represseth man’s carnal reason, and succoureth the weak faith with remembrance of like power of God in the creation of this world*, which were brought forth out of time by Emissen, if Christ's body were not in substance present, as Emissen’s words be, but in figure only, as this author teacheth. And where this author coupleth together the two sacraments, of baptism and of the body and blood of Christ, as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in either, he putteth himself in danger to be reproved of malice or ignorance. For although these mysteries be both great, and man’s regeneration in baptism is also a mystery and the secret work of God, and hath a great marvel in that effect; yet it differeth from the mystery of the sacrament, touching the manner of Christ's presence, and the working of the effect also. For in baptism our union with Christ is wrought without the real presence of Christ's humanity, only in the virtue and effect of Christ’s blood, the whole Trinity there working as author, in whose name the sacra- ment is expressly ministered, where our soul is regenerate and made spiritual, but not our body in deed, but in hope only that for the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us our mortal bodies ” shall be resuscitate, and as we have in baptism been buried with Christ, so we be assured to be partakers of his resurrection. And so in this sacrament we be unite to Christs manhood by this divinity. But in the sacrament of Christ's body and blood we be in nature united to Christ as man, and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his divinity; which mystical [} Emissen’s sayings, Orig. ed. Winch. } | [® Of the world, 1551.] [* Orig. ed. Winch, inserts this passage. ] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 175 union representeth unto us the high estate of our glorification, wherein body and soul shall in the general resurrection, by a marvellous regeneration of the body, be made both spiritual, the special pledge whereof we receive in this sacrament, and therefore it is the sacrament (as Hilary saith) of perfect unity. And albeit the soul of man be more precious than the body, and the nature of the Godhead in Christ more excellent than the nature of man in him glo- rified, and in baptism man’s soul is regenerate in the virtue and effect of Christ's passion and blood, Christ's Godhead present there without the real presence of lis humanity; although for these respects the excellency of baptism is great; yet because the mystery of the sacrament of the altar, where Christ is present both man and God, in the effectual unity that is wrought between our bodies, our souls and Christ's, in the use of this sacrament, signifieth the perfect redemption of our bodies in the general resurrection, which shall be the end and conswnmation of all our felicity. This sacrament of perfect unity is the mystery of our perfect estate, when body and soul shall be all spiritual; and hath so a degree of excellency, for the dignity that is esteemed in every end and perfection: wherefore the word “ spiritual” is a necessary word in this sacrament, to call it a spiritual food, as it is indeed, for it is to work in owr bodies a@ spiritual effect, not only in our souls: and Christ's body and flesh is a spiritual body and flesh4, and yet a true body and flesh. And it is present in this sacrament after a spiritual manner, granted and taught of all true teachers, which we should receive also spiritually, which is by having Christ before spiritually in us to receive it so worthily. Wherefore, like as in the invisible substance of the sacrament there is nothing carnal but all spiritual, taking the word “carnal” as it signifieth “grossly” in man’s carnal judgment: so where the receivers of that food bring carnal lusts or desires, carnal fancies or imaginations with them, they receive the same precious food unworthily to their judgment and condemnation. For they judge not truly, after the simplicity of a true Christian faith, of the very presence of Christ's body. And this sufficeth to wipe out that this author hath spoken of Emuissen against the truth. CANTERBURY. I have so plainly answered unto Emissen in my former book, partly in this place, and partly in the second part of my book, that he that readeth over those two places, shall see most clearly that you have spent a great many of words here in vain, and need no further answer at all. And I had then such a care what I said, that I said nothing but according to Emissenus’ own mind, and which I proved by his own words. But if you find but one word that in speech soundeth to your purpose, you stick to that word tooth and nail, caring nothing what the author’s meaning is. And here is one great token of sleight and untruth to be noted in you, that you write diligently every word so long as they seem to make with you. And when you come to the very place where Emissen declareth the meaning of his words, there you leave all the rest out of your book, which cannot be without a great untruth and fraud, to deceive the simple reader. For when you have recited these words of Emissen, “that the invisible priest by the secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood,” and so further as serveth to your affection, when you come even to the very place where Emissen declareth these words, there you leave and cut off your writing. < But because the reader may know what you have cut off, and thereby know Emissen’s meaning, I shall here rehearse Emissen’s words which you have left out. “If thou wilt know,” saith Emissen’, “how it ought not to seem to thee a thing new and effectus. [* Orig. ed. Winch. omits the words “is a spi- ritual body and flesh.”’] [> Item Eusebius Emisenus, 6.—Recedat ergo omne infidelitatis ambiguum: quandoquidem qui auctor est muneris, ipse etiam testis est veritatis. Nam invisibilis Sacerdos visibiles creaturas in sub- stantiam corporis et sanguinis sui verbo suo secreta potestate convertit, ita dicens, Accipite, et come- dite: hoc est enim corpus meum: et sanctificatione repetita, Accipile, et bibite: hic est sanguis meus. Ergo sicut ad nutum precipientis Domini repente ex nihilo substiterunt excelsa celorum, profunda fluctuum, vasta terrarum : ita pari potestate in spi- ritualibus sacramentis ubi precipit virtus, servit Quanta itaque et quam celebranda bene- ficia vis divine benedictionis operetur, attende: et ut tibi novum et impossibile videri non debeat, guod in Christi substantiam terrena et mortalia convertuntur, teipsum, qui jam in Christo es re- generatus, interroga: Dudum alienus a vita, pere- grinus a misericordia, a salutis via intrinsecus mor- tuus exulabas: subito initiatus Christi legibus, et salutaribus mysteriis innovatus, in corpus ecclesix non videndo sed credendo transiluisti, et de filio perditionis adoptivus Dei filius fieri occulta puritate meruisti: in mensura visibili permanens, major factus es teipso invisibiliter, sine quantitatis aug- mento: cum ipse atque idem esses, multo alter fidei *Spiritual. *Spiritual manner. * Spiritually. *A sleight. Truth. Errors. 176 THE THIRD BOOK. impossible, that earthly and incorruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ, look upon thyself which art made new in baptism. When thou wast far from life, and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of salvation, and inwardly wast dead, yet suddenly thou begannest another new life in Christ, and wast made new by wholesome mysteries, and wast turned into the body of the church, not by seeing, but by believing ; and of the child of damnation, by a secret pureness thou wast made the son of God. Thou visibly didst remain in the same measure that thou hadst be- fore, but invisibly thou wast made greater, without any increase of thy body. Thou wast the self same person, and yet by increase of faith thou wast made another man. Outwardly nothing was added, ‘but all the change was inwardly. And so was man made the son of Cayee and Christ formed in the mind of man. Therefore as thou, putting away thy former vileness, didst receive a new dignity, not feeling any change in thy body ; and as the curing of thy disease, the putting away thine infection, the wiping away of thy filthiness, be not seen with thine eyes, but believed in thy mind ; so likewise when thou dost go up to the reverend altar to feed upon the spiritual meat, in thy faith look upon the body and blood of him that is thy God, honour him, touch him with thy mind, take him in the hand of thy heart, and chiefly drink him with the draught of thy inward man.” These be Emissen’s own words. Upon which words I gather his meaning in his former words by you alleged. For where you bring in these words, “‘ That Christ by his secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood,” straightways in these words by me now rehearsed he sheweth, what manner of turning that is, and after what manner the earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ: “even so,” saith he, “as it is in baptism,” wherein is no transubstantiation. So that I gather his meaning of his own plain words, and you gather his meaning by your own imagination, devising such phantastical things as neither Emissen saith, nor yet be catholic. And this word “truth” you have put unto the words of Emissen, of your own head, which is no true dealing. For so you may prove what you list, if you may add to the authors what words you please. And yet if Emissen had used both the words, “substance” and “truth,” what should that help you? For Christ is in sub- stance and truth present in baptism, as well as he is in the Lord’s supper; and yet is he not there carnally, corporally, and naturally. I will pass over here, to aggravate the matter, how untruly you add to my words this word “only,” in an hundred places, where I say not so: what true and sincere dealing this is, let all men judge. Now as concerning my coupling together of the two sacraments of baptism and of the body and blood of Christ, Emissen himself coupleth them both together in this place, and saith that the one is like the other, without putting any cee even as I truly recited him. So that there appeareth neither “malice nor ignorance” in me; but in you, adding at your pleasure such things as Emissen saith not, to deceive the simple reader, and adding such your own inventions, as be neither true nor catholic, appeareth much shift and craft joined with untruth and infidelity. For what christian man would say, as you do, that Christ is not indeed, (which you call “really,”) in baptism? Or that we be not regenerated, both body and soul, as well in baptism as in the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ? Or that in baptism we be not united to Christ’s divinity by his manhood? Or that baptism representeth not to us the high state of our glorification, and the perfect redemption of our bodies in the general resurrection? In which things you make difference between baptism and the sacrament (as you call it) of the altar. Or what man that were processibus extitisti: in exteriori nihil additum est, | altare ceelestibus cibis satiandus ascendis, sacrum et totum in interiori mutatum est: ac sic homo | Dei tui corpus et sanguinem fide respice, honora, Christi filius effectus, et Christus in hominis mente | mirare, mente continge, cordis manu suscipe, et formatus est. Sicut ergo sine corporali sensu, pre- | maxime haustu interiore assume.—Corpus Juris terita utilitate deposita, subito novam indutus es | Canonici, Tom. I. Decreti tertia pars. “* De Con- dignitatem : et sicut hoc, quod in te Deus lesa | secrat.” Dist. 1. cap. 35. “ Quia corpus.” col, 1926- curavit, infecta diluit, immaculata detersit, non sunt | 28. Lugduni. 1618.) oculis nec sensibus tuis credita: ita cum reverendum OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. Wie learned in God’s word would affirm, that in the general resurrection our bodies and souls shall be all spiritual? I know that St Paul saith that in the resurrection our Spiritual. bodies shall be spiritual, meaning in the respect of such vileness, filthiness, sin, and cor- ruption, as we be subject unto in this miserable world: yet he aith not that our bodies shall be all spiritual. For notwithstanding such spiritualness as St Paul speaketh of, we shall have all such substantial parts and members as pertain to a very natural man’s body. So that in this part our bodies shall be carnal, corporal, real, and natural bodies, lacking nothing that belongeth to perfect men’s bodies. And in that' respect is the body of Christ also carnal, and not spiritual. And yet we bring none other carnal imaginations of Christ’s body, nor mean none other, but that Christ’s body is carnal in this respect, that it hath the same flesh and natural substance which was born of the virgin Mary, and wherein he suffered and rose again, and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father in glory; and that the same his natural body now glorified hath all the natural parts of a man’s body in order, proportion, and place distinct, as our bodies shall be in these respects carnal after our resurrection. Which manner of carnalness and diversity of parts and members if you take away now from Christ in heaven, and from us after our resurrection, you make Christ now to have no true man’s body, but a fantastical body, as Marcion and Valentine did: and as concerning our bodies, you run into the error of Origen, which fancied and imagined, that at the resurrection all things should be so spiritual, that women should be turned into men, and bodies into souls. And yet it is to be noted by the way, that in your answer here to Emissene, you make “spiritually” and a “ spiritual manner” all one. Now followeth mine answer to St Ambrose in this wise. oe And now I will come to the saying of St Ambrose, which is always in Theanswer to Ambrosius their mouths. “Before the consecration,” saith he’, as they allege, “it is ee bread, but after the words of the* consecration it is the body of Christ.” SLID For answer hereunto, it must be first known what consecration is. Consecration is the separation of any thing from a profane and worldly use Coe unto a spiritual and godly use. ; And therefore when usual and common water is taken from other uses, and gies Baie put to the use of baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the “- Holy Ghost, then it may rightly be called consecrated water, that is to say, water put to an holy use. Even so, when common bread and wine be taken and severed from other bread and wine to the use of the holy communion, that portion of bread and wine, although it be of the same substance that the other is from the which it is severed, yet it is now called consecrated, or holy bread and holy wine. Not that the bread and wine have or can have any holiness in them, but that they be used to an holy work, and represent holy and godly things. And therefore St Dionyse* called the bread holy bread, and the cup an holy perfec. cup, as soon as they be set upon the altar to the use of the holy communion. * But specially they may be called holy and consecrated, when they be sepa- rated to that holy use by Christ’s own words’, which he spake for that purpose, saying of the bread, “This is my body,” and of the wine, “This is my blood.” — Matt. xxv. So that commonly the authors, before those words be spoken, do take '4°*™ the bread and wine but as other common bread and wine; but after those words be pronounced over them, then they take them for consecrated and holy bread and wine. Not that the bread and wine can be partakers of any holiness or godliness, ! So ed. 1551. In 1580, the.] Tom. IV. p. 173. Colon. Agrip. 1616.] {? Sed panis iste panis est ante verba sacramen- [® Words of consecration, 1551, and Orig. ed.] torum ; ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro [4 Vid. supra, p. 151.] Christi. Ambros. de Sacramentis, Lib. 1v. cap. iv. [> Of Chiist’s own words, 1o61, and Orig. cd. ] 12 | | [CRANMER. | De his aui mysteriis initiantur, cap. ult. De sacra-_ mentis, Lib. v. cap. 4. ay De sacra- mentis, Lib. vi. cap. 1. Ambrosius. *Consecra- tion. 185. Melancthon. * Sacramental change. 178 THE THIRD BOOK. : or can be the body and blood of Christ, but that they represent the very body and blood of Christ, and the holy food and nourishment which we have by him. And so they be called by the names of the body and blood of Christ, as the sign, token, and figure is called by the name of the very thing which it sheweth and signifieth. And therefore as St Ambrose, in the words before cited by the adversaries, saith, that “ before the consecration it is bread, and after the consecration it is Christ’s body,” so in other places he doth more plainly set forth his meaning, saying these words: “Before the benediction of the heavenly words, it is called another kind of thing; but after the consecration, is signified the body of Christ. Likewise before the consecration it is called another thing ; but after the consecration it is named the blood of Christ’.” And again he saith: “When I treated of the sacraments, I told you that that thing which is offered before the words of Christ, is called bread; but when the words of Christ be pronounced, then it is not called bread, but it is called by the name of Christ’s body*.” By which words of St Ambrose it appeareth plainly, that the bread is called by the name of Christ’s body after the consecration ; and although it be still bread, yet after consecration it is dignified by the name of the thing which it representeth ; as at length is declared before in the process of transubstan- tiation, and specially in the words of Theodoretus. And as the bread is a corporal meat, and corporally eaten, so, saith St Ambrose*, “is the body of Christ a spiritual meat, and spiritually eaten,” and that requireth no corporal presence. WINCHESTER. As touching St Ambrose, this author taketh a great enterprise to wrestle with him, whose plain and evident words must needs be a rule to try his other words by, if any might be writhed. What can be more plainly spoken than St Ambrose speaketh, when he saath these words? “It is bread before consecration, but after it is Christ’s body*.” By the word “ con- secration” is signified, as it is here placed, God’s omnipotent work. Wherefore in this place it comprehendeth as much as Emissene said in these words, “ he converteth by the secret power of his word.” God is the worker, and so consecration signifieth the whole action of his omni- potency in working the substance of this high mystery; and therefore the definition of the word “ consecration,” as it is generally taken, cannot be a rule to the understanding of it in this high mystery, where it is used to express a singular work, as the circumstance of St Ambrose writing doth declare. For as Philip Melancthon writeth to icolampadius, “St Ambrose would never have travailed to accumulate so many miracles as he doth,” speaking of this matter to declare God’s omnipotency, “ and he had not thought the nature of bread to be changed in this mystery?.” These be Melancthon’s very words. Now to answer the question, as it were, at the word “change,” this author shall come with a“ sacramental change,” which is a device in terms to blind the rude reader. St Ambrose doth express plainly what the change is when he writeth the words before rehearsed. “Tt is bread before the consecration, but after it is the body of Christ.” Can a change be more plainly declared? The near® way for this author had been to have joined Ambrose with Clement, and called him feigned by the papists, rather than after the effect of consecration so opened by St Ambrose himself to travail to prove whut it may signify, if it were in another matter; and then to admonish the reader how the bread and wine have no holiness, which [! Ante benedictionem verborum celestium spe- cies nominatur, post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur.—Ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. Ambros. de Initiandis, cap. ult. Tom. IV. p. 166. | [2 Memini sermonis mei cum de sacramentis tractarem. Dixi vobis quod ante verba Christi quod offertur panis dicatur; ubi Christi verba deprompta fuerint, Jam non panis dicitur, sed Christi corpus appellatur. Quare ergo in oratione Dominica que postea sequitur, ait, Panem nostrum ? Panem qui- dem dixit, sed ézr:ovcrov, hoc est supersubstantialem. Id. de Sacramentis, Lib. v. cap.iv. Tom.IV. p. 175. ] (8 Id. Lib. vi. cap. i. Tom. IV. p. 176.] {* The body of Christ. Orig. ed. Winch. ] [° Hee tam longa recitatio exemplorum clare ostendit auctorem [h.e. Ambrosium ] sensisse, panem non esse tantum signum, sed naturam panis mutari. —The quotation (as before observed, p. 149), is from Melancthon’s Letter to Myconius, p. 55. of Gico- lampadius’s Dialogue. | [° Nearer, Orig. ed. Winch.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 179 form of speech not understanded of the people engendereth some seruple that needeth not, being no sound form of doctrine: for St Paul speaketh and teacheth thus, that the creatures be sanctified by the word of God and prayer ; and St Augustine writeth of sanctified bread to be given to them that be catechised before they be baptized: and this author himself expoundeth St Cyprian in the thirty-fifth leaf? of this book, how the divinity is poured into the bread sacramentally, which is a strange phrase ; not expressing there Cyprian’s mind, and far discrepant from the doctrine here. And in another place this author saith, that as hot and burning iron is iron still, and yet hath the force of fires so the bread and wine be turned into the virtue of Christ's flesh and blood. By which similitude bread may conceive virtue, as iron conceiveth fire; and then as we call iron burning and fiery, so we may call bread virtuous and holy, wnless the author would again resemble bread to a whetstone, that may make sharp and have no sharpness in it at all. Which matter I declare thus to shew, that as this author dissenteth from truth in other, so he dissenteth from that he uttereth for truth himself, and walketh in a maze, im- pugning the very truth in this sacrament, and would have that taken for a catholic doctrine that is not one, and the same doctrine through this whole book, so far off is it from the whole of christian teaching. But now let us consider what speeches of St Ambrose this author bringeth forth, wherewith to alter the truth of the very plain proper speech of St Ambrose, saying: “It is bread before the consecration; and after it is Christ's body8.” St Ambrose, as this author saith in another place, saith thus: “ Before the benediction of the heavenly words it is called another kind of thing; but after the consecration is signified the body and blood of Christ.” And another speech thus: “ Before the consecration it is called another thing ; but after the consecration it is named the blood of Christ.” And yet a third speech, where the word “call” is used before and after both, as thou, reader, mayest see in this author's book, in the eighty-third leaf?. Now, good reader, was there ever man so over- seen as this author is, who seeth not St Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly asin the first? For in the last speech St Ambrose saith, it is called bread before the conse- eration, and called the body of Christ after the consecration. And I would demand of this author, doth not this word “call” signify the truth that is bread in deed before the con- secration ? which if it be so, why shall not the same word “call” signify also the very truth added to the words of the body of Christ after the consecration? And likewise when he saith, speaking of the body of Christ, the word “signified” or “named,” which is as much as “ call.” The body of Christ is signified there, for Christ said “ This is my body,” &c., using the outward signs of the visible creatures to signify the body and blood present, and not absent. Was not Christ the true Son of God, because the angel said, “ He shall be called the Son of God?” But in these places of St Ambrose, to express plainly what he meant by “ calling,” he putteth that word “call” to the bread before the consecration, as well as to the body of Christ after the consecration ; thereby to declare how in his understanding the word'© “call” signifieth as much truth in the thing whereunto it is added after consecration as before; and therefore as it is by St Ambrose called bread before consecration, signifying it was so indeed, so it is “called,” “signified” or “named”, (which three thus placed be all one in effect,) the body of Christ after the consecration, and is so in deed, agreeable to the plain speech of St Ambrose, where he saith: “Tt is bread before consecration, and it is the body of Christ after consecration.” As touching the spirituality of the meat of Christ's body I have spoken before; but where this author addeth, “it requireth no corporal presence,” he speaketh in his dream, being oppressed with sleep of ignorance, and cannot tell what “corporal” meaneth, as I have opened before by the authority of Cyril. Now let us see what this author saith to Chrysostom. CANTERBURY. It is not I that wrestle with St Ambrose, but you, who take great pain to wrest his words clean contrary to his intent and meaning. But where you ask this question, What can be more plain than these words of St Ambrose, “It is bread before conse- eration, and after, it is Christ's body?” these words of St Ambrose be not fully so plain as you pretend, but clean contrary. For what can be spoken either more un- plain or untrue, than to say of bread after consecration, that it is the body of Christ, unless the same be understand in a figurative speech? For although Christ’s body, as you say, be there after consecration, yet the bread is not his body, nor his body is not made of it, by your confession. And therefore the saying of St Ambrose, that it is Christ’s body, cannot be true in plain speech. And therefore St Ambrose in the [7 See below, Book 11. chap. 11.] [° Vide supra, p. 178.] [° But after, it is the body of Christ. Orig. ed. [1° This word, Orig. ed. Winch. ] Winch. } 1 Tim. iv. De peceat. merit. et remis. Lib. il. cap. 26. (Cyprian de cana Domi- ni. Orig. ed. Winch. | #* Luke i. 186. Whether bread be Christ's body. A sacramen- tal change. 187. Holy bread. Psal. xxxv. August. de peccatorum meritis et remiss. Lib. ii. cap. 26 Cyprianus. 180 THE THIRD BOOK. same place, where he calleth it the body and blood of Christ, he saith, it is a figure . of his body and blood. For these be his words: Quod est figura corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. And as for the word “consecration,” I have declared the signification thereof ac- cording to the mind of the old authors, as I will justify. And for the writing of Melancthon to C2colampadius, you remain still in your old error, taking Myconius for GEcolampadius. And yet the change of bread and wine in this sacrament, which Melancthon speaketh of, is a sacramental change, as the nature of a sacrament requireth, signifying how wonderfully Almighty God by his omnipotency worketh in us his lively members, and not in the dead creatures of bread and wine. And the change is in the use, and not in the elements kept and reserved, wherein is not the perfection of a sacrament. Therefore, as water in the font or vessel hath not the reason and nature of a sacrament, but when it is put to the use of christening, and then it is changed into the proper nature and kind of a sacrament, to signify the wonderful change which Almighty God by his omnipotency worketh really in them that be baptized therewith; such is the change of the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper. And therefore, the bread is called Christ’s body after consecration, as St Am- brose saith, and yet it is not so really, but sacramentally. For it is neither Christ’s mystical body, (for that is the congregation of the faithful dispersed abroad in the world,) nor his natural body, (for that is in heaven,) but it is the sacrament both of his true natural body, and also of his mystical body, and for that consideration hath the name of his body, as a sacrament or sign may bear the name of the very thing that is signified and represented thereby. And as for the foresaid books entitled to St Ambrose, if I jomed Ambrose with Clement, and should say that the said books entitled in the name of St Ambrose, de sacramentis, et de mystertis initiandis, were none of his, I should say but as I think, and as they do think that be men of most excellent learning and judgment, as I de- clared in my second book, which speaketh of transubstantiation. And so doth judge not only Erasmus, but also Melancthon (whom you allege for authority when he maketh for your purpose), suspecteth the same. And yet I plainly deny not these books to be his, (for your pleasure to give you as much advantage as you can ask,) and yet it availeth you nothing at all. But here I cannot pass over, that you be offended, because I say, that bread and wine be called holy, when they be put to an holy use, not that they have any holi- ness in them, or be partakers of any holiness or godliness. I would feign learn of Smith and you, when the bread and wine be holy. For before they be hallowed or consecrated, they be not holy by your teaching, but be common baker's bread and wine of the tavern; and after the consecration, there is neither bread or wine, as you teach: at what time then should the bread and wine be holy? But the creatures of bread and wine be much bound unto you, and can no less do than take you for their saviour. For if you can make them holy and godly, then shall you glorify them, and so bring them to eternal bliss. And then you may as well save the true labouring bullocks, and innocent sheep and lambs, and so understand the prophet, Homines et jumenta salvabis, Domine. But “to admonish the reader,” say you, “how the bread and wine have no holiness, this fortune’ of speech, not understand of the people, engendereth some scruple that needeth not.” By which your saying I cannot tell what the people may understand, but that you have a great scruple that you have lost your holy bread. And yet St Paul speaketh not of your holy bread, as you imagine, being utterly ignorant, as appeareth, in the scripture; but he speaketh generally of all manner of meats, which christian people receive with thanksgiving unto God, whether it be bread, wine, or water, fish, flesh, white meat, herbs, or what manner of meat and drink so ever it be. And the sanctified bread, which St Augustine writeth, to be given to them that be catechised, was not holy in itself, but was called holy for the use and signification. And I express St Cyprian’s mind truly, and not a whit discrepant from my doc- trine here, when I say, that the divinity may be said to be poured, or put sacramen- [! Form, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CIIRIST. 181 tally into the bread; as the Spirit of God is said to be in the water of baptism, when it is truly ministered, or in his word when it is sincerely preached, with the Holy Spirit working mightily in the hearts of the hearers. And yet the water in itself is but a visible element, nor the preacher's word of itself is but a sound in the air, which as soon as it is heard, vanisheth away, and hath in itself no holiness at all, although for the use and ministry thereof it may be called holy. And so likewise may be said of the sacraments, which, as St Augustine saith, “be as it were God’s visible word.” And whereas you rehearse out of my words in another place, that “as hot and burning iron is iron still, and yet hath the force of fire, so the bread and wine be turned into the virtue of Christ’s flesh and blood:” you neither report my words truly, nor understand them truly. For I declare, in my book, virtue to be in them that godly receive bread and wine, and not in the bread and wine. And I take virtue there to signify might and strength, or force, as I name it, (which in the Greek is called dvvapis, after which sense we say, that there is virtue in herbs, in words, and in stones,) and not to signify virtue in holiness, (which in Greek is called apern), whereof a person is called virtuous, whose faith and conversation is godly. But you sophistically and fraudulently do of purpose abuse the word “virtue” to another signifi- cation than I meant, to approve by my words your own vain error, that bread should be virtuous and holy, making in your argument a fallax or craft, called equivocation. For where my meaning is, that the death of Christ, and the effusion of his blood, have effect and strength in them that truly receive the sacrament of his flesh and blood, you turn the matter quite, as though I should say, that the bread were godly and virtuous; which is a very frantic and ungodly opinion, and nothing pertaining to mine application of the similitude of iron. But this is the mother of many errors, both in interpretation of scriptures, and also in understanding of old ancient writers, when the mind and intent of him that maketh a similitude is not considered, but the similitude is applied unto other matters than the meaning was. Which fault may be justly noted in you here, when you reason by the similitude of hot burning iron, that bread may conceive such virtue as it may be called virtuous and holy. For my only purpose was by that similitude to teach, that iron, remaining in his proper nature and substance, by conceiving of fire may work another thing than is the na- ture of iron. And so likewise bread, remaining in his proper nature and substance, in the ministration of the sacrament, hath another use than to feed the body. For it is a memorial of Christ's death, that by exercise of our faith our souls may re- ceive the more heavenly food. But this is a strange manner of speech, (which nei- ther scripture, nor approved author ever used before you,) to call the sacramental bread virtuous, as you do. But into such absurdities men do commonly fall, when they will of purpose impugn the evident truth. But “ was there ever any man so overseen,” say you, “as this author is? Who seeth not St Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly as in the first?’ Was there ever any man so destitute of reason, say I, but that he understand- eth this, that when bread is called bread, it is called by the proper name, as it is in deed; and when bread is called the body of Christ, it taketh the name of a thing, which it is not in deed, but is so called by a figurative speech? And calling, say you, in the words of Christ signifieth making, which if it signifieth when bread is called bread, then were calling of bread a making of bread. And thus is answered your demand, why this word “call” in the one signifieth the truth, and in the other not: because that the one is a plain speech, and the other a figurative. For else by your®* reasoning out of reason, when the cup which Christ used in his last supper was called a cup, and when it was called Christ’s blood, all was one calling, and was of like truth without figure: so that the cup was Christ’s blood in deed. And likewise when*® the stone that flowed out water was called a stone, and when it was called Christ; and the ark also when it was called the ark, and when it was called God; all these must be one speech and of like truth, if it be true which you here say. But as the ark was an ark, the stone a stone, and bread very bread, and the cup a cup, plainly without figurative speech ; so when they be called God, Christ, [* Our, 1580. ] [? When, omitted in 1580. ] 188, Holy bread. Bread is bread, is a ylain speech. read is Christ’s body, is a figurative speech. 189. Numb. xx. 1 Cor. x. 1 Sam. iv. John i. Rev. per totum. Gen. xlix. Rev. v. John x. xiv. John xii. Corporal. The answer to Chrysosto- mus. 190. In Sermone de eucha- ristia in Enceniis. De Prodi- tione Jude. 182 THE THIRD BOOK. the body and blood of Christ, this cannot be a like calling, but must needs be under- stand by a figurative speech. For as Christ in the scripture is called a lamb for his innocency and meekness, a lion for his might and power, a door and way, whereby we enter into his Father's house, wheat and corn for the property of dying before they rise up and bring increase; so is he called bread, and bread is called his body, and wine his blood, for the property’ of feeding and nourishing. So that these and all like speeches, (where as one substance is called by the name of another substance diverse and distinct in nature,) must needs be understand figuratively by some simili- tude or propriety of one substance unto another, and can in no wise be understand properly and plainly without a figure. And therefore, when Christ is called the Son of God, or bread is called bread, it is a most plain and proper speech; but when Christ is called bread, or bread is called Christ, these can in no wise be formal and proper speeches, (the substances and natures of them being so diverse,) but must needs have an understanding in figure, signification or similitude, (as the very nature of all sa- craments require,) as all the old writers do plainly teach. And therefore the bread after consecration is not called Christ’s body, because it is so in deed; for then it were no figurative speech, as all the old authors say it is. And as for this word “corporal,” you openly confessed your own ignorance in the open audience of all the people at Lambeth: when I asked you, what corporal body Christ hath in the sacrament, and whether he had distinction of members or no, your answer was in effect that you could not tell, And yet was that a wiser saying than you spake before in Cyril, where you said, that Christ hath only a spiritual body and a spiritual presence, and now you say, he hath a corporal presence. And so you confound corporal and spiritual, as if you knew not what either of them meant, or wist not, or cared not what you said. But now I will return to my book, and rehearse mine answer unto St John Chrysostom, which is this. Now let us examine St John Chrysostom, who in sound of words maketh most for the adversaries of the truth; but they that be familiar and acquainted with Chrysostom’s manner of speaking, (how in all his writings he is full of allusions, schemes, tropes, and figures,) shall soon perceive that he helpeth nothing their purposes, as it shall well appear by the discussing of those places which the papists do allege of him, which be specially two. One is Jn Sermone de Eucharistia in Enceniis, and the other is De proditione Jude. And as touching the first, no man can speak more plainly against them than St John Chrysostom speaketh in that sermon. Wherefore it is to be wondered why they should allege him for their party, unless they be so blind in their opinion that they can see nothing, nor discern what maketh for them, nor what against them. or there he hath these words: “ When you come to these mysteries,” speaking of the Lord’s board and holy communion, “do not think that you receive by a man the body of God’,” meaning of Christ. These be St John Chrysostom’s own words in that place. Then if we receive not the body of Christ at the hands of a man, ergo, the body of Christ is not really, corporally, and naturally in the sacrament, and so given to us by the priest. And then it followeth that all the papists be lars, because they feign and teach the contrary. But in* this place of St Chrysostom is touched before more at length in answering to the papists’ transubstantiation. Wherefore now shall be answered the other place which they allege of Chrysostom in these words*: “ Here he is present in the sacrament and doth tpameCav diaxocpioas éxeivyy, ovTOs Kai TavTHY étakoopet vov. odd yap avOpwmds ET 0 Tomy Ta Tpokeipeva yevécOar capa Kal aia Xpiotou" aN aitos 6 cravpwhels brep juav Xpiotos. cxijua TAypav EatyKev O tepeds, Ta prjpata pley- yopevos éxetva* 2} 6é dévapts Kal Xdpis Tov Beou éoTt. TOUTS pol éaTt TO GMa, Pyoi. TOUTO TO [! Propriety, 1551.] [2 Avo kai mpocepxopevot py ws €£ dvOpwrov vo- pionre petaauBaver Tov Veiov cwuatos. Chrysost. Insermone de eucharistia in Enceniis. (Ed. Be- ned. de Peenitentia.) Hom. ix. Tom. II. p. 356.] [? But this place, 1551, and Orig. ed. | [4 Ildpeotiw 6 Xpiotos, Kat viv éxeivos o THY OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 183 consecrate, which garnished the table at the maundy or last supper. For it is not man which maketh of the bread and wine, being set forth to be consecrated, the body and blood of Christ; but it is Christ himself, which for us is crucified, that maketh himself to be there present. The words are uttered and pronounced by the mouth of the priest, but the consecration is by the virtue, might, and grace of God himself. And as this saying of God, ‘ Increase, be Gen. i. multiplied, and fill the earth, once spoken by God, took always effect toward generation; even so the saying of Christ, ‘This is my body,’ being but once Matt. xxi. spoken, doth throughout all churches to this present, and shall to his last Lake xxi coming, give force and strength to this sacrifice.” Thus far they rehearse of Chrysostom’s words. Which words, although they sound much for the purpose*, yet if they be throughly considered and con- ferred with other places of the same author, it shall well appear that he meant nothing less than that Christ’s body should be corporally and naturally present in the bread and wine, but that in such sort he is in heaven only; and in our minds by faith we ascend up into heaven, to eat him there, although sacra- mentally, as in a sign and figure, he be in the bread and wine, (and so is he also in the water of baptism;) and in them that rightly receive the bread and wine he is in a much more perfection than corporally, (which should avail them nothing,) but in them he is spiritually with his divine power, giving them eternal life. And as in the first creation of the world all living creatures had their first life by God’s only word, (for God only spake his word, and all things were created by and by accordingly,) and after their creation he spake these words, “Increase and multiply ;”’ and by the virtue of those words all things have Gen.i. gendered and increased ever since that time; even so after that Christ said, Matt. xxvi, “ Kat, this is my body ;” and “ Drink, this is my blood: do this hereafter in Luke xxii. remembrance of me;” by virtue of these words, and not by virtue of any man, the bread and wine be so consecrated, that whosoever with a lively faith doth eat that bread and drink that wine, doth spiritually eat, drink, and feed upon Christ sitting in heaven with his Father. And this is the whole meaning of St Chrysostom. And therefore doth he so often say that we receive Christ in baptism, And when he hath spoken of the receiving of him in the holy communion, by and by he speaketh of the receiving of him in baptism,. without declaring any diversity of his presence in the one from his presence in the other. He saith also in many places, that “ We ascend into heaven, and do eat aa po pulum ae ta Antioche Christ sitting there above.” And where St Chrysostom and other authors do tum. Hom. 61. et in Jo- speak of ae wonderful operation of God in his sacraments, passing all man’s hannem. om. 45. wit, senses, and reason, they mean not of the working of God in the water, 191, bread, and wine, but of the marvellous working of God in the hearts of them that receive the sacraments ; secretly, inwardly, and spiritually transforming them, re- newing, feeding, comforting, and nourishing them with his flesh and blood, through his most holy Spirit, the same flesh and blood still remaining in heaven. Thus is this place of Chrysostom sufficiently answered unto. And if any man require any more, then let him look what is recited of the same author before, in the matter of transubstantiation. pnpa perappuOuiver Td TpoKeipeva. Kai kabarep | TpdweCav év Tais éxxAnoias, &€ éxelvov péexpe n pwn éexeivn 7 eyousa, Avfdveabe, Kat 7)n- | oijmepov, Kal pméxpl THS abToOU Tapovcias, Tv Oivecbe, Kai mAnpdcare Tiv YA, &ppebn pev amak, | Ovoiay amnpticpéevny épyaterat. — Chrysostom. 61a TavTos 6& TOU Xpevou yiverat épyw évdvvapovca | de Proditione Jude, Hom. i. Tom. IT. p. 384. Ed. THY pow THY nmerépav mTpos Tatorotiav’ otw | Bened.] kai n pwvn aitn dat exOeica Kal? Exdornv [° For their purpose, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] Chrysostom. Chrysost. de Sacer. Lib. iii. An issue. In Joan. Tractat. 26. 192. Christ is verily and truly present and received. 184 THE THIRD BOOK. WINCHESTER. This author noteth in Chrysostom two places, and bringeth them forth: and in handling the first place, declareth himself to trifle in so great a matter, evidently to his own reproof. For where, in the second book of his work, entreating transubstantiation, he would the same words of Chrysostom, by this form of speech in the negative, should not deny precisely; and when Chrysostom saith, “Do not think that you by man receive the body of God, but that we should not consider man in the receiving of it;” here this author doth allege these words, and reasoneth of them as though they were terms of mere denial. But I would ask of this author this question: If Chrysostom’s faith had been, that we receive not the body of God in the sacrament verily, why should he use words idly to entreat of whom we received the body of God, which after this author's doctrine we receive not at all, but in figure; and no body at all, which is of Christ's humanity, being Christ, as this author teacheth, spiritually, that is, by his divine nature in him only that worthily receiveth, and in the very sacrament, as he con- cludeth in this book, only figuratively. Turn back, reader, to the thirty-sixth leaf in the author's book, and read it with this, and so consider upon what principle here is made an ergo. I will answer that place when I speak of transubstantiation, which shall be after answered to the third and fourth book, as the natural order of the matter requireth. The second place of Chrysostom that this author bringeth forth, he granteth it sowndeth much against him, and favoureth his adversaries, but with conferring and considering he trusteth to alter it from the true understanding. And not to expound, but confound the matter, he joineth in speech the sacrament of baptism with this sacrament, (which shift this author used untruly in Hilary,) and would now bear in hand, that the presence of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrament than in baptism, which is not so; for in this sa- crament Christ's humanity and Godhead is really present, and in baptism his Godhead with the effectual virtue of his blood, in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any real presence thereof for dispensation of that mystery, as I have before touched discussing the answer to Emissene!; whereas Chrysostom speaking of this sacrament, whereof I have be- fore spoken, and Melancthon alleging it to CGicolampadius, saith thus: “ The great miracle and great benevolence of Christ is, that he sitteth above with his Father, and is the same hour in our hands here to be embraced of us.” And therefore, where this author would note the wonder of God's work in the sacrament to be wonderful for the work and effect in man, this is one piece of truth; but in the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, the old fathers wonder at the work in the sacrament, how bread is changed into the body of Christ, how Christ sitting in heaven, God and man, is also man and God in the sacrament, and being worthily received, dwelleth in such carnally and naturally, as Hilary saith, and corporally, as Cyril saith. How this can be no man can tell, no faithful man should ask ; and yet it is the true catholic faith to be truly so wrought. For, as Emissene saith: “he that is the author of it, he is the witness of it.” And therefore I will make it an issue with this author, that the old fathers, speaking of the wonderful operation of God in this sacrament, refer it not only to the virtue and effect of this sacrament, nor to the virtue specially, but chiefly to the operation of God in the substance of this sacrament, and the sacrament self; for such a difference St Augustine maketh, saying: Aliud est sacramentum, aliud yirtus sacramenti, “ The sacrament is one, the virtue of the sacrament is another.” Finally, in answering to Chrysostom, this author doth nothing but spend words in vain, to the more plain declaration of his own ignorance, or worse. CANTERBURY. As concerning Chrysostom, you have spent so many taunting and scornful words in waste, without cause, that I need to waste no words here at all to make you answer: but refer the reader to my book, the twenty-fifth leaf and thirty-sixth leaf, and to the thirty-second, thirty-third, and thirty-fourth leaf, where the reader shall find all that is here spoken fully answered unto’. But always you be like yourself, proceeding in amplification of an argument against me, which you have forged yourself, and charge me therewith untruly. For I use not this speech, that we receive not the body of God at all, that we receive it but in a figure. For it is my constant faith and belief, that we receive Christ in the sacra- [} Of Emissene, Orig. ed. Winch. } second book ‘¢ Of the Error of Transubstantiation,”” [2 All these references are to passages in the | as well as those alluded to above by Winchester. | OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 185 ment verily and truly; and this is plainly taught and set forth in my book. But that “verily” as I with Chrysostom and all the old authors take it, is not of such a sort as you would have it. For your understanding of “verily” is so Capernaical, so gross, and so dull in the perceiving of this mystery, that you think a man cannot re- ceive the body of Christ verily, unless he take him corporally in his corporal mouth, flesh, blood, and bones, as he was born of the virgin Mary. But it is certain, that Chrysostom meant not, that we receive Christ’s body verily after such a sort, when he saith, “Do not think that you receive by a man the body of God.” And yet, because I deny only this gross understanding, you misreport my doctrine, that I should say, we “receive not Christ at all, but in a figure, and no body at all:” wherein you untruly and slanderously report me, as my whole book and doctrine can witness against you. For my doctrine is, that the very body of Christ, which was born of the virgin Mary, and suffered for our sins, giving us life by his death, the same Jesus, as con- cerning his corporal presence, is taken from us, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father; and yet is he by faith spiritually present with us, and is our spiritual food and nourishment, and sitteth in the midst of all them that be gathered together in his name. And this feeding is a spiritual feeding, and an heavenly feeding, far pass- ing all corporal and carnal feeding; and therefore there is a true presence and a true feeding in deed, and not “in a figure only, or not at all,” as you most untruly report my saying to be. This is the true understanding of the true presence, receiving and feeding upon the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, and not, as you deprave the meaning and true sense thereof, that the receiving of Christ truly and verily is the receiving corporally with the mouth corporal’, or that the spiritual receiving is to re- ceive Christ only by his divine nature, which thing I never said nor meant. Turn, I pray thee, gentle reader, to the thirty-sixth leaf of my book, and note these words there, which I allege out of Chrysostom. “Do not think,” saith he, “that you receive by a man the body of God.” Then turn over the leaf, and in the twentieth line, note again my saying that, “in the holy communion Christ himself is spiritually eaten and drunken, and nourisheth the right believers.” Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignorant lawyer, and thou shalt evidently perceive, that either he will not, or cannot, or at the least he doth not understand what is meant in the book of common prayer, and in my book also, by the receiving and feeding upon Christ spiritually. But it is no marvel, that Nicodemus and the Capernaites understand not Christ, before they be born anew, and forsaking their papistical leaven, have learned another lesson of the Spirit of God, than flesh and blood can teach them. Much talk the pa- pists make about this belief, that we must believe and have a stedfast faith, that Christ’s body is corporally there, where the visible forms of bread and wine be: of which belief is no mention made in the whole scripture, which teacheth us to believe and profess, that Christ (as concerning his bodily presence) hath forsaken the world, and is ascended into heaven, and shall not come again until the restitution of all things that be spoken of by prophets. But whereas, in the feeding upon Christ's body and drinking of his blood, there is no mouth and teeth can serve, but only the inward and spiritual mouth of faith, there the papists keep silence like monks, and speak very little. And the cause why, is flesh and blood, which so blindeth all the Nicodemes and Capernaites, that they cannot understand what is spiritual nativity, spiritual circumcision, spiritual hunger and thirst, and spiritual eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ: but they hang all together so in the letter, that they cannot enter into the kingdom of the spirit; which knowledge if that you had, you should soon perceive upon what principle my ergo were made. And where you pervert the order of the books, setting the cart before the horse, that is to say, the third and fourth book before the second, saying that the natural order of the matter so requireth, here the reader may note an evident mark of all subtle papists, which is under the pretence and colour of order to break that order, whereby the falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected, and the truth brought to light. For when they perceive a window open, whereby the light may shine in, and the [* Corporal mouth, 1551.] Verily. 193. The order of the book. 194. Chrysosto- mus. August. ad Dard. August. ad ard. Wherein is the miracle. The answer to fheophiulus in Mar. xiv. 186 THE THIRD BOOK. truth appear, then they busily go about to shut that window, and to draw the reader from that place to some mystical and obscure matter where more darkness is, and less light can be seen. And when, besides the darkness of the matter, they have by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist over the reader’s eyes, that he is become blind, then dare they make him judge, be the matter never so untrue. And no marvel, for he is now become so blindfold and subject unto them, that he must say whatsoever they bid him, be it never so much repugnant to the evident truth. In such sort it is in the matter of the sacrament. For the papists perceiving that their error should easily be espied, if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined, the plain words of the scripture, the consent of ancient writers, the articles of our faith, the nature of a sacrament, reason, and all senses making so evidently against it, there- fore none of the subtle papists will be glad to talk of transubstantiation, but they will always bear men in hand, that other matters must first be examined, as the late bishop doth here in this place. Now, in the second place of Chrysostom, where you say, that “in this sacrament Christ’s humanity and Godhead is really present, and in baptism his Godhead with the effectual virtue of his blood, in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any real presence thereof for the dispensation of that mystery,” in this matter I have joined an issue with you before in the answer unto Origen, which shall suffice for answer here also. And where St John Chrysostom speaketh of “the great miracle of Christ, that he sitteth above with his Father, and is the same hour here with us in our hands,” truth it is, that Christ sitteth above with his Father in his natural body, triumphant in glory, and yet is the same hour in our hands sacramentally, and present in our hearts by grace and spiritual nourishment. But that we should not think, that he is cor- porally here with us, St Augustine’ giveth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum, say- ing: Cavendum est ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis aufera- mus: ‘“*We must foresee that we do not so affirm the divinity of him that is man, that we should thereby take away the truth of his body.” And forasmuch as it is against the nature and truth of a natural body to be in two places at one time, therefore you seem to speak against the truth of Christ’s natural body, when you teach that his body is in heaven naturally, and also naturally m the sacrament. For whosoever affirmeth that Christ’s body is in sundry places as his Godhead is, seemeth to deify Christ's body by St Augustine’s rule. But hke as it is not to be thought, that Quicquid est in Deo, est putandum ubique ut Deus, “that whatsoever is in God, is every where as God is;’ so must we not think that his body may be at one time every where, where his Godhead is. But Chnist is, saith Augustine, Ubique per id quod est Deus, in caelo autem per id quod est homo; “ Every where in that he is God, but in heaven in that he is man.” Wherefore his presence here of his body must be a sacramental presence; and the presence of his divinity, of his grace, of his truth, of his majesty and power, is real and effectual in many places, according to his word. Now, as concerning your issue, I refuse it not, but say, that the great miracle whereat the: Jews wondered, and which our Saviour Christ meant, and the old fathers speak of, is of the eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood, and how by flesh and blood we have everlasting life. Now, if you can bring good testimony for you, that the sacrament eateth Christ’s flesh and drinketh his blood, and that it shall live for ever, which never had life, and that God’s operation and work is more in dumb creatures than in man, then I must needs and will confess the issue to pass with you. And when I hear your testimonies, I shall make answer; but before I hear them, I should do nothing else but spend words in vain, and beat the wind to no purpose. Now hear what I have answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus. Yet furthermore, they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus, who, as they allege, saith thus’: ‘ Christ giving thanks, did break, which also we do, [: August. ad Dardanum. Pars vit. cap. ili,iv. | Aace tov adptov. brep Kai rpeis ToLovper, ebyas Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506. ] | émiNéyoutes, TOUTS EcTL TO GHMad Lov, ToOUTO 6 [? Bvdoynoas 6&, dvti Tov ebyxaptotijcas, Ex- | viv NaufdveTe. oF yap ayTituTOS Tov KupLaKoU OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 187 adding thereto prayer. And he gave unto them, saying, ‘ Take, this is my body ;’ this that I do now give, and that which ye now do take. For the bread is not a figure only of Christ’s body, but it is changed into the very body of Christ. For Christ saith: ‘The bread which I will give you is my flesh.’ Jonn vi. Nevertheless the flesh of Christ is not seen for our weakness, but bread and wine are familiar unto us. And surely if we should visibly see flesh and blood, we could not abide it. And therefore our Lord, bearing with our weakness, doth retain and keep the form and appearance of bread and wine, but he doth turn the very bread and wine into the very flesh and blood of Christ.” These be the words which the papists do cite out of Theophilus upon the 195. gospel of St Mark. But by this one place it appeareth evidently, either how negligent the papists be in searching out and examining the sayings of the authors, which they allege for their purpose, or else how false and deceitful they be, which willingly and wittingly have made in this one place, and as it were with one breath, two loud and shameful lies. The first is, that because they would give the more authority to the words by them alleged, they (like false apothecaries that sell quid pro quo) falsify the author’s name, fathering such sayings upon Theophilus Alexandrinus*, an old and ancient author, which were indeed none of his words, but were the words of Theophylactus, who was many years after Theophilus Alexandrinus. But such hath ever been the papistical subtilties, to set forth their own inventions, dreams, and lies, under the name of antiquity and ancient authors. The second lie or falsehood is, that they falsify the author’s words and meaning, subverting the truth of his doctrine. For where Theophylactus, (accord- ing to the catholic doctrine of ancient authors,) saith, that “ almighty God, condescending to our infirmity, reserveth the kind of bread and wine, and yet turneth them into the virtue of Christ’s flesh and blood ;” they say, that “he reserveth the forms and appearances of bread and wine, and turneth them into the verity of his flesh and blood ;” so turning and altering kinds into forms and appearances, and virtue into verity, that of the virtue of the flesh and blood they make the verity of his flesh and blood. And thus they have falsified as well the name as the words of Theophylactus, turnmg verity into plain and flat falsity. But to set forth plainly the meaning of Theophylactus in this matter. As hot and burning iron is iron still, and yet hath the force of fire; and as the flesh of Christ still remaining flesh giveth life as the flesh of him that is God; so the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their proper kinds, and yet to them that worthily eat and drink them they be turned not into the corporal presence, but into the virtue of Christ’s flesh and blood. And although Theophylactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ, and the drinking of his very blood, (and not only‘ of the figures of them,) and of the cohversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; yet he meaneth not of a gross, carnal, corporal and sensible conversion of the bread cwpatos eat 6 apTos* ad’ els aitd éxetvo | AdvOpwaos Td pév Eldos dpToU Kal olvov cpuddT- petapadd\eTat TO copa tov Xpictov. Kal 6 | Tet, els dbvamw 6& capKds Kal alywaros peta- Kipwos yap héyer" 6 dptos bv éyw dwow, 1 capE | ororyerot.—Theoph. in Marcum, cap. xiv. Tom. I. pou cotiv. obK eimev, avtitumds éott THs capKds | p. 249. Ed. Venet. 1754.] pou, aX’ 4) cap— pov éorim—kai ras dyolv, ob {* Theophilus was Patriarch of Alexandria, a.p. yap cépE xaboparar; did tiv ijuerépav, & dv- | 385. Theophylact was Archbishop of Bulgaria, a.p. Ypwre, dobeveiav. émeidn yap 6 piv dptos xai | 1071. His Commentaries on the Gospels were ge- & olvos cuj)n piv, alwa 6& mpoxeiuevov Kai | nerally supposed to be compiled from Chrysostom Tapka opwvTes, OK dy rjvéyKapev, dN’ drevap- | and other of the fathers. Vid. Cave Hist. Lit. &c.] Knoapev, dla TOVTO ouvyYKaTaBaivwy rpiv 6 di- [* One, 1551; Orig. ed. reads with ed. 1580. ] 188 THE THIRD BOOK. and wine, nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, (for so not only our stomachs would yearn, and our hearts abhor to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, but also such eating and drinking could nothing profit or avail us ;) but he spake of the celestial and spiritual eating of Christ, and of a sacra- mental conversion of the bread, calling the bread not only a figure, but also the body of Christ, giving us by these words! to understand, that in the sacrament we do not only eat corporally the bread, (which is a sacrament and figure of Christ’s body,) but spiritually we eat also his very body, and drink his very blood. And this doctrine of Theophylactus is both true, godly and comfortable. WINCHESTER. 196. Now followeth, as it is entitled, Theophylact, being the words in deed not of Theophylact, Theophylact. a5 he writeth upon Mark, and therefore they were not alleged as his words, but as the words of Theophilus Alexandrinus, wherein this author traverseth a falsehood on the alleger’s part to wrong name the author. In which allegation, I say, if there be a fault, as I know none, it is no lie, but a probable error for a man to believe another better learned than himself; and as I found it alleged I reported it again, so as having mine author learned whom I followed, I am discharged of malice, being the author such whom I followed, as might pos- sibly have had such a work of Theophilus, containing those words as theu be alleged, the negative whereof how this author should prove I cannot tebl, because of the common saying, Bernardus non vidit omnia; and therefore, there may be a Theophilus Alexandrinus having these words alleged in their form, for any demonstration this author can make to the con- trary. Whether there be or no any such to be shewed, it is not material, being so many testi- monies besides. As for Theophylact's words, I grant they be not, for he wrote his mind more plainly in another place of his works, as I shall hereafter shew, and by the way make Anisue. an issue with this author, that no catholic writer among the Greeks hath more plainly set forth the truth of the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, than Theophylact hath; as shall *Theophy- appear by and by, after I have noted to the reader this, how Cicolampadius of Germany, act transiat- about a two year before he impugned the truth of Christ's presence in the sacrament, he lampadius. translated out of Greek into Latin the works of the said Theophylact, and gave the Latin church thereby some weapon wherewith to destroy his wicked folly a ard, not unlike the chance in this author, translating into English, two years by-past, the catechism of Germany: and as (Ecolampadius hath since his folly or madness against the sacrament confessed, (as appeareth,) that he did translate Theophylact, so as we need not doubt of it; so this author hath now in this work confessed the translation of the catechism, which one in communication would needs have made me believe had been his man’s doing, and not his. Hear now, reader, how plainly Theophylact speaketh upon the Gospel of St John, expounding the sixth chapter: *Theophy- “Take heed that the bread which is eaten of us in the mysteries, is not only a certain tacts words. owration of the flesh of our Lord, but the flesh itself of our Lord; for he said not, The bread which I shall give is the figure of my flesh, but it is my flesh. For that bread, by the mystical benediction, is transformed by the mystical words and presence of the Holy Ghost into the flesh of our Lord. And it should trouble no man, that the bread is to be believed flesh: for whilst our Lord walked in flesh and received nourishment of bread, that bread he did eat was changed into his body, and was made like to his holy flesh; and as it is customably in man’s feeding served to the sustentation and increase of it, therefore the [! Giving us those words, Orig. ed. Giving us | spocteyévov, 6 dptos Excivos 0 Eabiouevos els coma by those words, 1841. } | aitou peteBadXeTo, Kal cuveEwpoiovto TH ayia [® Ilpecxes o€ brt 6 GpTos 6 ev Tots uaTnpiots | avTOU capkKi, Kai cis a’Enow Kat GUoTacW cuvE- ig’ rjpav écbidpevos obK avtituToy Eott THs TOU | Kupiov capxés, aN’ auti 9 Tou Kupiou cape. | eis cadpKa Tov Kupiov petaBddXeTat. Kai Tas ob yap elev, OTL O apTos ov éyw Cwow, advti- | pow, odxyi kai cadpE paivetat jptv, aX’ aptos; curoy éoTt THS capKés pou, GAN yf capE pov | dia TO py Muas andi{ectar mpds THY Ppwow. ei éori. peTamoitat yap aroppntois oyots 6 | pév yap capE Edaiveto, andas av dtexcineba pos aptos ovTos Git THs pUoTLKTS evAoyias, Kat emt THY perahyyty, vov 6é o imerépa doBeveia ovy- poitncews Tou ayiov TvEvpaTos, eis capKa TOU xarraBaivovros Tov Kupiov ToLabTn paiverat sipty Kupiov. Kai pj twa Opocitw 76 Tov pTov capka | 7 puoTiKy Bpwots, ola eoriv 1 cuvylns nutv.— mistevectat, Kai yap ToL Kat év capxi mepima- | Theoph. in Joannem. cap. Vi. Tom. I. p. 594. zouvtos Tou Kupiov, kai tv €€ dptov tpopyy | Ed. Venet. 1754.] r Ninh s vat oh a ee aces BadXeT0 kata T6 avbpwrivov Kai vuy ody Oo aptos OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 189 bread now also is changed into the flesh of our Lord. And how is it then that it ap- peareth not flesh but bread? That we should not loathe the eating of it; for if flesh did appear, we should be unpleasantly disposed to the communion of it. Now our Lord conde- scending to our infirmity, the mystical meat appeareth such to us, as those we have been accustomed unto.” Hitherto I have faithfully expressed Theophylacts words out of Latin of Ecolampadius’ translation, without terming the substantial points otherwise than the words purport in Latin. By which may appear what was Theophylacts meaning, what doctrine he giveth of the sacrament, and how his own words upon St Mark be to be understanded, when he saith, Speciem quidem panis et vini servat, in virtutem autem carnis et sanguinis (rheophy- transelementat: in corrupting of which words this author maketh a great matter, when they Wineny os were not alleged for his; but as they be his, servare speciem may be well translate “ form and appearance,” because upon St John, before alleged, he saith of the bread, “it appeareth.” And as for these words, “the virtue of Christ's flesh and blood,” must be wunderstanded to agree with the plain place of Theophylact upon St John, and upon St Mark also, to signify not only virtue, but verity of the flesh and blood of Christ. For if Theophylact by that speech meant “the virtue of the body of Christ,’ and not the “verity of the very body,” as this author saith he did, why should Theophylact, both wpon St Mark, and also upon St John, ask this question, “Why doth not the flesh appear?” if himself by those words should teach there were only present the virtue of the flesh; who, and he had meant so, would not have asked the question ; 198. or if he had, would have answered it thus accordingly, “ There is no flesh in deed, but the virtue of the flesh,” and that had been a plain answer and such as he would have made. This author will ask then, Why doth Theophylact use this phrase to say, “changed into the virtue of the body of Christ?” Hereunto I answer, that this word “virtue” in phrase of speech many times only filleth the speech, and is comprehended in the signification of his genitive following; and therefore, as Luke in the twenty-second chapter saith, a dextris yirtutis Dei, | so in the Acts in the same sentence* is spoken a dextris Dei, both out of one pen; and a dextris yirtutis Dei 7s no more to say than a dextris Dei; and so is yirtutem carnis et sanguinis no more to say but in carnem et sanguinem, which sentence the same Theophylact hath wpon St John before alleged, in this saying, “ The bread is changed into flesh;” and in Mark in this phrase, “into the virtue of flesh,” being like these speeches, a dextris Dei, and a dextris virtutis | Dei. Which and it had liked this author to have considered, he should have taken Theophylact’s speech as Theophylact understandeth himself, and said the words alleged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus were not Theophylacts words, and then he had said for so much ) true, (which would do well among,) and the words be not indeed Theophylact s words, nor were not alleged for his. Now when this author saith, “they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus’s words ;” that is a large negative, and will be hardly proved otherwise than by addition of the author's knowledge for any thing that he can find, and so there shall be no absurdity to grant it. And thus I return to mine issue with this author, that Theophylact himself hath no such meaning expressed in words as this author attributed* unto him, but an evident contrary meaning, saving herein I will agree with this author, that Theophylact meant not “ grossly,” “sensibly,” and “carnally,” as these words sound in carnal men’s judgments. For we may not so think of God’s mysteries, the work whereof is not carnal nor corporal, for the manner of it; but the manner spiritual, and yet in the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, because Christ is in his very true flesh present, he may be said so carnally present, and naturally, after Hilary, and corporally, after Cyril ; *carnaity, understanding the words of the truth of that is present, Christ's very body and flesh, and DST eorporally. 5 ° Oboes : : a aaieo * Manner, not of the manner of the presence, which is only spiritual, supernatural, and above man’s oalvingiiie capacity: and therefore a high mystery, a great miracle, a wonderful work, which it is *V- wholesome to believe simply with a sincere faith, and dangerous to search and examine with @ curious imagination, such as idleness and arrogancy would tempt a man unto, and by devising of a figure or metaphor bring it within the compass of our busy reason. CANTERBURY. This is a pretty sleight of you to pass over the author's name, saying that you found it so alleged in an author, and tell not in what author. There is surely some _ hid mystery in this matter, that you would not have his name known. For if you had _ found any approved author who had fathered these words upon Theophilus Alexandrinus, (® In the Acts the same sentence, Orig. ed. Winch, ] [* Attributeth, Orig. ed. Winch. | 190 THE THIRD BOOK. I doubt not but I should have heard him here named, it should have served so much for your purpose. For to what purpose should you conceal his name, if you had any such author? But shall I open the mystery of this matter? Shall I by conjectures tell the author which you followed, as you by conjecture gathered of him the name *Thomasin of Theophilus? Thomas de Aquino, in his Catena Aurea, citeth the words by you eatena aurea. : c . . . * alleged in these letters, “Theoph.” ; which letters be indifferent, as well to Theophilus as to Theophylact’s, so that you might have christened the child whether you would 198. by the name of Theophilus or of Theophylactus. And because Theophilus was a more ancient author, and of more learning and estimation than was Theophylact, therefore the name pleased you better, to give more credit to your sayings, and so of “ Theoph.” you made the whole name “ Theophilus.” And because one Theophilus was a bishop of Alexandria, you added as it were his surname, calling him ‘“ Theophilus Alexan- drinus.” And if Thomas was not the author which you followed in this matter, srusher, peradventure it might be doctor Fisher, sometime bishop of Rochester, who, writing ‘in the same matter that you do, was, or would be deceived as you be. But what author soever you followed, you shall not honestly shake off this matter, except you tell his name. For else I will say that you be fain to bring in for you feigned authors, whispered in corners. And yet, that Theophilus wrote not the words al- leged upon Mark, this is no small proof,—that Theophylact hath the same sentences, word by word, and that neither St Hierome, Gennadius, Eusebius, Trithemius, nor any other that ever wrote hitherto, made ever any mention that Theophilus wrote upon the gospel of St Mark. And as concerning your issue, thus much I grant without issue, that no catholic writer among the Greeks hath more plainly spoken for you than Theophylact hath ; and yet when that shall be well examined, it is nothing at all, as I have plainly de- clared, shewing your untruth as well in allegation of the author's words, as in falsi- fying his name. The cate- And as for “the catechism of Germany” by me translated into English, to this I ait have answered before; and truth it is, that either you understand not the phrase of the old authors of the church, or else of purpose you will not understand me. But hereunto you shall have a more full answer when I come to the proper place thereof, in the fourth part of my book. And as concerning the words of Theophylact upon the gospel of John, he speaketh to one effect, and useth much like terms upon the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, whereunto I have sufficiently answered in my former book. And because the answer may be the more present, I shall rehearse some of my words here again. “ Although,” said I, “ Theophylactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ, and the drinking of his very blood, and not only of the figures of them, and of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, yet he meaneth not of a gross, carnal, corporal, and sensible conversion of the bread:and wine, nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, (for so not only our stomachs would yearn, and our bearts abhor to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, but also such eating and drinking could nothing profit and avail us;) but he spake of the celestial and spiritual eating of Christ, and of a sacramental conversion of the bread, calling the bread not only a figure, but also the body of Christ; giving us by those words to understand, that in the sacrament we do not only eat corporally the bread, (which is a sacrament and figure of Christ’s body,) but spiritually we eat also his very body, and drink his very blood. And this doctrine of Theophylactus is both true, godly, and comfortable.” This I wrote in my former book, which is sufficient to answer unto all that you have here spoken. 199, And as concerning the bread that Christ did eat and feed upon, it was naturally eaten, as other men eat, naturally changed, and caused a natural nourishment, and yet the very matter of the bread remained, although in another form; but in them that duly receive and eat the Lord’s holy supper all is spiritual, as well the eating as the change and nourishment, which is none impediment to the nature of bread, but that it may still remain. Species for And where you come to the translation of this word species, to signify “ appearance,” appearance. OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 191 this is a wonderful kind of translation, to translate specie in “appearance,” because apparet is truly translated “appeareth:” with like reason awrwm might be translated “meat,” because edere signifieth ‘to eat.” And your other translation is no less wonderful, where you turn the “virtue” of Christ’s body into the “verity.” And yet to cloak your folly therein, and to cast a mist before the reader's eyes, that he should not see your untruth therein, you say that by “virtue” in that place must be understanded “verity.” First, whatsoever be understand by the word “virtue,” your faith in translation is broken, For the sense being ambiguous, you ought in translation to have kept the word as it is, leaving the sense to be expended by the indifferent reader, and not by altering the word to make such a sense as please you; which is so foul a fault in a translator, that if (EZcolampadius had so done, he should have been called a man faulty and guilty, a corrupter, a deceiver, an abuser of other men, a perverter, a depraver, and a man without faith: as he might> be called that would translate cerbum caro factum est, “the second person became man;’ which although it be true in meaning, yet it is not true in translation, nor declareth the faith of the translator. But now as your translation is untrue, so is the meaning also untrue and unex- cusable. For what man is so far destitute of all his senses, that he knoweth not a difference between the verity of Christ’s body and the virtue thereof? Who can pretend ignorance in so manifest a thing? Doth not all men know, that of every thing the virtue is one, and the substance another ?—except in God only, who is of that simplicity without multiplication of anything in him, or diversity, that his virtue, his power, his wisdom, his justice, and all that is said to be in him, be neither qualities nor accidents, but all one thing with his very substance. And neither the right hand of God, nor the virtue of God, (which you bring for an example, and serveth to no purpose, but to blind the ignorant reader,) be any thing else but the very substance of God, (although in diversity of respects and considerations they have diversity of names,) except you will divide the most single substance of God into corporal parts and members, following the error of the Anthropomorphites. But the like is not in the body of Christ, which hath distinction of integral parts, and the virtue also, and qualities distinct from the substance. And yet, if the example were like, he should be an evil translator, or rather a corrupter, that for a dectris virtutis Dei would translate a deatris Dei, or contrariwise. And therefore all translators in those places follow the words as they be, and be not so arrogant to alter one title in them, thereby to make them one in words, although the thing in substance be one. For words had not their signification of the substances, or of things only, but of the qualities, manners, respects, and considerations. And so may one word signify divers things, and one thing be signified by divers words. And therefore he that should for one word take another, because they be both re- ferred to one substance, as you have done in this place, should make a goodly piece of work of it; not much unlike to him that should burn his house, and say he made it, because the making and burning was both in one matter and substance. It is much pity that you have not bestowed your time in translation of good authors, that can skill so well of translation, to make speciem to signify appearance, and that take virtue sometime for verity, and sometime for nothing; and a dextris virtutis Dei to signify no more but a dextris Dei, and virtutem carnis to signify no: more but carnem, and virtutem sanguinis, sanguinem. And why not? seeing that such words signify ad placitum, that is to say, as please you to translate them. And it seemeth to be a strange thing, that you have so quick an eye to espy other men’s faults, and cannot see in Theophylact his plain answer, but to take upon you to teach him to answer. For when he asketh the question, “Why doth not the flesh appear?” he should have answered, say you, “that the flesh is not there in deed, but the virtue of the flesh :’ I pray you, doth not he answer plainly the same in effect ? Ts not his answer to that question this, as you confess yourself, “that the forms of bread and wine be changed into the virtue of the body of Christ?” And what would you require more? Is not this as much to say, as the virtue of the flesh is there, but not the substance corporally and carnally ? And yet another third error is committed in the same sentence, because one sen- Verity for virtue. A dextris Dei. A dextris vir- tutis Dei. 200. 192 THE THIRD BOOK. tence should not be without three errors at the least in your translation. For whereas Theophylact hath but one accusative case, you put thereto other two more of your own head. And as you once taught Bares‘, so now you would make Theophylact your scholar, to say what you would have him. But that the truth may appear, what Theophylact said, I shall rehearse his own words in Greek ; cvyxataBaivev ypyiv 6 pidav- Opwros TO kev E1008 apTou kal owov duvdarte, els dvvapw be capKos Kal aiyaTtos peTa- erovxevot; which words translated into Latin be these: Condescendens nobis benignus Deus speciem quidem panis et vini servat, in potestatem autem carnis et sanguinis trans- elementat. And in English they be thus much to say: “The merciful God, conde- scending to our infirmity, conserveth still the kind of bread and wine, but turneth them into the virtue of his flesh and blood.” To this sentence you do add of your own authority these words “the bread and wine,” which words Theophylact hath not, which is an untrue part of him that pretendeth to be a true interpreter. And by adding those words, you alter clearly the author’s meaning. For where the author’s meaning was, that we should abhor to eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood in their proper form and kind, yet Almighty God hath ordained that in his holy supper we should receive the forms and kinds of bread and wine, and that those kinds should be turned (unto them that worthily receive the same) into the virtue and effect of 201. Christ’s very flesh and blood, although they remain still in the same kind and form of bread and wine. And so by him the nature and kind of bread and wine remain ; and yet the same be turned into the virtue of flesh and blood. So that the word “forms” is the accusative case, as well to the verb turneth, as to the verb conserveth : but you, to make Theophylact serve your purpose, add of your own head two other accusative cases, that is to say, “bread and wine,” besides Theophylact’s words ; wherein all men may consider how little you regard the truth, that to maintain your untrue doctrine once devised by yourselves, care not what untruth you use besides to corrupt all doctors, making so many faults in translation of one sentence. ? And if the words alleged upon Mark were not Theophylact’s words, but the words of Theophilus Alexandrinus, as you say, at the least Theophylact must borrow them of Theophilus, because the words be all one, sixteen lines together, saving this word “verity,” which Theophylact tumeth into “virtue.” And then it is to be thought that he would not alter that word, (wherein all the contention standeth,) without some con- sideration. And specially when Theophilus speaketh of the verity of Christ’s body, as you say, if Theophylact had thought the body had been there, would he have refused the word, and changed verity into virtue, bringing his own faith into suspi- cion, and giving occasion of error unto other? And where, to excuse your error in translation, you say that the words by you alleged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus be not Theophylact’s words, and I deny that they be Theophilus’ words; so then be they nobody’s words, which is no detriment to my cause at all, because I took him for none of my witness; but it is in a manner a clear overthrow of your cause, which take him for your chief and principal witness, saying “that no catholic writer among the Greeks hath more plainly set forth the truth of the presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament than Theophy- lactus hath,” and hereupon you make your issue. And yet have I a good cause to call them Theophylact’s words, forasmuch as I find them in his works printed abroad, saving one word which you have untruly corrupted, because that word pleaseth you not. And yet am I not bound to admit that your witness is named Theophilus, except you have better proofs thereof than this, that one saith he hath him in a corner, and so allegeth him. It is your part to prove your own witness, and not my part that stand herein only at defence. And yet to every indifferent man I have shewed sufficient matter to reject him. Hear now my answer to St Hierome. Besides this, our adversaries do allege St Hierome’ upon the epistle ad Titum, The answerto Hieronymus super epistol. aie ae [) Vide Burnet’s Hist. of the Reformation, Vol.1. | inter imaginem et veritatem, inter exemplaria futu- p- 592. Oxtord, 1824, and Foxe’s Acts and Monu- | rorum, et ea ipsa que per exemplaria prefiguraban- ments, Vol. 11. p. 625. Lond. 1631.] tur. Jerom. Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, cap. i. {2 ‘Lantum interest inter propositionis panes et | 8,9. Tom. IX. p. 19). Ed. Francof. 1U84.] corpus Christi, quantum inter umbram et corpora, — OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 193 that there is as great difference between the loaves called panes propositionis, and the body of Christ, as there is between the shadow® of a body and the body itself; and as there is between an image and the thing itself, and between an example of things to come and the things that be prefigured by them. These words of St Hierome, truly understand, serve nothing for the intent of the papists. For he meant that the shew-bread of the law was but a dark shadow of Christ to come; but the sacrament of Christ’s body is a clear testi- mony that Christ is already come, and that he hath performed that which was promised, and doth presently comfort and feed us spiritually with his precious body and blood, notwithstanding that corporally he is ascended into heaven. WINCHESTER, This author travaileth to answer St Hierome, and to make him the easier for him to deal with, he cutteth off that followeth in the same St Hierome, which should make the matter open and manifest, how effectually St Hierome speaketh of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood. “ There is,” saith St Hierome, “as great difference between the loaves called panes propositionis, and the body of Christ, as there is between the shadow of a body and the body itself; and as there is between an image and the true thing itself, and between an example of things to come and the things that be prefigured by them. Therefore as meekness, patience, sobriety, mode- ration, abstinence of gain, hospitality also, and liberality should be chiefly in a bishop, and among all laymen an excellency in them; so there should be in him a special chastity, and as I should say, chastity that is priestly, that he should not only abstain from wnclean4 work, but also from the cast of his eye, and his mind free from error of thought, that should make the body of Christ®.” These be St Hierome’s words in this places By the latter part whereof’ appeareth plainly how St Hierome meaneth of Christ's body in the sacrament, of which the loaves that were panes propositionis were a shadow, as St Hierome saith; that bread being “the image, and this the truth,” that “the example, and this that was prefigured.” So as if Christ's body in the sacrament should be there but figuratively, as this author teacheth, then were the bread of proposition figure of a figure, and shadow of a shadow, which is over great an absurdity in our religion. Therefore there cannot be a more plain proof to shew, that by St Hierome’s mind Christ's body is verily in the sacrament and not figuratively only, than when he noteth panes propositionis to be the figure and the shadow of Christ’s body in the sacrament. For, as Tertullian® saith, figura non esset, nisi veritatis esset corpus: “ The other were not to be called a figure, if that? answered unto it, were not of truth,” which is the sense of Tertullian’s words. And therefore St Hierome could with no other words have expressed his mind so certainly and plainly, as with these, to confess the truth of Christ's body in the sacrament. And therefore regard not, reader, what this author saith: for St Hierome afirmeth plainly Christ's true body to be in the sacrament, the consecration whereof although St Hierome attributeth to the minster, yet we must understand him, that he taketh God for the author and worker, notwithstanding by reason of the ministry in the church the doing is ascribed to man as minister, because Christ said, Hoe facite, after which speech salvation, remission of sin, and the work in other sacraments is attribute to the minister, being nevertheless the same the proper and special works of God. And this I add, because some be unjustly offended to hear that man should make the body of Christ. And this author findeth fault before at the word “making,” which religiously heard and reverently spoken should offend no man; for man is but a minister, wherein he should not glory. And Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread, nor maketh himself so oft of bread a new body; but sitting in heaven doth, as owr invisible priest, work in the ministery of the visible priesthood of his church, and maketh present by his omnipotency his glorified body and blood in this high mystery, by conversion of the visible creatures of bread and wine, as Emissene saith, into the same. This author of this book, as thou, reader, mayest [? A shadow, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] ut non solum ab opere se immundo abstineat, sed [* An unclean work, Orig. ed. Winch. } etiam a jactu oculi, et cogitationis errore, mens [° Quomodo itaque mansuetudo, patientia, so- | Christi corpus confectura sit libera. Ib. p. 199.] brietas, moderatio, abstinentia lucri, hospitalitas quo- [{® Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset que, et benignitas, pracipue esse debent in episcopo, | corpus. ‘Tertul. adversus Marcionem. Lib. 1v. p. et inter cunctos laicos continentia: sic et castitas | 458. Md. Lutet. Paris. 1644. | propria, et (ut ita dixerim) pudicitia sacerdotalis, (7 If that, that answered, &c. 1551. ] [oranmer. | 13 Hieronym. *Tertullianus adversus Marcionem, Lib. iv. Whether the body of Chnist be made of the matter of bread. 204. 194 THE THIRD BOOK. perceive, applieth the figure of the breads, called panes propositionis, to the body of Christ to come, whereas St Hierome calleth them the figure of Christ's body in the sacrament, and there- fore doth fashion his argument in this sense. If those breads, that were but a figure, required so much cleanness in them that should eat them, that they might not eat of them, which a day or two before had lien with their wives ; what cleanness is required in him that should make the body of Christ! Whereby thow mayest see how} this author hath reserved this notable place of St Hierome to the latter end, that thow shouldest in the end, as well as in the midst, see him evidently snarled, for thy better remembrance. CANTERBURY. To these words of St Hierome I have sufficiently answered in my former book. And now to add something thereto, I say that he meaneth not that panes propositionis be figures of the sacrament, but of Christ’s very body. And yet the same body is not only in the sacrament figuratively, but it is also in the true ministration thereof spiri- tually present and spiritually eaten, as in my book I have plainly declared. But how is it possible that Caius Ulpian, or Scevola, Batholus, Baldus or Curtius, should have knowledge what is meant by the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament, and of the spiritual eating of his flesh and blood, if they be void of a lively faith, feeding and comforting their souls with their own works, and not with the breaking of the body and shedding of the blood of our Saviour Chnst ? The meat that the papists live by is indulgences and pardons, and such other remission of sins as cometh all from the pope, which giveth no life, but infecteth and poisoneth: but the meat that the true christian man liveth by, is Christ him- self, who is eaten only by faith, and so eaten is life and spirit, giving that life that endureth and continueth for ever. God grant that we may learn this heavenly know- ledge of the spiritual presence, that we may spiritually taste and feed of this heavenly food ! Now, where you say “that there cannot be a more plain proof to shew that Christ’s body is verily in the sacrament, and not figuratively only,” than when St Hierome noteth panes propositionis to be the figure and shadow of Christ's body in the sacra- ment. ‘For,’ as Tertullian saith, “the other were not to be called a figure, if that which answereth to it were not of truth.” Here your “for” is a plain fallax a non causa ut causa*, and a wondrous subtlety is used therein. For where Tertullian proveth that Christ had here in earth a very body, which Marcion denied, because that bread was instituted to be a figure thereof, and there can be no figure of a thing that is not, you allege Tertullian’s words, as though he should say, that Christ’s body is in the sacrament under the form of bread; whereof neither Tertullian entreated in that place, nor it is not required, that the body should be corporally where the figure is, but rather it should be in vain to have a figure when the thing itself is present. And therefore you untruly report both of St Hierome and Tertullian: for neither of them both do say, as you would gather of their words, that Christ’s body is in the sacrament really and corporally. And where you say, “that Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread,” either you be very ignorant in the doctrine of the sacrament, as it hath been taught these five hundred years, or else you digssemble the matter. Hath not this been the teaching of the school divines, yea, of Innocent himself, that the matter of this sacra- ment is bread of wheat, and wine of grapes? Do they not say, that the substance of bread is turned into the substance of Christ’s flesh, and that his flesh is made of bread? And who worketh this, but Christ himself? And have you not confessed all this in your book of the “ Devil’s Sophistry?” Why do you then deny here that which you taught before, and which hath been the common approved doctrine of the papists so many years? And because it should have the more authority, was not this put into the mass-books, and read every year, Dogma datur Christianis, quod in carnem transit panis, et vinum in sanguinem? Now, seeing that you have taught so many years, that the matter and substance of bread is not consumed to nothing, {) Here, Orig. ed. Winch. ] (? Ad causam, 155].} OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 195 but is changed and turned into the body of Christ, so that the body of Christ is made of it, what mean you now to deny that Christ is made of the matter of bread ? When water was turned into wine, was not the wine made of the water? And when John ii. _ the rod was turned into a serpent, and water into blood, the earth into a man, and Genie his rib into a woman, were not the woman, man, blood, and serpent, made of the matter of the rib, the earth, the water, and the rod? And is not every thing made of that which is turned into it? As bread is made of corn; wine of grapes; beer of water, hops, and malt; and so of all things hke? And when you have confessed yourselves, so many years past, that Christ is made of bread in the sacrament, what moveth you now to say, that Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread, except that either you will say, that the priest doth it and not Christ, which were an intolerable blasphemy ; or that the truth is of such a nature that even the very adversaries thereof, sometime unwares, acknowledge it; or else that force of argu- ments constraineth you to confess the truth against your will, when you see none other shift to escape? But if you take upon you to defend the received doctrine of the papists, you must affirm that doctrine which they affirm, and say that bread in the sacrament is the matter whereof Christ’s body is made; whereof must then needs follow, ex consequenti, that he hath from time to time a new body, made of new bread, besides the body which was incarnated, and never but once made, nor of none other substance but of his mother. So that it is but a vain cavillation, only to elude simple people, or to shift off the matter, to say, as you do, “ that Christ is not made of the bread, but is made to be present there.” For then should he have said, ‘* There is my body,” and not, “This is my body.” And to be present requireth no new making: but to be present by conversion requireth a new making: as the wine that was bought at the marriage in the Cane of Galilee, if there were any such, was present without conversion, and so without new making; but the wine that was made of water, was present by conversion, which could not be without new making. And so must Christ's body be newly made, if it be present by corporal conversion of the substance of bread into the substance of it. And now I refer to every indifferent reader, to judge between us both, which of us is most snarled. Now let us examine the other authors following in my book. And the same is to be answered unto all that the adversaries bring of auzustinus, ; : : : Sedulius, St Augustine, Sedulius, Leo, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Gregorius, and other, con- Leo, ei - - a A Pulgentius, cerning the eating of Christ in the sacrament. Cassiodorus, 2 : P Gregorius. Which thing cannot be understanded plainly as the words sound, but figura- tively and spiritually, as before is sufficiently proved, and hereafter shall be more fully declared in the fourth part of this book. WINCHESTER. Because this author, who hitherto hath answered none substantially, would nevertheless be seen 95, to answer all, he windeth up six of them in one fardell, St Augustine, Sedulius, Leo, Fulgentius, Augustinus, Cassiodorus, and Gregorius, and dispatcheth them all with an ut supra: and among them I think Pahoa he would have knit up all the rest of the learned men of all ages, amongst whom I know none that EH write as this author doth of the sacrament, or impugneth the catholic faith as this author doth by Gresorus. the envious name of papists. Since Christ's time there is no memory more than of six, that haves affirmed that doctrine, which this author would have called now the catholic doctrine, and yet not written by them of one sort, neither received in belief in public profession; but secretly, when it happened, begun by conspiration, and in the end ever hitherto extinct and quenched. First was } Bertram, then Berengarius, then Wiclif, and in our time, (Ecolampadius, Zuinglius, and Joa- chimus Vadianus. I will not reckon Peter Martyr, because such as know him saith he is not «Peter learned; nor this author, because he doth but as it were translate Peter Martyr. saving he roveth at haa solutions, as liketh his phantasy, as I have before declared. Which matter being thus, it is a strange title of this book, to call it the true catholic doctrine. | [? Hath, 1551.] 13—2 Nicholas the second. Berengarius. Bertram. 206. Peter Martyr. The answer to Damasce- nus de fide Orth. Lib. iv. cap. 14. [Quem for- tissimum et acerrimum propugnato- rem naturalis et corporalis presentiz acdversarii inducunt. Embd. Edit.] 196 THE THIRD BOOK. CANTERBURY. All that you have these many years gathered together for your purpose, or that can be gathered, may be well trussed up in a very small fardell, and very easily borne and carried away, for any weight that is therein. For your doings be like to him, that would fain seem to have something, and having nothing else, filleth a great mail full of straw, that men should think he carried something, where indeed a little budget had been sufficient for so much in value. And as for your own doctrine, it is so strange, that neither it agreeth with the scripture, nor with the old catholic church, nor yet with the later’ church or con- gregation of the papists: but you stand post alone, after the fall of the papistical doctrine, as sometime an old post standeth when the building is overthrown. And where you say, “that since Christ’s time there is no more but six that have affirmed the doctrine that I have taught ;” all that have been learned, and have read the old authors of the catholic church, may evidently see the contrary, that sithens Christ’s time the doctrine of my book was ever the catholic and public re- ceived faith of the church, until Nicholas the second’s time, who compelled Beren- garius to make such a devilish recantation, that the papists themselves be now ashamed of it. And since that time, have many thousands been cruelly persecuted only for the profession of the true faith. For no man might speak one word against the bishop of Rome’s determination herein, but he was taken for an heretic, and so condemned, as Wicliff, Huss, and an infinite number more. ’ And as for Bertram, he was never before this time detected of any error that ever I read, but only now by you. For all other that have written of him, have spoken much to his commendation and praise. But I know what the matter is: he hath written against your mind, which is a fault and error great enough. As for Dr Peter Martyr, he is of age to answer for himself: but concerning him, that told you that he was not learned, I would wish you to leave this old rooted fault in you, to be light of credit. For I suppose, that if his learning that told you that lie, and yours also, were set both together, you should be far behind Master Peter Martyr. Marry, in words I think that you alone would overlay two Peter Martyrs; he is so sober a man, and delighteth not in wasting of words in vain, And none do say that he is not learned, but such as know him not, or be not learned them- selves, or else be so malicious or envious, that they wittingly speak against their own conscience. And, no doubt, that man bringeth himself out of the estimation of a learned man, which hath heard him reason and read, and saith that he is not learned. And whosoever misreporteth him, and hath never heard him, may not be called so well momus as sycophanta, whose property is to misreport them whom they neither see nor know. Now resteth only Damascene, of whom I write thus. But here John Damascene may in no wise be passed over, whom for his authority the adversaries of Christ’s true natural body do reckon as a stout champion, sufficient to defend all the whole matter alone. But neither is the authority of Damascene so great that they may oppress us thereby, nor his words so plain for them, as they boast and untruly pretend. For he is but a young new author in the respect of those, which we have brought in for our party. And in divers points he varieth from the most ancient authors, (if he mean as they expound him;) as when he saith, that “the bread and wine be not figures,” which all the old authors call figures; and that ‘“‘ the bread and wine consume not, nor be avoided downward,” which Origen and St Augustine affirm; or that “they be not called the examples of Christ’s body after the consecration,’ which shall manifestly appear false by the liturgy ascribed unto St Basil. And moreover the said Damascene was one of the bishop of Rome’s chief [! Latter, 1551.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 197 proctors against the emperors, and as it were his right hand, to set abroad all idolatry by his own hand-writmg. And therefore, if he lost his hand*, as they say he did, he lost it by God’s most righteous judgment, whatsoever they feign and fable of the miraculous restitution of the same. And yet whatsoever the said Damascene writeth in other matters, surely in this place, which the adversaries do allege, he writeth spiritually and godly, although the papists either of ignorance mistake him, or else willingly wrest him and writhe him to their purpose, clean contrary to his meaning. The sum of Damascene his doctrine in this matter is this?: That as Christ, being both God and man, hath im him two natures; so hath he two nativities, one eternal, and the other temporal. And so likewise we, being as it were double men, or having every one of us two men in us, the new man and the old man, the spiritual man and the carnal man, have a double nativity ; one of our first carnal father Adam, (by whom, as by ancient inheritance, cometh unto us malediction and everlasting damnation,) and the other of our heavenly Adam, that is to say, of Christ, by whom we be made heirs of celestial benediction and everlasting glory and immortality. And because this Adam is spiritual, therefore our generation by him must [? For the account of this restoration of Damas- cene’s hand, vide Winchester’s ‘“‘ Detection of the Devil's Sophistry,” f. 35. ] [8 ’Ezrecdyj dumAot tives eopev Kal obvbeTor, det Kal THY yévunow diTAjv elvat, Omolws Kal THY Bpaow civietov* n méev ody yévvyots uty Ov datos kai mvebpatos dédoTat, nul d€ Tov ayiov Bar- ticuatos’ 4 6& Bpwo.s, altos 6 aptos THs Gwis, & Kbptos rjua@v "Inoovs Xptotds, 6 Ex TOU ovpavou «ataBas.—Damascenus, de Fide Orth. Lib. 1v. cap. 14. Ed. Basil. 1559. Tom. I. p. 315. ‘Aptos 6€ Kal olvos jwapahauPBavetar’ olde yap © Ocds Tijv dvOpwrivny dcbéverav, ws Ta Toe Ta py Kava tiv cuviPerav TeTpLLMeva aTOTTPE- petat ducxepaivovea: 7H oby cuynler cvyKaTapa- get KeXpnpevos, Ola THY cuynlav THs picews Toe Ta UTEP bow" Kal woTEep ert TOU BaT- Tigmatos, éme1d)) bos avOpwrros VoaTr Novecbat, Kal éhaiw xplecbar, suveevEe TH EAaiw Kal VdaTL THY Xap TOU TvEvpaTos, Kal éToincev ait@ Nov- Tpov avayevyijoews, olTws émrerdy Eos Tots av- Opurrois dptov eobieww, Vdwp Te Kal olvoy Tive.y, cuvetevEev aitois Thy a’tou VedtynTAa, Kal Te7roin- kev alta capa Kal aiua aitot, iva dia Tov cuv- nla Kai Kata picw év Tots UTéep picw yevwpmeba. Youd éeotw adnYas yvwuevoy Yedtnt1, TO ex THS cone ayias capa €€ oblpavod Katépxetat, aN’ St altos 6 mapJevou capa, ox Ott TO advadnpléev Gptos Kai olvos petatrowvvTa cis cma Kai aipa Ocov. ei d& Tév TpdOTov emi{nTEls THs yiveTat, Gpkel cot akovoat, Ott did MvEbpaTos dylov, WaoTeEp Kal €k THs dyias BeotdKov dvd Tvetmatos cyiou €auT@ Kal év EavTH O Kbptos capKa WrecTicaTO" kat TeEov obdev ywuoKonev, d\N’ rr 6 oOvos tou Oeov adnOys éote Kal evepyns Kal TavToov- vauos, 0 Of TpdTos aveEcpetvnTos’ ob yYetpou O& Kal TOUTO elTelV, OTL WoTrEp cpuctkas dia THS Bpwoews 6 dpTos, Kai 6 oivos Kai TO Udwp dia TAS TécEWS, Eis HMA Kal aia TOU éaViovTos Kal wivovTos peT asad - Novrat, kai ob yivovrar ETEpov cia Tapa TO TpdTE- pov aitov capa’ ovTws 0 THs Tpobéaews dpTos olvds TE Kali Vowp dia THs émtKAHoews Kal étrispoiTyoews Tov aylov Tveimatos ireppuas petatro.ovvTat eis 70 c@pa TOU Xpictou Kal TO ala, Kal ob eial dbo, G@\X’ vy Kal TO aire, OvK €ort Timos 6 dpTos kal 0 olvos TOU cwuaTtos Kat aliuatos tov Xpt- oTou" pu) yévoito: a\N’ aito TO Gama Tov Kupiou tTelewucvoy, avToU Tov Kupiov eimovtos, Toto ol TUTes TOU GwyuaTtos, G\Ad TO cHpa* ', TYAN = cwpev avTo macy KabapoTynTL WuyiKH TE Kal ow- x» Nn iF avOpaka etoev Hoaias* prov eal, Kal ov TUTos TOU aluatos, a\\a TO aipa. patiky’ dumdouv yap éort. avipak d€ EvNov eTOv obk EortL, aX’ rjvwWMEvVOY Tupt’ otTw Kal 6 apTos Tis Kowwvias obK apTos utes eotiwv, GAN’ Avwpuevos YeotyTL’ capa o€ yjvwpnevoy Deotnte ob pia iow éeotiv, ad\Aa@ pia fey TOU GwW_aTOS, TIS O€ NYWMEVNS a’T@ VEeoTyTOS éTEpa* WaTE TO GUVaudoTEpoy ov pia vats, a\Xa Ovo. Lapa éott kal aipa Xpictov, els cvoTaGLW THS NmeTepas Wuyns TE Kal cwuaTos Xwpour, ob datravuievov, od p0eipouevov, odK eis apedpava Xwpouv, pn yévotro aXN’ eis Ti]yv pav ovctay Kat cuyTypyow, BraBns wavTodaToUs auuy- Otros 6 Tiplov, pu7ov mavtos KalaptHpLov. aptos éotly 1} amapx1) Tov pé\NovTos apTov, os éoTw 0 émLovcios* TO yap émtovc.ov Ondot, 1H Tov péhovta, TovTéct. Tov TOU péKoVTOS alw- vos, i) Tov pos ouVTIHpHow THs ovVcias juav Nap- Pavopevov" cite oby obTws, etre ows TO TOU KUpioU cama Tpocpuas hexOyceTar Treva yap Cwom oLovv éoTw 1) capE Tov Kupiov. O1oTL ek TOV GwoTroLov Tvetmatos cuvehnpon TO yap yeyevynuevov éK Tov Tvebmatos TvEevpd EoTL’ TOUTO O& héyw ovK avaipay Tv TOU cwpatos picw, a\\a TO Gwo- Totov Kat Betov totTov On\a@our Bovopevos. Ek 6€ Kal Twés avtituTa TOU cwuaTos Kai alwatos TOU Kupiov Tov aptov Kal Tov olvov éxa\ecay, Ws 6 Heodopos En Bacideos, ob peta TO aytacOjvat eimov, @\ia rply dytacOjva, aitiy THY Tpoc- opav oitw kahécavtes. Metdéd\yiis 06 NéyeTar’ Ou aitis yap tis “Incov BedtnTos petahauBa- vomev., Kowwvia O& héyeTai Te Kal eotiv adyOas Oud TO Kowwvety yuas Ov aiTHs TH XpiotH, Kai METEXELY aUTOU TiS capKos TE Kal TAS DEdTHTOS* Kowwvety 6& Kal EvovaPat dAnXoLS Ot adTHS. é7rel yap €& evds adptouv peta\apnBdvopev ot mavtes ev cHua Xpictov Kal €y aiva, Kai adAywv pédn ywopela, cbocwnor Xpistov ypnuariCovtes.—Ib. pp. 217, 18, 19.] 207. 198 THE THIRD BOOK. be spiritual, and our feeding must be likewise spiritual. And our spiritual generation by him is plainly set forth in baptism; and our spiritual meat and food is set forth in the holy communion and supper of the Lord. And because our sights be so feeble that we cannot see the spiritual water wherewith we be washed in baptism, nor the spiritual meat wherewith we be fed at the Lord’s table; therefore to help our infirmities, and to make us the better to see the same with a pure faith, our Saviour Christ hath set forth the same, as it were before our eyes, by sensible signs and tokens, which we be daily used and accustomed unto. And because the common custom of men is to wash in water, therefore our spiritual regeneration in Christ, or spiritual washing in his blood, is declared unto us in baptism by water. Likewise our spiritual nourishment and feeding in Christ is set before our eyes by bread and wine, because they be meats and drinks which chiefly and usually we be fed withal; that as they feed the body, so doth Christ with his flesh and blood spiritually feed the soul. And therefore the bread and wine be called examples of Christ’s flesh and blood; and also they be called his very flesh and blood, to signify unto us, that as they feed us carnally, so do they admonish us, that Christ with his flesh and blood doth feed us spiritually, and most truly, unto everlasting life. And as Almighty God by his most mighty word and his holy Spirit and infinite power brought forth all creatures in the beginning, and ever sithens hath preserved them; even so by the same word and power he worketh in us, from time to time, this marvellous spiritual generation and wonderful spiritual nourish- ment and feeding, which is wrought only by God, and is comprehended and received of us by faith. And as bread and drink by natural nourishment be changed into a man’s body, and yet the body is not changed, but is the same’ that it was before: so, although the bread and wine be sacramentally changed mto Christ’s body, yet his body is the same, and in the same place that it was before; that is to say, in heaven, without any alteration of the same. And the bread and wine be not so changed into the flesh and blood of Christ that they be made one nature, but they remain still distinct in nature; so that the bread in itself is not his flesh, and the wine his blood, but unto them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine, to them the bread and wine be his flesh and blood; that is to say, by things natural, and which they be accustomed unto, they be exalted unto things above nature. For the sacramental bread and wine be not bare and naked figures, but so pithy and effectuous, that whosoever worthily eateth them, eateth spiritually Christ’s flesh and blood, and hath by them everlasting life. Wherefore, whosoever cometh to the Lord’s table, must come with all humility, fear, reverence, and purity of life, as to receive not only bread and wine, but also our Saviour Christ, both God and man, with all his benefits, to the relief and sustentation both of their bodies and souls. This is briefly the sum and true meaning of Damascene concerning this matter. Wherefore, they that gather of him either the natural presence of Christ’s body in the sacraments of bread and wine, or the adoration of the outward and visible sacrament; or that after the consecration there remaineth no bread, nor wine, nor other substance, but only the substance of the body and blood of Christ ; either they understand not Damascene, or else of wilful frowardness [} But the same, 1551, and Orig. ed.] OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 199 they will not understand him: which rather seemeth to be true by such col- lections as they have unjustly gathered and noted out of him. For although he say that Christ is the spiritual meat; yet as in baptism the Holy Ghost is not in the water, but in him that is unfeignedly baptized; so Damascene meant not, that Christ is in the bread, but in him that worthily eateth the bread. And though he say that the bread is Christ’s body, and the wine his blood, yet he meant not that the bread, considered in itself, or the wine in itself, being not received, is his flesh and blood: but to such as by unfeigned faith worthily receive the bread and wine, to such the bread and wine are called by Damascene the body and blood of Christ, because that such persons, through the working of the Holy Ghost, be so knit and united spiritually to Christ’s flesh and blood, and to his divinity also, that they be fed with them unto everlasting life. Furthermore, Damascene saith not that the sacrament should be worshipped and adored, as the papists term it, which is plain idolatry; but that we must worship Christ, God and man. And yet we may not worship him in bread and wine, but sitting in heaven with his Father, and being spiritually within ourselves. Nor he saith not, that there remaineth no bread nor wine, nor none other substance, but only the substance of the body and blood of Christ; but he saith plamly, “that as a burning coal is not wood only, but fire and wood joined together; so the bread of the communion is not bread only, but bread joined to the divinity.” But those that say, that there is none other substance but the substance of the body and blood of Christ, do not only deny that there is bread and wine, but by force they must deny also, that there is either Christ’s divinity or his soul. For if the flesh and blood, the soul and divinity, of Christ be four substances, and in the sacrament be but two of them, that is to say, his flesh and blood, then where is his soul and divinity ? And thus these men divide Jesus, separating his divinity from his humanity: of whom St John saith: ‘“ Whosoever divideth Jesus, is not of God, but he is antichrist.” And moreover, these men do separate Christ’s body from his members in the sacrament, that they leave him no man’s body at all. For as Damascene saith, that the distinction of members pertain so much to the nature of man’s” body, that where there is no such distinction, there is no perfect man’s body: but by these papists’ doctrine, there is no such distinc- tion of members in the sacrament; for either there is no head, feet, hands, arms, legs, mouth, eyes, and nose at all; or else all is head, all feet, all hands, all arms, all legs, all mouth, all eyes, and all nose. And _ so they make of Christ’s body no man’s body at all. Thus being confuted the papists’ errors, as well concerning transubstan- tiation, as the real, corporal, and natural presence of Christ in the sacrament, which were two principal points purposed in the beginning of this work ; now it is time something to speak of the third error of the papists, which is concerning the eating of Christ’s very body, and drinking of his blood. [Thus endeth the third Book*.] [? Of a man’s body, 1551, and Orig. Ed. ] [* Orig. Ed. | 208. 1 John iv. In libro de duabus in Christo voluntatibus. Damascene. 209. *Concomi- tance. 200 THE THIRD BOOK. WINCHESTER. Last of all, the author busieth himself with Damascene, and goeth about to answer him by making of a sum; which sum is so wrong accompted, that every man that readeth Da- mascene may be auditor to control it. And this will I say, Damascene writeth so evidently in the matter, that Peter Martyr, for a shift, is fain to find fault in his judgment and age; and yet he is eight hundred years old at the least, and I say at the least, because he is reckoned of some half as old again. And whatsoever his judgment were, he writeth (as Melancthon saith) his testimony of the faith of the sacrament as it was in his time. I would write in here Damascene’s words, to compare them with the sum collected by this author, whereby to disprove his particulars plainly; but the words of Damascene be to be read, trans- lated already abroad. As for the“ four substances” which this author by accompt numbereth of Christ, might have been left wnreckoned by tale, because among them that be faithful, and understand truly, wheresoever the substance of Christ's very body is, there is also understanded by concomitance to be present the substance of his soul, as very man, and also of the Godhead as very God. And in the matter of the sacrament therefore, contending with him that would have the substance of bread there, it may be said there is in the sacrament the only substance of Christ’s body, because the word “only” thus placed excludeth other strange substances, and not the substances which without contention be known and confessed unite with Christ's body. And so a man may be said to be alone in his house when he hath no strangers, although he hath a number of his own men. And Erasmus noteth how the evangelist writeth Christ to have prayed alone, and yet certain of his disciples were there. And if in a contention raised, whether the father and son were both killed in such a field or no, I defended the father to have been only killed there, and thereupon a wager laid, should I lose, if by proof it ap- peared, that not only the father, but also three or four of the father’s servants were slain, but the son escaped? And as in this speech the word “only” served to exclude that was in con- tention, and not to reduce the number to one; no more is it in the speech that this author would reprove, and therefore needed not to have occupied himself in the matter, wherein I heard him once say in a good audience, himself was satisfied. In which mind I would he had continued; and having so slender stuff as this is, and the truth so evident against him, not to have resuscitate this so often reproved untruth, wherein never hitherto any one could prevail. CANTERBURY. As for Damascene needeth no further answer than I have made in my former book. But I pray the reader, that he will diligently examine the place, and so to be an indifferent auditor betwixt us two. Now when you be called to accompt for the number of substances in the sacrament, I perceive by your wrangling, that you be somewhat moved with this audit, for be- cause you be called to accompt. And I cannot blame you, though it somewhat grieve you; for it toucheth the very quick. And although I myself can right well under- stand your numbers, that when you name but one, you mean four; yet you should have considered beforehand, to whom your book was written. You wrote to plain simple people in the English tongue, which understand no further but one to be one, and four to be four. And therefore when you say there is but one, and mean four, you attemper not your speech to the capacities of them to whom you write. Now have I answered to all your frivolous cavillations against my third book, and fortified it so strongly, that you have spent all your shot and powder in vain. And I trust I have either broken your pieces, or pegged them, that you shall be able to shoot no more: or if you shoot, the shot shall be so faint that it shall not be able to pierce through a paper leaf. And the like I trust to do to all the munition and ordi- nance laid against my fourth book. [} The same, Orig. ed. Winch.] THE CONFUTATION OF THE FOURTH BOOK. [ wINCHESTER. | THUS having perused the effect of the third book, I will likewise peruse the fourth, and then shall follow in direct course to speak of the matter of transubstantiation. In this fourth book the author entreateth eating and drinking of Christs body and blood: and wm the first part thereof travaileth to confirm his purpose, and in the second part answereth as he can to his adversaries, and so taketh occasion to speak of adoration. His chief purpose is to prove that evil men receive not the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, which after this author's doctrine is a very superfluous matter. For if the sacrament be only a figure, and the body and blood of Christ be there only figuratively, whereto should this author dispute of evil men’s eating, when good men cannot eat Christ in the sacrament, because he is not there? For by the effect of this author's doctrine the sacra- ment is but @ visible preaching by the tokens and signs of bread and wine; that in believing and remembering Christ's benefits, with revolving them in our mind, we should in faith feed upon Christ spiritually, believing that, as the bread and wine feedeth and nourisheth our bodies, so Christ feedeth and nourisheth our souls: which be good words, but such as the words in Christ's supper do not learn us, and yet may? be well gathered, not to limit the mystery of the sup- per, but to be spoken and taught touching the believing and remembering Christ's benefits, with the revolving of them in our mind, thereby to learn us how to feed upon Christ continually without the use of the visible sacrament; being called? of St Augustine “the invisible sacra- ment’,’ wherein by faith we be nourished with the word of God and the virtue of Christ's body and blood, which the true teaching of the church calleth spiritual manducation only, without which no man is to be accompted a true member of the mystical body of Christ. And therefore whoso feedeth upon Christ thus spiritually, must needs be a good man, for only good men be true members of Christ's mystical body: which spiritual eating is so good a fruit as it declareth the tree necessarily to be good; and therefore it nust be and is a certain con- clusion, that only good men do eat and drink the body and blood of Christ spiritually, that is to say, effectually to life. So as this author shall have of me no adversary therein. And if this author had proved that to be the true doctrine, that Christ's very body and blood is not present in the visible sacrament, then might he have left this fourth book unwritten. For after his doctrine, as I said before, good men do not eat Christ's body in the sacrament under the visible signs, for because it is not there, and then much less should evil men reach it. In the catholic teaching, all the doctrine of eating of Christ is concluded in two manner of eatings; one in the visible sacrament sacramental, another spiritual without the sacrament. And because in the eating of the visible sacrament St Paul speaketh of unworthy, the same true teaching, to open the matter more clearly according to scripture, noteth wnto us three manner of eatings, one spiritual only, which only good men do, feeding in faith without the visible sacrament. Another is both spiritual and sacramental, which also good men only do, receiwing the visible sacrament with a true sincere charitable faith. The third manner of eat- ing is sacramental only, which (after St Paul) evil men do wunworthily, and therefore have judgment and condemnation, and be guilty of our Lord’s body, not esteeming our Lord’s body there. And here ariseth the knot of contention with this author, who saith, “evil men eat but the sacramental bread :” whereunto I reply, No more do good men neither, if this author's doctrine of the sacrament be true, seeing he will have it but a figure: if this author will say [? And may be, Orig. ed. Winch.] accipiantur omnia tria, ut scilicet quotidianum [° Being that called, 1551.] panem simul petamus et necessarium corpori, et : {* Si quis autem etiam illa que de victu corpo- | sacramentum visibile, et invisibile verbi Dei. tis necessario, vel sacramento Dominici corporis August. De Sermone Domini in Monte, Lib. 11. istam sententiam yult accipere, oportet ut conjuncte | cap. 7. Pars 111. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506. ] August. in Sermone Domini in Monte. Lib. iil. 211. August. de peccat. merit. et remiss. Lib. i. cap. 24. James i. *The sub- stance of God’s work. Eph. iv. Matt. xiii. John vi. Augustinus. In Joh. Tract. 27. Rom. iii. 2 Cor. ii. @cumenius. An issue. Sructified only in the good ground, which seed Christ calleth his word; and in the sixth of the effect is other in good men than in evil men, I will not strive therein. But to discuss this matter, evidently we must rightly open the truth, and then must consider the visible sacraments as they be of God’s ordinance, who directeth us where to seek for his gifts, and how: whose working albeit it be not restrained by his sacraments, and therefore God may and doth invisibly sanctify and salve as it pleaseth him; yet he teacheth us of his ordinary working, in the visible sacraments, and ordereth us to seek his gifts of health and life there; whereupon St Augustine noteth how baptism, among the christian men of Africa, was very well called health, and the — sacrament of Christ's body called life, as in which God giveth health and life, if we worthily use them!. The ordinance of these sacraments is God’s work, the very author of them, who as he is in himself uniform, as St James saith, “ without alteration,” so, as David saith, “his works be true,” which is as much as uniform; for “truth” and “uniform” answereth to- gether. As God is all goodness, so all his works be good. So as considering the substance of God’s works and ordinances as they be in themselves®, they be always uniform, certain, and true in their substance as God ordered them. Among men, for whom they be wrought and ordered, there is variety; good men, evil men, worthy, unworthy; but as St Paul saith, there ts but “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” And the parable of the sower, which Christ de- clared himself, sheweth a diversity of the grounds where the seed did fall; but the seed was all one that did fall in the good ground, and that did fall in the naughty ground, but it 202 THE FOURTH BOOK. ’ . St John saith, “his word is spirit and life;” so as by the teaching of Christ spirit and life may fall upon naughty men, although for their malice it tarrieth not, nor fructifieth not im them. And St Augustine, according hereunto, noteth how Christ's words be spirit and life, “although thou dost carnally understand them, and hast no fruit of them; yet so they be spirit and life, but not to thee:” whereby appeareth the substance of God’s ordinance to be one, though we in the using of it vary. The promises of God cannot be disap- pointed by man’s infidelity, as St Paul saith; which place Luther allegeth to shew the unity in the substance of baptism, whether it be ministered to good or evil. But St Paul to the Corinthians declareth it notably in these words: “ We be the good savour of Christ in them that be saved, and them that perish.” Here St Paul noteth the savour good and one to divers men; but, after the diversity in men, of divers effects in them, that is to say, the savour of life, and the savour of death: which saying of St Paul the Greek scholies, gathered by Ecumenius, open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptly. The dove, they say, and the beetle shall feed both upon one ointment, and the beetle die of it, and the dove strengthened by it; the diversity in the effect following of the diversity of them that eat, and not of that is eaten, which is alway one. According hereunto St Augustine, against the Donatists, giveth for a rule the sacraments to be one in all, although they be not one that receive and use them. And therefore to knit up this matter for the purpose, I intend and write it; for we must consider the substance of the visible sacrament of Christ's body and blood to be always as of itself it is, by Christ's ordinance: in the understanding whereof this author maketh variance, and would have it by Christ's ordinance but a figure, which he hath not proved; but and he had proved it, then is it in substance but a figure, and but a figure to good men. For it must be in substance one to good and bad; and so neither to good nor bad this sacrament is otherwise dispensed than it is truly taught to be by preaching. Wherefore if it be more than a figure, as it is in deed, and if by Christ's ordinance it hath present, under the form of those visible signs of bread and wine, the very body and blood of Christ, as hath been truly taught hitherto, then is the substance of the sacrament one always, as the ointment was, whether doves eat of it or beetles. And this issue I join with this author, that he shall not be able by any learning to make any diversity in the substance of this sacrament, whatsoever diversity follow in the effect. For the diversity of the effect is occasioned in them that receive, as before is proved. And then, to answer this author, I say that only good men eat and drink the body and blood of Christ spiritually, as I have declared, but all, good and evil, receive the visible sacrament of that substance God hath ordained it, which in tt hath no variance, but is all one to good and evil. {) Optime Punici Christiani baptismum ipsum | [? Quid est, spiritus et vita sunt? spiritaliter nihil aliud quam salutem, et sacramentum corporis __intelligenda-sunt. Intellexisti spiritaliter? spiritus Christi nihil aliud quam vitam vocant. August. | et vita sunt. Intellexisti carnaliter? etiam sic illa De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione. Lib. 1. | spiritus et vita sunt, sed tibi non sunt.—Augus cap. 24. Pars vi.] in Evangelium Joannis. Tractat. xxvii. de cap. vi. [* As they be themselves, Orig. ed. Winch. ] Pars ix.] OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 203 CANTERBURY. In this book, because you agree with me almost in the whole, I shall not need 99, much to travail in the answer; but leaving all your pretty taunts against me, and glorious boasting of yourself, which neither beseemeth our persons, nor hindereth the truth, nor furthereth your part, but by pompous words to win a vain glory and fame of them that be unlearned, and have more regard to words than judgment of the matter, I shall only touch here and there such things as we vary in, or that be necessary for the defence of the truth. First, after the sum of my fourth book, collected as pleaseth you, at the first dash you begin with an untrue report, jomed to a subtle deceit or fallax, saying that my chief purpose is to prove that evil men receive not the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament. And hereupon you conclude that my fourth book is superfluous. But of a false antecedent, all that be learned do know that nothing can be rightly concluded. Now mine intent and purpose in the fourth book is not to prove that evil men receive not the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, (although that be true,) but my chief purpose is to prove, that evil men eat not Christ’s flesh nor drink not his blood, neither in the sacrament nor out of the sacrament; as on the other side good men eat and drink them, both in the sacrament and out of the sacrament. And in the word “sacrament,” which is of your addition, is a subtle fallax, called The word double understanding. For when the sacrament is called only a figure, as you rehearse, ae wherein the body and blood of Christ be only figuratively, there the word ‘ sacrament” is taken for the outward signs of bread and wine. And after, when you rehearse that the sacrament is a visible preaching by the tokens and signs of bread and wine, in believing and remembering Christ’s benefits, there the word “sacrament” is taken for the whole ceremony and ministration of the sacrament. And so when you go about by equivocation of the word to deceive other men, you fall into your own snare, and be deceived yourself, in that you think you convey the matter so craftily that no man can espy you. But to utter the matter plainly without fallax or cayillation, I teach that no man can eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood but spiritually; which forasmuch as evil men do not, although they eat the sacramental bread until their bellies be full, and drink the wine until they be drunken, yet eat they neither Christ’s flesh, nor drink his blood, neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament, because they cannot be eaten and drunken but by spirit and faith, whereof ungodly men be destitute, being nothing but world and flesh. This therefore is the sum of my teaching in this fourth book, that in the true ministration of the sacrament Christ is present spiritually, and so spiritually eaten of them that be godly and spiritual. And as for the ungodly and carnal, they may eat the bread and drink the wine, but with Christ himself they have no communion or company; and therefore they neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood, which whosoever 1 cor. vi. eateth hath (as Christ saith himself) life by him, as Christ hath life by his Father. jonny. “And to eat Christ’s body or drink his blood,” saith St Augustine, “is to have life*.” 919, For whether Christ be in the sacrament corporally, as you say, or spiritually in them August.in that rightly believe in him, and duly receive the sacrament, as I say, yet certain it is, 2 ete that there he is not eaten corporally, but spiritually. For corporal eating with the mouth Sermon. ii. is to chaw and tear in pieces with the teeth, after which manner Christ’s body is of no man eaten ; although Nicholas the Second made such an article of the faith, and com- Nicolaus pelled Berengarius so to profess’. And therefore, although Christ were corporally in wis: the sacrament, yet seeing that he cannot be corporally eaten, this book cometh in good [* Qui manducat ejus carnem, et hibit ejus | habebis vitam, et integra est vita. Tunc autem hoc Sanguinem, habet vitam eternam.—August. In | erit, id est, vita unicuique erit corpus et sanguis Evangelium Joannis. Tract. xxvi. de cap. vi. Pars | Christi, si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur, in ix. : ipsa veritate spiritaliter manducetur, spiritaliter bi- Hlud manducare refici est :...illud bibere quid | batur.—August. de verbis A postoli. Serm. ii. cap. i.] est, nisi vivere? Manduca vitam, bibe vitam: | [° See p. 113, note 4. | Luke xxii. 1 Cor. xi. 1 Cor. x. August. in Sermone Domini in Monte. Lib. il. 204 THE FOURTH BOOK. place, and is very necessary to know that Christ’s body cannot be eaten but spiritually, by believing and remembering Christ’s benefits, and revolving them in our mind, believ- ing that as the bread and wine feed and nourish our bodies, so Christ feedeth and nourisheth our souls. And ought this to come out of a christian man’s mouth, ‘“ That these be good words, but such as the words of Christ’s supper do not learn us?’ Do not the words of Christ’s supper learn us to eat the bread and drink the wine in the remembrance of his death? Is not the breaking and eating of the bread, after such sort as Christ ordained, a communication of Christ’s body unto us? Is not the cup likewise a com- munication of his blood unto us? Should not then christian people, according hereunto, in faith feed upon Christ spiritually, believing that as the bread and wine feed and nourish their bodies, so doth Christ their souls with his own flesh and blood? And shall any christian man now say that “these be good words, but such as the words in Christ’s supper do not learn us ?” And yet these said words limit not the mystery of the supper: forasmuch as that mystery of eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood extendeth further than the supper, and continueth so long as we be lively members of Christ’s body. For none feed nor be nourished by him, but that be lively members of his body; and so long and no longer feed they of him than they be his true members, and receive life from him. For feeding of him is to receive life. But this is not that “invisible sacrament” which you say St Augustine speaketh of in sermone Domini in monte’, the third book. For he calleth there the daily bread, which we continually pray for, either corporal bread and meat, which is our daily sus- tenance for the body, or else the visible sacrament of bread and wine, or the invisible sacrament of God’s word and commandments; of the which sacraments God’s word is daily heard, and the other is daily seen. And if by the invisible sacrament of God’s word St Augustine meant our nourishment by Christ’s flesh and blood, then be we nourished with them, as well by God’s word as by the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. But yet whosoever told you that St Augustine wrote this in the third book de sermone Domini in monte, trust him not much hereafter, for he did utterly deceive you. For St Augustine wrote no more but two books de sermone Domini in monte; and if you can make three of two, as you do here, and one of four, as you did before in the substances of Christ, you be a marvellous auditor, and then had all men need to beware of your accompts, lest you deceive them. And you cannot lay the fault here in the printer; for I have seen it written so both by your own hand, and by the hand of your secretary. Now when you have wrangled in this matter as much as you can, at length you confess the truth, that ‘‘ whoso feedeth upon Christ spiritually must needs be a good man, (for only good men be members of Christ’s mystical body,) which spiritual eating is so good a fruit, as it declareth the tree necessarily to be good: and therefore it must be and is a certain conclusion, that only good men do eat and drink the body and blood of Christ spiritually, that is to say, effectually to life.” This you write in con- clusion, and this is the very doctrine that I teach, and in the same terms: marry, I add thereto, that the eating of Christ’s body is a spiritual eating, and the drinking of his blood is a spiritual drinking; and therefore no evil man can eat his flesh nor drink his blood, as this my fourth book teacheth, and is necessary to be written. For although neither good nor evil men eat Christ’s body in the sacrament under the visible signs, in the which he is not but sacramentally; yet the good feed of him spiritually, being® inhabiting spiritually within them, although corporally he be absent [! Panis quotidianus aut pro his omnibus dictus | ‘ Operamini escam que non corrumpitur cack illud; est, que hujus vite necessitatem sustentant, de | ‘Ego sum panis vite, qui de celo descendi.’— quo cum precipit ait, ‘Nolite cogitare de crastino:’ | August. De Sermone Domini in monte. Lib. 11. ut ideo sit additum ‘ da nobis hodie:’ aut pro sacra- | Cap. vii. Pars iil.] mento corporis Christi, quod quotidie accipimus: [2 Being and, 1551.] aut pro spiritali cibo, de quo idem Dominus dicit, ‘ ‘ OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 205 and in heaven; but the evil men neither feed upon him corporally nor spiritually, (from whom he is both the said ways absent,) although corporally they eat and drinix with their mouths the sacraments of his body and blood. Now where you note here three manner of eatings, and yet but two manner of eatings of Christ, this your noting is very true, if it be truly understand. For there be indeed three manner of eatings, one spiritual only, another spiritual and sacramental both together, and the third sacramental only: and yet Christ himself is eaten but in the first two manner of ways, as you truly teach. And for to set out this dis- tinction somewhat more plainly, that plain men may understand it, it may thus be termed: that there is a spiritual eating only, when Christ by a true faith is eaten without the sacrament; also there is another eating both spiritual and sacramental, when the visible sacrament is eaten with the mouth, and Christ himself is eaten with a true faith ; the third eating is sacramentally only, when the sacrament is eaten, and not Christ himself. So that in the first is Christ eaten without the sacrament; in the second he is eaten with the sacrament; and in the third the sacrament is eaten without him; and therefore it is called sacramental eating only, because only the sacrament is eaten, and not Christ himself. After the two first manner of ways godly men do eat, who feed and live by Christ: the third manner of ways the wicked do eat ; and therefore, as St Augustine® saith, ‘they neither eat Christ’s flesh nor drink his blood, although every day they eat the sacrament thereof, to the condemnation 2 of their presumption.” And for this cause also St Paul saith not, “‘ He that eateth Christ’s body and drinketh his blood unworthily, shall have condemnation, and be guilty of the Lord’s body :” but he saith, “ He that eateth this bread, and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Lord’s body, and eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he esteemeth* not the Lord’s body.” And here you commit two foul faults. One is, that you declare St Paul to speak of the body and blood of Christ, when he spake of the bread and wine. The other fault is, that you add to St Paul’s words this word “there,” and so build your work upon a foundation made by your own self. And where you say, that if my doctrine be true, “neither good men nor evil eat but the sacramental bread ;” it can be none other but very frowardness and mere wil- fulness, that you will not understand that thing which I have spoken so plainly, and repeated so many times. For I say, that good men eat the Lord’s body spiritually to their eternal nourishment, whereas evil men eat but the bread carnally to their eternal punishment. And as you note of St Augustine’, that “baptism is very well called health, and the sacrament of Christ’s body called life, as in which God giveth health and life if we worthily use them ;” so is the sacramental bread very well called Christ's body, and the wine his blood, as in the ministration whereof Christ giveth us his flesh and blood, if we worthily receive them. And where you teach how “the works of God in themselves be alway true and uniform in all men, without diversity in good and evil, in worthy and unworthy,” you bring in this mystical matter here clearly without purpose or reason, far passing the capacity of simple readers, only to blind their eyes withal. By which kind of teaching it is all one work of God, to save and to damn, to kill and to give life, to hate and to love, to elect and to reject; and to be short, by this kind of doctrine God and all his works be one, without diversity either of one work from another, or of his works from his substance. And by this means it is all one work of God in baptism and in the Lord’s supper. But all this is spoken quite besides the matter, and serveth for nothing but to cast a mist before men’s eyes, as it seemeth you seek nothing else through your whole book. And this your doctrine hath a very evil smack, that “spirit and life should fall [* Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, et in | magis tante rei sacramentum ad judicium sibiman- quo non manet Christus, proculdubio nec mandu- | ducat et bibit—August. in Joannem. Tract. xxvi. cat spiritaliter carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sangui- | de cap. vi. Pars ix.] nem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus [* Esteemed, 1551. ] Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi: sed {° See before, p. 202.] Three man- ner ofeatings. August. in Joh. Tract. 1 Cor. xi. August. de peceatorum meritis et re- miss. Lib. 1. eap. 24. The works of God unt- form. Spintand life to fall upon evil men. 2 Cor. vi. John vi. Aug. in Joh. Tract. 27. 216. John yi. John vi. The promises of God under condition. One sub- stance to good and bad. The isstie. 1 Cor. ii. Matt. v. *cume- nius. 206 THE FOURTH BOOK. upon naughty men, although for their malice it tarry not.” For by this doctrine you join together in one man Christ and Belial, the Spirit of God and the spirit of the devil, life and death, and all at one time; which doctrine I will not name what it is, for all faithful men know the name right well, and detest the same. And what ignorance can be shewed more in him that accompteth himself learned, than to gather of Christ's words, where he saith, “his words be spirit and life,” that spirit and life should be in evil men because they hear his words? For the words which you recite by and by of St Augustine shew how vain your argument is, when he saith: “The words be spirit and life, but not to thee that dost carnally understand them'.” What estimation of learning or of truth would you have men to conceive of you, that bring such unlearned arguments, whereof the invalidity appeareth within six lines after ? Which must needs declare in you either much untruth and unsincere proceeding, or much ignorance, or at the least an exceeding forgetfulness, to say any thing reproved again within six lines after. And if the promises of God, as you say, be not dis- appointed by our infidelity, then if evil men eat the very body of Christ and drink his blood, they must needs dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in them, and by him have everlasting life, because of these promises of Christ, Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet et ego in eco. Et qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, habet citam eternam: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life. And he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.” And yet the third promise, Qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me: “ He that eateth me, he shall also live by me.” These be three promises of God, which if they cannot be disappointed by our infidelity, then if evil men eat the very body of Christ and drink his blood, as you say they do in the sacrament, then must it needs follow that they shall have everlasting life, and that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them, because our in- fidelity, say you, cannot disappoint God’s promises. And how agreeth this your saying with that doctrine which you were wont earnestly to teach both by mouth and pen, “that all the promises of God to us be made under condition,” if our infidelity cannot disappoint God’s promises? For then the promises of God must needs have place, whether we observe the condition or not. But here you have fetched a great compass and circuit utterly in vain, to re- prove that thing which I never denied, but ever affirmed, which is: “That the sub- stance of the visible sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, (which I say is bread and wine in the? sacrament, as water is in baptism,) is all one substance to good and to bad, and to both a figure.” But that under the form of bread and wine is cor- porally present by Christ's ordinance his very body and blood, either to good or to ill, that you neither have nor can prove; and yet thereupon would you bring in your conclusion here, wherem you commit that folly in reasoning, which is called petitio principir. What need you to make herein any issue, when we agree in the matter? For in the substance I make no diversity, but I say that the substance of Christ’s body and blood is corporally present neither in the good eater, nor in the evil. And as for the substance of bread and wine, I say they be all one; whether the good or evil eat and drink them: as the water of baptism is all one, whether Simon Peter or Simon Magus be christened therein; and it is one word that to the evil is a savour of death, and to the good is a sayour of life; and as it is one sun that shineth upon the good and the bad, that melteth butter, and maketh the earth hard; one flower whereof the bee sucketh honey, and the spider poison, and one ointment (as (Ecumenius saith) that killeth the beetle, and strengtheneth the dove. Nevertheless as all that be washed in the water be not washed with the Holy Spirit, so all that eat the sacramental bread, eat not the very body of Christ. And thus you see that your issue is to no purpose, except you would fight with your own shadow. "Now forasmuch as after all this vain and frivolous consuming of words, you begin to make answer unto my proofs, I shall here rehearse my proofs and arguments, to [! See before, p. 202.) [° In that sacrament, 1551.] OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 207 the intent that the reader, seeing both my proofs and your confutations before his eyes, may the better consider and give his judgment therein. My fourth book beginneth thus*. The gross error of the papists is, of the carnal eating and drinking of Chaps te Christ’s flesh and blood with our mouths. men do cat For they say, that “whosoever eat and drink the sacraments of bread Christ. _ and wine, do eat and drink also with their mouths Christ’s very flesh and ou blood, be they never so ungodly and wicked persons.” But Christ himself taught clean contrary in the sixth of John, that we eat not him carnally with our mouths, but spiritually with our faith, saying: ‘“ Verily, verily, I say unto Jom wi. you, he that believeth in me hath everlasting hfe. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and died. This is the bread the goaty that came from heaven, that whosoever shall eat thereof shall not die. I am Chest the lively bread that came from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. And the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” This is the most true doctrine of our Saviour Christ, that whosoever eateth him shall have everlasting life. And by and by it followeth in the same place of St John more clearly: “ Verily, verily I say unto you, except Jonn vi. you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting, and I will raise him again at the last day: for my flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, even so he that eateth me shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.” This taught our Saviour Christ as well his disciples as the Jews at Ca- pernaum, that the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood was not like to the eating of manna. For both good and bad did eat manna; but none do eat his flesh and drink his blood, but they have everlasting life. For as his Father dwelleth in him, and he in his Father, and so hath life by his Father; so he that eateth Christ’s flesh and drinketh his blood, dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him, and by Christ he hath eternal life. What need we any other witness, when Christ himself doth testify the matter so plainly, that whosoever eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood hath everlasting life; and that to eat his flesh and to drink his blood is to believe in him; and whosoever believeth in him hath everlasting life? Whereof it followeth necessarily, that ungodly persons, (being limbs of the devil,) do not eat Christ’s flesh nor drink his blood, except the papists would say that such have everlasting life. But as the devil is the food of the wicked, which he nourisheth in all iniquity, and bringeth up into everlasting damnation; so is Christ the very food of all them that be the lively members of his body, and them he nourisheth, feedeth, bringeth up, and cherisheth unto everlasting life. And every good and faithful christian man feeleth in himself how he Chap. 1. feedeth of Christ, eating his flesh and drinking of his blood. For he putteth ta catiadt the whole hope and trust of his redemption and salvation in that only sacri- au drinking fice, which Christ made upon the cross, having his body there broken, and [° The title of the fourth book runs thus in the | drinking of the body and blood of our Saviour Orig. ed.: “ The fourth Book is of the eating and Christ.’’] 218. Chap. IT. Christ is not eaten with teeth, but with faith. Cyprian de Cena Do- mini. August. de Verbis Do- mini Sermo. XXXL. In Joan. Tractat. XXxv. Chap. tv. The good only eat Chnist. Origenes in Matt. cap. xv. Galat. ii. 208 THE FOURTH BOOK. his blood there shed for the remission of his sins. And this great benefit of Christ the faithful man earnestly considereth in his mind, chaweth and digesteth it with the stomach of his heart, spiritually receiving Christ wholly into him, and giving again himself wholly unto Christ. And this is the eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood, the feeling whereof is to every man the feeling how he eateth and drinketh Christ, which none evil man nor member of the deyil can do. For as Christ is a spiritual meat, so is he spiritually eaten and digested with the spiritual part of us, and giveth us spiritual and eternal life, and is not eaten, swallowed, and digested with our teeth, tongues, throats, and bellies. Therefore saith St Cyprian: “He that drinketh of the holy cup, remem- bering this benefit of God, is more thirsty than he was before; and lifting up his heart unto the living God, is taken with such a singular hunger and appetite, that he abhorreth all gally and bitter drinks of sin, and all savour of carnal pleasure is to him as it were sharp and sour vinegar. And the sinner being converted, receiving the holy mysteries of the Lord’s supper, giveth thanks unto God, and boweth down his head, knowing that his sins be for- given, and that he is made clean and perfect, and his soul (which God hath sanctified) he rendereth to God again as a faithful pledge, and then he glorieth with Paul, and rejoiceth saying: ‘Now it is not I that live, but it is Christ that liveth within me.’ These things be practised and used among faithful people, and to pure minds the eating of his flesh is no horror but honour, and the spirit delighteth in the drinking of the holy and sanctifying blood. And doing this, we whet not our teeth to bite, but with pure faith we break the holy bread'.” These be the words of Cyprian. And according unto the same, St Augustine saith: “ Prepare not thy jaws, but thy heart*.” And in another place he saith: “Why dost thou prepare thy belly and thy teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten*”’ But of this mat- ter is sufficiently spoken before, where it is proved, that to eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood be figurative speeches. And now to return to our purpose, that only the lively members of Christ do eat his flesh and drink his blood, I shall bring forth many other places of ancient authors before not mentioned. First, Origen writeth plainly after this manner: “The Word was made flesh and very meat, which whoso eateth shall surely live for ever, which no evil man can eat. For if it could be, that he that continueth evil might eat the Word made flesh, seeing he is the Word and bread of life, it should not have been written: ‘ Whosoever eateth this bread, shall live for ever*.’” These cera panem sanctum frangimus et partimur. Cy- prian. (i.e. Amold. ap. Cyprian.) De Cena Do- mini. p. 471. Ed. Paris. 1574.] [° Noli parare fauces, sed cor. August. de Verbis Domini. Sermo. xxxiii. cap. vy. Tom. X. [1 Hane Dei gratiam recolens, qui de sacro calice bibit, amplius sitit: et ad Deum vivum erigens desiderium, ita singulari fame illo uno ap- petitu tenetur, ut deinceps fellea peccatorum hor- reat pocula, et omnis sapor delectamentorum car- nalium sit ei quasi rancidum radensque palatum acute mordacitatis acetum. Ad hec inter sacra mysteria ad gratiarum actiones convertitur, et in- clinato capite, munditia cordis adepta, se intelligens consummatum, restitutus peccator sanctificatam Deo animam quasi depositum custoditum fideliter reddit, et deinceps cum Paulo gloriatur et letatur dicens : ‘¢Vivo jam non ego, vivit vero in me Christus.” Hac in Christi commemoratione retractantur a fide- libus, et defzcatis animis carnis ejus edulium non est horrori, sed honori, potuque sancti et sanctificantis sanguinis spiritus delectatur. Hac quotiens agimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide sin- p- 49. Ed. Paris. 1635. ] [° Ut quid paras dentes et ventrem ? Crede, et manducasti. Id. In Joannem, de cap. vi. Tract. xxv. Pars ix. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506.] [* Ilo\Xa@ 6 av Kal wepi ab’tov NéyorTo Tov Aoyou, Os yéyove cape kai ahynOwy Bowers, iv Twa 6 payav TdvTws jceTar eis TOV ai@va, oldevds Ouvapévov pat\ov écbiew abtyv ei yap oiov TE av Ett pavArov péevovTa écbiew Tov yevopevov capKa, Aoyov ovta, Kal aptov (ava, obK av éyéypaTTo, Ott Was 6 Paywv Tov aptov TovTOV GijceTat eis tov ai@va. Origen. in Matt. xv. Tom. III. p.499. Ed. Bened. ] OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 209 words be so plain, that I need say nothing for the more clear declaration of them. Wherefore you shall hear how Cyprian agreeth with him. Cyprian in his sermon, ascribed unto him, of the Lord’s supper, saith : cyprianus n Serm. de “The author of this tradition said, that except we eat his flesh and drink Cena Do- his blood, we should have no life in us; instructing us with a spiritual lesson, and opening to us a way to understand so privy a thing, that we should know, that the eating is our dwelling in him, and our drinking is as it were an incorporation in him, being subject unto him in obedience, joined unto him in our wills, and united in our affections. The eating therefore of this flesh is a certain hunger and desire to dwell in him.” Thus writeth Cyprian of the eating and drinking of Christ. And a little after he saith, that “none do eat of this Lamb, but such as be true Israelites, that is to say, pure christian men, without colour or dissimulation®.” And Athanasius, speaking of the eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of Athanasius de Peccato his blood, saith, that “for this cause he made mention of his ascension into i? Spiritum Sanctum. heaven, to pluck them from corporal phantasy, that they might learn hereafter that his flesh was called the celestial meat that came from above, and a spi- ritual food, which he would give. ‘For those things that I speak to you,’ 219 saith he, ‘be spirit and life.’ Which is as much to say, as that thing which you see, shall be slain and given for the nourishment of the world, that it may be distributed to every body spiritually, and be to all men a conserya- tion unto the resurrection of eternal life®.”’ In these words Athanasius declareth the cause why Christ made mention of his ascension into heaven, when he spake of the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood. The cause after Athanasius’ mind was this: that his hearers should not think of any carnal eating of his body with their mouths, (for as concerning the presence of his body, he should be taken from them, and ascend into heaven,) but that they should understand him to be a spiritual meat, and spiritually to be eaten, and by that refreshing to give eternal life, which he doth to none but to such as be his lively members. And of this eating speaketh also Basilius, that “we eat Christ’s flesh and See drink his blood, being made by his incarnation and sensible life partakers of his word and wisdom. For his flesh and blood he calleth all his mystical con- versation here in his flesh and his doctrine, consisting of his whole life, pertaining both to his humanity and divinity; whereby the soul is nourished and brought to the contemplation of things eternal’.” [° Dixerat sane hujus traditionis magister, quod Tw elm@eiv, TO pev Oetkvipevov Kal dtddpevoy b7rép nisi manducaremus ejus carnem, et biberemus ejus THS TOV KOcpov cwTnplas éoTlW 1) cape HY éyw sanguinem, non haberemus vitam in nobis : spiritali nos instruens documento, et aperiens ad rem adeo abditam intellectum, ut sciremus quod mansio nos- tra in ipso sit manducatio, et potus quasi quedem incorporatio, subjectis obsequiis, voluntatibus junc- tis, affectibus unitis. Esus igitur carnis hujus quadam aviditas est, et quoddam desiderium ma- nendi in ipso....Una est domus ecclesiz, in qua agnus editur : nullus ei communicat, quem Israeli- tici nominis generositas non commendat.—Cyprian. de Cena Domini, pp. 469-470. Ed. Paris. 1574.] [®° Ata rovrto tijs eis olpavols avaBdcews éuvy- péveuce Tov viov Tov advOpwrov, iva THs TWMATLKIS évvoias abtovs apedkbon, Kal Nourdy ry elpnuevynv capa Bpdow avwlev obpdvov, Kal TVEULATLKHY Tpopiy Tap’ abtov didouévnv pdbwow. A yap AeAaAnKa, pnolv, duiv, Tvevpa Ear. Kai Cw" ioov [CRANMER. | popw* aX atitn buiv ‘kai +6 TabTHs aiwa Trap’ é“00 mvevpatikws dolijceTat Tpody, wate Trev- PaTLKWS éV EKdoTw Ta’THY avadidocbal, Kai yive- ofar wacw cpu\aKtipioy eis dvdoTacw Cwijs aiw- viov.—Athanasius, Epist. rv. Ad Serapium, de Peccato in Spiritum Sanctum. Tom. I. Pars ii. p. 710. Ed. Bened. Paris. 1698. ] [7 Tpwyouev yep aitou tiv capKa, Kat Tivomev avTov TO aipa, Kowwwvoi ywoyevor dra THS évay- Opwrnoews, Kai THs alcOnTijs Gwijs, TOU AOyou Kat THS copias, capKa yap Kai aiva Tacav aitov Ti pueTiKyy éwionulav Wvdomace, Kal THY EK TpaK-= TLKAS Kal Puotkys Kal DeohoyiKys cvvesTt@oay Ot~ éackaNiav édijiwoe, Ov ys TpépeTar uyn, Kal Tpds Thy TaV ovTwWY Téws Yewpiavy TapacKevace- vat.—Basil. Epistola cxli. Tom. III. p. 167. Ed. Paris. 1638. ] 14 Hieronymus in Esaiam. cap. In Hieremi- am. In Oseam, cap. Ambrosius de benedic- GO. 8. tione pa- arenas, cap. 9. De his, qui _ mysterlis ini- tiantur. De Sacra- mentis, Lib. ly. cap. 5. Lib. v. cap. 3. Augustinus in sententiis ex Prospero decerptis, 34]. cap. 34 De Civitate Dei, Lib. xxi. cap. 25. 220. 210 THE FOURTH BOOK. Thus teacheth Basilius how we eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood, which pertaineth only to the true and faithful members of Christ. St Hierome also saith: ‘ All that love pleasure more than God, eat not the flesh of Jesu, nor drink his blood; of the which himself saith: ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life’’” And in another place St Hierome saith, that “heretics do not eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord*.” And moreover he saith, that “heretics eat not the flesh of Jesu, whose flesh is the meat of faithful men*.” Thus agreeth St Hierome with the other before rehearsed, that heretics and such as follow worldly pleasures eat not Christ’s flesh nor drink his blood, because that Christ said, ‘“‘ He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life.” And St Ambrose saith, that “ Jesus is the bread which is the meat of saints, and that he that taketh this bread, dieth not a sinner’s death: for this bread is the remission of sins*.” And in another book to him intituled, he writeth thus : “ This bread of life which came down’ from heaven, doth minister everlasting life; and whosoever eateth this bread, shall not die for ever, and is the body of Christ®.”” And yet in another book, set forth in his name, he saith on this wise : “ He that did eat manna died; but he that eateth this body, shall have remission of his sins, and shall not die for ever’.” thou drinkest thou hast remission of thy And again he saith: “ As often as sins*.” These sentences of St Ambrose be so plain in this matter, that there needeth no more, but only the rehearsal of them. But St Augustine in many places, plainly discussing this matter, saith: “ He that agreeth not with Christ, doth neither eat his body nor drink his blood, although, to the condemnation of his presumption, he receive every day the sacrament of so high a matter*.” And moreover, St Augustine most plainly resolveth this matter in his book De civitate Dei, disputing against two kinds of heretics: whereof the one said”, [* Omnes voluptatis magis amatores, quam ama- tores Dei, nec comedunt carnem Jesu, neque bibunt sanguinem ejus, de quo ipse loquitur: ‘‘ Qui comedit | carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, habet | Vitam zternam.’’—Hieron. Comment. in Esaiam. cap. lxvi. 17. Tom. V. p. 215. Ed. Francof. 1684.] [? Non comedent et non bibent, (i.e. hzretici,) subauditur corpus et sanguinem Salvatoris.— Hieron. Comment. in Hieremiam. cap. xxii. 15. Tom. V. p. 264.] [ Isti (i.e. heretici,) multas immolant hostias, et comedunt carnes earum, unam Christi hostiam deserentes, mec comedentes ejus carnem, cujus caro cibus credentium est.—Hieron. Comment. in Osee. cap. viii. 13. Tom. VI. p. 26.] [* Hic ergo panis factus est esca sanctorum.— | Qui autem accipit, non moritur peccatoris morte, quia panis hic remissio peccatorum est. Ambros. De benedictionibus Patriarcharam.—cap. ix. Tom. I. p. 198. Ed. Colon. Agripp. 1616.] [° Which came from heaven, 1551, and Orig. ed.] (° Ista autem esca quam accipitis, iste panis vivus qui descendit de celo, vite eterne substan- tiam subministrat : et quicumque hunc panem man- ducaverit, non morietur in zternum ; et est corpus | Christi—Id. De Initiandis. cap. viii. Tom. IV. p- 165. ] [7 Deinde manna qui manducavit, mortuus est. | Qui manducaverit hoc corpus, fiet ei remissio pecca- torum, et non morietur in eternum.—Id. De Sacra- mentis, Lib. rv. cap. v. Tom. IV. p. 174.] (® Quotiescumque enim bibis, remissionem accipis peccatorum.—Id. ib. Lib. v. cap. iii. Tom. IV. p.175. The Benedictine editors maintain that the ‘‘ De initiandis” is a genuine Treatise of St Ambrose, and they have also placed the ‘‘De sacramentis’’ amongst his works, but they have not decided upon its authenticity. There is little question that both are spurious Treatises. Vide Coci Censura Patrum, p. 266. Helms. 1683. Riveti Critica Sacra. p. 294. Genev. 1626. Jo. Geo. Wal- chii. Bibl. Patrist. p. 409. Jena. 1834.] [2 Nam qui discordat a Christo, nec carnem ejus manducat, nec sanguinem bibit; etiam si tante rei sacramentum ad judicium sue presumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat—August. Lib. Sen- tent. Prosp.341. Tom. III. p. 435. Ed. Paris. 1635. ] [2° Sed jam respondeamus etiam illis, qui non solum diabolo et angelis ejus, sicut nec isti, sed ne ipsis quidem omnibus hominibus liberationem ab wterno igne promittunt; verum eis tantum qui Christi baptismate abluti, et corporis ejus et san- | guinis participes facti sunt, quomodo libet vixerint in quacumque haresi vel impietate fuerint....Quam- obrem quod ait Dominus Jesus, ‘‘ Hic est panis, qui de celo descendit: si quis ex ipso manduca- ~~ OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 211 that “as many as were christened, and received the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, should be saved, howsoever they lived or believed, because that Christ said, ‘This is the bread that came from heaven, that whosoever shall eat thereof shall not die. ‘I am the bread of life, which came from heaven, whosoever shall eat of this bread, shall live for ever.’ Therefore,” said these heretics, “all such men must needs be delivered from eternal death, and at length be brought to eternal life.’ The other said, that “heretics and schismatics might eat the sacrament of Christ’s body, but not his very body, because they be no members of his body.”’ And therefore they promised not everlasting life to all that received Christ’s baptism and the sacrament of his body, but “ to™ all such as professed a true faith, although they lived never so ungodly. For such,” said they, “do eat the body of Christ, not only in a sacrament, but also in deed, because they be members of Christ’s body.” But St Augustine, answering to both these heresies, saith: ‘ That neither heretics, nor such as profess a true faith in their mouths, and in their living shew the contrary, have either a true faith, (which worketh by charity, and doth none evil,) or are to be counted among the members of Christ. For they cannot be both members of Christ and members of the devil. Therefore,” saith [Vide Emb. he, “it may not be said that any of them eat the body of Christ. For when tomi hujus.) Christ saith, ‘He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him; he sheweth what it is, (not sacramentally, but in deed,) to eat his body and drink his blood: which is, when a man dwelleth so in Christ, that Christ dwelleth in him. For Christ spake those words as if he should say, he that dwelleth not in me, and in whom I dwell not, let him not say or think that he eateth my body, or drinketh my blood.” These be the plain words of St Augustine, that such as live ungodly, although they may seem to eat Christ’s body, (because they eat the sacrament of his body,) yet in deed they neither be members of his body, nor do eat his body. Also upon the gospel of St John he saith, that “he that doth not eat his @Jom... flesh and drink his blood, hath not in him everlasting life: and he that eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath everlasting life. But it is not so in those meats, which we take to sustain our bodies: for although without them we cannot live, yet it is not necessary, that whosoever receiveth them shall live; for they may die by age”, sickness, or other chances. But in this meat and drink of the body and blood of our Lord, it is otherwise. For both they that cvice zm». ed. in fine tomi hujus.} verit non morietur: ego sum panis vivus, qui de celo descendi: si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, vivet in zternum,”’ quomodo sit accipiendum, merito queritur. Et ab istis quidem quibus nunc re- spondemus, hune intellectum auferunt illi, quibus deinde respondendum est : hi sunt autem qui hane liberationem, nec omnibus habentibus sacramentum baptismatis et corporis Christi, sed solis catholicis, quamvis male viventibus, pollicentur; quinonsolum (inguiunt) sacramento, sed re ipsa manducaverunt corpus Christi, in ipso scilicet ejus corpore constituti. ... Ac per hoc quicunque agunt talia, nisi in sempi- ‘‘malum non operatur.’’ Nec isti duo ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi. Ut enim alia taceam, ‘‘non possunt simul esse et membra Christi et membra meretricis.”” Deniqueipse dicens, ‘* Qui manducat carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, et ego in eo,”’ ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus, sed reyera corpus Christi man- ducare, et ejus sanguinem bibere: hoc est enim in Christo manere, ut in illo maneat et Christus. Sic enim hoe dixit, tanquam diceret: qui non in me manet, et in quo ego non mane, non se dicat aut terno supplicio non erunt, quia in Dei regno esse non poterunt. In his enim perseverando usque in hujus vite finem, non utique dicendi sunt in Christo perseverasse usque in finem, quia in Christo per- severare est in ejus fide perseverare. Que fides, ut eam definit idem Apostolus, “ per dilectionem operatur. Dilectio autem,”’ sicut idem alibi dicit, existimet manducare corpus meum, aut bibere san- guinem meum.—August. de Civitate Dei. Lib. xxr. cap. xxv. Pars vi1. Ed. Basil. ap. Amerbach, 1506. | {%! But all such, 1551, and Orig. ed.] ['? For age, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 14—2 221. {Sed magis tante rei sa- cramentum ad judicium mandueat. Emb. ed. ] In Joh. Tractat. 27. De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. iii. cap. 16. De Verbis Apostoli, Sermo ii. 212 THE FOURTH BOOK. eat and drink them not, have not everlasting life: and contrariwise, whosoever eat and drink them, have everlasting life.” Note and ponder well these words of St Augustine ; “That the bread and wine and other meats and drinks, which nourish the body, a man may eat, and never- theless die: but the very body and blood of Christ no man eateth, but that hath everlasting life.” So that wicked men cannot eat nor drink them, for then they must needs have by them everlasting life. And in the same place St Augustine saith further: ‘“ The sacrament of the unity of Christ’s body and blood is taken in the Lord’s table, of some men to life, and of some men to death; but the thing itself, (whereof it is a sacrament,) is taken of all men to life, and of no man to death.” And moreover he saith: “ This is to eat that meat, and drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. And for that cause, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not, without doubt he eateth not spiritually his flesh nor drinketh his blood, although carnally and visibly with his teeth he bite the sacrament of his body and blood’.” Thus writeth St Augustine in the twenty-sixth Homily of St John. And in the next Homily following, he saith thus: “ This day our sermon is of the body of the Lord, which he said he would give to eat for eternal life. And he declared the manner of his gift and distribution, how he would give his flesh to eat, saying: ‘ He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.’ This therefore is a token or knowledge, that a man hath eaten and drunken; that is to say, if he dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in him; if he cleave so to Christ, that he is not severed from him. This therefore Christ taught and admonished by these mystical or figurative words, that we should be in his body under him our head among his members, eating his flesh, nor? for- saking his unity®.” And in his book, De Doctrina Christiana, St Augustine saith, as before is at length declared, “that to eat Christ’s flesh, and to drink his blood, is a figura- tive speech signifying the participation of his passion, and the delectable remem- brance to our benefit and profit, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us*.” And in another sermon also, De Verbis Apostoli, he expoundeth what is the eating of Christ’s body and the drinking of his blood, saying: ‘“ The eating is to [’ Qui ergo non manducat ejus carnem, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, non habet in se vitam: et qui manducat ejus carnem, et bibit ejus sanguinem, habet vitam eternam. Ad utrumque autem re- spondit quod dixit, zternam. Non ita est in hac esca, quam sustentande hujus corporalis vite causa sumimus: nam qui eam non sumpserit, non vivet 5 nec tamen qui eam sumpserit vivet. Fieri enim potest, ut senio, vel morbo, vel aliquo casu, plurimi et qui eam sumpserint, moriantur. In hoc vero cibo et potu, id est, corpore et sanguine Domini, non ita est: nam et qui eam non sumit, non habet vitam; et qui eam sumit habet vitam, et hanc utique zternam..... Hujus rei sacramentum, id est, unitatis corporis et sanguinis Christi alicubi quo- tidie, alicubi certis intervallis dierum in dominica mensa preparatur, et de mensa dominica sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res vero ipsa, cujus et sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus parti- ceps fuerit. ... Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, et illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, et illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, procul- dubio nec manducat spiritaliter carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi; sed magis taniz rei sacramentum ad judi- cium sibi manducat et bibit.—August. In Joannem. Tract. xxvi. De cap. vi. Pars1x. Ed. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506. ] [? Not, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] [® Est enim (i. e. sermo), de corpore Domini, quod dicebat se dare ad manducandum propter zternam vitam. Exposuit autem modum attribu- tionis hujus et doni sui, qaomodo daret carnem suam manducare, dicens : ‘‘ Qui manducat carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, et ego in illo.”’ Signum quia manducavit et bibit, hoc est: si — manet et manetur, si habitat et inhabitatur, si heret ut non deseratur. Hoc ergo nos docuit et admo- nuit mysticis verbis, ut simus in ejus corpore sub ipso capite in membris ejus, edentes carnem ejus, non relinquentes unitatem ejus.—August. in Joan- nem. Tract. xxvit. De cap. vi. Pars 1x.] [* See p. 115.] OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 213 be refreshed, and the drinking what is it but to live? at life, drink life. And that shall be, when that which is taken visibly in the sacrament, is in very deed eaten spiritually and drunken spiritually®.” By all these sentences of St Augustine it is evident and manifest, that all men, good and evil, may with their mouths visibly and sensibly eat the sacra- ment of Christ’s body and blood; but the very body and blood themselves be not eaten but spiritually, and that of the spiritual members of Christ, which dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in them, by whom they be refreshed and have everlasting life. And therefore saith St Augustine, that “when the other apostles did eat bread that was the Lord, yet Judas did eat but the bread of the Lord, and not the bread that was the Lord®.” So that the other apostles with the sacramental bread did eat also Christ himself, whom Judas did not eat. And a great number of places more hath St Augustine for this purpose, which for eschewing of tediousness, I let pass for this time, and will speak something of St Cyril. Cyril, upon St John in his gospel, saith, that “ those which eat manna died, because they received thereby no strength to live ever, (for it gave no life, only put away bodily hunger); but they that receive the bread of life, shall be made immortal, and shall eschew all the evils that pertain to death, living with Christ for ever’.” And in another place he saith: “ Forasmuch as the flesh of Christ doth naturally give life, therefore it maketh them to live that be par- takers of it. For it putteth death away from them, and utterly driveth de- struction out of them®.” And he concludeth the matter shortly im another place in few words, saying, that “when we eat the flesh of our Saviour, then have we life in us For if things that were corrupt, were restored by only touching of his clothes, how can it be that we shall not live that eat his flesh ?” And further he saith, “That as two waxes be molten together, do run every part into other; so he that receiveth Christ’s flesh and blood, must needs be joined so with him, that Christ must be in him, and he in Christ’.”’ Here St Cyril declareth the dignity of Christ’s flesh being inseparably annexed unto his divinity, saying, that it is of such force and power, that it giveth everlasting life. And whatsoever occasion of death it findeth, or let of eternal life, it putteth out and driveth clean away all the same, from them that eat that meat and receive that medicine. Other medicines or plaisters sometime heal, and sometime heal not; but this medicine is of that effect and strength, that {° Mud manducare refici est.—Ilud bibere quid est, nisi vivere ? Manduca vitam, bibe vitam: habe- bis vitam, et integra est vita. Tunc autem hoc erit, id est, vita unicuique erit corpus et sanguis Christi, si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritaliter manducetur, spiritaliter biba- tur.—August. de Verbis Apostoli, Sermo ii. Tom. X. p. 94. Paris. 1635.] [° Ili manducabant panem Dominum, ille (i.e. Judas, ) panem Domini contra Dominum : illi vitam, ille penam.—August. in Joannem, Tract. r1x. De cap. xiil. Pars 1x. Basil. ap. Amerbach. | [7 Ovkouy oi pév payovtes 76 pdvva, nol, Te- TedevTikacw, Ws ovdenLas dnovdTL Cwis peTov- ciay Tap aitou deEduevor ob yap iv bvtTws Cwo- mowov, Kimov 6é padXov étrixoupov capKiKou, Kal ws év TimW TOU addneatépov Taparnpbev. ot dé Tdv aptov év éavtots elokouiovtes tis Sens yépas Lover tv abavaciav, pOopas Te Kai tev éx TabTHs Kakwv mavteXws dhoyjaoavtes, mpds aprputov TE kal ate\eiTnTov Biov Tov Kata Xpiotov cavafy- covrat wijxos.—Cyril. in Joannem, Lib. rv. cap. x. Tom. 1V. p. 351. ed. Aubert. Paris. 1638. ] [® Ata rovto (womoret To’s peTéXovTas a’Tou TO capa Xptotov. éEehavver yap tov Oavatov, bray ev Tots atrolvncKovor yevnTat, Kal éEiotnot plopav.—Id. Lib. tv. cap. xii. Tom. IV. p. 354. ] [° Kai ei dvd povns ays ths ayias capKds Gworrorettar TO épVappévov, Waws oxi TOUVGWWTE- pav amoKkepdavoupev tiv Cworrotdy evoyiav, bray aitis Kai drroyevowpea ;—'Qorep yap eitts Knpov érépw cuvaryete Knp@, WavTws O17ov Kal ETEpov év ETEépw yeyovueTa KaToeTar’ Tov aUTOY, oluat, TPd- Tov KaLO THY CdpKa deXOMEVOS TOV GwTIpos HuLwY Xpistov, Kal rivwyv avtov TO Tipov aipa, Kaba now aitos, ev ws mpds aiTov ebpioKeTat cuvava- Kipvapevos Wotrep Kal dvapryvipevos al’Tw dia THs peradyews, ws év Xpiorw pev abrov evpicxesbar, Xp.orop 6€ al wahw év avtwo.—ld. Lib. rv. capp. xiv. xvii. Tom. 1V. pp. 361, 4, 5.] in Joh. act. 59. LWide Bap: . in fine ein hujus. ] Cyrillus, in Joh. Lib. iv. but cap. 10. Cap. 12. S. Cap. 14. i) 214 THE FOURTH BOOK. it eateth away all rotten and dead flesh, and perfectly healeth all wounds and sores that it is laid unto. This is the dignity and excellency of Christ’s flesh and blood, joined to his divinity ; of the which dignity Christ’s adversaries, the papists, deprive and rob him, when they affirm, that such men do eat his flesh and receive this plaister, as remain still sick and sore, and be not holpen thereby. Thus hast thou heard, gentle reader, the grounds and proofs, which moved me to write the matter of this fourth book, that good men only eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood. Now shalt thou hear the late bishop’s confutation of the same. WINCHESTER. And as for the scriptures and doctors which this author allegeth to prove that only good men receive the body and blood of Christ, I grant it without contention, speaking of spiritual mandu- cation and with lively faith without the sacrament. But in the visible sacrament evil men receive the same that good men do, for the substance of the sacrament is by God’s ordinance all one. And if this author would use for a proof, that in the sacrament Christ's very body is not present, because evil men receive it, that shall be no argument ; for the good seed when it was sown did fall in the evil ground, and although Christ dwelleth not in the evil man, yet he may be received of the evil man to his condemnation, because he receiveth him not to glorify him as God, as St Paul saith, non dijudicans corpus domini, “not esteeming owr Lord’s body.” And to all that ever this author bringeth to prove, that evil men eat not the body of Christ, may be said shortly, that spiritually they eat it not, besides the sacrament, and in the sacrament they eat it not effectually to life, but condemnation. And that is and may be called a not eating; as they be said not to hear the word of G'od, that hear it not profitably. And because the body of Christ of itself is ordained to be eaten for life, those that unworthily eat to condemnation, although they eat in deed, may be said not to eat, because they eat unworthily ; as a thing not well done may be in speech called not done, in respect of the good effect wherefore it was chiefly ordered to be done. And by this rule thou, reader, mayest discuss all that this author bringeth forth for this purpose”, either out of scriptures or doctors. For evil men eat not the body of Christ to have any fruit by it, as evil men be said not to hear God’s word to have any fruit by it; and yet as they hear the words of spirit and life, and nevertheless perish, so evil men eat inthe visible sacrament the body of Christ, and yet perish. And as I said, this answereth the scripture with the particular sayings of Cyprian, Athanase, Basil, Hierome, and Ambrose. As for St Augustine, which this author allegeth, de civitate Dei, the same St Augustine doth plainly say there in this place* alleged, how the good and evil receive the same sacrament, and addeth, “* but not with like profit,’ which words this author suppresseth, and therefore dealeth not sincerely. As for St Augustine shall be hereafter more plainly declared. Finally, he that receiveth worthily the body and blood of Christ, hath everlasting life, dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him: he that receiveth unworthily, which can be only in the sacrament, recewveth not life, but condemnation. CANTERBURY. If you “grant without contention” that which I do prove, then you must grant ab- solutely and frankly without any addition, that only good men eat and drink the body and blood of Christ. For so say all the scriptures and authors plainly, which I have alleged, without your addition of spiritual manducation: and not one of them all say as you do, that “in the visible sacrament evil men receive the same that good men do.” But I make no such vain proofs as you feign in my name, that “in the sacrament Christ’s very body is not present, because evil men receive it.” But this argument were good, although I make no such: Evil men eat and drink the sacrament, and yet they [! Eat condemnation, Orig. ed. Winch. ] | [? Thus answereth, 1551.] [* For his purpose, 1551.] [* In the place, 1581. ] OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 215 eat and drink not Christ’s flesh and blood: ergo, his flesh and blood be not really and corporally in the sacrament. And when you say that Christ “may be received of the evil man to his condemna- tion,” is this the glory that you give unto Christ, that his whole presence in a man, both with flesh, blood, soul, and spirit, shall make him never the better? and that Christ shall be in him, that is a member of the devil? And if an evil man have Christ in him for a time, why may he not then have him still dwelling in him? For if he may be in him a quarter of an hour, he may be also an whole hour, and so a whole day, and an whole year, and so shall God and the devil dwell together in one house. And this is the crop that groweth of your sowing, if Christ fall in evil men, as good seed falleth in evil ground. And where you say, that “all that ever I bring to prove that evil men eat not the body of Christ, may be shortly answered,” truth it is, as you said in one place of me, that all that I have brought may be shortly answered, if a man care not what he answer; as it seemeth you pass not much what you answer, so that you may lay on load of words. For whereas I have fully proved, as well by authority of scripture as by the testimony of many old writers, that although evil men eat the sacramental bread, and drink the wine, which have the names of his flesh and blood, yet they eat not Christ's very flesh nor drink his blood®: your short and whole answer is this, that evil men may be said not to eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood, because austen ue they do it not fruitfully, as they ought to do; “and that may be called a not eating, that wae ; as they may be said not to hear God’s word, that hear it not profitably; and a ; thing not well done, may be in speech called not done, in the respect of the good effect.” I grant such speeches be sometime used, but very rarely ; and when the very truth cometh in discussion, then such paradoxes are not to be used. As if it come in question whether a house be builded, that is not well builded, then the definition of the matter must not be*, that it is not builded’ although the carpenters and other workmen have failed in their covenant and bargain, and not builded the house in such sort as they ought to have done. So our Saviour Christ teacheth that all heard the Luke viii. word, whether the seed fell in the highway, or upon the stones, or among the thorns, or in the good ground. Wherefore when this matter cometh in discussion among the old writers, whether evil men eat Christ’s body or no, if the truth had been that evil men eat it, the old writers would not so precisely have defined the contrary, that 224. they eat not, but wonld have said they eat it, but not effectually, not fruitfully, not profitably. But now the authors which I have alleged, define plainly and absolutely, that evil men eat not Christ's body, without any other addition. But after this sort that you do use, it shall be an easy matter for every man to say what liketh him, and to defend it well enough, if he may add to the scriptures and doctors’ words at his pleasure, and make the sense after his own phantasy. The scriptures and doctors which I allege do say in plain words, as I do say, “that evil men do not eat the body of Christ nor drink his blood, but only they that have life thereby.” Now come you in with your addition and gloss, made of your own head, putting thereto this word “effectually.” If I should say that Christ was never conceived nor born, could not I avoid all the scriptures that you can bring to the contrary, by adding this word “apparently,” and defend my saying stoutly? And might not the Valen- tinians, Marcionists and other, that said that Christ died not for us, defend their error with addition, as they did, of this word “putative” to all the scriptures that were brought against them? And what heresy can be reproved, if the heretics may have that liberty that you do use, to add of their own heads to the words of scripture ? —contrary unto God’s word directly, who commandeth us to add nothing to his word, Deut. xii. nor to take anything away. And yet moreover, the authorities, which I have brought to approve my doctrine, do clearly cast away your addition, adding the cause why evil men cannot eat Christ’s flesh nor drink his blood. And you have taught almost in the beginning of your [° Nor drink blood, 1551.] [7 After the words, ‘‘is not builded,” the 1541 [° Of the matter must be, 1551. | | edition adds, ‘‘ but that it is builded.””] August. de Civit. Dei, Lib. xxi. eap. 25. bo bo Or Chap. v. Rom. viii. 216 THE FOURTH BOOK. book, “that Christ's body is but a spiritual body, and after a spiritual manner eaten by faith.” And now you have confessed, “‘that whoso feedeth upon Christ spiritually, must needs be a good man.” How can you then defend now, that evil men eat the body of Christ; except you will now deny that which you granted in the beginning, and now have forgotten it, “that Christ’s body cannot be eaten but after a spiritual manner by faith?” Wherein it is marvel, that you, having so good a memory, should forget the common proverb, Mendacem memorem esse oportet. And it had been more convenient for you to have answered fully to Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil, Hierome, and Ambrose, than when you cannot answer, to wipe your hands of them with this slender answer, saying, that you have answered. And whether you have or no, I refer to the judgment of the reader. And as concerning St Augustine, De civitale Dei, he saith: “That evil men re- ceive the sacrament of Christ’s body, although it availeth them not.” But yet he saith in plain words, “that we ought not to say, that any man eateth the body of Christ, that is not in the body'.” And if the reader ever saw any mere cayillation in all his life-time, let him read the chapter of St Augustine, and compare it to your answer, and I dare say he never saw the like. And as for the other places of St Augustine by me alleged, with Origen and Cyril, for the more ease you pass them over with silence, and dare eat no such meat, it is so hard for you to digest. And thus have you with post haste run over all my scriptures and doctors, as it were playing at the post, with still passing and giving over every game. And yet shall you never be able for your part to bring any scripture that serveth for your purpose, except you may be suffered to add thereto such words as you please. Then come you to my questions, wherein I write thus. And now, for corroboration of Cyril’s saying, I would thus reason with the papists, and demand of them: When an unrepentant sinner receiveth the sacrament, whether he have Christ’s body within him or no? If they say “no,” then have I my purpose, that evil men, although they receive the sacrament of Christ’s body, yet receive they not his very body. If they say “ yea,” then I would ask them further, Whether they have Christ’s Spirit within them or no? If they say “nay,” then do they separate Christ’s body from his Spirit, and his humanity from his divinity, and be condemned by the scripture as very antichrists, that divide Christ. And if they say “yea,” that a wicked man hath Christ’s Spirit im him, then the scripture also condemneth them, saying, that as “he which hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his; so he that hath Christ in him liveth, because he is justified: and if his Spirit that raised up Jesus from death dwell in you, he that raised Jesus from death, shall give life to your mortal bodies, for his Spirit’s sake, which dwelleth in you.” Thus on every side'the scripture condemneth the adversaries of God’s word. And this wickedness of the papists is to be wondered at, that they affirm Christ’s flesh, blood, soul, holy Spirit, and his deity, to be in a man that is subject to sin, and a limb of the devil. They be wonderful jugglers and con- jurers, that with certain words can make God and the devil to dwell together in one man, and make him both the temple of God, and the temple of the devil. It appeareth that they be so blind that they cannot see the light from darkness, Belial from Christ, nor the table of the Lord from the table of devils. Thus [! Ac per hoc heretici et schismatici ab hujus | non dicendum esse eum manducare corpus Christi, unitate corporis separati possunt idem percipere | qui in corpore non est Christi, non recte, &c.—Au- sacramentum, sed non sibi utile, imo vero etiam | gust. De Civitate Dei. Lib. xx1. cap. xxv. Pars noxium. ... Sed rursus etiam isti qui recte intelligunt | vir. Ed. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506.] OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 217 is confuted this third intolerable error and heresy of the papists: ‘That they which be the limbs of the devil, do eat the very body of Christ, and drink his blood ;” manifestly and directly contrary to the words of Christ himself, who saith : ‘‘ Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life.” WINCHESTER. But to encounter directly with this author where he opposeth by interrogation, and would be answered, “whether an unrepentant sinner, that receiveth the sacrament, hath Christ's body within him or no?” Mark, reader, this question, which declareth that this author talketh of the sacrament, not as himself teacheth, but as the true teaching is, although he mean otherwise: Sor else how can an unrepentant sinner receive Christ's body, but only in the sacrament un- worthily? and how could he receive it unworthily, and it were not there?? But to answer to this question’, IT answer “no;” for it followeth not, he received him, ergo, he hath him in him; for the vessel being not meet, he departed from him, because he was a sinner, in whom he dwelleth not. And where this author, now become a questionist, maketh two questions, of Christ's body, and his Spirit, as though Christ’s body might be divided from his Spirit; he swpposeth other to be as ignorant as himself. For the learned man will answer, that an evil man by force of God’s ordinance, in the substance of the sacrament, received in deed Christ's very body there present, whole Christ, God and man; but he tarried not, nor dwelled not, nor fructified not 226. in him, nor Christ's Spirit entered not into that man’s soul, because of the malice and wn- worthiness of him that received. For Christ will not dwell with Belial nor abide with sinners. aor And what hath this author won now by his forked question? wherein he seemeth to glory as Winch. ] though he had embraced an absurdity that he hunted for; wherein he sheweth only his igno- rance, who putteth no difference between the entering of Christ into an evil man by God's ordinance in the sacrament, and the dwelling of Christs Spirit in an evil man, which by scripture cannot be, ne is by any catholic man affirmed. For St Paul saith: “In him that receiveth unworthily, remaineth judgment and condemnation.” And yet St Pauls words [1 Cor. xi. plainly import, that those did eat the very body of Christ, which did eat unworthily, and a therefore were guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Now, reader, consider what is before written, and thow shalt easily see what a fond conclusion this author gathereth in the ninety- seventh leaf, as though the teaching were, that the same man should be both the temple of God, and the temple of the devil; with other terms, wherewith it liketh this author to refresh him- self, and feigneth an adversary such as he would have, but hath none, for no catholic man teacheth so, nor it is not all one to receive Christ and to have Christ dwelling in him. And a figure thereof was in Christ's conversation upon earth, who tarrietht not with all that received him in outward appearance; and there is noted a difference that some believed in Christ, and yet Christ committed not himself to them. And the gospel praiseth them that hear the word (Jom iii. of God and keep it, signifying many to have the word of God and not to keep it; as they aoe xi. that receive Christ by his ordinance in the sacrament, and yet because they receive him not vied according to the intent of his ordinance worthily, they are so much the worse thereby through their own malice. And therefore to conclude this place with the author, “whosoever eateth Christ's flesh and drinketh his blood, hath everlasting life,’ with St Paul's exposition, if he ce xi. doth it worthily; or else by the same St Paul, he hath condemnation. CANTERBURY. Here the reader shall evidently see your accustomed manner, that when you be destitute of answer, and have none other shift, then fall you to scoffing and scolding out the matter, as sophisters sometimes do at their problems. But as ignorant as I am, you shall not so escape me. First you bid the reader mark, that I “talk of the sacrament, not as I teach myself.” But I would have the reader here mark, that you report my words as you list yourself, not as I speak them. For you report my question as I should say, that “an unrepentant sinner should receive Christ’s body,” whereas I speak of the receiving of the sacrament of the body, and not of the very body itself. Moreover, I make my question of the being of Christ's body in an unpenitent sinner, and you turn “being” into “abiding,” because “being” biteth you so sore. |? And he were not there, Orig. ed. Winch. | {* To the question, Ibid.] {* Tarried, Ibid.] 218 THE FOURTH BOOK. Whether a’ First you confess that an unrepentant sinner, receiving the sacrament, hath not Christ’s Christ within hody within him; and then may I say that he eateth not Christ’s body, except he eat it without him. And although “it followeth not, he received Christ, ergo, he hath him in him;” yet it followeth necessarily, he receiveth him, ergo, he hath him within him for the time of the receipt; as a bottomless vessel, although it keep no liquor, yet for the time of the receiving it hath the liquor in it. And how can Christ “depart from an unpenitent sinner,” as you say he doth, if he have him not at all? And because of mine ignorance, I would fain learn of you, that take upon you to be a man of knowledge, how an evil man receiving Christ’s very body, and whole Christ, God and man, as you say an evil man doth; and Christ’s body being such as it cannot 227. be divided from his Spirit, as you say also; how this evil man, receiving Christ’s Spirit, should be an evil man for the time that he hath Christ’s Spirit within him? Or bow can he receive Christ’s body and Spirit, according to your saying, and have them not in him for the time he receiveth them? Or how can Christ enter into an evil man, as you confess, and be not in him, into whom he entereth, at that present time ? These be matters of your knowledge, as you pretend, which if you can teach me, I must confess mine ignorance: and if you cannot, forsomuch as you have spoken them, you must confess the ignorance to be upon your own part. 1 Cor. xi. And St Paul saith not, as you untruly recite him, that “in him that receiveth unworthily remaineth judgment and condemnation,” but that he eateth and drinketh condemnation. And where you say, that “St Paul’s words plainly import, that those did eat the very body of Christ, which did eat unworthily,” ever still you take for a supposition the thing which you should prove. For St Paul speaketh plainly of the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, and not one word of eating of the body and drinking of the blood of Christ. And let any indifferent reader look upon my questions, and he shall see that there is not one word answered here directly unto them, except mocking and scorning be taken for answer. And where you deny, that of your doctrine it should follow, that ‘“‘ one man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the devil,” you cannot deny but that your own teaching is, that Christ entereth into evil men, when they receive the sacrament. And if they be his temple into whom he entereth, then must evil men be his temple, for the time they receive the sacrament, although he tarry not long with them. And for the same time they be evil men, as you say, and so must needs be the temple of the devil. And so it followeth of your doctrine and teaching, that at one time a man shall be the temple of God and the temple of the devil. And in your figure of Christ upon earth, although he tarried not long with every man that received him, yet for a time he tarried with them. And the word of God tarrieth for the time with many, which after forget it, and keep it not. And then so must it be by these examples in evil men receiving the sacrament, that for a time Christ must tarry in them, although that time be very short. And yet for 2Cor.vi. that time, by your doctrine, those evil men must be both the temples of God and of Belial. And where you pretend to conclude this matter by the authority of St Paul, it is no small contumely and injury to St Paul, to ascribe your feigned and untrue gloss unto him that taught nothing but the truth, as he learned the same of Christ. For 1cor.xi. he maketh mention of the eating and drinking of the bread and cup, but not one word of the eating and drinking of Christ’s body and blood. Now followeth in my book my answer to the papists in this wise: Chap. vr. But lest they should seem to have nothing to say for themselves, they to the papists. allege St Paul in the eleventh to the Corinthians, where he saith: “ He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, not discernmg the Lord’s body.” 298. But St Paul in that place speaketh of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine, and not of the corporal eating of Christ’s flesh and blood, as it is manifest to every man that will read the text. For these be the words of OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 219 St Paul: “ Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup; for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, not discerning the Lord’s body.” In these words St Paul’s mind is, that forasmuch as the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper do represent unto us the very body and blood of our Saviour Christ, by his own institution and ordinance, therefore, although he sit in heaven at his Father’s right hand, yet should we come to this mystical bread and wine with faith, reverence, purity, and fear, as we would do if we should come to see and receive Christ himself sensibly present. For unto the faithful Christ is at his own holy table present, with his mighty Spirit and grace, and is of them more fruitfully received, than if corporally they should receive him bodily present: and therefore they that shall worthily come to this God’s board, must after due trial of themselves consider first, who ordained this table; also what meat and drink they shall have that come thereto, and how they ought to behave themselves thereat. He that prepared the table is Christ himself: the meat and drink wherewith he feedeth them that come thereto as they ought to do, is his own body, flesh, and blood. They that come thereto, must occupy their minds in considermg how his body was broken for them, and his blood shed for their redemption ; and so ought they to approach to this heavenly table with all humbleness of heart and godliness of mind, as to the table wherein Christ himself is given. And they that come otherwise to this holy table, they come unworthily, and do not eat and drink Christ’s flesh and blood, but eat and drink their own damnation; because they do not duly consider Christ’s very flesh and blood, which be offered there spriritually to be eaten and drunken, but despising Christ’s most holy supper, do come thereto as it were to other common meats' and drinks, without regard of the Lord’s body, which is the spiritual meat of that table. WINCHESTER. In the ninety-seventh leaf and the second column, the author beginneth to traverse the words of St Paul to the Corinthians, and would distinct unworthy eating in the substance of the sacra- ment received, which cannot be. For our unworthiness cannot alter the substance of God's sacrament, that is evermore all one, howsoever we swerve from worthiness to unworthiness. And this I would ask of this author, why should it be a fault in the unworthy not to esteem the Lord’s body, when he is taught, if this author’s doctrine be true, that it is not there at all? If the bread? after this author's teaching be but a figure of Christ’s body, it is then but as manna was, the eating whereof unworthily and unfaithfully was no guilt of Christ’s body. Erasmus noteth these words of St Paul, “to be guilty of our Lord’s body,” to prove [Erasmus, the presence of Christ's body there, who compareth such an offender to the Jews, that did shed Wiseh Christs blood maliciously, as those do profane it wnprofitably; in which sense the Greek dene ee commentaries do also expound it. And where this author bringeth in the words of St Paul 4'8*™ as it were to point out the matter: “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and ieee ete drink of the cup, for he that eateth unworthily, &c.” these words of examini ng and so eating declare Wane the thing to be one ordered to be eaten, and all the care to be used on our side, to eat worthily, i or else St Paul had not said, “and so eat.” And when St Paul saith, “eat judgment,” and this author well remember himself, he must call judgment the effect of that is eaten, and not the thing eaten ; for judgment is neither spiritual meat nor corporal, but the effect of the eatin g of Christ in evil men, who is salvation to good, and judgment to evil. And therefore, as good men eating 229, Christ have salvation, so evil men eating Christ have condemnation ; and so for the diversity of the eaters of Christ's body, followeth, as they be worthy or unworthy, the effect of condemnation or life; Christ's sacrament and his work also, in the substance of that sacrament, being always one. And whatsoever this author talketh otherwise in this matter, is mere trifles. [' To other meats, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [° So ed. 1551. In 1680 it is printed gift, by [? If this bread, Orig. ed. Winch. ] | mistake. ] John iii. 1 Cor. xi. Unworthy eating. Manna. John vi. 230. John vi. John xiv. Chap. vil. The answer to the papists” authors. Augustinus contra Cres- conium, Lib. i. cap. 25. 220 THE FOURTH BOOK. CANTERBURY. As touching mine answer here to the words of St Paul, you would fain have them hid with darkness of speech, that no man should see what I mean. For, as Christ said, Qui male agit, odit lucem; and therefore, that which I have spoken in plain speech, you darken so with your obscure terms, that my meaning can not be under- stand. For I speak in such plain terms, as all men understand, that when St Paul said, “‘He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own dam- nation ;” in that place he spake of the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, and not of the corporal eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood. These my plain words you do wrap up in these dark terms, that I “ would distinct the unworthy eating in the substance of the sacrament received.” Which your words vary so far from mine, that no man can understand by them my meaning, except you put a large comment thereto. For I distinct the unworthy eating none otherwise, than that I say, that when St Paul speaketh of unworthy eating, he maketh mention of the unworthy eating of the bread, and not of the body of Christ. And where you ask me this question, “ Why it should be a fault in the unworthy, not to esteem the Lord’s body, when it is not there at all?’ there is in my book a full and plain answer unto your question already made, as there is also to your whole book. So that in making of my book, I did foresee all things that you could object against it: insomuch that here is not one thing in all your book, but I can shew you a sufficient answer thereto, in one place or other of my former book. And in this your question here moved, I refer the reader to the words of my book in the same place. And where you say, “That if the bread be but a figure, it is like manna:” as concerning the material bread, truly it is like manna; but as concerning Christ himself, he said of himself: ‘‘ Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.” And as concerning Erasmus and the Greek commen- taries, neither of them saith upon the place of St Paul, as you allege them to say. And whatsoever it pleaseth you to gather of these words, “ examining and so eating,” yet St Paul’s words be very plain, that he spake not of the eating of the very body of Christ, but of the eating of the material bread in the sacrament, which is all one, whether the good or evil eat of it; and all the care is on our side, to take heed that we eat not that bread unworthily. For as the eating of the bread unworthily, not of Christ himself, (who can not be eaten unworthily,) hath the effect of judgment and damnation; so eating of the same bread worthily hath the effect of Christ’s death and salvation. And as he that eateth the bread worthily may be well said to eat Christ and life; so he that eateth it unworthily may be said to eat the devil and death, as Judas did, into whom with the bread entered Satan. For unto such it may be called Mensa demoniorum, non mensa Domini; “not God's board, but the devil's.” And so in the eaters of the bread worthily or unworthily, followeth the effect of everlasting life or everlasting death. But in the eating of Christ himself is no diversity, but whosoever eateth him hath everlasting life; forasmuch as the eating of him can be to none damnation but salvation, because he is life itself. And whatsoever you babble to the contrary, is but mere fables, devised without God’s word, or any sufficient ground. Now followeth mine answer unto such authors as the papists wrest to their pur- pose. But here may not be passed over the answer unto certain places of ancient authors, which at the first shew seem to make for the papists’ purpose, that evil men do eat and drink the very flesh and blood of Christ. But if those places be truly and throughly weighed, it shall appear, that not one of them maketh for their error, that evil men do eat Christ’s very body. The first place is of St Augustine, contra Cresconium Grammaticum, OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 221 where he saith: “ That although Christ himself say, ‘He that eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood, shall not have life im him,’ yet doth not his apostles teach, that the same is pernicious to them which use it not well ? For he saith: ‘Whosoever eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’? ” In which words St Augustine seemeth to conclude, that as well the evil as the good do eat the body and blood of Christ, although the evil have no benefit, but hurt thereby. But consider the place of St Augustine diligently, and then it shall evidently appear, that he meant not of the eating of Christ’s body, but of the sacrament thereof. For the intent of St Augustine there is to prove that good things avail not to such persons as do evil use them; and that many things which of themselves be good, and be good to some, yet to other some they be not good. As that light is good for whole eyes, and hurteth sore eyes: that meat which is good for some, is evil for other some: one medicine healeth some, and maketh other sick: one harness doth harm one, and cumbereth another: one coat is meet for one, and too strait for another. And after other examples, at the last St Augustine sheweth the same to be true in the sacraments, both of baptism and the Lord’s body, which he saith do profit only them that re- ceive the same worthily. And the words of St Paul, which St Augustine citeth, do speak of the sacramental bread and cup, and not of the body and blood. And yet St Augustine called” the bread and the cup the flesh and blood, not that they be so indeed, but that they signify, as he saith in another place, contra Maximinun. “In sacraments,” saith he, “is to be considered, not what they be, but what they shew. For they be signs of other things, being one thing and signifying another’.” Therefore, as in baptism those that come feignedly, and those that come unfeignedly, both be washed with the sacramental water, but both be not washed with the Holy Ghost, and clothed with Christ: so in the Lord’s supper both eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, but both eat not Christ himself, and be fed with his flesh and blood, but those only which worthily receive the sacrament. And this answer will serve to another place of St Augustine, against the Donatists, where he saith, that “Judas received the body and blood of the Lord*.” For as St Augustine in that place speaketh of the sacrament of bap- tism, so doth he speak of the sacrament of the body and blood, which never- theless he calleth the body and blood, because they signify and represent unto us the very body, flesh, and blood. {' Quamvis ipse Dominus dicat, “Nisi quis manducaverit carnem meam, et biberit sanguinem meum, non habebit in se vitam”’; nonne idem A po- stolus docet etiam hoc perniciosum male utentibus fieri ? Ait enim : “‘Quicunque manducaverit panem, et biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini.”’—August. contra Cresconium Grammaticum, Lib. 1. cap. xxv. Pars vi. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506.] [® Calleth, Orig. ed. ] [* Hee enim sacramenta sunt in quibus non quid sint, sed quid ostendant semper attenditur : quoniam signa sunt rerum, aliud existentia, et aliud significantia— August. contra Maximin, Lib. m1. cap. xxii. Pars x1. ] [* Sicut enim Judas, cui buccellam tradidit Dominus, non malum accipiendo, sed male acci- piendo locum in se diabolo prebuit: sic indigne quisque sumens Dominicum sacramentum non efficit, ut quia ipse malus est malum sit, aut quia non ad salutem accipit, nihil acceperit. Corpus enim Domini et sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus, “ Qui man- ducat indigne, judicium sibi manducat et bibit.’’— August. De baptismo contra Donatistas. Lib. v. cap. viii. Pars v.] Contra Maxi- minum, Lib. iil. cap. 22. 231. De Bap. contra Dona- tist. Lib. v. cap. 8. Augustinus. Issue. August. de Bap. Lib. v. cap. 8. 222 THE FOURTH BOOK. WINCHESTER. And yet he goeth about, because he will make all things clear, to answer such authors “ as the papists,” he saith, “bring for their purpose.” And first he beginneth with St Augustine, who writeth as plainly against this author’s mind as I would have devised it, if I had no conscience of truth more than I see some have, and might with a secret wish have altered St Augustine as I had list. And therefore here I make a plain issue with this author, that in the searching of St Augustine he hath trusted his man or his friend over-negligently in so great a matter, or he hath willingly gone about to deceive the reader. For in the place of St Augustine against the Donatists, alleged here by this author, which he would with the rest assail, St Augustine hath these formal words in Latin: Corpus Domini et sanguis Domini nihilo- minus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus, “ Qui manducat indigne, judicium sibi manducat et bibit;” which words be thus much in English: “ It was nevertheless the body of our Lord and the blood of our Lord also unto them to whom the apostle said, “ He that eateth unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself’” These be St Augustine's words, who *The body of writeth notably and evidently, that it was nevertheless the body and blood of Christ to them Christ to them that receive unworthily. August. de Verb. Dom. Sermo 11. that received unworthily, declaring that their unworthiness doth not alter the substance of that sacrament, and doth us to understand therewith the substance of the sacrament to be the body and blood of Christ ; and nevertheless so, though the receivers be unworthy: wherein this author is so overseen, as I think there was never learned man before that durst in a commonwealth, where learned men be, publish such an untruth as this is, to be answered in a tongue that all men knew!. Yet Peter Martyr wrote in Latin, and rejoiceth not, I think, to have his lies in English. I will bring in here another place of St Augustine to this purpose: Ilud etiam, quod ait, ‘Qui manducat carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et ego in illo,’ quomodo intellecturi sumus? Nunquid etiam illos sic? poterimus accipere, de quibus dixit? Apostolus, quod ‘judicium sibi manducent et bibant, quum ipsam carnem manducent, et ipsum sanguinem bibant? Nunquid et Judas Magistri ven- ditor et traditor impius, quamyis primum ipsum manibus ejus confectum sacramentum carnis et sanguinis ejus cum ceteris discipulis, sicut apertius Lucas Eyangelista declarat, manducaret et biberet, mansit in Christo, aut Christus in eo? Multi denique, qui vel corde ficto carnem illam manducant, et sanguinem bibunt, vel quum manducayerint et biberint, apostate fiunt, nunquid manent in Christo, aut Christus in eis? Sed profecto est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem, et bibendi illum sanguinem: quomodo qui manduca- verit et biberit, in Christo manet et Christus in eo. Non ergo quocunque modo quisquam manducayerit carnem Christi, et biberit sanguinem Christi, manet in Christo, et in illo Christus; sed certo quodam modo, quem modum utique ipse videbat, quando ista dicebat3. The English of these words is this: “ That same that he also saith, “ Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and Tin him ;’ how shall we understand it? May we under- stand also of them of whom the apostle speak+, that they did eat to themselves, and drink, judgment, when they did eat the same flesh and drink the same blood, the flesh itself, the blood itself? Did not Judas, the wicked seller and betrayer of his master, when he did eat and drink (as Lucas the Evangelist declareth) the first sacrament of the flesh and blood of Christ made with his own hands, dwell in Christ, and Christ in him? Finally, many that with a feigned heart eat that flesh and drink the blood, or when they have eaten and drunken become apostates, do not they dwell in Christ, or Christ in them? But undoubtedly there is a certain manner of eating that flesh and drinking that blood; after which manner whosoever eateth and drinketh, dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him. Therefore, not in whatsoever manner any man eateth the flesh of Christ, and drinketh the blood of Christ, he dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him, but after a certain manner, which manner he saw when he said these words.” This is the sense of St Augustine's saying in Latin, whereby appeareth the faith of St Augustine to be, in the sacrament to be eaten and drunken the very body and blood of Christ, which for the substance of the sacrament evil men receive as good men do; that is to say, as St Augustine doth point it out by his words, the same flesh and the same blood of Christ, with such an expression of speech®, as he would exclude all difference that device of figure might imagine, and therefore saith, Ipsam carnem, ipsum sanguinem; which signify® the self-same in deed, not by name only, as the [! Know, 1551.] Paris. 1635. ] [? “ Hic,” and ‘‘dicit,”’ in the above edition of [* Spake, Orig. ed. Winch.] Op. August. ] [> An express speech, Orig. ed. Winch. ] [% August. de verbis Domini, in Evang. secun- [® Signifieth, 1551. ] dum Matth. Sermo, xi. cap. xi. Tom. X. p. 18. OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 223 ‘author of the book would have St Augustine understanded ; and when that appeareth, as it is most manifest, that Judas received the same, being wicked, that good men do, how the same is before the receipt by Giod’s omnipotency present in the visible sacrament, and so not received by the only instrument of faith, which in evil men is not lively; but by the instrument of the mouth, wherein it entereth with the visible element; and yet, as St Augustine saith, dwelleth not in him that so unworthily receiveth ; because the effect of dwelling of Christ is not in him that receiveth by such a manner of eating as wicked men use. Whereby St Augustine teacheth the diverse effect to ensue of the diversity of the eating, and not of any diversity of that which is eaten, whether the good man or evil man receive the sacrament. If I would here encumber the reader, I could bring forth many more places of St Augustine to the confusion and reproof of this author's purpose; and yet, notwithstanding, to take away that he might say of me, that I weigh not St Augustine, I think good to allege and bring forth the judgment of Martin Bucer touching St Augustine, who understandeth St Augustine clear contrary to this author, as may plainly appear by that the said Bucer writeth in few words in his epistle dedicatory of the great work he sent abroad of his enarrations of the gospels, where his judgment of St Augustine in this point he uttereth thus: Quoties scribit etiam Judam ipsum corpus et sanguinem Domini sumsisse! Nemo itaque auctoritate S. patrum dicet Christum in sacra ccena absentem esse. The sense in English is this: “ How often writeth he,’ speaking of St Augustine, “ Judas also to have received the self body and blood of our Lord! No man therefore, by the authority of the fathers, can say Christ to be absent in the holy supper.” Thus saith Bucer, who under- standeth St Augustine, as I have before alleged him, and gathereth thereof a conclusion, that no man can by the fathers’ sayings prove Christ to be absent in the holy supper. And there- fore, by Bucer’s judgment, the doctrine of this author can be in no wise catholic, as dissenting from that hath been before taught and believed. Whether Bucer will still continue in that he hath so solemnly published to the world, and by me here alleged, I cannot tell; and whether he do or no, it maketh no matter: but thus he hath taught in his latter judgment with a great protestation, that he speaketh without respect other than to the truth, wherein, because he seemed to dissent from his friends, he saith: pitos pev Swxparns, adda dudrtaty 7 adjOeva, Tiyw@Taty 7 ekkAnoia: which words have an imitation of an elder saying, and be thus much to say; “Socrates is my friend, truth is my best beloved, and the church most regarded.” And with this Bucer closeth his doctrine of the sacrament, after he knew all that Zuinglius and CE colam- padius could say in the matter. And here I will leave to speak of Bucer, and bring forth Theodoretus’, a man most® extolled by this author, who saith plainly in his commentaries wpon St Paul, how Christ delivered to Judas his precious body and blood; and declareth further therewith in that sacrament to be the truth. So as this author can have no foundation upon either to maintain his figurative speech, or the matter of this fourth book, which his words plainly impugn. St Hierome in his commentaries upon the prophet Malachi hath first this sentence: Polluimus panem, id est corpus Christi, quando indigne accedimus ad altare, et sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus®?: “ We defile the bread, that is to say, the body of Christ, when we come unworthy’ to the altar, and being filthy drink the clean blood.” Thus saith St Mierome, who saith, “ Men filthy drink the clean blood ;” and in another place after, the same St Hierome saith: Polluit [enim] Christi mysteria indigne accipiens corpus ejus et sanguinem; “ He that unworthily receiveth the body and blood of Christ, defileth the mysteries.” Can any words be more manifest and evident to declare St Hierome’s mind, how in the visible sacrament men receive unworthily, which be evil men, the body and blood of Christ ? CANTERBURY. In this point I will join a plain issue with you, that I neither willingly go about to deceive the reader in the searching of St Augustine, (as you use to do in every place,) nor I have not trusted my “man or friend” herein, (as it seemeth you have done over- much,) but I have diligently expended and weighed the matter myself. For although in such weighty matters of scripture and ancient authors you must needs trust your [7 Avéuvyncev abtods 71s lepas éxeivyns Kai wav- | pp. 237, 8. Ed. Hale, 1769-94.] ayias vuKTOs, év 7} Kal TH TUTLKW TacXa TO [® Much, Orig. ed. Winch. | Téos ETEONKE, KaL TOU TUTOU TO apyéeTUTOV EdEL~EE, {2 Hieronymi Opera. Comment. in Malachiam. Kal TOU GwTnHpiov pvaTHplou Tas Vipas avéwee, Kal capp. i. iii. Tom. VI. pp. 233, 237. Ed. Francof, ob povov Tois EvdeKa dtrocTé)ots, dda Kal TH TpO- 1684. ] ddTy, Tov Timiov peTédwKe owpatos Te Kal al- [8 Unworthily, Orig. ed. Winch. ] paros. Theodoretus, in Epist. i. Cor. xi. Tom. III. * Bucerus. Bucerus Theodoretus in epist. i. Cor. xi. Hieronymus. 233. An issue. Augustin. de Bapt. cont. Donat. Lib. v. cap. 8. August. In Johan. tract. 59. 234. (Matt. v.] d. 1551. August. de Verbis Domi- ni, Ser. xi. The self-same flesh that was crucified and is sensible, is eaten of Christ’s people. 224 THE FOURTH BOOK. men, (without whom I know you can do very little, being brought up from your tender age in other kinds of study,) yet I, having exercised myself in the study of scripture and divinity from my youth, (whereof I give most hearty lauds and thanks to God,) have learned now to go alone, and do examine, judge, and write all such weighty matters myself; although, I thank God, I am neither so arrogant nor so wilful, that I will refuse the good advice, counsel, and admonition of any man, be he man or master, friend or foe. But as concerning the place alleged by you out of St Augustine, let the reader diligently expend mine whole answer to St Augustine, and he shall, I trust, be fully satisfied. For St Augustine in his book, De baptismo contra Donatistas, (as I have declared in my book!,) speaketh of the morsel of bread and sacrament which Judas also did eat, as St Augustine saith. And in this speech he considered (as he writeth contra Maximinum), not what it is, but what it signifieth ; and therefore he expresseth the matter by Judas more plainly in another place, saying, that “he did eat the bread of the Lord, not the bread being the Lord,” (as the other apostles did,) signifying thereby that the evil eat the bread, but not the Lord himself: as St Paul saith that they eat and drink panem et calicem Domini, “the bread and the cup of the Lord,” and not that they eat the Lord himself. And St Augustine saith not, as you feign of him, that the substance of this sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, but the substance of this sacrament is bread and wine, (as water is in the sacrament of baptism,) and the same be all one, not altered by the unworthiness of the receivers. And although St Augustine, in the words by you recited, call the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood his body and blood, yet is the sacrament no more but the sacrament thereof, and yet is it called the body and blood of Christ, as “sacraments have the names of the things whereof they be sacraments ;” as the same St Augustine teacheth most plainly ad Bonifacium. And I have not so far overshot myself or been overseen, that I would have attempted to publish this matter, if I had not before-hand excussed the whole truth therein from the bottom. But because I myself am certain of the truth, (which hath been hid these many years, and persecuted by the papists with fire and fagot, and should be so yet still if you might have your own will,) and because also I am desirous that all my countrymen of England, (unto whom I have no small cure and charge to tell the truth,) should no longer be kept from the same truth ; therefore have I published the truth which I know in the English tongue, to the intent that I may edify all by that tongue, which all do perfectly know and understand. Which my doing, it seemeth, you take in very evil part, and be not a little grieved thereat, because you would rather have the light of truth hid still under the bushel, than openly to be set abroad that all men may see it. And I think that it so little grieveth M. Peter Martyr, that his book is in English, that he would wish it to be translated likewise into all other languages. Now, where you gather of the words of St Augustine, De verbis Domini’, that both the evil and good eat one body of Christ, the self-same in substance, “excluding all difference that device of figure might imagine ;” to this I answer, that although you express the body of Christ with what terms you can devise, calling it, as you do in deed, the flesh that was born of the virgin Mary, the same flesh, the flesh itself, yet I confess that it is eaten in the sacrament. And to express it yet more plainly than peradyenture you would have me, I say, that the same visible and palpable flesh, that was for us crucified, and appeared after his resurrection, and was seen, felt, and groped, and ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at his Father’s mght hand, and at the last day shall come to judge the quick and the dead; that self-same body, having all the parts of a man’s body, in good order and proportion, and being visible and tangible, I say, is eaten of christian people at his holy supper: what will you now require more of me concerning the truth of the body? I suppose you be sorry that I grant you so much, and yet what doth this help you? For the diversity is not in the body, but in the eating thereof, no man eating it carnally; but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritually, and the evil only sacramentally, that is to say, [) Vide p. 221.] [2 Vide p. 222.] OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 225 figuratively. And therefore hath St Augustine these words, certo quodam modo, “ after a certain manner,” because that the evil eat the sacrament, which after a certain man- ner is called the very body of Christ ; which manner St Augustine himself declareth most truly and plainly in an epistle ad Bonifacium, saying: “If sacraments had not August. ad some similitude or likeness of those things whereof they be sacraments, they could in episto. 23. no wise be sacraments. And for their similitude and likeness, they have commonly the name of the things whereof they be sacraments. Therefore after a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood®.” This epistle is set out in my book, the sixty-fourth leaf*, which I pray the reader to look upon for a more full answer unto this place. And after that manner Judas and such like did eat the morsel of the Lord’s bread, but not the bread that is the Lord, but a sacrament thereof which is called the Lord, as St Augustine saith. So that with the bread entered not Christ with his Spirit into Judas, (as you say he doth into the wicked,) but Satan entered into him, as the gospel testifieth. And if Christ entered then into Judas with the bread, as you write, then the devil and Christ Jonn xiii. entered into Judas both at once. As concerning M. Bucer, what mean you to use his authority, whose autho- Master rity you never esteemed heretofore? And yet Bucer varieth much from your error: aoe for he denieth utterly that Christ is really and substantially present in the bread, either by conversion or inclusion, but in the ministration he affirmeth Christ to be present : and so do I also, but not to be eaten and drunken of them that be wicked and members of the devil, whom Christ neither feedeth nor hath any communion with them. And to conclude in few words the doctrine of M. Bucer in the place by you 995. alleged, he dissenteth in nothing from CEcolampadius and Zuinglius. Wherefore it seemeth to me somewhat strange, that you should allege him for the confirmation of your untrue doctrine, being so clearly repugnant unto his doctrine. The words of Theodoretus, if they were his, be so far from your report, that you Theodoretus. be ashamed to rehearse his words as they be written, which when you shall do, you shall be answered. But in his dialogues he declareth in plain terms not only the figurative speech of Christ in this matter, but also wherefore Christ used those figura- tive speeches, as the reader may find in my book, the sixty-seventh, sixty-eighth, sixty- ninth, and seventieth leaves’. By which manner of speech it may be said, that Christ delivered to Judas his body and blood, when he delivered it him in a figure thereof. And as concerning St Hierome, he calleth the mysteries or mystical bread and wine Hieronymus. Christ's flesh and blood, as Christ called them himself, and the eating of them he calleth the eating of Christ’s flesh and blood, because they be sacraments and figures, which represent unto us his very flesh and blood. And all that do eat the said sacra- ments be said to eat the body of Christ, because they eat the thing which is a repre- sentation thereof. But St Hierome meant not, that evil men do indeed eat the very body of Christ; for then he would not have written upon Esay, Jeremy, and Osee the contrary, saying, that heretics and evil men neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood, which whosoever eateth and drinketh hath everlasting life. Non comedunt carnem Jesu, saith he upon Esay, neque bibunt sanguinem ejus, de quo ipse loquitur: ‘ Qui Hieron. in comedit carnem meam et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam wternam®.” And yet he (g™™ @? that cometh defiled unto the visible sacraments, defileth not only the sacraments, but the contumely thereof pertaineth also unto Christ himself, who is the author of the sacraments; and as the same St Hierome saith: Dim sacramenta violantur, ipse, wieron. in cujus sunt sacramenta, violatur’: “When the sacraments, saith he, be violated, then {alma is he violated also to whom the sacraments appertain.” Now hear what followeth in the order of my book. And, as before is at length declared, a figure hath the name of the thing chap. vi. that is signified thereby. As a man’s image is called a man, a lion’s image a ri mires be. ° . ys f 5 ‘ called by the lion, a bird’s image a bird, and an image of a tree and herb is called a tree or names of the = things whie they sienify: [° Vide p, 124, note 1.] Tom. V. p.215. Francof. 1684. ] [fi Vide pp- 123, 4.] [5 Vide pp. 128—130.] [7 Id. Comment. in Malachiam, cap. i. Tom. VI. [° Hieron. Comment. in Esaiam, cap. Ixvi. p: 233. ] Lorannrr. ] 15 Eusebius Emissenus in Serm. de Eucharistia. [Rani author, drig. ed. Winch.) 226 THE FOURTH BOOK. bd herb; so were we wont to say, ‘ Our lady of Walsingham,” “our lady of Ips- wich,” “our lady of grace,” “ our lady of pity,” “St Peter of Milan,” “ St John of Amias',” and such like; not meaning the things themselves, but calling their images by the name of the things by them represented. And likewise we were wont to say, “Great St Christopher of York or Lincoln ;” “our lady smileth, or rocketh her child;” “let us go in pilgrimage to St Peter at Rome, and St James in Compostella ;” and a thousand like speeches, which were not understand of the very things, but only of the images of them. So doth St John Chrysostom say, that we see Christ with our eyes, touch him, feel him, and grope him with our hands, fix our teeth in his flesh, taste it, break it, eat it, and digest it, make red our tongues and die them with his blood, and swallow it, and drink it”. And in a catechism by me translated and set forth, I used like manner of speech, saying, that with our bodily mouths we receive the body and blood of Christ. Which my saying divers ignorant persons, not used to read old ancient authors, nor acquainted with their phrase and manner of speech, did carp and reprehend for lack of good understanding*. For this speech, and other before rehearsed of Chrysostom, and all other like, be not understand of the very flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ, (which in very deed we neither feel nor see,) but that which we do to the bread and wine, by a figurative speech is spoken to be done to the flesh and blood, because they be the very signs, figures, and tokens instituted of Christ, to represent unto us his very flesh and blood. And yet as with our corporal eyes, corporal hands, and mouths, we do corporally see, feel, taste, and eat the bread, and drink the wine, (being the sign and sacraments of Christ’s body,) even so with our spiritual eyes, hands, and mouths, we do spiritually see, feel, taste, and eat his very flesh, and drink his very blood. As Eusebius Emissenus saith: “ When thou comest to the reverend altar to be filled with spiritual meats, with thy faith look upon the body and blood of him that is thy God; honour him, touch him with thy mind, take him with the hand of thy heart, and drink him with the draught of thine inward man‘.” And these spiritual things require no corporal presence of Christ himself, who sitteth continually in heaven at the right hand of his Father. And as this is most true, so is it full and sufficient to answer all things that the papists can bring in this matter, that hath any appearance for their party. WINCHESTER. And yet these plain places of authority dissembled of purpose, or by ignorance passed over, this author, as though all things were by him clearly discussed to his intent, would by many conceits furnish and further his matters, and therefore playeth with our lady's snuling, rocking her child, and many good mowes®, so unseemly for his person, as it maketh® me almost forget him and myself also. But with such matter he filleth his leaves, and forgetting himself*, maketh man original. | [4 Ita cum reverendum altare celestibus cibis satiandus ascendis, sacrum Dei tui corpus, et san- guinem fide respice, honora, mirare, mente continge, cordis manu suscipe, et maxime haustu interiore as- sume.—Corpus Juris Canonici. Gratiani decret. tertia pars. De consecrat. Dist. 1. cap. xxxv. “‘ Quia corpus.”” Tom. col. 1928. Ed. Lugd. 1618.] [° Mowes, i.e. wry-mouths, distorted faces, gri- [? Amiens, where John the Baptist’s skull, as it is called, is still preserved. ] [? Ovx idety abtov povoy wapécxe Tots émibv- povow, d\d\@ Kal daoVat, Kai dpayetv, Kai éutrij- Eat Tods dddvtas TH capKl, Kal cvpTaKjvar, Kal tov wé60ov éutrAjoat tavta.—Chrysost. in Joann, Hom. xlvi. Tom. VIII. p. 272, Ed. Bened. Paris. 1728. } [*° This paragraph is entirely omitted in the Emb. edition, 1557.—The catechism referred tois that set forth in the year 1548, translated from the Latin of Justus Jonas, who had translated it from its Ger- maces. | (© That it maketh, Orig. ed. Winch. | {7 His leaves forgetting, Orig. ed. Winch. ] ee OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 227 mention of the catechism by him translate, the original whereof confuteth these two parts of this book in few words, being printed in Germany, wherein, besides the matter written, is set Sorth in picture the manner of the ministering of this sacrament; where is the altar with candle light set forth, the priest apparelled after the old sort, and the man to receive kneeling, bare-head, and holding up his hands, whiles the priest muustereth the host to his mouth, a mat- ter as clear contrary to the matter of this book, as is light and darkness, which now this author would colour with speeches of authors in a book written to instruct rude children; which is as slender an excuse as ever was heard, and none at all, when the original is looked on. Emissen, to stir up men’s devotion coming to receive this sacrament, requireth the root and foundation thereof in the mind of man as it ought to be, and therefore exhorteth men to take the sacrament with the hand of the heart, and drink with the draught of the inward man, which men must needs do that will worthily repair to this feast. And as Eimissen speaketh these devout words of the inward office of the receiver, so doth he in declaration of the mystery shew how the invisible priest with his secret power by his word doth convert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood, whereof I have before entreated. The author upon these words devoutly spoken by Envissen saith: “ There is required no cor- poral presence of Christ's precious body in the sacrament ;” continuing in his ignorance what the word “ corporal” meaneth. But to speak of Emissen, if by his faith the very body and blood of Christ were not present upon the altar, why doth he call it a reverend altar? Why to be fed there with spiritual meat’? and why should faith be required to look upon the body and blood of Christ that is not there on the altar, but, as this author teacheth, only in heaven? And why should he that cometh to be fed, honour these mysteries? there? And why should Emissen allude to the hand of the heart, and draught of the inward man, if the hand of the body and draught of the outward man had none office there? All this were vain elo- quence, and a mere abuse and illusion, if the sacramental tokens were only a figure. And if there were no presence but in figure, why should not Emussen rather have followed the plain speech of the angel to the women that sought Christ, Jesum queeritis, non est hic; “ Ye seek Jesus, he is not here;’ and say as this author doth, This is only a figure, do no wor- ship here, go wp to heaven; and down with the altar, for fear of ilusion?—which Emissen did not, but called it a reverend altar, and inviteth him that should receive to honour that food with such good words as before, so far discrepant from this author's teaching as may be; and yet from him he taketh occasion to speak against adoration. CANTERBURY. Here for lack of good matter to answer, you fall again to your accustomed manner, trifling away the matter with mocking and mowing. But if you thought your doctrine good, and mine erroneous, and had a zeal to the truth and to quiet men’s consciences, you should have made a substantial and learned answer unto my words. [or dallying and playing, scolding and mowing, make no quietness in men’s consciences. And all men that know your conditions, know right well, that if you had good matter to answer, you would not have hid it, and passed over the matter with such trifles as you use in this place. And St John Chrysostom you skip over, either as you saw him not, or as you cared not how slenderly you left the matter. And as concerning the Catechism, I have sufficiently answered in my former book. But in this place may appear to them that have any judgment, what pithy arguments you make, and what dexterity you have in gathering of authors’ minds, that would gather my mind and make an argument here of a picture, neither put in my book, nor by me devised, but invented by some fond painter or carver, which paint and grave whatsoever their idle heads can fancy. You should rather have gathered your argu- ment upon the other side, that I mislike-the matter, because I left out of my book the picture that was in the original before. And I marvel you be not ashamed to allege so vain a matter against me, which indeed is not in my book, and if it were, yet were it nothing to the purpose. And in that Catechism I teach not, as you do, that the body and blood of Christ is contained in the sacrament, being reserved, but that in the minis- tration thereof we receive the body and blood of Christ; whereunto if it may please you to add or understand this word “spiritually,” then is the doctrine of my Catechism sound and good in all men’s ears, which know the true doctrine of the sacraments. [® Meats, Orig. ed. Winch. ] [° Those mysteries, ibid. ] 15—2 Emissenus. The Cate- chism. Emissen. Corporal. 238. Reverend allar. *Hieronymus in Mala- ehiam, cap. 1. Chap. Ix. The adora- tion in the sacrament. * De adora- tione lege Roffen. et (Ecol. Lib. iii. cap. 4, 54. The simple people be deceived. 228 THE FOURTH BOOK. As for Emissen, you agree here with me, that he speaketh not of any receiving of Christ’s body and blood with our mouths, but only with our hearts. And where you say, that you have entreated before, ‘‘ how the invisible priest with his secret power doth convert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood,” I have in that same place made answer to those words of Emissen, but most plainly of all in my former book, the twenty-fifth leaf‘. And Emissen saith not that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament, and thereof you be not ignorant, although you do pretend the contrary, which is somewhat worse than ignorance. And what this word “corporal” meaneth, Iam not ignorant. Marry, what you mean by “corporal” I know not, and the opening thereof shall discuss the whole matter. Tell therefore plainly without dissimulation or coloured words, what manner of body it is that Christ hath in the sacrament? Whether it be a very and perfect man’s body, with all the members thereof, distinct one from another, or no? For that understand I to be a man’s corporal body, that hath all such parts, without which may be a body, but no perfect man’s body: so that the lack of a finger maketh a lack in the perfection of aman’s body. Marry, if you will make Christ such a body as bread and cheese is, (wherein every part is bread and cheese, without form and distinction of one part from another,) I confess mine ignorance, that I know no such body to be a man’s body. Now have I shewed mine ignorance: declare now your wit and learning. For sure I am that Christ hath all those parts in heaven; and if he lack them in the sacrament, then lacketh he not a little of his perfection. And then it cannot be one body that hath parts and hath no parts. And as concerning the words of Emissen, calling the altar a “reverend altar,” those words prove no more the real presence of Christ in the altar, than the calling of the font of baptism a “reverend font,” or the calling of marriage “reverend matrimony,” should conclude that Christ were corporally present in the water of baptism, or in the celebration of matrimony. And yet is not Christ clearly absent in the godly administration of his holy supper, nor present only in a figure, (as ever you untruly report me to say;) but by his omnipotent power he is effectually present by spiritual nourishment and feeding, as in baptism he is likewise present by spiritual renewing and regenerating. Therefore where you would prove the corporal presence of Christ by the reverence that is to be used at the altar, as Emissen teacheth, with no less reverence ought he that is baptized to come to the font, than he that receiveth the communion cometh to the altar: and yet is that no proof that Christ is corporally in the font. And whatsoever you have here said of the coming to the altar, the like may be said of coming to the font. For although Christ be not corporally there, yet, as St Hierome saith*, if the sacraments be violated, then is he violated whose sacraments they be. Now followeth after in my book the manner of adoration in the sacrament. Now it is requisite to speak something of the manner and form of wor- shipping of Christ* by them that receive this sacrament, lest that in the stead of Christ himself be worshipped the sacrament. For as his humanity, joined to his divinity, and exalted to the right hand of his Father, is to be worshipped of all creatures in heaven, earth, and under the earth; even so if in the stead thereof we worship the signs and sacraments, we commit as great idolatry as ever was, or shall be to the world’s end. And yet have the very antichrists (the subtlest enemies that Christ hath) by their fine inventions and crafty scholastical divinity deluded many simple souls, and brought them to this horrible idolatry, to worship things visible, and made with their own hands, persuading them that creatures were their Creator, their God, and their Maker. [! This occurs in the second book, against the [® Christ himself, 1551. Orig. ed. reads with Error of Transubstantiation. See below, p. 268.] 1480. ] {2 Hieron. in Malachiam, cap. i. Tom. VI. [* See note, p. 173.] p- 233. Ed. Francof. 1638. ] OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 229 For else what made the people to run from their seats to the altar, and from altar to altar, and from sacring® (as they called it) to sacring, peeping, tooting, and gazing at that thing which the priest held up in his hands, if they thought not to honour that thing which they saw? What moved the priests to lift up the sacrament so high over their heads; or the people to ery to the priest, “Hold up! hold up!’ and one man to say to another, “ Stoop down before ;’ or to say, “ This day have I seen my Maker ;” and, “I cannot be quiet, except I see my Maker once a-day?” What was the cause of all these, and that as well the priest as the people so devoutly did knock and kneel at every sight of the sacrament, but that they worshipped that visible thing which they saw with their eyes, and took it for very God? For if they worshipped in spirit only Christ, sitting in heaven with his Father, what needed they to remove out of their seats to toot and gaze, as the apostles did after Christ, when he was gone up ito heaven? If they worshipped nothing that they saw, why did they rise up to see? Doubtless, many of the simple people worshipped that thing which they saw with their eyes. And although the subtle papists do colour and cloke the matter never so finely, saying that they worship not the sacraments which they see with their eyes, but that thing which they believe with their faith to be really and corpo- rally in the sacraments; yet why do they then run from place to place, to gaze at the things which they see, if they worship them not, giving thereby occasion to them that be ignorant to worship that which they see? Why do they not rather quietly sit still in their seats, and move the people to do the like, worshipping God in heart and in spirit, than to gad about from place to place to see that thing, which they confess themselves is not to be worshipped ? J And yet, to eschew one inconvenience, (that is to say, the worshipping of the sacrament,) they fall into another as evil, and worship nothing there at all. For they worship that thing (as they say) which is really and corporally, and yet invisibly present under the kinds of bread and wine, which (as before is expressed and proved) is utterly nothing. And so they give unto the igno- rant occasion to worship bread and wine, and they themselves worship nothing there at all. WINCHESTER. As touching the adoration of Christ's flesh in the sacrament, which adoration is a true confession of the whole man, soul® and body, if there be opportunity of the truth of God in his work, is in my judgment well set forth in the book of common prayer, where the priest is ordered to kneel and make a prayer in his own, and the name of all that shall commu- nicate, confessing therein that is prepared there; at which time nevertheless that is not adored that the bodily eye seeth, but that which faith knoweth to be there invisibly present, which and there be nothing, as this author now teacheth, it were not well. I will not answer this author's eloquence, but his matter, where it might hurt. CANTERBURY. Whereas I have shewed what idolatry was committed by means of the papistical doctrine concerning adoration of the sacrament, because that answer to my reasons you cannot, and confess the truth you will not, therefore you run to your usual shift, passing it over with a toy and scoff, saying, that you “ will not answer mine eloquence, but the matter ;” and yet indeed you answer neither of both, but under pretence of mine elo- quence you shift off the matter also. And yet other eloquence I used not, but the accustomed speech of the homely people, as such a matter requireth. ; he Sacring, i.e. consecrating. But technically | bread for the people to worship. ] it is applied to the lifting up of the consecrated | [° Whole man’s soul, Orig. ed. Winch. | 259. * Adoration. * What true adoration is. August. in Psal. Xeviil. 241. 230 THE FOURTH BOOK. And where you say, that ‘it were not well” to worship Christ in the sacrament, “if nothing be there,” (as you say I teach,) if you mean that Christ cannot be worshipped but where he is corporally present, (as you must needs mean, if your reason should be to purpose,) then it followeth of your saying, that we may not worship Christ in bap- tism, in the fields, in private houses, nor in no place else where Christ is not corpo- rally and naturally present. But the true teaching of the holy catholic church is, that although Christ, as concerning his corporal presence, be continually resident in heaven, yet he is to be worshipped not only there, but here in earth also, of all faith- ful people, at all times, in all places, and in all their works. Hear now what followeth further in my book. But the papists, for them own commodity to keep the people still in idolatry, do often allege a certain place of St Augustine upon the Psalms, where he saith, that “no man doth eat the flesh of Christ, except he first worship it,” and that “we do not offend in worshipping thereof, but we should offend if we should not worship it'.” That is true which St Augustine saith in this place. For who is he that professeth Christ, and is spiritually fed and nourished with his flesh and blood, but he will honour and worship him, sitting at the right hand of his Father, and render unto him from the bottom of his heart all laud, praise, and thanks, for his merciful redemption ? And as this is most true, which St Augustine saith, so is that’ most false, which the papists would persuade upon St Augustine’s words, that the sacra- mental bread and wine, or any visible thing, is to be worshipped in the sacra- ment. For St Augustine’s mind was so far from any such thought, that he forbiddeth utterly to worship Christ’s own flesh and blood alone, but in con- sideration and as they be annexed and jomed to his divinity. How much less then could he think or allow that we should worship the sacramental bread and wine, or any outward or visible sacrament, which be shadows, figures, and representations of Christ’s flesh* and blood ! And St Augustine was afraid, lest in worshipping of Christ’s very body we should offend; and therefore he biddeth us, when we worship Christ, that we should not tarry and fix our minds upon his flesh, which of itself availeth nothing, but that we should lift up our minds from the flesh to the spirit, which giveth life: and yet the papists be not afraid by crafty means to induce us to worship those things which be signs and sacraments of Christ’s body. But what will not the shameless papists allege for their purpose, when they be not ashamed to maintain the adoration of the sacrament by these words of St Augustine? Wherein he speaketh not one word of the adoration of the sacrament, but only of Christ himself. And although he say, that Christ gave his flesh to be eaten of us, yet he meant not that his flesh is here corporally present, and corporally eaten, but only spiritually. As his words declare plainly, which follow in the same place, where St Augustine, as it were in the person of Christ, speaketh these words: “Tt is the spirit that giveth life, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I have spoken unto you be spirit and life. That which I have spoken, understand you spiritually. You shall not eat this body which you see, and drink that blood which they shall shed that shall crucify me. I have commended unto you a sacrament: understand it spiritually, and it shall give [ Nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius | August. in Psalm. xeviii. Tom, VIII. p. 452. Ed. adoraverit: inventum est quemadmodum adoretur | Paris. 1635.] tale scabellum pedum Domini, et non solum non (2 Christ’s very flesh, 1551, and Orig. ed. peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non adorando. | Winch. | OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 231 you life. And although it must be visibly ministered, yet it must be invisibly understand ®.” These words of St Augustine, with the other before recited, do express his mind plainly, that Christ is not otherwise to be eaten than spiritually, (which spiritual eating requireth no corporal presence,) and that he intended not to teach here any adoration, either of the visible sacraments or of any thing that is corporally in them. For mdeed there is nothing really and cor- porally in the bread to be worshipped, although the papists say that Christ is in every consecrated bread. WINCHESTER. As in the wrong report of St Augustine, who speaking of the adoration of Christ's flesh, given to be eaten, doth so fashion his speech, as it cannot with any violence be drawn to such an understanding, as though St Augustine should mean of the adoring of Christ's flesh in heaven, as this author would have it. St Augustine speaketh of the giving of Christ's flesh to us to eat, and declareth after that he meameth in the visible sacrament; which must be invisibly under- standed and spiritually, not as the Capernaites did understand Christ's words, carnally to eat that body cut in pieces; and therefore there may be no such imaginations to eat Christ's body after the manner he walked here, nor drink his blood as it was shed wpon the cross; but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of God's work, supernatural above man’s understanding, and therefore spiritually understanded shall give life, which life carnal un- derstanding must needs exclude. And by these my words I think I declare truly St Augus- tine’s meaning of the truth of this sacrament, wherein Christ giveth truly his flesh to be eaten, the flesh he spake of before taken of the virgin. For the spiritual understanding that St Augustine speaketh of, is not to exclude the truth of God’s work in the sacrament, but to exclude carnal imagination from musing of the manner of the work, which is in mystery such as a carnal man cannot comprehend. In which matter if St Augustine had had such a faith of the visible sacrament, as the author saith himself hath now of late, and calleth it catholic; St Augustine would have uttered it, as an expositor, plainly in this place, and said, there is but a figure of Christ's body: Christ's body and flesh is in heaven, and not in this visible sacrament: Christ's speech that was esteemed so hard, was but a figurative speech: and where Christ said, “ This is my body,’ he meant only of the figure of his body: which manner of saying St Augustine useth not in this place; and yet he could speak plainly, and so doth he, declaring us first the truth of the flesh that Christ giveth to be eaten, that is to say, the same flesh that he took of the virgin. And yet because Christ giveth it not in a visible manner, nor such a manner as the Capernaites thought on, nor such a manner as any carnal man can conceive; being also the flesh® in the sacrament, given not a common flesh, but a lively, godly, and spiritual flesh; therefore St Augustine useth words and speech whereby he denieth the gift of that body of Christ which we did see, and of the blood that was shed, so as by afirma- tion and denial so near together of the same to be given, and the same not to be given, the mystery should be thus far opened, that for the truth of the thing given it is the same, and touching the manner of the giving and the quality of the flesh given it is not the same. And because it is the same, St Augustine saith before we must worship it; and yet because it is now an hidden godly mystery, we may not have carnal imaginations of the same, but godly, spiritually, and invisibly understand it. CANTERBURY. As concerning the words of St Augustine, which you say I do wrong report, let every indifferent reader judge, who maketh a wrong report of St Augustine, yon or I: for I have reported his words as they be, and so have not you. For St Augustine saith not, that Christ’s body is eaten in the visible sacrament, as you report, but that “Christ hath given us a sacrament of the eating of his body,” which must be [° “Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro autem nihil | davi: spiritaliter intellectum vivificabit vos. Etsi prodest. Verba que locutus sum vobis, spiritus est | necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen et vita.” Spiritaliter intelligite quod locutus sum. | invisibiliter intelligi. Ib.] Non hoe corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, et [* This author, 1591. | bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me {° The flesh given in the sacrament, Orig. ed. crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod yobis commen- Winch. ] Augustinus. 242. cones in ?sal. Xeviil. John vi. * August. de Doct. Chris- tiana, Lib. lil. cap. 4. 243. Hieron. ad Ephesios. 232 THE FOURTH BOOK. understand invisibly and spiritually, as you say truly in that point. But to the spiritual eating is not required any local or corporal presence in the sacrament, nor St Augustine saith not so, as you in that point unjustly report him: and although the work of God in his sacraments be effectual and true, yet the working of God in the sacraments is not his working by grace in the water, bread, and wine, but in them that duly receive the same, which work is such as no carnal man can comprehend. And where you say, that “if St Augustine had meant as I do, he would in this place have declared a figure, and have said, that here is but a figure, and we eat only a figure, but Christ himself is gone up into heaven and is not-here,” it is too much arrogancy of you to appoint St Augustine's words, what he should say in this place, as you would lead an hound in a line where you list, or draw a bear to the stake. And here still you cease not untruly to report me. For I say not, that in the Lord’s supper is but a figure, or that Christ is eaten only figuratively; but I say, “that there is a figure, and figurative eating.” And doth not St Augustine sufficiently declare a figure in Christ’s words, when he saith, “that they must be understand spiritually?” And what man can devise to express more plainly, both that in Christ’s speech is a figure, and that his body is not corporally present, and corporally eaten, than St Au- gustine doth in a thousand places, but specially in his epistle ad Bonifacium, ad Dardanum, ad Januarium, de Doctrina Christiana, de Catechisandis rudibus, in Quest. super Levit. de Civitate Dei, contra Adimantum, contra Adversarium legis et prophetarum, in Epistolam et Evangelium Johannis, in Sermone ad infantes, et de Verbis apostoli ? The flesh of Christ is a true flesh, and was born of a woman, died, rose again, as- cended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father; but yet is he eaten of us spiritually, and in the manner of the eating, there is the mystery and secret, and yet the true work of God. And where you understand the invisible mystery, which St Augustine speaketh of, to be in the diversity of the body of Christ, seen or not seen, you be far deceived. For St Augustine speaketh of the mystery that is in the eating of the body, and not in the diversity of the body, which in substance is ever one without diversity. The meaning therefore of St Augustine was this, that when Christ said, “ Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, you shall not have life in you,” he meant of spiritual and not carnal eating of his body. For if he had intended to have described the di- versity of the manner of Christ’s body visible and invisible, he would not have said, “This body which you sce,” but this body in such manner as you see it, or in such like terms, you shall not eat. But to eat Christ’s flesh, saith St Augustine, is fruit- fully to remember that the same flesh was crucified for us. And this is spiritually to eat his flesh and drink his blood. WINCHESTER. And because St Hierome, who was of St Augustine's time, writeth in his commentaries upon St Paul, ad Ephesios, that may serve for the better opening hereof, I will write it in here. The words be these: “ The blood and flesh of Christ is two ways understanded, either the spiritual and godly, of which himself said, ‘My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink ; and unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye shall not have everlasting life: or the flesh which was crucified and the blood which was shed by the spear. According to this division, the diversity of flesh and blood is taken in Christ's saints, that there is one flesh that shall see the salvation of God, another flesh and blood that cannot possess the kingdom of heaven}.” These be St Hierome’s words. In which thou, reader, seest a denial of that flesh of Christ to be given, to be eaten, that was crucified, but the flesh given to be eaten to be a godly and spiritual flesh ; and a distinction made between them, as is in our flesh; of which it may be said, that the flesh we walk in here shall not see God, that is to say, as it is corruptible, according to the text {‘ Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi et caro intelli- gitur, vel spiritualis illa atque divina, de qua ipse dixit, ‘‘ Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus;’’ et, ‘‘nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et sanguinem meum biberitis, non habebitis vitam eternam :’’ vel caro et sanguis que crucifixa est, et qui militis effusus est lancea. Juxta hane divisionem et in sanctis ejus diversitas sanguinis et camis accipitur, ut alia sit caro que visura est salu- tare Dei, alia caro et sanguis que regnum Dei non queant possidere. Hieron. in Ephesios, cap. i. v.7. Tom. 1X. p. 163. Ed. Francof. 1684. ] OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 233 of St Paul, “ Flesh and blood shall not possess heaven,” and yet? we must believe and hope with 1 Cor. xv. Job truly, “that the same our flesh shall see God in heaven: after which division likewise we receive not in the sacrament Christ’s flesh that was crucified, being so a visible and mortal | Jiesh, but Christ's flesh glorified, incorruptible, and impassible, a godly and spiritual flesh. And so that is but one in substance, and always so that same one is nevertheless for the alter- | ation in the manner of the being of it divided, and so called not the same; wherein St Hierome and St Augustine used both one manner of speaking: and St Hierome, resembling the division that he rehearseth of Christ's flesh to the division of our flesh in the resurrection, doth more plainly open how the same may be called not the same, because we believe certainly the resurrection of the same flesh we walk in, and yet it shall be by the garment of incorruptibility not the same in quality ; and so be verified the scriptures “that flesh shall not possess heaven,” and, “I shall see God in my flesh.” And here I will note to the reader, by the way, St Hierome writeth this distinction of Christ's flesh as a matter agreed on, and then in catholic doctrine received, not of his invention, but in the catholic faith as a principle established; which declareth the belief to have been of that very godly and spiritual flesh given really in the sacrament: for else to eat only in faith is specially? to remember Christ's flesh as it was visibly crucified, wherein was accomplished the oblation for owr sin*; and St Paul willeth us in the supper to shew forth and profess the death of Christ, for so Christ would have his death continually expressed till his coming: and if St Hierome with other should have meant of the eating of Christ as he sitteth in heaven reigning, this distinction of Christ's flesh were an idle matter and out of purpose, to compare the distinction in it to be like the distinction of our flesh to enter into heaven, and not to enter into heaven, the same and not the same. And thus I say that this place of St Hierome sheweth so evidently both his and St Augustine's faith, that wrote at the same time, as there cannot be desired a more evident matter. CANTERBURY. To what purpose you should bring in here this place of St Hierome, (making much against you and nothing for you,) I cannot coneeive. or he declareth no more in this place, but that as all men in this world have passible bodies, subject to much filthiness, corruption, and death, and yet after our resurrection we shall be delivered spiritual | from corruption, vileness, weakness, and death, and be made incorruptible, glorious, ee mighty, and spiritual: so Christ’s body in earth was subject unto our infirmities, his flesh being crucified, and his blood being shed with a spear, which now, as you truly | say, is “glorified, impassible, incorruptible, and a spiritual” body ; but yet not so spiritual that his humanity is turned into his divinity, and his body into his soul, as some heretics fantasy, nor that the diversity of his members be taken away, and so left without arms and legs, head and feet, eyes and ears, and turned into the form and fashion of a bowl, as the papists imagine. The sun and the moon, the fire and the air, be bodies, 944, but no man’s bodies, because they lack heart and lungs, head and feet, flesh and blood, veins and sinews to knit them together. When Christ was transfigured, his face shined Matt. xvii. like the sun, and with his mouth he spake to Moyses and Helias. And after his resurrection we read of his flesh and bones, his hands and feet, his side and wounds, visible and Luke xxiv. : . : ohn xx. palpable, and with mouth, tongue, and teeth, he did eat and speak; and so like a man he was in all proportions and members of man, that Mary Magdalene could not discern John xx. him from a gardener. And take away flesh and skin, sinews and bones, blood and veins, and then remaineth no man’s body. For take away distinction and diversity of parts and members, how shall Peter be Peter, and Paul be Paul? How shall a man be a man, and a woman a woman? And how shall we see with our eyes, and hear with our ears, grope with our hands, and go with our feet? For either we shall do no such things at all, or see with every part of our bodies, and likewise hear, speak, and go, if there be no diversity of members. This I have spoken for this purpose, to declare that St Hierome, speaking of Christ’s divine and spiritual flesh, excludeth not thereby any corporal member that pertaineth to the substance of a man’s natural body, but that now being glorified, it is the same in all parts that it was before. And that same flesh, being first born mortal of the virgin Mary, and now being glorified [? And yet notwithstanding, Orig. ed. Winch. } [* For our sins, Ibid. ] [? Is spiritually, Ibid.] 1 Cor. x. Luke xxii. 1 Cor. x. *Truly. *Really. *Corporally. [Psal. xeviii. Orig. ed. Winch. ] [Ad Philip- penses. } 234 THE FOURTH BOOK. and immortal, as well the holy fathers did eat before he was born, and his apostles and disciples whiles he lived with us here in earth, as we do now when he is glorified. But what availeth all this to your purpose, except you could prove, that to a spiritual eating is required a corporal presence ? And where you say, that “St Hierome and St Augustine use both one manner of speaking,” that is not true. For St Hierome speaketh of the diversity of the body of Christ, and St Augustine of the diversity of eating thereof. And yet here is to be noted by the way, that you say, we receive not in the sacrament Christ’s flesh that was crucified: which your words seem to agree evil with Christ’s words, who the night before he was crucified declared to his disciples, that he gave them the same body that should suffer death for them. And the apostles received the body of Christ, yet passible and mortal, which the next day was crucified; and if we receive not in the sacrament the body that was crucified, then receive we not the same body that the apostles did. And here in your idle talk you draw by force St Hierome’s words to the sacrament, when St Hierome speaketh not one word of the sacrament in that place: let the reader judge. And here, for the conclusion of the matter, you fantasy and imagine such novelties, and wrap them up in such dark speeches, that we had need to have Joseph or Daniel to expound your dreams. But to make a clear answer to your dark reason, the body of Christ is glorified and reigneth in heaven ; and yet we remember with thankful minds, that the same was crucified and emptied of blood for our redemption: and by faith to chaw and digest this in our hearts is to eat his flesh and to drink his blood. But your brain rolleth so in fantasies, that you wot not where to get out, and one of your sayings impugneth another. For first you say, that ‘‘ we receive not in the sacrament the flesh that was crucified,” and now you say that “we receive him not as he sitteth in heaven and is glorified,” and so must you needs grant that we receive him not at all. WINCHESTER. But to return to St Augustine touching adoration: if the very flesh of Christ were not in the sacrament truly present, which is as much to say, as in substance present; if it were not in deed present, that is to say really present; if it were not corporally present, that is to say, the very body of Christ there present, God and man; if these truths consenting in one were not there, St Augustine would never have spoken of adoration there. No more he doth, saith this author, there, but in heaven: let St Augustine's words, quoth I, be judge, which be these: “No man eateth that flesh but he first worshippeth it. It is found out how such a footstool of the Lord’s foot should be worshipped, and not only that we do not sin in worshipping, but we do sin in not worshipping it.” These be St Augustine's words, which, I said before, cannot be drawn to an understanding of the worshipping of Christ's flesh in heaven, where it remaineth continually glorified, and is of all men christened continually worshipped. For as St Paul saith: “Christ is so exalted that every tongue should confess, that our Saviour Christ is in the glory of his Father.” So as the worshipping of Christ there, in the estate of his glory where he reigneth, hath neither “afore” ne “after,” but an “ever” continual worshipping in glory. Wherefore St Augustine, speaking of a “before,” must be understanded of the worshipping of Christ's flesh present in the sacrament, as in the dispensation of his humility, which Christ ceaseth not to do reigning in glory: for although he hath finished his humble patible conver- sation, yet he continueth his hwmble dispensation in the perfection of his mystical body; and as he is our invisible priest for ever, and our advocate with his Father, and so for us to him a mediator, to whom he is equal; so doth he vouchsafe in his supper which he continueth to make an effectual remembrance of his offering for us, of the new testament confirmed im his blood, and by his power maketh himself present in this visible sacrament, to be therein of us truly eaten, and his blood truly drunken, not only in faith, but with the truth and ministry of our bodily mouth, as God hath willed and commanded us to do: which presence of Christ in this humility of dispensation to relieve us and feed us spiritually, we must adore, as St Augustine saith, before we eat ; and “we do not sin in adoring, but we sin in not adoring,’ remembering the divine nature unite unto Christ's flesh, and therefore of flesh not severed from the Godhead. Which admonishment of St Augustine declareth he meant not of the worshipping of Christ's flesh in heaven, where can be no danger of such a thought, where all tongues confess Christ to be in the ———————— —— —— rey a , OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 235 glory of his Father; of which Christ, as he is there in glory continually to be worshipped, at were a cold saying of St Augustine to say, “We do not sin in worshipping Christ in heaven, but sin in not worshipping him,” as though any could have doubted whether Christ should be worshipped in his humanity in heaven, being inseparably unite to the divinity. And when I say, in his humanity, I speak not properly as that mystery requireth; for as Christ's person 1s but one of two perfect natures, so the adoration is but one, as Cyril declareth it, and therefore abhorreth the addition of a syllable to speak of co-adoration. And will this authar attribute to St Augustine such a grossness to have written and given for a lesson, that no man sinneth to worship Christ's flesh in heaven reigning in glory? Wherefore taking this to be so far from all probability, I said before, these words of St Augustine cannot be drawn with any tenters to stretch so far as to reach to heaven, where every christian man knoweth and professeth the worshipping of Christ in glory, as they be taught also to worship him in his dispensation? of his hwnility, when he maketh present himself in this sacrament, whom we should not receive into our mouth before we adore him. And by St Augustine's rule, we not only not sin im adoring, but also sin in not adoring him. CANTERBURY. Where you speak of the adoration of Christ in the sacrament, saying, “that if he were not there present, substantially, really, and corporally, St Augustine would never have spoken of adoration there ;” in this word “there,” you use a great double- ness and fallax, for it may be referred indifferently either to the adoration, or to the presence. If it be referred to the presence, then it is neither true, nor St Augustine saith no such thing, that Christ is really, substantially, and corporally present there. If it be referred to the worshipping, then it is true, according to St Augustine’s mind, that there in the receiving of the sacrament in spirit and truth, we glorify and honour Christ sitting in heaven at his Father's right hand. But to this adoration is required no real, substantial, and corporal presence, as before I have declared: for so did Jacob worship Christ before he was born, and all faithful christian people do worship him in all places wheresoever they be, although he carnally and corporally be far distant from them; as they daily honour the Father and pray unto him, and yet say, Qui es in celis, confessing him to be in heaven. And therefore, to avoid all the ambiguity and fallax of your speech, I say, that we being here do worship here Christ, being not corporally here, but with his Father in heaven. And although all christian men ought of duty continually to worship Christ being in heaven, yet because we be negligent to do our duties therein, his word and sacra- ments be ordained to provoke us thereunto: so that, although otherwise we forgat our duties, yet when we come to any of his sacraments, we should be put in remem- brance thereof. And therefore said Christ, as St Paul writeth, “ As often as you shall eat this bread and drink this cup, shew forth the Lord’s death until he come.” And, “Do this,” said Christ, “in remembrance of me.” And the worshipping of Christ in his glory should be ever continual, without either “before” or “after.” Nevertheless, for- asmuch as by reason of our infirmity, ingratitude, malice, and wickedness, we go far from our offices and duties herein, the sacraments call us home again, to do that thing which before we did omit, that at the least we may do at some time that which we should do at all times. And where you speak of the humiliation of Christ in the sacrament, you speak without the book. For the scripture termeth not the matter in that sort, but calleth his humiliation only his incarnation and conversation with us here in earth, being obedient even unto death, and for that humiliation he is now from that time for- ward exalted for ever in glory: and you would pluck him down from his glory to humiliation again. And thus is Christ entreated, when he cometh to the handling of ignorant lawyers, blind sophisters, and popish divines; but the true worshippers of Christ worship him in spirit, sitting in his high glory and majesty, and pluck him not down from thence, corporally to eat him with their teeth, but “ spiritually in heart ascend up,” as St Chrysostom saith, “and feed upon him where he sitteth in his high throne of glory with his Father.” To which spiritual feeding is required no bodily [' Worshipping, as though, Orig. ed. Winch.] {* In this dispensation, Ibid. ] 246. There. Gen. xxviii. Matt. vi. 1 Cor. xi. Luke xxii. Humiliation. Phil. ii. St Augus- tine’s doc- trine is necessary. Psal. xevili. Heb. x. Heb. yi. Ambrosius de Spiritu sancto, Lib. lil. cap. 12. 248. 236 THE FOURTH BOOK. presence, nor also mouth nor teeth; and yet they that receive any sacrament, must adore Christ, both before and after, sitting in heaven in the glory of his Father. And this is neither, as you say it is, a cold nor gross teaching of St Augustine in this place, to worship the flesh and humanity of Christ in heaven: nor your teaching is not so far from all doubts, but that you seem so afraid yourself to stand to it, that when you have said, that Christ is “to be worshipped in his humanity,” as it were to excuse the matter again, you say you “speak not properly.” And this doctrine of St Augustine was very necessary for two considerations. One is for the exposition of the psalm, which he took in hand to declare, where in one verse is commanded to worship the earth, being God’s footstool; and this he saith may be understand in the flesh of Christ, which flesh being earth, and the food of faithful christian people, is to be worshipped of all that feed and lve by him. For notwith- standing that his flesh is earth of earth, and a creature, and that nothing ought to be worshipped but God alone; yet is found out in Christ the explication of this great doubt and mystery, how flesh, earth, and a creature, both may and ought to be worshipped: that is to say, when earth and flesh being united to the Godhead in one person, is one perfect Jesu Christ, both God and man. And this is neither a cold nor gross saying of St Augustine, but an explication of the divine and high mystery of his incarnation. The other cause, why it is necessary both to teach and to exhort men to honour Christ’s flesh in heaven, is this, that some know it not, and some do it not. For some heretics have taught, that Christ was but a man, and so not to be honoured. And some have said, that although he be both God and man, yet his divinity is to be honoured, and not his humanity. For extirpation of which errors, it is no gross nor cold saying, that Christ’s flesh in heaven is to be honoured. And some know right well, that whole Christ, God and man, ought to be honoured with one entire and godly honour, and yet forgetting themself in their facts, do not according to their knowledge; but treading the Son of God under their feet, and despising the blood, whereby they were sanctified, crucify again the Son of God, and make him a mocking- stock to all the wicked. And many professing Christ, yet having vain cogitations and fantasies in their heads, do worship and serve antichrist, and thinking themselves wise, become very fools indeed. And count you it then a cold and a gross saying, that Christ in heaven is to be honoured; wherein so many old authors have travailed and written so many books, and wherein all godly teachers travail from time to time? And yet bring you here nothing to prove, that St Augustine spake of the real presence of Christ’s flesh in the sacrament, and not of Christ being in heaven, but this your “cold and gross” reason. And this will serve to answer also the place here following of St Ambrose, who spake not of the worshipping of Christ only at the receiving of the sacrament, but at all times and of all reasonable creatures, both men and angels. WINCHESTER. And for the more manifest confirmation that St Augustine ought thus to be understanded, I shall bring in St Ambrose’s saying, of whom it is probable St Augustine to have learned that he writeth in this matter. St Ambrose’s words, in his book De Spiritu Sancto, Lib. iii. cap. 12., be these : Non medio- cris igitur questio, et ideo diligentius consideremus quid sit scabellum. Legimus enim alibi: “Ccelum mihi thronus, terra autem scabellum pedum meorum.” Sed nec terra ado- randa nobis, quia creatura est Dei. Videamus tamen ne terram illam dicat adorandam propheta, quam Dominus Jesus in carnis assumptione suscepit. Itaque per scabellum terra intelligitur, per terram autem caro Christi, quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus, et quam apostoli in Domino Jesu, ut supra diximus, adorarunt. Neque enim divisus Christus, sed unus!. Which words may be Englished thus: “It is therefore no mean question, and therefore we should more diligently consider, what is the footstool. For we read in another [} Ambros. de Spiritu Sancto, Lib. iii. cap. 12, Tom. IV. p. 123. Ed. Col. Agrip. 1616. The Orig. ed. Winch. omits the words ‘be these.’’] OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 237 bd place, ‘ Heaven is my throne, and the earth the footstool of my feet. But yet the earth is not to be worshipped of us, because it is a creature of God. And yet let us see though lest the prophet mean that earth to be worshipped, which our Lord Jesus took in the taking of flesh. So then by the footstool let the earth be understanded, and then by the earth the flesh of Christ, which we do now worship also in the mysteries, and which the apostles, as we have before said, worshipped in our Lord Jesu; for Christ is not divided, but one.” Hitherto St Ambrose, whereby may appear how St Ambrose and St Augustine took occasion to open their fuith and doctrine touching adoration, upon discussion of the self-same words of the prophet David. And St Ambrose expressly noteth our adoration in the mysteries where we worship Christ's flesh invisibly present, as the apostles did, when Christ was visibly present with them. And thus with these so plain words of St Ambrose consonant to those of St Augustine, and the opening of St Augustine's words as before, I trust I have made manifest, how this author travaileth against the stream, and labowreth in vain to writhe St Augustine to his purpose in this matter. The best is in this author, that he handleth St Augustine no worse than the rest, but all after one sort, because they be all of like sort against his new catholic faith, and confirn the old true catholic faith, or do not improve it. For of this high mystery the authors write some more obscurely and darkly than other, and use diversities of speeches and words, wherewith the true doctrine hath been of a very few impugned, but ever in vain, as I trust in God this shall be most in vain2, having this author uttered such untruths with so much blind ignorance, as this work well weighed and considered, (that is to say, who made it, when he made it, and of like how many were, or might have been and should have been, of counsel in so great a matter, who, if they were any*, be all reproved in this one work,) all such circumstances considered, this book may do as much good to relieve such perplexity, as alteration hath engendered, and so do as good service in the truth’, as was meant thereby to hinder and impair it. And this shall suffice for an answer to this fourth book. CANTERBURY. Here appeareth your sincerity in proceeding in this matter. For you leave out those words of St Ambrose, which maketh his meaning plain, that the prophet spake of the mystery of Christ’s incarnation: Si negant quia in Christo etiam incarnationis adoranda mysteria sunt, §c.: “If they deny,” saith he, “that the mysteries of the incar- nation in Christ be to be honoured, &c.” And a little after: Qua ratione ad incarnationis dominice sacramentum spectare videatur, quod ait propheta, Adorate scabellum pedum ejus, consideremus: “Vet us consider by what means this saying of the prophet, ‘Worship his footstool,’ may be seen to pertain to the sacrament of Christ’s incarna- tion.” And after the words by you rehearsed, followeth by and by: Cwm igitur in- carnationis adorandum sit sacramentum, &c.: “Seeing then that the sacrament of the incarnation is to be honoured.” In these words sheweth St Ambrose plainly, that the worshipping of Christ’s flesh is understand of the mystery of his incarnation. So that St Ambrose meant, not only that men should worship Christ when they receive the sacrament, but that all creatures, at all times, should worship him. And therefore, he expresseth there by name, how the angels did worship him, and also Mary Magdalene and the apostles after his resurrection, when they received not the sacrament. And so did also the shepherds and the wise men worship him, yet being in his infancy: and the prophet, after the mind of St Augustine and St Ambrose, commanded to honour him before his incarnation; and we likewise honour him sitting now in heaven after his ascension. For so far is faith able to reach, without either tentering or stretching. Thus have I answered to all that you have brought against my fourth book, not obscurely, as you like a cuttle have done, hiding yourself in your dark colours, but plainly to the capacity of all men as much as I can. And this have I done with some pain of writing, but little or no study for the matter, being a very easy thing for defence of the truth to answer by God’s word, and ancient authors, to an ignorant lawyer, being well exercised in neither of both, but making such divinity as he can dream in his sleep, or devise of his own brain, or hath sucked out of the papistical laws and decrees, and, for lack of arguments, furnishing up his book with pretty toys, with glorious boasting, and scornful taunting; and with picking out of my book snch {? In God shall be most in vain, Orig. ed. [* If there were any, Ibid. | Winch. ] {* To the truth, 1551. ] Matt. xxviii. Luke ii. Matt. ii. 249. Matt. xxiv. Matt. xxiv. Chap. x. They be the mane that ave de- ceived the people Innccentius tertius. Honorius tertius. Chap. xt. An exhorta- tion to the true honour- ing of Christ in the sacra- ment. 238 THE FOURTH BOOK. sentences, as he persuadeth himself, that he can make some colour of apparent answer, to deceive the reader. And such places as he seeth his rhetoric will not serve, he passeth them away slightly, because he is afraid to file his hands therewith. Where- fore, I may now right well and justly conclude here mine answer to his confutation, with the words of my fourth book, which be these: But our Saviour Christ himself hath given us warning beforehand, that such false Christians and false teachers should come, and hath bid us to beware of them, saying: “If any man tell you that Christ is here, or Christ is there, believe him not. For there shall rise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew many signs and wonders, so that if it were possible, the very elect should be brought into error. Take heed, I have told you beforehand.” Thus our Saviour Christ, like a most loving Pastor and Saviour of our souls, hath given us warning beforehand of the perils and dangers that were to come, and to be wise and ware, that we should not give credit unto such teachers as would persuade us to worship a piece of bread, to kneel to it, to knock to it, to creep to it, to follow it in procession, to lift up our hands to it, to offer to it, to light candles to it, to shut it up in a chest or box, to do all other honour unto it, more than we do unto God; having alway this pretence or excuse for our idolatry, “‘ Behold, here is Christ.” But our Saviour Christ calleth them false prophets, and saith: “ Take heed, I tell you before; believe them not. If they say to you, Behold, Christ is abroad, or in the wilderness, go not out: and if they say, that he is kept in close places, believe them not.” And if you will ask me the question, Who be these false prophets and seducers of the people? the answer is soon made: The Romish antichrists and their adherents; the authors of all error, ignorance, blindness, superstition, hypocrisy, and idolatry. For Innocentius the third, one of the most wicked men that ever was in the see of Rome, did ordain and decree, that the host should be diligently kept under lock and key'. And Honorius the third not only confirmed the same, but commanded also, that the “priests would* diligently teach the people from time to time, that when they lifted up the bread, called the host, the people should then reverently bow down; and that likewise they should do when the priest carrieth the host unto sick folks*.” These be the statutes and ordinances of Rome, under pretence of holiness, to lead the people unto all error and idolatry; not bringing them by bread unto Christ, but from Christ unto bread. But all that love and believe Christ himself, let them not think that Christ is corporally in the bread; but let them litt up their hearts unto heaven, and worship* him, sitting there at the right hand of his Father. Let them worship him in themselves, whose temples they be, in whom he dwelleth and liveth spiritually: but in no wise let them worship him, as being corporally in the bread. For he is not in it, neither spiritually, as he is m man, nor corporally, as he is in heaven, but only sacramentally, as a thing may be said to be in the figure, whereby it is signified. Thus is sufficiently reproved the third principal error of the papists concerning the Lord’s supper, which is, “ That wicked members of the devil do eat Christ’s very body, and drink his blood.” Thus endeth the Fourth Book. [) Statuimus ut in cunctis ecclesiis chrisma et | [® Sacerdos vero frequenter doceat plebem suam, eucharistia sub fideli custodia clavibus adhibitis | ut cum in celebratione missarum elevatur hostia conserventur. Decret. Concil. Lateran. 1v. cap. xx. | salutaris, se reverenter inclinet, idem faciens cum anno 1215. Labbei Conc. Tom. XXII. p. 1097. ] | eam defert presbyter ad infirmum. Decretal. Lib. [2 Should, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] 11. Tit. xli.] [* Worshipping, edit. 1580.] — 239 THE CONFUTATION OF THE SECOND BOOK. [ WINCHESTER. | HAVING declared how much against all truth this author would bear in hand, that the real presence, the corporal presence, and substantial presence of Christ's most precious body and blood in the sacrament is not the true catholic doctrine, but a device of the papists, which is a term wherewith this author doth wncharitably charge the kings true subjects, among whom he knoweth a great many to be of that faith he calleth now papish: but setting words apart and to come to the matter, as I have shewed this author to err partly by wilfulness, partly by ignorance in the understanding of the old authors concerning the true real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament; so I trust to shew this author overseen in the article of transubstantiation. For entry whereunto, first I say this, that albeit the word transubstan- tiation was first spoken of by public authority in that assembly of learned men of Christen- dom in a general council®, where the bishop of Rome was present®, yet the true matter signified by that word was older and believed before upon the true understanding of Christ's words, and was in that council confessed, not for the authority of the bishop of Rome, but for the authority of truth, being the article such as toucheth not the authority of the bishop of Rome, but the true doctrine of Christ's mystery, and therefore in this realm, the authority of Rome ceasing, was also confessed for a truth by all the clergy of this realm in an open council’, specially discussed; and though the hardness of the law that by parliament was established of that and other articles hath been repelled, yet that doctrine was never hitherto by any public council, or any thing set forth by authority, impaired, that I have heard: wherefore methinketh this author should not improve it by the name of the bishop of Rome, seeing we read how truth was uttered by Balaam and Caiaphas also: and St Paul teacheth the Philippians, that (Num. xxi. whether it be by contention or envy, so Christ be preached, the person should not impair the Orie, a opening of truth, if it be truth, which Luther indeed would not allow for truth, impugning Wey the article of transubstantiation, not meaning thereby, as this author doth, to impair the truth of the very presence of Christ's most precious body in the sacrament of the altar, as is aforesaid, in the discussion of which truth of transubstantiation I for my part should be special defended by two means, wherewith to avoid the envious name of papist. One is, that Zuinglius himself, who was no papist, as is well known, nor good christian man, as some Zuinglius. said, neither, saith plainly, writing to Luther in the matter of the sacrament: “It must needs be true, that if the body of Christ be really in the sacrament, there is of necessity transub- stantiation also.” Wherefore seeing by Luther's travail, who favowred not the bishop of Rome neither, and also by evidence of the truth, most certain and manifest, it appeareth that ac- cording to the true catholic faith Christ is really present in the sacrament, it is now by 251. Zuinglius judgment a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is transubstantiation also; which shall be one mean of purgation, that I defend not transubstantiation as depending of the bishop of Rome's determination, which was not his absolutely, but of a necessity of the truth, howsoever it liketh Duns or Gabriel® to write in it, whose sayings this author useth for his pleasure. Another defence is, that this author himself saith “that it is over great an absurdity to say, that bread insensible,’ with many other terms that he addeth, “should be the body of Christ;” and therefore I think, that the “is,” that is to say, the inward nature and essence of that Christ delivered in his supper to be eaten and drunken, was of his body and blood, and not of the bread and wine, and therefore can well agree with this author, that the bread of wheat is not the body of Christ, nor the body of Christ made of it as of a matter; which considerations will enforce him that believeth the truth of the pre- sence of the substance of Christ's body, as the true catholic faith teacheth, to assent to transub- stantiation, not as determined by the church of Rome, but as a consequent of truth believed in the mystery of the sacrament: which transubstantiation how this author would impugn, T will without quarrel of envious words consider, and, with true opening of his handling the matter, doubt not to make the reader to see that he fighteth against the truth. TL will pass over the wnreverent handling of Christ's words, “ This is my body,” which words [° The fourth General Council of Lateran, a.p. | (7 This was held in 1539, at which Cranmer vehe- 1215. ] | mently opposed the passing of the Six Articles. ] (® Innocentius 11T.] | ({® Duns Scotus or Gabriel Biel. | Papists were the authors of transub- stantiation, 952 The council in England. John viii. 240 THE SECOND BOOK. I heard this author (if he be the same that is named) once rehearse more seriously in a solemn and open audience, to the conviction and condemnation, as followed, of one that erroneously maintained against the sacrament the same that this author calleth now the catholic faith. CANTERBURY. In this book, which answereth to my second book rather with taunting words than with matter, I will answer the chief points of your intent, and not contend with you in scolding, but will give you place therein. First, I charge none with the name of papists, but that be well worthy thereof. For I charge not the hearers, but the teachers, not the learners, but the inventors of the untrue doctrine of transubstantiation ; not the king’s faithful subjects, but the pope’s darlings, whose faith and belief hangeth of his only mouth. And I call it their doctrine, not only because they teach it, but because they made it, and were the first finders of it. And as in the third book, concerning the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament, you have not shewed my ignorance or wilfulness, but your own; so do you now much more in the matter of transubstantiation: “which word,” say you, “albeit the same was first spoken of in the general council, where the bishop of Rome was present, yet the true matter signified by that word was older.” Here at the first brunt you confess, that the name of ‘“ transubstantiation” was given at the council: so that either the matter was not before, (as it was not in deed.) or at the least it was before a nameless child, as you do grant, until the holy father Innocent the third, which begat it, assembled a company of his friends as godfathers to name the child. And by what authority the council defined the matter of ‘‘transubstantiation,” it may easily appear. For authority of scripture have they none, nor none they do allege. And what the authority of the pope was there, all men may see, being present in the same no less than eight hundred abbots and priors, who were all the pope’s own children, of him created and begotten. And as for the “confession of all the clergy of this realm in an open council, the authority of Rome ceasing,” you speak here a manifest untruth wittingly against your con- science. For you know very well, (and if you will deny it, there be enough yet alive can testify,) that divers of the clergy, being of most godly living, learning, and judgment, never consented to the articles which you speak of. And what marvel was it, that those articles (notwithstanding divers learned men repugning,) passed by the most voices of the par- liament? seeing that although the authority of Rome was then newly ceased, yet the darkness and blindness of errors and ignorance that came from Rome still remained, and overshadowed so this realm, that a great number of the parliament had not yet their eyes opened to see the truth. And yet how that matter was enforced by some persons, they know right well that were then present. But after, when it pleased almighty God more clearly to shine unto us by the light of his word, our eyes by his goodness were opened, darkness discussed, and that which was done in ignorance and darkness, was by knowledge and light in public council reversed and taken away, as well concerning the doctrine as the hardness of the law. For if the doctrine had been true and godly, there is no christian-hearted man, but he would have desired the establishment and continuance thereof. But the doctrine being false, and such as came only from Rome, they be not worthy to be likened to those truths which came from God, and were uttered by Balaam and Caiaphas, but to be numbered among those lies which came from his vicar, who, when he speaketh les, ea propriis loquitur, “he speaketh properly of himself.” And the bishop of Rome was not clean gone out of England, as soon as the laws were made against his authority, but remained still by his corrupt doctrine, as I fear me he doth yet in some men’s hearts, who were the chief procurers and setters forthward of the foresaid law. But yet is all together to be imputed to the bishop of Rome, forasmuch as from thence came all the foresaid errors, ignorance, and corruption, into these parties. Now where you take upon you here to purge yourself of papistry by me and [? The allusion of Winchester is here made to | Vide Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, Vol. II. p. the disputation before Henry VIII. a. p. 1538, | 425. Ed. Lond. 1631, and Examination before held by Lambert, in which Cranmer took a part.— | Brookes. ] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 241 Zuinglius, if you have no better compurgators than us two, you be like to fail in your purgation. For neither of us, I dare say, durst swear for you in this matter, though Zuinglius were alive. Or if your purgation stand to this point, that Christ called not bread made of wheat his body, (although in a formal and proper speech bread is not in deed his body,) you may be as rank a papist as ever was, for any purgation you can make by this way. For Christ called bread made of wheat his body, as the words of the evangelists plainly declare, and all old writers teach; and in your book of the ‘ Devil’s Sophistry,” you have confessed, saying, that “ Christ made demonstration of bread, when he said, ‘This is my body.’” And therefore bring some better purgation than this; or else had you been better not to have offered any purgation in a matter that no man charged you withal, than by offering a purgation, and failing therein, to bring yourself into more suspicion. And whereas in fortification of your matter of transubstantiation, you make your argument thus, that ‘“forasmuch as the body of Christ is really in the sacrament, 253. there is of necessity transubstantiation also;’ this your argument hath two great Real presence faults in it. The first is, that your antecedent is false, and then you cannot conclude Ee mbateee thereof a true consequent. The second fault is, that although the antecedent were paca granted unto you, “that the body of Christ is really im the sacrament,” yet the con- sequent cannot be inferred thereof, “that there is of necessity transubstantiation.” For Christ can make his body to be present in the sacrament, as well with the substance of the bread as without it, and rather with the substance of bread than with the accidents ; forasmuch as neither Christ’s body there occupieth any place, as you say yourself, nor no more doth the substance of bread by itself, but by means of the accidents, as you say also. Now forasmuch as you say, that “you will pass over the unreverent handling of Rerredionce Christ’s words, which you heard me once more seriously rehearse in solemn open metter. audience ;” I acknowledge that not many years passed I was yet in darkness concerning this matter, being brought up in scholastical and Romish doctrine, whereunto I gave too much credit. And therefore I grant, that you have heard me stand and defend the untruth, which I then took for the truth; and so did I hear you at the same time. But praise be to the everliving God, who hath wiped away those Saulish scales from Aets ix. mine eyes! and I pray unto his divine Majesty with all my heart, that he will likewise do once the same to you. Thy will be fulfilled, O Lord! But forasmuch as you “pass over my handling of Christ’s words,” (as you use commonly to pass in post when you have no direct answer to make,) I shall here repeat my words again; to the intent that the indifferent reader may presently see how I have handled them, and then judge whether you ought so slenderly to pass them oyer as you do. My words be these : The second book’. Thus have you heard declared four things, wherein chiefly the papistical doc- (Book ii. = s . . . of 2 Ts trine yarieth from the true word of God, and from the old catholic christian The confuta . . 5 : tion of the faith in this matter of the Lord’s supper. error of transubstan- Now, (lest any man should think that I feign any thing of mine own head tation. without any other ground or authority) you shall hear by God’s grace as well the errors of the papists confuted, as the catholic truth defended, both by God’s most certain word, and also by the most old approved authors and martyrs of Christ’s church. And first, that bread and wine remain after the words of consecration, and Chap. 11. be eaten and drunken in the Lord’s supper, is most manifest by the plain words cal doctrine Is contrary of Christ himself, when he ministered the same supper unto his disciples. For, te God's . : . . bi 5 f word. : as the evangelists write, “Christ took bread, and brake it, and gave it to his dis- Hat = Rv ciples, and said: Take, eat, this is my body.” Luke xxii. (? The title of this book runs thus in the Orig. ed. ‘‘The second Book is against the error of Transubstantiation.”’] [cRANMER. ] 16 bo od. 1 Cor. x. Matt. xxvi. Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. 242 THE SECOND BOOK. Here the papists triumph of these words, when Christ said: “This is my body:” which they call the words of consecration. For, say they, as soon as these words be fully ended, there is no bread left, nor none other substance, but only Christ’s body. When Christ said “this,” the bread, say they, remained. And when he said “is,” yet the bread remained. Also, when he added “my,” the bread remained still. And when he said “bo,” yet the bread was there still. But when he had finished the whole sentence, “This is my body,” then, say they, the bread was gone, and there remained no substance but Christ’s body; as though the bread could not remain when it is made a sacrament. But this negative, that there is no bread, they make of their own brains, by ther un- written verities, which they most highly esteem’. Oh, good Lord! how would they have bragged, if Christ had said, “ This is no bread!” But Christ spake not that negative, “This is no bread;” but said affrmingly, “This is my body ;” not denying the bread, but affirming that his body was eaten, meaning spiritually, as the bread was eaten corporally. And that this was the meaning of Christ, appeareth plainly by St Paul, in the tenth chapter to the Corinthians, the first epistle, where he, speaking of the same matter, saith: ‘Is not the bread which we break the communion of the body of Christ?” Who understood the mind of Christ better than St Paul, to whom Christ shewed his most secret counsels? And St Paul is not afraid, for our better understanding of Christ’s words, somewhat to alter the same, lest we might stand stiffly in the letters and syllables, and err in mistaking the sense and meaning*. For whereas our Saviour Christ brake the bread, and said, “This is my body ;” St Paul saith, “that the bread which we break is the com- munion of Christ’s body.” Christ said, “his body ;’ and St Paul said, “the communion of his body:”’ meaning, nevertheless, both one thing, “that they which eat the bread worthily, do eat spiritually Christ’s very body.” And so Christ calleth the bread his body, as the old authors report, because it repre- senteth his body, and signifieth unto them which eat that bread according to Christ’s ordinance, that they do spiritually eat his body, and be spiritually fed and nourished by him, and yet the bread remaineth still there as a sacrament to signify the same. But of these words of consecration shall be spoken hereafter more at large. Therefore, to return to the purpose: that the bread remaineth, and is eaten in this sacrament, appeareth by the words of Christ, which he spake before the consecration®. For that Christ “took bread, and brake it, and gave it to his dis- ciples, and said, Take, eat;” all this was done and spoken before the words of consecration. Wherefore they must needs be understood of the very bread, that Christ took bread, brake bread, gave bread to his disciples, commanding them to take bread and eat bread. But the same is more plain and evident of the wine, that it remaineth, and is drunken at the Lord’s supper, as well by the words that go before, as by the words that follow after the consecration. For, before the words of consecration, Christ took the cup of wine, and gave it unto his disciples, and said, “ Drink ye all of this:’ and after the words of conse- cration followeth, “ They drank all of it.” Now I ask all the papists, what thing it was that Christ commanded his disciples to drink, when he said, “ Drink ye all of this?” The blood of Christ was not yet there by their own confession ; for these words were spoken‘ [’ The Orig. ed. omits the words, ‘‘ which they [? By the words which go before the consecra- most highly esteem.” The 1551 ed. for ‘‘most,’’ | tion, Orig. ed.] reads ‘‘ must.’ ] [* For it was spoken, Orig. ed. ] [? And errin mistaking of Christ’s words, Or. ed. | AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 243 before the consecration: therefore it could be nothing else but wine that he commanded them to drink. Then I ask the papists once again, whether the disciples drank wine or not? If they say, “yea,” then let them recant their error, that there was no wine remaining after the consecration. If they say, “nay,” then they condemn the apostles of disobedience to Christ’s commandment, which drank not wine as he commanded them. Or rather they reprove Christ as a juggler, which commanded his apostles to drmk wine; and when they came to the drinking thereof, he himself had conveyed it away. Moreover, before Christ delivered the cup of wine to his disciples, he said unto them: “ Divide this among you.” Here I would ask the papists another question, what thing it was that Christ commanded his disciples to divide among them? J am sure they will not say it was the cup, except they be disposed to make men laugh at them. Nor I think they will not say it was the blood of Christ, as well because the words were spoken before the consecration, as because the blood of Christ is not divided, but spiritually given whole in the sacrament. Then could it be understand of nothing else but of wine, which they should divide among them, and drink all together. Also when the communion was ended, Christ said unto his apostles: “Verily, I say unto you, that I will drink no more henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day that I shall drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” By these words it is clear, that it was very wine that the apostles drank at that godly supper. For the blood of Christ is not the fruit of the vine, nor the accidents of wine, nor none other thing is the fruit of the yine, but the very wine only’. How could Christ have expressed more plainly, that bread and wine re- main, than by taking the bread in his hands, and breaking it himself, and giving it unto his disciples®, commanding them to eat it; and by taking the cup of wine in his hands, and delivering it unto them, commanding them to divide it among them, and to drink it; and calling it “the fruit of the vine ?” These words of Christ be so plain, that if an angel of heaven would tell us the contrary, he ought not to be believed. And then much less may we believe the subtle lying papists’. If Christ would have had us to believe, as a necessary article of our faith, that there remaineth neither bread nor wine, would he have spoken after this sort, using all such terms and circumstances as should make us believe that still there remaineth bread and wine ? What manner of teacher make they of Christ, that say he meant one thing, when his words be clean contrary ? What christian heart can patiently suffer this contumely of Christ ? But what crafty teachers be these papists, who devise phantasies of their own heads directly contrary to Christ’s teaching, and then set the same abroad to christian people, to be most assuredly believed as God’s own most holy word! St Paul did not so, but followed here the manner of Christ’s speak- ing, in calling of “bread” “bread,” and “wine” “wine,” and never altering Christ’s words herein. “The bread which we break,” saith he, “is it not the communion of Christ’s body ?” Now I ask again of the papists, whether he spake this of the bread con- secrated or not consecrated? They cannot say that he spake it of the bread {° But very wine only, Orig. ed.] Orig. ed.} [° And giving unto his disciples, 1551, and [7 Subtle lying of the papists, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] 16—2 255. Luke xxii. Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. 1 Cor. x. 256. 1 Cor. x. 244 THE SECOND BOOK. unconsecrated, for that is not the communion of Christ’s body by their own doctrine. And: if St Paul spake it of bread consecrated, then they must needs confess that after consecration such bread remaineth, as is broken bread, which can be none other than very true material bread. And _ straightways after, St Paul saith in the same place, that “we be partakers of one bread and one cup.” And in the next chapter, speaking more fully of the same matter, four times he nameth the bread and the cup, never making mention of any transubstantiation, or remaining of accidents without any substance; which things he would have made some mention of, if it had been a necessary article of our faith, to believe that there remaineth no bread nor wine. Thus it is evident and plain, by the words of scripture, that after consecration remaineth bread and wine, and that the papistical doctrine of transubstantiation is directly contrary to God’s word. WINCHESTER. But to the purpose, the simplicity of faith in a christian man’s breast doth not so precisely mark and stay at the syllables of Christ's words, as this author pretendeth; and knowing by faith the truth of Christ's words, that as he said he wrought, doth not measure God’s secret working after the prolation of our syllables, whose work is in one instant, howsoever speech in us require a successive utterance: and the manner of handling this author useth to bring the mystical words in contempt, were meeter in an ethnick’s mouth to jest out all, than to pass the lips of such an author, to play with the syllables after this sort. For although he may read in some blind gloss, that in the instant of the last syllable God’s work is to be accompted wrought, being a good lesson to admonish the minister to pronounce all; yet it is so but a private opinion, and reverently uttered, not to put the virtue in the last syllable, nor to scorn the catholie faith: after which manner, taking example of this author, an ethnick should jest of fiat lux, at fi was nothing, and then at at was yet nothing, at lu was nothing but a little little paring, put an x to it, and it was suddenly lux, and then the light!. What christian man would handle either place thus? And therefore, reader, let this entry of the matter serve for an argument, with what spirit this matter is handled: but to answer that this author noteth with an exclamation, “‘O, good Lord! how would they have bragged if Christ had said, This is no bread!” here I would question with this author, whether Christ said so or no, and reason thus: Christ’s body is no material bread: Christ said, “ This is my body ;” ergo, he said, “ This is no bread?.” And the first part of this reason this author affirmeth in the fifty-ninth leaf. And the second part is Christ's words ; and therefore to avoid this conclusion the only way is to say that Christ's speech was but a figure, which the catholic doctrine saith is false; and therefore, by the catholic doctrine, Christ saying, “ This is my body,” saith in effect, “ This is no bread;” whereat this author saith, “ They would brag if Christ had said so.” In speech is to be considered that every “yea” containeth a “nay” in it naturally ; so as whosoever saith, “ This is bread,” saith “it is no wine:’ whosoever saith, “ This is wine,” saith, “it is no beer.” If a lapidary saith, “ This is a diamond,” he saith “it is no glass;” he saith “it is no crystal ;” he saith “it is no white sapphire.” So Christ saying, “ This is my body,” saith “it is no bread.” Which plainness of speech caused Zuinglius to say plainly: “ If there be present the substance of the body of Christ, there is transubstantiation ;” that is to say, not the substance of bread; and therefore who will plainly deny transubstantiation, must deny the true presence of the substance of Christ's body, as this author doth; wherein I have first convinced him, and therefore use that victory for his overthrow in transubstantiation. I have shewed before how Christ's words were not figurative when he said, “ This is my body; and yet I will touch here such testimony as this author bringeth out of one Hilary*, for the purpose of tran- substantiation, in the twenty-fifth leaf of this book®, in these words: “ There is a figure,” saith Hilary, “for bread and wine be outwardly seen; and there is also a truth of that figure, for the body and blood of Christ be of a truth inwardly believed.” These be Hilary’s words, as this author allegeth them, who was, he saith, within three hundred and fifty years of Christ. * Now T call to thy judgment, good reader, could any man devise more pithy words for the proof of ihe real presence of Christ's body and blood, and the condemnation of this author, that would have an only figure? Here in Hilary's words is a figure compared to truth, and sight outwardly [! And then light, 1551.] [{* Out of Hilary, Orig. ed. Winch. ] [? Isnot bread, Orig. ed. Winch. ] (° Vid. p. 272.] ' Vid. p. 105.] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 245 to belief inwardly. Now our belief is grounded upon God's word, which is this: “ This is my body;” in which words Hilary testifieth that 1s inwardly believed is a truth ; and the figure is in that is seen outwardly. I take Hilary here as this author allegeth him, whereby I ask the reader, is not this author overthrown, that Christ's speech is not figurative, but true and proper, being inwardly true that we believe 2 Ye will say unto me, “ What is this to transubstantiation, to the reproof whereof it was brought in? because he saith bread and wine is seen®.” First, I say that it overthroweth this author for truth of the presence of Christ's body, and every overthrow therein overthroweth this author in transubstantiation, not by authority of the church of Rome, but by consequence in truth, as Zuinglius saith, who shall serve me to avoid papistry. / Ih one ask me, “ What say ye then to Hilary, that bread and wine is seen® ?” I say they be indeed seen, for they appear so, and therefore be called so; as Isaac said of Jacob, it was his voice, and yet by his sense of feeling denied him Esau, which was not Esau, but was Jacob, as the voice from within did declare him. If ye will ask me, how can there, according to Hilary's words, be in the outward visible creatures any figure, unless the same be in deed as they appear, bread and wine, I will answer: “ Even as well as this outward object of the sensible hairyness of Jacob, resembling Esau, was a figure of Christ's humanity, and of the very hwnanity in deed.” Thus may Hilary be answered, to avoid lis authority from contrarying transubstan- tiation. But this author shall never avoid that himself hath brought out of Hilary, which overthroweth him in his figurative speech, and consequently in his denial of transubstantiation also, as shall appear in the further handling of this matter. Where this author in the eighteenth leaf? compareth these St Paul's words, “ The bread that we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” to the expounding of Christ's words, “ This is my body,” I deny that: Jor Christ's words declared the substance of the sacrament when he said, “ This my body ;” and St Paul declareth the worthy use of it according to Christ's institution; and by the words, “The bread that we break,” doth signify the whole use of the supper, wherein is breaking, blessing, thanksgiving, dispensing, receiving, and eating: so as only breaking is not the com- munion, and yet by that part in a figure of speech St Paul meaneth all, being the same as appeareth by the scripture, a term in speech, “to go break bread,” although it be not always so taken, whereby to signify “to go celebrate our Lord’s supper ;’ and therefore bread in that place may signify the common bread, as it is adhibited to be consecrated ; which by the secret power of God turned into the body of Christ, and so distributed and received, is the communion of the body of Christ, as the ewp is likewise of the blood of Christ after the benediction, which benediction was not spoken of in the bread, but yet must be understanded. As for calling of Christ's bread his body, is to make it his body, who as St Paul saith calleth that is not, as it were, and so maketh it to be. The arguments this author useth in the nineteenth and twentieth leaf, of the order of Christ's speeches as the evangelists rehearse them, be captious devices of this author, in case he knoweth what St Augustine writeth; or else ignorance, if he hath not read St Augustine de Doctrina Christiana, where he giveth a rule of recapitulation, as he calleth it, when that is told after, that was done afore; and therefore we may not argue so firmly upon the order of the telling in the speech. St Augustine bringeth an example that by order of telling “ Adam was in paradise or any tree was brought forth for feeding,’ with divers other, wherewith I will not bo Or ~I (Gen. xxvii. Orig. ed. Winch. } [ Primo. Orig. ed. Winch. | Augustine, Lib. iii. cap. 36. encumber the reader. The evangelist rehearseth what Christ said and did simply and truly, - which story we must so place in understanding, as we trifle not with the mystery, at staying and stopping of letters and syllables. And therefore though the word “take, eat,” go before the words, “ This is my body,’ we may not argue that they took it and eat it afore Christ had told them what he gave them; and all these often rehearsals of bread, with “he took bread,” and “brake bread,” and “blessed bread,” and if ye will add “held bread,” all this induce no consequence that he therefore gave bread. For he gave that he had consecrate, and gave that he made of bread. If Christ, when he was tempted to make stones bread, had taken the stones and blessed them and delivered them, saying, “ This is bread,’ had he then delivered stones, or rather that he made of stones bread? Such manner of reasoning useth Peter Martyr, as this author doth, whose folly I may well say he saw not to eschew it, but (as appeareth) rather to follow it. And yet, not content to use this fond reasoning, this author calleth papists to witness that they might laugh at it, because the evangelist telleth the story so as Christ said, “ drink,” and then told after what it was, this author fancieth that the apostles should be so hasty to drink ere Christ had told them what he gave; which and they had, I think he would have stayed the cup with his hand, or bid them tarry, whiles he had told them more. I will no Surther [° Are seen, Orig. ed. Winch. ] [° Augustin. De Doctrina Christiana. Lib, 111. [7 Vid. p. 242. ] cap. 36, Parsiv. Ed. Basil. ap. Amberbach. | [* Vid. pp. 242, 243.] 258. 246 THE SECOND BOOK. travail with this veasoning, which it is pity to hear in such a matter of gravity, of such con- sequence as it is both in body and soul. We may not trifle with Christ’s words after this sort. When St Paul saith, “ We be partakers of one bread ;” he speaketh not of material bread, but of Christ’s body, our heavenly bread, which to all is one, and cannot be consumed, but able to feed all the world: and if this author giveth credit to Theodoretus, whom he calleth an holy man, then shall he never find the sacrament called bread after the sanctification, but the bread of life; the like whereof should be in an epistle of Chrysostom}, as Peter Martyr allegeth, not yet printed, by whose authority? if they have any, as in their place this author maketh much of them, all these argunents be all trifles, for all the naming of bread by Christ, and St Paul, and all other, must be understanded before the sanctification and not after. And if thou, reader, lookest after upon Theodoretus and that epistle, thow shalt find true that I say, whereby all this questioning with the papists is only a dallying for this author's pleasure, against his own authors, and all learning. CANTERBURY. Where you say, that “the simplicity of faith in a christian man’s breast doth not so precisely mark and stay at the syllables of Christ’s words, as I pretend,” here may the world see what simplicity is in the papists. For I do nothing else but rehearse what the papists say, that ‘until these words be fully ended, hoc est corpus meum, there is bread, and after those words be fully ended, there is no more bread, but only Christ himself.” And the same simplicity do you declare by and by to be in yourself, when you say, that “ God’s work is in one instant, howsoever speech require in us a successive utterance.” Then if God change the bread into Christ’s body in one instant, tell me, I pray you, in which instant? For seeing that our pronunciation is by succession of time, I think you will not say, that the work of God is done before the last syllable be pronounced, (for then Christ’s body should be there before the words of consecration were fully finished,) nor I think you will not deny, but whensoever the words of consecration be fully pronounced, then is Christ's body there. Wherefore by your own judgment you vary not in this matter from the other papists, but must needs say, that God’s secret work herein is measured after the prolation of our syllables, and so it is none other person that teacheth to play with syllables in this high mystery, but the papists only. And yourself do teach in this same place, that it is a good lesson to say, that in the instant of the last syllable God’s work is to be accounted wrought. And I find it not in blind glosses, but in the chief authors of the papists, that the con- version is not wrought before the whole sentence is finished, hoc est corpus meum. The creation And it is no direct answer, but a mere cavillation and illusion, to bring in here of the world. 3 . the creation of the world, when God said, fiat lua, to be a like matter unto transub- stantiation. For God’s speech requireth no succession of time, as the speech of the priest doth. Therefore this is but a playing, to shew your subtle wit and crafty rhetoric, whereby your spirit may be judged, whether you go about clearly to set forth 959, the truth, or by dark colours and unlike examples to hide and cover it. And where you question with me, going about by a subtle sophistical argument, to prove that Christ said, “ This is no bread,’ I shall make another argument of the same form, which shall shew how strong your argument is. St John is not the son of the virgin Mary. Christ said to her, “This is thy son;” ergo, he said, “This is not John.” The first part I am sure you will affirm in effect. The second part is Christ's words; and as the second part in my argument is a figurative speech, so is it in yours, so that in every point the arguments be like. And therefore as mine argument is naught, so is yours also, and all that you bring im to follow thereof. And if I list to dally, as you do, in such a matter, I could conclude directly against you, that in 1Cor.x.& the sacrament is not Christ's body, thus: ‘“Christ’s body is not material bread :” a St Paul said, “it is bread:” ergo, he said it is not Christ’s body. The first part you affirm, the second part St Paul affirmeth. And therefore to avoid this conclusion, the only way is, to say that Christ’s speech was a figurative speech, when he said, “ This is my body.” For else by the catholic doctrine St Paul, saying that it is bread, saith in effect it is not the body of Christ. Thus may you see what availeth your sophisti- cation, when I am constrained sophisticari cum sophista, ut ars deludatur arte. This is no bread. John xix. [’ Ad Cesarium Monachum. Vid. p. 274.] [* Authorities, 1681. | AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 247 And of like effect is your argument of “yea” and “nay,” when you say, “every yea containeth a nay in it naturally.” Therefore Christ, saying it is his body, saith it is no bread. If this form of argument were infallible, then I may turn the same to you again, and overthrow you with your own weapon thus. St Paul said, “it is bread,” ergo, it is not Christ’s body: if the affirmation of the one be a negation of the other. And by such sophistication you may turn up all the truth quite and clean, and say that Christ was neither God nor man, because he said he was a vine and bread. ‘‘ And every yea,” say you, “containeth a nay in it naturally.” And where you boast, that you have “convinced me in the matter of the real presence of Christ’s body,” I trust the indifferent reader will say, that you triumph before the victory, saying that you have won the field, when in deed you have lost it, and when Goliath’s head is smitten off with his own sword. But the old English proverb is here true, “that it is good beating of a proud man: for when he is all-to beaten back and bone, yet will he boast of his victory, and brag what a valiant man he is.” And it is another vain brag also that you make, when you say, that you “ have shewed before, that Christ's words were not figurative, when he said, ‘This is my body.” For you have neither proved that you say, nor have answered to my proofs to the contrary, as I refer to the judgment of all indifferent readers, but you have confessed that Christ called bread his body, and made demonstration upon the bread, when he said, “This is my body.” How can then this speech be true, but by a figure, that bread is Christ’s body? seeing that in proper speech, as you say, “‘ every yea containeth a nay, and the affirmation of one thing is the denial of another.” And where you allege, as it were against me, the words of Hilary, “that there is both a figure and a truth of that figure;” for answer hereunto the truth is, that your matter here is gathered of an untruth, that I would have only a figure, whereas I say plainly, as Hilary saith, “that in the true ministration of the sacrament is both a figure and a truth: the figure outwardly, and the truth inwardly.” For bread and wine be sensible signs and sacraments, to teach us outwardly, what feedeth us in- wardly. Outwardly we see and feel bread and wine with our outward senses, but inwardly by faith we see and feed upon Christ’s true body and blood. But this is a spiritual feeding by faith, which requireth no corporal presence. And here I ask you two questions. One is this, whether Hilary say that the body of Christ is under the forms of bread and wine, and that corporally? If he say not so, as the reader shall soon judge, looking upon his words, then stand I upright without any fall or foil: for Hilary saith not as you do. The other question is, whether Hilary do not say that there is a figure: let the reader judge also, and see whether you be not quite overthrown with your own crook, in saying that Christ’s speech is not figura- tive. And yet the third question I may add also, why St Hilary should say, that bread and wine be figures, if there be no bread nor wine there at all, but be taken clean away by transubstantiation? And whereas for answer hereto you take the example of Jacob, who for his hairiness resembled Esau, and was, as you say, a figure of Christ's very humanity; you do like an unskilful mariner, that to avoid a little tempest, runneth himself upon a rock. For where you make Jacob, who re- sembled Esau, and was not he in deed, to be a figure of Christ’s humanity, you make by this example, that as Jacob by his hairiness resembled Esau, and was not he in deed, so Christ by outward appearance resembled a man, and yet he was no man in deed. And where you deny that these words of St Paul, “Is not the bread which we break the communion of the body of Christ?’ declare the meaning of Christ’s words, “This is my body,” because Christ's words, say you, “declare the substance, and St Paul's words declare the use:” I deny that Christ’s body is the substance of the visible sacrament. For the substance of the sacrament is bread and wine, and the thing thereby signified is Christ’s body and blood. And this is notable which you say, “that these words, ‘the bread which we break,” do signify the whole use of the supper, not only breaking, but also blessing, thanksgiving, dispensing, receiving and eating, and that ‘bread’ in this place signifieth common bread, taken to be consecrated.” In which saying it is a world to see the phantasies of men’s devices, how uncertain they be in matters pertaining to God. How agreeth this your saying with your doctrine of transubstantiation? For if St Paul, when he said, “the Yeaand nay. 1 Sam. xvii. Hilary. 260. 1 Gor. x. Breaking sig- nifieth the whole use of the supper. 248 THE SECOND BOOK. bread which we break, is it not the communion of Christ’s body?” meant by “ bread,” “common bread,” and by “‘ breaking,” meant also the “blessing, thanksgiving, receiving, and eating,” then is common bread “broken, blessed, received, and eaten.” And then where becometh your transubstantiation, if common bread be eaten in the sacrament ? And when is the bread turned into the body of Christ, if it remain common bread until it be eaten? Yet now you seem to begin something to savour of the truth, that the bread remaineth still in his proper nature, enduring the whole use of the supper. Rom. iv. And as touching this place of St Paul, that ‘God calleth things that be not, as they were,” if it pertain unto the sacrament, where Christ called “bread his body,” what could 261. you have alleged more against yourself? For if in this place “ Christ call that which is not, as it were,” then Christ called bread as it were his body, and yet it is not his body in deed. eee! But in this your answer to the arguments brought in by me out of the very words eo of the evangelists, is such a shameless: arrogancy and boldness shewed, as abhorreth supper out of all christian ears for to hear; which is, that “three evangelists, telling the manner aad of Christ’s holy supper, not one of them all do tell the tale in right order, but subvert the order of Christ’s doings and sayings, and that in such a necessary matter of our religion, that the definition of the whole truth standeth in the order.” ‘The evan- gelists,” say you, “rehearse what Christ said and did, simply and truly.” But is this a simple and true rehearsal of Christ’s words and deeds, to tell them out of order, otherwise than Christ did and said them? And St Paul also, if it be as you say, speaking of that same matter, committeth the like error. And yet never no ancient author, expounding the evangelists or St Paul, could spy out this fault, and in their commentaries give us warning thereof. And I am not so ignorant, but I have many times read St Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, where he saith: “ That sometimes in scripture a thing is ‘told after, that was done before’.”. But St Augustine saith not that it is so in this matter: nor I am not so presumptuous to say that all the three evangelists, with St Paul also, disordered the truth of the story in a matter wherein August.de the truth cannot be known but by the order. St Augustine, De consensu Hvange- ee aaeete listarum, saith, that “that which Luke rehearseth of the chalice, before the giving mum 142-1 OF the bread, was spoken by Christ after the distribution of the bread, as the other two evangelists report the same*.” And if these words, Hoc est corpus meum, had been put out of the right place in all the three evangelists, and also in St Paul, would Iukexxii, not St Augustine have given warning thereof, as well as of the other? And would Maka all other authors expounding that place have passed over the matter in silence, and have spoken not one word thereof; specially being a matter of such weight, that the catholic faith and our salvation, as you say, hangeth thereof? Do not all the proofs you have, hang of these words, Hoc est corpus meum? “This is my body?” And shall you say now, that they be put out of their place? And then you must needs confess, that you have nothing to defend yourself, but only one sentence, and that put out of order, and from his right place, as you say yourself; where in deed the evangelists and apostles, being true rehearsers of the story in this matter, did put those words in the right place. But you, having none other shift to defend your error, do remove the words, both out of the right place and the right sense. And can any man that loveth the truth, give his ears to hear you, that turn upside down both the order and sense of Christ’s words, contrary to the true narration of the evangelists, contrary to the interpretation of all the old authors, and the approved faith of Christ’s church, even from the beginning, only to maintain your wilful assertions and papistical opinions ? So long as the seripture was in the interpretation of learned divines, it had the right sense ; but when it came to the handling of ignorant lawyers and sophistical papists, such godly men as were well exercised in holy scripture, and old catholic writers, might declare and defend the truth at their perils: but the papistical sophisters and lawyers would ever de- 262. fine and determine all matters as pleased them. {? Vid. p. 245.] pavit ut solet: illud vero quod ordine suo posuit, [°? Hae et Mareus Lucasque commemorant. | non commemoravera superius.—August. De Con- Quod enim Lucas de calice bis commemorayit, | sensu Evangelistarum. Lib. 111. cap. i. Tom. 1V. prius antequam panem daret, deinde posteaquam | p. 202. Ed. Paris. 1635.] panem dedit; illud quod superius dixit preoccu- | AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 249 But all truths agree to the truth, and falsehood agreeth not with itself: so it is a plain declaration of untruth, that the papists vary so among themselves. For some say that Christ consecrated by his own secret power without sign or words: some say that his benediction was his consecration: some say that he did consecrate with these words, Hoc est corpus mewm; and yet those vary among themselves: for some say that he spake these words twice, once immediately after benediction, at what time they say he consecrated, and again after when he commanded them to eat it, appointing then to his apostles the form of consecration. And lately came new papists with their five eggs, and say that the consecration is made only with these five words, Hoc est enim corpus meum. And last of all come you and Smith with yet your newer devices, saying that Christ spake those words before he gave the bread and immediately after the breaking, manifestly contrary to the order of the text, as all the evangelists report, and contrary to all old authors of the catholic church, which all with one consent say, that Christ gave bread to his apostles, and contrary to the book of common prayer by you allowed, which rehearseth the words of the evangelists thus: ‘ That Christ took bread, and when he had blessed and given thanks, he brake it and gave it to his disciples ;’ where all the relation is made to the bread. Is this your faithful handling of God’s word, for your pleasure to turn the words as you list? Is it not a thing much to be lamented, that such as should be the true setters forth of Christ's gospel, do trifle with Christ’s words after this sort, to alter the order of the gospel after their own phantasy? Can there be any trifling with Christ’s words, if this be not? And shall any christian man give credit to such corrupters of holy scripture ? Have you put upon you harlots’ faces, that you be past all shame, thus to abuse God’s word to your own vanity ? And be you not ashamed likewise so manifestly to bely me, that I “fancy that the apostles should be so hasty to drink, or Christ had told them what he gave?” whereas by my words appeareth clean contrary, that they drank not before all Christ’s words were spoken. And where you say, “that Christ gave that he had consecrated, and that he made of bread ;” here you grant that Christ’s body, which he gave to his disciples at his last supper, was made of bread. And then it must follow, that either Christ had two bodies, the one made of the flesh of the virgin Mary, the other of bread, or else that the self-same body was made of two divers matters, and at divers and sundry times. Now what doctrine this is, let them judge that be learned. And it is worthy a note, how inconstant they be that will take upon them to defend an untruth; and how good memories they had need to have, if they should not be taken with a lie. For here you say that Christ’s body in the sacrament is made of bread ; and in the eleventh comparison you said, that “this saying is so fond, as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer devised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.” And where you say that St Paul speaketh not of material bread, but of Christ’s body, when he saith, “that we be partakers of one bread,” the words of the text be plain against you. For he speaketh of the bread that is broken, whereof every man taketh part, which is not Christ’s body; except you will say that we eat Christ’s body divided in pieces, as the gross Capernaites imagined. And St Augustine with other old authors do write, that “St Paul spake of such bread as is made of a great roultitude of grains of corn gathered together, and united into one material loaf, as the multitude of the spiritual members of Christ be joined together into one mystical body of Christ.” And as concerning Theodoret and Chrysostom, they say as plainly as can be spoken, that the bread remaineth after consecration, although we call it by a more excellent name of dignity, that is to say, by the name of Christ’s body. But what estimation of wisdom or learning soever you have of yourself, surely there appeareth neither in you in this place, where upon the alteration of the name of bread you would gather the alteration of the substance, or transubstantiation. Be not kings and emperors very men, although they be ever called by the names of their royal and imperial dignities ? Or are they therefore gods, because the prophet calleth them so? And who ever called you a man, sithens you were a bishop? and yet that dignity took not from you the The variance of the papists in consecra- ion. Smith. Christ’s body made of bread. 1 Cor. x. 263, Chrysostom. Theodoret. Alteration of names unto dignity. Psal. 1Xxxil. Bread after the sanctifi- eation. 1 Cor. x. 1 Cor. xi. Chap. 11. The papisti cal doctrine is against reason. 250 THE SECOND BOOK. nature of aman. And the pope is a man, although he be called Julius, or Pater sanc- tissimus, or Hypocrita impiissimus, So is bread still bread, although it represent the body of Christ, and be called in that respect, as a figure, the very body of Christ. And where you say, that “the naming of bread by Christ and St Paul and all other must be understood before the sanctification and not after,’ St Paul's own words reprove this your saying most manifestly. For he calleth it bread when it is the communion of Christ’s body, and when it is eaten, saying: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of Christ's body?” and, “As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup:” and, “ Whosoever eateth the bread and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily:” and, “‘ Let a man try himself, and so eat of that bread and drink of the cup:” and, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily,” &. Now these sayings cannot be understanded before the sanctification, except you will grant that the bread was Christ’s body, and that it was eaten, before it was sanctified. Wherefore, let every reader that knoweth any thing, judge whether you seek any truth in this matter, or whether you study to search out vain cavillations, and yet the same being clean contrary to the manifest words of holy scripture, and to all approved writers. Wherefore, gentle reader, weigh St Paul’s words, whether he call it bread after the sanctification, or only before; and as thou findest St Paul make with this man’s saying, that trifleth away the truth, so thou mayest believe him in all other things. Hitherto is discussed how the doctrine of transubstantiation is against God’s word : now followeth in my book how the same is against nature, whereof I write thus: Let us now consider also, how the same is against natural reason and natu- ral operation, which although they prevail not against God’s word, yet when they be joined with God’s word, they be of great moment to confirm any truth. Natural reason abhorreth vacuwm, that is to say, that there should be any empty place, wherein no substance should be. But if there remain no bread nor wine, the place were they were before, and where their accidents be, is filled with no substance, but remaineth vacuwm, clean contrary to the order of nature. We see also that the wine, though it be consecrated, yet will it turn to vinegar, and the bread will mould; which then be nothing else but sour wine and mouldy bread, which could not wax sour nor mouldy, if there were no bread nor wine there at all. And if the sacraments were now brent, as in the old church they burned all that remained uneaten, let the papists tell what is brent. They must needs say, that it is either bread or the body of Christ. But bread, say they, is none there; then must they needs burn the body of Christ, and be called Christ- burners, (as heretofore they have burned many of his members,) except they will say, that accidents burn alone without any substance, contrary to all the course of nature. The sacramental bread and wine also will nourish, which nourishment natu- rally cometh of the substance of the meats and drinks, and not of the accidents. The wine also will poison, as divers bishops of Rome have had experiences, both in poisoning of other, and being poisoned themselves ; which poisoning they cannot ascribe to the most wholesome blood of our Saviour Christ, but only to the poisoned wine. And most of all, it is against the nature of accidents to be in nothing. For the definition of accidents is to be in some substance, so that if they be, they must needs be in something; and if they be in nothing, then they be not. And a thousand things more of like foolishness do the papists affirm by their transub- stantiation, contrary to all nature and reason: as that two bodies be in one place, and one body in many places at one time; and that substances be gendered of accidents only, and accidents converted into substances ; and a body to be ina AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 251 place and occupy no room; and generation to be without corruption, and cor- ruption without generation ; and that substances be made of nothing, and turned into nothing’, with many such like things, against all order and principles of nature and reason. WINCHESTER. In the third chapter written in the twenty-first leaf, it troubleth this author that the doctrine of transubstantiation is, in his judgment, against natural reason and natural operation: in the entry of which matter he granteth wisely that they should not prevail against God’s word, and yet, he saith, when they be joined with God's words%, they be of great moment to confirm any truth; wherein of he meaneth to confirm G'od’s word by reason, or God’s mysteries by natural operation, mine understanding cannot reach that doctrine, and is more strange to me, than this author maketh transubstantiation to be to him. As for the reason of vacuum declareth a yacuum, that nature abhorreth not. And if we speak after the rules of nature, quantity filleth the place rather than substance. And shortly to answer this author, it is not said in the doctrine of transubstantiation, that there remaineth nothing; for in the visible form of bread remaineth the proper object of every sense truly: that is seen with the bodily eye is truly seen, that is felt is truly felt, that is savoured is truly savoured; and those things corrupt, putrify, nourish, and conswme after the truth of the former nature, God so ordering it that create all, using singularly that creature of bread, not to unite it unto him as he did man’s nature, to be in bread impanate and breaded, as he was in flesh incarnate. And as for reason in place of service as being inferior to faith, will agree with the faith of transubstantiation well enough. For if our faith of the true presence of Christ's very body be true, as it is most true, grounded upon these words* of Christ, “This is my body;” then reason yielding to® that truth, will not strive with transubstantiation, but plainly affirm that by his judgment, if it be the body of Christ, it is not bread. For in the rule of common reason, the grant of one substance is the denial of another; and therefore reason hath these conclusions throughly, what- soever is bread is no wine, whatsoever is wine is no milk, and so forth. And therefore being once believed this to be the body of Christ, reason saith by and by, it is not bread by the rule aforesaid, whereby appeareth how reason doth not strive with transubstantia- tion, being once conquered with faith of the true presence of Christ's body, which is most evident, and no whit darkened by any thing this author hath brought. As for natural operation, is not in all men’s judgments as this author taketh it, who seemeth to repute it for an inconvenience, to say that the accidents of wine do sour and wax vinegar. But Ulpian, a man of notable learning, is not afraid to write in the law, In venditionibus, de contrahenda emptione, in the Pandects, that of wine and vinegar there is (prope eadem ovcia) in manner one substance: wherein he sheweth himself far against this author's skill, which I put for an example to shew that natural operations have had in natural men’s judgments divers considerations, one sometime repugnant to another, and yet the authors of both opinions called philosophers all. Among which some thought, for example, they spake wisely, that esteemed all things to alter as swiftly as the water runneth in the stream, and thought therefore no man could utter a word, being the same man in the end of the word that he was when he began to speak, and used a similitude: Like as a man standing in one place cannot touch the same one water twice in a running stream, no more can a man be touched the same man twice, but he altereth as swiftly as doth the stream. These were laughed to scorn, yet they thought themselves wise in natural speculation. Aristotle, that is much esteemed and worthily, fancied a first matter in all things to be one; in which con- sideration he seemeth to be as extreme in a stay, as the other fond philosophers were in moving. By which two extremities I condemn not natural speculation, wherewith, I think, *Conclusions of reason. *Read Smith, fol. 64. God pleased for man to marvel in contemplation of his inferior works, and to tame his rash . wit in the inexplicable variety of it; but to use it so, as to make it an open adversary to religion, it is meseemeth without all purpose. The doctrine of transubstantiation doth not teach no earthly thing to remain in the sacrament, but contrariwise, that the visible Sorm of bread and wine is there as the visible figure’ of the sacrament, and to be the same in greatness, in thickness, in weight, in savour, in taste, in propriety also to corrupt, putrify, and nourish as it did before; and yet the substance of those visible creatures to be converted [' Orig. ed. omits the words, “and that sub- [* Upon the words, Orig. ed. Winch. | stances be made of nothing and turned into nothing.”’] [° Yielding in. Ibid. ] [? Vid. p. 250.] {° By her judgment. Ibid.] [? Word, 1551.] [7 Sign. Ibid.]} 266. Acts x. John xx. Luke xxiv. John xx. Luke xxiv. 252 _ THE SECOND BOOK. into the substance, as Emissen saith, of the body of Christ. And here will reason do ser- vice to faith, to say if there be a conversion indeed, as faith teacheth, and none of the ac- cidents be converted, then the substance is converted: for in every thing, all is substance and accidents; but the accidents be not changed, and yet a change there is; it must needs be then that substance is changed. Which deduction reason will make, and so agree with transub- stantiation in convenient due service. And thus I have gotten reason’s good will, whatsoever this author saith, and from the ground of faith have by reason deduced such a conclusion to prove transubstantiation, as unless he destroy the true faith of the presence of Christ's very body, which he cannot, must needs be allowed. And as for natural operation of pu- trifying, engendering worms, burning, and such experiences, which being the substance of bread absent, this author thinketh cannot be so, when he hath thought thoroughly, he can of his thought conclude it only to be a marvel, and it be so as against the common rules of philoso- phy, wherein as meseemeth it were a nearer way, as we be admonished to leave searching of “how” of the work of God in the mystery of Christ’s presence, being that the celestial part of the sacrament, so not to search “how” in the experience of the operation of nature, of the visible earthly part of the sacrament. When God sent manna in [the] desert, the people saw many marvels in it, besides the common operation of nature, and yet they never troubled themselves with “hows.” And as one very well writeth, it is consonant, that as there is a great miracle in the work of God to make there present the substance of the body of Christ, so likewise to knowledge the miracle in the absence of the substance of bread, and both the heavenly and earthly part of the sacrament to be miraculous, and so many miracles to be joined together in one, agreeth with the excellency of the sacrament. As for the objections this author maketh in this matter, be such as he findeth in those scholastical writers that discuss as they may, or labour thereabout wherewith to satisfy idle imaginations, and to make learned men prompt and ready to say somewhat to these trifles, whose arguments this author taketh for his principal foundation. For plain resolution and avoiding whereof, if I would now, for my part, bring forth their solutions and answers, there were a part of school theology, so brought into English, to no great praise of either of our learnings, but our vain labour, to set abroad other men’s travails, to trouble rude wits with matter not necessary, and by such unreverent disputing and alteration to hinder the truth. Finally, all that this author rehearseth of absurdity, repugneth in his estimation only to the conclusion of philosophy, which should nothing move the humble simplicity of faith in a christian man, who marvel-- leth at God's works and reputeth them true, although he cannot comprehend the ways and means of them. CANTERBURY. Here in the beginning of this chapter, it is a strange thing to me that you should think strangeness in my saying, that natural reason and operation joined to God’s word should be of great moment to confirm any truth: not that they add any autho- rity to God’s word, but that they help our infirmity; as the sacraments do to God’s promises, which promises in themselves be most certain and true. For did not the eating and drinking of Christ, his labouring and sweating, his agony and pangs of death, confirm the true faith of his incarnation? And did not his eating with the apostles confirm and stablish their faith of his resurrection? Did not the sight of Christ and feeling of his wounds induce Thomas to believe that Christ was risen, when neither the report of the devout woman, nor yet of the apostles which did see him, could cause him to believe Christ's resurrection? And when they took our Saviour Christ for a spint, did not he cause them by their sight and feeling of his flesh and bones to believe that he was very man, and no spirit, as they phantasied? Which sensible proofs were so far from derogation of faith, that they were a sure establish- ment thereof. Wherefore if your understanding cannot reach this doctrine, it is indeed very slender in godly things. And as for my reason of cacuum, you have not yet answered thereto, for nature suffereth not any place to be without some substance, which by means of his quantity filleth the place. And quantity without substance to fill any place, is so far from the rules of nature, that by order of nature quantity without substance hath neither filling nor being. And although I do not say, that by the doctrine of transubstan- tiation there remaineth nothing, (so that all that you speak to answer that matter is AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 253 to no purpose, but res vacua,) yet by the doctrine of transubstantiation joined unto nature, there should remain utterly nothing indeed: for substance remaineth none by your doctrine of transubstantiation, and without substance can be no accidents by the rules of nature. Therefore comparing your doctrine and nature together, either you must recant your doctrine of transubstantiation, or confess that nothing remaineth, or at the least grant that your teaching repugneth to the order of nature; which sufficeth for me in this place, where my purpose is only to shew how the doctrine of transub- stantiation is against nature and reason. Now where you so often speak of the visible form of bread remaining, by this word “form” you sweetly deceive yourself, thinking that it doth much advance your faith of transubstantiation, understandig by that word the accidences, similitudes, and likeness without substance remaining, misunderstanding both holy scripture and the ancient doctors. St Paul, speaking of Christ’s incarnation, saith, that ‘he being in form of God, did humble himself, taking upon him the form of man.” By which words St Paul meant not that Christ was like unto God, and not God in deed, nor yet that he was like unto man, and not very man in deed, but that he was and is very God and very man, having two substances, one of his Godhead, and the other of his manhood, united together in one person. And the ancient doctors writing of this sacrament, when they speak of the forms of bread and wine, do use this vocable “form,” as St Paul useth it, to signify very bread and very wine, or the substances of bread and wine, and not the similitude or likeness of bread and wine without the substances, as you fantasy and imagine. And you, after this sort wrasting holy scriptures and doctors for maintenance of your error of transubstantiation, do lead yourself craftily into another heinous error, (if this your proposition be true, that the grant of one substance is a denial of any other,) which is, to deny Christ either to be very God or man. For by your sen- tence, if he in substance be God, then can he not haye the substance of man: for the grant ef one substance is a denial of any other, as ye say. And like as ye do err in misunderstanding of the scripture and doctors, so do you err in reason and judgment of things; your own eyes, nose, mouth, and fingers, bearing witness against you of your wilful error and folly. For what man is living, which hath his right wits, that can believe as you teach, that the proper object of every sense remaineth, that is to say, colour, taste, savour, &c., and yet the former substance of bread and wine is gone? And here, to further your belief of transub- stantiation, you do exaggerate your accustomed absurdity of impanation of Christ’s body ; as if every man that believeth not your error of transubstantiation must of necessity fall into the error of impanation, or as if I defended the said impanation. But whether I defended any such fond opinion or no, or whether I have herein sufficiently answered the papists, I refer to the judgment of all wise and learned men, that be any thing indifferent, which have read my book. And as concerning natural reason, where you say it will agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation well enough, if the faith of the true presence of Christ’s very body be true: for answer hereto I say, that if your phantastical belief of the real presence of Christ’s natural body in the sacrament were as true as the gospel, (as none opinion can be more erroneous and fond,) yet would both faith and reason judge that there were still bread: faith, because holy scripture manifestly saith so; reason, because it is so, not only to all our senses, but also in all the effects and operations of bread. And reason cannot discern but that Christ's body may be as well present with the substance of bread, as with the accidents, and that rather also, forasmuch as you confess yourself, that after the rules of nature quantity filleth the place rather than substance. And so may reason judge the body of Christ to be the body of Christ, and yet the bread to be the bread still, and wine to be wine and no bread, nor none other confusion of natures to be there against reason. And as touching natural operation, in the handling thereof you shew your igno- rance in natural philosophy, which teacheth that in mutation from one quality to another is required one substance to receive both the qualities. For white of itself cannot be made black, nor cold hot; but one substance may be now hot, now cold; 267. The word form. Phil. il. Impanation. 268. Ulpian. 269. Emissen. 254 THE SECOND BOOK. now black, now white: as cold water may be made hot, although cold in itself cannot be hot. Therefore you cannot blame me, to think in this a great inconve- nience and absurdity in nature, that sweetness of itself should change into sourness, when the substance of wine is gone, and no substance remaining to receive this muta- tion, this matter beg so clean contrary to the precepts and rules of natural philo- sophy. And I marvel that you cannot see how much Ulpian, whom you allege, maketh against yourself, and with my saying, that both in wine and vinegar remaineth sub- stance, which is changed from sweet to sour; so that the sweet of itself is not made sour, but that substance which before was sweet is after sour. And therefore what great skill you have in citing of Ulpian, to prove that the accidents of wine without substance do sour and wax vinegar, let the wise reader judge. But Ulpian seemeth to me to have another sense than all men can perceive: but I will not discuss the mind of Ulpian, because I am no lawyer, lest you should cast the proverb in my teeth, Ne sutor ultra crepidam. But to what purpose you should bring in the diversity of judgments in natural operations, and the extreme fondness of philosophers, some in moying, some in stay- ing, I cannot devise, except it be the permission of God, that as some of the philo- sophers by their fond opinions in nature made themselves laughing-stocks to all men, of reason so should ye papists do. And yet so much more is the papistical opinion of transubstantiation to be laughed to scorn of all men, as it passeth the fondness of all the philosophers, and that so far, that the fondest of the philosophers would have laughed at it, and have clapped it out of their schools with one consent, as an opinion more meet for frantic and mad men than for men of natural reason. And as fond opinions as some philosophers had, yet was there none that so far erred in reason to say, that accidences might stand without any substance; but all with one uniform consent agreed, that accidences had none other being or remaining but in their sub- stances. And yet if the faith of our religion taught us the contrary, then reason must yield to faith. But your doctrine of transubstantiation is as directly contrary to the plain words of scripture as it is against the order of natural reason. And where you say that the doctrine of transubstantiation doth not teach, that no earthly thing remaineth, but that “the visible form of bread and wine remaineth the same in greatness, in thickness, in weight, in savour, in taste, in property also to cor- tupt, putrify, and nourish, as it did before,” tell plainly, I pray you, what thing it is which you call the visible form of bread and wine, whether it be an accidence or a substance; and if it be an accidence, shew whether it be a quantity or quality, or what other accidence it is, that all men may understand what thing it is which, as you say, is the same greatness, thickness, weight, savour, and other properties. And where you allege Emissen for the conversion of the substance of bread and wine, this conversion, as Emissen saith, and as I have declared before, is like to our conyersion in baptism, where outwardly is no alteration of substance, (for no sacra- mental alteration maketh alteration of the substance,) but the marvellous and secret alteration is inwardly in our souls. And as the water in baptism is not changed, but sacramentally, (that is to say, made a sacrament of spiritual regeneration, which before was none,) so in the Lord’s supper neither the substance nor accidences of bread and wine be changed, but sacramentally ; but the alteration is inwardly in the souls of them that spiritually be refreshed and nourished with Christ’s flesh and blood. And this our faith teacheth us, and natural reason doth good service to faith hereim against your imagined transubstantiation. So that you have not gotten reasons, good- will, nor consent to your vain doctrine of transubstantiation, although you had proved your real presence; which hitherto you have not done, but have taken great pain to shoot away all your bolts in vain, missing quite and clean both the prick and the whole butt. And yet in the end you take a good ready way for your own advantage, like unto a man that had shot all his shafts clean wide from the butt, and yet would bear all men in hand that he had hit the prick. And when other should go about to measure how far his shafts were wide from the butt, he would take up the matter \ \ | AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 255 himself, and command them to leave measuring, and believe his own saying, that his arrows stuck all fast in the mark, and that this was the nearest way to finish the contention: even so do you in this matter, willing all men to leave searching of “how” in the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament, saying that to be the nearest way. And it were a much nearer way for you indeed, if all men would leave searching of “how,” and without ground or reason believe as well your transubstan- tiation as your corporal presence of Christ’s body, only because you do say it is so. But St Peter requireth every christian man to be ready to render a reason of his 1 pet. iii. faith to every one that asketh; and St Paul requireth in a christian bishop, that he rit. i. should be “able to exhort by wholesome doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers,” and not to require other men to give faith unto him without asking of “how,” or “ why,” only because he saith so himself. The old catholic authors tell, wherefore Christ called bread his body, and how christian people fed of his body. And the blessed virgin Luke i. Mary asked how she should conceive a child, never having company with man. And you tell yourself how Christ is in heaven, how in us, and how in the sacrament, de- claring all to be but after a spiritual manner. And what manner of men be you, that we may not ask you “how,” to render a reason of your transubstantiation, being a matter by you only devised, clearly without God’s word. But at length, when you have sweat well-favouredly in answering to mine argu- Miracles. ments of natural reason and natural operation, you be fain to confess a great part to | be true, and to turn altogether into miracles, and that into such kind of miracles, as 270. | the old catholic writers never knowledged nor touched in none of their works. For besides the chief miracle, which you say is in the conversion of the substance of bread into the substance of Chirst’s body, and of the wine into his blood, there be / other miracles, when the forms of wine turn into vinegar, and when bread mouldeth, or a man doth vomit it, or the mouse eateth it, or the fire burmeth it, or worms breed | in it, and in all like chances, God still worketh miracles, yea, even in poisoning with the consecrated wine. And the multitude of such miracles, as you do judge, pertaineth to the excellency of the sacrament ; whereas among the school-authors this is a com- mon received proposition, non esse ponenda miracula sine necessitate. And where you say, that I make my principal foundation upon the arguments of the scholastical writers, although mine arguments deduced out of the scholastical authors be unto you insoluble, and therefore you pass them over unanswered, yet I make no foundation at all upon them, but my very foundation is only upon God’s word, which foundation is so sure, that it will never fail. And mine arguments in this place I bring in only to this end, to shew how far your imagined transubstantiation is, not only from God's word, but also from the order and precepts of nature, and how many and portentous absurdities you fall into by means of the same. Which it seemeth you do confess by holding your peace, without making answer thereto. But now let us consider what is next in my book. The papistical doctrine is also against all our outward senses, called our five Chap. tv. wits. For our eyes say, they see there bread and wine: our noses smell eal doctrine bread and wine: our mouths taste, and our hands feel bread and wine. And @lloursenses. although the articles of our faith be above all our outward senses, so that we believe things which we can neither see, feel, hear, smell, nor taste; yet they be not contrary to our senses, at the least so contrary, that in such things which we from time to time do see, smell, feel, hear, and taste, we shall not trust our senses, but believe clean contrary. Christ never made no such article of our faith. Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe that we see daily with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and grope with our hands. For although our senses cannot reach so far as our faith doth, yet so far as the compass of our senses doth usually reach, our faith is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses do confirm our faith. Or else what availed it to St Thomas, for the con- John xx. 256 THE SECOND BOOK. firmation of Christ’s resurrection, that he did put his hand into Christ’s side, and felt his wounds, if he might not trust his senses, nor give no credit thereto ? Bees And what a wide door is here opened to Valentinianus, Marcion, and other Sal. XXIX. Prefat.Enar- heretics, which said, “that Christ was not crucified, but that Simon Cyrenzeus rationis 2, et atin. Was crucified for him, although to the sight of the people it seemed that Christ Trin. Lib. iii. et contra Constantium, Was crucified?” or to such heretics as said, that ‘Christ was no man, al- EmPa-e'] though to men’s sights he appeared in the form of man, and seemed to be hungry, dry, weary, to weep, sleep, eat, drink, yea, and to die like as other men do. For if we once admit this doctrine, that no credit is to be given to our senses, we open a large field, and give a great occasion unto an in- numerable rabblement of most heimous heresies. 271. And if there be no trust to be given to our senses in this matter of the sacrament, why then do the papists so stoutly affirm, that the accidents re- main after the consecration, which cannot be judged but by the senses? For the scripture speaketh no word of the accidents of bread and wine, but of the bread and wine themselves, And it is against the nature and definition of accidents, to be alone without any substance. Wherefore, if we may not trust our senses in this matter of the sacrament, then if the substance of the bread and wine be gone, why may we not then say, that the accidents be gone also? And if we must needs believe our senses as concerning the accidents of bread and wine, why may we not do the lke of the substance, and that rather than of the accidents: forasmuch as after the consecration, the scripture saith in no place that there is no substance of bread nor of wine, but calleth them still by such names as signify the substances, and not the accidents ? And finally, if our senses be daily deceived in this matter, then is the sensi- ble sacrament nothing else but an illusion of our senses. And so we make much for their purpose that said, that ‘‘ Christ was a crafty juggler, that made things appear to men’s sights, that in deed were no such things, but forms only, figures, and appearances of them.” But to conclude in few words this process of our senses, let all the papists lay their heads together, and they shall never be able to shew one article of our faith so directly contrary to our senses, that all our senses by daily expe- rience shall affirm a thing to be, and yet our faith shall teach us the contrary thereunto. WINCHESTER. As in answering to the third chapter, I have shewed how reason recewed inio faith’s ser- vice doth not strive with transubstantiation, but agreeth well with it; so I trust to shew how *Contrarium man’s senses, which this author calleth “ the five wits,’ be no such direct adversaries to tran- Tibco ryocatcs substantiation, as a matter whereof they can no skill, And therefore to a question this sees author asketh in the end of the second column in the twenty-second leaf1, which is this. “If ate ote we believe our senses in the accidents, why may we not do the like of the substance?” I , answer thus, that the senses can no skill of substance, as learned men speak of substance, nor this author neither, if a man should judge him by this question. For and a sensual man, one that followeth his rude senses, would say, “Come hither, master scholar, I hear much talk- ing in this world of substance and accidence,’ and if he were of a merry nature would say, his little boy had learned his accidence, but himself woteth not perfectly what substance meancth, as clerks term it, and bringing forth a piece of bread, another of cheese, and a pot of ale, would desire the scholar to learn him the substance of them, and shew it with his finger, and shew him also what difference between the substance of bread, cheese, and the ale? ; I think the scholar, with the advice of all at Cambridge and Oxford also, could not do it; and the [) Vid. supra. ] [? And ale, Orig. ed. Winch. ] = —. AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 257 more the scholur should travail with such a rude man so sensual in the matter, I think he should be the further off, unless the sensual man would set apart his rude wits and learn of the scholar some reasonable understanding, which is, that the substance is the inward nature, wherein those that be accidents do naturally stay the quantity immediately, and the rest by mean of quantity, in which the rest may be said to stay; which words were new divinity to this man, who, touching the bread, would ask the scholar roundly, “Callest thow not this sub- stance, this good thick3 piece that I handle?” The scholar would answer, “Sir, as I shall answer you, you will say I play the sophister; for I must speak learning to you, that you can no skill of. And be not angry though I tell you so; for and ye were learned, ye would not ask me this question; for substance, as it is properly understanded to be of this or that thing, is properly neither seen by itself nor felt, and yet by reason comprehended truly to be in that we feel or see: nevertheless in common speech, and in the speech of such as for the pur- pose speak after the common capacity, the word “substance” is used to signify that is seen or felt, and so ye may say, ye see the substance or feel the substance of bread, and yet ye do in deed see but the colowr, and by it the largeness, and feel the heat or coldness, moisture or dryness, weight or lightness, hardness or softness, thickness and thinness. If ye will learn what substance is, ye must leave your outward senses, and consider in your understanding how in every thing that is there is a stay, which we call a substance, being the principal part of every thing, which failing, we say that special thing not to be: as where the substance of bread is not, there that special thing bread is not, because bread is, as every other natural visible thing is, of two parts, substance and accidents. Now if the one part, that is to say substance, be not there, which can be but by miracle, then is no bread properly there, because the one and chief part is not there: and yet I say not nothing is there, for the other part remaining hath a being as God’s visible creature, and may be called the visible part of bread 4, and therefore the outward kind and form of bread, and the appearance of bread and a true sensible part of bread, and therefore be called also by the name of bread; not that it is so properly, but after the common speech and capacity of men, and may be called the nature of bread, signifying the property, and the matter of bread, signifying the grossness.” The rude man, I think, would hereat say, “ Here is sophistry in deed, for here is substance, and no substance ; matter of bread, and no bread; appearance of bread, and no bread; called bread, and no bread ; this is plain juggling where it happeneth.” Wherein this rude man, for want of true under- standing of the words, and perfect consideration of the matter, speaketh thus fondly ; who, if he should therewpon require the scholar to shew him some difference of the very substance be- tween bread, cheese, and ale, what could the learned scholar answer here, but even frankly declare his ignorance, and say, “I know none?” which is as much to say as, “I know there is a difference, but I wot not what it is.” Wherewnto I trow the rude man would say to the scholar: “Then art thow with all thy learning as very a fool as I, to speak of a difference, and cannot tell what it is.” Now, if the scholar should utter even the extremity of his learning in proper terms, and say, “I know bread is no cheese, and cheese is no ale, and of their ac- cidental parts I can indeed shew differences, but of the very substance none;” the rude man, if his nature were not over dull, would laugh roundly, to hear a scholar utter for a point of learning that bread is no cheese, and cheese is no ale, which whoso knoweth not is a very fool; and merely to knit up the matter would keep the accidents of his bread, cheese, and ale for himself, and give the substance to the scholar, if he can divide it, as a reward for his cunning to his better nurture. And this I write after this gross sort, to shew that this matter of substance is not commonly wnderstanded as senses exercised in learning perceive it, and how man’s outward senses cannot, as this author would have it, be judges of the inward nature of substance, which reason persuadeth to be, using the service of the senses for induction of the knowledge [of it]®, in which judgment upon their report happeneth many times much deceit. Titus Livius speaketh of a great number of divers dishes of meat made in a solemn supper, whereat the guests wondered to see such a variety at that time of the year; and when they demanded of it, answer was made, the substance was but one, all hog’s flesh, so as the altera- tion in the accidents deceived their judgments. That stone, which among many, thought to have some skill, hath been taken for a precious diamond, hath after by cunning lapidaries been judged to be but a white sapphire, and contrariwise: so easily may our judgment upon the report of our senses fall in error; not that the senses be properly deceived, but rather the man that is grossly sensual, and judgeth fondly by them. For the very substance is not the proper object of any of the fwe wits, but of their report considered in reason denied, [* Good round thick. Orig. ed. Winch.] [* Of the bread. Ibid.] [° 1551, and Orig. ed. Winch. ] LorANMER. ] 17 *Ccena Chal- cidensis Hos- pitis. Livius in 5. de Bello Macedonico. *Hom. xxvi. 258 THE SECOND BOOK. and sometime guessed at, whereof ensueth great error and quid pro quo among the poti- caries and learned also in things strange, whereof they have but accidental marks. Where- Sore upon consideration of the premises it may easily appear how the question of this author, why the senses be not believed in knowledge of substance as in knowledge of accidents, may be reasonably answered. And then if the judgment of reason in the estimation of Giod’s natural works and denying this or that substance, when by accidents it should seem otherwise, reason doth stay sensuality, and when men of experience, knowledge, and credit, have determined such a certain stone to be a very true diamond, other ignorant will be ashamed to say the contrary; and ifa man fearing himself deceived to have bought one kind of drugs for another, and yet mistrusting wisely his own judgment, having caused it to be viewed by men of knowledge, good faith, and honesty, if they affirm it to be the very thing, this man will then condemn his own imagination, and upon credit call it so, and take it so to be: wherefore if in these things, I say, reason doth ina man stay sensuality, and if knowledge with honesty ruleth the judgment of rude understanding, and finally, if credit among men be so much regarded, how much more convenient is it that faith in God’s word (wherein can be no deceit as there is in men) should alter and change man’s judgment in reason, and bring it into the obedience of faith! Of that is bread after the judgment of our reason, after the report of our senses, Christ determineth unto us the substance of that to be his body, saying, “ This is my body :” why shall not now a true christian man answer ever according to his faith, to say and profess the same to be the substance of Christ's body wpon credit of Christ's words, as well as the carnal man will upon report of his senses conclude in reason there to be the substance of bread ? whereby is not taken away the credit of our senses, as this author supposeth, which have their objects still true as they had before: for the colour, greatness, savour, and taste, all remain truly with the experiences of them as before: wpon whose report reason nevertheless, now reduced to the obsequy of faith, forbeareth reverently to conclude against the truth of faith, but according to faith confesseth the substance to be the very substance of Christ's body, and the accidents to remain in their very true nature, because faith teacheth not the contrary, and that it agreeth with the rule of faith so to be, and therefore remaineth a very true greatness, thick- ness, and weight, which may be called in common speech “ substance,” signifying the outward nature. And in that sense Theodoret, reasoning with an heretic, seemeth to call it, because, having spoken of substance remaining, he declareth what he meaneth by it, adding, “ it may be seen and felt as before;” which is not the nature of substance properly, but by like common speech that remaineth may be called “ matter,’ as Origen called it; wherein also remain the true savour and taste, with true propriety to corrupt, or putrify, and also nourish; God so ordering the use of the creature of bread and likewise wine in this mystery, as the imward nature of them, which indeed is the substance, but only comprehended in reason and wnder- standing, is converted into the most precious substance of Christ's body and blood, which is indeed a substance there present by God’s omnipotency, only to be comprehended by faith, so far as may be understanded of man’s weakness and imbecility. And where this author putteth a danger, if senses be not trusted, there is a gap open to the Valentinians and Marcionists, and therefore bringeth in the feeling of St Thomas: hereunto I say, that the truth of that feeling dependeth upon a true belief, according to the scriptures, that Christ was very man; for else the body glorified of Christ, as St Gregory noteth2, was not of the own glorified nature, then either visible or palpable; but therein Christ condescended to man’s infirmity, and as he was truth ttself, left that a true testimony to such as hwmbly were disposed by grace to receive it, not to convince heretics, who can devise wayward answers to the external acts of Christ, as now-a-days they delude the miraculous entering of Christ to his disciples, the doors being shut. Our faith of the true manhood in Christ is truly believed by true preaching thereof, and by the scriptures ; not by the outward senses of men, which altogether, we must confess, could be no certain, inevitable proof thereof. And therefore Christ appearing to his disciples going into Emmaus opened the scriptures to them for the proof of his death, that he suffered as very man; and yet he used also in some part to preach to their senses, with sensible exhibition of himself unto them. And so all Christ's doings, which were most true, do bear testimony to the truth; but in their degree of testimony, and the feeling of St Thomas, being (as St Gregory saith) miraculous, serveth for proof of another thing, that God's work in miracle doth not impair the truth of the thing wrought; and so St Thomas touched then Christ as truly by miracle, after his resurrection, in his body glorified, as if he had touched his body before glorification. Finally, in Christ’s acts or his ordinances be no illusions: all is truth and perfect truth, and our senses in the visible [‘ Rude of understanding. Orig. ed. Winch.] [° Homil. Pase. xxvi.] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 259 JSorms of bread and wine be not illuded, but have their proper objects in those accidents; and reason in carnal understanding, brought and subdued in obsequy to faith, doth in the estimation of the host consecrate yield to faith, according whereunto we confess truly the same to be the body of Christ. Where this author would all the papists to lay all their heads together, &¢., I know no such papists: but this I say without farther counsel, which this author with all his counsel shall not avoid, we believe most certainly the resurrection of our flesh, and be persuaded by catholic teaching that the same flesh by participation of Christs godly flesh in the sacrament shall be made incorruptible; and yet after® the judgment of our senses and conclusions gathered of them, considering the manner of the continual [wasting of the said bodies, appear the utter]4 consump- tion, whereof some philosophers have at length after their reason declared their mind, whom christian men contemn with all the experience of senses, which they allege being vehement in that matter. We read in scripture of the feeding of angels, when Lot recewed them. CANTERBURY. As in your answer to the third chapter of my book you have done nothing but dallied and trifled, even so do you likewise in the fourth chapter, and yet far more unseemly than in the third. For doth it become a christian bishop of a matter of religion and a principal article of our faith to make a matter of bread and cheese; and of the holy supper of the Lord to make a resemblance of a dinner of hog’s flesh? And yet for persuasion of your purpose you make, as it were, a play ina dialogue between a rude man and a learned scholar, wherein the matter is so learnedly handled that the simple rude man sheweth himself to have more knowledge than both you and your learned scholar. And why you should bring in this matter, I know not, except it be to shew your ignorance to be as great in logic and philosophy as it is in divinity. For what an ignorance is this, to say that a man can know no difference between one substance and another, and that substances be not judged by any senses; and that all natural things be of these two parts, of substances and accidents; and that their’ accidents be part of their substances, and be called their substances, their natures, and matters ! Was there ever any such learning uttered~before this time? May not all men now evidently perceive into what a strait your error hath driven you, that you have none other defence but to fly to such absurdities as be against the judgment of the whole world? Would you make men believe that they know not the substance of the bread from drink, nor of chalk from cheese? Would you lead the world into this error, that Christ was never in deed seen, heard, nor felt, when he walked here with his apostles? Did he not prove the truth of his very flesh and bones by sight, saying, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me have?” And although substances be not seen and known to our senses but by their accidents, yet be they indeed known, and properly known, and truly known by their accidents, and more properly seen than their accidents be. For the accidents be rather the means to know the substance by, than the things that be known. Is not wine known from beer by the taste? and mustard from sugar ? Is not one man known by his voice from another? anda shalm® from a drum? And is not a man discerned’ from a beast, and one* from another by sight? But when you turn up all speeches, all reason, and all manner of knowledge, it is less to be marvelled that you turn up divinity also, wherein you can less skill than in the rest. And where you say, that “the senses can no skill of substances, because they may be deceived therein,” so may they also be in the accidents. For do not the sun and moon sometime look red by means of the vapours between us and them? And doth not spectacles make all things look of the same colour that they be of? And if you hold up your finger directly between your eyes and a candle, looking full at the candle, your finger shall seem two; and if you look full at your finger, the candle shall seem two. And an ague maketh swect things seem bitter, and that is sweet to one is bitter to another. And if a man having very hot hands, and another very cold, (* And yet not after. Orig. ed. Winch. ] f® The accidences, ed. 1551.] [* The Orig. ed. Winch. omits the words within [° A shalm: i. e. a kind of musical pipe. ] brackets: they are found, however, in ed. 1551. ] | [7 Differed, ed. 1551.] [® One man, Ib. } ah 7—2 274. (Joan. vi. Orig. ed. Winch. } (Gen. xviii. Ib.] The rude man and learned scholar. Absurdities. Luke ult. Substance. 1 Cor. xy. Accidents. A lapidary. 260 THE SECOND BOOK. if they handle both one thing, the one shall think it hot, and the other cold. So that the senses may err as well in the accidents as in the substances, and cannot err in the substances, except they err also in the accidents. But in speaking of “substance,” you declare such a substance as never was nor never shall be, phantasying substance by your imagination to be a thing in itself, separated from all accidents; and so confounding the substances of all things, and mixting heaven and earth together, you make all substances but one substance, without any difference. And where Almighty God hath taught by his word that there be heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, and that every seed hath his own proper body, and that all flesh is not one flesh, but the flesh of men, of beasts, of fish, and of fowl, be divers ; you teach by your words that all flesh is one flesh, and all substances one substance, and so confound you all flesh with hog’s flesh, making an hotch-potch, like unto him that made a great variety of dishes all of hog’s flesh. For take away the accidents, and I pray you what difference is between the bodily substance of the sun and the moon, of a man and a beast, of fish and flesh, between the body of one beast and another, one herb and another, one tree and another, between a man and a woman? yea, between our body and Christ’s? and generally between any one corporal thing and another ? For is not the distinction of all bodily substances known by their accidents? without the which a man’s body cannot be known to be a man’s body. And as substances cannot be substances without accidents, so the nature of accidents cannot be without substances, whose being and definition is to be in substances. But as you speak of substances and accidents against scripture, sense, reason, expe- rience, and all learning, so do you also speak manifestly against yourself. For you say, that “every thing that is must have a substance wherein it is stayed, and that every natural visible thing is of two parts, of substance and accidents;” and yet by your transubstantiation you leave no substance at all, to stay the accidents of the bread and wine, And, moreover, this is a marvellous teaching of you, to say that the accidents of bread be one part of bread, and be called “the outward kind of bread, the sensible part of bread, the nature and matter of bread, and very bread.” Was there ever any such learning taught before this day, that accidents should be called parts of sub- stances, the nature of substances, and the matter of substances, and the very substances themselves? If ever any man so wrote, tell who it is, or else knowledge the truth, that all these matters be invented by your own imagination, whereof the rude man may right well say, Here is sophistry indeed, and plain juggling. But you convey not your juggling so craftily but that you be taken (as the Greeks term it) éravtopwp, even with the manner. Now, as concerning your expert lapidary, if his senses be deceived, how shall he judge a true stone from a counterfeit? Doth he not diligently look upon it with his sight, to discern truly of it? For tell me, I pray you, how a man without senses shall judge a true diamond ? Put out his eyes, and is not a white sapphire, a diamond, and a glass, all one in his judgment? Marry, if he be a man of clear sight, of true knowledge and expe- rience in the judgment of stones, and be therewithal a man of good faith and honesty, as you tell the tale, they that be ignorant will be ashamed to control his judg- ment. But if he be blind, or be a man neither of faith nor honesty, but his experi- ence hath been ever exercised to deceive all that trust him, and to sell them white sapphires for diamonds, then no man that wise is will take a glass or sapphire at his hands of trust, although he say it be a true diamond. Even so likewise the papists, (being so accustomed with these' merchandises of glistering glasses and counterfeit drugs” to deceive the world), what wise men will trust them with their feigned transubstan- tiation, being so manifestly against the plain words of scripture, against all reason, sense*, and ancient writers? And although you have taken never so great labour and pains in this place to answer mine arguments, (wherein you do nothing else but shew your ignorance in philosophy and logic,) yet all is in vain, except you could prove tran- {) Their, 1551.] [? Dredges, 155].] [° Senses, 1551.] i AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 261 substantiation to be a matter of our faith; which being not proved, all that you have spoken here serveth to no purpose, nor concludeth nothing. For you are not so ignorant in sophistry but you know well enough, that of a false antecedent can no consequent directly follow. And as concerning these words of Christ, “This is my body,” by your own teach- ing in these words he called bread his body, which can be no formal and proper speech, but spoken by a figure, as the order of the text plainly declareth, and all the old authors do testify. And where you say, that “although the substance of bread and wine be gone, yet the senses have their proper object still remaining,” as they had before, that is to say, the colours, greatness, thickness, weight, savour, and taste ; express then, I pray you, plainly, what thing it is that is coloured, great, thin or thick, heavy or light, savoury or tasted. For seeing you confess that these do remain, you must confess also that there remaineth bread: for that greatness, thickness, thinness, co- lours, and weight, be not in the body of Christ, nor in the air, which cannot be weighed; and in something they must needs be: for by your own saying, “ every thing hath a substance to stay it;” therefore they must needs be in the substance of bread and wine. And to say that the accidents of bread be the natures, matters, and substances thereof, is nothing else but to declare to the world that you make words to signify at your pleasure. But other shift have you none to defend your transubstantiation, but to devise such monstrous kinds of speeches as were never heard of before. For you say, that 977, “the nature, matter, and substance of bread and wine remain not, but be changed into the body and blood of Christ:” the old writers say directly contrary, that the nature, matter, and substance remain. ‘‘ Christ,” saith Theodoret, “ called bread and reodoretus. wine his body and blood, and yet changed not their natures.” And again he saith: “The bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature, but keep their former substance, form, and figure, which they had before*.”. And Origen saith, origen. that “the matter of bread availeth nothing, but as concerning the material part thereof it goeth down into the belly, and is avoided downward®.” And Gelasius saith, that Gelasius. “the nature and substance of bread and wine cease not to be*.” Now seeing that your doctrine (who teach that the nature, matter, and substance of bread and wine be changed and remain not) is as clean contrary to these old writers, with many other, as black is contrary to white, and light to darkness, you have no remedy to defend your error and wilful opinion, but to imagine such portentous and wonderful kinds of speeches to be spoken by these authors, as never were uttered before by no man, that is to say, that the outward appearance and accidents of any thing should be called the nature, matter, and substance thereof. But such monsters had you rather bring forth, than you would in one jot relent in your error once by you uttered, and undertaken by you’ defended. And yet bring you nothing for the proof of your saying, but that if the author's words should be understand as they be spoken, this should follow thereof, that bread and wine should be seen and felt; which as no man doubteth of, but all men take it for a most certain truth, so you take it for a great inconvenience and absurdity. So far be you forced in this matter to vary in speech and judgment from the sentence and opinion of all men. And as touching the belief of St Thomas, although he believed certainly that Thomas. Christ was a man, yet he believed not that Christ was risen and appeared to the apostles, but thought rather that the apostles were deceived by some vision or spirit, which appeared to them in likeness of Christ, which he thought was not he in deed. And so thought the apostles themselves until Christ said: Videte manus meas et Lure ut. pedes, quia ego ipse sum: palpate et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habent, sieut me videtis habere. “See my hands and my feet, for I am he: grope and see, for a spirit hath no flesh and bones, as you see that I have.” And so thought also St Thomas, until such time as he put his hands into Christ's side and felt his wounds, john xx. g See above, p. 133.] [5 See below, p. 266.] | Nest. Sect. v. Pars iii. p. 671, in Biblioth. Pa- [° Et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel | trum, Colon. 1518.] natura panis et vini.—Gelasii ady. Eutych. et [7 Undertaken to be by you, 1551. ] Gregorius *hom. xxvi. Phil. i. Plautus in Amphi- tryone. led “i 2: 262 THE SECOND BOOK. and by his sense of feeling perceived that it was Christ’s very body, and no spirit nor phantasy, as before he believed. And so in St Thomas the truth of feeling depended not upon the true belief of Christ's resurrection, but the feeling of his senses brought him from misbelief unto the right and true faith of that matter. And as for St Gregory, he speaketh no such thing as you report, that ‘the glorified body of Christ was of the own nature neither visible nor palpable,” but he saith clean contrary, that “Christ shewed his glorified body to St Thomas palpable, to declare that it was of the same nature that it was of before his resurrection:” whereby it is plain, after St Gregory's mind, that if it were not palpable, it were not of the same nature. And St Gregory saith further in the same homily: Hyit miro modo superna clemen- tia, ut discipulus ille dubitans, dum in magistro suo vulnera palparet carnis, in nobis culnera sanaret infidelitatis. Plus enim nobis Thome infidelitas ad fidem, quam fides credentium discipulorum profuit: quia dum ille ad fidem palpando reducitur, nostra mens omni dubitatione postposita in fide solidatur. “The supernal clemency wrought marvellously, that the disciple which doubted, by groping the wounds of flesh in his master, should heal in us the wounds of infidelity. For the lack of faith in Thomas profited more to our faith than did the faith of the disciples that believed. For when he is brought to faith by groping, our mind is stablished in faith without all doubting.” And why should St Gregory write thus, if our senses availed nothing unto our faith, nor could nothing judge of substances? And do not all the old catholic authors prove the true humanity of Christ by his visible conversation with us here in earth; that he was heard preach, seen eating and drinking, labouring and sweating? Do they not also prove his resurrection by seeing, hearing, and groping of him? which if it were no proof, those arguments were made in vain against such heretics that denied his true incarnation. And shall you now take away the strength of their arguments, to the maintenance of those old condemned heresies, by your sub- tile sophistications? The touching and feeling of Christ’s hands, feet, and wounds was a proof of his resurrection, not, as you say, to them that believed, but, as St Gregory saith, to them that doubted. And if all things that Christ did and spake to our outward senses prove not that he was a natural man, as you say with Marcion, Menander, Valentinus, Apollinaris, with other like sort, then I would know how you should confute the said heresies? _ Marry, will you say peradventure, by the scripture, which saith plainly, Verbum caro factum est. Butif they would sayagain, that he was called a man and flesh because he took upon him the form of a man and flesh, and would say that St Paul so declareth it, saying, Formam servi accipiens, and would then say further, that form is the acci- dence of a thing, and yet hath the name of “substance,” but is not the substance in deed, what would you then say unto them? If you deny that the forms and accidences be called “ substances,” then go you from your own saying. And if you grant it, then will they avoid all the scriptures that you can bring to prove Christ a man, by this cavillation, that the appearances, forms, and accidences of a man may be called a man, as well as you say that the forms and accidences of bread be called bread. And so prepare you certain propositions and grounds for heretics to build their errors upon, which after, when you would, you shall never be able to overthrow. And where you say that Thomas touched truly Christ’s body glorified, how could that be, when touching, as you say, is not of the substance but of the accidents only ? and also Christ’s body glorified, as you say, is neither visible nor palpable. And whereas indeed you make Christ’s acts illusions, and yet in words you pretend the contrary ; call you not this illusion of ourselves, when a thing appeareth to our senses which is not the same thing in deed? When Jupiter and Mercury, as the comedy telleth, appeared to Alcumena in the similitude of Amphitryo and Sosia, was not Alcumena deceived thereby? And poticaries that sell juniper-berries for pepper, beg no pepper indeed, deceive they not the buyers by illusion of their senses? Why then is not in the ministration of the holy communion an illusion of our senses, if our senses take for bread and wine that which is not so indeed ? Finally, whereas I required earnestly all the papists to lay their heads together, and to shew one article of our faith so directly contrary to our senses, that all our senses ANTIATION. 263 AGAINST TRANSUBS by daily experience shall affirm a thing to be, and yet our faith shall teach us the contrary thereunto; where, I say, I required this so earnestly of you, and with such cir- cumstances, and you have yet shewed none, I may boldly conclude that you can shew For sure I am if you could, being so earnestly provoked thereunto, you would not have failed to shew it in this place. As for the article of our resurrection, and of the feeding of angels, serve nothing for this purpose. For my saying is of the daily experience of our senses, and when they affirm a thing to be; but the resurrection of our flesh, and the feeding of angels, be neither in daily experience of our senses, nor our senses affirm them not so to be. Now after the matter of our senses followeth in my book the authorities of ancient writers in this wise. none. Now forasmuch as it is declared how this papistical opinion of transub- stantiation is against the word of God, against nature, against reason, and against all our senses, we shall shew furthermore, that it is against the faith and doctrine of the old authors of Christ’s church, beginning at those authors which were nearest unto Christ’s time, and therefore might best know the truth herein. First, Justinus, a great learned man, and an holy martyr, the oldest author that this day is known to write any treaty upon the sacraments, and wrote not much after one hundred years after Christ’s ascension. He writeth in his second Apology, that “the bread, water, and wine in this sacrament are not to be taken as other common meats and drinks be, but they be meats ordained purposely to give thanks to God, and therefore be called Eucharistia, and be called also the body and blood of Christ; and that it is lawful for none to eat or drink of them but that profess Christ, and live according to the same. And yet the same meat and drink,” saith he, “ is changed into our flesh and blood, and nourisheth our bodies’.” By which saying it is evident, that Justinus thought that the bread and wine remained still; for else it could not have been turned into our flesh and blood to nourish our bodies. WINCHESTER, L will spend no more words herein, but having avoided this author's reasoning against tran- substantiation, now let us examine his authorities. First he beginneth with Justin the Martyr, whose words be not truly by this author here reported, which be these truly translate out of the Greek: “When the priest hath ended his thanksgiving and prayers, and all the people hath said “Amen, they whom we call deacons give to every one then present a part of the bread and of the wine and water consecrated, and carry part to those that be absent; and this is that food which is among us called Eucharistia, whereof it is lawful for no man to be partaker, except he be persuaded those things to be true that be taught us, and be baptized in the water of regene- ration in remission of sins, and ordereth his life after the manner which Christ hath taught. For we do not take these for common bread or drink; but like as Jesus Christ our Saviour, incarnate by the word of God, had flesh and blood for our salvation, even so we be taught the Sood, wherewith our flesh and blood be nourished by alteration, when it is consecrate by the prayer of his word, to be the flesh and blood of the same Jesus incarnate. For the apostles in those their works, which be called gospels, teach that Jesus did so command them, and after he had taken the bread, and ended his thanksgiving, said, “ Do this in my remembrance, This is my body;” and likewise taking the cup after he had given thanks, said, “ This is my blood,” and did give them to his apostles only. And here I make an issue with this author, that he [' Kai 3} tpody atirn Kadetrar rap’ uly evya~ piotia, ys ovdevl d\Nw petacyeiv é£ov éotww, i To TiotevovTe adyOy elvac ta Ocdidaypucva vp’ npav, Kat Novoapnevw 7d bmrtp dpécews auapTtiav kai els dvayevynow ouvtpdv, Kal obtws BiovvTe ws 6 Xpictés wapédwxev" ob yap ws Kowdv dprov ob0E Kowwov Téa TaVTa Naufdvopev, GAN bv TpOTov 61d Adyou Oeov capxoromels ’Inoous Xpiords 0 cwTp yuav, Kat capka Kai aipa brép cwrnpias Hav xXev, oUTws Kal THY Ov ebXijs Nbyou Tov Tap’ avtov ebxapiotnleicav tpodyv, é& ts aiua Kat capkes KaTa petaBodyny TpépovTar yuav, éxeivou Tov capKotronlevTos “Incov Kat cdpKa Kal aipa é6r6axOnpev eivac.—Justin. Martyr. Apologia 11. (Ed. Bened, i.) p. 162. Ed. Paris, 1551.] Chap. v. The papisti- eal doctrine is contrary to the faith of the old authors of Christ's chureh. (Vid. Embd. ed. in fine tomi hujus. } *Justinus Martyr. Justinus. 280. An issue. * Mine issue. 264 THE SECOND BOOK. wittingly corrupteth Justin in the allegation of him, who writeth not in such form of words as this author allegeth out of his second Apology, nor hath any such speech: “The bread, water, and wine in this sacrament are meats ordained purposely to give thanks to God, and therefore be called Eucharistia;” nor hath not these words, “ They be called the body and blood of Christ ;” but hath in plain words, “ That we be taught this food consecrate by God’s word to be the flesh and blood of Christ, as Christ in his incarnation took flesh and blood;” nor hath not this form of words placed to have that understanding, how the same meat and drink is changed into our Jlesh and blood. For the words in Justin speaking of alteration of the food, have an under- standing of the food as it is before the consecration, shewing how Christ used those creatures in this mystery, which by alteration nourish our flesh and blood. For the body of Christ, which is the very celestial substance of the host consecrate, is not changed, but without all alteration spiritually nourisheth the bodies and souls of them that worthily receive the same to immortality: whereby appeareth this author’s conclusion, that bread and wine remain still, which is turned into our flesh and blood, is not deduced wpon Justin's words truly understanded, but is a gloss invented by this author, and a perverting of Justin's words, and their true meaning’. Whereupon I may say and conclude, even as this author erreth in his reasoning of mother wit against transubstantiation, even so erreth he in the first alie- gation of his authorities by plain misreporting; let it be further named or thought on as the thing deserveth. CANTERBURY. In this holy martyr Justinus I do not go about to be a translator of him, nor I bind not myself precisely to follow the form of his words, which no translator is bound unto, but I set forth only his sense and meaning. For where Justin hath a good long process in this matter, I take no more but that is directly to the purpose of transub- stantiation, which is the matter being here in question. And the long words of Justin I knit up together in as few words as I can, rendering the sense truly, and not varying far from the words. And this have I done, not willingly to corrupt Justin, as you maliciously deprave, (and thereupon will I join with you in your issue,) but I do it to recite to the reader Justin’s mind shortly and plainly ; whereas you, professing to observe scrupulously the words, observe indeed neither the words nor the sentence of Justin. But this is your fashion when you lack good matter to answer, then, to find something to fill up your book, you turn the matter into trifling and cavillation in words. You say that Justin hath not this speech, “the bread, water, and wine in this sacrament are meats ordained purposely to give thanks to God;” and yet by your own translation he hath the same thing in effect: and yet indeed the words be neither as you nor as I say; and as they be in Greek, they cannot be expressed in English but by a paraphrasis. The words be these in Greek, tov evyapiornPévtos aptov Kai owov Kal véaros, and in our tongue, as near as may be Englished, signify thus: “The bread and wine and water of thanksgiving,” or, as Ireneus saith, “Sin which thanks be given.” And neither hath Justin this word “sacrament,” as I say, nor this word “consecrated,” as you say. May not all men therefore evidently see that your chief study is to make cavillations and dallying in words? And all the rest of my sayings which you deny to be in Justin, be there very plainly in sense, as I will be judged by the indifferent reader. And what need I willingly to corrupt Justin, when his words, after your allegation, serve more for my purpose against your feigned transubstantiation, than as I allege them myself? For if the deacons give to every one present a part of the bread, wine, and water consecrated, and send part to them that be absent, as you report Justin’s words, do not then bread, wine, and water, remain after consecration, seeing that they be dis- tributed to divers men in parts? For I think you will not say that the body of Christ is divided into parts, so that one man receiveth an hand, and another a leg. And Justin saith further, that the same food of bread, wine, and water, called Hucharistia, nourisheth our flesh and blood by alteration, which they could not do if no bread, wine, nor water, were there at all. [} Meanings, Orig. ed. Winch. ] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 265 But here is not to be passed over one exceeding great craft and untruth in your translation, that to cast a mist before the reader’s eyes you alter the order of Justin’s words in that place, where the pith of the matter standeth. For where Justin saith of the food of bread, wine, and water, after the consecration, that they nourish our flesh and blood by alteration, the “nourishment” which Justin putteth after ‘‘ consecration,” you untruly put it before the “ consecration,” and so wilfully and craftily alter the order of Justin’s words, to deceive the reader; and in this point will I join an issue with you. Is such craft and untruth to be used of bishops, and that in matters of faith and religion, whereof they pretend and ought to be true professors? But I marvel not so much at your sleights in this place, seemg that in the whole book throughout you seek nothing less than the truth. And yet all your sleights will not serve you; for how can the food, called Hucharistia, nourish before the consecration, seeing it is not eaten until after the consecration ? The next author in my book is Irene, whom I allege thus. Next him was Ireneus, above one hundred and fifty years after Christ, who, as it is supposed, could not be deceived in the necessary pots of our faith, for he was a disciple of Polycarpus, which was disciple to St John the Evangelist. This Ireneus followeth the sense of Justinus wholly in this matter, and almost also his words, saymg, that “the bread wherein we give thanks unto God, although it be of the earth, yet when the name of God is called upon it, it is not then common bread, but the bread of thanksgiving, having two things in it, one earthly, and the other heavenly’.” What meant he by the heavenly thing, but the sanctification which cometh by the invocation of the name of God? And what by the earthly thing, but the very bread which, as he said before, is of the earth; and which also, he saith, doth nourish our bodies, as other bread doth which we do use ? WINCHESTER. Next Justin is Irene, in the allegation of whom this author maketh also an untrue re- port, who hath not this form of words in the fourth book contra Valentinum, that “the bread wherein we give thanks unto God, although it be of the earth, yet when the name of God is called upon, it is not then common bread, but the bread of thanksgiving, having two things in it, one earthly, and the other heavenly.” This is Irene, alleged by this author, who, LT say, writeth not in such form of words. For his words be these: “ Like as the bread which is of the earth, receiving the calling of God, is now no common bread, but eucharistia, con- sisting of two things, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, receiving eucharistia, be no more corruptible.” These be Irene’s words, where Irene doth not call the bread, “ receiving the call- ing of God,” the bread of thanksgiving, but eucharistia; and in this eucharistia he sheweth how that, that he calleth the heavenly things, is the body and blood of Christ, and therefore saith in lis fifth book: “ When the chalice mixt, and the bread broken, receive the word of God, it is made eucharistia, of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is stayed and increased. And how say they that our flesh is not able to receive God’s Jifts who is eternal life, which flesh is nourished with the body and blood of Christ?” These be also Irene’s words, whereby appeareth, what he meant by the heavenly thing in eucharistia, which is the very presence of Christ's body and blood. And for the plain testimony of this JSaith, this Irene hath been commonly alleged, and specially of Melancthon and CEcolampa- dius, as one most ancient and most plainly testifying the same. So as his very words, truly alleged, overthrow this author in the impugnation of Christ's real presence in the sacrament, and therefore can nothing help this author’s purpose against transubstantiation. Is not this a goodly and godly entry of this author, in the first two authorities that he bringeth in to corrupt them both? Cite ee a eer F ; ; Syste Ae [ A a yap aro vis aptos, TpochauBavdpuevos | émvyelou re kal oipaviov.—Ireneus adversus Hixreses THY EKKANnaLW TOU DEov, OvKE ds & Earl i ; uF Mai Tou Geo, obKETe Kowds dptos daly, Valent. Lib. rv. cap. 34. p. 327. Ed. Oxon. 1762.] aX’ ebxapiotia, ek 600 TpaypdTwv suvertyKuia, [? Thing, 1551.] * Mine issue. Irenzus con- tra Valenti- num, Lib. iv. cap. 34. 282. 283. Origenes in Matth. Cap. Xv. [ Vid. Emb. ed. in fine 266 THE SECOND BOOK. CANTERBURY. Who seeth not, that as you did before in Justin, so again in Irene, you seek nothing else but mere cavillations and wrangling in words? Is not eucharistia called in Inglish, “thanksgiving?” If it be not, tell you what it is called in English. And doth not Irene say, Panes in quo gratiw acte sunt? that is to say, “bread wherein thanks be given?” What have I offended then in Englishing eucharistiam, “thanks- giving?” Do not I write to Englishmen, which understand not what this Greek word, eucharistia, meaneth? What great offence is it then in me to put it into English, that Englishmen may understand what is said? Should I do as you do, put Greek for English, and write so obscurely that the Englishmen should not know the author's meaning ? And do you not see how much the words of Ireneus, by you alleged, make against yourself? These be his words after your citation: ‘‘ When the chalice mixt, and the bread broken, receive the word of God, it is made eucharistia of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is stayed and increased.” Doth not Irene say here plainly, that “the chalice mixt, and the bread broken, after the word of God, which you call the words of consecration, is made eucharistia of the body and blood of Christ,” and not the body and blood of Christ? And saith he not further, that “they stay and increase the substance of our bodies?” But how can those things stay and increase our bodies, which be transubstantiated and gone before we receive them? And have you forgotten now in Irene, what you said in the next leaf before in Justin, that “the alteration and nourishment by the food of bread and wine was understand before the consecration?” which you confess now to be after the consecration. And when you thus obscure the author's words, perverting and corrupting both the words and sentences, yet shall you conclude your untrue dealing with these words concerning me: “Is not this a goodly and godly entry of this author, in the first two authorities that he bringeth in to corrupt them both ?” Now followeth Origen next in my book. Shortly after Irenzeus was Origen, about two hundred years after Christ’s ascension; who also affirmeth that the material bread remaineth, saying that “the matter of the bread availeth nothing, but goeth down into the belly, and hujus tomi.] jg avoided downward; but the word of God spoken upon the bread is it that Origen. ayaileth'.” WINCHESTER. As for Origen in his own words saith, “the matter of the bread remaineth ;” which, as I have before opened, it may be granted, but yet he termeth it not as this author doth, to call it material bread. When God formed Adam of clay, the matter of the clay remained (Gen. i. Orig. in Adam, and yet the material clay remained not; for it was altered into another sub- ed. Winch. } stance: which I speak not to compare equally the forming of Adam to the sacrament, but to shew it not to be all one to say the material bread and the matter of bread. For the accidents of bread may be called the matter of bread, but not the material bread, as I have somewhat spoken thereof before; but such shifts be used in this matter, notwithstanding the importance of it. CANTERBURY. What should I tarry much in Origen, seeing that you confess that he saith, “the matter of bread remaineth;” and Origen saith, that “the meat which is sanctified, juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit,’ that is to say, “as concerning the material [) Td aytafcpevov papa dia Adyou Ocov Kai | altiov diaBdéyews, OpwvTOS émi TO wpeovv* Kai évretEews, Kat’ avToO peév TO UALKOv Els THY KotMiay | oOvX VAN TOU apToV, arr 6 én’ avTw cipnpévos Xwpet, kat cis dedpava éxBddNeTav Kata Oe Tiv | AOyos éoTiv 6 wpeXwy TOY pu) advaEiws TOU Kupiov éabiovura avtév.—Origenes, Comment. in Matt. xy. Tom. III. p. 499. Ed. Bened. Paris. 1733-59.] ; ; Sag ra bias cee 9h (pede ETLyEvopevyy avT@ cbxyv, KaTa THv avahoyiay THS TiaTews, WpeAywov yiveTat, Kal THS TOU VOU AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. — 267 part thereof goeth into the belly?” So that by Origen’s teaching both the bread and the material part of bread remain. So that your example of clay relieveth you nothing in this your answer unto Origen. But when you see that this shift will not serve, then you fly to another, and say, “that the accidents of bread be called the matter of bread ;’ which is so shameful a shift, as all that have any manner of knowledge may plainly see your manifest im- pudency. But many “such shifts you use in this matter, notwithstanding the importance of it.” Now let us come to Cyprian, of whom I write in this manner. After Origen came Cyprian the holy martyr, about the year of our Lord Cyprian ad 250, who writeth against them that ministered this sacrament with water only, e eplst. 3. and without wine. ‘ Forasmuch,” saith he, “as Christ said, ‘I am a true ed. in fine vine,’ therefore the blood of Christ is not water, but wine; nor it can not be tomi hujus. ] thought that his blood, whereby we be redeemed and have life, is in the cup, when wine is not in the cup, whereby the blood of Christ is shewed*.” What words could Cyprian have spoken more plainly, to shew that the wine doth remain, than to say thus: “If there be no wine, there is no blood of Christ?” And yet he speaketh shortly after as plainly in the same epistle. “ Christ,” matt. xxvi. saith he, “taking the cup, blessed it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Drink ye all of this: for this is the blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. I say unto you, that from henceforth I will not drink of this creature of the vine, until I shall drmk with you new wine in the kingdom of my Father.’ By these words of Christ,” saith St Cyprian, “we perceive that the cup which the Lord offered was not only water, but also wine, and that it was wine that Christ called his blood; whereby it is clear that Christ’s blood is not offered, if there be no wine in the chalice*.” And after it fol- loweth: “ How shall we drink with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine, if in the sacrifice of God the Father and of Christ we do not offer wine*?” In these words of St Cyprian appeareth most manifestly, that in this sacra- ment is not only offered very wine that is made of grapes that come of the vine, but also that we drink the same. And yet the same giveth us to understand, that if we drink that wine worthily, we drink also spiritually the very blood of Christ, which was shed for our sins. 284. WINCHESTER. St Cyprian’s words do not impugn transubstantiation, for they tend only to shew that cyprian. wine is the creature appointed to the celebration of this mystery, and therefore water only is no due matter according to Christ's institution. And as the name wine must be used before the consecration to shew the truth of it then, so it may also be used for a name of it after to shew what it was; which is often used. alleged it appeareth, St Cyprian by the word wine signifieth the heavenly wine of the vine- yard of the Lord of Sabaoth, calling it new wine, and alluding therein to David. And And in one place of Cyprian by this author here [? Nam cum dicat Christus, ‘‘ Ego sum vitis vera;’’ sanguis Christi non aqua est utique, sed vinum. Nec potest videri sanguis ejus, quo re- dempti et viviticati sumus, esse in calice, quando vinum desit calici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur. — Cyprian. ad Cecilium de Sacramento Dominici Calicis. Epist. rx111. (Lib. ii. Epist. 3.) p. 143. Ed. Paris. 1574. ] peccatorum. Dico vobis, non bibam a modo ex ista creatura vitis, usque in diem illum, quo vobiscum bibam novum vinum in regno patris mei.” Qua in parte invenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit, et vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit. Unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici.—Ib. p. 145.] [* Quomodo autem de creatura vitis novum vi- [? Calicem etenim sub die passionis accipiens, benedixit, et dedit discipulis suis, dicens: ‘ Bibite ex hoc omnes: hic est enim sanguis novi testa- menti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem num cum Christo in regno Patris bibemus, si in sacrificio Dei Patris et Christi vinum non offerimus, nec calicem Domini dominica traditione misce- mus ?—Ib. p. 145.] 285. Eusebius Emissenus. De consecr. Distinction. ii. *Quia. 268 THE SECOND BOOK. this doth Cyprian shew in these words: “ How shall we drink with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine, if, in the sacrifice to God the Father and Christ, we do not offer wine?” Ts not here mention of new wine of the creature of the vine? What new wine can be but the blood of Christ, the very wine consecrate by God's omnipotency, of the creature of the vine offered? And therefore this one place may give us a lesson in Cyprian, that as he useth the word “wine” to signify the heavenly drink of the blood of Christ, made by con- secration of the creature of wine, so when he nameth the bread “consecrate bread,” he meaneth the heavenly bread Christ, who is the bread of life. And so Cyprian can make nothing by those words against transubstantiation, who writeth plainly of the change of the bread by Gods omnipotency into the flesh of Christ, as shall after appear, where this author goeth about to answer to him. CANTERBURY. Cyprian’s words tend not only to shew that wine is the creature appointed to the celebration of the mystery, but that it is also there present, and drunken in the mystery. For these be his words: ‘‘ It cannot be thought that Christ’s blood is in the cup, when wine is not in the cup, whereby the blood of Christ is shewed.” And again he saith: “It was wine that Christ called his blood ;” and that “‘it is clear, that Christ's blood is not offered, if there be no wine in the chalice.” And further he saith: “ How shall we drink with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine, if in the sacrifice of God the Father and of Christ, we do not offer wine?” In these words Cyprian saith not, that Christ is the wine which we drink, but that with Christ we drink wine, that cometh of the vine-tree; and that Christ’s blood is not there, when wine is not there. And where is now your transubstantiation, that taketh away the wine? For take away the wine, and take away by Cyprian’s mind the blood of Christ also. But, lest any man should stumble at Cyprian’s words, where he seemeth to say that the blood of Christ should be really in the cup, he saith nor meaneth no such thing, but that it is there sacramentally or figuratively. And his meaning needeth none other gathering, but of his own words that follow next after in the same sentence, that “by the wine the blood of Christ is shewed.” And shortly after he saith, that “the cup which the Lord offered was wine,” and that “it was wine that Christ called his blood.” ; Now come we to Emissene, your principal stay, in whom is your chief glory. Of him thus I write. Eusebius Emissenus, a man of singular fame and learning, about three hundred years after Christ’s ascension, did in few words set out this matter so plainly, (both how the bread and wine be converted into the body and blood of Christ, and yet remain still in their nature; and also how, besides the outward receiving of bread and wine, Christ is inwardly by faith received in our hearts,) all this, I say, he doth so plainly set out, that more plainness cannot be reason- ably desired in this matter. For he saith, that “the conversion of the visible creatures of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is like unto our conversion in baptism, where outwardly nothing is changed, but remaineth the same that was before; but all the alteration is inwardly and spiritually.” “Tf thou wilt know,” saith he', “how it ought not to seem to thee a new [} Et ut tibi novum et impossibile videri non | cessibus extitisti: in exteriori nihil additum est, et debeat, quod in Christi substantiam terrena et _ totum in interiori mutatum est : ac sic homo Chris- mortalia convertuntur, teipsum, qui jam in Christo | ti filius effectus, et Christus in hominis mente for- es regeneratus, interroga. Dudum alienus a vita, | matus est. Sicut ergo sine corporali sensu, prete- peregrinus a misericordia, a salutis via intrinsecus | rita vilitate deposita, subito novam’ indutus es mortuus exulabas: subito initiatus Christi legibus, dignitatem: et sicut hoc, quod in te Deus lesa et salutaribus mysteriis innovatus, in corpus eccle- | curavit, infecta diluit, immaculata detersit, non siz non videndo, sed credendo transiluisti, et defilio | sunt oculis nec sensibus tuis credita: ita cum perditionis adoptivus Dei filius fieri occulta puritate | reverendum altare celestibus cibis satiandus as- meruisti : in mensura visibili permanens, major fac- | cendis, sacrum Dei tui corpus et sanguinem fide tus es teipso invisibiliter, sine quantitatis augmento, | respice, honora, mirare, mente continge, cordis cum ipse atque idem esses, multo alter fidei pro- | manu suscipe, et maxime haustu interiore as- AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 269 thing and impossible, that earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ, look upon thyself, which art made new in baptism: when thou wast far from life, and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of salvation, and inwardly wast dead, yet suddenly thou begannest another life in Christ, and wast made new by wholesome mysteries, and wast turned into the body of the church, not by seeing, but by believing: and of the child of damnation, by a secret pureness, thou wast made the chosen son of God. Thou visibly didst remain in the same measure that thou hadst before, but invisibly thou wast made greater, without any increase of thy body. Thou wast the self-same person, and yet by the increase of faith thou wast made another man. Outwardly nothing was added, but all the change was inwardly. And so was man made the son of Christ, and Christ formed in the mind of man. Therefore as thou, putting away thy former vileness, didst receive a new dignity, not feeling any change in thy body ; and as the curing of thy disease, the putting away of thine infection, the wiping away of thy filthiness, be not seen with thine eyes, but are believed in thy mind: so likewise when thou dost go up to the reverend altar, to feed upon spiritual meat, in thy faith look upon the body and blood of him that is thy God; honour him, touch him with thy mind, take him in the hand of thy heart, and chiefly drink him with the draught of thy inward man.” Hitherto have I rehearsed the sayings of Eusebius, which be so plain that no man can wish more plainly to be declared, that this mutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is a sacramental mutation, and that outwardly nothing is changed. But as outwardly we eat the bread, and drink the wine with our mouths, so inwardly by faith we spiritually eat the very flesh, and drink the very blood of Christ. WINCHESTER. As touching Emissene, by whose words is expressly testified the truth of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, and also the sense of the doctrine of transubstantiation, this au- thor maketh himself bold over him, and so bold that he dare corrupt him; which Emissene writeth not, “ that man is turned into the body of the church.” And here I make an issue with this author, that Emissene hath not that word of “turning” in that place, and man to be turned into the body of the church is no convenient speech, to signify a change in him that is regene- rate by baptism. He indeed that is thrust out of the chancel for his misdemeanowr in service- time may be said turned into the body of the church. But Emissene speaketh not so here; but because the same Emissene, declaring the mystery of the sacrament, saith, “the visible creatures be turned into the substance of the body of Christ,’ this author thought it would sound gaily well, to the confusion of that true doctrine of turning, to speak in baptism of the turning of a man into the body of the church. And it may be commonly observed in this author, when he allegeth any authority of others, he bringeth forth the same in such JSorm of words as he would have them, and not as they be, for the most part or very often; and once of purpose were over often in so high a matter as this is, And yet in this Emis- sené’s authority, after all the pain taken to reforge him, Emissene’s doctrine plainly confound- eth this author’s teaching. This author maketh a note, that there is in man, baptized, nothing changed outwardly, and therefore in the sacrament neither; and it must be granted: for the doctrine of transubstantiation teacheth not in the sacrament any outward change. For the substance of the bread and wine is an inward nature, and so is substance of one de- jined. And to speak of the thing changed then, as in man the change is in the soul, which is the substance of man; so, for the thing changed in the visible creatures, should be also sume,—Husebius Emissenus. (Corpus Juris Cano- | condemned as such. Vid. James’ Corruption of nici. De Consecrat. Dist. 11. Cap. xxxv. ‘“Quia | Scripture, &c. Lond. 1843. p. 72. Cave’s His. corpus.” Tom. I. col. 1927, 8. Ed. Lugd. 1618.) | Lit. Coci Censura Patrum. pp. 227-232. Ed. Many of the writings ascribed to Eusebius Emis- | Helmst. 1683. Riveti Critica Sacra. pp. 228-231. senus are thought to be spurious, and have been | Genev. 1626.] Emissene. An issue. 287. Turning. 270 THE SECOND BOOK. changed, and 2s changed, the substance of the bread and wine to answer therein to the other. And we must consider how this comparison of the two changes is made as it were by pro- portion, wherein each change hath his special end and term, “ whereunto,” and therefore, ac- cording to the term and end, hath his work of change, special and several, both by God’s work. Thus I mean: the visible creatures hath their end and term “ whereunto” the change is made, the very body and blood of Christ, which body being a true body, we must say, is a corporal substance. The soul of man hath his end and term, a spiritual alteration, in- corporal, to be regenerate the son of God. And then the doctrine of this Emissene is plain this, that each change is of like truth; and then it followeth, that if the change of man’s soul in baptism be true and not in a figure, the change likewise in the sacrament is also true and not in a figure. And if man’s soul by the change in baptism be in deed, that is to say, really, made the son of God, then is the substance of the bread, which is as it were the soul of the bread, (I am bold here in speech to use the word soul, to express proportion of the comparison,) but even so is the inward nature of the bread, which is substance, turned and changed into the body of Christ, being the term and end of that change. And here I say “so,” not to declare the manner, but the truth of the end, that is to say, as really and in deed the change is in the substance of bread as in the soul of man: both these changes be marvellous, and both be in the truth of their change, whereunto they be changed, of like truth and reality to be done indeed: they resemble one another in the secrecy of the mystery and the ignorance of our senses, for in neither is any outward change at all; and there- fore there was never man tripped himself more handsomely to take a fall, than this author doth in this place, not only in corrupting evidently and notably the words of Emissene without purpose, whereby nevertheless he shewed his good-will, but also by setting forth such matter, as overturneth all his teaching at once. For now the author must say the change in man’s soul by baptism, to be there made the son of God, is but in figure and signification, not true and real in deed; or else grant the true catholic doctrine of the turn of the visible creatures into the body and blood of Christ, to be likewise not in figure and signification, but truly, really, and in deed: and for the thing changed, as the soul of man, man’s! inward nature, is changed; so the inward na- ture of the bread is changed. And then is that evasion taken away, which this author useth in another place, of sacra- mental change, which should be in the outward part of the visible creatures to the use of signification. This author noteth the age of Enussene, and I note withal, how plainly he writeth for confirmation of the catholic teaching, who indeed, because of his ancient and plain writing for declaration of the matter in form of teaching without contention, is one whose authority the church hath much in allegation used to the conviction of such as have impugned the sacrament, either in the truth of the presence of Christ's very body, or tran- substantiation; for the speaking of the inward change doth point as it were the change of the substance of bread, with resembling thereunto the soul of man changed in baptism. This one author, not being of any reproved, and of so many approved, and by this in the alle- gation after this manner corrupt, might suffice for to conclude all brabbling against the sacrament. CANTERBURY. Where I have corrupted Emissene, let the reader be judge. But when Emissene speaketh godly of the alteration, change, and turning of a man from the congregation of the wicked unto the congregation of Christ, which he calleth “the body of the church,” and from the child of death unto the child of God, this must be made a matter of scoffing, to “turn light fellows out of the chancel into the body of the church.” Such trifling now-a-days becometh “ gaily well” godly bishops. What if in the stead of “turning” I had said “skipt over,” as the word transiluisti signifieth, which, although peradventure the books be false and should be ¢transisti, I have translated “ turning ?” should I have so escaped a mock, trow you? You would then have said, he that so doth, goeth not out of the chancel door into the body of the church, but skippeth over the stalls. But that Emissene meant of turning is clear, as well by the words that go before, as those which go after; which I refer to the judgment of the indifferent reader. [! The soul of man in man’s, &c. Orig. ed. Winch. ] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 271 But forasmuch as you would persuade men, that this author maketh so much for your purpose, I shall set forth his mind plainly, that it may appear how much you be deceived. Emissene’s mind is this, that although our Saviour Christ hath taken his body hence from our bodily sight, yet we see him by faith, and by grace he is here present with us; so that by him we be made new creatures, regenerated by him, and fed and nourished by him, which generation and nutrition in us is spiritual, without any mutation appearing outwardly, but wrought within us invisibly by the omnipotent power of God. And this alteration in us is so wonderful, that we be made new creatures in Christ, grafted into his body, and of the same receive our nourishment and increasing. And yet visibly with our bodily eyes we see not these things, but they be manifest unto our faith by God’s word and sacraments. And Emissene de- clareth none other real presence of Christ in the sacrament of his body and blood, than in the sacrament of baptism, but spiritually by faith to be present in both. And where Emissene speaketh of the conversion of earthly creatures into the sub- stance of Christ, he speaketh that as well of baptism as of the Lord’s supper, as his own words plainly declare. “If thou wilt know,” saith he, “how it ought not to seem to thee a new thing and impossible, that earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ, look upon thyself, which art made new in baptism.” And yet he meant not, that the water of baptism in itself is really turned into the substance of Christ, nor likewise bread and wine in the Lord’s supper; but that in the action water, wine, and bread, as sacraments, be sacramentally converted, unto him that duly receiveth them, into the very substance of Christ. So that the sacramental conversion is in the sacraments, and the real conversion is in him that receiveth the sacraments; which real conversion is inward, invisible, and spiritual. For the outward corporal substances, as well of the name as of the water, remain the same that they were before. And therefore saith Emissene: “Thou visibly didst remain in the same measure that thou hadst before, but invisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body; thou wast the self-same person, and yet by the increase of faith thou wast made another man. Outwardly nothing was added, but all the change was inwardly.” In these words hath Emissene plainly declared, that the conversion in the sacraments, whereof he spake when he said, that earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ, is to be understand in the receivers by their faith, and that in the said conversion the outward substance remaineth the self-same that was before. And that Hmissene meant this, as well in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, as in the sacrament of baptism, his own words plainly declare. So that the substance of Christ, as well in baptism as the Lord’s supper, is seen, not. with our eyes, but with our faith; and touched not with our bodies, but with our minds; and received not with our hands, but with our hearts; eaten and drunken not with our outward mouths, but with our inward man. And where Emissene saith, that Christ hath taken his body from our sight into heaven, and yet in the sacrament of his holy supper he is present with his grace through faith, he doth us to understand, that he is not present in the forms of bread and wine out of the ministration, (except you will say, that faith and grace be in the bread when it is kept and hanged up,) but when the bread and wine be eaten and drunken according to Christ’s institution, then, to them that so eat and drink, the bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ, according to Christ’s words; Eidite, hoc est corpus meum. Bibite, hic est calix sanguinis mei. And therefore? in the book of the holy communion, we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine may be the body and blood of Christ; but that they may be to us the body and blood of Christ; that is to say, that we may so eat them, and drink them, that we may be partakers of his body crucified, and of his blood shed for our redemption. Thus have I declared the truth of Emissene’s mind, which is agreeable to God’s word and the old catholic church. But now what illusions and dreams you fantasy of Emissene’s words, it is a wonder to hear. First, that the substance of bread and wine is “an inward nature,” and that in baptism the whole man is not regenerated, [? Vid. p. 79.] * Emissenus’ mind, *Comversion. 289. The Book of Common Prayer. Absurdities. 289. Hilarius. Hilarius. 272 THE SECOND BOOK. but “the soul” only; and that the soul of man is “the substance” of man, and made the son of God. And now, when it serveth for your purpose, the body of Christ is a corporal substance, which in all your book before was but a spiritual body, and the substance of bread and wine be visible creatures, which were wont with you to be inward and invisible natures: and now is the inward nature of the bread the sub- stance of the bread, whereas in other places the outward forms be the substance: so little substance is in your doctrine, that from time to time you thus alter your sayings. This is no tripping, but so shameful a fall, and in so foul and stinking a place, that you shall never be able to sponge the filthiness out of your clothes, and to «make yourself sweet again. And you appoint at your pleasure both terminum a quo, terminum ad quem, and the changes, and the things that be changed, altogether otherwise than Emissene doth. For in Emissene the changes be regeneration, and nourishing or augmentation ; the thing that is changed is the man, both in regeneration, and in nutrition or augmentation; and in regeneration terminus a quo is the son of perdition; and terminus ad quem is the son of God. And in nutrition terminus a quo is the hunger and thirst of the man; and terminus ad quem is the feeding and satisfying of his hunger and thirst. But you appoint the changes to be transubstantiation and regeneration, and the things that be changed in transubstantiation you say is the substance of bread and wine, and the same to be terminum a quo, and the flesh and blood of Christ, say you, is terminus ad quem. And in regeneration you assign terminum a quo, to be the soul of man only; and terminum ad quem, to be regenerated the son of God. And so being eight things in these two mutations, in each of them the change, the thing that is changed, the thing from whence it is changed, and the thing whereunto it is changed, you have missed the butt clearly in all, saving two, that is to say, regeneration and the thing whereunto regeneration is made, and in all other six you missed the cushion quite. And yet if the change were in the substance of bread and wine proportionably to the change of the soul, being the substance of man, as you say; if you should make the proportions agree, then as the soul, being the man’s substance, remaineth without transubstantiation, so must the bread and wine remain without transubstan- tiation. And if the substance of the bread and wine be not the visible sign in the Lord’s supper, because “substance”, as you say, “is a thing invisible,” then is not the substance of water the visible sign in baptism, being no more visible the substance of the one, than the substance of the other. Now of Hilary I write thus. Hilarius also in few words saith the same. “There is a figure,” saith he, “for bread and wine be outwardly seen. And there is also a truth of that figure, for the body and blood of Christ be of a truth inwardly believed’.” And this Hilarius was within less than three hundred and fifty years after Christ. WINCHESTER. But I will examine more particularities. I have before answered to Hilary, to whom nevertheless I would aptly have said somewhat now, to note how he distincteth outwardly and inwardly by belief and corporal sight. For outwardly, as Emissene saith, we see no change, and therefore we see after consecration, as before, which we may therefore call bread; but we believe that inwardly is, which, as Emissene saith, is the substance of the body of Christ, whereunto the change is made of the inward nature of bread, as by the comparison of Emissene doth appear. CANTERBURY. 7 Your distinction made here of “ outwardly” and “inwardly,” is a plain confusion of Hilarius’ mind, and contrary to that which you wrote before in Emissene. For there [) Corpus Christi, quod sumitur de altari, figura Consecrat. Dist. 11. cap. lxxix. ‘ Corpus Christi.” est, dum panis et vinum extra videtur: veritas | Tom. II. col. 1956. Ed. Lugduni. 1618. By a note autem, dum corpus et sanguis Christi in veritate | at this place in the “Corpus Jur. Canon.” it appears interius creditur.— Corpus Juris Canonici. De | that this passage is not to be found in Hilary. ] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 273 you said, that “the visible creatures be changed,’ meaning by the visible creatures the see of bread and wine; and now, when Hilary saith that “bread and wine be seen,” you say that “their ee be not seen, but the outward forms only,” which, you say, “be called bread and wine.” But here appeareth into how narrow a strait you be driven, that be fain for a shift to say, “that the accidents of bread without the substance be called bread.” Epiphanius is next in my book. 5 p 290. And Epiphanius, shortly after the same time, saith, that “the bread is Epiphanius meat, but the virtue that is in it is it that giveth life’.” But if there were no Hereses. Lib. iii. bread at all, how could it be meat ? oti tin leosi. WINCHESTER. These words of Epiphanius do plainly overturn this author's doctrine of a figurative (epee speech; for a figure cannot give life, only God giveth life: and the speech of this Epipha- Winch.) nius of the sacrament doth necessarily imply the very true presence of Christ's body, author of life. And then, as often as the author is overthrown in the truth of the presence, so often is he, by Zuinglius’ rule, overthrown in transubstantiation. As for the name of bredd is granted because it was so, and transubstantiation doth not take away, but it is meat because of the visible matter remaining. These® sayings be sought out by this author only to wrangle, not taken out where the mystery is declared and preached to be taught as a doctrine thereof, but only signified by the way, and spoken of upon occasion, the sense whereof faithful men know otherwise than appeareth at the first readings to the carnal man: but by such like speeches the Arians impugned the divinity of Christ. CANTERBURY. Epiphanius, speaking of the bread in the Lord’s supper, and the water in baptism, saith, that they “have no power nor strength of themselves, but by Christ :” so that the bread feedeth, and the water washeth the body; but neither the bread nor water give life, nor purge to salvation, but only the might and power of Christ that is in them: and yet not in them reserved, but in the action and ministration, as it is manifest of his words. And therefore, as in baptism is neither the real and corporal presence of Christ’s body, nor transubstantiation of the water; no more is in the Lord’s supper either Christ’s flesh and blood really and corporally present, or the bread and wine transubstantiated. And therefore Epiphanius calleth not bread by that name because it was so, but because it is so in deed, and nourished* the body. As Hilary said, “there is a figure, for bread and wine be openly seen:” he saith not, there was a figure, for bread and wine were openly seen. And the figure giveth not life, nor washeth not inwardly, but Christ that is in the figure, tanqguam signatum in signo. And where you be fain to say, that ‘accidents be meat without substance,” all the world may judge how shameful a shift this is, and how contrary to this principle of philosophy, Hx cisdem sunt et nutriuntur omnia. Oh, what absurdities you be driven unto for the defence of your papistical inventions! Now cometh St John Chrysostom, of whom in my book is thus written. About the same time, or shortly after, about the year of our Lord cnnysost. in 400, St John Chrysostom writeth thus against them that used only water in we Horn. 2 ye ies oy , . : [ Evravia ev Xpiotad TH loxuporovoupévy Tis | av’tTw eis woyovnow.—Epiphanius, adversus He- Sia pecs TOU dprou Kal THs TOU VOaTos loxdos" reses. Lib. 111. Tom. I. p. 1098. ed. Patay. Paris. tva obk dpros ajypaty yeunrat divapes, aXe dbvapis | 1622.) aptov" Kal Bpwos pév 6 dptos, 1) dé Otvanis év (® This, 1551.] [* Nourisheth, 1551. ] [oranmer. | 18 274 THE SECOND BOOK. the sacrament. “Christ,” saith he, “minding to pluck up that heresy by the roots, used wine as well before his resurrection, when he gave the mysteries, as after at his table without mysteries. For he saith, ‘Of the fruit of the vine ;’ which surely bringeth forth no water, but wine'.” These words of Chrysostom declare plainly, that Christ in his holy table both drank wine and gave wine to drink, which had not been true if no wine had remained after the consecration, as the papists feign. And yet more Aicesarium plainly St Chrysostom declareth this matter in another place, saying: “The bread before it be sanctified is called bread, but when it is sanctified by the 291. means of the priest, it is delivered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the Lord’s body, although the nature of bread doth still re- ano) main’, “The nature of bread,” saith he, “ doth still remain,” to the utter and mani- fest confutation of the papists, which say, “ that the accidents of bread do remain, but not the nature and substance.” WINCHESTER. Chrysostom. Chrysostom speaketh in this place of wine, as, Cyprian did before, against those that offer no wine, but water. Chrysostom saith thus: “ Christ used wine ;” and I grant he did so. For he did consecrate that creature, and, as Emissene saith, “turned it in the celebration and dis- pensation of these mysteries.” But this saying toucheth nothing the doctrine of transubstan- tiation. The second saying of Chrysostom, which I never read but in Peter Martyr's book, who saith it is not printed, toucheth this author's doctrine much, if the bread by consecration be “delivered from the name of bread, and exalted to the name of our Lord’s body.” Now consider, reader: if this manner of speech by Chrysostom here meaneth an effectual naming, to make the substance of the body of Christ present, (as Chrysostom in his public approved works is understanded of all to teach,) then is the deliverance from the name of bread of like effect, to take away the reason of the name of bread, which is the change in substance thereof. Or if the author will say that by the name of bread Chrysostom understandeth the bare name, how can that stand without reproof of St Paul, who, after this author's mind, calleth it bread after consecration? and so do many other by this author alleged. Here percase may be said, “ What should I reason what he meant, when he saith plainly the nature of bread still remaineth?” To this I say, that as Chrysostom, in this place of an epistle not published by credit, saith “that the nature of bread remaineth:” so Cyprian, that was older than he, saith, “the nature of bread is changed,” which Chrysostom in his other works, by public credit set zeae abroad, seemeth not to deny. Now the word “nature” signifieth both the substance and also Reinier, Bes propriety of the nature. The substance therefore, after Cyprian, by the word of God is changed, but yet the proper effect is not changed, but in the accidences remain without illusion; by which divers signification and acception of the word “nature,” both the sayings of St Cyprian and St Chrysostom (if this be his saying) may be accorded, and, notwithstanding the contrariety in letter, agree nevertheless im sense between themselves, and agree with the true doctrine of tran- substantiation. Add to this, how the words of Chrysostom next following this sentence, alleged by this author, and as it seemeth of purpose left here out, do both confound this author's enter- prise, and confirm the true doctrine: which words be these, “ And is not called two bodies, but one body of the Son of God.” Of Chrysostom I shall speak again hereafter. [! Tivos évecev ovxX tdwp Ervevy dvactds, dd’ | dem ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus olvov ; &\Xnv alpecwy Tovnpav Tpoppitov avacrav. | Dominici Corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura émeloy yap elciy Ties év Tois wvoTnpiots date | panis in ipso permansit—Id. Ad Czesarium Mo- Kexpijpévor, deckvis Ort yvika Ta pvoTtijpta Tapé- | nachum. Tom. III. p. 743. The authenticity dwkev, olvov TapéowKe, Kal yvika advactas xwpis | of this book, which was brought by P. Martyr to puatnpiov Witny tpamegav mapeTibeto, oivw éxé- | England and given to Cranmer, is much disputed ; XpnTo éx TOU yevvijuaTos, snot, TIS dumréov. 7 | a Latin version only being extant, with the excep- autedos O& oivov, ox Uéwp yevva.—Chrysostom. | tion of a few passages in Greek. Vid. Chrysost. Op. In Matt. cap. xxvi. Hom. Lxxx1t. (al. 83.) Tom. | ed. Bened. Tom. III. p. 736. Jo. Geo. Walchius. VII. p. 784. ed. Bened.] Bibl. Patrist. pp. 194, 295. Ed. Jene 1834. Bur- [? Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, | net’s Hist. of the Reformation, Tom. III. p. 736. panem nominamus; divina autem illum sanctifi- | Ed. Oxford, 1829. Dupin. Eccl. Writers, Cent. V.] cante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est qui- AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 275 CANTERBURY. The first place of Chrysostom by me alleged, you say, “toucheth not the doctrine of transubstantiation.” But you rehearse but a piece of Chrysostom’s words. For he saith not only that Christ used wine, but also drank wine in the mysteries, and the very wine of the grape. And how could then the wine be transubstantiate, except it were transubstantiate after it was drunken ? Now as touching the second part of Chrysostom, where he saith, that “the bread, when it is consecrated, is delivered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the Lord’s body, and yet the nature of bread doth still remain,’ he meaneth that the bread is delivered from the bare name of bread, to represent unto us the body of Christ, according to his institution, which was crucified for us; not that he is pre- sent or crucified in the bread, but was crucified upon the cross. And the bread is not so clearly delivered from the name of bread, that it is no bread at all, (for he 292. saith, “‘the nature of bread doth still remain,”) nor that it may not be called by the name of bread; but it is so delivered, that commonly it is called by the higher changing of name of the Lord’s body, which to us it representeth. As you and I were delivered a from our surnames, when we were consecrated bishops, sithens which time we have so commonly been used of all men to be called bishops, you of Winchester, and I of Canterbury, that the most part of the people know not that your name is Gardiner, and mine Cranmer. And I pray God that we, being called to the name of lords, have not forgotten our own baser estates, that once we were simple squires. And yet should he have done neither of us wrong, that should have called us by our right names, no more than St Paul doth any injury to the bread in the sacrament, calling it bread, although it have also an higher name of dignity, to be called the body of Christ. And as the bread, being a figure of Christ’s body, hath the name thereof, and yet is not so in deed; so I pray God, that we have not rather been figures of bishops, bearing the name and title of pastors and bishops before men, than that we have in deed diligently fed the little flock of Christ with the sweet and wholesome pasture of his true and lively word. And where you allege Cyprian, to avoid thereby the saying of Chrysostom in the Cyprian. epistle by me cited, you take Cyprian clearly amiss, as I have plainly opened here- after in the eleventh chapter of this book*, whereunto for to avoid the tediousness of repeating, I refer the indifferent reader; unto which mine answer there, helpeth much that you grant here, that the word “nature” signifieth both the substance and also The word, the propriety. For in Cyprian it is not taken for the substance, as you would fain ie have it, but for the property. For the substance of bread still remaining in them that duly receive the same, the property of carnal nourishment is changed into a spi- ritual nourishment, as more largely in mine answer to you in that place shall be declared. And where you would somewhat relieve yourself by certain words of Chrysostom, which immediately follow the sentence by me alleged, which words be these, “ that the bread after consecration is not called two bodies, but one body of the Son of God,” upon which words you would gather your transubstantiation ; how effectual your argument is in this matter, may appear by another like. Stephen Gardiner, after he was consecrated, was called the bishop of Winchester, and not two bishops but one bishop: ergo Stephen Gardiner was transubstantiate. And a counter laid by an auditor for a thousand pounds, is not then called a counter but a thousand pounds: ergo, it is transubstantiated. And the man and wife after marriage be called but one body : ergo, there is transubstantiation. This must be the form of your argument, if you will prove transubstantiation by these words of Chrysostom. Now come we to St Ambrose. At the same time was St Ambrose, who declared the alteration of bread and #ambrosius. wine into the body and blood of Christ, not to be such, that the nature and [* See p. 308, &c.] 18—2 276 THE SECOND BOOK. substance of bread and wine be gone, but that through grace there is a spi- ritual mutation by the mighty power of God, so that he that worthily eateth of that bread, doth spiritually eat Christ, and dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him. ut ae “For,” saith St Ambrose’, speaking of this change of bread into the body mysteris Of Christ, “if the word of God be of that force that it can make things of nought, initiantur, ee and those things to be which never were before, much more it can make things lib. iv.eap- that were before, still to be, and also to be changed into other things.” And he bringeth for example hereof the change of us in baptism, wherein a man is so changed, as is before declared in the words of Eusebius, that he is made a new creature, and yet his substance remaineth the same that was before. WINCHESTER. Ambrosius. St Ambrose doth not, as this author would have it, impugn transubstantiation, but confirmeth it most plainly, because he teacheth the true presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, which, he saith, is by change, and things still remaining, and that may be verified in the outward visible matter, that is to say, the accidents remaining with their proper effects, which there- fore may worthily be called things. And here I would ask this author, if his teaching, as he pretendeth, were the catholic faith, and the bread only signified Christ's body, what should need this force of God’s word that St Ambrose speaketh of, to bring in the creation of the world, whereby to induce man’s faith in this mystery to the belief of it? As for the example of baptism to shew the change in man’s soul, whereof I have spoken, declaring Emissene, serveth for an induction not to lean? to our outward senses, ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in either, because we see none outward experience of it; but else it is not necessary that the resemblance shall answer in equality, otherwise than as I said afore, each part answering his convenient proportion, and as for their comparison of resemblance, baptism with the sacrament, this author in his doctrine specially reproveth, in that he cannot, I think, deny, but man by regeneration of his soul in baptism is the partaker of holiness; but as for the bread, he specially admonisheth, that it is not partaker of holiness by this consecration : but howsoever this author in his own doctrine snarleth himself, the doctrine of St Ambrose is plain, that before the consecration it is bread, and after the consecration the body of Christ; which is an undoubted affirmation then to be no bread, howsoever the accidents of bread do remain. CANTERBURY. St Ambrose teacheth not the real and corporal presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, as I have proved sufficiently in my former book, the sixty-fourth, eighty- first, and eighty-second leaves*, and in mine answer unto you in this book. But against transubstantiation he teacheth plainly, that after consecration not only things remain, but also that the things changed still remain, And what is this but a flat condem- nation of your imagined transubstantiation? or if the things changed in the sacra- ment do still remain, and the substances of bread and wine be changed, then it fol- loweth that their substances remain, and be not transubstantiated; so that your un- true and crafty shift will not relieve your matter any whit, when you say, that the accidence of bread is bread, wherein all the world knoweth how much you err from the truth. And better it had been for you to have kept such sayings secret unto yourself, which no man can speak without blushing, except he be past all shame, than to shew your shameful shifts open unto the world, that all men may see them: and specially when the shewing thereof only discovereth your shame, and easeth you {! Quod si tantum valuit humana benedictio, ut | Agrip 1616.—Vides ergo quam operatorius sit ser- naturam converteret ; quid dicimus de ipsa consecra- | mo Christi. Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Do- tione divina, ubi verba ipsa Domini salvatoris ope- | mini Jesu, ut inciperent esse que non erant : quanto rantur ?—Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo | magis operatorius est, ut que erant, in aliud com- facere quod non erat, non potest ea que sunt, inid | mutentur. Id. De Sacramentis, Lib. ry. cap. iv. mutare quod non erant? Non enim minus est no- | Ib. See p. 210.] vas rebus dare quam mutare naturas.—Ambros. [2 To leave, Orig. ed. Winch. ] De initiandis, cap. ix. Tom. IV. p. 166. Colon. [3 See pp. 122, 177, 8.] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 277 nothing at all. For the accidences be not changed, as you say yourself, but the substances. And then if the things that be changed remain, the substance must remain, and not be transubstantiated. And St Ambrose bringeth forth to good purpose the 294. creation of the world, to shew the wonderful work of God, as well in the spiritual regeneration, and spiritual feeding and nourishing of the lively members of Christ’s body, as in the creation and conservation of the world. And therefore David calleth the spiritual renovation of man by the name of creation, saying: Cor mundum crea Psal.1. in me Deus, “O God, create in me a new heart.” And as for any further answer here unto Ambrose needeth not, but because you refer you here to Kmissene, they which be indifferent may read what I have answered unto Emissene a little before, and so judge. Now let us examine St Augustine. And St Augustine about the same time wrote thus: “That which you see Augustinus in the altar is the bread and the cup, which also your eyes do shew you. But @¢ Infantes. faith sheweth further, that bread is the body of Christ, and the cup his blood*.” (via. £mpa. [Here he declareth two things: that in the sacrament remaineth bread and wine ‘mi hujus.) which we may discern with our eyes; and that the bread and wine be called the body and blood of Christ. ] And the same thing he declareth also as plainly in another place, saying : Tn Dib. Sen- “The sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things, of the visible kind of the Prosper. element, and of the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesu Christ, both of the sacrament and of the thing signified by the sacrament: even as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man, forasmuch as he is very God and very man. For every thing containeth in it the very nature of those things whereof it consisteth. Now the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things, of the sacrament, and of the thing thereby signified, that is to say, the body of Christ. Therefore there is both the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament, yids Embd. which is Christ’s body®.” What can be devised to be spoken more plainly against the error of the papists, which say that no bread nor wine remaineth in the sacrament? For as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures, that is to say, of his manhood and of his Godhead, and therefore both those natures remain in Christ; even so, saith St Augustine, the sacrament consisteth of two natures, of the elements of bread and wine, and of the body and blood of Christ, and therefore both these natures must needs remain in the sacrament. For the more plain understanding thereof, it is to be noted, that there were certain heretics, as Simon, Menander, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, Manes, Eutyches, Manicheus, Apollinaris, and divers other of like sorts, which said, that Christ was very God, but not a very man, although in eating, drink- ing, sleeping, and all other operations of man, to men’s judgments he appeared like unto a man. [* Quod videtis, panis est et calix, quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renuntiant: quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi, calix sanguis Christi. Augustin. Ad Tnfantes, Serm. cclxxii. Tom. V. p. 1103. ed. Bened. Instead of the passage within brackets, the Orig. ed. reads thus : ‘Here he declareth four things to be in the Sacrament: two that we see, which be bread and wine; and other two, which we see not, but by faith only, which be the body and blood of Christ.’’] [° Sacrificium scilicet ecclesia duobus confici, duobus constare, visibili elementorum specie, et in- visibili Domini nostri Jesu Christi came et san- suine, sacramento, et re sacramenti id est, corpore | Christi; sicut Christi persona constat et conficitur Deo et homine, cum ipse Christus verus sit Deus, et verus homo: quia omnis res illarum rerum natu- ram et veritatem in se continet, ex quibus conficitur. Conficitur autem sacrificium ecclesia sacramento et re sacramenti, id est, corpore Christi. Est igitur sacramentum, et res sacramenti, id est, corpus Christi. August. in Lib. sent. Prosperi, (Corpus Juris Canonici. De consecrat. Dist. ii. cap. 48. Hoe est. Col. 1936, 37. Lugd. 1618.) Cranmer quoted this passage from the Master of the Sentences: it is not found in the Appendix either of the Benedictine or Louvain editions of the works of St Augustine. ] bo ive) Or Augustinus. 278 THE SECOND BOOK. Other there were, as Artemon, Theodorus, Sabellius, Paulus Samasatenus, Marcellus, ‘Photinus, Nestorius, and many other of the same sects, which said, that he was a very natural man, but not very God, although in giving the blind their sight, the dumb their speech, the deaf their hearing, in healing suddenly with his word all diseases, in raising to life them that were dead, and in all other works of God, he shewed himself as he had been God. Yet other there were, which seeing the scripture so plain in those two matters, confessed that he was both God and man, but not both at one time. For before his incarnation, said they, he was God only, and not man, and after his incarnation he ceased from the Godhead’, and became a man only, and not God until his resurrection or ascension; and then, say they, he left his manhood and was only God again, as he was before his incarnation. So that when he was man, he was not God; and when he was God, he was not man. But against these vain heresies the catholic faith, by the express word of God, holdeth and believeth, that Christ after his incarnation left not his divine nature, but remained still God, as he was before, being together at one time, as he is still, both perfect God and perfect man. And for a plain declaration hereof, the old ancient authors give two examples. One is of man, which is made of two parts, of a soul and of a body, and each of these two parts remain in man at one time: so that when the soul by the almighty power of God is put into the body, neither the body nor soul perisheth thereby, but thereof is made a perfect man, having a perfect soul and a perfect body, remaining in him both at one time. The other example, which the old authors bring in for this purpose, is of the holy supper of our Lord, which consisteth, say they, of two parts, of the sacrament or visible element of bread and wine, and of the body and blood of Christ. And as in them that duly receive the sacrament, the very natures of bread and wine cease not to be there, but remain there still, and be eaten and drunken corporally, as the body and blood of Christ be eaten and drunken spiritually ; so hkewise doth the divine nature of Christ remain still with his humanity. Let now the papists avaunt themselves of their transubstantiation, that there remaineth no bread nor wine in the ministration of the sacrament, if they will defend the wicked heresies before rehearsed, that Christ is not God and man both together. But to prove that this was the mind of the old authors, beside the saying of St Augustine here recited, I shall also rehearse divers other. WINCHESTER. In the twenty-sizth leaf? this author bringeth forth two sayings of St Augustine, which when this author wrote, it is like he neither thought of the third or first book of this work. For these two sayings declare most evidently the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, affirming the same to be the sacrifice of the church, whereby appeareth it is no figure only. In the first saying of St Augustine is written thus: “how faith sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ.” Now whatsoever faith sheweth is a truth, and then it followeth that of a truth it is the body of Christ: which speech, “bread is the body of Christ,” is as much to say as it is made the body of Christ, and made not as of a matter, but, as Emissene wrote, by conversion of the visible creature into the substance of the body of Christ ; and, as St Augustine in the same sentence writeth, “it is bread before the consecration, and after the flesh of Christ.” As for the second saying of St Augustine, how could it with more plain words be written, than to say that “there is both the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament,” which is Christ’s body, calling the same the sacrifice of the church? Now if Christ's body be there, it is truly there, and in deed there, which is really there: as for there in @ figure, were as much to say as not there? in truth and in deed, but only signified to be [! His Godhead, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [2 Vid. p. 277.] _ [* Wereto say not there, Orig. ed. Winch. ] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 279 absent, which is the nature of a figure in his proper and special speech. But St Augustine saith, even as the author bringeth him forth, and yet he gavet his privy nip by the way thus: “It is said of St Augustine there be two things in the sacrifice, which be contained in it, whereof it consisteth, so as the body of Christ is contained in this sacrifice by St Augustine’s mind.” According whereunto, St Augustine is alleged to say in the same book, Jrom whence this author took this saying, also these words following: “ Under the kinds of bread and wine which we see, we honour things invisible, that is to say, the flesh and 296. blood of Christ; nor we do not likewise esteem these two kinds as we did before the conse- eet am cration, for we must faithfully confess before the consecration to be bread and wine that Sentmees nature formed, and after consecration, the flesh and blood of Christ, which the benediction hath consecrate.” Thus saith St Augustine, as he is alleged out of that book®, which in deed «The book of I have not, but he hath the like sense in other places; and for honowring of the invisible De Sent Pros- heavenly things there, which declare the true and real presence, St Augustine hath the like Lasetetat in his book, De Catechisandis Rudibus, and in the ninety-eighth psalm, where he speaketh of >**- adoration. This may be notable to the reader, how this author concludeth himself in the Suith of the real presence’ of Christ's body, by his own collection of St Augustine's mind, which is as he confesseth in his own words, noting St Augustine, that “as the person of Christ con- sisteth of two natures, so the sacrament consisteth of two natures, of the elements of bread and wine, and of the body and blood of Christ, and therefore both these natures do remain in the sacrament.” These be this author's own words, who, travailing to confound transub- stantiation, confoundeth evidently himself by his own words touching the real presence. For he saith the nature of the body and blood of Christ must remain in the sacrament, and as truly as the natures of the manhood and Godhead were in Christ, for thereupon he argueth. And now let this author choose whether he will say any of the natures, the manhood or the Godhead, were but figuratively in Christ; which and he do, then may he the better say for the agreement of his doctrine, the natwre of the body and blood of Christ is but figura- tively in the sacrament. And if he say, as he must needs say, that the two natures be in Christ's person really, naturally, substantially, then must he grant by his own collection the truth of the being of the nature of the body and blood of Christ to be likewise in the sacra- ment, and thereby call back all that he hath written against the real presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, and abandon his device of a presence by signification, which is in truth a plain absence as himself also speaketh openly, which open speech cannot stand, and is improved by this open speech of his own. Likewise where he saith “the nature of the body and blood of Christ remain in the sacra- ment,” the word “remain” being of such signification, as it betokeneth not only to be there, but to tarry there, and so there is declared the sacrifice of the church, which mystery of sacrifice is perfected before the perception; and so it must be evident how the body of Christ is there, that is to say, on the altar before we receive it, to which altar, St Augustine saith, we come to receive it. There was never man overturned his own assertions more evidently, than this author doth here in this place; the like whereof I have observed in other that have written against this sacrament, who have by the way said somewhat for it, or they have brought their treatise to an end. Tt will be said here, Howsoever this author doth overthrow himself in the real presence of Christ's very body, yet he hath pulled down transubstantiation, and done’ as crafty wrestlers do, Salling themselves on their back, to throw their fellow over them. But it is not like; for as long as the true faith of the real presence standeth, so long transubstantiation standeth®, not by authority of determination, but by a necessary consequence of the truth, as I said before, and as Zuinglius defendeth plainly: and as for these places of St Augustine may be answered unto, Jor they speak of the visible nature and element, which remain truly in the propriety of their nature, for so much as remaineth, so as there is true real and bodily matter of the accidents of bread and wine, not in fantasy or imagination, whereby there should be illusion in the senses, but so in deed as the experience doth shew, and the change of substance of the creatures into a better substance should not impair the truth of that remaineth, but that remaineth doth in ceed remain, with the same natural effects by miracle that it had when the substance was there; which is one marvel in this mystery, as there were diverse more in manna, the figure of it. And then [* He have, Ibid.} [® In the real presence, Ibid. ] [° Magister Sententiarum, Lib. iv. Dist. x. fol. {7 And do as, Ibid. ] 3d1. ed. Col. 1576.] [® So long standeth transubstantiation, 1551. } *The Master of the Sen- tences hath these words of St Augus- tine. 280 THE SECOND BOOK. a miracle in God's working doth not impair the truth of the work. And therefore I noted before, how St Thomas did touch Christ after his resurrection truly, and yet it was by miracle, as St Gregory writeth. And further we may say, touching the comparison, that when a resemblance is made of the sacrament to Christ's person, or contrariwise of Christ's person to declare the sacrament, we may not press all parts of the resemblance, with a thorough equality in consideration of each part by itself, but only have respect to the end wherefore the resemblance is made. In the person of Christ be joined two whole perfect natures inseparably unite, (which faith the Nestorians impugned,) and yet unite without confusion of them, (which confusion the Eutychians in consequence of their error affirmed.) and so arguments be brought of the sa- crament, wherewith to convince both, as I shall shew, answering to Gelasius. But in this place St Augustine useth the truth most certain of the two natures in Christ’s person, whereby to declare his belief in the sacrament; which belief, as Hilary before is by this author alleged to say, is of that is inwardly. For that is outwardly of the visible creature, “we see,” he saith, “with our bodily eye,” and therefore therein is no point of faith that should need such a decla- ration, as St Augustine maketh. And yet making the comparison, he rehearseth both the truths on both sides, saying: “ As the person of Christ consisteth of God and man, so the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things, the visible kind of the element, and the invisible flesh and blood,” finishing the conclusion of the similitude, that therefore there is in the sacrifice of the church both the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament, Christ's body, that which is invisible, and therefore required declaration, that is by St Augustine opened in the comparison; that is to say, the body of Christ to be there truly, and therewith, that needed no declaration, that is to say, the visible kind of the element is spoken of also as being true, but not as a thing which was in- tended to be proved, for it needed not any proof as the other part did. And therefore it is not necessary to press both parts of the resemblance so, as because in the nature of Christ's humanity there was no substance converted in Christ, which had been contrary to the order of that mystery, which was to join the whole nature of man to the Godhead in the person of Christ, that therefore in this mystery of the sacrament, in which by the rules’ of our faith Christ's body is not impanate, the conversion of the substance of the visible elements should not therefore be. Tf truth answereth to truth for proportion of the truth in the mystery, that is sufficient. For else the natures be not so unite in one hypostasy in the mystery of the sacrament, as there be? in Christ's person, and the flesh of man in Christ by union of the divinity is a divine spiritual flesh, and is called and is a lively flesh; and yet the author of this book is not afraid to teach the bread in the sacrament to have no participation of holiness, wherein I agree not with him, but reason against him with his own doctrine; and much I could say more, but this shall suffice. The words of St Augustine for the real presence of Christ's body be such as no man can wrest or writhe to another sense, and with their force have made this author to overthrow? himself in his own words. But that St Augustine saith, touching the nature of bread and the visible element of the sacrament, without wresting or writhing, may be agreed in convenient under- standing with the doctrine of transubstantiation, and therefore is an authority familiar with those writers that affirm transubstantiation by express words, out of whose quiver this author hath pulled out his bolt*, and as it is out of his bow sent, turneth back and hitteth himself on the forehead ; and yet after his fashion, by wrong and untrue translation, he sharpened it some- what, not without some punishment of God, evidently by the way by his own words to overthrow himself. In the second column of the twenty-seventh leaf, and the first of the twenty-eighth leaf, this author maketh a process in declaration of heresies in the person of Christ, for conviction whereof, this author saith, the old fathers used arguments of two examples, in either of which examples were two natures together, the one not perishing ne confounding the other. One example is in the body and soul of man: another example of the sacrament, in which be two natures, an inward heavenly, and an outward earthly, as in man there is a body and a soul. T leave out this author's own judgment in that place, and of thee, O reader, require thine, whether those fathers that did use both these examples to the confutation of heretics, did not believe, as appeareth by the process of their reasoning in this point, did they not, I say, believe, that even as really and as truly, as the soul of man is present in the body, so really and so truly is the body of Christ, which in the sacrament is the inward invisible thing, as the soul is in the body, present in the sacrament? For else, and the body,of Christ were not as truly and [' In the which by the rule, Orig. ed. Winch.] | [° This author overthrow, Orig. ed. Winch.] [2 As they be, 1551.] | [4 "This bolt, Ibid.] ——[° Vid. pp. 277, 8.] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 281 really present in the sacrament, as the soul is in man’s body, that argument of the sacrament had not two things present, so as the argument of the body and soul had, whereby to shew how two things may be together without confusion of either, each remaining in his nature: for if the teaching of this author in other parts of this book were true, then were the sacrament like a body lying in a trance, whose soul for the while were in heaven, and had no two things, but one bare thing, that is to say, bread, and bread never the holier with signification of another thing so far absent, as is heaven from earth; and therefore, to say as I probably think, this part of this second book against transubstantiation was a collection of this author when he minded to maintain Luther’s opinion against transubstantiation only, and to strive for bread only, which notwithstanding the new enterprise of this author to deny the real presence, is so fierce and vehement, as it overthroweth his new purpose ere he cometh in his order in his book to entreat of it. For there can no demonstration be made more evident for the catholic faith of the real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, than that the truth of it was so certainly believed, as they took Christ's very body as verily in the sacrament, even as the soul is present in the body of man. CANTERBURY. When you wrote this, it is like that you had not considered my third book, wherein is a plain and direct answer to all that you have brought in this place, or elsewhere, concerning the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament. And how slender proofs you make in this place, to prove the real presence because of the sacrifice, every man may judge, being neither your argument good, nor your antecedent true. For St Augustine saith not, that the body and blood of Christ is the sacrifice of the church; and if he had so said, it inferreth not this conclusion, that the body of Christ should be really in the bread, and his blood in the wine. And although St Augustine saith, that “bread is Christ’s body,” yet if you had well marked the sixty-fourth, sixty-fifth, and sixty-sixth leaves of my book’, you should there have perceived how St Augustine declareth at length, in what manner of speech that is to be understand, that is to say figuratively, in which speech the thing that signifieth and the thing that is signified have both one name, as St Cyprian manifestly teacheth’. For in plain speech, without figure, bread is not the body of Christ by your own confession, who do say, that the affirmation of one substance is the negation of another. And if the bread were made the body of Christ, as you say it is, then must you needs confess, that the body of Christ is made of bread, which before you said “ was so foolish a saying, as were not tolerable by a scoffer to be devised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.” And seeing that the bread is not annihilate and consumed into nothing, as the school authors teach, then must it needs follow, that the body of Christ is made of the matter of bread; for that it is made of the form of bread, I suppose you will not grant. And as touching the second place of St Augustine, he saith not that the body and blood of Christ be really in the sacrament, but that in the sacrifice of the church, that is to say, in the holy administration of the Lord’s supper, is both a sacrament and the thing signified by the sacrament, the sacrament being the bread and wine, and the thing signified and exhibited being the body and blood of Christ. But St Augustine saith not, that the thing signified is in the bread and wine, to whom it is not exhibited, nor is not in it, but as in a figure; but that it is there in the true ministration of the sacrament, present to the spirit and faith of the true believing man, and exhibited truly and in deed, and yet spiritually, not corporally. And what need any more evident proofs of St Augustine’s mind in this matter, how bread is called Christ's body, than St Augustine’s own words cited in the same place, where the other is de Consecratione, Dist. ii, “ Hoe est quod dicimus ?” These be St Augustine's words there cited: Sicut celestis panis, qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius vide- licet, quod visibile, quod palpabile, mortale, in cruce positum est, vocaturque ipsa im- molatio carnis, que sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei [F Vids pps 1231277 (7 Vad pe 12 298. How bread is Christ's body. Cyprianus de Unetione Chrismatis. 299. DeConsecrat. Dist. 2. ‘‘ Hoe est.” 300. Similitudes may not be pressed in all points, but in the 282 THE SECOND BOOK. veritate, sed significanti mysterio: sic sacramentum fidei, quod baptismus intelligitur, Jides est'. “ As the heavenly bread, which is Christ’s flesh, after a manner is called the body of Christ, where in very deed it is a sacrament of Christ’s body, that is to say, of that body which being visible, palpable, mortal, was put upon the cross ; and as that offering of the flesh which is done by the priest’s hands, is called the passion, the death, the crucifying of Christ, not in truth of the thing, but in a sig- nifying mystery ; so is the sacrament of faith, which is baptism, faith.” These words be so plain and manifest, that the expositor, being a very papist, yet could not avoid the matter, but wrote thus upon the said words: Jmmolatio, que jit a presbytero, improprie appellatur Christi passio, vel mors, vel crucifixio: non quod sit illa, sed quia illam significat’. And after he saith: Coleste sacramentum, quod vere repreesentat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed improprie. Unde dicitur, suo modo, sed non rei veritate, sed significayti mysterio ; ut sit sensus, vocatur Christi corpus, id est, sig- nificat®. ‘The offering which the priest maketh, is called improperly the passion, death, or crucifying of Christ, not that it is that, but that it signifieth it.” And “the heavenly sacrament, which truly representeth Christ’s flesh, is called Christ’s body, but impro- perly. And therefore is said, after a manner, but not in the truth of the thing, but in the signifying mystery: so that the sense is this, it is called the body of Christ, that is to say, signifieth.” Now the words of St Augustine being so plain, that none can be more, and following the other words within ten lines, so that you can allege no ignorance, but you must needs see them, it can be none other but a wilful blind- ness, that you will not see, and also a wilful concealing and hiding of the truth from other men, that they should not see neither. And this one place is sufficient at full to answer whatsoever you can bring of the presence of Christ in the sacrament of bread and wine. For after consecration the body and blood of Christ be in them but as in figures, although in the godly receivers he is really present by his omnipotent power, which is as great a miracle in our daily nourishing, as is wrought before in our regeneration. And therefore is Christ no less to be honoured of them that feed of him in his holy supper, than of them that be grafted in him by regeneration. And whereas I said upon St Augustine’s words, that ‘the sacrament consisteth of two natures,” in that place I collected more of St Augustine’s words in your favour, than indeed St Augustine saith, because you should not say that I nipped him. For St Augustine saith not, that the sacrament consisteth of two natures, and therefore both these natures must needs remain in the sacrament; but he saith that the sacrifice consisteth of two things, which he calleth also natures, and thereof it followeth, that those two things must be in the sacrifice, which is to be understand, in the minis- tration, not in the bread and wine reserved. And very true it is, as St Augustine saith, that “the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things, of the sacrament, and of the thing thereby signified, which is Christ's body, as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man.” But yet this resemblance is not altogether like, as you say truly for so much; for the per- son of Christ consisteth so of his Godhead and manhood, they they be both in him in real presence and unity of person. But in the sacrifice it is otherwise, where neither is any such union between the sacrament and the truth of the sa- crament, nor any such presence of the body of Christ. For in the bread and wine Christ is but figuratively, as I said before, and in the godly receivers spiritually, in whom also he tarrieth and remaineth so long as they remain the members of his body. But if Christ’s similitudes should be so narrowly pressed, as you press here the similitude of the two natures of Christ in the sacrament, collecting that because the body and blood of Christ be truly present in the due administration of the sacra- [} Corpus Juris Canonici. De Consecrat. Dist. [? Gloss. in Corpus Juris Canonici, De Consecrat. ii. cap. 48. Hoc est.” col. 1937. Ed. Lugd. Dist. ii. col. 1936. Lugd. 1618.] 1618.] [® Ib. col. 1937. ] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 283 ment, therefore they must be there naturally present, as the two natures of the hu- purpose . ab aeere . : : F wherefore manity and divinity be in Christ ; many wicked errors should be established by them : they be as if the similitude of the wicked steward were strained as you strain and _ force nea this similitude, men might gather, that it is lawful for christian men to beguile their lords and masters whiles they be in office, to help themselves when they be out of office, because the Lord praised the wicked steward; yet you know that the simi- litude was not taught of our Saviour Christ for that purpose, for God is no favourer of falsehood and untruth. So you do wrong both to the holy doctors and to me, to gather of our similitude any other doctrine than we mean by the said similitude. Nor any reasonable man can say, that I am forced by confessing two natures in Christ’s person really, naturally, and substantially, to confess also the nature of the body and blood of Christ to be likewise in the sacrament, except he could prove that the holy doctors, and I following their doctrine, do teach and affirm, that the natures of bread and wine are joined in the sacrament with the natural body and blood of Christ in unity of person, as the natures of God and man be joined in our Saviour Christ : which we do not teach, because we find no such doctrine taught by Christ, by his apostles, nor evangelists. Therefore take your own collection to yourself, and make yourself answer to such absurdities and inconvenience as you do infer, by abusing and forcing of the doctors’ similitude to another end than they did use it. And it is not necessary for our eternal salvation, nor yet profitable for our com- The faith fort in this life, to believe that the natural body and blood of Christ is really, sub- orennee is stantially, and naturally present in the sacrament. For if it were necessary or com- THD gaEabIe fortable for us, it is without doubt, that our Saviour Christ, his apostles, and evangelists, fortable. would not have omitted to teach this doctrine distinctly and plainly. Yea, our Saviour 391 would not have said, Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quicquam; “The Spirit Jon vi. giveth life, the flesh availeth nothing.” But this doctrine, which the holy doctors do teach, is agreeable to holy scripture, The profit necessary for all Christian persons to believe for their everlasting salvation, and pro- ofthe fee fitable for their spiritual comfort in this present life; that is to say, that the sacrament “""* of Christ’s body and blood in the natures and substances of bread and wine is distri- buted unto all men, both good and evil which receive it, and yet that only faithful persons do receive spiritually by faith the very body and blood of our Saviour Christ. So that Christ’s natural body is not in the sacrament really, substantially, and corpo- rally, but only by representation and signification, and in his lively members by spiritual and effectual operation. But it appeareth that you be foul deceived in judgment of the doctrine set out in my book. And if you were not either utterly ignorant in holy scriptures and doctors, or not obstinately bent to pervert the true doctrine of this holy sacrament, you would never have uttered this sentence: “‘ That there never was man overturned his own assertions more evidently than this author doth.” For I am well assured that my doctrine is sound, and therefore do trust that I shall be able to stand by mine asser- tions before all men that are learned, and be any thing indifferent, and not bent ob- stinately to maintain errors, as you be, when you, tumbling and tossing yourself in your filthy fantasies of transubstantiation, and of the real and carnal presence of Christ's body, shall be ashamed of your assertions. But I marvel not much of your stout bragging here, because it is a common thing with you, to dash me in the teeth with your own faults. And it is untrue that you say, that “the sacrifice is perfected before the perception.” For if the sacrifice be perfected before the perception, it is perfected also before the consecration. For between the consecration and perception was no sacrifice made by Christ, as appeareth in the evangelists, but the one followed immediately of the other. And although Christ being in heaven be one of the parts whereof the sacri- fice consisteth, and be present in the sacrifice, yet he is not naturally there present, but sacramentally in the sacrament, and spiritually in the receivers. And by this which I have now answered, I have wrestled with you so in the matter of Christ’s presence, that I have not “fallen upon my back myself to pull you Two exam- ples of the two natures in Christ, one in aman, the other in the saera- ment. 303. 284 THE SECOND BOOK. over me,” but I standing upright myself, have given you such a fall, that you shall never be able to recover. And now that I have brought you to the ground, although it be but a small piece of manhood to strike a man when he is down, yet for the truth’s sake, unto whom you have ever been so great an adversary, I shall beat you with your transubstantiation, as they say, both back and bone. How say you, sir? is whiteness or other colours the nature of bread and wine, (for the colours be only visible by your doctrine ;) or be they elements? or be accidents the bodily matter ? Lie still, ye shall be better beaten yet for your wilfulness. Be the accidents of bread substances, as you said not long before? and if they be substances, what manner of substances be they, corporal or spiritual? If they be spiritual, then be they souls, devils, or angels? And if they be corporal substances, either they have life or no life. I trust you will say at the least, that bread hath life, because you said but even now almost, that “the substance of bread is the soul of it.” Such absur- dities they fall into that maintain errors. But at length when the similitude of the two natures in Christ, remaining both in their proper kinds, must needs be answered unto, then cometh in again the cuttle with his colours to hide himself, that he should not be seen, because he perceiveth what danger he is in to be taken: and when he cometh to the very net, he so stoutly striveth, wrangleth, and wrestleth, as he would break the net, or else by some craft wind himself out of it; but the net is so strong, and he so surely masted therein, that he shall never be able to get out. For the old catholic authors, to declare that two natures remain in Christ together, that is to say, his humanity and his divinity, without corruption or wasting of any of the said two natures, do give two examples thereof: one is of the body and soul, which both be in a man together, and the presence of the one putteth not away the other. The other example is of the Lord’s supper, or ministration of the sacrament, where is also together the substance and nature of bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ ; and the presence of the one putteth not away the other, no more than the presence of Christ’s humanity putteth away his divinity. And as the presence of the soul driveth not away the body, nor the presence of the flesh and blood of Christ driveth not away the bread and wine; so doth not the presence of Christ’s humanity expel his divinity, but his divinity remaineth still with his humanity, as the soul doth with the body, and the body of Christ with the bread. And then if there re- main not the nature and substance of bread, it must follow also, that there remaineth not the divine nature of Christ with his humanity, or else the similitude is clearly dissolved. But yet say you, ““we may not press all parts of the resemblance with a thorough equality, but only have respect to the end, wherefore the resemblance is made.” And do you not see, how this your saying taketh away your own argument of the real presence in the sacrament; and nevertheless setteth you no whit more at liberty concerning transubstantiation, but masteth you faster in the net, and maketh it more stronger to hold you? For the old authors make this resemblance only to declare the remaining of two natures, not the manner and form of remaining, which is far diverse in the person of Christ from the union in the sacrament. For the two natures of Christ be joined together in unity of person, which unity is not between the sacra- ment and the body of Christ. But in that point wherein the resemblance is made, there must needs be an equality by your own saying. And forasmuch as the resem- blance was made only for the remaining of two natures; therefore as the perfect natures of Christ’s manhood and Godhead do both remain, and the perfect nature of the soul and the body both also remain, so must the perfect nature of Christ’s body and blood, and of bread and wine, also remain. But forasmuch as the similitude was not made for the manner of remaining, nor for the place, therefore the resemblance requireth not, that the body and blood of Christ should be united to the bread and wine in person or in place, but only that the natures should remain every one in his kind. And so be you clean overthrown with your transubstantiation, except you will join yourself with those heretics, which denied Christ's humanity and divinity to remain both together. AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 285 And it seemeth that your doctrine varieth very little from Valentine and Marcion, spi (if it vary any thing at all,) when you say that Christ’s flesh was a spiritual flesh. For when St Paul, speaking of Christ’s body, said “we be members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones,” he meant not of a spiritual body, as Irencus saith’, (for a lreneus spirit hath no flesh nor bones,) but of a very man’s body, that is made of flesh, sinews, Valentin. and bones. And so with striving to get out of the net, you roll yourself faster into it. And as for the words of St Augustine, make nothing for the real presence, as I have before declared. So that therein I neither have foil nor trip; but for all your brags, hooks, and crooks, you have such a fall, as you shall never be able to stand upright again in this matter. And my shafts be shot so straight against you, and with such a force, that they pierce through shield and habergeon in such sort, that all the harness you have is not able to withstand them, or to make one arrow to start back, although to avoid the stroke you shift your place, seeking some mean to fly the fight. For when I make mine argument of transubstantiation, you turn the matter to the real presence, like unto a surgeon that hath no knowledge, but when the head is wounded or sore, he layeth a plaister to the heel; or, as the proverb saith: Interrogatus de alliis, respondet de cepis: “when you be asked of garlic, you answer of onions.” And this is one pretty sleight of sophistry, or of a subtle warrior, when he seeth a sleight. himself overmatched and not able to resist, then by some policy quite to put off, or at the least to delay the conflict; and so do you commonly in this book of transub- stantiation. For when you be sore pressed therein, then you turn the matter to the real presence. But I shall so straitly pursue you, that you shall not so escape. For where you say, that “the fathers which used the examples of the sacrament, and of the body and blood of Christ, to shew the unity of two natures in Christ, did believe that as really and as truly the soul of man is present in the body, so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the sacrament :” the fathers neither said nor believed as you here report, but they taught that both the sacrament and the thing thereby represented, which is Christ’s body, remain in their proper substance and nature, the sign being here and the thing signified being in heaven; and yet of these two consisteth the sacrifice of the church. But it is not required that the thing signified should be really and corporally present in the sign and figure, as the soul is in the body, because there is no such union of person; nor it is not required in the soul and body that they should be ever together, for Christ's body and soul remained both, without either corruption or tran- substantiation, when the soul was gone down into hell, and the body rested in the sepulchre. And yet was he then a perfect man, although his soul was not then really present with the body. And it is not so great a marvel that his body should be 304. in heaven and the sacrament of it here, as it is that his body should be here and his soul in hell. And if the sacrament were a man, and the body of Christ the soul of it, (as you dream in your trance,) then were the sacrament not in a trance, but dead for the time, whilst it were here, and the soul in heaven. And like scoffing you might make of the sacrament of baptism as you do in the sacrament of Christ’s body, that it lieth here in a trance, when Christ, being the life thereof, is in heaven. And where you think that “my second book against transubstantiation was a col- lection of me, when I minded to maintain Luther’s opinion against transubstantiation only,” you have no probation of your thought, but still you remain in your dreams, trances, and vain fantasies, which you have used throughout your book ; so that what.- soever is in the bread and wine, there is in you no transubstantiation, no alteration in this thing at all. iritual [' Kadads 6 paxaptos Mavios pyow év ri mpds | cdpka éxer’ a\Na Tept THS KaTa Tov adyOdy ‘Eqpecious émiaTody" Ort mehy Eopev Tod cwaTos, | &vOpwarov olKovomias, Tis EK GapKds Kal vebpwy é THS GapKos aUTOU, Kal Ek THY daTéwy adToU" ob | Kal daTéwy cuvecTwons.—Ireneus, adversus He- Tepl TvevpariKov Twos Kal dopdtov avOpwrov | reses Valent. Lib. v. Cap. ii. pp. 398, 9. Ed. Néywv raita’ 7d ydp Tveipa ote doréa ote | Oxon. 1702.] , Chrysostom. ad Cesarium Monachum. 305. 286 THE SECOND BOOK. And what availeth it you so often to affirm this untruth, “that the body of Christ is present in the sacrament, as the soul of man is present in the body,” except you be like to them that tell a lie so often, that with often repeating they think men be- lieve it, and sometime by often telling they believe it themselves? But the authors bring not this similitude of the body and soul of man, to prove thereby the presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, but to prove the two natures of the Godhead and the manhood in the person of Christ. Let us now discuss the mind of Chrysostom in this matter, whom I bring thus in my book. St John Chrysostom writeth against the pestilent error of Apollinaris, which affirmed that the Godhead and manhood in Christ were so mixed and confounded together, that they both made but one nature. Against whom St John Chry- sostom writeth thus: “When thou speakest of God, thou must consider a thing that in nature is single, without composition, without conversion that is invisible, immortal, incir- eumscriptible, incomprehensible, with such like. And when thou speakest of man, thou meanest a nature that is weak, subject to hunger, thirst, weeping, fear, sweating, and such like passions, which cannot be in the divine nature. And when thou speakest of Christ, thou joinest two natures together in one person, who is both passible and impassible: passible as concerning his flesh, and im- passible in his deity’.” And after he concludeth, saying: ‘“ Wherefore Christ is both God and man: God by his impassible nature, and man because he suffered. He himself being one person, one Son, one Lord, hath the dominion and power of two natures jomed together, which be not of one substance, but each of them hath his properties distinct from the other. And therefore remaineth there two natures, distinct, and not confounded. For as before the consecration of the bread, we call it bread, but when God’s grace hath sanctified it by the priest, it is delivered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord, although the nature of bread remain still in it, and it is not called two bodies, but one body of God’s Son; so likewise here, the divine nature resteth in the body of Christ, and these two make one Son, and one person’.” These words of Chrysostom declare, and that not in obscure terms, but in pla words, that after the consecration the nature of bread remaieth still, although it have an higher name, and be called the body of Christ, to sig- nify unto the godly eaters of that bread, that they spiritually eat the super- natural bread of the body of Christ, who spiritually is there present, and dwelleth in them, and they in him, although corporally he sitteth in heaven at the right hand of his Father, {} Deum ergo quando dicis, dilectissime, agno- visti id quod simplex est nature, quod incompo- situm, quod inconvertibile, quod invisibile, quod immortale, quod incircumscriptibile, quod incom prehensibile, et istis similia. Hominem autem dicens, significasti quod nature est infirmum, esuri- tionem, sitim, super Lazarum lacrymas, metum, sudoris ejectionem, et his similia, quibus id quod divinum est extra est. Christum autem quando dicis, conjunxisti utrumque: unde et passibilis dicatur idem ipse et impassibilis: passibilis qui- dem carne; impassibilis autem deitate.—Chrysost. ad Cesarium Monachum. Tom. III. p. 743. Ed. Bened. Paris. 1721. Vid. p. 274, note 2.] [2 Et Deus et homo Christus: Deus propter impassibilitatem, homo propter passionem. Unus Filius, unus Dominus, idemi pse procul dubio uni- tarum naturarum unam dominationem, unam po- testatem possidens, etiamsi non consubstantiales exsistunt, et unaqueque incommixtam proprietatis conservat agnitionem, propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo. Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus; divina autem illum sanctifi- cante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est qui- dem ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus Dominici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit, et non duo corpora, sed unum corpus Filii predicamus; sic et hic divina évidpu- caons, id est, insidente corpori natura, unum Filium, unam personam utraque hee fecerunt.—Ib. | AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 287 WINCHESTER. St Chrysostom’s words in deed, if this author had had them either truly translated unto gee him, or had taken the pains to have truly translated them himself, which (as Peter Martyr saith) be not in print, but were found in Florence, a copy whereof remaineth in the arch- deacon or archbishop of Canterbury's hands; or else, if this author had reported the words as they be translated into English out of Peter Martyr's book, where in some point the trans- lator in English seemeth to have attained by guess the sense more perfectly than Peter Martyr uttereth it himself; if either of this had been done, the matter should have seemed for so much the more plain. But what is this, to make foundation of an argument upon a secret copy of an epistle uttered at one time in divers senses? I shall touch one special point: Peter Martyr saith in Latin, whom the translator in English therein followeth, “that the bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lord’s body.” This author, Englishing the same place, termeth it “exalted to the name of the Lord’s body,” which words of exalting come nearer to the pur- pose of this author to have the bread but a figure, and therewith never the holier of itself. But a figure can never be accounted worthy that name of our Lord’s body, the very thing of the sacrament, unless there were the thing in deed, as there is by conversion, as the church truly teacheth. Is not here, reader, a marvellous diversity in report, and the same so set forth, as thou that canst but read English must evidently see it?—God ordering it so as such vari- eties and contradictions should so manifestly appear, where the truth is impugned. Again, this author maketh Chrysostom to speak strangely in the end of this authority, that the divine nature vesteth in the body of Christ, as though the nature of man were the stay to the divine nature; whereas in that union the rest is an ineffable mystery, the two natures in Christ to have one substance called and termed an hypostasy, and therefore he that hath translated Peter Martyr into English doth translate it thus: “ The divine constitution, the nature of the body adjoined, these two both together make one Son and one person.” Thou, reader, mayest compare the books that be abroad of Peter Martyr in Latin, of Peter Martyr in English, and this author’s book, with that I write, and so deem whether I say true or no. But to the purpose of St Chrysostom’s words, if they be his words: he directeth his argument to shew by the mystery of the sacrament, that as in it there is no con- Susion of natures, but each remaineth in his property, so likewise in Christ the nature of his Godhead doth not confound the nature of his manhood. If the visible creatures were in the sacrament by the presence of Christ's body there truly present, invisible? also as that body is, impalpable also as that body is, incorruptible also as that ist, then were the visible nature altered, and as it were confounded, which Chrysostom saith is not so; for the nature of the bread remaineth, by which word of “nature” is conveniently signified the property of nature. For proof whereof, to shew remaining of the property without alteration, Chrysostom maketh only the resemblance; and before I have shewed how nature signifieth the property of nature, and may signify the outward part of nature, that is to say, the accidents, being substance in his proper signification the inward nature of the thing, of the conversion whereof is specially understand > transubstantiation. CANTERBURY. Where you like not my translation of Chrysostom’s words, I trow you would have me to learn of you to translate, you use such sincerity and plainness in your transla- 306. tion. Let the learned reader be judge. I did translate the words myself out of the copy of Florence, more truly than it seemeth you would have done. But when you see the words of Chrysostom so manifest and clear against your feigned transubstantiation, (for he saith, “that the nature of bread remaineth still,”) you craftily for a shift fall to the carping of the translation, because you cannot answer to the matter. And yet the words of Chrysostom cited by master Peter Martyr in Latin out of Florence copy, and my translation, and the translation of master Peter's book in English, do agree fully here in sense, although the words be not all one, which neither is required nor lightly found in any two translators; so that all your wrangling in the diversity of the translations is but a sleight and common practice of you, when you cannot answer the matter, to seek faults in the translation where none is. A figure re- quireth not the presence of the thing that is signi- tied. Rom. vi. Lactantius Instit. Lib. Il. cap. i. John i. 307. 1 John iv. 288 THE SECOND BOOK. and would gather thereof no truth to be where such diversity is, let the reader be judge what a wonderful diversity it is. The Latin is this, Panis dignus habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione. The translator of M. Peter Martyr's book saith: “The bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lord’s body.” My translation hath, “‘ The bread is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord.” When a man is made a lord or knight, if one say of him, that he is reputed worthy the name of a lord or knight, and another say, that he is exalted to the name of a lord or knight, what difference is between these two sayings? Is not this a wonderful diversity? I pray thee, judge indifferently, good reader. But, say you, “‘a figure can never be counted worthy the name of the thing, unless the thing were there in deed.” Wrangle then with St John Chrysostom himself, and not with me, who saith, that the bread is exalted to the name of the Lord’s body, or is reputed worthy the name of the Lord’s body, after the sanctification, and yet the nature of the bread remaineth still; which cannot be as you say, if the body of Christ were there present. And who heard ever such a doctrine as you here make, that the thing must be really and corporally present where the figure is? For so must every man be cor- porally buried in deed when he is baptized, which is a figure of our burial. And when we receive the sacrament of Christ’s body, then is accomplished the resurrection of our bodies, for that sacrament you affirm to be the figure thereof. But your doctrine herein is clean contrary to the judgment of Lactantius, and other old writers, who teach that figures be in vain and serve to no purpose, when the things by them signified be present’. And where you think it strange to say, that the divine nature is, or resteth in the body of Christ, it is nothing else but to declare your ignorance in God’s word and ancient authors, in reading of whom forasmuch as you have not been much exer- cised, it is no marvel though their speech seem strange unto you. The Greek word of Chrysostom is éépvcacys, which I pray you English, and then we shall see what a strange speech you will make. Did you never hear tell at the least, that the Word was incarnated? or, Verbum caro factum est? And what signifieth this word “ incar- nate,” but God to be made man, and his divine nature to be in flesh? Doth not St John bid us beware, that “we believe not every spirit; for there be many false prophets, and every spirit,” saith he, “that confesseth not Jesus Christ to have come in flesh, is not of God, but is the spirit of antichrist ?” Is this then a strange speech to you, that the divine nature resteth in the flesh, that is to say, in the body of Christ? which if you deny, you know whose spirit you have. But your trust is altogether in obscure speeches, wherewith you trust so to darken the matter, that no man shall understand it; lest that if they understand it, they must needs perceive your igno- rance and error. But when you promise to come to the purpose, (as, to say the truth, all that you said before is clearly without purpose, but when you promise, I say, now at length to come to the purpose,) your answer is nothing to the purpose of St Chrysostom’s mind: for he made not his resemblance, as you say he did, only to shew the remain- ing of the accidents, which you call the properties, but to shew the remaining of the substances, with all the natural properties thereof: that as Christ had here in earth his divinity and humanity, remaining every of them with his natural properties; thie substance of his Godhead being “a nature single without composition, without con- version, invisible, immortal, incircumscriptible, incomprehensible, and such like,” (for these be Chrysostom’s own words ;) and the substance of his humanity being “a feeble nature, subject to hunger, thirst, weeping, fear, sweating, and such passions,” so is it in the bread and Christ’s body, that the bread after sanctification or consecration, as you call it, remaineth in his substance that it had before; and likewise doth the body of Christ remain still in heaven in his very true substance, whereof the bread is a sacrament and figure. For else, if the substance of the bread remained not, how could [} Sed tamen postquam Deus ille presto esse cepit, jam simulacro ejus opus non est. Lactant. Instit. Lib. 11. De Origine erroris. cap. ii. ] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 289 Chrysostom bring it for a resemblance to prove that the substance of Christ's huma- nity remaineth with his divinity? Marry, this that you say had been a gay lesson for the Manichees, to say that there appeareth bread by all the accidents thereof, and yet is none in deed; that then by this similitude they might say likewise, that Christ appeared a man by all the accidents and properties of a man, and yet he was none in deed. And to make an end of this author, your vain comment will not serve you, to call the accidents of bread the nature of bread, except you will allow the same in the Manichees, that the nature of Christ’s body is nothing else but the accidents thereof. Now followeth Gelasius of the same matter. Hereunto accordeth also Gelasius, writing against Eutyches and Nestorius, pana of whom the one said, that ‘Christ was a perfect man, but not God;” and the er other affirmed clean contrary, that “he was very God, but not man.” But against ein fine | these two hemous heresies, Gelasius proveth by most manifest scriptures, that Christ is both God and man, and that after his incarnation remaineth? in him [as well] the nature of his Godhead, [as the nature of his manhood, |* so that he hath in him two natures with their natural properties, and yet is he but one Christ. And for the more evident declaration hereof he bringeth two examples: the ~ one is of man, who being but one, yet he is made of two parts, and hath in him two natures remaining both together in him, that is to say, the body and the soul, with their natural properties. The other example is of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, 308. “which,” saith he, “is a godly thing, and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine do not cease to be there still‘.” Note well these words against all the papists of our time, that Gelasius, which was bishop of Rome’ more than a thousand years past, writeth of this sacrament, that the bread and wine cease not to be there still, as Christ ceased not to be God after his incarnation, but remained still perfect God, as he was before. WINCHESTER. Now followeth to answer to Gelasius, who abhorring both the heresies of Eutyches and Nesto- Gelasius. rius, in his treatise against the Eutychians, forgetteth not to compare with their error, in extremity in the one side, the extreme error of the Nestorians on the other side, but yet principally intendeth the confusion of the Eutychians, with whom he was specially troubled. These two heresies were not so gross as the author of this book reporteth them, wherein I will write what Vigilius saith : Inter Nestorii ergo, quondam ecclesize Constantinopolitanee non rectoris, sed dissipatoris, [Vigilius. non pastoris, sed preedatoris, sacrilegum dogma et Eutychetis nefariam et detestabilem Onn cal ; sectam, ita serpentine grassationis sese calliditas temperavit, ut utrumque sine utriusque V'""! periculo plerique vitare non possint, dum si quis Nestorii perfidiam damnat, Eutychetis putatur errori succumbere ; rursum dum Eutychianee heresis impietatem destruit, Nestorii arguitur dogma erigere. These be Vigilius’ words in his first book, which be thus much in English: “ Between the abominable teaching of Nestorius, sometime not ruler but waster, not pastor, but prey-searcher of the church of Constantinople, and the wicked and detestable sect of Lutyches, the craft of the devil’s spoiling so fashioned itself, that men could not avoid any of the secrets® without danger of the other: so as whiles any man condemneth the Salseness of [the] Nesto- rian, he may be thought fallen to the error of the Eutychian; and whiles he destroyeth the wickedness of the Eutychian’s heresy, he may be challenged to relieve the teaching of the Nestorian.” This is the sentence of Vigilius, by which appeareth how these heresies were both subtly conveyed, without so plain contradiction, as this author either by ignorance or of purpose feigneth ; as though the Nestorian should say, “that Christ was a perfect man, but not God,’ and the Eutychian clean contrary, [? Remained, 1551, and Orig. ed.] Biblioth. Patrum. Colon. 1518. An attempt has |* Orig. ed. omits these words. ] been unsuccessfully made to shew that this book [* Certe sacramenta, que sumimus, corporis et | was not written by Pope Gelasius, but by Gelasius Sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per | of Cyzicus, or Gelasius of Casarea. Vide Cave, eadem divine efficimur consortes nature ; et tamen | Hist. Lit. | esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. [5 a.p. 492.] Gelasii con. Eutych. et Nestor. Sect. v. p- 671. in [° Sects, 1551. ] LoranMeR. ] 509. *Nature. * Person. *Subsistence. * Substance. 290 THE SECOND BOOK. “very God, but not man.” For if the heresies had been such, Vigilius had had no cause to speak of any such ambiguity, as he noteth that a man should hardly speak against the one, but he might be suspected to favour the other. And yet I grant that the Nestorians’ saying» might imply Christ not to be God, because they would two distinct natures to make also two distinct persons, and so as it were two Christs, the one only man, and the other only God ; so as by their teaching, God was neither incarnate, nor (as Gregory Nazianzen saith) “man deitate,’ for so he is termed to say. The Eutychians, as St Augustine saith, “reasoning against the Nestorians, became heretics themselves? ;” and because we confess truly by faith but one Christ, the Son of God, very God, the Eutychians say, “although there were in the virgin’s womb, before the adunation, two na- tures, yet after the adunation, in that mystery of Christ’s incarnation, there is but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the nature of man was after their fancy trans- JSused, and so confounded:” whereupon, by implication, a man might gather the nature of humanity3 not to remain in Christ after the adunation in the virgin’s womb. Gelasius, de- testing both Eutyches and Nestorius, in his process uttereth a catholic meaning against them both; but he directeth special arguments of the two natures in man, and the two natures in the sacrament, chiefly against the Eutychians, to prove the nature of man to continue in Christ after the adunation, being no absurdity for two different natures to constitute one person: the same two natures remaining in their property*, and the natures to be aliud and aliud, which signifieth different; and yet in that not to be alius and alius in person, which alius and alius in person the Eutychians abhorred, and catholicly for so much against the Nes- torians, who by reason of two natures would have two persons; and because those Nestorians fancied the person of Christ patible to suffer all apart, therefore they denied Christ conceived God or born God; for the abolition of which part of their heresy, and to set forth the unity of Christ's person, the blessed virgin was called @eoréxos, Deipara, God’s mother; which the Nestorians deluded by an exposition, granting she might so be called, because her son, they said, was afterwards God, and so she might be called God's mother, as another woman may be called a bishop’s mother, if her son be made a bishop afterward, although he departed no bishop from her. And hereof I write thus much, because it should appear that Gelasius, by his arguments of the sacrament, and of the two natures in man, went not about to prove that the Godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation, as the author of this book would have it; for the Nestorian said the Godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merit, and therefore with them there was no talk of remaining, when they esteemed Christ's nature in his conception sin- gular, and only by Gods power conceived, but only man. And again the Eutychian so affirmed the continuance of the divine nature in Christ after the adunation, as Gelasius had no cause to prove that was granted, that is to say, the remain of the divine nature, but on the other side to prove the remain of the human nature in Christ, which by the Eutychians was by implication rather denied. Nestorius divided God and man, and granted always both to be in Christ con- tinually, but as two persons; and the person of Christ being God, dwelling within the person of Christ being man, and as Christ man increased, so Christ God dignified him, and so divided one Christ into two persons, because of the two natures so different, which was against the rules of our faith, and destroyed thereby the mystery of our redemption. And the Eutychians, affirming catholicly to be but one person in Christ, did perniciously say there was but one nature in Christ, accounting by implication the human nature transfused into the divine nature, and so confounded. And to shew the narrow passage, Vigilius spake of Cyrillus, a catholic author, because writing of the unity of Christ’s person, he expressed his meaning by the word “nature,” signifying the whole of any one constitution, which more properly the word “person” doth express. The Eutychians would by that word after gather that he favoured their part, so taking the word at a vantage. And because the same Cyrillus used the word “ subsistence” to signify “ substance,’ and therefore said “in Christ there were two subsistences,” meaning the divine substance and human substance; forasmuch as the word “ subsistence” is used to express the person, that is to say, hypostasy : there were that of that word, frowardly understanded, would gather he should say, (! Sayings, 1551.] Augustin. de V. Hwzresibus, Append. See below, (? Eutychiani ab Eutyche,.... qui cum vide- | p. 293.] retur refutare Nestorium, in Apollinarem Maniche- [° Of the humanity, Orig. ed. Winch.] umque transivit, et humanitatis in Christo denegans [* To constitute one, the same remaining two in veritatem, quidquid a verbo nostre proprietatis re- | their property. Ibid.] ceptum est, divine tantummodo ascribit essentiz. AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. * 291 “that there were two persons in Christ,” which was the Nestorians’ heresy that he impugned. Such captiousness was there in words, when arrogant men cared not by what mean to maintain their error. These were both pernicious heresies, and yet subtle; and each had a marvellous pretence of the defence of the glory of God, even as is now pretended against the sacrament. And either part abused many scriptures, and had notable appearances for that they said, so as he that were not well exercised in scriptures, and the rules of our faith, might be easily circumvented. Nestorius was the great archbishop of Constantinople, unto whom Cyril, that condemneth his heresy, writeth, that seeing he slandereth the whole church with his heresy, he must resist him, although 2 be a father, because Christ saith: “He that loveth his father ee x. above me, is not worthy me.” But Nestorius, as appeareth, although he used it ill-favouredly, Wikehj had much learning, and cloked his heresy craftily, denying the gross matter that they imputed to him to teach two Christs, and other specialities laid to his charge; and yet condemning the doctrine of Cyril, and professing his own faith in his own terms, could not hide his heresy so; but it appeareth to be, and contain in effect, that he was charged with, and therefore an admonishing was given by a catholic writer : “Believe not Nestorius, though he say he teach but one Christ.” If one should here ask, “What is this to the purpose to talk so much of these sects?” I aswer: This knowledge shall generally serve to note the manner of them that go about to | deceive the world with false doctrine, which is good to learn. Another special service is to 310. | declare, how the author of this book either doth not know the state of the matter in these heresies he speaketh of, or else misreporteth them of purpose. And the arguing of Gelasius in this matter well opened, shall give light of the truth of the mystery of the sacrament, who against the Eutychians useth two arguments of examples: one, of the two different natures to remain in one person of man; and yet the Eutychians defamed that conjunction, with remain of two different natures, and called it dvopvow, “double nature ;’ and Gelasius, to encounter that term, saith, “ They will with their povddvors, ‘one nature, reserve not one Christ and whole Christ.” And if two different natures, that is to say, soul and body, make but one man, why not so in Christ? For where scripture speaketh of the outward man and inward man, that is to shew (Gelasius saith) two divers qualities in the same man, and not to divide the same into two men; and so intendeth to shew there ought to be no scruple to grant two different natures to remain in their property, for fear that every diverse nature should make a diverse person, and so in Christ divide the unity; concluding that the integrity of Christ cannot be, but both the natures different remaining in their property. Carnal imagination troubled the Eutychians to have one person of two such different natures remaining in their property, which the Nestorians relieved with device of two persons, and the Eutychians by confusion of the human nature. Then cometh Gelasius to the argument of example from the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, and noteth the person of Christ to be a principal mystery, and the sacrament | an image and similitude of that mystery, which sense his words must needs have, because he calleth Christ the principal mystery ; and as in one place he saith “the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ,” so by and by he calleth the sacrament “the image of Christ.” And here the words “image” and “ similitude” express the manner of presence of the truth of the things represented, to be understanded only by faith as invisibly present. And St Ambrose by this word “image” signifieth the exhibition of truth to man in this life. And to shew the sacrament to be such an image, as containeth the very truth of the thing whereof it is the image, Gelasius declareth in framing his argument in these words: “As bread and wine go into the divine substance, the Holy Ghost bringing it to pass, and yet remain in the property of their nature, so that principal mystery, those natures remaining whereof it is, declare unto us true and whole Christ to continue.” In these words of Gelasius, where he saith “ the bread and wine go into the divine substance,” is plainly declared the presence of the divine substance; and this divine substance can signify none other substance but of the body and blood of Christ, of which heavenly nature, and earthly nature of the bread and wine, consisteth this sacrament, the image of the principal mystery of Christ's person. And therefore as in the image be two divers natures and different, remaining in their pro- perty, so likewise in the person of Christ, which is the conclusion of Gelasius’ argument, should remain two natures. And here were a great danger, if we should say that Christ's body, which is the celestial nature in the sacrament, were there present but in a figure; for it should then imply that in Christ's person, the principal mystery, it were also but ina figure. And there- Sore as in the mystery of Christ's person ordained to redeem us, being the principal mystery, there is no figure, but truth in consideration of the presence of the two natures, whereof’ Christ [° The same man, Orig. ed. Winch.] 19—2 311. 292 THE SECOND BOOK. as; so in the sacrament, being a mystery ordered to feed us, and the image of that principal mystery, there is not an only figure but truth of the presence of the natures, earthly and celestial. I speak of the truth of the presence!, and mean such an integrity of the natures present, as by the rules of our faith is consonant and agreeable to that mystery, that is to say, in the person of Christ, perfect God and perfect man ; perfect God to be incarnate, and perfect man to be deitate, as Gregory Nazianzen termeth it. In the sacrament, the visible matter of the earthly creature in his property of nature for the use of signification is necessarily required, and also, according to the truth of Christ’s words, his very body and blood to be invisibly with integrity present, which Gelasius calleth “ the divine substance.” And I think it worthy to be noted that Gelasius, speaking of the bread and wine, reciteth not precisely the substance to remain, but saith, “the substance or nature,” which nature he calleth after the property, and the disjunctive may be verified in the last. And it is not necessary the examples to be in all parts equal, as Rusticus Diaconus handleth it very learnedly, contra Acephalos’. And Gelasius in opening the mystery of the sacrament speaketh of transition of the bread and wine into the godly substance ; which word “ transition” is meet to express “ transubstantiation ;” and therefore St Thomas expressed “ transubstantiation” with the same word transire, writing, Dogma datur Christianis, quod in carnem transit panis et vinum in sanguinem. But in the mystery of Christ’s person there is no transition of the Deity into the humanity, or humanity into the Deity, but only assumption of the humanity with the adunation of those two perfect natures* so different, one person and one Christ, who is God incarnate, and man deitate, as Gregory Nazianzen saith, without mutation, conversion, transition, transelementation, or transubstantiation, which words be proper and special to express how eucharistia is constitute of two different natures, an heavenly and earthly nature; a mystery institute after the example of the principal mystery, wherewith to feed us with the substance of the same glorious body that hath redeemed us. And because in the constitution of this mystery of the sacrament, there is a “transition” of the earthly creature into the divine substance, as Grela- sius and St Thomas term it, and “mutation,” as Cyprian and Ambrose teach it, which Theophy- lactus expresseth by the word “ transelementation,” Emissene by the word “ conversion,’ and all their words reduced into their own proper sense expressed in one word of “transubstantiation:” it cannot be convenient, where the manner of constitution of the two mysteries be so different, there to require a like remaining of the two natures whereof the mysteries be. In the mystery of Christs person, because there was not of any of the two different natures either mutation, transition, conversion, or transelementation, but only assumption of the humanity, and aduna- tion in the virgin’s womb, we cannot say the Godhead to have suffered in that mystery, which were an absurdity, but to have wrought the assumption and adunation of man’s nature with it, nor man’s nature by that assumption and adumation diminished; and therefore profess truly Christ to be whole God and whole man, and God in that mystery to be made man, and man God; whereas in the sacrament, because of transition, mutation, and conversion of their earthly creatures, wrought by the Holy Ghost, which declareth those earthly creatures to suffer in this conversion, mutation, and transition, we knowledge no assumption of those creatures or aduna- tion with the heavenly nature, and therefore say not, as we do in the principal mystery, that cach nature is wholly the other; and as we profess God incarnate, so the body of Christ breaded; and as man is deitate, so the bread is corporate; which we should say, if the rules of our faith could permit the constitution of each mystery to be taught alike, which the truth of God's word doth not suffer. Wherefore, although Gelasius and other argue from the sacrament to declare the mystery of Christ's person, yet we may not press the argument to destroy or confound the property of each mystery, and so violate the rules of our faith; and in the authors not press the words otherwise than they may agree with the catholic teaching, as those did in the words of Cyril, when he spake of “nature? and “subsistence,” whereof I made mention before, to be remembered here in Gelasius, that we press not the word “ substance’ and “nature” in him, but as may agree with the “transition” he speaketh of, by which word other express “transubstan- tiation.” And against the Eutychians, for to improve their confusion, it sufficeth to shew two different natures to be in the sacrament, and to remain in their property, and the divine nature not to confound the earthly nature, nor as it were to swallow it, which was the dream of the Eutychians. And we must forbear to press all parts of the example in the other argument, Srom the person of man being one of the body® and soul, which the church doth profess in [' Of presence, 1551.] [* The adunation of those two natures, and of {* After property, Orig. ed. Winch.] two perfect natures, ]551.] [? See Bibliotheca Patrum, Tom. VI. Pars ii. [> Of body, Orig. ed. Winch.] p. 212. Colon, 1618. ] 4 AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 293 Symbolo Athanasii, of all received. For Christ is one person of two perfect natures, whereof the one was before the other in perfection and creation of the other ; the one impassible, and the other passible: man is of the soul and body one, two different natures, but such as for their perfection required that unity, whereof none was before other perfect. Of Christ we say, he is consubstantial to his Father by the substance of his Godhead, and consubstantial to man by the substance of his manhood: but we may not say, “man is consubstantial by his soul to angels, and consubstantial in his body to beasts ;” because then we should deduce also Christ by mean of us to be consubstantial to beasts. And thus I write to shew, that we may not press the example in every part of it, as the author of this book noteth upon Gelasius, who overturneth his doctrine of the figure. CANTERBURY. I pity you, to see how ye swink” and sweat to confound this author Gelasius. And yet his words be so plain against your papistical transubstantiation, that you have clearly lost all your pains, labours, and costs. For these be his words spoken of the sacrament: Hsse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini ; “The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to be.” But to avoid and dally away these words that be so clear and plain, must needs be laid on load of words, the wit must be stretched out to the utmost, all fetches must be brought in that can be devised, all colours of rhetoric must be sought out, all the air must be cast over with clouds, all the water darkened with the cuttle’s ink ; and if it could be, at the least as much as may be, all men’s eyes also must be put out, that they should not see. But I would wish that you stood not so much in your own conceit, trusted not so much in your inventions and device of wit, in eloquence, and in craftiness of speech, and multitude of words, looking that no man should dare encounter you, but that all men should think you speak well because you speak much; and that you should be had in great reputation among the multitude of them that be ignorant, and cannot discern perfectly those that follow the right way of truth from other that would lead them out of the way into error and blind- ness. This standing in your conceit is nothing else but to stand in your own light. But where you say that these heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches were ‘not so gross as I report,” that the one should say, that “Christ was a perfect man, but not God;” and the other should say clean contrary, that “he was very God, but not man:” of the grossness of these two heresies I will not much contend. For it might be that they were of some misreported, as they were indeed if credit be to be given to divers ancient histories; but this I dare say, that there be divers authors that report of them as I do write, and consequently you grant the same in effect. For you report of the Eutychians, that they did perniciously say, that there was but povopvors, “one nature in Christ:” and of the Nestorians you say, that “they denied Christ to be conceived God or born God, but only man,” and then could not he be naturally God, but only man. And therefore neither by ignorance nor of pur- pose do I report them otherwise than you confess yourself, and than I have learned of other that were before my time. For St Augustine in the place which you do cite of him, hath these words of Nestorius, Dogmatizare ausus est, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum hominem tantum; “he presumed to teach,” saith St Augustine, “that our Lord Jesus Christ was but man only.” And of Eutyches he saith, Hu- manitatis in Christo denegavit veritatem ; “he denied the truth of Christ’s manhood’.” And Gelasius writeth also thus: Hutychiani dicunt unam esse naturam, id est divinam ; ac Nestorius nihilominus memorat singularem: “The Eutychians say, that there is but one nature in Christ, that is to say, the Godhead: and also Nestorius saith, there is but one nature,” meaning the manhood. By which words of St Augustine and Gelasius appeareth, as plainly as can be spoken, the plain contradiction between the Nestorians and the Eutychians, that the one denied the humanity of Christ, and the other his divinity, as I have written in my book; so that neither of ignorance nor of purpose have I feigned any thing: but you, either of malice, or of your accustomed manner to calumniate and find fault with every thing that misliketh you, be it never so well, seek [° Swink, i.e. labour.] as spurious. Augustine, they say, died a.p. 430, the [7 August. Appendix Trium Heresiumadlib.de | Council of Ephesus was held, a. p. 431 to depose heresibus. Tom. V1. p- 15. Ed. Paris. 1636. This Nestorius, and Hutyches was condemned by that of appendix is considered by the Benedictine editors Chalcedon, a,b. 451. Ed. Bened. Tom. VIII, p. 28. ] 312. August. con- tra Heereses. Gelasius adversus Eutychen et Nestorium. 313. Gelasius writeth as well against Nestorius as Eutyches. Alius. Aliud. 314. 294 THE SECOND BOOK. occasion likewise here to carp and reprehend where no fault is; being like unto Momus, which, when he could find no fault with Venus’ person, yet he picked a quarrel to her slipper. And not in this place only, but throughout your whole book, you use this fashion, that when you cannot answer to the principal matter, then you find fault with some bye-matter, whereby it seemeth you intend so to occupy the reader's mind, that he should not see how craftily you convey yourself from direct answering of the chief point of the argument; which when you come unto, you pass it over slenderly, answering either nothing, or very little, and nothing to the purpose. But yet this bye-matter, which you bring in of the grossness of these two errors, helpeth little your intent, but rather helpeth to fortify my saying against your doctrine of transubstantiation, that your doctrine herein maketh a plain way for the Nestorians and the Eutychians to defend their errors. For if the bread and the body of Christ before the consecration in the sacrament be two natures, and after the consecration in that mystery is but one nature, and that is the body of Christ, into which the nature of bread in your phantasy is transformed and confounded; and if also this mystery be an example of the mystery of Christ’s incarnation, as the old authors report, why may not then the Eutychians say, that before the adunation in the virgin’s womb the Godhead and manhood were two natures, and yet after the adunation in that mystery of Christ’s incarnation there was but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the nature of man was after their phantasy transfused and con- founded? And thus have you made by your transubstantiation a goodly pattern and example for the Eutychians to follow in maintenance of their error. And yet, although the Eutychians said that “the nature of God and of man before their uniting were two,” yet I read not that they said, that they were two in the virgin’s womb, as you report of them; which is no great matter, but to declare how ignorant you be in the thing whereof you make so great boast, or how little you regard the truth, that wittingly will tell an untruth. But to say my mind frankly, what I think of your declaration of these two heresies, I think a great part thereof you dreamed in your sleep, or imagined, being in some trance, or rapt with some sophistical vision; and part of your dream agreeth neither with approved authors and histories, nor with itself. For first, as touching the Eutychians, where you say that Gelasius “directeth his arguments of the two natures in man, and of the two natures in the sacrament, chiefly against the Eutychians, to prove the nature of man to remain in Christ after the adunation ;’ whosoever readeth Gelasius shall find other- wise, that he directed his arguments indifferently, as well against Nestorius, as against Eutyches, and no more against the one than against the other. Nor no more did the Eutychians abhor alius and alius, although some gathered so of their words, than did the Nestorians; which words signify ‘diversity of person,” as aliud and aliud signify “diversity of nature:” so as the body and soul in one man be aliud and aliud by reason of diversity of natures, and yet be they not alius and alius, because that both together make but one person. By means of which difference between alius and aliud, we say, Alius Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus Sanctus, and not aliud Pater, aliud Filius, aliud Spiritus Sanctus, forasmuch as they be three in persons, and but one in nature and substance. And because Christ is two in nature, that is to say, of his Deity and humanity, and but one in person; therefore we say, aliud et aliud est divinitas et humanitas, but not alius, sed unus est Christus. And although Nestorius granted two natures in Christ, yet not, as you say, from his nativity, nor by adunation, but by cohabitation or inhabitation, so that he made but one Christ, (although some otherwise take him,) and not aliwm et alium: after which sort the Godhead is also in other godly men, whom by grace he maketh partakers of his godly nature, although by their natural generation they be but men, without the divine nature united in person, but after obtained by adoption and grace: as, by your example, a man is made bishop, which by natural generation is born but a man. And that this was Nestorius’ opinion, that Christ from his nativity was but man only, and had his Godhead after by adoption or accession, is evident of your own words, when you say, “that the Nestorians denied Christ conceived God, or born God, and that the Godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merit, and that he was conceived but only man,” although shortly after you go from the same, saying, a AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 295 that “both the Godhead and manhood were always in Christ :”’ such constancy is in your dreamed phantasies. And where you have written thus much, as you say, because it should appear that Gelasius, by his arguments of the sacrament, and of the two natures of man, went about to prove that the Godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation; you might have bestowed your time better than to have lost so much labour, to impugn the truth. For although neither Nestorius nor Eutyches denied the Godhead of Christ to remain, yet Gelasius went not about only to confute them, but also to set out plainly the true catholic faith, that Christ being incarnated was perfect God and perfect man, and how that might be, both the said natures and substances remaining with all their natural proprieties and conditions, without transubstantiation, abolition, or confusion of any of the two natures. And this he declareth as well by the example of the sacrament, as of the body and soul of man. Wherefore, as true as it is that the body and sonl of man, and Godhead and manhood of Christ, remain in their proper substances, natures, and properties, without transubstantiation or perishing of any of them, so must it be in the sacrament. And in the said heresies, as you say, was some appearance of the truth, every one having scripture, which in sound of words seemed to approve their errors, whereby they deceived many. But as for your feigned doctrine of transubstantiation, it hath no pretence nor appearance of truth by God’s word; for you have not one scripture that maketh mention thereof, whereas I have many plain and manifest scriptures, that speaketh in plain terms, that bread is eaten and wine is drunken. And this author Gelasius, with divers other learned men, as well Greeks as Latins, of the old catholic church, affirm in no doubtful words that the bread and wine be not gone, but remain still. From which scriptures and doctors whosoever dissenteth, declareth himself at the least to be ignorant, whereby yet he may excuse himself of a greater blot and infamy. And this matter being so clear, neither your fine disguising, nor your painted colours, nor your gay rhetoric, nor witty inventions, can so hide and cover the truth that it shall not appear; but the more you labour to strive against the stream, the more faint shall you wax, and at length the truth hath such a violence, that you shall be borne clean down with the stream thereof. In the end you compare Nestorius and Cyril together, alluding, as it seemeth, to this contention between you and me; which comparison, if it be throughly con- sidered, hath no small resemblance, although there be no little diversity also. Nestorius, say you, was a great archbishop; and so, say I, was Cyril also. Nestorius, say you, as appeareth, “‘ had much learning, but cloked his heresy craftily.” But the histories of his time, who should know him best, describe him in this sort, that he was a man of no great learning, but of an excellent natural wit and eloquence, and full of craft and subtilty, by means whereof he was so proud and glorious, that he contemned all men in respect of himself, and disdained the old writers, thinking himself more wise than they all. Now let the indifferent reader judge, whom he thinketh in this your allusion should most resemble the qualities and conditions of Nestorius. And all this that you have brought in here of these two heresies, although it be to no purpose in the principal matter, yet it serveth me to this purpose, that men may conjecture whose nature and wit is most like unto the description of Nestorius, and also how loth you be to come to the matter, and to make a direct answer to Gelasius’ words, who saith in plain terms, “that the substance or nature of bread and wine remaineth.” Even as glad you be to come to this as a bear is to come to the stake, seeking to run out at this corner or that corner, if it were possible. But all will not help; for you be so fast tied in chains, that, will you, nill you, at length you must come to the stake, although you be never so loth. And Gelasius biteth so sore and hath catched so hard hold of you, that you can never escape, although you attempt all manner of ways, by tooth and by nail, to shake him off. First, you would shake him off by this pretence, that he useth his two arguments, of the two examples of man and the sacrament, against the Eutychians only. But Gelasius will not so easily leave his hold. For he speaketh indifferently as well against the Nestorians as the Eutychians, declaring by these two examples, how two different natures may remain in Christ, and that the integrity of Christ cannot be. except both 315. A compari- son of Nes- torius and Cyril. 316. ® Presence by faith requireth no corporal pre- sence. Gal. iii. John viii. 1 Cor. x. 296 THE SECOND BOOK. the different natures remain in their properties; which condemneth both the foresaid heresies, that affirmed but one nature to be in Christ, the Eutychians his divinity, and the Nestorians his humanity. And yet, if he had used these examples against the Kutychians only, they bite you as sore as if they were used against them both. For if he conclude by these two examples against the Eutychians, as you say he doth, that the integrity of Christ cannot be, but both natures different, that is to say, his man- hood and Godhead, must remain in their property, then must it needs be so in the examples also. And then as Christ had in him two natures with their natural pro- perties, neither perishing, but both remaining; and as man hath in him two natures, the soul and the body, both remaining still, so must in the sacrament also the nature of bread and wine remain without transubstantiation, or corruption of any of the natures, according to the said words of Gelasius: Hsse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vint; “The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to be.” And Gelasius bringeth not this image and similitude to that purpose that you would draw it, that is to say, to express the manner of Christ’s presence in the sacrament, but to express the manner of two natures in Christ, that they both so remain that neither is corrupted or transubstantiated, no more than the bread and wine be in the sacrament. And by this all men may see, that Gelasius hath fastened his teeth so surely, that you cannot so lightly cast him off with a shake of your chain. And if he meant to express the manner of Christ’s presence in the sacrament, as you feign he doth, that the manner is only by faith, whereof he speaketh not one word, yet are you nothing at liberty thereby, but held much more faster than you were before. For Gelasius speaketh of the action of the mystery, and Christ’s flesh and blood be present in the action of the mystery only by faith, therefore can they not be present in the bread or wine reserved, which have no faith at all. And presence by faith only requireth no real, material, and corporal presence. For by faith is Christ present in baptism, and by faith Abraham saw him, and the holy fathers did eat his flesh and drink his blood before he was born. And Christ, humbling himself to take upon him our mortal nature, hath exalted us to the nature of his deity, making us to reign with him in his immortal glory, as it were gods. And this, saith Gelasius, God worketh in us by his sacraments, per que divine efficimur consortes nature, et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini: that is to say, “By the sacrament of Christ's body and blood we be associate unto the divine nature, and yet ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine to be.” So that the sacrament not being altered in substance, we be altered and go into the divine nature or sub- stance, as Gelasius termeth it, being made partakers of God’s eternity. And therefore when he speaketh of the going of the sacraments into the divine substance, he meaneth not that the substances of the sacraments go into the substance of God, (which no creature can do,) but that in the action of that mystery, to them that worthily receive the sacraments, to them they be turned into divine substance through the working of the Holy Ghost, who maketh the godly receivers to be the partakers of the divine nature and substance. And that this was the intent and meaning of Gelasius, appeareth by two notable sentences of him, whereof one is this. “Surely,” saith he, “the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ is cele- brate in the action of the mystery.” The other is, that “by the sacrament we be made partakers of the godly nature.” He saith not, that the sacraments be, but that we be made partakers of the nature of Christ’s Godhead. And if he should mean, as you have most untruly altered both his words and sense at your pleasure, not that the godly receivers, but that the substance of bread and wine, should go into the divine substance ; then were not they changed into his humanity, but into his deity, and so were the bread and wine deified, or at the least made partakers of the divine nature and immortality. But forasmuch as Gelasius saith, that the two natures in Christ remain, in like case as the natures of the sacraments remain, (for he maketh his argu- ment altogether of the remaining of the natures, by the verb permanere, and the par- ticiple permanens,) then, as you say that the integrity of Christ cannot be, except both his natures different remain in their properties, so cannot the integrity of the sacrament be, except the two natures of bread and wine remain in their properties. For else, seeing that the remaining of the natures is in the sacrament as it is in Christ, AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 297 as Gelasius saith, then if in the sacraments remain but the accidents and appear- ance of bread and wine, and not the substances of them, how could Gelasius by the resemblance of the two sacraments of bread and wine, prove the two substances and natures of Christ to remain? Might it not rather be gathered, that only the appearance of Christ’s humanity remaineth in accidents, and not the substance of itself, as Marcion saith, and as you say it is in the sacrament; or else, that Christ’s humanity is absorbed up by his divinity, and confounded therewith, as the Eutychians say, Land as you say" ] that the bread and wine is by the body and blood of Christ? But the catholic faith hath taught from the beginning, according to holy scripture, that as the image or sacrament be two diverse natures and different, remaining in their properties, that is to say, bread and wine, so likewise in the person of Christ remain two natures, his divinity and his humanity. And I pray you, what danger is it to say, that Christ’s body is in the sacramental bread, but as in a figure? should that imply, that his body is in his person, but as in a figure? That should be even as good an argument as this: Christ was in the brasen serpent, but in a figure; ergo he is now in heaven but in a figure. For the form of argumentation is all one in the one and the other. And if Christ be in us by virtue and efficacy, although in the sacraments representing the same (as Gelasius saith) he be but sacramentally, figuratively, and significatively, what peril is it to us? And what ayaileth it us his being in the sacrament, and not in us ? And the two natures in the sacrament, which Gelasius taketh for the image and simi- litude of the two natures in Christ, be bread and wine, which as they remain, and that truly in their natures and substances, so do the two natures in Christ. And yet be the bread and wine sacraments of the terrestrial nature of Christ, that is to say, of his body and blood, but not of his celestial and divine nature, as you imagine. And they be called sacraments, because they be figures, which, if they were no figures, they were no sacra- ments. But it is not required, that the thing represented by the figure should be really and corporally present in the figure, when the figure is ordained to represent a thing corporally absent ; and the figure were in vain, as Lactantius saith, if the thing were present’. Lactantius, Institut. And at the least wise in this place Gelasius useth the natures and substances of Lib. ii. cap. 2. bread and wine, which be sacraments of Christ’s flesh and blood, to be images and similitudes in this point, not of his flesh and blood, but of his divine and human nature; that as the bread and wine in the sacrament remain still in their proper kinds, without violation, annihilation, confusion, commixtion, or transubstantiation, so is it in the two natures of Christ's manhood and his Godhead. So that Gelasius useth this similitude for the incarnation of Christ, not for the consecration of the sacrament, as you would pervert his meaning. And because you would have all your things strange, (as it were one that had come out of a strange country, where he had learned a strange fashion of speech never heard of before, or rather devised it himself,) you call the colours of bread and wine the matter of bread and wine, because colours only be visible, after your teaching. And then must the natural properties of colours be, to signify our feeding spiritual by the body and blood of Christ, that as they feed us spiritually, so do the colours cor- porally. And then making the argument ab opposito consequentis ad oppositum ante- cedentis, as colours feed not our bodies, so Christ feedeth not our souls. This is the conclusion of your goodly new devised divinity. And to like effect cometh your other saying in the same sentence, because you were loth to commit but one horrible error in one sentence, that ‘“Gelasius calleth Christ’s body and blood his divine substance.” This is a goodly hearing for the Eutychians, who say, that “in Christ is no more natures but his divine substance,” which by your interpretation must be true. For if his Godhead be a divine substance, and his body and blood also a divine sub- stance, why should Eutyches be reprehended for denying in Christ to be any other than divine substance? And so shall we bring to pass, that cither Christ hath but one substance, or two divine substances, although not of like sort, and so not one human substance, And is it like, that Gelasius, who so long contended against Euty- ches for two distinct substances in Christ, human and divine, would in the conclusion [’ These words are found only in ed, 1551.] [° See p. 288. ] 3518. Substance or Nature. Nature for property. 319. 298 THE SECOND BOOK. of his disputation so much yield unto the heretic, to grant that Christ's human sub- stance should be a divine substance ? And it is worthy to be noted, and double noted, how you wrangle with the words of Gelasius, and wrest them clean out of tune. For where Gelasius saith, that “there remaineth the substance or nature of bread and wine,” to declare thereby the remain- ing of two natures in Christ, you say, that ‘“Gelasius’ saying may be verified in the last, and not in the first,” that is to say, that the nature of bread and wine remain- eth. ‘And nature,” say you, “is there taken for the properties, which you call acci- dents.” And so you make Gelasius a goodly teacher, that should so ambiguously speak of two things, when he meaneth but of one. For when he saith, that “the substance or nature remaineth,” you say, “he meaneth that only the nature remaineth.” And were this tolerable in a learned man, when he meaneth the nature to remain and not the substance, to express it by these terms, The substance or nature remaineth ? And if Gelasius mean that the substance of bread and wine remaineth not, but the natures, and then if by nature he understood the accidents, as you untruly surmise of him, and make them the image and similitude to prove Christ’s two natures; then they prove no more, but that the accidents of Christ’s natures remain, and not the substance: which saying, whether it be a favouring of the Eutychians, Nestorians, Va- lentinians, Marcionists, Apollinarists, and other of that sort, let the learned be judge. And although “it be not necessary the examples to be in all parts equal,” as you ulege of Rusticus Diaconus, yet they must needs be like in the point wherefore they were taken to be examples, for else they were none examples. And therefore, seemg that the bread and wine were of Gelasius brought for examples of Christ’s two natures, for this intent, to prove that the two natures of Christ remain in their substance, it must needs be so in the bread and wine, or else they served nothing to that purpose. And the transition that Gelasius meant of, is in the persons that receive the sacraments, which be transformed into the divine nature, as Gelasius saith, “by efficacy and virtue represented by the sacraments ;” but the transition is not in the bread and wine, as you and your Thomas imagine of transition, which remain in the sacrament without substantial mutation, conversion, transition, transelementation, or transubstan- tiation. For if in the mystery of the sacrament were transition, mutation, conversion, and transelementation of the substance of bread and wine, how could that mystery be an example of the principal mystery of Christ’s incarnation, to prove thereby that there is no transition, mutation, conversion, or transelementation of the two substances of Christ in his incarnation? Doth not the remaining of substance in the sacrament prove the remaining of substance in the incarnation? For how can the not remain- ing of substance be an example, image, and similitude to prove the remaining of the substance? But here appeareth what it is to wrestle against the truth, and to defend an evil cause, and what absurdities wit and eloquence be driven unto, when they strive against God and his word. And where you think yourself over sore pressed with this argument and similitude of bread and wine to the two natures in Christ, I must needs press the argument and words so far, as pertaineth to the remaining of the natures and substance ; for to that end was the image and similitude brought in by Gelasius. And then by argu- ment from the cause, wherefore the resemblance was made, if the substance and nature of the bread and wine remain not in the sacrament, it followeth that the two natures and substance of Christ remain not in his person, which is no sound teaching: where- fore, to make the argument agree with the catholic teaching, we must needs say, that as in the person of Christ remain the two natures and substance of his God- head and manhood, so in the sacrament remain the natures and substances of bread and wine, that the comparisons may agree with themselves and with the catholic faith. Like as it is also in the other example of the body and soul, which two natures must needs remain in the person of man, without transubstantiation of any nature, if they shall resemble the remaining of the two natures in Christ. And how do the two natures in the sacrament remain in their property, I pray you declare, if the nature of bread and wine be gone? And how doth not the divine nature swal- low up the earthly nature, if the nature of bread and wine be so turned into the divine nature, that it remaineth not, but is clearly extinct? AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 299 If you may purge yourself in handling of this author by confession of your igno- rance, you must obtain it by great favour of them that will so accept it. For else in this one author is affirmed by you many great errors, with wilful depravation of the author’s mind, to give weapons to them that be enemies to the truth, and to the subversion of the catholic faith. And no less have you done in Theodoretus next following, because you would handle them both indifferently, and do no more injury to the one than to the other. And as for Cyprian, Ambrose, Theophylact, and Emissene, I have answered to them before. It is time now to hear Theodorete. Theodoretus also affirmeth the same both in his first and in his second dia- logue. In the first he saith thus: “He that called his natural body wheat and bread, and also called himself a vine, the self-same called bread and wine his body and blood, and yet changed not their natures!” And in his second Beloore he saith more plainly. “For,” saith he, “as the bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature, but keep their former substance, form, and figtre which they had before, even so the body of Christ, after his ascension, was changed into the godly substance*.’ Now let the papists choose which of these two they will grant, (for one of them they must needs grant,) either that the nature and substance of bread and wine remain still in the sacrament after the consecration, and then must they recant their doctrine of transubstantiation, or else that they be of the error of Nestorius and other, which did say, that the nature of the Godhead or of the manhood remained not in Christ after his incarnation or ascension’, For all these old authors agree, that it is in the one, as it is in the other. WINCHESTER. And if that I have here said be well considered, there may appear the great ignorance of this author in the alleging of Theodorete, the applying of him, and the speaking of Nestorius in the end. For as the Eutychians’ reasoning, as St Augustine saith, to confound the Nestorians, fell into an absurdity in the confusion of the two natures in Christ: so Theodoretus, reasoning against the Eutychians, fell in a vehement suspicion to be a Nestorian; like as St Augustine, reasoning against the Manichees for defence of free-will, seemed to speak that the Pelagians would allow; and reasoning against Pelagians, seemed to say that the Manichees would allow: such a danger it is to reduce extremities to the mean, wherein St Augustine was better purged than Theodorete was, although Theodorete was reconciled. But for example of that I have said, this argument of Theodoretus against the Eutychians, to avoid confusion of natures in Christ, sheweth how in the sacrament, where the truth of the mystery of the two natures in Christ may be as it were in similitude learned, the presence of the body of Christ there in the sacrament doth not alter the nature, that is to say, the property of the visible creatures. This saying was that the Nesto- rians would draw for their purpose to prove distinct persons, against whom Cyril travailed to shew that in the sacrament the flesh of Christ, that was given to be eaten, was given, not as the flesh of a common man, but as the flesh of God; whereby appeared the unity of the Godhead to the manhood in Christ in one person, and yet no confusion, as Theodoretus doth by his argument declare. But whether the printer’s negligence, or this author's oversight, hath confounded or confused this matter in the uttering of it, I cannot tell. For the author of this book concludeth solemnly thus by induction of the premises, that “even so the body of Christ was after the ascension changed into the godly substance.” I ween the printer left out a “not,” and should have said, “not changed into the godly substance ;” for so the sense should be, as Peter Martyr reporteth Theodorete. Le Se Cet ae Fi ¥ . ie [? ‘O yap 6 70 Puree copa otrov Kal dprov Kal TPOTkKUVEITAL, WS EKELVA OVTA dTEP TLaTEVETAL, wpooayopetoas, kal al md\w éautoy dutredov dvo- padcas, ovTOS Ta bpwueva cipBora TH TOU owpmaros Kai alwatos mpoonyopia Teriunker, ob TH iow peraBahwv, aKa tiv Xdpw 7H pbcer mpoareber- xs. Theod. Dial. i. Tom. IV. p. 26.— Ed. Hale. 1769—94. | [? Oise yap peta tOv dytacpdy ta huaoTiKa cipBoda THs oikelas €EictraTat pucaws. peeve yap érl tis mpotépas oboias, Kal TOU oXripaTos, Kal Tou cidous, Kal Opatd éort Kai dnd, ota Kal Tpd- TEpov Hv" vocita dé wep éyévero, Kai MLoTEbETAL Tapabes Toivuy TH apxXeTUTH TiV ElKOVa, Kal ber Ti OMoLOTHTa. xpi) yap éokévar TH ayPeia Tdv Timo. Kal yap éxeivo TO GHpa TO Mev TpPdTEpoV eldos Exel, Kai oXHMA, Kal TEpLypadyy, Kal amat- at)@s elmeiv THY TOU cwuaTos Ociav’ abavaron Oé HeTa THY dvacTacL yéyove, Kal KpettTov PUopas, kal ris éx deE ay 1jEwwby Kabédpas, Kai mapa raons Tpockuvettat THs KTicEws, ATE O)]) CHa YpnpaTt- Cov Tov deorrortou THs picews.—lb. Dial. ii. IV. p. 126.] [* Orig. ed. omits the words, “ or ascension.”’] Tom. 320. Theodoretus in Dialogis. Theodorete. 321. 300 THE SECOND BOOK. And yet the triumph this author maketh against them he calleth for his pleasure papists, with his Sorked dilemma, maketh me doubt whether he wist what he said or no; because he bringeth in Nestorius so out of purpose, saying the papists must either grant the substance of bread and wine to remain, “or else to be of Nestorius’ heresy, that the nature of Godhead remained not.” This author of the book, for the name of Nestorius, should have put Eutyches, and then said Jor conclusion, the nature of manhood remained not in Christ. And although in Theodorete the substance of bread is spoken of to remain, yet because he doth after expound himself to speak of that is seen and felt, he seemeth to speak of substance after the common capacity, and not as it is truly in learning understanded, an inward, invisible, and not palpable nature, but only perceived by understanding ; so as this outward nature that Theodorete speaketh of, may according to his words truly remain, notwithstanding transubstantiation. This author declareth plainly his ignorance, not to perceive whither the argument of Theodorete and Glelasius tendeth, which is properly against the Eutychians rather than the Nestorians. For, and no propriety of bread remain, it proveth not the Godhead in Christ not to remain, but the humanity only to be as it were swallowed up of the divinity, which the Eutychians intended, and specially after Christ's resurrection, against whom the argument by Theodorete is specially brought, howsoever this author confoundeth the Nestorians’ and Eutychians’ names and taketh one for another, which in so high a matter is no small fault, and yet no great fault among so many other huger and greater, as be in this book commutted. CANTERBURY. If that which you have said to Gelasius be well considered and conferred with this in Theodorete, it seemeth by your process in both, that you know not what confusion Confusion of of natures is. And then your ignorance therein must needs declare that you be utterly natures, if tS ignorant of all their whole discourse, which tendeth only to prove that the two natures in Christ, his divinity and his humanity, be not confounded. And for ignorance of confusion, you confound all together. Gelasius and Theodorete prove, that the two natures in Christ be not confounded, because they remain both in their own sub- stances and properties, so that the remaining declareth no confusion, which should be confounded if they remained not. If a drop of milk be put into a pot of wine, by and by it loseth the first nature and substance, and is confounded with the nature and substance of wine. And if wine and milk be put together in equal quantity, then both be confounded, because neither remaineth, neither perfect wine with his sub- stance and natural proprieties, nor perfect milk with the substance and proprieties of milk; but a confusion, an humble-jumble or hotch-potch, a posset or syllabub is made of them both together, like as in man’s body the four elements be confounded to the constitution of the same, not one of the elements remaining in his proper substance, form, and pure natural qualities. So that if one nature remain not, the same is confounded. And if there be more natures that lose their substance, they be all confounded, except there be an utter consumption or annihilation of the thing that loseth his substance. And therefore the argument, which all the old ecclesiastical authors use, to save the confusion of the two natures in Christ, is to prove, that they both remain. And if we may learn that by the similitude of the sacrament, as Gelasius and Theodorete teach, and you here confess the same, then must needs the substance of bread and wine remain, or else is there none example nor similitude of the remaining of two natures in Christ, but of their confusion ; as by your feigned doctrine the substance of bread is confounded with the body of Christ, neither being annihilate, nor remaining, but transubstantiated, confounded, and converted into the substance of Christ’s body. And thus with your well understanding of the matter, you confound all together; whereas I with my ignorance, not blaspheming that holy union and mystery of Christ’s incarnation, do save all the natures whole, without mixtion, confusion, or transubstantiation, either of the divine and human nature in Christ, or of the soul and body in man, or of the bread and\ wine in the sacrament; but all the substance and natures be saved and remain cle. rly with their natural properties and conditions, that the proportion in that point may be like, and one to be the true image and similitude of the other. But surely more gross ignorance or wilful impiety than you have shewed in this matter, hath not lightly been seen or read of. And where you say, that “I by oversight, or the printer by negligence, have left AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 301 out a ‘not’,” if I should have put in that “not” of mine own head, contrary to the original in Greek’, and to all the translators in Latin, and the translation of master Peter Martyr also, I should have been as far overseen as you be, which as it seemeth of purpose confound and corrupt, you care not whether any author's words, or their meaning. And as for my “forked dilemma,” you shall never be able to answer thereto; but the more you travail therein, the more you shall entangle yourself. For either you must grant, as unwilling as you be, that the nature and substance of bread and wine remain after the consecration, or else that the nature and substance of Christ’s humanity and divinity remain not after his incarnation ; wherein erred not only Eutyches, whom you say I should have put for Nestorius, but also Marcion, Ebion, Valentinus, Nesto- rius, and other, as in my book I have declared. And one thing is principally to be noted in your answer to Theodorete, how you can sophisticate and falsify all men’s sayings, be they never so plain. For where be- tween me and the papists the matter here in contention is this, Whether the bread and wine remain in their proper nature and substance or no; I saying that they re- main, and the papists saying that they remain not, the issue being in this point, whether they remain, or remain not; I bring for me Chrysostom, who saith, “the nature of bread remaineth’:” I bring Gelasius, who saith, that “there ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine’:” I bring this Theodorete, whose words be these: “ The bread and wine after consecration lose not their proper nature, but keep their former substances, form, and figure*.”. Now how can any man devise to speak the truth in more plain words than these be? For they say the very same words that I say. And yet because the truth is not liked, here must be devised a crafty lawyer’s gloss, of them that never sought other but to calumniate the truth, and must be said, against all learning, reason, and speech, that substance is taken for the visible and palpable qualities or accidents. Well, yet then you confess that those old ancient authors agree with me in words, and say as I do, that the bread and wine be not transubstantiated, but remain in their former substance. And then the issue plainly passeth with me by the testimony of these three witnesses, until such time as you can prove that these authors spake one thing, and meant another, and that qualities and accidents be sub- stances. And if you understood whereunto the argument of Theodorete and Gelasius tendeth, you would not say that they spake against the Kutychians, any more than they do against the Nestorians. or if the bread and wine remain not, as you say, but be swallowed up of the body and blood of Christ, then likewise in the principal mys- tery either the deity must be swallowed up of the humanity, or the humanity of the deity. The contrary whereof is not only against the Eutychians, but also against the Nestorians, Marcionists, and all other that denied any of his two natures to remain perfectly in Christ. And whereas you, with all the rout of the papists, both privately and openly report me to be unlearned and ignorant, because you would thereby impair my credit in this weighty matter of our faith, my knowledge is not any whit the less, because the papists say it is nothing, nor yours any deal the more, because the papists do say, that you only be learned, whom, for any thing that ever I could perceive in you, I have found more full of words and talk than of learning. And yet the note of igno- rance I nothing pass of, if thereby the truth and God’s glory should not be hindered. Now after the reproof of your doctrine of transubstantiation by all the old writers of Christ’s church, I write in my book after this manner. Now forasmuch as it is proved sufficiently, as well by the holy scripture, as by natural operation, by natural reason, by all our senses, and by the most old and best learned authors, and holy martyrs of Christ’s church, that the substance of bread and wine do remain, and be received of faithful people in the blessed sacrament, or supper of the Lord; it is a thing worthy to be considered and [’ Vid. p. 299. In the original text of the passage | transmutatum. Loci Communes, Class. rv. cap. 10. here referred to there isno negative. Peter Martyr’s | Genev. 1623. p- 603. ] translation of the sentence is : Sic et corpus domini- [? Vid. p. 274.] [? Vid. p. 289.] cum post assumptionem in divinam est substantiam [* Vid. p. 299.] Not. 323, Chap. vi. Transubstan- tiation came from Rome. Scotus, super 4. Sen. Dis- tinct. xi. Gabriel, *super Cano- nem Missa, Lect. 40. 324. Chap. vit. (Vid. Embd. ed. in fine tomi hujus.] Chap. vir. The first reason of the papists to prove their transub- stantiation. 302 THE SECOND BOOK. well weighed, what moved the school authors of late years to defend the con- trary opinion, not only so far from all experience of our senses, and so far from all reason, but also clean contrary to the old church of Christ and to God’s most holy word. Surely nothing moved them thereto so much, as did the yain faith which they had in the church and see of Rome. For Joannes Scotus, otherwise called Duns, the subtilest of all the school authors, entreating of this matter of transubstantiation, sheweth plainly the cause thereof. “For,” saith he, “the words of the scripture might be expounded more easily and more plainly without transubstantiation, but the church did choose this sense, which is more hard, being moved thereto, as it seemeth, chiefly because that of the sacraments men ought to hold as the holy church of Rome holdeth. But it holdeth, that bread is transubstantiate, or turned into the body, and wine into the blood, as it is shewed, de Summa Trinitate et Fide Ca- tholica. Firmiter credimus’.” And Gabriel also, who of all other wrote most largely upon the canon of the mass, saith thus: “It is to be noted, that although it be taught in the scripture, that the body of Christ is truly contained and received of christian people under the kinds of bread and wine, yet how the body of Christ is there, whether by conversion of any thing into it, or without conversion, the body is there with the bread, both the substance and accidents of bread remaining there still, it is not found expressed in the bible. Yet forasmuch as of the sacraments men must hold as the holy church of Rome holdeth, as it is written, de here- ticis, ad abolendam; and that church holdeth and hath determined, that the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood ; therefore is this opinion received of all them that be catholic, that the substance of bread remaineth not, but really and truly is turned, transubstantiated, and changed into the substance of the body of Christ®.” Thus you have heard the cause, wherefore this opinion of transubstantiation at this present is holden and defended among christian people, that is to say, because the church of Rome hath so determined, although the contrary, by the papists’ own confession, appear to be more easy, more true, and more according to the scripture. But because our English papists, who speak more grossly herein than the pope himself, affirming that the natural body of Christ is naturally im the bread and wine, cannot, nor dare not ground their faith concerning transubstantiation upon the church of Rome; which, although in name it be called most holy, yet indeed it is the most stinking dunghill of all wickedness that is under heaven, and the very synagogue of the devil, which whosoever followeth cannot but stumble, and fall into a pit full of errors: because, I say, the English papists dare not now stablish their faith upon that foundation of Rome, therefore they seek fig-leaves, that is to say, vain reasons, gathered of their own brains and authorities, wrested from the intent and mind of the authors, wherewith to cover and hide their shameful errors. Wherefore I thought it good somewhat to - travail herein, to take away those fig-leaves, that their shameful errors may plainly to every man appear. The greatest reason, and of most importance, and of such strength, as they think, or at the least as they pretend, that all the world cannot answer thereto, is this: “Our Saviour Christ, taking the bread, brake it, and gave it to his [} Joan. Duns Scot. Op. Lugd. 1639. in Lib. 1v. | at the end of this volume. ] Sentent. Dist. x1. Quast. 3. Tom. VIII. pp.616, | (2? Gabr. Biel. Canon. Missz Expos. Basil. 1515. 18,19. The original passages of Duns and Gabriel | Lect. x]. fol. 94. 2.] Biel will be found in p. 34 of Cranmer’s Latin book AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 303 disciples, saying, ‘This is my body.’ Now,” say they, “as soon as Christ had spoken these words, the bread was straightway altered and changed, and the substance thereof was converted into the substance of his precious body.” But what christian ears can patiently hear this doctrine, that Christ is every day made anew, and made of another substance than he was made of in his mother’s womb? For whereas at his incarnation he was made of the nature and substance of his blessed mother, now, by these papists’ opmion, he is made every day of the nature and substance of bread and wine, which, as they say, ‘“ be turned into the substance of his body and blood.” O what a marvellous meta- morphosis and abominable heresy is this, to say that Christ is daily made anew, and of a new matter! whereof it followeth necessarily, that they make us every day a new Christ, and not the same that was born of the virgin Mary, nor that was crucified upon the cross, [and that it was not the same Christ that was eaten in the supper, which was born and crucified, |* as it shall be plainly proved by these arguments following. First, thus: If Christ’s body that was crucified was not made of bread, but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread, as the papists say, then Christ’s body that was eaten [in the supper]? was not the same that was crucified. [For if they were all one body, then it must needs follow, that either Christ’s body that was eaten was not made of bread, or else that his body that was crucified was made of bread. |‘ And in like manner it followeth: If the body of Christ in the sacrament be made of the substance of bread and wine, and the same body was conceived in the virgin’s womb, then the body of Christ in the virgin’s womb was made of bread and wine. Or else turn the argument thus: The body of Christ in the virgin’s womb was not made of bread and wine; but this body of Christ in the sacrament is made of bread and wine: then this body of Christ is not the same that was conceived in the virgin’s womb. Another argument: Christ that was born in the virgin’s womb, as concerning his body, was made of none other substance but of the substance of his blessed mother: but Christ in the sacrament is made of another substance; and so it followeth, that he is another Christ. And so the antichrist of Rome, the chief author of all idolatry, would bring faithful christian people from the true worshipping of Christ that was made and born of the blessed virgin Mary, through the operation of the Holy Ghost, and suffered for us upon the cross, to worship another Christ made of bread and wine through the consecration’ of popish priests, which make themselves the makers of God. “For,” say they, “the priest by the words of consecration maketh that thing which is eaten and drunken in the Lord’s supper, and that,” say they, “is Christ himself both God and man;” and so they take upon them to make both God and man. But let all true worshippers worship one God, one Christ, once corporally made, of one only corporal substance, that is to say, of the blessed virgin Mary ; that once died, and rose once again, once ascended into heaven, and there sitteth [° The Orig. ed. omits the sentences within | made of bread. brackets. ] «< And moreover : If Christ’s body that was eaten [* This passage is in the 1551 and 1580 editions | at the last supper was the same that was crucified, only. The Orig. ed. has the following passages, | and Christ’s body that was eaten at the supper was not in either of the above editions : made of bread, as the papists feign, then Christ’s ; “And again: If Christ’s body that was cru- body that was crucified was made of bread.’’] cified was not made of bread, and Christ’s body that [° Of a popish priest. And thus the popish Was crucified was the same that was eaten at his last priests make themselves, Orig. ed.] Supper, theu Christ’s body that was eaten was not Matt. xxvi. ark xiv Luke xxii. The answer. The answer more di- rectly. 326. *Read Smith, fol. 91, &e. 304 THE SECOND BOOK. and shall sit at the right hand of his Father evermore; although spiritually he be every day amongst us, and whosoever come together in his name, he is in the midst among them. And he is the spiritual pasture and food of our souls, as meat and drink is of our bodies; which he signifieth unto us by the institution of his most holy supper in the bread and wine’, declaring that as the bread and wine corporally comfort and feed our bodies, so doth he with his flesh and blood spiritually comfort and feed our souls. And now may be easily answered the papists’ argument, whereof they do so much boast: for brag they never so much of their conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, yet that conversion is spiritual, and putteth not away the corporal presence of the material bread and wine. But forasmuch as the same is a most holy sacrament of our spiritual nourishment, which we have by the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, there must needs remain the sensible element, that is to say, bread and wine, without the which there can be no sacrament. As in our spiritual regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptism, if there be no water. For as baptism is no perfect sacrament of spiritual regene- ration, without there be as well the element of water, as the Holy Ghost, spiritually regenerating the person that is baptized, which is signified by the said water; even so the supper of the Lord can be no perfect sacrament of spiritual food, except there be as well bread and wine, as the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, spiritually feeding us, which by the said bread and wine is signified. And howsoever the body and blood of our Saviour Christ be there present, they may as well be present there with the substance of bread and wine, as with the accidents of the same, as the school authors do confess themselves, and it shall be well proved if the adversaries will deny it. Thus you see the strongest argument of the papists answered unto, and the chief founda- tion whereupon they build their error of transubstantiation utterly subverted and overthrown. WINCHESTER. Wherein this author not seeing how little he hath done, concludeth yet as constantly as though he had thrown all down afore him, intending to shew that the doctrine of transub- stantiation dependeth only of authority, (which is not so,) using the sayings of Duns and Ga- briel, as he reporteth them, for his purpose; because they, as he saith, boast themselves what they could do, if the determination of the council were not: and thus every idle speech may have estimation with this author against the received truth. And from this point of the mat- ter, the author of this book maketh a passage with a little sport at them he fancieth, or liketh to call so, English papists, by the way to enterprise, to answer all such as he supposeth rea- sons for transubstantiation and authorities also. First, he findeth himself mirth in devising (as he calleth them) the papists to say that Christ is made anew; which fancy, if it were so, is against the real presence as well as transub- stantiation. In which words because every wise reader may see how this author playeth, I will say no more but this: Christ is not made anew, nor made of the substance of bread, as of a matter; and that to be the catholic doctrine, this author, if he be right named, knoweth well enough, and yet spendeth two leaves in it. CANTERBURY. When I have proved most evidently, as well by the testimony of the scripture, as by the consent of the old authors of Christ’s church, both Greeks and Latins, from the beginning continually from time to time, that transubstantiation is ate God’s most holy word, against the old church of Christ, against all experience of our senses, against all reason, and against the doctrine of all ages, until the bishops of [! In bread and wine, 1551, and Orig. ed.] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 305 Rome devised the contrary; therefore I conclude that the said doctrine of transub- stantiation may justly be called the Romish or papistical doctrine. And where I have shewed further, that the chief pillars of the papistical doctrine, as Duns, Gabriel, Durand, with other do acknowledge, that if it had not been for the determination of the church of Rome, they would have thought otherwise, (which is a most certain argument that this doctrine of transubstantiation came from Rome, and therefore is worthily called a papistical doctrine ;) all this must be answered with these words, “‘as this author reporteth,” and “ Duns and Gabriel boast what they could do:” whereas neither Duns nor any of the other either brag or boast, but plainly and frankly declare what they think. And if I report them otherwise than they say, reprove me therefore, and tell me wherein. But these be but shifts to shake off the matter that you cannot answer unto. Therefore, until you have made me a more full and direct answer, I am more confirmed in my assertion, to call transubstantiation a papistical doctrine, than I was before. But here you put me in remembrance of an ignorant reader, whose scholar I was in Cambridge almost forty years passed, who, when he came to any hard chapter which he well understood not, he would find some pretty toy to shift it off, and to skip over unto another chapter, which he could better skill of. The same is a common practice of you throughout your whole book, that when anything in my book presseth you so sore that you cannot answer it, then finely with some merry jest or unseemly taunt you pass it over, and go to some other thing, that you persuade yourself you can better answer; which sleight you use here in two matters together: the one is where I prove the doctrine of transubstantiation to come from Rome; the other is that of your said doctrine of transubstantiation it followeth, that Christ every day 397, is made anew, and of a new matter. In which two matters you craftily slide away from mine arguments, and answer not to one of them. Wherefore I refer to the judgment of the indifferent reader, whether you ought not to be taken for convinced in these two points, until such time as you have made a full answer to my proofs and arguments. For where you say that “‘ Christ is not made of the substance of bread as of a matter,” this is but a slippery evasion. For if Christ be made of bread, either he is made of the matter of bread, or of the form thereof. “But the form,” say you, “remaineth, and is not turned into Christ’s body.” Therefore, if Christ be made of bread, you must needs grant that he is made of the matter of. bread. Now for the answer to the second reason of the papists my book hath thus. Another reason have they of like strength. If the bread should remain, Chap. 1x. | say they, then should follow many absurdities, and chiefly, that Christ hath argument for taken the nature of bread, as he took the nature of man, and so joined it to tiation. — his substance. And then, as we have God verily incarnate for our redemption, so should we have him impanate. Thou mayest consider, good reader, that the rest of their reasons be very the answer. weak and feeble, when these be the chief and strongest. Truth it is indeed, that Christ should have been impanate, if he had joined the bread unto his substance in unity of person, that is to say, if he had joined the bread unto him in such sort, that he had made the bread one person with himself. But foras- much as he is joined to the bread but sacramentally, there followeth no impa- nation thereof, no more than the Holy Ghost is inaquate, that is to say, made matt. iii. water, being sacramentally joined to the water in baptism. Nor he was not uke dit made a dove when he took upon him the form of a dove, to signify that he whom St John did baptize was very Christ. But rather of the error of the papists themselves, as one error draweth another after it, should follow the great absurdity which they speak upon, that is to say, that Christ should be impanate and invinate. For if Christ do use the bread in such wise, that he doth not adnihilate and make nothing of it, as the [.cRANMER. ] 20 328. John i. John xix. John i. Adnihila- tion. 306 THE SECOND BOOK. papists say, but maketh of it his own body, then is the bread joined to his body in a greater unity than is his humanity to his Godhead. For his Godhead is adjoinmed unto his humanity in unity of person, and not of nature. But our Saviour Christ, by their saying, adjoincth bread unto his body in unity both of nature and person: so that the bread and the body of Christ be but one thing both in nature and person. And so is there a more entire union between Christ and bread, than between his Godhead and manhood, or between his soul and his body. And thus these arguments of the papists return, like riveted nails, upon their own heads. WINCHESTER. The solution to the second reason is almost as fondly handled, alluding from impanation to inaquation, although it was never said in scripture, “ This water is the Holy Ghost,’ but im baptism to be water and the Holy Ghost also. And of the dove is not said, “ This is the Holy Ghost,’ but the Holy Ghost descended as in the resemblance of a dove. The substance of bread is not adnihilate, because God’s work is not adnihilation!, who giveth all being, and adnihilation is a defection of the creature from God; and yet Christ’s body is not augmented by the substance of bread, in which body it endeth by conversion, as in the better, without adnihilation, which is a changing by miracle. And when this author knoweth this, or should have known it, or hath forgotten it, he writeth like one that were ignorant, and had read nothing in the matter, as it were to make himself popular, to join himself in ignorance with the rude unlearned people. CANTERBURY. As for my solution to the second reason, it is able to stand against your confu- tation thereof, and to overthrow it quite. For no more is Christ in the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper, than the Holy Ghost is in the water of baptism: and therefore if the Holy Ghost be not inaquate, no more is Christ impanate. And when the scripture saith, ‘* Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Holy Ghost coming down ;” and also when St John said, “I saw the Holy Ghost come down like a dove:” did he see any thing but the dove? And yet that which he saw, the scripture there, as well by the voice of God, as by the words of St John, calleth the Holy Ghost. Where- fore the scripture calleth the dove the Holy Ghost. For the speech was as much to say as, “* This which I see come down, is the Holy Ghost :” and yet was that the dove, which he saw. And that the dove, which he saw, was the Holy Ghost, was as true a speech, as we, looking upon the bread which we see, do say, ‘‘This is the body of Christ.” And yet as that speech meaneth not that the Holy Ghost is made a dove, so this speech meaneth not that the body of Christ is impanate; no more than these words of Christ, spoken unto his mother Mary, and to St John, “Lo thy son,” and, ‘‘ Lo thy mother,’ mean not that John was made Christ, nor that Mary, his mother, was made John’s’ natural mother. But of your saying it followeth, that the bread is humanate or incarnate. For if these words of Christ, ‘This is my body,” mean as you say, that bread is made Christ’s flesh ; then, as Verbum caro factum est, “The Word was made flesh,” con- cludeth that Christ was incarnate; so Panis caro factus est, “the bread is made flesh,” concludeth that the bread is incarnate, seeing (as you say) it is not adnihilate. But of adnihilation you write so strangely, that it seemeth you have written what you dreamed in your sleep, rather than what you learned of any author catholic or infidel. For who ever heard that adnihilation could be wrought but by the only power of God? For the gentile philosophers write according to nature, that Sicut ex nihilo nihil fit, ita nihil in nihilum redigitur ; “As nothing can be made of nought, so nothing can be turned into nought :” so that as it is the work of God only to make of nought, so it can be but only his work also to turn things into nought. And what man, being neyer so rude or popular, having any discretion at all, would define adnihilation as you do, that “‘a defection of a creature from God” should be adnihilation {? No adnihilation, 1551. f2 Was made his natural mother, 1551.] L > L AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 307 and turning into nothing? For so should all the angels that fell from God be adni- hilate; and so should likewise all apostasy, and all other that by sin relinquish the army of God, and follow his adversary the devil, and all papists, that abandoning Christ (as Judas did) run to antichrist, to whom it were better to be adnihilate, or Matt. xxvi, never to be born, than eternally to remain in God’s indignation. Now followeth the last reason. Yet a third reason they have, which they gather out of the sixth of John, cnap. x. where Christ saith: “I am lively bread, which came from heaven: if any man mee eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. And the bread which I will give is my Sohn'vi. flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Then reason they after this fashion. If the bread which Christ gave be his flesh, then it cannot also be material bread; and so it must needs follow, that the material bread is gone, and that none other substance remaineth, but the flesh of Christ only. To this is soon made answer, that Christ in that place of John spake not of The answer. the material and sacramental bread, nor of the sacramental eating, (for that was spoken two or three years before the sacrament was first ordained;) but he spake of spiritual bread, many times repeating, “I am the bread of life, which came Jonn wi. from heaven,” and of spiritual eating by faith, after which sort he was at the same present time eaten of as many as believed on him, although the sacrament | was not at that time made and instituted. And therefore he said: “ Your Jomvi. fathers did eat manna in the desert and died, but he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.” Therefore this place of St John can in no wise be understand of the sacramental bread, which neither came from heaven, neither giveth life to all that eat*. Nor of such bread Christ could have then presently said, “‘ This is my flesh,” except they will say, that Christ did then consecrate so many years before the institution of his holy supper. WINCHESTER. A third reason this author frameth himself, whereby to take occasion to affirm how the siath chapter of St John should not appertain to the sacramental manducation; the contrary whereof appeareth as well by the words of Christ in that sixth chapter, saying, “I will give,” not “I do give,” which promise was fulfilled in the supper, as also by the catholic writers, and specially by Cyril; and therefore I will not further strive with this author in that matter, but see how he can assail the authorities, whereunto he entereth with great con- fidence. CANTERBURY. The third reason I framed not-myself, as you say I did, but had it ready framed out of your own shop in your book of the “Devil’s Sophistry.” And as for the sixth chapter of John, I have sufficiently shewed my mind therein in my answer to Doctor Smith’s preface, which shall suffice also for answer to you in this place. And as for Cyril, is clearly against you, who declareth that when Christ said, “I Cyril. will give my flesh for the life of the world;” he fulfilled not that promise in his John vi. supper, but in the cross. For if Christ had given to us life in his supper, what should he have needed after to die for the same purpose? The words of Cyril be these upon the words of Christ: Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita. Morior, inquit, pro omnibus, ut per meipsum omnes vivificem, et caro mea omnium redemptio fiat; morietur enim mors morte mea*. Which words mean thus much in English: “TI will die for all, that by my death I may give life to all, and that my flesh may be the redemption of all; for death shall die by my death.” Thus [* Eat it, 1551, and Orig. ed.] yap 6 Odvaros év Savétw TH eum. Cyril. In [* Amobuijcxw, proiv, irip ravtwv, iva mdv- | Joannem, Lib.1v. cap. x. Tom. IV. p. 353. Fd. Tas Cworroujow ot’ éuavtov, Kai dvtitvtpov tis | Aubert. Paris. 1638. ] andvTwV Gapkos THY éunv eromoapnen, TebUiEcTat 20—2 Chap. x1. Authors wrested by the papists for their transubstan- tiation. Cyprianus de Ccena Do- mini. The answer. [ Vide Embd. Ed. in fine tomi hujus. } [Wide Embd. Ed.] Cyprianus. 308 THE SECOND BOOK. expoundeth Cyril the words of Christ, that when he said, “I will give,” he did not fulfil that promise in his supper, but in the cross, giving us life by his death, not by eating and drinking of him in his supper, as you most ignorantly say. And yet all men may judge how much I bear with you, when I call it but ignorance. Now followeth mine answer to the authors wrested by the papists. Now that I have made a full, direct, and plain answer to the vain reasons and cavillations of the papists, order requireth to make likewise answer unto their sophistical allegations and wresting of authors unto their phantastical purposes. There be chiefly three places, which at the first shew seem much to make for their intent; but when they shall be throughly weighed, they make nothing for them at all. The first is a place of Cyprian in his sermon of the Lord’s supper, where he saith, as is alleged in the “Detection of the Devil’s Sophistry:” “This bread, which our Lord gave to his disciples, changed in nature but not in outward form, is by the omnipotency of God’s word made flesh'.” Here the papists stick tooth and nail to these words, “ changed in nature :” ergo, say they, the nature of the bread is changed. Here is one chief point of the Devil’s sophistry used, who in the allegation of scripture useth ever either to add thereto, or to take away from it, or to alter the sense thereof. And so have they in this author left out those words, which would open plainly all the whole matter. For next the words, which be here before of them recited, do follow these words : “As in the person of Christ the humanity was seen, and the divinity was hid, even so did the divinity ineffably put itself into the visible sacrament.” Which words of Cyprian do manifestly shew, that the sacrament doth still remain with the divinity, and that sacramentally the divinity is poured into the bread and wine, the same bread and wine still remaining; like as the same divinity by unity of person was in the humanity of Christ, the same humanity still remaining with the divinity. And yet “the bread is. changed, not in the shape nor substance, but in nature,” as Cyprian truly saith; not meaning that the natural substance of bread is clean gone, but that by God’s word there is added thereto another higher property, nature and condition, far surpassing * the nature and condition of common bread; that is to say, that the bread doth shew unto us, as the same Cyprian saith, that we be partakers of the Spirit of God, and most purely joined unto Christ, and spiritually fed with his flesh and blood, so that now the said mystical bread is both a corporal food for the body, and a spiritual food for the soul. And likewise is the nature of the water changed in baptism, forasmuch as beside his common nature, which is to wash and make clean the body, it declareth unto us that our souls be also washed and made clean by the Holy Ghost. And thus is answered the chief authority of the doctors, which the papists take for the principal defence of their error. But for further declaration of St Cyprian’s mind herein, read the place of him before recited, fol. 24°. WINCHESTER. First, in Cyprian, who speaketh plainly in the matter, this author findeth a fault, that he ts not wholly alleged; wherewpon this author brought* in the sentence following, not necessary {' Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porri- | “ Corruption of Scripture,”’ &c. p.17. Coci Censura gebat, non effigie sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia | Patrum, Helmes. 1683. Riveti Critica Sacra, p. 213. verbi factus est caro: et sicut in persona Christi | Genev. 1626. Ed. Bened. and Cave’s Hist. Lit. It humanitas videbatur, et latebat divinitas; ita sacra- | is supposed that it was written by Arnoldus, Abbas mento visibili ineffabiliter divina se infudit essen- | Bonz-Vallis.] tia—Cyprian. de cena Domini, p. 468. Ed. Paris. | [? Passing$1551, and Orig. ed.] 1574. This is a spurious treatise. Vid. James’ [* Seep. 267.] [* Bringeth, Orig. ed. Winch.) AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 309 to be rehearsed for the matter of transubstantiation, and handsome to be rehearsed for the overthrow of the rest of this author’s new catholic faith; and whether that now shall be added was material in the matter of transubstantiation, I require the judgment of thee, O reader. The first words of Cyprian be these: “This bread which our Lord gave to his disciples, changed in nature, but not in outward form, is by the omnipotency of God's word made flesh.” These be Cyprian’s words, and then follow these: “ As in the person of Christ the humanity was seen and the divinity hidden, even so the divinity ineffably infused itself into the visible sacrament.” Thus saith Cyprian, as I can English him, to express the word infudit by Latin English, not liking the English word “shed,” because in our English tongue it resembleth spilling and evacuation of the whole; and much less I can agree to use the word “ pouring,’ although infundo in Latin may in the use of earthly things signify so, because pouring noteth® a suc- cessive working, whereas God's work is in an instant, and for that respect never shedding. But this author had a fancy to use the sound of the word pouring, to serve instead of an argument to improve transubstantiation, meaning the hearer or reader, in the conceiving of the sense of Cyprian thus termed, should fancy the bread in the visible sacrament to be like a sop where- upon liquor were poured; which is a kind of depravation, as thou, reader, by consideration of Cyprian’s words and meaning mayest perceive; which Cyprian, having shewed how the bread is made flesh by the omnipotency of God’s word, and made by change, then, because this mystery of the sacrament, in consideration of the two natures, celestial and earthly, resem- bleth the principal mystery of Christ's person, St Cyprian saith in sense, that as in the per- son of Christ the humanity was seen, and the divinity hidden, so likewise in this sacrament visible is also the divine nature hidden. This is the sense, where for declaration of the work of God, presenting his divine nature, there is used the verb infundit in Latin, by which word the motion of the divine nature is spoken of in scriptures, not because it is a liquid substance to be poured, as the author of this book Englisheth it, signifying a successive operation, but rather as a word (if we should scan it as this author would) signifying the continuance of the term from whence, to the term whereunto, without leaving the one by motion to the other: Sor there is in the godly nature no local motion, and therefore we say, Christ not leaving his Father descended from heaven, and being in earth was also in heaven; which infusion in some part resembleth, but man’s words cannot express Giod’s divine operations. To the purpose: the first words of Cyprian shew the manner of the constitution of this sacra- ment to be by mutation of the earthly creatures into the body and blood of Christ: and then, by the words following, sheweth the truth of the substance of the sacrament, to the intent we might use our repair to it and frame our devotion according to the dignity of it, “ esteeming,” as St Paul saith, “ our Lord’s body.” For the more evident declaration whereof, St Cyprian, by example of the mystery in Christ's person, sheweth Christ's humanity and divinity present in the visible sacrament, of which divinity there is special mention against such, which fancied the flesh of Christ to be given to be eaten, as divided from the divine nature, which was the heresy of the Nestorians, and such other, denying thereby the perfect unity of the two natures in Christ, which the holy synod of Ephesus did specially condemn, as other fathers in their writings did specially prevent with distinct writing against that error. And therefore St Cy- prian, not content to shew the presence of Christ's flesh by mutation of the bread, doth after make special mention of Christ's divinity, not concerning® that he had said before, but fur- ther opening it; and so utterly condemneth the teaching of the author of this book, touching the presence of Christ to be only figuratively. Cyprian saith, that “in the sacrament is the truth, and then there is present the true flesh of Christ, and the Godhead truly, which de- votion should knowledge.” And as for transubstantiation, according to the first words of St Cyprian, the bread is “changed not in form, but in nature,’ which is not in the properties of nature, nor in the operation of nature, neither in quantity or quality of nature, and therefore in the inward nature, which is properly substance. This is the plain direct under- standing, not by way of addition, as this author of his imagination deviseth, who useth the word “ spiritual” as a stop and opposition to the catholic teaching, which is not so, and clearly without learning compareth with this sacrament the water of baptism, of which we read not written that it is changed, as we read of the bread, and therefore the resemblance of water im baptism is used only to blind the rude reader, and serveth for a shift of talk to wind out of that matter that cannot be answered; and as evil debtors shake off their creditors with a bye communication, so this author conveyeth himself away at a back door by water, not doing first as he promised to answer, so as he would avoid Cyprian directly by land. {° Maketh, 1551. Orig. ed. Winch. reads with Ed. 1580. | {° Correcting, 1641.] 331. 332, Infudit. *Smith useth the word “* pouring.” Pouring. 333. Infusion. 310 THE SECOND BOOK. CANTERBURY. Where in my former book I found a fault in the allegation of Cyprian, it was indeed no little fault, to allege those words that speak of the change of bread, and to leave out the example most necessary to be rehearsed, which should declare how it was changed; which change is not by transubstantiation, as the example sheweth, but as it is in the person of Christ, whose humanity was not transubstantiate, although it was inseparably annexed unto the deity. And the words following do not once touch the real and corporal presence of Christ’s flesh in the bread; so far it is from the overthrowing of the true catholic faith by me taught. But Cyprian in that place quite and clean overthroweth, as well your real presence, as your imagined transubstantiation, as hereafter by God’s grace shall be declared. But first it seemeth to me a strange thing, that such a learned man as you take yourself to be in the tongues, cannot English this verb infundo, whereas every grammarian can tell the signification of fundo, effundo, and infundo. But it seemeth you have so dainty a stomach, that you can brook no meat but of your own dressing, though it be never so well dressed of other; yea, you had rather eat it raw, than to take it of another man’s dressing. And so much misliketh you all things that other men do, that you be ready to vomit at it. No English can please you to this word infundo but “ Latin English,” as you call it; and that is such English as no English man can understand, nor Latin man neither, but only in that sense that I have Englished it. And I pray thee, gentle reader, con- sider the great weighty cause why no English can please in this place, and thou shalt find it nothing else but ignorance, either of the speech or of God. “ Pouring,” saith he, “maketh a successive working:” so doth “infusion” say I, and therefore in that respect as unfit a term as “pouring.” ‘But God’s work,” saith he, “is in an in- stant.” So is his “ pouring,” say I, and all that he doth, even as well as his “infu- sion.” All man’s works be done in succession of time, (for a carpenter cannot build a house in a day,) but God in one moment could make both heaven and earth: so that God worketh without delay of time such things as in us require leisure and time. And yet God hath tempered his speech so to us in holy scripture, that he speaketh of himself in such words as be usual to us, or else could we speak here and learn nothing of God. And therefore whether we say “infusion” or “ pouring,” all is one thing, and one reason. For in us they be done by little and little, but God worketh the same suddenly in one moment. And yet if you had well considered the matter, you should not have found the sacraments of God “like sops, wherein liquor is poured,” but you should have found “pouring” an apt word to express the abundance of God’s working by his grace in the ministration of his holy sacraments. For when there cometh a small rain, then we say it droppeth, or there is a few drops; but when there cometh+a great multi- tude of rain together, for the great abundance of it, we use in common speech to say, it poureth down: so that this word “pouring” is a very apt word to express the multitude of God’s mercies and the plentifulness of his grace poured inta them whom he loveth, declared and exhibited by his words and sacraments. And howsoever you be disposed by jesting and scoffing to mock out all things, (as your disposition hath been ever given to reprehend things that were well,) yet the indifferent people may judge by this one place, among many other, that you seek rather an occasion to babble without cause, and with idle words to draw your book out at length, than to seek or teach any truth. And if I should play and scoff in such a matter, as you do, I might dally with the word of “infusion,” as you do with the word “pouring.” For as you reject my word of pouring, because some fond reader might fancy the bread in the sacrament to be “like a sop wherein liquor were poured,” by like reason may I reject your English- Latin of “infuding,” because such a reader might fancy thereby the bread to be like water, wherein the divinity is steeped or infuded. As infused rhubarb is called, when it is steeped certain hours in stilled water or wine without seething; and so be roses and violets likewise infused, when they be steeped in warm water to make jalap thereof. But as apothecaries, physicians, surgeons, and alchemists use words of Greek, AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 311 Arabic, and other strange languages, purposely thereby to hide their sciences from the knowledge of others, so far as they can; so do you in many parts of your book devise many strange terms, and strange phrases of speech, to obscure and darken thereby the matter of the sacrament, and to make the same meet for the capacities of very few, which Christ ordained to be understanded and exercised of all men. At the last, as you say, you come to your purpose, not to open the truth, but to hide it as much as you may, and to gather of Cyprian’s words your own feigning and not his meaning, who meant nothing less than either of any transubstantiation, or of the corporal presence of Christ in the bread and wine. And to set out Cyprian’s mind in few words, he speaketh of the eating, and not of the keeping of the bread; which, when it is used in the Lord’s holy supper, it is not only a corporal meat to nourish the body, but an heavenly meat to nourish the souls of the worthy receivers, the divine majesty invisibly bemg present, and by a spiritual transition and change uniting us unto Christ, feeding us spiritually with his flesh and blood unto eternal life, as the bread, being converted into the nature of our bodies, feedeth the same in this mortal life. And that this is the mind of St Cyprian is evident, as well by the words that go before as by the words following the sentence by you alleged. For a little before Cyprian writeth thus: “There is given to us the food of immortal life, differing from common meats, which retaineth the form of corporal substance, and yet proveth God’s power to be present by invisible effect'.” And again after he saith: “This common bread, after it is changed into flesh and blood, procureth life and increase to our bodies. And therefore the weakness of our faith, being holped by the customable effect of things, is taught by a sensible argument that in the invisible sacraments is the effect of ever- lasting life, and that we be made one by a transition or change, not so much corporal as spiritual. For he is made both bread, flesh, and blood, meat, substance, and life, to his church, which he calleth his body, making it to be partaker of him®.” Note well these words, good reader, and thou shalt well perceive that Cyprian speaketh not of the bread kept and reserved, but as it is a spiritual nourishment received in the Lord’s supper, and as it is fruitfully broken and eaten in the remembrance of Christ’s death; and to them that so eat it, Cyprian calleth it “‘the food of immortal life.” And therefore when he saith “that in the invisible sacrament is the effect of everlasting life,’ he understandeth of them that worthily receive the sacrament: for to the bread and wine pertaineth not eternal life. Nevertheless the visible sacrament teacheth us, that by a spiritual change we be united to Christ's flesh and blood, who is the meat and sustenance of his church, and that we be made partakers of the life everlasting by the power of God, who by his effectual working is present with us, and worketh with his sacraments. And here is again to be noted, that Cyprian in this place speaketh of no real presence of Christ's humanity, but of an effectual presence of his divine majesty ; and yet “the bread,” saith he, “is a food and nourishment of the body.” And thus Cyprian proveth nothing against my sayings, neither of the real presence of Christ’s flesh and blood, nor of transubstantiation of bread and wine. And where you be offended with this word “spiritual,” it is not my device, but used of St Cyprian himself, not past six or seven lines before the words by you cited, where he declareth the spiritual mutation or transition in the sacraments. And of the change in the sacrament of baptism, as well as in the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, speaketh not only this author, but also Nazianzen, Emissene, Chry- sostom, Ambrose, with all the famous ancient ecclesiastical authors. And this water doth [’ Sed immortalitatis alimonia datur, a commu- nibus cibis differens, corporalis substantiz retinens speciem, sed virtutis divine invisibili efficientia pro- bans adesse presentiam.—Cyprian. de Cana Do- mini, p. 467. Ed. Paris. 1574.] [? Panis iste communis, in carnem et sanguinem mutatus, procurat vitam et incrementum corpori- bus : ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrz adjuta infirmitas, sensibili argumento edocta est yi- sibilibus sacramentis inesse vite «#terne effectum, et non tam corporali, quam spiritali transitione Christo nos uniri. Ipse enim et panis, et caro, et sanguis, idem cibus et substantia, et vita factus est ecclesie su, quam corpus suum appellat, dans ei participationem spiritus.—Ib. pp. 467, 8.] Cyprian’s meaning. 334. Spiritual. Chap. Xt. Chrysosto- mus. The answer. 312 THE SECOND BOOK. well to delay your hot wine, whereof you have drunken so much out of the cup of the great whore of Babylon, that the true wine, representing to us our whole redemp- tion by the irue blood of Christ, you have clearly transubstantiate and taken away. Now followeth my answer unto Chrysostom. Another authority they have of St John Chrysostom, which they boast also to be invincible. Chrysostom, say they, writeth thus in a certain homily, De Eucharistia : “ Dost thou see bread? Dost thou see wine? Do they avoid beneath, as other meats do? God forbid! think not so. For as wax, if it be put into the fire, it is made like the fire, no substance remaineth, nothing is left here; so also’ think thou that the mysteries be consumed by the substance of the body *.” At these words of Chrysostom the papists do triumph, as though they had won the field. “Lo,” say they, ‘doth not Chrysostomus the great clerk say most plainly, that we see neither bread nor wine; but that, as wax in the fire, they be consumed to nothing, so that no substance remaineth?” But if they had rehearsed no more, but the very next sentence that followeth in Chrysostom, which craftily and maliciously they leave out, the meaning of St John Chryso- stom would easily have appeared, and yet will make them blush, if they be not utterly past shame. For after the foresaid words of Chrysostom, immediately follow these words: “ Wherefore,” saith he, “when ye come to these mysteries, do not think that you receive by a man the body of God, but that with tongues you receive fire by the angels seraphin®.” And straight after it followeth thus: “ Think that the blood of salvation floweth out of the pure and godly side of Christ, and so coming to it, receive it with pure lips. Wherefore, brethren, I pray you and beseech you, let us not be from the church, nor let us not be occupied there with vain communication; but let us stand fearful and trembling, casting down our eyes, lifting up our minds, mourning privily without speech, and rejoicing in our hearts.” These words of Chrysostom do follow immediately after the other words, which the papists before rehearsed. Therefore if the papists will gather of the words by them recited, that there is neither bread nor wine in the sacrament, I may as well gather of the words that follow, that there is neither priest nor Christ’s body. For as in the former sentence Chrysostom saith, “that we may not think that we see bread and wine;” so in the second sentence he saith, that “ we may not think that we receive the body of Christ of the priest’s hands.” Wherefore, if upon the second sentence, as the papists themselves will say, it cannot be truly gathered, that in the holy communion there is not the body of Christ ministered by the priest; then must they confess also, that it cannot be well and truly gathered upon the first sentence, that there is no bread nor wine. But there be all these things together in the holy communion, Christ himself spiritually eaten and drunken, and nourishing the right believers; the bread and [} Nothing is left: so here also, 1551, and | vopiocnre petadauBavew Tov Beiov cwuatos, aX’ Orig. ed.] ws €& ait@v Tav cepapin TH aBidr TOU Tupos, [2 Mij 61 aptos éoriv iéys, pnd’ 6t1 oivds éctt | yvmep Hoaias cide, Tov Geiov cwyuaTos peTadap- vonicns’ ob yap ws at Noimwai Bpuwces cis adpe- | Bdverv voui€ete, Kal ws THs Betas Kal aXpavTou Opava Xwpel. aTaye, uy TOUTO voEL. a\N’ Womep | Wevpas EparTopeva Tots XEihEoW, OVTW TOU Tw- Knpos Tupl Tpocouidnoas oldev amouctater, oidév | thpiov aiuatos petadaBwpuev. ToLryapovv, aded-~ Tepiocever’ ow Kal we vouite cuvahickeo0ar Ta | dol, Twv éxK\ nota pj aTrohetTwpEla, wnTe TWaLW puoTHplLa TH TOU cwpaTos ovcia.—Chrysostom. De | év aitais cuvtvxiais EavtTods acXo\wpev” oTwEEY Eucharistia, (al. Hom. ix. de Penitentia,) Tom. | éuoBor kai Evtpopot, KaTw vevovTes TO Opa, avw II. p. 356. Ed. Bened.| 6& Tiv Wuyi" otevatovTes apuvws arahaCwpev [* Aco Kat mpocepxopevat py ws EE avbpwrou 7H Kapeia.—lbid. } AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 313 wine as a sacrament declaring the same; and the priest as a minister thereof. Wherefore St John Chrysostom meant not absolutely to deny that there is bread and wine, or to deny utterly the priest and the body of Christ to be there; but Neste by he useth a speech, which is no pure negative, but a negative by comparison. Which fashion of speech is commonly used, not only in the scripture, and among all good authors, but also in all manner of languages. or when two things be compared together, in the extolling of the more excellent, or abasing of the more vile, is many times used a negative by comparison, which never- theless is no pure negative, but only in the respect of the more excellent, or the more base. As by example. When the people, rejecting the prophet Samuel, desired ! Sav" to have a king, Almighty God said to Samuel: ‘“ They have not rejected thee, but me.” Not meaning by this negative absolutely, that they had not rejected Samuel, in whose place they desired to have a king, but by that one negative by comparison he understood two affirmatives ; that is to say, that they had rejected Samuel, and not him alone, but also that they had chiefly rejected God. And when the prophet David said in the person of Christ, “I am a worm, Ps. xxi. and not a man:” by this negative he denied not utterly that Christ was a man; but the more vehemently to express the great humiliation of Christ, he said, that he was not abased only to the nature of man, but was brought so low, that he might rather be called a worm than a man. This manner of speech was familiar and usual to St Paul, as when he said : Rom. vii. “Tt is not I that do it, but it is the sin that dwelleth in me.’ And in another place he saith: “ Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” And — 836. again he saith: “My speech and preaching was not in words of man’s per- ere suasion, but in manifest declaration of the Spirit and power.” And he saith also: “ Neither he that grafteth, nor he that watereth, is any thing, but God 1 cor. ii. that giveth the increase.” And he saith moreover: “It is not I that live, but ca. ii. Christ liveth withm me.” And, “ God forbid that I should rejoice in any thing, Gai. vi. but in the cross of our Lord Jesu Christ.” And further: “We do not wrestle Epn. vi. against flesh and blood, but against the spirits of darkness.” In all these sentences, and many other like, although they be negatives nevertheless St Paul meant not clearly to deny that he did that evil whereof he spake, or utterly to say that he was not sent to baptize, who indeed did tor. i. baptize at certain times, and was sent to do all things that pertained to sal- yation; or that in his office of setting forth of God’s word he used no witty persuasions, which indeed he used most discreetly; or that the grafter and waterer be nothing, which be God’s creatures made to his similitude, and without whose work: there should be no increase; or to say that he was not alive, who both lived, and ran from country to country to set forth God’s Rom.xv. glory; or clearly to affirm that he gloried and rejoiced in no other thing than in Christ’s cross, who rejoiced with all men that were in joy, and sorrowed 2 ¢or.xi. with all that were in sorrow; or to deny utterly that we wrestle against flesh and blood, which cease not daily to wrestle and war against our enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil. In all these sentences, St Paul, as I said, meant not clearly to deny these things, which undoubtedly were all true; but he meant that in comparison of other greater things these smaller were not much to be esteemed, but that the greater things were the chief things to be considered: as that sin committed by his infirmity was rather to be imputed to original sin or corruption of nature, which lay lurking within him, than to his own will and consent: and that although he was sent to baptize, yet he was chiefly sent to preach God’s word; and that although he used wise and dis- 2 Cor. xi. & Xi. Gal. vy. 1 Pet. iii. 337. Matt. vi. Matt. x. Matt. x. Matt. xxiii. Matt. xxiii. Matt. x. Matt. x. Matt. xx. John iv. John v. Jobn vii. John viii. 3l4 THE SECOND BOOK. creet persuasions therein, yet the success thereof came principally of the power of God, and of the working of the Holy Spirit; and that although the grafter and waterer of the garden be some things, and do not a little in their offices, yet it is God chiefly that giveth the increase; and that although he lived in this world, yet his chief life, concerning God, was by Christ, whom he had living within him; and that although he gloried in many other things, yea, in his own infirmities, yet his greatest joy was in the redemption by the cross of Christ; and that although our spirit daily fighteth against our flesh, yet our chief and principal fight is against our ghostly enemies, the subtle and puissant wicked spirits and devils. The same manner of speech used also St Peter in his first epistle, saying : “That the apparel of women should not be outwardly with braided hair, and setting on of gold, nor in putting on of gorgeous apparel, but that the inward man of the heart should be without corruption.” In which manner of speech he intended not utterly to forbid all braiding of hair, all gold and costly apparel to all women, (for every one must be apparelled according to their condition, state, and degree;) but he meant hereby clearly to condemn all pride and excess in apparel, and to move all women that they should study to deck their souls inwardly with all virtues, and not to be curious out- wardly to deck and adorn their bodies with sumptuous apparel. And our Saviour Christ himself was full of such manner of speeches. ‘‘ Gather not unto you,” saith he, “ treasure upon earth,” willing thereby rather to set our minds upon heavenly treasure, which ever endureth, than upon earthly treasure, which by many sundry occasions perisheth, and is taken away from us. And yet worldly treasure must needs be had and possessed of some men, as the person, time, and occasion doth serve. Likewise he said: ‘“ When you be brought before kings and princes, think not what and how you shall answer.” Not willing us by this negative, that we should negligently and unadvisedly answer we care not what; but that we should depend of our heavenly Father, trusting that by his Holy Spirit, he will sufficiently instruct us of answer, rather than to trust of any answer to be devised by our own wit and study. And in the same manner he spake, when he said: “It is not you that speak, but it is the Spirit of God that speaketh within you.” For the Spirit of God is he that principally putteth godly words into our mouths, and yet nevertheless we do speak according to his moving. And to be short, in all these sentences following, that is to say: ‘“ Call no man your father upon earth:” “ Let no man call you lord or master: “ Fear not them that kill the body :” “I came not to send peace upon earth :” “It is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hand:” “ You shall not worship the Father, neither in this mount nor in Jerusalem :’ “I take no witness at no man:” “ My doctrine is not mine:’ “I seek not my glory.” In all these negatives, our Saviour Christ spake not precisely and utterly to deny all the foresaid things, but in comparison of them to prefer other things; as to prefer our Father and Lord in heaven above any worldly father, lord, or master in earth, and his fear above the fear of any creature, and his word and gospel above all worldly peace: also to prefer spiritual and inward honour- ing of God in pure heart and mind, above local, corporal, and outward honour, and that Christ preferred his Father’s glory above his own. Now forasmuch as I have declared at length the nature and kind of these negative speeches, which be no pure negatives but by comparison, it is easy hereby to make answer to St John Chrysostom, who used this phrase of speech AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 315 most of any author. For his meaning in his foresaid homily was not, that in the celebration of the Lord’s supper is neither bread nor wine, neither priest nor the body of Christ, which the papists themselves must needs confess; but his intent was to draw our minds upward to heaven, that we should not consider so much the bread, wine, and priest, as we should consider his divinity and Holy Spirit given unto us to our eternal salvation. And therefore in the same place he useth so many times these words, ‘Think and think not,” willmg us by these words that we should not fix our thoughts and minds upon the bread, wine, priest, nor Christ’s body; but to lift up our hearts higher unto his Spirit and divinity, without the which his body availeth nothing, as he saith himself: “It is the Spirit that giveth hfe, the flesh availeth nothing.” And as the same Chrysostom in many places moyeth us not to consider the water in baptism, but rather to have respect to the Holy Ghost, received in baptism, and represented by the water; even so doth he in this homily of the holy communion move us to lift up our minds from all visible and corporal things to things invisible and spiritual. Insomuch that although Christ was but once crucified, yet would Chrysostom have us to think that we see him daily whipped and scourged before our eyes, and his body hanging upon the cross, and the spear thrust into his side, and the most holy blood to flow out of his side into our mouths. After which manner St Paul wrote to the Galatians, that Christ was painted and crucified before their eyes. Therefore saith Chrysostom in the same homily a little before the place rehearsed: “ What dost thou, O man? didst not thou promise to the priest which said, Lift up your mids and hearts; and thou didst answer, We lift them up unto the Lord? Art not thou ashamed and afraid being at that same hour found a lar? A wonderful thing! The table is set forth, fur- nished with God’s mysteries, the Lamb of God is offered for thee, the priest is careful for thee, spiritual fire cometh out of that heavenly table, the angels seraphin be there present, covering their faces with six wings. All the an- gelical power with the priest be means and intercessors for thee, a spiritual fire cometh down from heaven, blood in the cup is drunk out of the most pure side unto thy purification. And art not thou ashamed, afraid, and abashed, not endeavouring thyself to purchase God’s mercy ? O man, doth not thine own conscience condemn thee? There be in the week one hundred and sixty-eight hours, and God asketh but one of them to be given wholly unto him, and thou consumest that in worldly business, in trifling and talking: with what boldness then shalt thou come to these. holy mysteries? O corrupt conscience !!” Hitherto I have rehearsed St John Chrysostom’s words, which do shew [' Te rovets, avbpwmre; oy imécyou TH iepet EcimOvTL, avw TX@pMeEV ijuav Tov vou Kal Tas Kap- dias, Kat elas, Exouev pds Tov Kipiov; ov ofsn, otk épulpias Kat’ aitiy tiv doBepdv dpav Web- oTNs cvpicKouevos; PaBat Oatipatos. Tis Tpameyns Tis puoTiKHs CEnptiouévys, TOV duvow Tov Oeov wmép cov cpayia{ouévov, Tov iepéws imep cou aywviCouevov, mupos mvevpatikov éK Tis ¢xXpavrov avaBiCovtos Tpame{yns, Tav YEpou- Bin wapictapévwv, Kat Tov cepapin imrapévwn, Tov ekantepiywv Ta mrpdcwra KaTaKka\urrov- TW, Tao THY downaTwY Ovvapéwy pEeTa TOU Tou iepéws trip cov mpeaBevovtmy, TOU mupds Tov TVCUMATLKOU KaTEPXoMevoV, TOU aiuaTos ev TH KpaTipe eis onv Ka0apow éK THS aXpavTov Tev- pas Kevoupeévov, od poy, obk épu0pias Kal kata TavTHY THY coBepav wpav WelaTHS eipLtoKojevos ; exaTov éfijKovTa OKT wWpas exXovons THs EBdo- pdoos, pilav Kal povnv wpav apwpicey EavTH oO Ocds* Kai TabTny eis TpaymaTta BiwTiKa Kal eis yedota kal cis cuvtuxXlas avaXiokes ; meTa Toias Notrov wappyncias Tots wucTnpiots Tpocépyy; pmEeTa molov auvevodtos penodvopéevov;—Chrysost. De Eucharistia, ubi supra, p. 349. ] John vi. Vide Embd. Ed. in fine tomi hujus. | 338. Gal. iii. Chrysosto- mus, Chrysosto- mus. 316 THE SECOND BOOK. how our minds should be occupied at this holy table of our Lord, that is to say, withdrawn from the consideration of sensible things unto the contemplation of most heavenly and godly things. And thus is answered-this place of Chry- sostom, which the papists took for an insoluble, and a place that no man was able to answer. But for further’ declaration of Chysostom’s mind in this matter read the place of him before rehearsed, fol. 26 and 28%. WINCHESTER. Answering to Chrysostom, this author complaineth, as he did in Cyprian, of malicious leaving out of that, which when it is brought in, doth nothing impair that went before. Chrysostom would we should consider the secret truth of this mystery, where Christ is the in- visible priest, and ministereth in the visible church by his visible minister, the visible priest, whereof Chrysostom would by his words put us in remembrance; not denying thereby the visible ministry, no more than he doth in his other words deny the visible form of bread, and yet would not that we should look only wpon that, but whither faith directeth us, that is to say, upon the very body of Christ there invisibly present, which faith knoweth, and knoweth it to be there the very body, and there therefore to be no bread, which bread this true confession of Christ's body present by faith excludeth. But touching the priest, St Chry- sostom’s words do by no mean teach us that there is no visible priest, but to think that the body of Christ is delivered of Christ's hands, which excludeth not in like sort the minister visible, as faith doth the substance invisible® of bread in the sacrament. The one saying in Chrysostom is a godly exhortation according to the truth, the other is a doctrine of faith in the truth: we be not taught that the priest is Christ, but we be taught that the substance of the bread is made Christ's body. And then the question, in the words of Chrysostom, “ Seest thou bread?” is as much to say as, Rememberest thy faith; as being one of the faithful that know? which term St Augustine used. And then Chrysostom, to confirm our faith in so high a mystery, declareth how we should think Christ to deliver his body himself, as a thing far exceeding man’s power to do it. And with other heavenly words setteth forth the greatness of that mystery, which be words of * godly and good meditation, convenient for so high a matter to adorn it accordingly; which because they be wholesome and meet allegories, wherewith to draw and lift up our minds to celestial thoughts, we may not thereby esteem the substance of that mystery to be but in allegory. Here instead of a solution the author filleth three whole leaves with proof of that is not necessary, how a denial by comparison is not utterly a denial, which is indeed true. And as one was answered at Cambridge when he pressed the responsal, “What say ye to mine argument?” which was not indeed of his making®: the responsal left his Latin, and told the opponent before all his country friends in plain English: “It is a good argument, sir,” quoth he, “but nothing to the purpose.” And so is the entreating of this matter of denial by comparison good, but nothing to the purpose here; and it is an observa- tion that requireth good judgment, or else may thereby be induced many absurdities. Chry- sostom, as I said before, speaking to the christian man, seemeth to ask whether he useth his faith or no. For if he seeth bread, he seeth not with faith, which seeth the body of Christ there present, and so no bread. If the christian man think of a passage through him of the celestial food, he hath therein no spiritual thought such as faith engendereth, and therefore saith Chrysostom, absit. Here in these words of Chrysostom is no denial with compa- rison, and therefore this author might have spared his treatise in these three leaves. For in those words, when Chrysostom saith, “ Think not thow receivest the body of Christ by a man;” there this author neglecteth® his own rule, as in his third book he maketh a solemn argument that by those, St Chrysostom’s words, we receive not the body of Christ at all, seeing Chry- sostom saith, we may not think we receive it by man. So little substantially is this matter handled, as a man might say, here were many accidental words without a substance or miracle, how strange soever the same seem to this author otherwise. [! A further, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [* With words of, 1551.] [2 i. e. p. 273 and 286 of this volume. ] [° Of his own making, Orig. ed. Winch.] [? A mistake apparently for visible. ] [® So neglecteth, Ibid. ] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 317 CANTERBURY. I complained not of your crafty handling of Chrysostom without a just cause; for when you had alleged the words that seemed to make for your purpose, you left out the words that make clearly against you, or which words at the least would open all the whole matter. And yet the words which you leave out, follow immediately the words by you alleged. And where to discuss this whole matter you say in the beginning, that Chryso- stom doth not deny the visible minister, no more than he doth the visible form of bread; here at the first chop you use another policy, not much commendable, altering prettily the words of Chrysostom, making of bread the form of bread. For Chrysostom speaketh of bread and wine, and not of the forms and accidents of them. And if the bread be no more but the visible accidents of bread, then is the minister also no more but the visible accidents of a minister, and so is the priest nothing else but the puppy of a priest. And then the communicants receive no bread of the priest, but a puppy of bread of a puppy of a priest. For Chrysostom speaketh in like form of words of the bread, as he doth of the priest, with these words, “Think not.” “ Think not that thou seest bread,” “think not that thou receivest of a priest.” And therefore if this form of speech exclude the substance of bread, it excludeth likewise the substance of the priest. And if the priest remain still, notwithstanding that speech, then may the bread re- main also with the same speech. And if your argument be good, there is Christ’s body, ergo there is no bread; then may I conclude in the same form of reasoning, there is bread, ergo there is not Christ’s body. And so this author maketh nothing for you, but overthroweth your foundation clean, both of transubstantiation and of the 340. real presence. But to make the mind of Chrysostom somewhat more plain, he teacheth them that come to that holy mystery, with what things their minds should be chiefly occu- pied, not about earthly and visible things but about things celestial and invisible, and not to consider so much what we see with our eyes, as what we believe in our hearts, not so much what we receive bodily, as what we receive spiritually. And he teacheth not only what we should think we receive, but also of whom we should think to receive it, saying, ‘‘ When you come to the mysteries, do not think that you receive by a man the body of God, but that you receive fire by the angel seraphin. The thing that we receive,” saith he, “is not the body of God, and the person of whom we receive is not a man,” like as before immediately he said, that “the thing which we see is not bread.” Now if it be not bread in deed that is seen, then it is not the body of Christ in deed that is received, nor he is not a priest in deed of whom we receive it: and on the other side, if it be the very body of Christ that is received, and a very man of whom it is received, then it is very bread in deed that is seen. And where becometh then your transubstantiation ? But to declare briefly and plainly the very truth according to the mind of Chrysostom, as we see with our eyes and eat with our mouths very bread, and see also and drink very wine, so we lift up our hearts unto heaven, and with our faith we see Christ cru- cified with our spiritual eyes, and eat his flesh thrust through with a spear, and drink his blood springing out of his side with our spiritual mouths of our faith. And as Emissene said, “When we go to the reverend altar to feed upon spiritual meat, with our faith we look upon him that is both God and man, we honour him, we touch ' him with our minds, we take him with the hands of our hearts, and drink him _ with the draught of our inward man’.” So that although we see and eat sensibly very bread and drink very wine, and spiritually eat and drink Christ’s very flesh and blood, . yet may we not rest there, but lift up our minds to his deity, without the which his flesh availeth nothing, as he saith himself. Further answer needeth not to any thing _ that you have here spoken. For every learned reader may see at the first shew, that all that you have spoken is nothing else but very trifling in words. Now followeth St Ambrose. [7 See p. 269. ] Chap. x11. Ambros. de lis,qui Myste- riis mitian- tur. Exod. iv. Exod. vii. 541. Exod. xiv. (Josh. iii.] Exod. xvii. Exod. xv. 2 Kings vi. Psal. exlviii. [Vide Embd. Fd. in fine tomi hujus. } 318 THE SECOND BOOK. Yet there is another place of St Ambrose, which the papists think maketh much for their purpose, but after due examination, it shall plainly appear how much they be deceived. They allege these words of St Ambrose in a book entitled, De tis, qui initiantur Mystertis: “Let us prove that there is not that thing which nature formed, but which benediction did consecrate ; and that benediction is of more strength than nature: for by the blessing nature itself is also changed. Moses held a rod, he cast it from him and it was made a serpent. Again he took the serpent by the tail, and it was turned again into the nature of a rod. Wherefore thou seest, that by the grace of the prophet the nature of the serpent and rod was twice changed. The floods of Egypt ran pure water, and suddenly blood began to burst out of the veins of the springs, so that men could not drink of the flood: but at the prayer of the prophet the blood of the flood went away, and the nature of water came again. The people of the Hebrews were compassed about, on the one side with the Egyptians, and on the other side with the sea: Moses lifted up his rod, the water divided itself and stood up like a wall, and between the waters was left a way for them to pass on foot. And Jordan against nature turned back to the head of his spring. Doth it not appear now, that the nature of the sea-floods, or of the course of fresh water, was changed ? The people was dry, Moses touched a stone, and water came out of the stone. Did not grace here work above nature, to make the stone to bring forth the water, which it had not of nature? Marath was a most bitter flood, so that the people being dry could not drink thereof. Moses put wood into the water, and the nature of the water lost his bitterness, which grace infused did sud- denly moderate. In the time of Heliseus the prophet, an axe-head fell from one of the prophet’s servants into the water: he that lost the iron desired the prophet Heliseus’ help, who put the helve into the water, and the iron swam above. Which thing we know was done above nature, for iron is heavier than the liquor of water. Thus we perceive that grace is of more ferce than nature; and yet hitherto we have rehearsed but the grace of the blessing of the prophets. Now if the blessing of a man be of such value, that it may change nature, what do we say of the consecration of God, wherein is the operation of the words of our Saviour Christ? For this sacrament which thou receivest is done by the word of Christ. Then if the word of Ehas was of such power that it could bring fire down from heayen, shall not the word of Christ be of that power, to change the kinds of the elements? Of the making of the whole world thou hast read, that ‘God spake, and the things were done, he commanded and they were created.” The word then of Christ, that could of no things make things that were not, can it not change those things that be into that thing which before they were not? For it is no less matter to give to 1%» things new nature, than to alter natures!. [? Quantis igitur utimur exemplis, ut probemus | cumclusus undique erat populus Hebreorum, non hoc esse quod natura formavit, sed quod be- | hinc #gyptiis vallatus, inde mari clausus: virgam nedictio consecravit, majoremque vim esse bene- | levavit Moyses, separavit se aqua, et in murorum dictionis quam nature, quia benedictione etiam | speciem congelavit, atque inter undas via pedes- natura ipsa mutatur? Virgam tenebat Moyses, | tris apparuit. Jordanis retrorsum conversus contra projecit eam, et facta est serpens. Rursus appre- | naturam in sui fontis revertitur exordium. Nonne hendit caudam serpentis, et in virge naturam re- | claret naturam vel maritimorum fluctuum vel flu- yertit. Vides igitur prophetica gratia bis muta- | vialis cursus esse mutatam? Sitiebat populus tam esse naturam et serpentis et virge ? Currebant | patrum, tetigit Moyses petram, et aqua de petra JEgypti flumina puro aquarum meatu, subito de fluxit. Numquid non preter naturam operata fontium venis sanguis copit erumpere. Non erat | est gratia, ut aquam vomeret petra, quam non potus in fluviis. Rursus ad prophete preces cruor | habebat natura? Marath fons amarissimus erat, cesxavit fluminum, aquarum natura remeavit. Cir- | ut sitiens populus bibere non posset. Misit Moyses AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 319 Thus far have I rehearsed the words of St Ambrose, (if the said book be his, which they that be of greatest learning and judgment do not think;) by which words the papists would prove, that in the supper of the Lord, after the words of consecration, as they be commonly called, there remaineth neither bread nor wine, because that St Ambrose saith in this place, that “the nature of the bread and wine is changed.” But to ope their minds, let us grant for their pleasure, that the foresaid book was St Ambrose’ own work: yet ae same book maketh nothing for their purpose, but quite against them. For he saith not, that the aabstanes of bread and wine is gone, but he saith, that “ their nature is changed;” that is to say, that in the holy communion we ought not to receive the bread and wine as other common meats and drinks, but as things clean changed into a higher estate, nature and condition, to be taken as holy meats and drinks, whereby we receive spiritual feeding and supernatural nourishment from heaven, of the very true body and load: of our Saviour Christ, through the omnipotent power of God, and the wonderful working of the Holy Ghost. W hich so well agreeth with the sub- stance of bread and wine still remaining, that if they were gone away, and not there, this our spiritual feeding could not” be taught unto us by them. And therefore in the most part of the examples, which St Ambrose allegeth for the wonderful alteration of natures, the substances did still remain, after the nature and properties were changed. As when the water of Jordan, contrary to his nature, stood still like a wall, or flowed against the stream towards the head and spring, yet the substance of the water remained the same that it was before. Likewise the stone, that above his nature and kind flowed water, was the self-same stone that it was before. And the flood of Marath, that changed his nature of bitterness, changed for all that no part of his substance. No more did that iron, which contrary to his nature swam upon the water, lose thereby any part of the substance thereof. Therefore, as in these alterations of natures the substances nevertheless remained the same that they were before the alter- ations, even so doth the substance of bread and wine remain in the Lord’s supper, and be naturally received and digested into the body, notwithstanding the sacramental mutation of the same into the body and blood of Christ. Which sacramental mutation declareth the supernatural, spiritual, and inexplicable eating and drinking, feeding and digesting, of the body* and blood of Christ, in all them that godly, and according to their duty, do receive the sacramental bread‘ and wine. And that St Ambrose thus meant, that the substance of bread and wine remain still after the consecration, it is most clear by three other examples of One is of them that be re- doth still remain their former the same matter, following in the same chapter. generated, in whom, after their regeneration, lignum in aquam, et amaritudinem suam aquarum | quod accipis, Christi sermone conficitur. Quod si natura deposuit, quam infusa subito gratia tem— peravit. Sub Eliseo propheta uni ex filiis pro- phetarum excussum est ferrum de securi, et statim mersum est. Rogavit Eliseum qui amiserat fer- rum, misit etiam Eliseus lignum in aquam, et ferrum natavit: utique et hoc preter naturam fac- tum esse cognoscimus. Gravior est enim ferri species, quam aquarum liquor. Advertimus igitur Majoris esse virtutis gratiam quam naturam ? et adhuc tamen prophetice benedictionis numeramus gratiam. Quod si tantum valuit humana bene- dictio, ut naturam converteret; quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione divina, ubi verba ipsa Domini salvatoris operantur? Nam sacramentum istud | tantum valuit sermo Eliz, ut ignem de celo de- poneret; non valebit Christi sermo, ut species mutet elementorum? De totius mundi operibus legisti, ‘“‘Quia ipse dixit, et facta sunt: ipse mandavit, et creata sunt.’? Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea que sunt in id mutare quod non erant? Non enim minus est novas rebus dare quam mutare naturas.—Ambros. de Initiandis, cap. ix. Tom. IV. p. 166. Ed. Col. Agrip. 1616. Vide supra, p- 210, note 8.] [? Ed. 1580 omits the word not. | [* Of the same body, Orig. ed.] {4 The said sacramental bread, [bid.] *The answer. 342. Lib. iv. de Sacramentis, cap. 4. 343. 320 THE SECOND BOOK. natural substance. Another is of the incarnation of our Saviour Christ, in the which perished no substance, but remained as well the substance of his Godhead, as the substance which he took of the blessed virgin Mary. The third example is of the water in baptism, where the water still remaineth water, although the Holy Ghost come upon the water, or rather upon him that is baptized therein. And although the same St Ambrose, in another book entitled de Sacramen- tis, doth say that “the bread is bread before the words of consecration, but when the consecration is done, of bread is made the body of Christ’ :’ yet in the same book and in the same chapter, he telleth in what manner and form the same is done by the words of Christ; not by taking away the substance of the bread, but adding to the bread the grace of Christ’s body, and so calling it the body of Christ. And hereof he bringeth four examples*. The first of the regeneration of a man: the second is of the standing of the water of the Red Sea: the third is of the bitter water of Marath: and the fourth is of the iron that swam above the water. In every of the which examples, the former substance remained still, notwithstanding alteration of the natures. And he concludeth the whole matter in these few words: “If there be so much strength in the words of the Lord Jesu, that things had their beginning which never were before, how much more be they able to work, that those things that were before should remain, and also be changed into other things*??” Which words do shew manifestly, that notwithstanding this wonderful sacramental and spiritual chang- ing of the bread into the body of Christ, yet the substance of the bread re- maineth the same that it was before. Thus is a sufficient answer made unto three principal authorities, which the papists use to allege, to stablish their error of transubstantiation: the first of Cyprian, the second of St John Chrysostom, and the third of St Ambrose. Other authorities and reasons some of them do bring for the same purpose; but forasmuch as they be of small moment and weight, and easy to be answered unto, I will pass them over at this time, and not trouble the reader with them, but leave them to be weighed by his discretion. WINCHESTER. Now let us hear what this author will say to St Ambrose. length, but translateth him for advantage. He rehearseth him of good As among other, in one place where St Ambrose saith, “ This sacrament, which thow receivest, is made by the word of Christ;” this author translateth, “Is done by the word of Christ,” because making must be understanded in the sub- stance of the sacrament. chiefly before it is received, and doing may be referred to the effect chiefly: for which purpose it should seem the author of this book cannot away with the word “made,” whereat it pleaseth him in another place of this book to be merry, as at an absurdity in the papists, when indeed both St Ambrose here, St Cyprian and St Hierome also in their places use the same word, speaking of this sacrament, and of the wonderful work of God in ordaining the substance of it, by such a conversion as bread is made the body of Christ. But as touching the answer of this author to St Ambrose, it is divers. For first [1 Sed panis iste panis est ante verba sacramen- torum : ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Hoc igitur adstruamus. Quomodo potest qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis est, et cujus ser- monibus ? Domini Jesu. Nam reliqua omnia que dicuntur, landem Deo deferunt: oratio premittitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro ceteris : ubi venitur ut conficiatur venerabile sacramentum, jam non suis sermonibus sacerdos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit sacramentum.— Ambros. de Sacramentis, Lib. 1v. cap. iv. Tom. IV. p. 173. Ed. Col. Agrip. 1616. Vide supra, p- 210, note 8. | (2 Ambros. Ibid. Tom. IV. p. 173.] [® Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu, ut inciperent esse que non erant: quanto magis operatorius est, ut que erant, in aliud commuten- tur!—Ib,. Lib. rv. cap. iv. Tom. IV. p. 173.] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 321 he doth traverse the authority of the book, which allegation hath been by other heretofore made, and answered unto in such wise, as the book remaineth St Ambrose’s still ; and Melane- thon saith it seemeth not to him unlike his4, and therefore allegeth this very place out of him against Qcolampadius. This author will not stick in that allegation, but for answer saith, that “St Ambrose saith not that the substance of the bread and wine is gone:” and that is true, he saith not so in syllables, but he saith so in sense, because he speaketh so plainly of a change in the bread into that it was not; whereunto this author for declaration of change saith: “the bread and wine be changed into an higher estate, nature, and condition,’ which three words of “estate,” “nature,” and “condition,” be good words to express the change of the bread into the body of Christ, which body is of another nature, another state and con- dition, than the substance of the bread, without comparison higher. But then this author addeth, “to be taken as holy meats and drinks :” wherein if he mean to be taken so, but not to be so, as his teaching in other places of this book is, the bread to be never the holier, but to signify an holy thing ; then is the change nothing in deed touching the nature, but only as a coward may be changed in apparel to play Hercules’ or Samson's part in a play, himself thereby made never the hardier man at all, but only appointed to signify an hardy man; of which man’s change, although his estate and condition might in speech be called “ changed” for the time of the play, yet no man would term it thus to say, his nature were changed, whether he meant by the word “nature” the substance of the man’s nature or property ; for in these two points he were still the same man in Hercules’ coat, that he was before the play in his own: so as if there be nothing but a figure in the bread, then for so much this author's other teaching in this book where he saith, “the bread is never the holier,” is a doctrine better than this, to teach a change of the bread to a higher nature, when it is only appointed to signify an holy thing. And therefore this author's answer, garnished with these three gay words of “ estate,” “nature,” and “condition,” is devised but for a shift, such as agreeth not with other places of this book, nor itself neither. And where St Ambrose marvelleth at God’s work in the substance of the sacrament, this author shifteth that also to the effect in him that receiveth, which is also marvellous in deed; but the substance of the sacrament is by St Ambrose specially marvelled at, how bread is made the body of Christ, the visible matter outwardly remaining, and only by an inward change, which is of the in- ward nature, called properly substance in learning, and a substance in deed, but perceived only by understanding®, as the substance present of Christ's most precious body is a very sub- stance in deed of the body invisibly present, but present in deed, and only understanded by most true and certain knowledge of faith. And although this author noteth, how in the examples of mutations brought in by St Ambrose the substances nevertheless remained the same, that skilleth not: for the wonder of those marvels serve for an induction to relieve the weak faith of man in this miracle of the sacrament, and to repress the arrogancy of reason, presuming to search such knowledge in Giod’s secret works, whereof if there might be a reason given, it needeth no faith. And where there is a like, there is no singularity, as this miracle in the sacrament is notably singular, and therefore none other found like unto it. The sacramental mutation, which this author newly so termeth, is a mere shift to avoid, among such as be not learned, the truth of God’s miracle in this change, which is in deed such as St Ambrose speaketh of, that of bread is made the body of Christ ; which St Ambrose in another place termeth it the grace of the body of Christ: and all is one, for it is a great grace to have the body of Christ for our food present there. And out of Christ's mouth calling the body of Christ is making the body of Christ: which words “calling,” “ signifying,’ “naming,” used in St Ambrose’s writings, do not limit Christ's words, and restrain them to an only calling, an only signifying, or an only naming, but give an understanding agreeable to other of St Ambrose’s words, that shew the bread after consecration to be the body of Christ, the calling to be understanded a real calling of the thing that so is made, and likewise a real signifying of the thing in deed present, and a real naming as the thing is in deed; as Christ was named Jesus, because he is the Saviour of his people in deed. And thus perusing this author's answers, I trust I have noted to the reader, with how small substance of matter this author impugneth transubstantiation, and how slenderly he goeth about to answer such authors as by their several writings confirm the same, besides the consent of Christendom universally receiving > [* Ego hos libellos video non admodum dissimiles | circiter illa tempora natos esse. Melancth. in esse aliorum Ambrosii scriptorum. But presently | (&colampadii Dialog. p. 53.] afterwards he adds: Sed ut non sint Ambrosii, (® By inward understanding. Orig. ed. Winch. | (sunt enim sic satis confuse scripti,) apparet tamen oH [cranmer. ] ei 344. Changes of things, the substances remaining. 322 THE SECOND BOOK. the same; and how, in the mean way, this author hath by his own hands pulled down the same untrue doctrine of the figurative speech, that himself so lately hath devised; or rather, because this matter in his book goeth before, he hath in his second book marred his frame, or ever he cometh to the third book to set it up. CANTERBURY. Oh, what a capital crime is here committed, that I have Englished this word, conficere, “to do,” whose proper signification is, to accomplish, or, make an end of a thing! which being once brought to pass, we use in common speech to say, “I have done:” as, “I have done my house,” “I have done my book,” “TI have done my work,” “‘T have done my day’s journey ;” that is to say, “I have perfectly done and finished.” And is not this fully as much in speech, as to say, “I have made my day’s journey,” or, “I have made my house, or my book?” But some fault you must find, where none is, partly to keep in use your old custom of calumniation, and partly to satisfy a new toy that you have in your head, that making is in the substance of the sacrament, and doing is in the effect. But whether it be translate “making” or “doing,” St Ambrose spake of the wonderful effectual working of God in the use and ministration of the sacraments, and that as well in baptism as in the Lord’s supper, and not of his work- ing in the substances of the elements reserved. As for the authority of the book, I stand not in it, so that all your words therein be more than needeth, but to length your book; and yet was the book never allowed amongst men learned and of judg- ment to be St Ambrose’s. And Melancthon, whom you allege for the allowance of it, giveth it two nips, which you have left out of purpose, to serve your affection. For he saith not, as you report, that it seemeth not to him unlike, but that it seemeth not to him far unlike; and yet he confesseth that it is “confusedly written,” which is a slender approbation that it should be St Ambrose’s. And where you confess that St Ambrose saith not in words, that the substances of bread and wine be gone, and yet saith so in effect, because he [speaketh of change, either you know that your argument is naught, and yet bring it in purposely to de- ceive some simple reader; or your ignorance is more than I would have thought, that of this word “change” would argue change in substance, as though there could be no change but it must be in substance. But if you had well considered the exam- ples of St Ambrose by me alleged, which he bringeth forth for the proofs and similitudes of the change of bread and wine in the sacrament, you should have found that in all the said examples remain the substances, notwithstanding the change: as in the water of Jordan staying to run after the natural course, in the dry stone that contrary to his nature flowed out water, im the bitter water of Marath that was turned into sweetness, in the iron that contrary to nature swam above the water, in the spiritual generation of man above all natural operation, in the sacramental mutation of the water of baptism, and in the incarnation of our Saviour Christ; which all being brought by St Ambrose for example of the change in bread and wine, as in them the substances remained, notwithstanding the changes, so is it in the bread and wine, whereof other were brought for examples. But in your handling here of St Ambrose, you seem to be utterly ignorant, and not to know difference between sacramental signs, in the use whereof Almighty God inwardly worketh, and other vain signs which be nothing else but outward shews to the eye. For if you understood the matter, would you resemble a knaye playing in a prince’s coat, in whom nothing is inwardly wrought or altered, unto a man being baptized in water, who hath put upon him outwardly water, but inwardly is apparelled with Christ, and is by the omnipotent working of God spiritually regenerated and changed into a new man? Or would you compare him that banqueteth at a feast to represent an anniversary, or triumph, unto that man that in remembrance of Christ’s death eateth and drinketh at his holy supper, giving thanks for his redemption, and comforting himself with the benefit thereof? If you have this opinion and veneration of the sacraments, it is well known -what spirit you have, how ignorant you be, and AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 323 what is to be judged of you. And if you have no such opinion, becometh it you then to dally with such profane examples, tending to the profanation of the sacra- ments, and deceiving of the readers ? And as for the holiness of bread, I say now as I said before, that neither bread, Holy bread. wine, nor water have any capacity of holiness ; but holiness is only in the receivers, and by the bread, water, and wine is sacramentally signified. And therefore the mar- vellous alteration to an higher estate, nature, and condition, is chiefly and principally in the persons, and in the sacramental! signs it is none otherwise but sacramentally and in signification. And whether this be matter of truth, or a thing devised only for a shift, let the reader judge. And where you say in your further answer to St Ambrose, that the visible matter Vie of the bread outwardly remaineth, it seemeth you have not well marked the words Forms. of St Ambrose, who saith that the words of Christ changeth species elementorum. And then if species, as you have said before in many places, signify the visible matter, then the visible matter remaineth not, as you say, but is changed, as St Am- brose saith. And so St Ambrose’s words, that species elementorum mutantur, be clean 346. contrary to your words, that the visible matter remaineth. I will pass over here how you call accidents of bread the matter of bread, against all order of speech, because I have touched that matter sufficiently before. And yet this is not to be passed over, but to be noted by the way, how plainly St Ambrose speaketh against the papists, which say that the body and blood of Christ remain sub specicbus panis et vini, “under the forms of bread and wine.” And St Ambrose saith, that species elementorum mutantur, “the forms of bread and wine be changed.” And where you say, that “in the examples of mutation brought in by St Ambrose, although the substance remain still the same, yet that skilleth not:” your answer here seemeth very strange, to say that that thing skilleth not, which skilleth altogether, and maketh the whole matter. For if in the examples the substances remain, not- withstanding the mutation of the natures by benediction, then do not these examples prove, that the substance of bread and wine remain not. And if this were singular from the examples, as you say it is, then were not the other examples of this. For if the substances remain in them, how can they be brought for examples to prove that the substances of bread and wine remain not? when they be brought for ex- amples, and things that be like, and not that the one should be singular, and unlike from the other. And where you allege this place of St Ambrose for you, nothing can be spoken more directly against you. “For the natures,” saith St Ambrose, “ of bread and wine be changed.” “And the nature,” say you, “is the outward visible forms ;” and “that that is changed remaineth not,” say you also: and so followeth then, that the substances of bread and wine remain, and not the outward visible forms ; which is directly against your feigned transubstantiation, and against all that you said hitherto concerning that matter. And where a “sacramental mutation” is to you a new term, it declareth nothing else but your ignorance in the matter. And although you seem to be ignorant in other authors, yet if you had expended diligently but one chapter of St Ambrose, you should have found three examples of this sacramental mutation, wherein the substances remain entire and whole: one is in the sacrament of Christ’s incarnation, another is in a person that is baptized, and the third in the water of baptism; which three examples I alleged in my book, but you thought it better slightly to pass them over, than to trouble your brain with answering to them. And where you say, that “calling bread the body of Christ is making it in deed catting. the body of Christ, as Christ was called Jesus, because he is the Saviour of all men aaa indeed,” here it appeareth, that you consider not the nature of a sacrament. For when Sacraments be named or called by the names of the things which they signify, yet they be not the same things indeed, but be so called, as St Augustine saith, “ because they have some similitude or likeness to the things which they be called.” But Christ was called Jesus our Saviour, as the very true Saviour in deed; not as a sacrament or figure of salvation, as the bread is the sacrament of Christ’s flesh, and wine the 21—2 324 THE SECOND BOOK. sacrament of his blood, by which names they be called, and yet be not the very things in deed. Thus have I answered to the chief authors which you allege for transubstan- 347. tiation, making your own authors not only to overthrow your building, but to dig up your foundation clean from the bottom, and nothing is left you but arrogancy of mind, and boasting of words, as men say that you still fancy with yourself, and brag that you be bishop of Winchester, even as a captain that glorieth in his folly, when he hath lost his castle with ordnance and all that he had. And at length you be driven to your church, which you call the consent of Christen- dom universal, when it is no more but the papistical church, that defendeth your transub- stantiation. Now declareth my book the absurdities that follow the error of transubstantiation. Chap. xt. And now I will rehearse divers difficulties, absurdities, and inconveniences, surdities 3 that follow of which must needs follow upon this error of transubstantiation, whereof not one ‘ansubstan- tiation. doth follow of the true and right faith, which is according to God’s word. First, if the papists be demanded, what thing it is that is broken, what is eaten, what is drunken, and what is chawed with the teeth, lips, and mouth in this sacrament, they have nothing to answer, but the accidents. For, as they say, “bread and wine be not the visible elements in this sacrament, but only their accidents.” And so they be forced to say, that accidents be broken, eaten, drunken, chawn, and swallowed without any substance at all: which is not only against all reason, but also against the doctrine of all ancient authors. WINCHESTER. [The answer. In the second volume of the forty-third leaf}, the author goeth about to note six absurdi- rig. ed. i : A Axttn = = 5 Winch.} ties in the doctrine of transubstantiation, which I intend also to peruse. The first is this. “First, if the papists be demanded’,” &c. This is accompted by this author the first absurdity and inconvenience, which is by him rhetorically set forth with lips, and mouth, and chawing, not substantial terms to the matter, but accidental. For opening of which matter, I will repeat some part again of that I have written before, when I made the scholar answer the rude man in declaration of substance; which is, that albeit that sensible thing which in speech uttered after the capacity of common under- standing is called substance, be comprehended of our senses, yet the inward nature of every thing which is in learning properly called substance, is not so distinctly known of us, as we be able to shew it to the senses, or by words of difference to distinct in divers kinds of things Basilius, one substance from another. And herein, as Basil saith, “If we should go about by separation Home of all the accidents to discern the substance by itself alone, we should in the experience fail of ayn our purpose, and end in nothing indeed.” There is a natural consideration of the abstract, that cannot be practised in experience. And to me if it were asked of common bread, when we break it, whether we break the substance or only the accidents? first I must learnedly say, if the substance be broken, it is by mean of the accident in quantity; and then if it liked me to take my pleasure without learning in philosophy, as this author doth in divinity against the catholic faith, to say in division we break not the substance of bread at all, the heresy in philosophy were not of such absurdity, as this author maintaineth in divinity. For I have some probable matter to say for me, whereas he hath none. For my strange answer I would say, that albeit a natural thing as bread, consisting of matter and essential form with quantity, and thereby other accidents cleaving and annexed, may be well saad to be in the whole broken, as we see by experience it is; yet speaking of the substance of it alone, if one should ask whether that be broken, and it should be answered, “Yea,” then should the substance appear broken and whole all at one time, seeing in every broken piece of bread is a whole substance of bread, {1 Vide supra. ] évuTapxovoay ait To.oTyTwy vreEapetcbar TO [2 The whole passage stands in the Orig. ed. | Aéyw qetpwevos.—Basil. in Hexameron. Homil. i. Winch.] Tom. I. p. 9. Ed. Paris. 1721. ] [% Eis ovdéy ydp KatadyEes exaotny Tov AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 325 and where the piece of bread broken is so little a crumb, as can no more in deed be divided, 348. we say nevertheless the same to be in substance very bread, and for want of convenient quantity bread invisible: and thus I write to shew that such an answer, to say the accidents be broken, hath no such clear absurdity as this author would have it seem. But leaving of the matter of philosophy to the schools, I will grant that accidents to be without substance is against the common course of natural things, and therefore therein is a special miracle of God. But when the accidents be by miracle without substance, (as they be in the visible part of the sacrament,) then the same accidents to be broken, eaten, and drunken, with all additions this author for his pleasure maketh therein, is no miracle or marvel, and as for absurdity no point at all, for by quantity which remaineth is all division. We ought to confess, and good christian men do profess, the mystery of the sacrament to be supernatural, and above the order of nature; and therefore it is a travail in vain to frame the consideration of it to agree with the terms of philosophy. But where this author saith that nothing can be answered to be broken but the accidents : yes, verily, for in time of contention, as this is, to him that would ask what is broken, I would in other terms answer thus, That thow seest is broken. And then if he would ask further, what that is? I would tell him, The visible matter of the sacrament, under which is present invisibly the substance of the most precious body of Christ. If he will ask yet further, Is that body of Christ broken? I will say, No. For I am learned in faith, that that glorious body now im- passible cannot be divided or broken, and therefore it is whole in every part of that is broken, as the substance of bread is in common bread in every part that is broken. According where- unto it is in the book of common prayer set forth, how in each part of that is broken of the *The book consecrate bread is the whole body* of our Saviour Christ®. If this questioner be further curious, ea = and say, Is not that that is broken bread? I would answer as a believing man by faith, Truly no. For in faith I must call it, because it is truly so, the body of Christ invisibly there, and the breaking to be not in it, but in the visible figure®. Yea, ye will call it so, saith this ques- tioner, but yet it is bread. Nay, quoth I, my faith is a most certain truth, and believeth things as they verily be; for Christ's word is of strength, not only to shew and declare as other men’s words do, but therewith effectual to make it so to be, as it is by him called. And this I write because, howsoever clerks soberly entreat the matter, (such as mind well, I mean, to consider accidents and substance, which terms the rude understand not,) it is not necessary therefore in those terms to make answer to such as be contentiously curious, who labour with questions to dissolve the truth of the mystery; in declaration whereof if we as men stumble and term it otherwise than we should, that 1s no inconvenience in the mystery, but an imperfection in us that be not able to express it, not having such gifts of God as other have, nor studying to attain learning as other have done. And whatsoever in schools, with a devout mind to answer all captious questions, hath for the exercitation of men’s senses been moved soberly and by way of argument objected, that is now picked out by this author, and brought to the common people's ears, in which it might sound evil, they not being able to make answer thereunto, whereby they might be snarled and entangled with vain fancies against that truth, which before without curiosity of questions they truly and constantly believed. Finally, the doctrine of the sacra- ment is simple and plain, to have the visible forms of bread and wine for signification, the thing whereof is the very body and blood of Christ; which being the truth of the whole, it is no absurdity to confess truly the parts as they be, if occasion require, howsoever it sowndeth to the ethnick or carnal man’s ears, for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the truth should be altered into a lie, wherewith to make melody to their understandings. For how- soever carnal reason be offended with spiritual truth, it forceth not; but against the whole consent of the ancient doctors no doctrine can be justified, with whose testimony how the faith of the church in the sacrament now agreeth, it is manifest, howsoever it liketh this author to report the contrary. CANTERBURY. Here may the reader perceive how much you sweat and labour, so that it pitieth 349. me to see what travail you take, babbling many things nothing to the purpose, to answer my first absurdity. And yet at the end you be enforced to affirm all that I [* That is broken is the whole body. Orig. ed. | whole body of our Saviour Jesu Christ.’’ The Winch. ] Order of the Communion, 1548, p. 10. (Parker [° “And men must not think less to be received | Society’s edition.) ] in part than in the whole, but in each of them the (® Visible sign. Ibid.] Substances eannot be without ac- cidents. 1 Cor. x. Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. 350. 326 THE SECOND BOOK. charge you withal, that is to say, that accidents be broken, eaten, drunken, chawed and swallowed, without any substance at all. And more I need not to say here, than before I have answered to your clerkly dialogue between the scholar and the rude man, saving this, that you make all men so wise that they judge accidents in their common understanding to be called substances, and that no man is able to know the difference of one substance from another. And here you fall into the same folly that Basil speaketh. For if he that “ goeth about to separate accidents from their substance fail of his purpose, and end in no- thing in deed,” then you separating the accidents of bread from their substance, and the substance of Christ's body from the accidents, by your own saying alleged of Basil, you must fail of your purpose, and in the end bring both the bread and body of Christ to nothing in deed. For the abstraction of accidents from their proper sub- stances, and of substances from their proper accidents, as you truly say in that point, cannot be practised in experience, but is a corruption or adnihilation of both. And where, to excuse this absurdity, that accidents in the sacramental bread should be broken alone without any substance, you bring in another absurdity, that in com- mon bread the substance is not broken at all; this is no taking away of the first absurdity, but of one absurdity to make two: as once I knew a man, that when he had made a lie, and perceived that he was suspected, by and by he would make two or three much greater lies to excuse the first withal. But if you should say, that we break not the substance of bread at all, it were no more unlearnedly said in philo- sophy than it is untruly said in divinity. And where you say that you “have probable matter for you, and I have none for me,” it is elean contrary. For you have utterly nothing for you, but all the whole world against you, if you say that the substance of common bread is not broken at all. And I have for me the very plain words of Christ, of the apostle, and of the evangelists. “The bread which we break,” saith St Paul. ‘“ And Christ took bread and brake it,” say the three evangelists. But there is no bread, say you, nor no substance of bread is broken. And this “ probable matter” have you for yourself, if men will believe yourself alone better than the apostle and the evangelists. And what should you talk in vain of substance alone, to dazzle the eyes of the ignorant, when there is no such thing, nor never was sithens the world began; and seeing your question in that place is of common bread, where the substance is never alone without accidents? And if the substance of bread might be alone, yet your reason against the breaking of it is so far from all reason, that it should prove as well, that the substance joined to the quantity and accidents cannot be broken, as the substance alone. For in every piece of bread is a whole substance, and then by your argument it cannot be broken. And where you grant, that “accidents to be without substance is against the com- mon course of natural things, but it is done by a spiritual miracle,” this is but a cloud to darken the light. For accidents to be without substances is not only against tbe common course of natural things, but also against the very nature of accidents, which have none other being but in substances (as they be defined, accidentis esse est inesse,) and is also against all philosophy, reason, and working of God sithens the world began. For God never created nor made, with miracle nor without miracle, sub- stances without accidents, nor accidents without substances, as some vainly phantasy de materia prima. It is against also the doctrine of the old catholic authors; for never none wrote that accidents were without substances, until the bishop of Rome with his monks and friars defined the contrary. But note well here, good reader, the end of wit, when it is not stayed by God’s word, but shooteth at rovers, or runneth at large, as it were a young colt without a bridle. That nothing is broken but the accidents, this is denied. Then would I fain learn of this great wise man, that so well can dissever substances from accidents, what substance it is that is broken? Not the body of Christ, saith he, for that is whole in every part; nor the bread is not broken, saith he, for our faith teacheth us con- trary: then must it be either Christ’s divinity or soul that is broken, or else is some other substance there which never man heard of before. . AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 327 Note also, good reader, how well this author agreeth with himself, which within a little compass denieth so many things, and affirmeth the same again. For first he saith, that to separate substances from the accidents is to bring it to nothing; and yet he separateth from their accidents as well the substances of bread and wine, as of the body of Christ. Before he said, that nothing was broken but the accidents; now he denieth it. Before he saith, the body of Christ is not broken, and shortly after he saith that which is broken is no bread, but the body of Christ. And here it appeareth, how falsehood neither agreeth with truth nor with itself. And where you allege, that “Sin the book of common prayer it is set forth, how ‘he book of in each part of that is broken of the consecrated bread is the whole body of our prayer. Saviour Christ,” what could you have alleged more against yourself? For if the con- secrated bread be broken in parts, how can you “answer truly by faith, as a believing man,” which answer you make straightways after, that “‘that which is broken is no bread?” And if you would answer, as you be wont to do, that the accidents of bread be called bread, yet that collusion will not serve you in this place. For seeing that this place speaketh of consecrated bread, answer me to this, whether the substanee or accidents be consecrated? And if you say the accidents, then forasmuch as con- secration, by your doctrine, is conversion, it must follow that the accidents of bread be converted, and not the substance; and so should you call it transaccidentation, and not transubstantiation : and if you say, that the substance of bread is consecrated, then forasmuch as that which is consecrated is divided into parts, and in every part is the whole body of Christ, you must confess that the substance of bread remaineth with the parts thereof, wherein is received the body of Christ. But yet will you say, peradventure, that although this make against transubstan- tiation, yet it proveth the real presence of Christ’s body, seeing that it “is whole in every part of the bread.” It is whole indeed in every part of the bread divided, as it is in the whole bread undivided ; which is sacramentally, not really, corporally, car- nally, and naturally, as you feign and imagine, and would constrain other to believe. 95]. And faith denieth not the bread, but teacheth it to remain as a sacrament. And calling of it Christ's body is not making of it to be really so, no more than the calling of the blessed virgin John’s mother made not her to be naturally so indeed, nor him to be her son. For although Christ’s words effectually spoken be an effec- tual making, yet his words sacramentally and figuratively spoken declare not the figure or sacrament to be in deed the thing that is signified. And if the rude and simple people understand not substance from accidents, as you here affirm, then this thing they may at the leastwise understand, how little they be beholden to you papists, that would bind them to believe, under peril of damnation, such things as they be not able to understand, making articles of their faith to snare them rather than to save them. But what skilleth that to the papists, how many men perish, which seek nothing else but the advancement of their pope, whom they say no man can find fault withal'’? For though he “neither care for his own pistin. x1. soul’s health, nor of his christian brother, but draw innumerable people captive with age him into hell, yet,” say the papists, “no man may reprehend him,” nor ask the question why he so doth. And where you speak of the “soberness” and “devotion” of the school authors, whom schoo! before you noted for boasters; what soberness and devotion was in them, being all ee in manner monks and friars, they that be exercised in them do know, whereof you be none. For the devotion that they had was to their god that created them, which was their pope; by contention, sophistication, and all subtle means they could devise by their wit or learning, to confirm and establish whatsoever oracle came out of their god’s mouth. They set up their antichrist directly against Christ, and yet under pre- tence of Christ made him his vicar-general, giving him power in heaven, earth, and in hell. And is not then the doctrine of transubstantiation, and of the real and sen- sual presence of Christ in the sacrament, to be believed, trow you, seeing that it came out of such a god’s mouth, and was set abroad by so many of his angels ? [* Corpus Juris Canonici, Distinct. xl. cap. vi. Si Papa. Tom. I. col. 194, 5. Ed. Lugd. 1618.] Simple and plain doe- trine. 352. [The answer. Sententia- rum, distinet. ix. 9, 10. Orig. ed. Winch. } 328 THE SECOND BOOK. And is not this a simple and plain doctrine, I pray you, that visible forms and substances be transubstantiated, and yet accidents remain? A plain doctrine, be you assured, which you confess yourself that the simple and plain people understand not, nor yourself with the help of all the papists is not able to defend it; where the true doctrine of the first catholic christian faith is most plain, clear and comfortable, with- out any difficulty, scruple or doubt, that is to say, that our Saviour Christ, although he be sitting in heaven in equality with his Father, is our life, strength, food, and sustenance, who by his death delivered us from death, and daily nourisheth and increaseth us to eternal life. And in token hereof he hath prepared bread to be eaten and wine to be drunken of us in his holy supper, to put us in remembrance of his said death, and of the celestial feeding, nourishing, increasing, and of all the benefits which we have thereby; which benefits through faith and the Holy Ghost are exhibited and given unto all that worthily receive the said holy supper. This the husband- man at his plough, the weaver at his loom, and the wife at her rock can remember, and give thanks unto God for the same. This is the very doctrine of the gospel, with the consent wholly of all the old ecclesiastical doctors, howsoever the papists for their pastime put visors upon the said doctors, and disguise them in other coats, making a play and mocking of them. Now followeth the second absurdity. Secondly, these transubstantiators do say, contrary to all learning, that the accidents of bread and wine do hang alone in the air, without any substance wherein they may be stayed. And what can be said more foolishly ? WINCHESTER. The Master of the sentences, shewing divers men’s sayings in discussion, as they can, of this mystery, telleth what some say, that had rather say somewhat than nothing ; which this author rehearseth as a determination of the church, that indeed maketh no doctrine of that point so, but acknowledgeth the mystery to exceed our capacity. And as for the accidents to be stayed, that is to say, to remain without their natural substance, is without difficulty believed of men that have faith, considering the almighty power of Christ, whose divine body is there present. And shall that be accounted for an inconvenience in the mystery, that any one man saith, whose saying is not as a full determination approved? If that man should encounter with this author, if he were alive so to do, I think he would say it were more tolerable in him, of a zeal to agree with the true doctrine, to utter his conceit fondly, than, of a malice to dissent from the true doctrine, this author so fondly to improve his saying. But if he should oppose this author in learning, and ask him how he will understand Fiat lux in creation of the world, where the light stayed that was then create? But I will proceed to peruse the other differences}. CANTERBURY. The doctrine that even now was so simple and plain is now again waxed so full of ambiguities and doubts, that learned men in discussing thereof, as they can, be fain to “say rather something than nothing ;” and yet were they better to say nothing at all, than to say that is not true, or nothing to purpose. And if the Master of the Sentences’ saying in this point vary from the common doctrine of the other papists*, why is not this his error rejected among other, wherein he is not commonly held? And why do yourself after approve the same saying of the Master, as a thing believed without diffi- culty, that the accidents be stayed without their natural substance? And then I would know of you wherein they be stayed, seeing they be not stayed in the air, as in their substance, nor in the bread and wine, nor in the body of Christ? For either you must appoint some other stay for them, or else grant, as I say, that they hang alone in the air, without any substance wherein they may be stayed. And either I understand you not in this place, (you speak so diffusely,) or else that thing which the Master spake, and yourself have here affirmed, you call it “a tolerable conceit fondly uttered.” And [' Absurdities. Orig. ed. Winch. ] [? Of the papists, in 1491.] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 329 whereas to answer the matter of the staying of the accidents, you ask wherein the light was stayed at the creation of the world; this is a very easy opposal, and soon answered unto. For first God created heaven and earth, and after made light, which was stayed in them as it is now, although not divided from the darkness in such sort as it was after. Now followeth the third absurdity. Thirdly, that the substance of Christ’s body is there really, corporally, and naturally present, without any accidents of the same, And so the papists make accidents to be without substances, and substances to be without accidents. WINCHESTER. How Christ's body is in circumstance present, no man can define; but that it is truly present, and therefore really present, corporally also, and naturally, with relation to the truth of the body present, and not to the manner of presence, which is spiritual, exceeding our capacity, and therefore therein without drawing away accidents or adding, we believe simply the truth, howsoever it liketh this author without the book to term it at his pleasure, and to speak of substance without accidents and accidents without substance, which perplexity in words cannot jest out the truth of the catholic belief. And this is on the author’s part nothing but jesting with a wrong surmise and supposal, as though men had invented and imagined that which by force and truth of the scripture all good men have and must believe, that is to say, the true presence of the substance of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, according to the words of Christ, “ This is my body ;” which exclude the substance of bread, declaring the sub- stance of the body of Christ to be acknowledged and professed in the sacrament by the true faith of a christian man. Compare with this what this author writeth in his ninth difference in the Sorty-seventh leaf of his book*, and so consider the truth of this report, and how this author agreeth with himself. CANTERBURY. I suspect not the judgment of the indifferent reader so much, but that he can per- ceive how indirectly you answer to this third absurdity, and be loth, as it seemeth, to answer any thing at all. But it is no little confirmation of the catholie faith, to see you papists vary so much among yourselves, and you alone to devise so many things contrary to all the rest, and yet you be uncertain yourself what you may say. They say also with one accord, saving only Smith and you, that “in the sacrament be not the qualities and quantities of Christ’s body.” For he is not there visible and sensible, with his voice to be heard, his colours to be seen, his softness to be felt, his quantities to be extended, and to be local in place, with his other accidents; so that they take away his accidents from the sacrament. Smith saith that he is there, not naturally, as you say, but against nature, with all his qualities and accidents. You dare neither add them nor draw them away, being uncertain whether they be there or no, and being also uncertain whether in the sacrament he have distinction of members or no. But telling the truth is but jesting and railing to you, which for lack of answer be glad to shift off the truth as a matter of jesting. And it is not my “terming without the book and at my pleasure,” to speak of sub- stances without accidents, and accidents without substances ; for I speak none otherwise therein, than as it hath pleased the papists before to term the same in all their books of that matter, but I termed this matter so upon the papistical books, as they at their pleasure devised or dreamed without all manner of books written before their time. And the force of scripture constraineth no man to the belief of transubstantiation, although the body of Christ were really, corporally, and carnally present, who by his omnipotent power can be present as well with the substances, as with the accidents of bread and wine, as fully is declared before. [? And but yet supernaturally. Orig. ed. Winch.] [* Vide p. 72.] 353. porally, naturally. Smith. The answer. rig. ed. Winch. ] [The answer. Orig. ed. Winch. } 355. 330 THE SECOND BOOK. And where you allege the disagreeing of me with myself, if you would have taken the pain to read some of the school authors, you should have learned that there is no disagreement in my sayings at all. For they say, that “the body of Christ that is in the sacrament hath his proper forms and quantities,” as I said in the forty-seventh leaf’. “ But yet those accidents,” say they, “be in heaven, and not in the sacrament,” as I say in this place, not varying one mite from mine other saying. But ignorance in you thinketh a difference where none is at all. Now followeth the fourth absurdity. Fourthly, they say, that “the place where the accidents of bread and wine be’, hath no substance there to fill that place, and so must they needs grant vacuum, which nature utterly abhorreth.” WINCHESTER, This author goeth about to find so many absurdities, that he speaketh he wotteth not what, and where he seeth and feeleth quantity, accompteth the place void for want of substance; as though in consideration of common natural things severally as they be in nature, it were the substance that filled the place, and not rather quantity, although in the natural order of things there is no quantity without substance, and is in this sacrament only by miracle. There wanted a substance in consideration of this absurdity, and was such a yacuum as nature plainly endureth. CANTERBURY. All the authors that write what cacuwm is, account a place that is not filled with a substance which hath quantity in it to be void and empty. So that my saying is not grounded upon ignorance, but upon the mind of all that write in that matter. Whereas your saying, “that quantity alone filleth place, without substance,” hath no ground at all but the papists’ bare imagination. And if “quantity in the sacrament be without substance by miracle,” it is marvel that no* ancient writer in no place of their books made any mention of such a miracle. But yourself grant enough for my purpose in this place, “that it is an absurdity in nature, and wrought only by miracle, that quantity occupieth a place alone without substance.” Which absurdity followeth not of the true and right faith, but only of your error of transubstantiation. Now to the fifth absurdity. Fifthly, they are not ashamed to say, that “substance is made of acci- dents, when the bread mouldeth or is turned into worms, or when the wine soureth.” WINCHESTER. True believing men are not ashamed to confess the truth of their faith, whatsoever arguments might be brought of experience in nature to the contrary. For Christs works we know to be true by a most certain faith: what mouldeth in bread, or soureth in wine, we be not so assured ; or whereon worms engender, itis not so fully agreed on among men. The learned lawyer Ulpian writeth, as I have before alleged, that wine and vinegar have in manner one substance, so as when wine soureth and is vinegar, in manner the same substance remaineth: in whom it is thought no absurdity to say by that means that the accidents only sour. And if we agree with the philosophers that there is materia prima, which in all things is one and altereth not, but as a new form cometh taketh a new name, fancying that as one wave in the water thrusteth away another, so doth one form another; it should seem by this conclusion all alteration to be in accidents, and the corruption of accidents to be the generation of new accidents, the same materia prima being as it were substantia, that altereth not. And this I write that may be said as it were to make a title to this author's certainty, which is not so sure as he maketh it. Amongst men have been marvellous fancies in consideration of natural things; and it is to me a very great absurdity of that secret, and therefore to our [! Vide p. 72.] [° Where the bread and wine be. Orig. ed.] [® None, 1351.] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 331 [knowledge an uncertain work, to deduce an argument, wherewith to impugn our]* cer- tain faith. But to come nearer to the purpose, it is wrong borne in hand, that we affirm worms to be engendered of accidents; but when the worms be engendered, we grant the worms to be, and will rather say, whereof they be we cannot tell, than to say that substance is made of accidents, and that doctrine is not annexed to the fuith of transubstantiation, and such as entreat those chances and accidents do not induce that conclusion, but do reasonably avoid it. And yet by the way in moulding and souring it should, meseemeth, be properly said that the accidents mould, and the accidents sour, because we call mould bread bread, sour wine wine; and in wine, as I said before, made vinegar, the former substance hath been in learning accounted in manner to remain: so as this author overshooteth himself, when he matcheth generation of worms with moulding and souring, which differ so far in the specu- lation. But even as this author's wit is overturned in consideration of the true faith, so doth it appear perverted in consideration of natural things. CANTERBURY. I know not to what purpose you have written all this fond matter, except it be that you would the world should know how ignorant you be in philosophy, which have not learned so much as to know the diversity between the six kinds of movings, generation, corruption, augmentation, diminution, alteration, and moving from place to place: whereof the four last be from accidents to accidents, and the two first from substance to substance. So that all mutation is not in accidents, and the corruption of accidents to be the generation of new accidents, as you unlearnedly imagine, both of that and of materia prima, which never was no such thing indeed, but by imagination. But because you bear me in hand, that I bear the papists wrong in hand, that they affirm worms to be engendered of accidents, I shall rehearse their own words, that the readers may know your ignorance herein, or else how loud a lie you make willingly. Ex speciebus sacramentalibus, say they, generantur vermes, si putrefiant. “Of the sacramental forms, if they be rotten, be gendered worms.” But it is no point of true meaning men now to deny that ever they said any such things, as they have taught in their schools these four or five hundred years, as their own books do plainly testify. And be these papists to be credited, which have taught untruly so many years, and now, when they be pressed withal, go clean from it, and say they never said so, but be “ wrong borne in hand?” And because Smith denieth here the same that you do, that worms be engendered smith. of the accidents in the sacrament, let him help you to answer this matter. And forasmuch as he saith, that “when the host reserved beginneth to mould and to putrify, and should engender worms, then another substance succeedeth it, of which such things are made,” let him tell what substance that is which succeedeth, and whereof that substance is made. But to return to you again: such philosophy as you make here, learned I never in Aristotle, Plato, nor Pliny; nor I trow none such to be found in any that ever wrote. But as you delight all in singularity, and have made strange divinity, so must you invent as strange philosophy. For who ever heard the terminus a quo is changed, or terminus ad quem? And whatsoever seemeth to you, (as commonly it seemeth to you that seemeth to no man else,) yet it seemeth to no man else that ever was learned, that accidents be properly changed, but that the substances or subjects be changed from accidents to accidents. And it is the simplest reason that ever was made, that the accidents mould and sour, because the substance remaineth; so as mould bread is called bread, and sour wine is called wine. For so is hot water and cold water both called water: and yet it is the water that is now hot, now cold, not the accidents. For neither can hot be cold nor cold be hot, nor heat go into coldness, nor coldness into heat; but the subject that receiveth them is now hot, now cold, by alteration, as iron that is now cold is soon made hot; but coldness can never be hotness by no art nor science, forasmuch as they be contrary qualities. And likewise pureness cannot mould, nor [* Ed, 1551, and Orig. ed. Winch.] 356. {1 Cor. x.] 332 THE SECOND BOOK. sweetness cannot be sour; but wine that is sweet may turn into sour wine, and bread that is pure may be changed into mouldy bread. But the more you strive in the matters of philosophy, the more appeareth your ignorance therein, even as it did before in the matters of our faith. And who can condemn your doctrine more clearly than your own Ulpian doth, as you do here allege him? that “in vinegar remaineth in manner the same substance that was in the wine;” whereof it must follow, that when the sacramental wine is turned into vinegar, there must be a substance remaining, which is in manner the same with the substance of the vinegar. The sixth absurdity. Sixthly, that substance is nourished without substance, by accidents only, if it chance any cat, mouse, dog, or other thing, to eat the sacramental bread, Lor drink the sacramental wine’. ] These inconveniences and absurdities do follow of the fond papistical tran- substantiation, with a number of other errors, as evil or worse than these, whereunto they be never able to answer, as many of them have confessed themselves. And it is wonder to see, how in many of the foresaid things they vary among themselves: whereas the other doctrine of the scripture and of the old catholic church, but not of the lately corrupted Romish church, is plain and easy, as well to be understanded, as to answer to all the aforesaid questions, without any absurdity or inconvenience following thereof; so that every answer shall agree with God’s word, with the old church, and also with all reason and true philosophy. For as touching the first point, what is broken, what is eaten, what drunken, and what chawn in this sacrament, it is easy to answer. The bread and wine, as St Paul saith: ‘The bread which we break.” And as concerning the second and third points, neither is the substance of bread and wine without their proper accidents, nor their accidents hang alone in the air without any substance; but, according to all learning, the substance of the bread and wine reserve their own accidents, and the accidents do rest in their own substances. And also as concerning the fourth point, there is no point left void after consecration, as the papists dream ; but bread and wine fulfil their place, as they did before. And as touching the fifth pot, whereof the worms or moulding is engendered, and whereof the vinegar cometh, the answer is easy to make, according to all learning and experience, that they come according to the course of nature, of the substance of the bread and wine, too long kept, and not of the accidents alone, as the papists do fondly phantasy. And likewise the substances of bread and wine do feed and nourish the body of them that eat the same, and not only the accidents. In these answers is no absurdity nor inconvenience, nothing spoken either contrary to holy scripture, or to natural reason, philosophy, or experience, or against any old ancient author, or the primitive or catholic church, but only against the malignant and papistical church of Rome. Whereas on the other side, that cursed synagogue of antichrist hath defined and determined in this matter many things contrary to Christ’s words, contrary to the old catholic church, and the holy martyrs and doctors of the same, and contrary to all natural reason, learning, and philosophy. And the final end of all this antichrist’s doctrine is none other, but by subtilty [! Eds. 1551 and 158) omit this passage. AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 333 and craft to bring christian people from the true honouring of Christ unto the greatest idolatry that ever was in this world deyised; as by God’s grace shall be plainly set forth hereafter. WINCHESTER. Tt hath been heard, without fables, of certain men that have lived and been nourished with Pinca yer savours only. And in gold and certain precious stones, that they give a kind of nurture Wineh. | to another substance, without diminution of their substance, experience hath shewed it so, and therefore the principle or maxim that this author gathereth hath no such absurdity in it as he noted, to say that “substance is nowrished without substance.” But when vermin by chance happen to devour any host, as I am sure they cannot violate Christ's most precious body, so what effect followeth of the rest, what needeth it to be discussed? If it nowrisheth, then doth that effect remain, although the substance be not there. If every nurture must needs be of substance, then would those that discuss those chances say the substance to return; but hell gates shall not make me speak against my faith. And if I be asked the question, whether the visible matter of the sacrament nourish; I will answer, Yea. Ergo, saith he, “ there is substance:” I deny it. He shall now from the effect to the cause argue by physic; I shall disprove the conclusion by the authority of faith: who is it most meet should yield to other? And if in nature many things be in experience contrary to the general rules, why may not one singular condition be in this visible matter of the sacrament, that, the only substance being changed, all other parts, properties, and effects may remain? Is it an absurdity for a maid to have a child, because it is against the rules of nature? Is it an absurdity the world to be made of nothing, because the philosopher saith, “Of nothing cometh nothing?” The principle of nature is, that whatsoever hath a beginning, hath an end; and yet it is no absurdity to believe our souls to have a beginning without end, and to be immortal. Wherefore, to conclude this matter, it is a great absurdity in this author, to note that for an absurdity in our faith, which repugneth only to the principles of philosophy or reason; when that is only to be ac- counted for an absurdity, that should repugn to the scripture and God’s will, which is the standard to try the rule of our faith. Howsoever reason or philosophy be offended, it forceth not, so God's teaching be embraced and persuaded in fuith, which needeth no such plaisters and salves as this author hath devised, to make a sore where none is, and to corrupt that is whole. CANTERBURY. Men may here see what feigned fables be sought out to defend your errors and ignorance, which is now so manifest, that it appeareth you never read, or else have forgotten, the very principles and definitions of philosophy: of which this is one, 358. that nutrition is a conversion of substance into substance, that is to say, of the meat into the substance of the thing that is fed. Another is thus: Ha eisdem sunt et nu- triuntur omnia: “All things be nourished of things like themselves.” And so I grant you, that a man made of savours, and a man made of the virtue of gold and precious stones, may be nourished by the same, because he is made of the same. And yet it may be that some certain savour, or the virtue of some precious stone, may increase or continue some humour, whereof a man may be nourished, as we read of some men or certain people that have lived no small time by the savour of apples. But still in your book you cry “faith, faith,’ and “catholic faith,’ when you teach but your own inventions, clean contrary to the true catholic faith and express word of God. And in all your arguments here you commit the greatest vice that can be in reasoning, called Petitio principii, taking that thing which is chiefly in con- troversy to be a principle to induce your conclusion. “Faith, faith,” say you, where is no faith, but your bare feigning. I have disproved your faith by God’s word, by the universal consent of all Christendom a thousand years together; and you cry out still, “faith, faith,’ which is not the faith of Christ, but of antichrist. Let christian men now judge, “who should yield to other.” If you had proved your doctrine by faith, founded upon God’s word, I would condescend unto you, that it is no absurdity that accidents remain when the substance is gone. But God’s word is clearly against 359. 334 THE SECOND BOOK. you, not only in your doctrine of transubstantiation, but also in the doctrine of the real presence, of the eating and drinking, and of the sacrifice of Christ’s flesh and blood. WINCHESTER. The best plaister and medicine that could now be devised, were to leave apart questions and idle talk, and meekly to submit our capacities to the true faith, and not to overwhelm our understandings with search and inquiry, whereof we shall never find an end, entering the bottomless secrecy of G'od’s mysteries. Let us not seek that is above our reach; but that God hath commanded us let us do. Each man impugneth another’s learning with words, none controlleth in others living with better deeds. Let all endeavour themselves to do that God commandeth, and the good occupation thereof shall exclude all such idleness as is cause and occasion of this vain and noisome curiosity. And now to return to this author: whiles he seeth a mote in another man’s eye, he feeleth not a beam in his own: who recommendeth unto us specially Theodorete, whom he calleth an holy bishop, and with him doth bring forth a piece of an epistle of St Chrysostom!. The doctrine of which two joined with the doctrine of this author, in such sense as this author would have all understanded to be called catholic, touching the Saith of the sacrament, hath such an absurdity in it as was never heard of in religion. For this author teacheth for his part, that the body of Christ is only really in heaven and not in deed in the sacrament, according whereunto this author teacheth also, the bread to be very bread still; which doctrine if it be true, as this author will needs have it, then join unto it the doctrine of the secret epistle of Chrysostom and Theodorete, whose doctrine is, that after the consecration that is consecrate shall be called no more bread, but the body of Christ. By these two doctrines joined together it shall appear, that we must call that is consecrate by a name that we be learned by this author it is not, and may not by the doctrine of Theo- dorete call it by the name of the which this author teacheth us in deed it is. And thus?: “it is in deed bread,” quoth this author ; “but call it not so,” quoth this Theodorete: “ It is not in deed the body of Christ,” quoth this author; “but yet in any wise call it so,” quoth Theodorete. Here is plain simulation and dissimulation both together. For by forbidding of the name of bread, according to Theodorete’s teaching, we dissemble and hide that it is by this author's teaching; and by using the name of our Lord’s body, according to Theodorete’s teaching, we Seign it to be that it is not by this author's teaching, which saith, “there is only a figure:” and by this means, in so high a mystery, we should use untruths on both sides, in simulation and dissimulation, which is a marvellous teaching. I deny not but things signifying may have the name of that they signify by a figure of speech; but we read not in any doctrine given, that the thing signifying should have the name by figure, and be delivered from the name of that it is in deed. And yet this is now the teaching of this author in defence of his new catholic faith, joined with the teaching of Theodorete, and the secret epistle of St Chrysostom, as this author would have them understanded. But those men, Theodorete and Chrysostom, in the sense they meant, as I understand them, taught a true doctrine. For they take the name of the body of Christ in the sacrament to be a real naming of the body of Christ there present in deed, and therefore a true perfect name, which, as St Chrysostom’s secret epistle saith, “the thing is worthy to have,” declaring by that worthiness the thing named to be there in deed. And likewise I understand the other name of bread worthily done away, because the substance whereupon in reason the name was grounded is changed, according to the true doctrine of transubstantiation: therefore that name of bread in their doctrine is truly laid away, although Theodorete writeth the visible matter of bread and wine to be seen and felt as they were before, and therefore saith “ their substance, which there signifieth the outward nature, is seen and felt to remain;” which terms, with con- venient understanding, may thus agree with the catholic teaching of transubstantiation, and so in the sacrament on every part, both in the heavenly and earthly part, to be a full, whole, and perfect truth, as the high mystery, being the sacrament of our perfect unity in body and soul with Christ, doth require. Whereby in my judgment, as this author hath against his own determination in this enterprise uttered that confirmeth the truth of the real presence of Christ's most precious body in the sacrament, which he doth in special entreating the words of St Augustine in the twenty-seventh leaf of his book®, besides that in divers other places he doth the like; so bringing us forth this Theodorete and his secret epistle of St Chrysostom, he hath brought forth that may serve to convince him im transubstantiation. Howbeit as for [! Vide pp. 274, 287, 8, 299.] [2 As thus, 1551. ] [3 Vide p. 277.] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 335 transubstantiation, Zuinglius taketh it truly for a necessary consequence of the truth, if there be in the sacrament the real presence of Christ's body, as there is in deed. For as a carnal man, not instruct by faith, as well after consecration as before, as he is of the earth, speaketh and calleth it bread, and asking him what it is will never answer otherwise, and if one asked him whether it were the body of Christ, would think the questioner mocked him; so the faithful spiritual man, answering to that question what it is, would after consecration, according to Faith, answer the body of Christ, and think himself mocked if he were asked, is it not bread? unless he had been taught Christ to have said it had been both his body and bread. As for calling it by the name of bread which it was, he would not greatly stick, and one thing may have many names ; but one thing is but one substance, whereby to answer to the question what it is, saving only in the person of Christ, wherein we know united the two substances of God and man. And this matter I repeat and summarily touch again, to leave in the reader’s breast the principal point of our belief of this mystery to be of the real presence, thut is to say, unfeigned substantial presence, and therefore the true presence of Christ's most precious body in the sacrament, which hath been in all ages taught, and been as it is the catholic faith of Christendom, as appeareth by the testimony of the old authors in all ages. CANTERBURY. For the conclusion of all these questions, when you sce that you can make no answer, but that you be driven to so many absurdities, and that I have answered so plainly unto every one, that there is left neither absurdity nor difficulty at all, then you devise the best way and most easy for yourself, to ‘‘lay apart all questions and idle talk ;’ when all these questions and idle talk needed not, if the papists of their idle brains had not devised their transubstantiation, and thereupon moved this idle talk themselves; which hath been occasion not only of much dissension in all christian realms, but of the effusion also of much innocent blood. But when the papists, like unto Lucifer, have ascended into heaven, and searched by vain and arrogant questions the bowels and secrets of God’s majesty and his wisdom; yea, even whether God have made the world so well as he might have done; then they command other to keep silence, and “not to enter into the bottomless secrecy of God’s mysteries, nor to seek that is above their reach, but to endeavour themselves to do that God commandeth:” which counsel, as it is most godly and wholesome, so if the papists themselves had observed in the beginning, no man should have needed to have troubled his brains with such frivolous questions and idle talk. But the papists do like boys in the school, that make rods to beat other, and when they should be beaten with the rods which they made themselves, then they wish that all rods were in the fire. So the papists, when they see themselves overthrown in their own questions which they first devised themselves, and to be beaten with their own rods, then they cry, “ Peace, hold hands, and question no more.” But to answer the absurdities laid unto the papists’ charge, you recompense me again with two great huge absurdities. One is, that “Christ is really but in heaven only :” the other is, that “bread is still bread.” Here thou mayest judge, gentle reader, what errors I defend, that am by force driven to such two absurdities, that I am fain to say as I have written in my book, and as the apostles and evangelists said. But beware, I would advise thee, that thou say not as God’s word teacheth; for if thou dost, thou mayest be sure to be taken of the papists for an heretic. Finally, you come to your contradictions of bread and no bread, the body and not the body, simulation and dissimulation ; wherein when you have well practised yourself in all your book through, at the last you make as it were a play in a dialogue between Chrysostom, Theodorete, and me. But Chrysostom, Theodorete, and I shall agree well enough ; for they tell not what in nowise may be, but what was commonly used; that is to say, not to call the bread by his proper name after consecration, but by the name of the body of Christ. And if you had well considered what I wrote in my book concerning figurative speeches, and negatives by comparison, which you also have allowed, you should have well perceived your labour here spent all in vain. For in all figures and sacraments the signs, remaining in their own proper natures, change nevertheless their names, and be called by the names of the more high and excellent 360. Bread and no bread. Theodoretus. Chrysosto- mus. Whyv the names of the sacraments be changed. 336 THE SECOND BOOK. things which they signify. And both Chrysostom and Theodorete shew a cause thereof, which is this, that we should not rest in the sight of the sacraments and figures, but lift up our minds to the things that be thereby represented. And yet in the sacraments is neither simulation nor dissimulation, except you will call all figurative speeches simu- lation, and say that Christ simuled when he said he was a “ vine,” a “door,” a ‘ herd- man,” “the light of the world,” and such like speeches. But it pleaseth you, for refreshing of your wit, (being now so sore travailed with impugning of the truth,) 361. to devise a pretty merry dialogue of “‘quoth he,” and “‘quoth he.” And if I were disposed to dally and trifle, I could make a like dialogue of “ simulation” or “ dissimu- lation,” of ‘“‘quoth he” and ‘“ quoth you,” even between you and Christ. But, as I have declared before, all things which be exalted to an higher dignity, be called by the names of their dignity, so much that many times their former names be forgotten, and yet nevertheless they be the same things that they were before, although they be not usually so called; as the surnames of kings and emperors, to how many be they known? or how many do call them thereby? but every man calleth them by their royal and imperial dignities. And in like manner is it of figures and sacraments, saving that their exaltation is in a figure, and the dignities royal and imperial be real and in deed. And yet he should not offend, that should call the princes by their original names, so that he did it not in contempt of their estates. And no more should he offend, that did call a figure by the name of the thing that it is indeed, so that he did it not in contempt of the thing that is signified. And therefore Theodorete saith not, that the bread in the sacrament may not be called bread, and that he offendeth that so calleth it; for he calleth it bread himself, but with this addition of dignity, calling it “the bread of life,’ which it signifieth: as the cap of maintenance is not called barely and simply a cap, but with addition of maintenance. And in like manner we use not in common speech to call bread, wine, and water in the sacraments, simple and common water, bread, and wine: but according to that they represent unto us, we call them “the water of baptism,” “the water of life,” “sacramental water,” “ sa- cramental and celestial bread and wine,” “the bread of life,” “‘the drink that quencheth our thirst for ever.” And the cause Theodorete sheweth why they be so called, that “‘we, hearing those names, should lift up our minds unto the things that they be called, and comfort ourselves therewithal.” And yet neither in the sacraments, in the cap of maintenance, nor in the imperial or royal majesties, is any simulation or dissimulation ; but all be plain speeches in common usage, which every man understandeth. But there was never man that understood any author further from his meaning, than you do Theodorete and Chrysostom in this place. For they meant not of any real calling by changing of substances, but of a sacramental change of the names re- maining the substances. For Theodorete saith in plain words, “that as Christ called bread his body, so he called his body corn, and called himself a vine.” Was therefore the substance of his body transubstantiated and turned into corn, or he into a vine? And yet this must needs follow of your saying, if Christ’s calling were a putting away of the former substance, according to the doctrine of transubstantiation. But that Theodorete meant not of any such changing of substances, but of changing of names, he declareth so plainly, that no man can doubt of his meaning. These be Theodorete’s own words: “Our Saviour without doubt changed the names, and gave to his body the name of the sign, and to the sign the name of his body; and yet,” saith he, “ they kept their former substance, fashion, and figure.” And the cause wherefore Christ doth vouchsafe to call the sacramental bread by the name of his body, and to dignify so earthly a thing by so heavenly a name, Theodorete sheweth to be this, “that the 362, godly receivers of the sacrament, when they hear the heavenly names, should lift up their minds from earth unto heaven, and not to have respect unto the bread out- wardly only, but principally to look upon Christ, who with his heavenly grace and omnipotent power feedeth them inwardly.” But there never was such untruth used as you use in this author, to hide the truth and to set forth your untruth. For you alter Theodorete’s words, and yet that sufficeth not, but you give such new and strange significations to words as before was never invented. For where Theodorete saith, that “the sacraments remain,” you turn that — AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 337 into the visible matter, and then that visible matter, as you take it, must signify accidents. And where Theodorete saith in plain terms, that “‘the substance remaineth,” there must substance also by your saying signify accidents, which you call here “outward nature,” contrary to your own doctrine, which have taught hitherto, that “substance is an inward nature, invisible and insensible.” And thus your saying here neither agreeth with the truth nor with yourself in other places. And all these cautels' and false interpretations, altering of the words, and corrupting of the sense both of all authors and also of scripture, is nothing else but shameless shifts to deceive simple people, and to draw them from the old catholic faith of Christ’s church unto your new Romish errors, devised by antichrist not above four or five hundred years passed. And where you say, that “in the sacrament, in every part, both in the heavenly and earthly part, is an whole and perfect truth;” how is perfect truth in the earthly part of the sacrament, if there be no bread there at all, but the colour and accidents of bread? For if there be none other truth in the heavenly part of the sacrament, then is not Christ there at all, but only his qualities and accidents. And as concerning your unjust gathering of mine own words upon St Augustine, I have answered thereunto in the same place. And where you have set out the answer of the carnal and spiritual man after your own imagination, you have so well devised the matter, that you have made two ex- tremities without any mean, For the true faithful man would answer, not as you have devised, but he would say, according to the old catholic faith and teaching of the apostles, evangelists, martyrs, and confessors of Christ’s church, “that in the sacrament or true ministration thereof be two parts, the earthly and the heavenly: the earthly is the bread and wine, the other is Christ himself: the earthly is without us, the heavenly is within us: the earthly is eaten with our mouths, and carnally feedeth our bodies; the heavenly is eaten with our inward man, and spiritually feedeth the same: the earthly feedeth us but for a time, the heavenly feedeth us for ever.” Thus would the true faithful man answer, without leaning to any extremity, either to deny the bread or inclosing Christ really in the accidences of bread; but professing and believing Christ really and corporally to be ascended into heaven, and yet spiritually to dwell in his faithful people, and they in him unto the world’s end. This is the true catholic faith of Christ, taught from the beginning, and never corrupted but by antichrist and his ministers. One And where you say, that “one thing is but one substance, saving only in the person one sub- of Christ,” your teaching is untrue, not only in the person of Gn but also in every — 363. man, who is made of two substances, the body and soul. And if you had been learned in philosophy, you would have found your saying false also in every corporal thing, which consisteth of two substances, of the matter, and of the form. And Gelasius sheweth the same likewise in this matter of the sacrament. So untrue it is that you most vainly boast here, that your doctrine hath been taught in all ages, and been the catholic faith ; which was never the catholic, but only the papistical faith, as I have evidently proved by holy scripture and the old catholic authors, wherein truly and directly you have not answered to one. WINCHESTER. In whose particular words although there may be sometime cavillations, yet I will note to the reader four marks and tokens imprinted rather in those old authors’ deeds than words, which be certain testimonies to the truth of their faith of the real presence? of Christ's most precious body in the sacrament. The first mark is in the process of arguing used by them to the conviction of heretics by the truth of this sacrament, wherein I note not the particular? sentences, which sometime be dangerous speeches, but their whole doings. As Irene, who was im the beginning of the church, argqueth against the Valentinians that denied the resurrection of our flesh, whom Irene reproveth by the feeding of our souls and bodies with the divine, C Cautels, i. e. cautions. ] [* Not their particular, ibid. | [° Of real presence, Orig. ed. Winch. ] LCRANMER. ] 22 faa 338 THE SECOND BOOK. glorified flesh of Christ in the sacrament; which flesh, and it be there but in a figure}, then it should have proved the resurrection of our flesh slenderly, as it were? but figuratively. And if the catholic faith had not been then certainly taught, and constantly believed without variance, Christ's very flesh to be in deed eaten in that mystery, it would have been answered of the heretics, it had been but a figure; but that appeareth not, and the other appeareth, which is a testimony to the truth of matter in deed. earns. Hilary, reasoning of the natural conjunction between us and Christ by mean of this — One. sacrament, expresseth the same to come to pass by the receiving truly the very flesh of our Lord in our Lord's meat, and thereupon argueth against the Arians; which Arians, if it had not been so really in deed, would have answered, But all was spiritually, so as there was no such natural and corporal communion in deed as Hilary supposed, but, as this author teacheth, a figure, and it had been the catholic doctrine; so that argument of Hilary had been of no force. St Chrysostom, Gelasius, and Theodorete, argue of the truth of this mystery to convince the Apollinarists and Eutychians; which were none argument, if Christ's very body were not as really present in the sacrament for the truth of presence, as the God- lead is in the person of Christ; being the effect of the argument this, that as the presence of Christ's body in this mystery doth not alter the property? of the visible natures, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanity; which against those heretics served for an argument to exclude confusion of natures in Christ, and had been a danger- ous arguing* to be embraced of the Nestorians, who would hereby have furthered their heresy, to prove the distinction of natures in Christ without any union; for they would have said: “ As the earthly and heavenly natures be so distinct in the sacrament, as the one is not spoken of the other, so be the natures of the humanity and Godhead not united in Christ ;’ which is false; and in the comparings® we may not look that all should answer in equality, but only Sor the point that it is made® for, that is, as in the sacrament the visible element is not extinguished by the presence of Christ's most precious body, no more is Christ's humanity by his Godhead ; and yet we may not say, that as in the sacrament be but only accidents of the visible earthly matter, that therefore in the person of Christ be only accidents of the humanity. For that mystery requireth the whole truth of man’s nature, and therefore Christ took upon him the whole man, body and soul. The mystery of the sacrament requireth the truth of the accidents only, 364. being the substance of the visible creatures converted into the body and blood of Christ. And this I write to prevent such cavillations as some would search for. But to return to our matter: all these arguments were vain, if there were not in the sacrament the true presence of Christ's very body, as the celestial part of the sacrament, being the visible forms the earthly thing: which earthly thing remaineth in the former propriety with the very presence of the celestial thing. And this sufficeth concerning the first mark. CANTERBURY. As for your four marks and tokens, if you mark them well, you shall perceive most manifestly your ignorance and error, how they note and appoint, as it were with their fingers, your doctrine to be erroneous, as well of transubstantiation as of the real presence. Irenzus. And to begin with your first mark: Irenee indeed proved the resurrection of our bodies unto eternal life, because our bodies be nourished with the everlasting food of Christ’s body. And therefore as that food is everlasting, so it being joined unto his eternal deity, giveth to our bodies everlasting life. And if the being of Christ’s body in any creature should give the same life, then it might peradventure be thought of some fools, that if it were in the bread, it should give life to the bread. But neither reason, learn- ing, nor faith beareth, that Christ’s body being only in bread should give life unto a man. So that if it were an article of our faith, to believe that Christ is present in the forms of bread and wine, it were an unprofitable article, seeing that his being in the bread should profit no man. Themeaning _ Trenee therefore meaneth not of the being of Christ in the bread and wine, but of the of Irenee an other. eating of him. And yet he meaneth not of corporal eating, (for so Christ saith himself, John vi. (? But a figure, Orig. ed. Winch. } | [* Argument, ibid.] [2 And as it were, ibid. and 1551.] [> Comparing, ibid.] [* Properties, Orig. ed. Winch. ] [® The point it is made, ibid-] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 339 that his flesh availeth nothing,) but spiritual eating by faith. Nor he speaketh not of spiritual eating in receiving of the sacrament only, for then our life should not be eternal, nor endure no longer than we be eating of the sacrament; for our spiritual life continueth no longer than our spiritual feeding. And then could none have life but that receive the sacrament, and all should have perished that died before Christ’s supper and institution of the sacrament, or that die under age before they receive the sacrament. But the true meaning of Irenee, Hilary, Cyprian, Cyril, and other that treated of this matter was this, that as Christ was truly made man and crucified for us, and shed his blood upon the cross for our redemption, and now reigneth for ever in heaven; so as many as have a true faith and belief in him, chawing their cuds, and perfectly remem- bering the same death and passion, which is the spiritual eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, they shall reign in everlasting life with him. For they spiritually and truly by faith eat his flesh and drink his blood, whether they were before the institution of the sacrament or after. And the being or not being of Christ’s body and blood really and corporally in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, neither maketh nor marreth, nor is to no purpose in this matter. But for confirmation of this our faith in Christ’s death and passion, and for a perpetual memory of the same, hath Christ ordained this holy sacrament, not to be kept, but to be ministered among us to our singular comfort; that as outwardly and corporally we eat the very bread and drink the very wine, and call them “the body and blood of Christ,” so inwardly and spiritually we eat and drink the very body and blood of Christ. And yet carnally and corporally he is in heaven, and shall be until the last judgment, when he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. And in the sacrament, that is to say, in the due ministration of the sacrament, Christ is not only figuratively, but effectually unto ever- lasting life. And this teaching impugneth the heresies of the Valentinians, Arians, and other heretics: and so doth not your feigned doctrine of transubstantiation, of the real presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine; and that ungodly and wicked men eat and drink the same, which shall be cast away from the eternal life, and perish for ever. And for further answer to Hilary, I refer the reader to mine other answer made to him before. And for St Chrysostom, Gelasius, and Theodorete, if there be no bread and wine in the sacrament, their arguments serve for the heretics’ purpose, and clean directly against themselves. For their intent against the heretics is to prove, that to the full perfection of Christ is required a perfect soul and a perfect body, and to be perfect God and perfect man; as to the full perfection of the sacrament is required pure and perfect bread and wine, and the perfect body and blood of Christ. So that now turning the argument, if there be no perfect bread and wine, as the papists falsely surmise, then may the heretics conclude against the catholic faith, and convince Chrysostom, Gelasius, and Theodorete with their own weapon, that is to say, with their own similitude, that as in the sacrament lacketh the earthly part, so doth in Christ lack his humanity. And as to all our senses seemeth to be bread and wine, and yet is none indeed; so shall they argue by this similitude, that in Christ seemed to all our senses flesh and blood, and yet was there none in very deed. And thus by your devilish transubstantiation of bread and wine, do you transubstantiate also the body and blood of Christ, not convincing but confirming most heinous heresies. And this is the conclusion of your ungodly feigned doctrine of transubstantiation. And where you would gather the same conclusion, if Christ’s flesh and blood be not really present, it seemeth that you understand not the purpose and intent of these authors. For they bring not this similitude of the sacrament for the real presence, but for the real being: that as the sacrament consisteth in two parts, one earthly and another heavenly, the earthly part being the bread and wine, and the heavenly the body and blood of Christ, and these parts be all truly and really in deed, without colour or simulation, that is to say, very true bread and wine indeed, the very true body and blood of Christ indeed ; even likewise in Christ be two natures, his humanity and earthly substance, and his diyinity and heavenly substance, and both these be true natures and 22—2 365, 366. Cyprian. de cena Do- mini, Orig. ed. Winch. ]} 367. 340 THE SECOND BOOK. substances, without colour or dissembling. And thus is this similitude of the sacrament brought in for the truth of the natures, not for the presence of the natures. For Christ was perfect God and perfect man when his soul went down to hell, and his body lay in the grave, because the body and soul were both still united unto his divinity ; and yet it was not required that his soul should be present with the body in the sepulture : no more is it now required that his body should be really present in the sacrament; but as the soul was then in hell, so is his body now in heaven. And as it is not required that wheresoever Christ's divinity is, there should be really and corporally his manhood ; so it is not required that where the bread and wine be, there should be corporally his flesh and blood. But as you frame the argument against the heretics, it serveth so little against them, that they may with the same frame and engine overthrow the whole catholic church. For thus you frame the argument: “ As the presence of Christ's body in this mystery doth not alter the propriety of the visible natures, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanity.” Mark well now, good reader, what followeth hereof. ‘As the presence of Christ’s body in this mystery doth not alter,” say you, “the propriety of the visible natures, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanity.” ‘“ But the presence of Christ’s body in this mystery doth so alter the visible natures,” as the papists say, “that the substances of bread and wine be extinguished, and there remaineth no substance but of the body of Christ ;” ergo, likewise in the mystery of Christ’s incarnation the humanity is extin- guished by the presence of his Godhead, and so there remaineth no more but the sub- stance of his divinity, as the Eutychians said. And thus the similitude of Chrysostom, Gelasius, and Theodorete, joined to the saying of the papists, frameth a good argument for the heretics. But those authors framed their argument clean contrary, on this wise: that the bread and wine be not transubstantiate or extinguished, but continue still in their own substances, figures, fashion, and all natural proprieties; and therefore doth the humanity of Christ likewise endure and remain in proper substance with his natural proprieties, without extinction or transubstantiation. For those authors take no bread and wine for the visible pro- prieties only of bread and wine, but for very true bread and wine, with all their natural qualities and conditions. And the heretics shall soon find out your cavillation, where, to avoid the matter, you say that “the mystery of the sacrament requireth not the truth of the substance.” For why should the authors bring them forth to prove the truth of the substance in Christ, if there were no true substance in them? Thus all your shifts and sophisti- cations be but wind, or colours cast over the truth to blear men’s eyes, which colours rubbed off, the truth appeareth clear and plain. And your first mark is not clearly put out, but turned to a mark and spectacle for yourself, wherein you may clearly see your own error, and how foul you have been deceived in this matter, and open your eyes, if God will give you grace to put away your indurate' heart, to see the clear truth. WINCHESTER. Another certain token is the wondering and great marvelling that the old authors make, how the substance of this sacrament is wrought by God’s omnipotency. Baptism is marvelled at, for the wonderful effect that is in man by it, how man is regenerate, not how the water, or the Holy Ghost is there. But the wonder in this sacrament is specially directed to the work of God in the visible creatures, how they be so changed into the body and blood of Chyrist, which is a work wrought of God before we receive the sacrament. Which work Cyprian saith is ineffable, that is to say, not speakable; which is not so if it be but a figure, for then it may be easily spoken, as this author speaketh it with ease, I think, he speaketh it so often. Of a presence by signification, if it may be so called, every man may speak and tell how; but of the very presence in deed, and therefore the real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, {! Ed. 1580 reads “inducate,’’ which is evidently a misprint. ] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 341 no creature can tell how it may be, that Christ ascended into heaven with his human body, and therewith continually reigning there, should make present in the sacrament the same body in deed, which Christ in deed worketh, being nevertheless then at the same hour present in heaven, as St Chrysostom doth with a marvel say. If the marvel were only of God's work in man in the effect of the sacrament, as it is in baptism, it were another matter: but I said before, the wonder is in the work of God, in the substance of the sacrament, before it be received; which declareth the old authors that so wonder to understand the real presence of Christ's very body, and not an only signification, which hath no wonder at all. And there- Sore seeing St Cyprian wondereth at it, and calleth the work ineffable, St Chrysostom won- dereth at it, St Ambrose wondereth at it, Emissene wondereth at it, Cyril wondereth at it: what should we now doubt whether their faith were of a signification only, as this author would have it, which is no wonder at all, or of the real presence, which is indeed a wonderful work? Wherefore where this manifest token and certain mark appeareth in the old fathers, there can no construction? of syllables or words dissuade or pervert the truth thus testified. CANTERBURY. As touching this your second mark in the ministration of the sacraments, as well of the Lord’s holy supper as of baptism, God worketh wonderfully by his omnipotent power in the true receivers, not in the outward visible signs. For it is the person baptized that is so regenerate that he is made a new creature, without any real alteration of the water. And none otherwise it is in the Lord’s supper; for the bread and wine remain in their former substance, and neither be fed nor nourished, and yet in the man that worthily receiveth them is such a wonderful nourishment wrought by the mighty power of God, that he hath thereby everlasting life. And this is the “ineffable work of God,’ whereof Cyprian speaketh. So that as well in the Lord’s supper as in baptism the marvellous working of God, passing the comprehension of all man’s wit, is in the spiritual receivers, not in the bread, wine, and water, nor in the carnal and ungodly receivers. For what should it avail the lively members of Christ, that God worketh in his dead and insensible creatures? But in his members he is present, not figuratively, but effectually, and effectually and ineffably worketh in them, nourishing and feeding them so wonderfully, that it passeth all wits and tongues to express. And nevertheless corporally he is ascended into heaven, and there shall tarry until the world shall have an end. And therefore saith Chrysostom, that Christ is both gone up into heaven, and yet is here received of us, but diversely. For he is gone up to heaven carnally, and is here received of us spiritually. And this wonder is not in the working of God in the substance of the sacrament before it be received, as you feign it to be, nor in them that unworthily receive it carnally, but in them that receive Christ spiritually, being nourished by him spiritually as they be spiritually by him regenerated, that they may be fed of the same thing whereof they be regenerated, and so be throughly os ea ossibus ejus, et caro ex carne ejus: “ bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh.” And considering deeply this matter, Cyprian wondereth as much at God's work in baptism, as in the Lord’s supper; Chrysostom wondereth as much, Emissene wondereth as much, Cyril wondereth as much; all catholic writers wonder as much, as well how God doth spiritually regenerate us to a new life, as how he doth spiritually feed and nourish us to everlasting life. And although these things be outwardly signified unto us by the sacramental bread, wine, and water, yet they be effectually wrought in us by the omnipotent power of God. Therefore you had need to seek out some other mark or token for your purpose, for this serveth nothing at all: for by his wonder- ful working Christ is no more declared to be present in the bread and wine, than in the water of baptism. [? There cannot construction, 1551. Orig. ed. Winch. reads with ed. 1580. ] Eph. v. The wonder in the sacra- ments. 368. (Theodoretus Dialogo iii. Ong. ed. Winch. } Gal. ili. 369. 342 THE SECOND BOOK. WINCHESTER. A third token there is by declaration of figures: as for example, St Hierome, when he declareth upon the epistle ad Titum so advisedly at length, how panes propositionis were the figure of the body of Christ in the sacrament; that process declareth the mind of the author to be, that in the sacrament is present the very truth of Christ's body, not in a figure again, to join one shadow to another, but even the very truth to answer the figure; and therefore no particular words in St Hierome can have any understanding contrary to his mind declared in this process. CANTERBURY. To St Hierome I have answered sufficiently before to your confutation of my third book, almost in the end’, which should be in vain to repeat here again; there- fore I will go to your last mark. WINCHESTER. Fourthly, another certain mark is, where the old authors write of the adoration of this sacrament, which cannot be but to the things godly, really present. And therefore St Augus- tine writing in his book De Catechisandis Rudibus, how the invisible things be honoured in this sacrament, meaning the body and blood of Christ, and in the ninety-eight psalm, speaketh of adoration; Theodoretus also speaking specially of adoration of this sacrament: these authors by this mark, that is most certain, take away all such ambiguity as men might by suspicious divination gather sometime of their several words, and declare by this mark of adoration plainly their faith to have been, and also their doctrine understanded as they meant of the real presence of Christ’s very body and blood in the sacrament, and Christ himself God and man to be there present, to whose divine nature, and the humanity unite thereunto, adoration may only be directed of us. And so to conclude up this matter, forasmuch as one of these four marks and notes may be found testified and apparent in the ancient writers, with other words and sentences conformable to the same, this should suffice to exclude all arguments of any bye sentences and ambiguous speeches, and to uphold the certainty of the true catholic Saith in deed, which this author by a wrong name of the catholic faith impugneth, to the great slander of the truth, and his own reproach. CANTERBURY. Your fourth mark also of adoration proveth no more that Christ is present in the Lord’s supper, than he is present in baptism. For no less is Christ to be honoured of him that is baptized, than of him that receiveth the holy communion. And no less ought he that is baptized to believe that in baptism he doth presently in deed and in truth put Christ upon him, and apparel him with Christ, than he that receiveth the holy communion ought to believe that he doth presently feed upon Christ, eating his flesh and drinking his blood: which thing the scripture doth plainly declare, and the old authors in many places do teach. And moreover the form of baptism doth so manifestly declare Christ to be honoured, that it commandeth the devil therein to honour him by these words: Da honorem Deo: Da gloriam Jesu Christo ; with many other words declaring Christ to be honoured in baptism. And although our Saviour Christ is specially to be adored and honoured, when he by his holy word and sacraments doth assure us of his present grace and benefits; yet not only then, but alway in all our acts and deeds, we should lift up our hearts to heaven, and there glorify Christ with his celestial Father and co-eternal Spirit. So untrue it is that you say, “that adoration cannot be done to Christ, but if he be really present.” The papists teach us to have in honour and reyerence the forms and accidents of bread and wine, if they [! Vide supra pp. 192-199. |] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 343 be vomited up, after the body and blood of Christ be gone away, and say, that they must be had in great reverence, because the body and blood of Christ had been there. “* And not only the forms of bread and wine,” say they, “must be kept in great reverence, but aso the ashes of them (for they command them to be burned into ashes) must be kept with like reverence.” And shall you then forbid any man to worship Christ himself, when he doth spiritually and effectually eat his very flesh and drink his very blood, when you will have such honour and reverence done to the ashes, which come not of the body and blood of Christ, but only, as you teach, of the accidents of bread and wine ? Thus have I confuted your confutation of my second book concerning transub- stantiation ; wherein you be so far from the confutation of my book, as you promised, that you have done nothing else but confounded yourself, studying to seek out such shifts and cayillations, as before your time were never devised, and yet constrained to grant such errors and monstrous speeches as to christian ears be intoler- able. So that my former book, as well concerning the real presence of Christ’s flesh and blood, as the eating and drinking of the same, and also transubstantiation, standeth fast and sure, not once moved or shaken with all your ordinance shot against it. But it is now much stronger than it was before, being so mured and bulwarked that it never need hereafter to fear any as- sault of the enemies. And now let us examine your confutation of the last part of my book, containing the oblation and sacrifice of our Saviour Christ. The end of the second Book. 344 THE CONFUTATION OF THE FIFTH BOOK. [ WINCHESTER. ] AS touching the fifth book, the title whereof is “ Of the oblation and sacrifice of our Saviour Christ,” somewhat is by me spoken before; which although it be sufficient to the matter, yet Ree eo somewhat more must also be now said, wherewith to encounter the author’s imaginations and ce Ww Saviour surmises with the wrong construing of the scriptures and authors, to wrest them besides the Tis never taught truth of the matter and their meaning. to b . . . WiuENnint This is agreed and by the scriptures plainly taught, that the oblation and sacrifice of be often re- : x : : ‘ 4 memberal, our Saviour Christ was and is a perfect work, once consummate in perfection without ne- 370. — cessity of reiteration, as it was never taught to be reiterate, but a mere blasphemy to pre- suppose it. It is also in the catholic teaching, grounded upon the scripture, agreed, that the same sacrifice once consummate was ordained by Christ's institution in his most holy swpper to be in the church often remembered and shewed forth in such sort of shewing, as to the faithful is seen present the most precious body and blood of owr Saviour Christ wnder the forms of bread and wine; which body and blood the faithful church of christian people grant and confess, according to Christ's words, to have been betrayed and shed for the sins “The boty of the world, and so im the same supper represented and delivered unto them, to eat and chat ‘she, feed of it according to Christ’s commandment, as of a most precious and acceptable sacri- propitiatory fice, acknowledging the same precious body and blood to be the sacrifice propitiatory for all sonellthe the sins of the world, whereunto they only resort, and only accompt that their very perfect! Christ's body oblation and sacrifice of christian people, through which all other sacrifices necessary on our is the chris” part be accepted? and pleasant in the sight of God. And this manner of shewing Christ's sacrifice. death, and keeping the memory of it, is grounded upon the scriptures, written by the evange- lists and St Paul, and according thereunto preached, believed, used, and frequented in the church of Christ universally and from the beginning. This author uttering many words at large besides scripture, and against scripture, to deprave the catholic doctrine, doth in a few words, which be in deed good words and true, confound and overthrow all his enterprise ; and that issue will I join with him, which shall suffice for the confutation of this book. The few good words of the author, which words I say confound the rest, consist in these two points: one, in that the author alloweth the judgment of Petrus Lombardus touching the oblation and sacrifice of the church; another, in that the author confesseth the council of Nice to be holy council, as it hath been in deed confessed of all good christian men. Upon these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fifth book to be overthrown. CANTERBURY. *Desaerificio My fifth book hath so fully and so plainly set out this matter of the sacrifice, cfaceol 14d. that for answer to all that you have here brought to the confutation thereof, the reader 3 P= ced to do no more but to look over my book again, and he shall see you fully answered beforehand. Yet will I here and there add some notes, that your ignorance and craft may the better appear. This far you agree to the truth, that “the sacrifice of Christ was a full and a perfect sacrifice, which needed not to be done no more but once, and yet it is remembered and shewed forth daily.” And this is the true doctrine according to God’s word. But as concerning the real presence in the accidents of bread and wine, is an untrue doctrine, feigned only by the papists, as I have most plainly declared; and this is one of your errors here uttered. *Thesacrifice Another is, that you call the most “precious body and blood of Christ the sacrifice propitiatory [? The very perfect, Orig. ed. Winch. ] [? Sacrifices necessarily be accepted, ibid. ] [* To be an holy council, 1551.) OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 345 propitiatory for all the sins of the world ;” which of itself was not the sacrifice, but the se ele thing whereof the sacrifice was made, and the death of him upon the cross was the but his death true sacrifice propitiatory, that purchased the remission of sin; which sacrifice continued body. not long, nor was made never but once; whereas his flesh and blood continued ever in substance from his incarnation, as well before the said sacrifice as ever sithens. And that sacrifice propitiatory made by him only upon the cross is of that effect to reconcile us to God’s favour, that by it be accepted all our sacrifices of lauds and thanksgiving. Now before I join with you in your issue, I shall rehearse the words of my book, which when the indifferent reader seeth, he shall be the more able to judge truly between us. My book containeth thus. co ~I —_ The Fifth Book’. The greatest blasphemy and injury that can be against Christ, and yet Chapt. universally used through the popish kingdom, is this, that the priests make their Moar mass a sacrifice propitiatory, to remit the sins as well of themselves, as of other, both quick and dead, to whom they list to apply the same. Thus under pre- tence of holiness, the papistical priests have taken upon them to be Christ’s suc- cessors, and to make such an oblation and sacrifice as never creature made but Christ alone, neither he made the same any more times than once, and that was by his death upon the cross. For as St Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews witnesseth, ‘Although the high chap. u. priests of the old law offered many times, at the least every year once, yet thediier ence between Christ offered not himself many times; for then he should many times have died. thesacrifice of Christ and But now he offered himself but once, to take away sin by that offering of him- ofthe priests self. And as men must die once, so was Christ offered once, to take away the *™- sins of many.” And furthermore St Paul saith, that “the sacrifices of the old law, although neo. x. they were continually offered from year to year, yet could they not take away sin, nor make men perfect. For if they could once have quieted men’s con- sciences by taking away sin, they should have ceased, and no more have been offered. But Christ with once offering hath made perfect for ever them that be sanctified, putting their sins clean out of God’s remembrance. And where re- mission of sins is, there is no more offering for sin.” And yet further he saith concerning the old testament, that “it was disan- Heb. vii. nulled and taken away, because of the feebleness and unprofitableness thereof, for it brought nothing to perfection. And the priests of that law were many, be- cause they lived not long, and so the priesthood went from one to another: but Christ liveth ever, and hath an everlasting priesthood, that passeth not from him to any man else. Wherefore he is able perfectly to save them that come to God by him, forasmuch as he liveth ever to make intercession for us. For it was meet for us to have such an high priest, that is holy, innocent, without spot, separated from sinners, and exalted up above heaven: who needeth not daily to offer up sacrifice, as Aaron’s priests did, first for his own sins, and then for the people: for that he did once, when he offered up himself.” Here in his epistle to the Hebrews St Paul hath plainly and fully described unto us the difference between the priesthood and sacrifices of the old testament, and the most high and worthy priesthood of Christ, his most perfect and necessary sacrifice, and the benefit that cometh to us thereby. [‘ The title of this book runs thus in the Orig. ed. : “ The fifth book is of the Oblation and Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ,’’] 346 THE FIFTH BOOK. For Christ offered not the blood of calves, sheep, and goats, as the priests of the old law have used to do’, but he offered his own blood upon the cross. And he went not into an holy place made by man’s hand, as Aaron did; but he ascend- ed up into heaven, where his eternal Father dwelleth, and before him he maketh continual supplication for the sins of the whole world, presenting his own body, which was torn for us, and his precious blood, which of his most gracious and liberal charity he shed for us upon the cross. And that sacrifice was of such force, that it was no need to renew it every 372. year, as the bishops did of the old testament, whose sacrifices were many times offered, and yet were of no great effect or profit, because they were sinners them- selves that offered them, and offered not their own blood, but the blood of brute beasts; but Christ’s sacrifice once offered was sufficient for evermore. Chap.art, And that all men may the better understand this sacrifice of Christ, which sacrifices. he made for the great benefit of all men, it is necessary to know the distinction and diversity of sacrifices. One kind of sacrifice there is, which is called a propitiatory or merciful sacri- fice, that is to say, such a sacrifice as pacifieth God’s wrath and indignation, and obtaineth mercy and forgiveness for all our sins, and is the ransom for our re- demption from everlasting damnation. The sacrifice And although in the old testament there were certain sacrifices called by that name, yet in very deed there is but one such sacrifice, whereby our sins be par- doned, and God’s mercy and favour obtained, which is the death of the Son of God our Lord Jesu Christ; nor never was any other sacrifice propitiatory at any time, nor never shall be. This is the honour and glory of this our high priest, wherein he admitteth neither partner nor successor. For by his own oblation he satisfied his Father for all men’s sins, and reconciled mankind unto his grace and fayour. And who- soever deprive him of his honour*, and go about to take it to themselves, they be very antichrists, and most arrogant blasphemers against God and against his Son Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. The sacrifices Another kind of sacrifice there is which doth not reconcile us to God, but church. is made of them that be reconciled by Christ, to testify our duties unto God, and to shew ourselves thankful unto him. And therefore they be called sacrifices of laud, praise, and thanksgiving. The first kind of sacrifice Christ offered to God for us; the second kind we ourselves offer to God by Christ. And by the first kind of sacrifice Christ offered also us unto his Father ; and by the second we offer ourselves and all that we have unto him and his Father. And this sacrifice generally is our whole obedience unto God, in keeping his laws and commandments. Of which manner of sacrifice speaketh the prophet pat _ David, saying: “ A sacrifice to God is a contrite heart.” And St Peter saith “of all christian people, that they be “an holy priesthood to offer spiritual Heb. xiii Sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesu Christ.” And St Paul saith, that “alway we offer unto God a sacrifice of laud and praise by Jesus Christ.” Chap. tv. But now to speak somewhat more largely of the priesthood and saerifice A more plain decla- of Christ, he was such an high bishop, that he, once offering himself, was suffi- ration of the sacrifice of cient, by once effusion of his blood, to abolish sin unto the world’s end. He was so perfect a priest, that by one oblation he purged an infinite heap of {' Old law used to do, 1551, and Orig. ed. | [2 Of this honour, 1551, and Orig. ed.] OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 347 sins, leaving an easy and a ready remedy for all sinners, that his one sacrifice should suffice for many years unto all men that would not shew themselves unworthy. And he took unto himself not only their sins that many years before were dead, and put their trust in him, but also the sins of those that, until his coming again, should truly believe in his gospel. So that now we may look for none other priest nor sacrifice to take away our sins, but only him and his sacrifice. And as he, dying once, was offered for all, so as much as pertained to him he took all men’s sins unto himself: so that now there remaineth no more sacrifices for sin, but extreme judgment at the last day, when he shall appear to us again, not as a man to be punished again, and to be made a sacrifice for our sins, as he was before; but he shall come in his glory without sin, to the great joy and comfort of them which be purified and made clean by his death, and continue in godly and innocent living, and to the great terror and dread of them that be wicked and ungodly. Thus the scripture teacheth, that if Christ had made any oblation for sin more than once, he should have died more than once; forasmuch as there is none oblation and sacrifice for sin but only his death. And now there is no more oblation for sin, seeing that by him our sins be remitted, and our con- sciences quieted. And although in the old testament there were certain sacrifices, called sacrifices for sin, yet they were no such sacrifices that could take away our sins in the sight of God, but they were ceremonies ordained to this intent, that they should be, as it were, shadows and figures, to signify beforehand the excellent sacrifice of Christ that was to come, which should be the very true and perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. And for this signification they had the name of a sacrifice propitiatory, and were called sacrifices for sins, not because they indeed took away our sins, but because they were images, shadows, and figures, whereby godly men were admonished of the true sacrifice of Christ then to come, which should truly abolish sin and everlasting death. And that those sacrifices which were made by the priests in the old law could not be able to purchase our pardon, and deserve the remission of our sins, St Paul doth clearly affirm in his said epistle to the Hebrews, where he saith: “It is impossible that our sins should be taken away by the blood of oxen and goats.” Wherefore all godly men, although they did use those sacrifices ordained of God, yet they did not take them as things of that value and estimation, that thereby they should be able to obtain remission of their sins before God. But they took them partly for figures and tokens ordained of God, by the which he declared that he would send that Seed, which he promised to be the very true sacrifice for sin, and that he would receive them that trusted in that promise, and remit their sins for the sacrifice after to come. And partly they used them as certain ceremonies, whereby such persons as had offended against the law of Moses, and were cast out of the congregation, were received again among the people, and declared to be absolved. As for like purposes we use in the church of Christ sacraments by him insti- tuted. And this outward casting out from the people of God, and receiving in again, was according to the law and knowledge of man; but the true recon- ciliation and forgiveness of sin before God, neither the fathers of the old law had, nor we yet have, but only by the sacrifice of Christ, made in the mount 397. Heb. ix. Chap. v. The sacrifice of theold law. Heb. x. Chap. v1. ‘The mass is nota sacrifice propitiatory. 374. Heb. vii. Heb. viii. Chap. vit. A confuta- tion of the panpists” cavillation. Chap. vit The true sacrifice of all christian people. 348 THE FIFTH BOOK. of Calvary. And the sacrifices of the old law were prognostications and figures of the same then to come, as our sacraments be figures and demonstrations of the same now passed. Now by these foresaid things may every man easily perceive, that the offering of the priest in the mass, or the appointing of his ministration at his pleasure, to them that be quick or dead, cannot merit and deserve, neither to himself, nor to them for whom he singeth or saith, the remission of their sins ; but that such popish doctrine is contrary to the doctrine of the gospel, and injurious to the sacrifice of Christ. For if only the death of Christ be the oblation, sacrifice, and price wherefore our sins be pardoned, then the act or ministration of the priest cannot have the same office. Wherefore it is an abominable blasphemy to give that office or dignity to a priest, which per- taineth only to Christ; or to affirm that the church hath need of any such sacrifice : as who should say, that Christ’s sacrifice were not sufficient for the remission of our sins, or else that his sacrifice should hang upon the sacrifice of a priest. But all such priests as pretend to be Christ’s successors in making a sacri- fice of him, they be his most heinous and horrible adversaries. For never no person made a sacrifice of Christ, but he himself only. And therefore St Paul saith, that ‘“ Christ’s priesthood cannot pass from him to another.” For what needeth any more sacrifices, if Christ’s sacrifice be perfect and_ sufficient ? And as St Paul saith, that if the sacrifices and ministration of Aaron, and other priests of that time, had lacked nothing, but had been perfect and sufficient, then should not the sacrifice of Christ have been required, (for it had been but in vain to add any thing to that which of itself was perfect ;) so likewise if Christ’s sacrifice, which he made himself, be sufficient, what need we every day to have more and more sacrifices? Wherefore all popish priests that presume to make every day a sacrifice of Christ, either must they needs make Christ’s sacrifice vain, unperfect, and unsufficient, or else is their sacrifice in vain which is added to the sacrifice which is already of itself suffi- cient and perfect. But it is a wondrous thing to see what shifts and cautels the popish anti- christs devise to colour and cloke their wicked errors. And as a chain is so jomed together, that one link draweth another after it, so be vices and errors knit together, that every one draweth his fellow with him. And so doth it here in this matter. For the papists, to excuse themselves, do say that they make no new sacri- fice, nor none other sacrifice than Christ made (for they be not so blind but they see, that then they should add another sacrifice to Christ’s sacrifice, and so make his sacrifice unperfect;) but they say that they make the self-same sacrifice for sin that Christ himself made. And here they run headlongs into the foulest and most heinous error that ever was imagined. For if they make every day the same oblation and sacrifice for sin that Christ himself made, and the oblation that he made was his death, and the effusion of his most precious blood upon the cross, for our redemption and price of our sins; then followeth it of necessity, that they every day slay Christ, and shed his blood, and so be they worse than the wicked Jews and Pharisees, which slew him and shed his blood but once. Almighty God, the Father of light and truth, banish all such darkness and error out of his church, with the authors and teachers thereof, or else con- OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 349 vert their hearts unto him, and give this light of faith to every man, that he may trust to have remission of his sins, and be delivered from eternal death and hell, by the merit only of the death and blood of Christ; and that by his own faith every man may apply the same unto himself, and not take it at the appointment of popish priests, by the merit of sacrifices and oblations ! If we be indeed, as we profess, christian men, we may ascribe this honour and glory to no man, but to Christ alone. Wherefore let us give the whole laud and praise hereof unto him; let us fly only to him for succour; let us hold him fast and hang upon him, and give ourselves wholly to him. And forasmuch as he hath given himself to death for us, to be an oblation and sacrifice to his Father for our sins, let us give ourselves again unto him, making unto him an oblation, not of goats, sheep, kine, and other beasts that have no reason, as was accustomed before Christ’s coming, but of a creature that hath reason, that is to say, of ourselves; not killing our own bodies, but mortifying the beastly and unreasonable affections that would gladly rule and reign in us. So long as the law did reign, God suffered dumb beasts to be offered unto him: but now that we be spiritual, we must offer spiritual oblations in the place of calves, sheep, goats, and doves. We must kill devilish pride, furious anger, insatiable covetousness, filthy lucre, stinking lechery, deadly hatred and malice, foxy wiliness, wolvish ravening and devouring, and all other unrea- sonable lusts and desires of the flesh. And as many as belong to Christ Gai. v. must crucify and kill these for Christ’s sake, as Christ crucified himself for their sakes. These be the sacrifices of christian men, these hosts and oblations be acceptable to Christ. And as Christ offered himself for us, so is it our duties after this sort to offer ourselves to him again. And so shall we not have the name of christian men in vain; but as we pretend to belong to Christ im word and profession, so shall we indeed be his in life and inward affection ; so that within and without we shall be altogether his, clean from all hypocrisy or dissimulation. And if we refuse to offer ourselves after this wise unto him, by crucifying our own wills, and committing us wholly to the will of God, we be most unkind people, superstitious hypocrites, or rather unreason- able beasts, worthy to be excluded utterly from all the benefits of Christ’s oblations. And if we put the oblation of the priest in the stead of the oblation of Chap.1x. o-~ OO 5 = > 2 The popish Christ, refusing to receive the sacrament of his body and blood ourselves, as mssis. he ordained, and trusting to have remission of our sins by the sacrifice of the Seerrr te priest in the mass, and thereby also to obtain release of the pains in purga- fom tory, we do not only injury to Christ, but also commit most detestable idolatry. caneeae For these be but false doctrines, without shame devised, and feigned by wicked aaa popish priests, idolaters, monks, and friars, which for lucre have altered and corrupted the most holy supper of the Lord, and turned it into manifest idolatry. Wherefore all godly men ought with all their heart to refuse and abhor all such blasphemy against the Son of God. And forasmuch as in such masses is manifest wickedness and idolatry, wherein the priest alone maketh oblation satisfactory, and applieth the same for the quick and the dead at his will and pleasure, all such popish masses are to be clearly taken away out of christian churches, and the true use of the Lord’s supper is to be restored again; wherein godly people assembled together may receive the sacrament every man for himself, to declare that he Chap. x. Every man ought to receive the sacrament himself, and not one for another. 376. Acts ii. Matt. xxvi. Chap. xr. The differ- ence between the priest and the lay- man. (The dignity of priests, Orig. ed.} Chap. x11. The answer to the papists. 350 THE FIFTH BOOK. remembereth what benefit he hath received by the death of Christ, and to testify that he is a member of Christ’s body, fed with his flesh, and drinking his blood spiritually. Christ did not ordain his sacraments to this use, that one should receive them for another, or the priest for all the lay people; but he ordained them for this intent, that every man should receive them for himself, to ratify, con- firm, and stablish his own faith and everlasting salvation. Therefore as one man may not be baptized for another, and if he be, it availeth nothing, so ought not one to receive the holy communion for another. For if a man be dry or hungry, he is never a whit eased if another man drink or eat for him ; or if a man be all defiled, it helpeth him nothing another man to be washed for him: so ayaileth it nothing to a man, if another man be baptized for him, or be refreshed for him with the meat and drink at the Lord’s table. And therefore said St Peter: “Let every man be baptized in the name of Jesu Christ.” And our Saviour Christ said to the multitude: “Take, and eat.” And further he said: “ Drink you all of this.” Whosoever therefore will be spiritually regenerated in Christ, he must be baptized himself; and he that will live himself by Christ, must by himself eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood. And briefly to conclude: he that thinketh to come to the kingdom of Christ himself, must also come to his sacraments himself, and keep his commandments himself, and do all things that pertain to a christian man and to his vocation himself; lest, if he refer these things to another man to do them for him, the other may with as good right claim the kingdom of heaven for him. Therefore Christ made no such difference between the priest and the layman, that the priest should make oblation and sacrifice of Christ for the layman, and eat the Lord’s supper from him all alone, and distribute and apply it as him liketh. Christ made no such difference, but the difference that is between the priest and the layman in this matter is only in the ministration ; that the priest, as a common minister of the church, doth minister and distribute the Lord’s supper unto other, and other receive it at his hands. But the very supper itself was by Christ instituted and given to the whole church, not to be offered and eaten of the priest for other men, but by him to be delivered to all that would duly ask it. As in a prince’s house the officers and ministers prepare the table, and yet other, as well as they, eat the meat and drink the drink ; so do the priests and ministers prepare the Lord’s supper, read the gospel, and rehearse Christ’s words, but all the people say thereto, Amen. All remember Christ’s death, all give thanks to God, all repent and offer themselves an oblation to Christ, all take him for their Lord and Saviour, and spiritually feed upon him, and in token thereof they eat the bread and drink the wine in his mystical supper. And this nothing diminisheth the estimation and dignity of priesthood and other ministers of the church, but advanceth and highly commendeth their minis- tration. For if they are much to be loved, honoured and esteemed, that be the kings, chancellors, judges, officers, and ministers in temporal matters; how much then are they to be esteemed, that be ministers of Christ’s words and sacraments, and have to them committed the keys of heaven, to let in and shut out by the ministration of his word and gospel ? Now forasmuch as I trust that I have plainly enough set forth the propitia- tory sacrifice of our Saviour Jesu Christ, to the capacity and comfort of all men that have any understanding of Christ; and have declared also the heinous abo- mination and idolatry of the popish mass, wherein the priests have taken upon OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 351 them the office of Christ, to make a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people; and I have also told what manner of sacrifice christian people ought to make ; it is now necessary to make answer to the subtle persuasions and sophis- tical cavillations of the papists, whereby they have deceived many a simple man, both learned and unlearned. The place of St Paul unto the Hebrews, which they do cite for their pur- pose, maketh quite and clean against them. For where St Paul saith, that “every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins,” he spake not that of the priests of the new testament, but of the old, which, as he saith, offered calves and goats. And yet they were not such priests that by their offerings and sacrifices they could take away the people’s sins; but they were shadows and figures of Christ our everlasting priest, which only by one oblation of himself taketh away the sins of the world. Wherefore the popish priests, that apply this text unto themselves, do directly contrary to the meaning of St Paul, to the great injury and prejudice of Christ, by whom only St Paul saith that the sacrifice and oblation for the sin of the whole world was accomplished and fulfilled. And as little serveth for the papists’ purpose the text of the prophet Malachi, that “every where should be offered unto God a pure sacrifice and oblation.” For the prophet in that place spake no word of the mass, nor of any oblation propitiatory to be made by the priests; but he spake of the oblation of all faith- ful people, in what place so ever they be, which offer unto God, with pure hearts and minds, sacrifices of laud and praise: prophesying of the vocation of the gentiles, that God would extend his mercy unto them, and not be the God only of the Jews, but of all nations, from east to west, that with pure faith call upon him and glorify his name. But the adversaries of Christ gather together a great heap of authors, which, as they say, call the mass or holy communion a sacrifice. But all those authors be answered unto in this one sentence, that they call it not a sacrifice for sin, because that it taketh away our sin, which is taken away only by the death of Christ, but because the holy communion was ordained of Christ to put us in remembrance of the sacrifice made by him upon the cross: for that cause it beareth the name of that sacrifice, as St Augustine declareth plainly in his epistle ad Bonifacium, before rehearsed in this nee pp. 1238, 1247. And in his book De fide ad Petrum Diaconum*, and in his book De Civitate Dei, he + saith: “That which men call a sacrifice is a sign or representation of the true sacrifice *,” And the Master of the sentence, of whom all the school-authors take their occasion to write, judged truly im this point, sayimg: “That which is offered and consecrated of the priest is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation made in the altar of the cross’.” And St John Chrysostom, after he had said that Christ is our bishop, which offered that sacrifice that made us clean, and that we offer the same now, lest any man might be deceived by his manner of speaking, he opencth his meaning [) And have also, 1551, and Orig. ed.] Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506. ] [? Fol. 64. ed. 1551, and Orig. ed. p- 141. ed. [° Illud quod offertur et consecratur a sacerdote, 1580, which is a misprint: it should be p- 125.] yocari sacrificium et oblationem, quia memoria est [? Vid. p. 77.] et representatio veri sacrificii et sancte immola- [* Sacrificium ergo visibile invisibilis sacrificii | tionis facte in ara crucis. Petrus Lombardus, Lib. Sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est. August. | IV. Dist. 12. p. 745. Colon, 1609. ] De Civitate Dei. Lib. X. cap. 5. Pars vii. Ed. Heb. v. Mal. i. Chap. x1Ir. An answer to the authors. Augustinus ad Bonifa. De Civita. oe X. cap. [Vv id. Embd. ed. in fine tomi hujus. } E oraberdus Lib. Dist. 1. (Vid. Embd. ed. ] Sheree ston: Hom, 17. 352 THE FIFTH BOOK. more plainly, saying: “That which we do is done for a remembrance of that which was done by Christ; for Christ saith, ‘ Do this in remembrance of me', ” Also Chrysostom, declaring at length that the priests of the old law offered ever new sacrifices, and changed them from time to time, and that christian people do not so, but offer ever one sacrifice of Christ; yet by and by, lest some might be offended with this speech, he maketh as it were a correction of his words, saying, “ But rather we make a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice.” As though 378. he should say: although in a certain kind of speech we may say that every day we make a sacrifice of Christ, yet in very deed, to speak properly, we make no sacrifice of him, but only a commemoration and remembrance of that sacrifice which he alone made, and never none but he. Nor Christ never gave this honour to any creature, that he should make a sacrifice of him, nor did not ordain the sacrament of his holy supper, to the intent that either the priest or? the people should sacrifice Christ again, or that the priests should make a sacri- fice of him for the people: but his holy supper was ordained for this purpose, that every man, eating and drinking thereof, should remember that Christ died for him, and so should exercise his faith, and comfort himself by the remem- brance of Christ’s benefits, and so give unto Christ most hearty thanks, and give himself also clearly unto him. Wherefore the ordinance of Christ ought to be followed: the priest to minister the sacrament to the people, and they to use it to their consolation. And in this eating, drinking, and using of the Lord’s supper, we make not of Christ a new sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sin. Chap, x1¥. But the humble confession of all penitent hearts, their acknowledging of song make a Christ’s benefits, their thanksgiving for the same, their faith and consolation in wells the Christ, their humble submission and obedience to God’s will and commandments, is a sacrifice of laud and praise, accepted and allowed of God no less than the sacrifice of the priest. For Almighty God, without respect of person, accepteth the oblation and sacrifice of priest and lay person, of king and subject, of master and servant, of man and woman, of young and old, yea of English, French, Scot, Greek, Latin, Jew, and Gentile; of every man according to his faithful and obe- dient heart unto him, and that through the sacrifice propitiatory of Jesu Christ. Chap. xy And as for the saying or singing of the mass by the priest, as it was in calmassis time passed used, it is neither a sacrifice propitiatory, nor yet a sacrifice of neither a sa- crifice propi- laud and praise, nor in any wise allowed before God, but abominable and detest- tiatory, nor oftmanks able; and thereof may well be verified the saying of Christ: “That thing Lukexvi- which seemeth an high thing before men is an abomination before God.” They therefore which gather of the doctors, that the mass is a sacrifice for remission of sin, and that it is applied by the priest to them for whom he saith or singeth, they which so gather of the doctors do to them most grievous injury and wrong, most falsely belymg them. Chap. xv1. For these monstrous things were never seen nor known of the old and pri- There was no papstical mitive church, nor there was not then in one church many masses every day; entve but upon certain days there was a common table of the Lord’s supper, where a number of people did together receive the body and blood of the Lord: but: there were then no daily private masses, where every priest received alone, like - B [! Té ody; ajuets Kal? Exadorny rucpav ob mpoc- | THY éuryy dvapvyncw. obK aAdnqv Buciav, Kabamep p 3 % < pépopev 5 mpoocpépomev pév, ANN’ avadpyynaw wot- | 6 apxXiepeds TOTE, aa Tv adTHY Get ToLovjeEV™ ovmevor Tou Yavatov aitou . ... . éxeivny | padXov 6€ avauynow épyatoucba Bvoias.—Chry- Tpocpépopev Kai vov, Tv TOTE Te TpocevexHetcav, | sost. in Epist. ad Heb. Hom. xvii. Tom. XII. Tv avdhwrov. TovTO eis avauvyow yivetar Tov | pp. 168,9. Ed. Bened.] TOTE YEvouevov. TOUTO yap ToLeiTé, yaw, Eis [2 The Orig. ed. omits the words ‘the priest or.’] OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 353 as until this day there is none in the Greek churches, but one common mass in a day. Nor the holy fathers of the old church would not have suffered such ungodly and wicked abuses of the Lord’s supper. But these private masses sprang up of late years, partly through the igno- rance and superstition of unlearned monks and friars, which knew not what a sacrifice was, but made of the mass a sacrifice propitiatory, to remit both sin and the pain due for the same; but chiefly they sprang of lucre and gain, when priests found the means to sell masses to the people, which caused masses so much to increase, that every day was said an infinite number, and that no priest would receive the communion at another priest’s hand, but every one would 879. receive it alone; neither regarding the godly decree of the most famous and holy coneitium . ° 5 . ore . Nicenum, council of Nice, which appointed* in what order priests should be placed above cap. 14 5 anones deacons at the communion‘, nor yet the Canons of the apostles, which command, Apo es that when any communion is ministered, all the priests together should receive the same, or else be excommunicate’. So much the old fathers misliked that any priest should receive the sacrament alone. Therefore when the old fathers called the mass or supper of the Lord a sacrifice, they meant that it was a sacrifice of lauds and thanksgiving, (and so as well the people as the priest do sacrifice,) or else that it was a remembrance of the very true sacrifice propitiatory of Christ ; but they meant in no wise that it is a very true sacrifice for sm, and applicable by the priest to the quick and dead. For the priest may well minister Christ’s words and sacraments to all men, both good and bad; but he can apply the benefit of Christ’s passion to no man, being of age and discretion, but only to such as by their own faith do apply the same unto themselves: so that every man of age and discretion taketh to himself the benefits of Christ’s passion, or refuseth them himself, by his own faith, quick’ or dead; that is to say, by his true and lively faith, that worketh by charity, he receiveth them, or else by his ungodliness or feigned faith rejecteth them. And this doctrine of the scripture clearly condemneth the wicked intentions of the papists in these latter days, which have devised a purgatory to torment | souls after this life, and oblations of masses said by the priests to deliver them from the said torments; and a great number of other commodities do they pro- mise to the simple ignorant people by their masses. Now the nature of man being ever prone to idolatry from the beginning of cnap. xvn. the world, and the papists being ready by all means and policy to defend and and means extol the mass for their estimation and profit, and the people being supersti- cal manes tiously enamoured and doted upon the mass, because they take it for a present the chureh. remedy against all manner of evils, and part of the princes bemg blinded by papistical doctrine, part loving quietness, and loth to offend their clergy and subjects, and all being captive and subject to the antichrist of Rome, the estate of the world remaining in that case°, it is no wonder that abuses grew and increased in the church, that superstition with idolatry were taken for godliness and true religion, and that many things were brought in without the authority of Christ: as purgatory, the oblation and sacrificing of Christ by the priest alone, The abuces | ; of the papisti- eal masses. [* Appointeth, 1551, and Orig. ed.] Can. xviii. Labb. Tom. II. p. 676.] [* AauBavérwoav dé [ot diadkovor] Kata Tijp [® Ei tis érioxomos 4 mpeaBitepos 7 didKovos TaEw tHVv evxapioriay peta tols mpeoBuTépous, | 1} eK Tov KaTahdyou TOU lepaTiKoD mpoaopas i) TOU émtsKkdTrov OLddyTOs abtots i) TOU mpeaBuTé- yevouevns pr) petadaBor, THv aitiay ecimatw* Kal pov adda pndé Kabijcbar év péow tav rpecButé- | éav edoyos , cvyyvepns TYyXavéTw el OE py pwv éféatw rots diaxdvois, wupd Kavova yap | Neyer, adopi{éolw. Ibid. Tom. I. p. 30.] Kat wapa TdEw éori TO yivopuevov. Conc. Nic. [® In this case, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [CRANMER. | 23 380. Chap. xvutI. Which church is to be followed. A short in- struction to the holy communion. 354 THE FIFTH BOOK. the application and appointing of the same to such persons as the priest would sing or say mass for, and to such abuses as they could devise, to deliver some from purgatory, and some from hell, (if they were not there finally by God deter- mined to abide, as they termed the matter,) to make rain or fair weather, to put away the plague and other sicknesses both from man and beast, to hallow and preserve them that went to Jerusalem, to Rome, to St James in Compostella, and other places in pilgrimage, for a preservative against tempest and thunder, against perils and dangers of the sea, for a remedy against murrain of cattle, against pensiveness of the heart, against all manner affliction and tribulations. And finally, they extol their masses far above Christ’s passion, promising many things thereby, which were never promised us by Christ’s passion: as that if a man hear mass, he shall lack no bodily sustenance that day, nor nothing necessary for him, nor shall be letted in his journey; he shall not lose his sight that day, nor die no sudden death; he shall not wax old in that time that he heareth mass, nor no wicked spirits shall have power of him, be he never so wicked a man, so long as he looketh upon the sacrament. All these foolish and devilish superstitions the papists, of their own idle brain, have devised of late years, which devices were never known in the old church. And yet they cry out against them that profess the gospel, and say that they dissent from the church, and would have them to follow the example of their church. And so would they gladly do, if the papists would follow the first church of the apostles, which was most pure and incorrupt: but the papists have clearly varied from the usage and examples of that church, and have invented new devices of their own brains, and will in no wise consent to fol- low the primitive church; and yet they would have other to follow their church, utterly varying and dissenting from the first most godly church. But, thanks be to the eternal God! the manner of the holy communion, which is now set forth within this realm, is agreeable with the institution of Christ, with St Paul, and the old primitive and apostolic church, with the right faith of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross for our redemption, and with the true doctrine of our salvation, justification, and remission of all our sins by that only sacrifice. Now resteth nothing, but that all faithful subjects will gladly receive and embrace the same, being sorry for their former ignorance, and every man repenting himself of his offences against God, and amending the same, may yield himself wholly to God, to serve and obey him all the days of his life, and often to come to the holy supper, which our Lord and Saviour Christ hath prepared. And as he there corporally eateth the very bread, and drinketh the very wine; so spiritually he may feed of the very flesh and blood of Jesu Christ his Saviour and Redeemer, remembering his death, thanking him for his benefits, and looking for none other sacrifice at no priest’s hands for remission of his sins; but only trusting to his sacrifice, which being both the high priest, and also the Lamb of God, prepared from the beginning to take away the sins of the world, offered up himself once for ever in a sacrifice of sweet smell unto his Father, and by the same paid the ransom for the sins of the whole world: who is before us entered into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father, as a patron, mediator, and intercessor for us; and there hath prepared places for all them that be lively members of his body, to reign with him for ever, in the glory of his Father; to whom with him, and the Holy Ghost, be glory, honour, and praise for ever and ever. Amen, OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 355 Thus having rehearsed the whole words of my last book, I shall return to your Mine issue. issue, and make a joinder or demur with you therein, And if you cannot prove your propitiatory sacrifice of the priests by Petrus Lombardus, and Nicene council, then must you confess by your own issue, that the verdict must justly pass against you, and that you have a fall in your own suit. As for the sacrifice of lauds and thanksgiving, I have set it forth plamly in my book; but the sacrifice propitiatory, devised to be made by the priest in the mass only, is a great abomination before God, how glorious soever it appear before men. And it is set up only by antichrist, 381. and therefore worthy to be abhorred of all that truly profess Christ. And first, as concerning Nicene council, because you begin with that first, I will Nicene’ rehearse your words. WINCHESTER. First, to begin with the council of Nice, the same hath opened the mystery of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in this wise, “ That christian men believe the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world, to be situate upon God's board, and to be sacrificed of the priests, not after the manner of other sacrifices.” This is the doctrine of the council of Nice, and must then be called an holy doctrine, and thereby a true doctrine, consonant to the scriptures, the found- ation of all truth. If the author will deny this to have been the teaching of the council of Nice, I shall allege therefore the allegation of the same by CGfcolampadius, who, being an ad- versary to the truth, was yet by God’s providence ordered to bear testimony to the truth im this point, and by his mean is published to the world, in Greek, as followeth, which neverthe- less may otherwise appear to be true: "Emit ris Ocias tparétns makw Kavraia pi) TO Tpo- Kemev@ GpT@ Kat TH ToTNpim Tanewas Tpocéxopev, GAN iooartes THY Sidvoay, TicTeL vonoopev KeicOar emi Ths tepas ekeivns Tpametns Tov dpvoyv Tov Oeod Toy alpoyta THY auapTiay Tov Kéopov, abitas imd Tey iepéwy Oudpevoy, Kal TO Tiptoy a’Tod Depa Kal aipa adnOas ap- Bavovras pas, moteve TaiTa civar Ta THs mueTépas avactacews oipBora, dia TovTO yap ovre Tokd RapBavopev GAN OALyor, va yrOpev Ott ovK eis TAnTpOMY, GAN cis ayacpoy. Iterum etiam hic in diyina mensa, ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem et poculum, sed mente exaltata fide intelligamus, situm esse in sacra illa mensa illum Dei agnum, qui tollit peccata mundi, sacrificatum a sacerdotibus, non victimarum more: et nos pretiosum illius corpus et sanguinem yere sumentes, credere heec esse resurrectionis nostre symbola!. Ideo enim non multum accipimus, sed parum, ut cognoscamus, quoniam non in satietatem, sed sanctificationem. These words may be Englished thus: “ Again in this godly table, we should not in base and low consideration direct our understanding to the bread and cup set forth; but having our mind exalted, we should understand by faith to be situate in that table the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, sacrificed of the priests, not after the manner of other sacrifices, and we receiving truly the precious body and blood of the same Lamb, to believe these to be the tokens of our resurrection. And Sor that we receive not much, but a little, because we should know that not for saturity and filling, but for sanctification?.” This holy council of Nice hath been believed universally in declaration of the mystery of the Trinity, and the sacraments also. And to them that confess that council to be holy, as the author here doth, and to such as profess to believe the determination of that council in the opening of the mystery of the Trinity, with other words than scripture useth, (although they express such sense as in the scriptwres*® is contained,) why should not all such likewise believe the same council in explication of the sacraments, which to do the author hath bownd himself, granting that council holy? And then we must believe the very presence of Christ's body and blood on God’s board, and that priests do there sacrifice, and be therefore called *Pnests, and named sacrificerst. So as those names and terms be to be honoured and religiously a spoken of, being in an holy council uttered and confessed, because it was so seen to them and the Holy Ghost, without whose present assistance and suggestion believed to be there the council could not or ought not to be called holy. Now, if we confer with that council of [! Resurrectionis symbola, Orig. ed. Winch. ] See Labbé Concilia, Vol. 11. pp. 103. 233. Cave’s (? This quotation is made from ‘The History | Hist. Lit. | of the Council of Nice, by Gelasius Cyzicenus,” a [* Scripture, 1551.] work of no value or repute. The more authentic [4 And be therefore called sacrifices, Orig. ed. histories of the Council do not give the passage. | Winch. ] 23—2 * An issue. 382. John i. *De Conse. Dist. 11. cap. 9. “‘Semel:”” et est Pros- peri. “ Semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso, et tamen quo- tidie immola- tur in sacra- mento.” Glossa ibidem “Td est ejus immolatio reprasen- tatur, et fit memoria passionis*.” Gal. iil. 356 THE FIFTH BOOK. Nice the testimony of the church beginning at St Dionyse, who was in the time of the apostles, and after him coming to Irenee, who was near the apostles, and then Tertullian, and so St Cyprian, St Chrysostom, St Cyril, St Hierome, St Augustine, and from that age to the time of Petrus Lombardus!, all spake of the sacrament to the same effect, and termed it for the word sacrifice and oblation, to be frequented in the church, of the body and blood of Christ, as may be in particularity shewed, whereof I make also an issue with the author. CANTERBURY. For answer to Nicene council, it speaketh of a sacrifice of lauds and thanksgiving, which is made by the priest in the name of the whole church, and is the sacrifice as well of the people as of the priest: this sacrifice, I say, the council of Nice speaketh of; but it speaketh not one word of the sacrifice propitiatory, which never none made but only Christ, nor he never made it any more than once, which was by his death. And wheresoeyer Christ shall be hereafter, in heaven or in earth, he shall never be sacrificed again; but the church continually, in remembrance of that sacrifice, maketh a sacrifice of laud and praise, giving evermore thanks unto him for that propitiatory sacrifice. And in the third chapter of my book here recited, the difference of these two sacrifices is plainly set out. And although Nicene council call Christ “the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world,” yet doth it not mean that by the sacrifice of the priest in the mass, but by the sacrifice of himself upon the cross. But here, according to your accustomed manner, you alter some words of the council, and add also some of your own. For the council said not that the Lamb of God is “sacrificed of the priests, not after the manner of other sacrifices ;’ but that he is sacrificed not after the manner of a sacri- fice. And in saying, that Christ is sacrificed of the priest, not like a sacrifice, or after the manner of a sacrifice, the council in these words signified a difference be- tween the sacrifice of the priest, and the sacrifice of Christ,. which upon the cross offered himself to be sacrificed after the manner of a very sacrifice, that is to say, unte death, for the sins of the world. Christ made the bloody sacrifice, which took away sin: the priest with the church make a commemoration thereof with lauds and thanksgiving, offering also themselves obedient to God unto death. And yet this our sacrifice taketh not away our sins, nor is not accepted but by his sacrifice. The bleeding of him took away our sins, not the eating of him. And although that council say, that Christ is situate in that table, yet it saith not that he is really and corporally in the bread and wine. For then that council would not have forbid us to direct our minds to the bread and cup, if they had believed that Christ had been really there. But forasmuch as the council commandeth that we shall not direct our minds downward to the bread and cup, but lift them up to Christ by faith, they give us to understand by those words, that Christ is really and corporally ascended up into heaven, unto which place we must lift up our minds, and reach him there by our faith, and not look down to find him in the bread. And yet he is in the bread sacramentally, as the same council saith, that the Holy Ghost is in the water of baptism. And as Christ is in his supper present to feed us, so is he in baptism to clothe and apparel us with his own self, as the same council declareth, whose words be these: “ He that is baptized, goeth down into the water, being subject to sin, and held in the bands of corruption; but he riseth up free from bondage and sin, being made by the grace of God his son and heir, and co-inheritor with Christ, and apparelled with Christ himself, as it is written: ‘As many of you as be baptized unto Christ, you have put Christ upon you’.’” These (} That age to Petrus Lombardus, Orig. ed. | évexopuevos’ avépyerar dé éevBepwOeis THs TE ToL- Winch.] avtns dovNelas Kai Tis auaptias, vids Tov Oeov [* Decret. Gratian. in Corpus Juris Canonici. | Kal xAnpovouos xadpite abtou yeyovus, cvyK\npo- —De consecrat. Dist. ii. cap. 52. “Semel.” Tom J. | voépos d&€ Xpictov, Kabds yéypamtac’ “Ooo eis col. 1938. Ed. Lugd. 1618.] Xpiorév éBawricbnre, Xpiorov évedicacbe. Labb. [° Karépyerar ev obv 6 BawriGspevos bred- | Concil. Tom. II. col. 888. Florent. 1759. ] Buvos auapTnpatwv, Kal tH THS pPOopas dovdcia OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 357 words of the council I rehearse only in English, because I will not let nor encumber — 383. the reader with the Greek or Latin, as you do, which is nothing else but to re- hearse one thing thrice, without need or profit. If I had list, I could have rehearsed all the Greek authors in Greek, and the Latin writers in Latin; but unto English- men, unto whom only I write, it were a vain labour or glory, without fruit or profit, or any other cause, except I intended to make my book long for gain of the printer, rather than for profit to the reader. But to return to the matter: Christ is present in his holy supper, as that holy council saith, even as he is present in baptism, but not really, carnally, corporally, and naturally, as you without ground imagine. And if he were so present, yet is he not there sacrificed again for sin. were his first sacrifice upon the cross in vain, if it sufficed not therefore. And as for Dionyse, Irenee, Tertullian, with all your other authors, I have an- swered them in the thirteenth chapter of this my last book. And what need you make an issue in this thing which is not in controversy, and which I affirm in my whole last book? The matter in question is of the “sacrifice propitiatory ;’ and you make your issue of the sacrifice generally. Now let us see how you entreat Petrus Lombardus. For then WINCHESTER. For the other point, in that the author approveth the judgment of Petrus Lombardus in Petrus Lom- the matter, what should I more do, but write in the words of Petrus Lombardus as he hath pore them? which be these, in the fourth book, the twelfth chapter, alleged by the author: Post hee queeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio, et si Christus quotidie immoletur4, vel semel tantum immolatus sit? Ad hoe breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur et consecratur a sacerdote, yocari sacrificium et oblationem, quia memoria est et repreesentatio veri sacrificii et sanctz immolationis facts in ara crucis; et semel Christus mortuus in cruce est, ibique immolatus est in semetipso, quotidie autem immolatur in sa- cramento, quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius, quod factum est semel: unde Augus- tinus: “Certum habemus, quia Christus resurgens ex mortuis jam non moritur; et tamen, ne obliviscamur quod semel factum est, in memoria nostra omni anno fit, scilicet quando pascha celebratur. Nunquid totiens Christus occiditur? sed tantum anniyersaria recordatio repreesentat quod olim factum est, et sic nos facit moveri tanquam yideamus Dominum in eruce®.” Item: “Semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso, et tamen quotidie immolatur *Immolatur, in sacramento®.” Quod sic intelligendum est: quia in manifestatione corporis et distinctione “‘“"* membrorum semel tantum in cruce pependit, offerens se Deo Patri hostiam redemptionis efficacem, eorum scilicet quos preedestinavit. Item Ambrosius: “In Christo semel oblata est hostia ad salutem potens; quid ergo nos? Nonne per singulos dies offerimus? Et si quotidie offeramus, ad recordationem ejus mortis fit; et una est hostia, non multe: quo- modo una et non multe? quia semel immolatus est Christus. Hoe autem sacrificium ex- emplum est illius: id ipsum, et semper id ipsum offertur: proinde hoc idem est sacrificium ; alioquin dicetur, quoniam in multis locis offertur, multi sunt Christi: non, sed unus ubique est Christus, et hic plenus existens, et illic plenus, sicut quod ubique offertur unum est corpus, ita et unum sacrificium. Christus hostiam obtulit, ipsam offerimus et nunc; sed quod nos agimus recordatio est sacrificii. Nec causa suze infirmitatis repetitur, quia per- ficit hominem, sed nostra, quia quotidie peccamus’.” Ex his colligitur esse sacrificium et dici quod agitur in altari, et Christum semel oblatum et quotidie offerri, sed aliter tune, aliter nune: et etiam que sit virtus hujus sacramenti ostenditur: remissio scilicet pecca- [* Quotidie vel immoletur semel, in ed. 1580. ] [° Et scimus et certum habemus, et fide immo- mus in cruce pendentem Dominum.—August. in Psalm. xxi. Prefat. in secundam expositionem. bili retinemus, quia “Christus resurgens a mortuis jam non moritur, et mors ei ultra non dominabitur.”” Verba ista Apostoli sunt: tamen ne obliviscamur quod factum est semel, in memoria nostra semel omni anno fit. Quotiens pascha celebratur, nunquid totiens Christus moritur? Sed tamen anniversaria recordatio quasi representat quod olim factum est, et sic nas facit moneri [al. moveri] tanquam videa- Tom. VIII. p. 43. Ed. Paris. 1635.] (® August. Epist. xx111. Ad _ Bonifacium. Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso, et tamen in sacramento... . omni die populis immo- latur? Tom. II. p. 36.) {7 In Epist. ad Hebr, x. Tom. ITI. p. 651. Paris, 1631. But this commentary is entirely omitted by the Benedictine editors, as being certainly spurious. | 384. {In Epistola Xxill. Rom. vi. Orig. ed. Winch. } [The same words hath Chrysostom. Homil. xvii. ad Heb. Orig. ed. Winch. } Homil. de orpore et Sanguine Domini. Orig. ed. Winch. } 358 THE FIFTH BOOK. torum yenialium et perfectio virtutis. The English whereof is this: “After this it is asked whether that the priest doth, may be said properly a sacrifice or immolation ; and whether Christ be daily immolate or only once? Whereunto it may be shortly answered, That which is offered and consecrate of the priest, is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation done in the altar of the cross. And Christ was once dead on the cross, and there was offered in himself; but he is daily im- molate in the sacrament, because in the sacrament there is made a memory of that is once done. Whereupon St Augustine: ‘We are assured that Christ rising from death dieth not now, &c. Yet, lest we should forget that is once done, in our memory every year is done, viz. as often as the pascha is celebrate, is Christ as often killed? only a yearly remembrance representeth that was once done, and so causeth us! to be moved as though we saw our Lord on the cross. Also Christ was once offered in himself, and is offered? daily in the sacra- ment. Which is thus to be understanded, that in open shewing of his body and distinction of his members he did hang only once wpon the cross, offering himself to God the Father an host of redemption effectual for them whom he hath predestinate. Also St Ambrose: ‘ In Christ the host was once offered being of power to health: what do we then? do we not offer every day? and if we offer every day, it is done to the remembrance of the death of him, and the host is one, not many. How one and not many? because Christ is once of- Jered: this sacrifice is the example of that, the same, and always the same is offered; therefore this is the same sacrifice. Or else it may be said, because offering is® in many places, there be many Christs; which is not so, but one Christ is each where, and here full, and there full, so as that which is offered every where is one body, and so also one sacrifice. Christ hath offered the host, we do offer the same also now: but that we do is a remembrance of the sacrifice. Nor there is no cause found of the own invalidity, because it perfecteth the man, but of us, because we daily sin.’ Hereof it is gathered that to be a sacrifice and to be so called, that is done in the altar; and Christ to be once offered and daily offered, but otherwise then, and otherwise now: and also it is shewed what is the virtue of this sacrament, that is to say, remission of venial sin and perfection of virtue.” Thus writeth Petrus Lombardus, whose judgment because this author alloweth, he must grant that the visible church hath priests in ministery, that offer daily Christ's most precious body and blood in mystery: and then must it be granted, that Christ so offered himself in his swpper ; for otherwise than he did cannot now be done. And by the judgment of Petrus Lombardus, the same most precious body and blood is offered daily, that once suffered and was once shed. And also by the same Petrus’ judgment, which he confirmeth with the saying of other, this daily offering by the priest is daily offered for sin, not for any imperfection in the first offering, but because we daily fall. And by Petrus’ judgment appeareth also, how the priest hath a special function to make this offering, by whose mouth God is prayed unto (as Hesychius saith) to make this sacrifice, which Emissene noteth to be wrought by the great power4 of the invisible priest. By Petrus Lombardus also, if his judgment be true, (as it is in deed, and the author confesseth it so to be,) that is done in the altar is not only called a sacrifice, but also is so, and the same that is offered once and daily to be the same, but otherwise then and° otherwise now. But to the purpose: if the author will stand to the judgment of Petrus Lombardus, all his fifth book of this treaty is clearly defaced. And if he will now call back that again, he might more compendiously do the same in the whole treatise, being so far overseen as he is therein. CANTERBURY. How is it possible to set out more plainly the diversity of the true sacrifice of Christ made upon the altar of the cross, which was the propitiation of sin, from the sacrifice made in the sacrament, than Lombardus hath done in this place? For the one he calleth the true sacrifice, the other he calleth but a memorial or representa- tion thereof, likening the sacrifice made in the Lord’s supper to a year’s mind or anni- versary, whereat is made a memorial of the death of a person, and yet it is not his death indeed. So in the Lord’s supper, according to his commandment, we remem- {! And causeth us, Orig. ed. Winch. ] | [* By the power, ibid. ] 2 And yet is offered, 1551.] | [° Then offered and, ibid. ] [% It is offered, Orig. ed. Winch. ] OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 359 ber his death, preaching and commending the same until his return again at the last day. And although it be one Christ that died for us, and whose death we remember, yet it is not one sacrifice that he made of himself upon the cross, and that we make of him upon the altar or table. For his sacrifice was the redemption of the world, ours is not so: his was death, ours is but a remembrance thereof: his was the taking away the sins of the world; ours is a praising and thanking for the same: and therefore his was satisfactory, ours is gratulatory. It is but one Christ that was offered then, and that is offered now; yet the offerings be divers: his was the thing, and ours is the figure; his was the original, and ours is as it were a pattern. Therefore concludeth Lombardus, that Christ was “ otherwise offered then and otherwise now.” And seeing then that the offerings and sacrifices be divers, if the first was propitiatory and satisfactory, ours cannot be so, except we shall make many sacri- fices propitiatory. And then, as St Paul reasoneth, either the first must be insuth- cient, or the other in vain. And as Christ only made this propitiatory sacrifice, so he made but one, and but once. For the making of any other, or of the same again, should have been (as St Paul reasoneth) a reproving of the first as unperfect and insufficient. And therefore, at his last supper, although Christ made unto his Father sacrifices of lauds and thanksgiving, as these words evyapioryoas and vmvycavtes do declare, yet he made there no sacrifice propitiatory ; for then either the sacrifice upon the cross had been void, or the sacrifice at the supper unperfect and unsufficient. And although he had at his supper made sacrifices propitiatory, yet the priests do not so, who do not the same that Christ did at his supper. For he ministered not the sacrament in remembrance of his death, which was not then brought to pass, but he ordained it to be ministered of us in remembrance thereof. And therefore our offering, after Lombardus’ judgment, is but a remembrance of that true offermg wherein Christ offered himself upon the cross. And so did Christ institute it to be. And Lombardus saith not that Christ is daily offered for propitiation of our sins ; but because we daily sin, we daily be put in the remembrance of Christ’s death, which is the perfect propitiation for sin°. And the priest (as Lombardus saith) maketh a memorial of that oblation of Christ, and (as Hesychius saith) he doth it in the name of the people, so that the sacrifice is no more the priest’s than the people’s. For the priests speak the words, and the people should answer “ Amen,” as Justinus saith. The priest should declare the death and passion of Christ, and all the people should look upon the cross in the mount of Calvary, and see Christ there hanging, and the blood flowing out of his side into their wounds to heal all their sores; and the priest and people all together should laud and thank instantly the chirurgeon and physician of their souls. And this is the priest's and people’s sacrifice, not to be propitiators for sin, but (as Emissene saith) to worship continually in mystery that which was but once offered for the price of sin. And this shortly is the mind of Lombardus, that the thing which is done at God’s board is a sacrifice, and so is that also which was made upon the cross, but not after one manner of understanding. For this was the thing in deed, and that is the anniversary or commemoration of the thing. And now have I made it evident, that Petrus Lombardus defaceth in no point my saying of the sacrifice, but confirmeth fully my doctrine, as well of the sacrifice propitiatory made by Christ himself only, as of the sacrifice commemorative and gratu- latory made by the priests and people. So that in your issue taken upon Lombard, the verdict cannot but pass with me, by the testimony of Lombard himself. And yet I do not fully allow Lombard’s judgment in all matters, who with Gratian his brother, as it is said, were two chief champions of the Romish see, to spread abroad their errors and usurped authority; but I speak of Lombard only to declare that yet in his time they had not erred so far, to make of their mass a sacrifice propitiatory. But in the end of this process Lombard speaketh without the book, when he con- cludeth this matter thus, that “the virtue of this sacrament is the remission of venial sin and perfection of virtue:” which if Lombard understand of the sacrifice of Christ, {* Proportion for sin, 1580. | The diversity of Christ's sacrifice and ours. The sacrifice of Christ. Heb. vii. viii. The sacrifice of the ehureh, 386. 387. Acts i. Eph. iv. Penance. * The mass is a sacrifice propitiatory. 360 THE FIFTH BOOK. it is too little, to make his sacrifice the remission but of venial sin; and if he understand it of the sacrifice of the priest, it is too much to make the priest’s sacri- fice either “the perfection of virtue” or “the remission of venial sin,” which be the effects only of the sacrifice of Christ. Now let us consider the rest of your confutation. WINCHESTER. The catholic doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christ's most precious body and blood to be an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the cross, but a sacrifice that represent- eth that sacrifice, and sheweth it also before the faithful eyes, and refresheth the effectual memory of it; so as in the daily sacrifice, without shedding of blood, we may see with the eye of faith the very body and blood of Christ by God’s mighty power, without division, distinctly exhibit, the same body and blood that suffered and was shed for us, which is a lively memorial to stir up our faith, and to consider therein briefly the great charity of God towards us declared in Christ. The catholic doctrine teacheth the daily sacrifice to be the same in essence that was offered on the cross once, assured thereof by Christ's words when he said: “ This is my body that shall be betrayed for you.” The offering on the cross was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin, whereby to destroy the tyranny of sin, the effect whereof is given and dispensed in the sacrament of baptism, once likewise ministered and never to be iterate, no more than Christ can be crucified again; and yet by virtue of the same offering such as fall be relieved in the sacrament of penance. CANTERBURY. After your wilful wrangling without any cause, at the last of your own swing you come to the truth, purely and sincerely professing and setting forth the same, except in few words here and there cast in, as it were cockle among clean corn. ‘“ The offering on the cross,” say you, “was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin, the effect whereof is given and dispensed in the sacrament of baptism, once likewise ministered, and neyer to be iterate ;’ but “‘ the catholic doctrine teacheth not that the daily sacrifice is an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the cross, but a representation thereof, shewing it before the faithful eyes, and refreshing our memory therewith, so that we may see with the eye of faith the very body and blood of Christ, by God’s mighty power exhibit unto us, the same body and blood that suffered and was shed for us.” This is a godly and catholic doctrine, but of the cockle, which you cast in by the way, of distinction “without division,” I cannot tell what you mean, except you speak out your dreams more plainly. And that it is the same body in substance, that is daily, as it were, offered by remembrance, which was once offered in the cross for sin, we learn not so plainly by these words, “This is my body,” hoc est corpus meum, as we do by these, Hic Jesus assumptus est in celum, and, Qui descendit, ipse est et qui ascendit supra omnes celos: ‘This Jesus was taken up into heaven,” and “he that descended was the same Jesus that ascended above all the heavens.” And where you say, that “by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice such as fall be relieved in the sacrament of penance,” the truth is, that such as do fall be relieved by Christ, whensoever they return to him unfeignedly with heart and mind. And as for your words concerning the sacrament of penance, may have a popish understanding in it. But at length you return to your former error, and go about to revoke, or at the least evil-favouredly to expound, that which you have before well spoken. Your words be these. WINCHESTER. The daily offering is propitiatory also, but not in that degree of propitiation, as for re- demption, regeneration, or remission of deadly sin, which was once purchased, and by force thereof is in the sacraments ministered ; but for the increase of Gods favour, the mitigation OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 361 of God's displeasure, provoked by our infirmities, the subduing of temptations, and the perfection of virtue in us. All good works, good thoughts, and good meditations may be called sacrifices, and the same be called sacrifices propitiatory also, for so much as in their degree God accepteth and taketh them through the effect and strength of the very sacrifice of Christ's death, which is the reconciliation between God and man, ministered and dispensed particularly as God hath appointed, in such measure as he knoweth. But St Paul to the Hebrews, exhorting men to charitable deeds, saith: “* With such sacrifices God is made favourable,” or, “ God is propitiate,” if we shall make new English. Whereupon it followeth, because the priest in the daily sacrifice doth as Christ hath ordered to be done for shewing forth and remembrance of Christ's death, that act of the priest done according to God’s commandment must needs be propitiatory, and provoke God’s favour, and ought to be trusted on to have a propitiatory effect with God to the members of Christs body particularly, being the same done for the whole body, in such wise as God knoweth the dispensation to be meet and convenient ; according to which measure God worketh most justly and most mercifully, otherwise than man can by his judgment discuss and determine. To call the daily offering a “sacrifice satisfactory,” must have an understanding that signifieth not the action of the priest, but the presence of Christ's most precious body and blood, the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered being propitiatory and satisfactory for all the world ; or else the word “satisfactory” must have a signification and meaning, as it hath sometime, that declareth the acceptation of the thing done, and not the proper contrevail of the action, after which sort man may satisfy God that is so merciful as he will take in good worth for Christ's sake man’s imperfect endeavour, and so the daily offering may be called a sacrifice satisfactory, because God is pleased with it, being a manner of worshipping of Christ's passion according to his institution’. But otherwise the daily sacrifice, in respect of the action of the priest, [cannot be}? called satisfactory, and it is a word indeed that soundeth not well so placed, although it might be saved by a signification, and therefore think that word rather to be well expounded, than by captious understanding brought in slander when it is used, and this speech to be frequented, that the only immolation of Christ in himself upon the altar of the cross is the very satisfactory sacrifice for reconciliation of mankind to the favour of God. And I have not read the daily sacrifice of Christ's most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory, but this speech hath indeed been used, that the priest should sing “ satisfactory ;” which they understood in the satisfaction of the priests duty, to attend the prayer he was required to make, and for a distinction thereof they had prayer sometime required without special limitation, and that was called to pray not “satisfactory.” Finally in man by any his action to presume to satisfy God by way of countervail, is a very mad and furious blasphemy. CANTERBURY. To defend the papistical error, that the daily offering of the priest in the mass is propitiatory, you extend the word “ propitiation” otherwise than the apostles do, speak- ing of that matter. I speak plainly, according to St Paul and St John, that only Christ is the propitiation for our sins by his death. You speak according to the pa- pists, that the priests in their masses make a sacrifice propitiatory. I call a sacrifice propitiatory, according to the scripture, such a sacrifice as pacifieth God’s indignation against us, obtaineth mercy and forgiveness of all our sins, and is our ransom and redemption from everlasting damnation. And on the other side, I call a sacrifice gratificatory, or the sacrifice of the church, such a sacrifice as doth not reconcile us to God, but is made of them that be reconciled to testify their duties, and to shew them- selves thankful unto him, And these sacrifices in scripture be not called propitiatory, but sacrifices of justice, of laud, praise, and thanksgiving. But you confound the words, and call one by another's name, calling that propitiatory which the scripture calleth but of justice, laud, and thanking. And all is nothing else but to defend your propitiatory sacrifice of the priests in their masses, whereby they may remit sin, and redeem souls out of purgatory. And yet all your wiles and shifts will not serve you; for by extending the name {' Christ's institution, Orig. ed. Winch.] | [® Finally man, 1551, and Orig. ed. Winch. ] [? Ed. 1551, and Orig. ed. Winch.] *Good works sacrifices pro- pitiatory. (Heb. xiii. Orig. ed. Winch. } *The mass is a sacrifice satisfactory. 388. Rom. iii. 1 John ii. The differ- ence between a sacrifice propitiatory and gratifica- tory. Psal xlix. Heb, xiii. 362 THE FIFTH BOOK. of a propitiatory sacrifice unto so large a signification as you do, you make all man- ner of sacrifices propitiatory, leaving no place for any other sacrifice. ‘ For,” say you, “all good deeds and good thoughts be sacrifices propitiatory ;” and then be the good works of the lay people sacrifices propitiatory, as well as those of the priest. And to what purpose then made you in the beginning of this book a distinction between sacrifices propitiatory and other? Thus for desire you have to defend the papistical errors, you have not fallen only into imaginations contrary to the truth of God’s word, but also contrary to yourself. But let pass away these papistical inventions, and let us humbly profess ourselves, with all our sacrifices, not worthy to approach unto God, nor to have any access unto him, but by that only propitiatory sacrifice which Christ only made upon the cross. And yet let us with all devotion, with whole heart and mind, and with all obedi- ence to God’s will, come unto the heavenly supper of Christ, thanking him only for propitiation of our sins. In which holy communion the act of the minister and other be all of one sort, none propitiatory, but all of lauds and thanksgiving. And such sacrifices be pleasant and acceptable to God, as St Paul saith, done of them that be good; but they win not his favour, and put away his indignation from them that Rom. iii. & be evil. For such reconciliation can no creature make, but Christ alone. Acts iv. And where you say, that “to call the daily offering a sacrifice satisfactory must have an understanding that signifieth not the action of the priest ;’ here you may see what a business and hard work it is to patch the papists’ rags together, and what 389. absurdities you fall into thereby. Even now you said, that the act of the priests must needs be a sacrifice propitiatory; and now, to have an understanding for the same, you be driven to so shameful a shift, that you say either clean contrary, that it is not the action of the priest, but the presence of Christ; or else that the action of the priest is none otherwise satisfactory than all other christian men’s works be. For otherwise, say you, the daily sacrifice, in respect of the action of the priest, can- not be called satisfactory. Wherefore at length, knowledging your popish doctrine to sound evil-favouredly, you confess again the true catholic teaching, that “this speech is to be frequented and used, that the only immolation of Christ in himself, upon the altar of the cross, is the very satisfactory sacrifice for reconciliation of mankind to the favour of God.” And where you say, that “you have not read the daily sacrifice of Christ’s most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory :” if you have not read of satisfactory masses, it appeareth that you have read but very little of the school-authors. And yet not many years ago you might have heard them preached in every pardon. But because you have not read thereof, read Doctor Smith’s book of the sacrifice of the mass, and both your ears and eyes shall be full of it: whose “furious blasphemies” you have, with one sentence, here most truly rejected ; wherefore yet remaineth in you some good sparks of the Spirit, that you so much detest such abomination. Satisfactory And yet such blasphemies you go about to salve and plaster, as much as you may, - 7 y by subtle and crafty interpretations. For by such exposition as you make of the satis- factory singing of the priest, in “doing his duty in that he was required to do;” *by this exposition he singeth as well satisfactory in saying of matins as in saying of mass, for in both he doth his duty that he required unto: and*’ so might it be defended, that the player upon the organs playeth satisfactory, when he doth his duty in playing as he is required. And all the singing men in the church, that have wages thereto, sing satisfactory, as well as the priests, when they sing according to that they be hired unto. And then as one singing man or player on the organs, receiving a stipend of many men to play or sing at a certain time, if he do his duty, satisfieth them all at once; so might a priest sing satisfactory for many persons at one time, which the teachers of satisfactory masses utterly condemn. But if you had read Duns, you would have written more clerkly in these matters than you now do. Now let us hear what you say further. [' The passage between asterisks is wanting in ed. 1581].] OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 363 WINCHESTER. Where the author, citing St Paul, Englisheth him thus, that “Christ's priesthood cannot [Heb. vii pass from him to another ;” these words thus framed be not the simple and sincere expression Winch, of the truth of the text, which saith, that “ Christ hath a perpetual priesthood :” and the Greek hath a word damapaBarov, which the Greek schools express and expound by the word adiadoxov, signifying the priesthood of Christ endeth not in him to go to another by succession, as in the tribe of Levi. where was among mortal men succession im the office of priesthood ; but Christ (1 Tim. iv. et liveth ever, and therefore is a perpetual everlasting priest, by whose authority priesthood is Oe a now in this visible church, as St Paul ordered to Timothy and Titus, and other places also Winchs] confirm; which priests, visible ministers to our invisible priest, offer the daily sacrifice in Christ's pees church; that is to say, with the very presence, by God’s omnipotency wrought, of the most precious fer, that is, ‘eo « v shewe or body and blood of our Saviour Christ, shewing forth Christ's death, and celebrating the memory Christ's of his supper and death according to Christ's institution, so with daily oblation and sacrifice "390, of the selfsame sacrifice to kindle in us a thankful remembrance of all Christ's benefits unto us. CANTERBURY. Where you find yourself grieved with my citing of St Paul, that “ Christ’s priesthood Heb. vii. cannot pass from him to another,” which is not, say you, “the truth of the text, which meaneth that the priesthood of Christ endeth not in him to go to another by succession:” your manner of speech herein is so dark, that it giveth no light at all. For it seemeth to signify, that Christ’s priesthood endeth, but not to go to other by succession, but by some other means: which thing if you mean, then you make the endless priesthood of Christ to have an end. And if you mean it not, but that Christ’s priesthood is endless, and goeth to no other by succession, nor otherwise; then, I pray you, what have I offended in saying, that ‘‘Christ’s priesthood cannot pass from him to another?” And as for the Greek words, tapafarov and cadoyor signify any manner of succession, whether it be by inheritance, adoption, election, purchase, or any other means. And he that is instituted and inducted into a benefice after another, is called his successor. And Erasmus calleth arapaBarov “quod in alium transire non potest.” And so doth adiadoyxov signify “quod successione caret ;” that is to say, “a thing that hath no succession, nor passeth to none other.” And because Christ is a perpetual and everlasting priest, that by one oblation made a full sacrifice of sin for ever, therefore his priesthood neither needeth nor can pass to any other: wherefore the ministers of Christ’s church be not now appointed priests to make a new sacrifice for sin, as though Christ had not done that at once sufficiently for ever, but to preach abroad Christ's sacrifice, and to be ministers of his words and sacraments. And where but a little before you had truly taught, that “the only immolation of Christ by himself upon the altar of the cross is the very satisfactory sacrifice for our recon- ciliation to God;” now in the end, like a cow that casteth down her milk with her own feet, you overthrow all again in few words, saying that “ priests make daily the self-same sacrifice that Christ made:” which is so foul an error and blasphemy, that, as I said in mine other book, “if the priests daily make the self-same sacrifice that Christ did himself, and the sacrifice that he made was his death and the effusion of his most precious blood upon the cross, then followeth of necessity, that every day the priests slay Christ and shed his blood, and be worse than the Jews, that did it but once.” Now followeth in your confutation thus. WINCHESTER. And where the author would avoid all the testimony of the fathers, by pretence it should be but a manner of speech, the canon of the council of Nice before rehearsed, and the words of it, where mysteries be spoken of in proper terms for doctrine, avoideth all that shift; and it hath no absurdity to confess, that Christ in his supper did institute, for a remembrance of *Christ is of- fered really, not his saeri- fice remem- bered or re- presented only. Epistola ad Nestor. Orig. ed. Winch. } O91. (xvil. Hom. ad Heb. Orig. ed. Wineh.} The effect of Christ's sacri- fice is both to give life and to continue the same. John x. Gal. 11. Cyril* in Ephesine council. What is, and wherein standeth the sacrifice of the church. 392. 364 THE FIFTH BOOK. the only sacrifice, the presence of the same most precious substance! to be (as the canon of the council in proper teacheth) sacrificed by the priests, to be the pure sacrifice of the church there offered for the effect of increase of life in us, as it was offered on the cross to achieve life unto us. And St Cyril, who for his doctrine was in great authority with the council Ephesine, writeth “the very body and blood of Christ to be the lively and unbloody sacrifice of the church ;” as likewise in the old church other commonly termed the same, and among other Chrysostom, whom the author would now have seem to use it but for a manner of speech, which in deed Chrysostom doth not, but doth truly open the understanding of that is done in the church, wherein by this sacrifice, done after the order of Melchisedech, Christ's death is not iterate, but a memory daily renewed of that death, so as Christ's offering on the cross once done and consummate to finish all sacrifices after the order of Aaron, is now only remembered according to Christ's institution, but in such wise as the same body is offered daily on the altar, that was once offered on the altar of the cross; but the same manner of offering is not daily that was on the altar of the cross, for the daily offering is without bloodshed, and is termed so to signify that bloodshedding once done to be sufficient. And as Chrysostom openeth it by declaration of what manner our sacrifice is, that is to say, this daily offering to be a remembrance of the other manner of sacrifice once done, and therefore saith rather we make a remembrance of it; this saying of Chrysostom doth not impair his former words, where he saith, “the host is the same offered on the cross and on the altar ;’ and therefore by him the body of Christ that died but once is daily present in deed, and, as the council of Nice saith, “sacrificed not after the manner of other sacrifices ;” and, as Chrysostom saith, ~ *“ offered, but the death of that precious body only daily remembered, and not again iterate.” CANTERBURY. For answer hereto, read the thirteenth chapter of my fifth book’, and that which I have written here a little before of Nicene council’, And where you say, that “the effect of the sacrifice of Christ's body, made by the priests, is to increase life in us, as the effect of the sacrifice of the same body made by himself upon the cross is to give life unto us;” this is not only an absurdity, but also an intolerable blasphemy against Christ. For the sacrifice made upon the cross doth both give us life, and also increase and continue the same: and the priest’s oblation doth neither of both. For our redemption and eternal salvation standeth not only in giving us life, but in continuing the same for ever; as Christ said, that “he came not only to give us life, but also to make us increase and abound therein :” and St Paul said: “The life which I now live in flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” And therefore, if we have the one by the oblation of Christ, and the other by the oblation of the priest, then divide we our salvation between Christ and the priest. And because it is no less gift to continue life for ever, than to give it us, by this your mad and furious blasphemy we have our salvation and redemption as much by the sacrifice made by the priest, as we have by sacrifice made by Christ himself. And thus you make Christ to be like an unkind and unnatural mother, who, when she hath brought forth her child, putteth it to another to nurse, and maketh herself but half the mother of it. And thus you teach christian people to halt on both sides, partly worshipping God, and partly Baal; partly attributing our salvation to Christ, the true, perfect, eternal priest, and partly to antichrist and his priests. And concerning Cyril, he speaketh not of a sacrifice propitiatory in that place, as I have more plainly declared in mine answer to Doctor Smith’s prologue. And whereas you call the daily sacrifice of the church an ‘“ unbloody sacrifice,” here it were necessary, if you would not deceive simple people, but teach them such doctrine as they may understand, that you should in plain terms set forth and declare what the daily offering of the priest without blood-shedding is, in what words, deeds, crosses, signs, or gestures it standeth, and whether it be made before the consecration or after, and before the distribution of the sacrament or after, and wherein chiefly resteth the very pith and substance of it. And when you have thus done, I will say you mean [! The presence of the most precious substance, ie Vide supra, p. 351.] Orig. ed. Winch. | |® Vide supra, p. 356.] OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 365 frankly, and walk not colourably in cloaked words not understanded ; and then also shall you be more fully answered, when I know better what you mean. And to Chrysostom needeth no further answer than I have made already in the thirteenth chapter of my fifth book. But let us hear the rest of your book. WINCHESTER. And where the author saith the old fathers, calling the supper of our Lord a sacrifice, meant a sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving; Hippinus of Hamburgh, no papist, in his book dedicate to the king’s majesty that now is, saith otherwise, and noteth how the old fathers called it a sacrifice propitiatory, “ for the very presence of Christ's most precious body there:” thus saith he; which presence all christian men must say requireth on our part lauds and thanks- giving, which may be, and is, called in scripture by the name of sacrifice; but that sacrifice of our lauds and thanks cannot be a sacrifice giving life, as it is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do, when he saith it is vivyificum, which can be only said of the very body and *Thesacrifice blood of Christ. Nor our sacrifice of lauds and thanksgiving cannot be said a pure and clean siveth lite - sacrifice, whereby to fulfil the prophecy of Malachi; and therefore the same prophecy was in One aL the beginning of the church understanded to be spoken of the daily offering of the body and “3 blood of Christ for the memory of Christ’s death, according to Christ's ordinance in his supper, as may at more length be opened and declared. Thinking to the effect of this book sufficient to have encountered the chief points of the author's doctrine, with such contradiction to them as the catholic doctrine doth of necessity require; the more particular confutation of that is untrue on the adversary part, and confirmation of that is true in the catholic doc- trine, requiring more time and leisure than I have now, and therefore offering myself ready by mouth or writing to say further in this matter as shall be required; I shall here end for this time, with prayer to Almighty God, to grant his truth to be acknowledged and confessed, and uniformly to be preached and believed of all, so as, all contention for understanding of religion avoided, which hindereth charity, we may give such light abroad as men may see owr good works, and glorify our Father who is in heaven, with the Son and Holy Ghost in one unity of Godhead reigning without end. Amen. CANTERBURY. /Epinus saith, that “the old fathers called the supper of our Lord a sacrifice :” but that the old fathers should call it a sacrifice propitiatory, I will not believe that AZpinus so said, until you appoint me both the book and place where he so saith. For the effect of his book is clean contrary, which he wrote to reprove the propitiatory sacrifice, which the papists feign to be in the mass. Thus indeed AZpinus writeth in one place: Veteres eucharistiam propter corporis et sanguinis Christi presentiam primo vocaverunt sacrificium, deinde propter oblationes et munera que in ipsa eucharistia Deo consecra- bantur, et conferebantur ad sacra ministeria et ad necessitatem credentium*. In which words Zpinus declareth, that “‘the old fathers called the supper of our Lord a sacrifice, for two considerations: one was for the presence of Christ’s flesh and blood, the other was for the offerings which the people gave there of their devotion to the holy minis- tration and relief of the poor.” But Aipinus speaketh here not one word of corporal — 399. presence, nor of propitiatory sacrifice, but generally of presence and sacrifice, which maketh nothing for your purpose, nor against me, that grant both a presence and a sacrifice. But when you shall shew me the place where A‘pinus saith, that “the old [* Vide supra, p. 20. A%pinus de purgatorio, &c. of which Strype gives the following account :— **T add another book in quarto, of a foreigner, dedicated this year* to the king, in a long epistle dated from Hamburgh. The author was Johannes Epinus. The subjects of his book were, De Pur- gatorio, Satisfactionibus, Remissione Culparum et Pene, §c. This Aupinus was chief minister of the Church of Hamburgh, and was sent twelve years before, as envoy from Hamburgh into England to king Henry, upon matters of religion.’’—Strype, Memorials, Vol. II. p. 229. Ed. Oxford, 1822. * Anno 1548. Cyril. Mal. i. Inconstaney. 394. 366 THE FIFTH BOOK, fathers called the Lord’s supper a propitiatory sacrifice,” I shall trust you the better, and him the worse. And as for Cyril, if you will say of his head, that “the sacrifice of the church giveth life ;” how agreeth this with your late saying, that ‘‘ the sacrifice of the church increaseth life, as the sacrifice on the cross giveth life?” And if the sacrifice, made by the priest, both give life and increase life, then is the priest both the mother and nurse, and Christ hath nothing to do with us at all, but as a stranger. And the sacrifice that Malachi speaketh of is the sacrifice of land and thanks, which all devout christian people give unto God, whether it be in the Lord’s supper, in their private prayers, or in any work they do at any time or place to the glory of God; all which sacrifices, not of the priests only, but of all faithful people, be accepted of God through the sacrifice of Christ, by whose blood all their filth and unpureness is clean sponged away. But in this last book, it seemeth you were so astonied and amazed, that you were at your wit’s end, and wist not where to become. For now the priest maketh a sacrifice propitiatory, now he doth not: now he giveth life, now he giveth none: now is Christ the fuli Saviour and satisfaction, now the priest hath half part with him: now tbe priest doth all. And thus you are so inconstant in yourself, as one that had been nettled, and could rest in no place; or rather as one that had received such a stroke upon his head, that he staggered withal, and reeled here and there, and could not tell where to become. And your doctrine hath such ambiguities, such perplexities, such absurdities, and such impieties in it, and is so uncertain, so uncomfortable, so contrary to God’s word and the old catholic church, so contrary to itself, that it declareth from whose spirit it cometh, which can be none other but antichrist himself. Whereas, on the other side, the very true doctrine of Christ and his pure church from the beginning is plain, certain, without wrinkles, without any inconvenience or absurdity, so cheerful and comfortable to all christian people, that it must needs come from the Spirit of God, the Spirit of truth and all consolation. For what ought to be more certain and known to all christian people, than that Christ died once, and but once, for the redemption of the world? And what can be more true, than that his only death is our life? And what can be more comfortable to a penitent sinner, that is sorry for his sin, and returneth to God in his heart and whole mind, than to know that Christ dischargeth him of the heavy load of his sin, and taketh the burden upon his own back? And if we shall join the priest herein to Christ in any part, and give a portion hereof to his sacrifice, as you in your doctrine give to the priest the one half at the least, what a discourage is this to the penitent sinner, that he may not hang wholly upon Christ ! what perplexities and doubts rise hereof in the sinner’s conscience ! And what an obscuring and darkening is this of the benefit of Christ! Yea, what injury and contumely is it to him! And furthermore, when we hear Christ speak unto us with his own mouth, and shew himself to be seen with our eyes, in such sort as is convenient for him of us in this mortal life to be heard and seen; what comfort can we have more? The mi- nister of the church speaketh unto us God’s own words, which we must take as spoken from God’s own mouth, because that from his mouth it came, and his word it is, and not the minister’s. Likewise, when he ministereth to our sights Christ’s holy sacraments, we must think Christ crucified and presented before our eyes, be- cause the sacraments so represent him, and be his sacraments, and not the priest’s: as in baptism we must think, that as the priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly, and washeth him with water, so must we think that God putteth to his hand inwardly, and washeth the infant with his holy Spirit; and moreover, that Christ himself cometh down upon the child, and apparelleth him with his own self: and as at the Lord’s holy table the priest distributeth wine and bread to feed the body, so we must think that inwardly by faith we see Christ feeding both body and soul to eternal life. What comfort can be devised any more in this world for a christian man? And on the other side, what discomfort is in your papistical doctrine, what doubts, what perplexities, what absurdities, what iniquities! What availeth it us that there is no bread nor wine? or that Christ is really under the forms and OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 307 figures of bread and wine, and not in us? or if he be in us, yet he is but in the lips or the stomach, and tarrieth not with us. Or what benefit is it to a wicked man to eat Christ, and to receive death by him that is life? From this your obscure, perplex, uncertain, uncomfortable, devilish, and papistical doctrine, Christ defend all his; and grant that we may come often and worthily to Christ’s holy table, to comfort our feeble and weak faith by remembrance of his death, who only is the satisfaction and propitiation of our sins, and our meat, drink, and food of everlasting life. Amen. Sy) Here endeth the answer of the most reverend father in God, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, &c., unto the crafty and sophistical cavillation of doctor Stephen Gardiner, devised by him to obscure the true, sincere, and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour CHRIST. THE ANSWER OF THOMAS, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, &c., AGAINST THE FALSE CALUMNIATIONS OF DOCTOR RICHARD SMITH, WHO HATH TAKEN UPON HIM TO CONFUTE THE DEFENCE OF THE TRUE AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR SAVIOUR CHRIST. 395. I nave now obtained, gentle reader, that thing which I have much desired, which was, that if all men would not embrace the truth lately set forth by me, concerning the sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, at the least some man would vouchsafe to take pen in hand and write against my book, because that thereby the truth might both better be searched out, and also more certainly known to the world. And herein I heartily thank the late bishop of Winchester, and doctor Smith, who partly have satisfied my long desire; saving that I would have wished adversaries more substantially learned in holy scriptures, more exercised in the old ancient ecclesiastical authors, and haying a more godly zeal to the trial out of the truth, than are these two, both being crafty sophisters, the one by art, and the other by nature ; both also being drowned in the dregs of papistry, brought up and confirmed in the same; the one by Duns and Dorbell, and such like sophisters; the other by the popish canon law, whereof by his degree, taken in the university, he is a professor. And as concerning the late bishop of Winchester, I will declare his crafty sophistications in mine answer unto his book. But doctor Smith, as it appeareth by the title of his preface, hath craftily devised an easy way to obtain his purpose, that the people, being barred from the searching of the truth, might be still kept in blindness and error, as well in this as in all other matters, wherein they have been in times past deceived. Falsehood He seeth full well that the more diligently matters be searched out and discussed, int bat’ the more clearly the craft and falsehood of the subtile papists will appear. And there- light desireth foe in the preface to the reader he exhorteth all men to leave disputing and reasoning of the same by learning, and to give firm credit unto the church, as the title of the said preface declareth manifestly: as who should say, the truth of any matter that is in question might be tried out, without debating and reasoning by the word of God, whereby, as by the true touchstone, all men’s doctrines are to be tried and examined. But the truth is not ashamed to come to the light, and to be tried to the uttermost. For as pure gold, the more it is tried the more pure it appeareth, so is all manner of truth: whereas, on the other side, all maskers, counterfeiters, and false deceivers abhor the light, and refuse the trial. If all men, without right or reason, would give credit unto this papist and his Romish church, against the most certain word of God and the old holy and catholic church of Christ, the matter should be soon at an end, and out of all controversy. But forasmuch as the pure word of God and the first church of 596. Christ from the beginning taught the true catholic faith, and Smith with his church of Rome do now teach the clean contrary, the chaff cannot be tried out from the pure corn (that is to say, the untruth discerned from the very truth) without threshing, windowing, and fanning, searching, debating, and reasoning. Faith ought As for me, I ground my belief upon God’s word, wherein can be no error, haying grounded _ also the consent of the primitive church, requiring no man to believe me further than I ns have God’s word for me. But these papists speak at their pleasure what they list, and our their would be believed without God’s word, because they bear men in hand that they be the faith upon themselves. THE ANSWER TO SMITH’S PREFACE. 369 church. The church of Christ is not founded upon itself, but upon Christ and his word: but the papists build their church upon themselves, devising new articles of the faith from time to time, without any scripture, and founding the same upon the pope and his clergy, monks and friars; and by that means they be both the makers and judges of their faith themselves. Wherefore this papist, like a politic man, doth right wisely provide for himself and his church in the first entry of his book, that all men should leave searching for the truth, and stick hard and fast to the church, meaning himself and the church of Rome. For from the true catholic church the Romish chureb, which he accounteth catholic, hath varied and dissented many years past, as the blindest that this day do live may well see and perceive, if they will not purposely wink and shut up their eyes. This I have written to answer the title of his preface. Now in the beginning of the very preface itself, when this great doctor should recite Ephesine the words of Ephesine council’, he translateth them so unlearnedly, that if a young boy, sCyril the that had gone to the grammar school but three years, had done no better, he should aortas scant have escaped some schoolmaster’s hands with six jerks. And beside that, he doth gry it so craftily to serve his purpose, that he cannot be excused of wilful depravation of the words, calling “celebration” an “ offering,” and referring the participle “ made” to Christ, which should be referred to the word “ partakers,” and leaving out those words that should declare that the said council spake of no propitiatory sacrifice in the mass, but of a sacrifice of laud and thanks, which christian people give unto God at the holy communion by remembrance of the death, resurrection, and ascension of his Son Jesus Christ, and by confessing and setting forth of the same. Here by the ungodly handling of this godly council at his first beginning, it may appear to every man how sincerely this papist intendeth to proceed in the rest of this matter. And with like sincerity he untruly belieth the said council, saying that it doth smith betieth plainly set forth the holy sacrifice of the mass, which doth not so much as once name nines the mass, but speaketh of the sacrifice of the church, which the said council declareth to be the profession of christian people in setting forth the benefit of Christ, who only made the true sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sin. And whosoever else taketh upon him to make any such sacrifice, maketh himself antichrist. And then he belieth me in two things, as he useth commonly throughout his Smith belieth whole book. The one is, that I deny the sacrifice of the mass, which in my book one place. have most plainly set out the sacrifice of christian people in the holy communion or Brym mass, (if Doctor Smith will needs so term it;) and yet I have denied that it is a sacri- fice propitiatory for sin, or that the priest alone maketh any sacrifice there. For it is the sacrifice of all christian people to remember Christ’s death, to laud and thank him for it, and to publish it and shew it abroad unto other, to his honour and glory. The controversy is not, whether in the holy communion be made a sacrifice or not, (for herein both Doctor Smith and I agree with the foresaid council at Ephesus ;) but whether it be a propitiatory sacrifice or not, and whether only the priest make the said sacrifice, these be the points wherein we vary. And I say so far as the council saith, that there is a sacrifice; but that the same is propitiatory for remission of sin, or that the priest alone doth offer it, neither I nor the council do so say, but Doctor Smith hath added that of his own vain head. The other thing wherein Doctor Smith belieth me is this: he saith, that I “deny the second | that we receive in the sacrament that flesh which is adjoined to God’s own Son.” I" : [* Concilium Ephesinum, a.p. 43]. Karay- | 1uav cwripos Xpicrou: Kal odx ws odpKa Kounjy | YéARovtes TOV Kata cdpKa BdvaTtov TOU povoyevovs | dexdpevor* pu) yévorTo* ole pajv ws dvdpos 1}y.ac- | viov Tov Ocov, Tourést "Incov Xpiotov, THy Te ex | pévov, Kal cuvabevTos TH Oyw KaTa TH EvdTHTA veKpav avaBiwow Kai Tijv els oipavods dvddyiw | THs dEias, i\youv Ws Heian évolknow é€sxXnkoTos’ ah)’ Opooyowvtes, Tv dvainaxrov év Tats éxxAnolas | ws Yworrody ady0as, Kal idlav abtou Too hoyou.— tehoupev Ouciav’ mpdcipev Te oVTw Tats pyaTiais | Epist. Cyrilli, et Synodi Alexandr, ad Nestorium, eUNoyias, Kai dyialoucba, péroxor yevouevor ths Te | § vii. Tom. V. p.399. Conc. Ed, Paris. 1644. | ayias capKos, Kai TOU Timtov aluaros Tov mdyTWY ) [CRANMER. | 24 Smith saith, that Christ called not bread his body. 398. Luke xxii. 1 Cor. x. 370 THE ANSWER TO SMITH’S PREFACE. marvel not a little what eyes Doctor Smith had, when he read over my book. It is like that he had some privy spectacles within his head, wherewith whensoever he looketh, he seeth but what he list. For in my book I have written in more than an hundred places, that we receive the self-same body of Christ that was born of the virgin Mary, that was crucified and buried, that rose again, ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the mght hand of God the Father Almighty: and the contention is only in the manner and form how we receive it. For I say (as all the old holy fathers and martyrs used to say), that we receive Christ spiritually by faith with our minds, eating his flesh and drinking his blood : so that we receive Christ’s own very natural body, but not naturally nor corporally. But this lying papist saith, that we eat his natural body corporally with our mouths ; which neither the council Ephesine, nor any other ancient council or doctor ever said or thought. And the controversy in the council Ephesine was not of the uniting of Christ’s flesh to the forms of bread and wine in the sacrament, but of the uniting of his flesh to his divinity at his incarnation in unity of person. Which thing Nestorius the heretic denied, confessing that Christ was a godly man as other were, but not that he was very God in nature; which heresy that holy council confuting, affirmeth that the flesh of Christ was so joined in person to the divine nature, that it was made the proper flesh of the Son of God, and flesh that gave life: but that the said flesh was present in the sacrament corporally, and eaten with our mouths, no mention is made thereof in that council. And here I require Doctor Smith, as proctor for the papists, either to bring forth some ancient council or doctor, that saith as he saith, that Christ’s own natural body is eaten corporally with our mouths, understanding the very body in deed, (and not the signs of the body, as Chrysostom doth,) or else let him confess that my saying is true, and recant his false doctrine the third time, as he hath done twice already’. Tuen forth goeth this papist with his preface, and saith, that these words, “This is my body that shall be given to death for you,” no man can truly understand of bread. And his proof thereof is this, because that bread was not crucified for us. First, here he maketh a lie of Christ. For Christ said not, as this papist allegeth, “This is my body, which shall be given to death for you;’ but only he saith, “ This is my body which is given for you ;” which words some understand not of the giving of the body of Christ to death, but of the breaking and giving of bread to his apostles, as St Paul said: “The bread which we break,” &c. But let it be that he spake of the giving of his body to death, and said of the bread, “This is my body, which shall be given to death for you:” by what reason can you gather hereof, that the bread was crucified for us? If I look upon the image of king David, and say, “This is he that killed Goliath ;” doth this speech mean, that the image of king David killed Goliath? Or if I hold in my hand my book of St John’s gospel, and say, “This is the gospel that St John wrote at Pathmos,” (which fashion of speech is commonly used,) doth it follow hereof that my book was written at Pathmos? or that St John wrote my book, which was but newly printed at Paris, by Robert Stephanus? Or if I say of my book of St Paul’s epistles, “This is Paul that was the great persecutor of Christ ;” doth this manner of speech signify, that my book doth persecute Christ? Or if I shew a book of the new testament, saying, “‘ This is the new testament, which brought life unto the world;” by what form of argument can you induce hereof, that my book that I bought but yesterday, brought life unto the world? No man that useth thus to speak doth mean of the books, but of the very things themselves that in the books be taught and contained. And after the same wise, if Christ called bread his body, saying, “This is my body, which shall be given to death for you;” yet “ [1 Vide Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, Vol. I. | Ed. Oxford. 1840; also, Strype’s Ecclesiastical Me- p- 243, and Vol. II. p.795. Appendix. Num. xxxix. | morials, Vol. II. p. 61. cap. vi. Ed. Oxford. 1822.] THE ANSWER TO SMITH’S PREFACE. 371 he meant not, that the bread should be given to death for us, but his body, which by the bread was signified. If this excellent clerk and doctor understand not these manner of speeches, that be so plain, then hath he both lost his senses, and forgotten his grammar, which teacheth to refer the relative to the next antecedent. But of these figurative speeches I have spoken at large in my third book: first in the eighth chapter’, proving by authority of the oldest authors in Christ's church, “that he called bread his body, and wine his blood ;’ and again in the ninth®, tenth‘, eleventh’, and twelfth chapters’, I have so fully entreated of such figurative speeches, that it should be but a super- fluous labour here to speak of any more: but I refer the reader to those places. And if Master Doctor require a further answer herein, let him look upon the late bishop of Winchester’s book, called “The Detection of the Devil’s Sophistry,” where he writeth plainly, that when Christ spake these words, “This is my body,” he made demonstration of the bread. Tuen further in this prologue this papist is not ashamed to say, that I set the Setting of eart before the horses, putting reason first, and faith after: which lie is so manifest, before the that it needeth no further proof but only to look upon my book, wherein it shall oe evidently appear, that in all my five books I ground my foundation upon God’s word. And lest the papists should say, that I make the expositions of the scripture myself, as they commonly use to do, I have fortified my foundation by the authority of all the best learned and most holy authors and martyrs, that were in the beginning of the church and many years after, until the antichrist of Rome rose up and cor- 399. rupted altogether. And as for natural reason, I make no mention thereof in all my five books, but in one place only, which is in my second book, speaking of transubstantiation. And in that place I set not reason before faith, but, as an hand-maiden, have appointed her to do service unto faith, and to wait upon her. And in that place she hath done such service that D. Smith durst not once look her in the face, nor find any fault with her service, but hath slyly and craftily stolen away by her, as though he saw her not. But in his own book he hath so impudently set the cart before the horses in Christ’s own words, putting the words behind that go before, and the words before that go behind, that, except a shameless papist, no man durst be so bold to attempt any such thing of his own head. For where the evangelist and St Paul rehearse Christ's words thus, “Take, eat, this is my body;” he in the confutation of my matt. xxvi. second book turneth the order upside down, and saith: “This is my body, take '°" *" | and eat.” After this, in his preface, he rehearseth a great number of the wonderful works of of the won- God, as that God made all the world of nought, that he made Adam of the earth, Sfeodn aa and Eve of his side, the bush to flame with fire and burn not, and many other like ; which be most manifestly expressed in holy scripture. And upon these he concludeth most vainly and untruly that thing which in the scripture is neither expressed nor understanded, that Christ is corporally in heaven and in earth, and in every place where the sacrament is. And yet D. Smith saith, that God’s word doth teach this as plainly as the other : using herein such a kind of sophistical argument as all logicians do reprehend, which is called petitio principii, when a man taketh that thing for a supposition and an approved truth, which is in controversy. And so doth he in this place, when he saith: “ Doth not God’s word teach it thee as plainly as the other?” Here by this interrogatory he required that thing to be granted him as a truth, which he ought to prove, and whereupon dependeth the whole matter that is in question; that is to say, whether it be as plainly set out in the scripture, that Christ’s body is corporally in every place where the sacrament is, as that God created all things of nothing, [2 Vide supra, pp. 104, 5.] | [5 pp. 118, 119, 121132. } [3 p. 110.] [* pp. 135—137.] [* pp. 110, 111, 113, 114—116.] 949 400. John iv. John yi. 372 THE ANSWER TO SMITH’S PREFACE. Adam of the earth, and Eve of Adam’s side, &c. This is it that I deny, and that he should prove. But he taketh it for a supposition, saying by interrogation, “ Doth not the word of God teach this as plainly as the other?”—which I affirm to be ut- terly false, as I have shewed in my third book, the eleventh’ and twelfth’ chapters, where I have most manifestly proved, as well by God’s word as by ancient authors, that these words of Christ, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” be no plain speeches, but figurative. Tuen forth goeth this papist unto the sixth chapter of St John, saying, Christ promised his disciples to give them such bread as should be his own very natural flesh, which he would give to death for the life of the world. “Can this his pro- mise,” saith Master Smith, “be verified of common bread? Was that given upon the cross for the life of the world?” Whereto I answer by his own reason: Can this his promise be verified of sacra- mental bread? was that given upon the cross for the life of the world? I marvel here not a little of Master Smith’s either dulness or maliciousness, that cannot or will not see, that Christ in this chapter of St John spake not of sacramental bread, but of heavenly bread; nor of his flesh only, but also of his blood and of his Godhead, calling them heavenly bread that giveth everlasting life. So that he spake of himself wholly, saying: “I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall not thirst for ever.” And neither spake he of common bread, nor yet of sacramental bread: for neither of them was given upon the cress for the life of the world. And there can be nothing more manifest than that, in this sixth chapter of John, Christ spake not of the sacrament of his flesh, but of his very flesh; and that, as well for that the sacrament was not then instituted, as also that Christ said not in the future tense, “The bread which I will give shall be my flesh,” but in the present tense, “The bread which I will give is my flesh ;” which sacramental bread was neither then his flesh, nor was then instituted for a sacrament, nor was after given to death for the life of the world. But as Christ, when he said unto the woman of Samaria, “The water which I will give shall spring into everlasting life,’ he meant neither of material water, nor of the accidents of water, but of the Holy Ghost, which is the heavenly fountain, that springeth unto eternal life; so likewise when he said, “The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” he meant neither of the material bread, neither of the accidents of bread, but of his own flesh. Which although of itself it availeth nothing, yet (being in unity of person joined unto his _ divinity) it is the same heavenly bread that he gave to death upon the cross for the life of the world. But here Master Smith asketh a question of the time, saying thus: “ When gave Christ that bread, which was his very flesh that he gave for us to death, if he did it not at his last supper, when he said, ‘This is my body, that shall be given for you’?” I answer, according to Cymnl’s mind® upon the same place, that Christ alone suf- fered for us all, and by his wounds were we healed, he bearing our sins in his body upon a tree, and being crucified for us, that by his death we might live. But what need I, Master Smith, to labour in answering to your question of the time, when your question in itself containeth the answer, and appointeth the time of Christ giving himself for the life of the world, when you say, that he gave himself for us to death; which, as you confess scant three lines before, was not at his supper, but upon the cross ? And if yon will have none other giving of Christ for us, but at his supper, (as your reason pretendeth, or else it is utterly nought,) then surely Christ is much bound unto you, that have delivered him from all his mocking, whipping, scourging, cruci- fying, and all other pains of death, which he suffered for us upon the cross, and bring [} Vide supra, pp. 118, 119, 121—32.] | [* Cyril. in Joan, Lib. rv. cap. 12.] [* pp. 134—137.] THE ANSWER TO SMITH’S PREFACE. 373 to pass that he was given only at his supper, without blood or pain, for the life of the world. But then is all the world little beholding unto you, that by delivering of Christ from death, will suffer all the world to remain in death, which can have no life but by his death. Arter the gospel of St John, M. Smith allegeth for his purpose St Paul to the Corinthians, who biddeth every man to examine himself, before he receive this sy sacrament. ‘For he that eateth and drinketh it unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, eating and drinking his own damnation, because he discerneth not our Lord’s body.” Here by the way it is to be noted, that D. Smith, in reciting the words of St Paul, doth alter them purposely, commonly putting this word ‘‘ sacrament” in the stead of these words, “ bread and wine,” (which words he seemeth so much to abhor, as if they were toads or serpents, because they make against his transubstantiation,) whereas St Paul ever useth those words, and never nameth this word “sacrament.” But to the matter: ‘“‘ What need we to examine ourselves,” saith D. Smith, “ when we shall eat but common bread and drink wine of the grape? Is a man guilty of the body and blood of Christ, which eateth and drinketh nothing else, but only bare bread made of corn, and mere wine of the grape?” Who saith so, good sir? Do I say in my book, that those which comé to the Lord’s table do “eat nothing else but bare bread made of corn, nor drink nothing but mere wine made of grapes?” How often do I teach and repeat again and again, that as corporally with our mouths we eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, so spiritually with our hearts, by faith, do we eat Christ’s very flesh, and drink his very blood, and do both feed and live spiritually by him, although corporally he be absent from us, and sitteth in heaven at his Father’s right hand! And as in baptism we come not unto the water as we come to other common waters, when we wash our hands, or bathe our bodies, but we know that it is a mystical water, admonishing us of the great and manifold mer- cies of God towards us, of the league and promise made between him and us, and of his wonderful working and operation in us; wherefore we come to that water with such fear, reverence, and humility, as we would come to the presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and of Jesus Christ himself, both God and man, although he be not corporally in the water, but in heaven above; and whosoever cometh to that water, being of the age of discretion, must examine himself duly, lest if he come unworthily, none otherwise than he would come unto other common waters, he be not renewed in Christ, but instead of salvation receive his damnation: even so it is of the bread and wine in the Lord’s holy supper. Wherefore “every man,” as St Paul saith, “must examine himself,” when he shall approach to that holy table, and not come to God’s board as he would do to common feasts and banquets; but must consider that it is a mystical table, where the bread is mystical, and the wine also mystical, wherein we be taught that we spiritually feed upon Christ, eating him and drinking him, and as it were sucking out of his side the blood of our redemption and food of eternal salvation, although he be in heaven at his Father’s right hand. And whosoever cometh unto this heavenly table, not having regard to Christ’s flesh and blood, who should be there our spiritual food, but cometh thereto without faith, fear, humility, and reverence, as it were but to carnal feeding, he doth not there feed upon Christ, but the devil doth feed upon him, and devoureth him, as he did Judas. And now may every man perceive how fondly and falsely M. Smith concludeth of these words of St Paul, “that our Saviour Christ's body and blood is really and corporally in the sacrament.” Arter this he falleth to railing, lying, and slandering of M. Peter Martyr, a man of that excellent learning and godly living, that he passeth D. Smith as far as the sun in his clear light passeth the moon being in the eclipse. “Peter Martyr,” saith he, “at his first coming to Oxford, when he was but a Lutherian in this matter, taught as D. Smith now doth. But when he came once The place of St Paul. 1 Cor. xi. 402, Master Peter Martyr. 1 Cor. xiii. 374 THE ANSWER TO SMITH’S PREFACE. to the court, and saw that doctrine misliked them that might do him hurt in his living, he anon after turned his tippet, and sang another song.” Of M. Peter Martyr’s opinion and judgment in this matter, no man can better testify than I; forasmuch as he lodged within my house long before he came to Oxford, and i had with him many eteeec in that matter, and know that he was then of the same mind that he is now, and as he defended after openly in Oxford, and hath written in his book. And if D. Smith understood him otherwise in his lectures at the beginning, it was for lack of knowledge, for that then D. Smith under- stood not the matter, nor yet doth not, as it appeareth by this foolish and unlearned book, which he hath now set out: no more than he understood my book of the cate- chism, and therefore reporteth untruly of me, that I in that book did set forth the real presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament. Unto which false report I have answered in my fourth book, the eighth chapter’. But this I confess of myself, that not long before I wrote the said catechism, I was in that error of the real presence, as I was many years past in divers other errors : as of transubstantiation, of the sacrifice propitiatory of the priests in the mass, of pil- grimages, purgatory, pardons, and many other superstitions and errors that came from Rome; being brought up from youth in them, and nousled therem for lack of good instruction from my youth, the outrageous floods of papistical errors at that time over- flowing the world. For the which, and other mine offences in youth, I do daily pray unto God for mercy and pardon, saying: Delicta juventutis mew et ignorantias meas ne memineris, Domine. ‘‘ Good Lord, remember not mine ignorances and offences of my youth.” But after it had pleased God to shew unto me, by his holy word, a more perfect knowledge of his Son Jesus Christ, from time to time as I grew in knowledge of him, by little and little I put away my former ignorance. And as God of his mercy gave me light, so through his grace I opened mine eyes to receive it, and did not wilfully repugn unto God and remain in darkness. And I trust in God’s mercy and pardon for my former errors, because I erred but of frailness and ignorance. And now I may say of myself, as St Paul said: “ When I was like a babe or child in the knowledge of Christ, I spake like a child, and understood like a child: but now that I come to man’s estate and growing in Christ, through his grace and mercy, I haye put away that childishness.” Now after that Doctor Smith hath thus untruly belied both me and M. Peter Martyr, he falleth into his exclamations, saying: “‘O Lord, what man is so mad to believe such mutable teachers, which change their doctrine at men’s pleasure, as — they see advantage and profit? They turn, and will turn, as the wind turneth.” Do you not remember, M. Smith, the fable, how the old crab rebuked her young, that they went not straight forth; and the common experience, that those that look asquint sometimes find fault with them that look right? You have turned twice and retracted your errors, and the third time promised, and breaking your promise, ran away*. And find you fault with me and M. Peter Martyr, as though we “for men’s pleasures turn like the wind, as we see advantage?” Shall the weathercock of Paul’s, that turneth about with every wind, lay the fault in the church, and say that it turneth ? I will not here answer for myself, but leave the judgment to God, who seeth the bottom of all men’s hearts, and at whose only judgment I shall stand or fall; saving that this I will say before God, who is every where present, and knoweth all things that be done, that as for seeking to please men in this matter, I think my conscience clear, that I never sought herein but only the pleasure and glory of God. And yet will I not judge myself herein, nor take D. Smith for my judge, but will refer the judgment to him that is the rightful judge of all men. But as for Doctor Peter Martyr, hath he sought to please men for advantage? who, having a great yearly revenue in his own country, forsook all for Christ's sake, and for the truth and glory of God came into strange countries, where he had neither land nor friends, but as [! Vide supra, pp. 225, 6. ] [* Vide Strype’s Cranmer, Vol. I. pp. 244, 289.] , THE ANSWER TO SMITH’S PREFACE. 375 God of his goodness, who never forsaketh them that put their trust in him, provided for him ? Bur after his exclamation, this papist returneth to the matter, saying: “ Tell me, why may not Christ’s body be as well in the sacrament and in heaven both at once, as that his body was in one proper place with the body of the stone that lay still upon his grave when he rose from death to life, and as his body was in one proper place at once with the body of the door or gate, when, the same being shut, he entered into the house where the apostles were ?” Make you these two things to be all one, M. Smith, “divers bodies to be in one place, and one body to be in divers places?” If Christ's body had been in one place with the substance of the stone or door, and at the same time, then you might well have proved thereby, that his body may as well be in one place with the sub- stance of bread and wine. But what availeth this to prove, that his body may be in divers places at one time? which is nothing like to the other, but rather clean contrary. Marry, when Christ arose out of the sepulchre, or came into the house when the doors were shut, if you can prove that at the same time he was in heaven, then were that to some purpose to prove that his body may be corporally in heaven and earth both at one time. And yet the controversy here in this matter is, not what may be, but what is. “God can do many things, which he neither doth nor will do.” And to us his will, in things that appear not to our senses, is not known but by his word. Christ’s body may be as well in the bread and wine, as in the door and stone; and yet it may be also in the door and stone, and not in the bread and wine. But if we will stretch out our faith no further than God’s word doth lead us, neither is Christ’s body corporally present in one proper place with the bread and wine, nor was also with the stone or door. For the scripture saith in no place, that the body of Christ was in the door, or in the stone that covered the sepulchre; but it saith plainly that “an angel came down from heaven, and removed away the stone from the sepulchre; and the women that came to see the sepulchre found the stone removed away.” And although the gospel say, that “Christ came into the house when the door was shut,” yet it saith not that “Christ's body was within the door, so that the door and it occupied both but one place.” But peradventure M. Smith will ask me this question: ‘ How could Christ come into the house, the door being shut, except he came through the door, and that his body must be in the door?” To your wise question, M. Smith, I will answer by another question: Could not Christ come as well into the house, when the door was shut, as the apostles could go out of prison, the door being shut? Could not God work this thing, except the apostles must go through the door, and occupy the same place that the door did? Or could not Christ do so much for his own self, as he did for his apostles ? But M. Smith is so blind in his own phantasies, that he seeth not how much his own examples make against himself. For if it be like in the sacrament as it was in the stone and door, and Christ's body was in one proper place with the body and substance of the stone and door, then must Christ's body in the sacrament be in one proper place with the body and substance of bread and wine. And so he must then confess that there is no transubstantiation. Tuen from the door and sepulchre, D. Smith cometh to the revelations of Peter and Paul, which saw Christ (as he saith) bodily upon earth after his ascension: which declareth, that “ although Christ departed hence at the time of his ascension into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father, yet he may be also here in the blessed sacrament of the altar.’ I am not so ignorant but I know that Chnist appeared to St Paul, and said to him, “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me ?” But St Augustine saith that “Christ at his ascension spake the last words that ever he spake upon earth. And yet we find that Christ speaketh,” saith he, “but in heaven and from heaven, and not upon earth. For he spake to Paul from above, The argu- ment of the door and sepulchre. 40-4, Matt. xxviii. Mark xvi. John xx. Acts v. The appear- ing of Christ in his ascen- sion. Acts 1x. St Augustine, Matt. fii, & XVii. Acts vil. The ehureh, 405. The true faith was in the ehureh from the begin- ning, and was not taught first by Be- rengarlus. 376 THE ANSWER TO SMITH’S PREFACE. saying: ‘Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?’ The head was in heaven, and yet he said, ‘Why dost thou persecute me?’ because he persecuted his members upon earth'.” And if this please not Master Smith, let him blame St Augustine and not me, for I feign not this myself, but only allege St Augustine. And as the Father spake from heaven, when he said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am pleased ;” and also St Stephen “saw Christ sitting in heaven at his Father's right hand;” even so meant St Augustine, that St Paul and all other that have seen and heard Christ speak since his ascension, have seen and heard him from heaven. Now, when this papist, going forward with his works, seeth his building so feeble and weak that it is not able to stand, he returneth to his chief foundation, the church and councils general, willing all men to stay thereupon, and to leave disputing and reasoning. And chiefly he shoareth up his house with the council Lateranense, “‘whereat,” saith he, ‘were thirteen hundred fathers and fifteen.” But he telleth not that eight hundred of them were monks, friars, and canons, the bishop of Rome's own dear dearlings and chief champions, called together in his name, and not in Christ's. From which brood of vipers and serpents what thing can be thought to come, but that did proceed from the spirit of their most holy father that first begat them, that is to say, from the spirit of antichrist ? And yet I know this to be true, that Christ is present with his holy church, which is his holy elected people, and shall be with them to the world’s end, leading and governing them with his holy Spirit, and teaching them all truth ne- cessary for their salvation. And whensoever any such be gathered together in his name, there is he among them, and he shall not suffer the gates of hell to prevail against them. For although he may suffer them by their own frailness for a time to err, fall, and to die, yet finally neither Satan, hell, sin, nor eternal death, shall prevail against them. But it is not so of the church and see of Rome, which accounteth itself to be the holy catholic church, and the bishop thereof to be most -holy of all other. For many years ago Satan hath so prevailed against that stinking whore of Babylon, that her abominations be known to the whole world, the name of God is by her blasphemed, and of the cup of her drunkenness and poison have all nations tasted. Arter this cometh Smith to Berengarius, Almericus, Carolostadius, C&colampadius, and Zuinglius, affirming that the church ever sithens Christ's time, a thousand five hundred years and more, hath believed that Christ is bodily in the sacrament, and never taught otherwise until Berengarius came, about a thousand years after Christ, whom the other followed. But in my book I have proved by God’s word and the old ancient authors, that Christ is not in the sacrament corporally, but is bodily and corporally ascended into heaven, and there shall remain unto the world’s end. And so the true church of Christ ever believed from the beginning without re- pugnance, until Satan was let loose, and antichrist came with his papists, which feigned a new and false doctrine, contrary to God’s word and the true catholic doc- trine. And this true faith God preserveth in his holy church still, and will do unto the world’s end, maugre the wicked antichrist and all the gates of hell. And Almighty God from time to time hath strengthened many holy martyrs, for this faith to suffer death by antichrist and the great harlot of Babylon, who hath embrued her hands, and is made drunken with the blood of martyrs. Whose blood God will revenge [’ Adscensurus enim dixit verba novissima, post | quare ? quia membra calcabantur in terra. Perse- ipsa verba non est locutus in terra. Adscensurum | cutori enim Saulo dixit desuper, Saule, Saule, quid caput in celum, commendayvit membra in terra; et | me persequeris ?—August. Op. Par. 1679-1709. In discessit. Jam non inyenis loqui Christum in terra: | Epist. Johan, cap, v. Tractat. x. 9, Tom. III. Pars invenis illum loqui, sed de celo. Et de ipso celo | ii. col. 899.] | | | THE ANSWER TO SMITH’S PREFACE. 377 at length, although in the mean time he suffer the patience and faith of his holy saints to be tried. Aut the rest of his preface containeth nothing else but the authority of the church, What church which, Smith saith, “cannot wholly err:” and he so setteth forth and extolleth the noterr. same, that he preferreth it above God’s word, affirming not only that it is the pillar of truth, and no less to be believed than holy scripture, but also that we should not believe holy scripture but for it. So that he maketh the word of men equal, or above the word of God. And truth it is indeed that the church doth never wholly err; for ever in most darkness God shineth unto his elect, and in the midst ofall iniquity he governeth them so with his holy word and Spirit, that the gates of hell prevail not against them. And these be known to him, although the world many times know them not, but hath them in derision and hatred, as it had Christ and his apostles. Never- 406. theless at the last day they shall be known to all the whole world, when the wicked shall wonder at their felicity, and say: ‘These be they whom we sometime had in wisi. v. derision and mocked. We fools thought their lives very madyess, and their end to be without honour. But now, lo, how they be accounted among the children of God, and their portion is among the saints. Therefore we have erred from the way of truth, the light of righteousness hath not shined unto us, we have wearied ourselves in the way of wickedness and destruction.” But this holy church is so unknown to the world, that no man can discern it, ' - 5 Psal. vii. but God alone, who only searcheth the hearts of all men, and knoweth his true chil- 21m. ii. dren from other that be but bastards. This church is “the pillar of truth,’ because it resteth upon God’s word, which is 1 Tim. ii. the true and sure foundation, and will not suffer it to err and fall. But as for the open known church, and the outward face thereof, it is not the pillar of truth, other- wise than that it is, as it were, a register or treasury to keep the books of God’s holy will and testament, and to rest only thereupon, as St Augustine and Tertullian mean in the place by M. Smith alleged. And as the register keepeth all men’s wills, and yet hath none authority to add, change, or take away anything, nor yet to expound the wills further than the very words of the will extend unto, (so that he hath no power over the will, but by the will ;) even so hath the church no further power over the holy scripture, which con- taineth the will and testament of God, but only to keep it, and to see it observed and kept. For if the church proceed further to make any new articles of the faith, besides the scripture, or contrary to the scripture, or direct not the form of life ac- cording to the same; then it is not the pillar of truth, nor the church of Christ, but the synagogue of Satan, and the temple of antichrist, which both erreth itself, and bringeth into error as many as do follow it. And the holy church of Christ is but a small herd or flock, in comparison to Luke xii. the great multitude of them that follow Satan and antichrist ; as Christ himself saith, and the word of God, and the course of the world from the beginning until this day hath declared. For, from the creation of the world until Noe’s flood, what was then the open face of the church? How many godly men were in those thousand and six hun- Gea. vi. dred years and more? Did not iniquity begin at Cain to rule the world, and so in- creased more and more, that at the length God could no longer suffer, but drowned all the world for sin, except eight persons, which only were left upon the whole earth ? And after the world was purged by the flood, fell it not by and by to the former iniquity again? so that within few years after, Abraham could find no place where Gen. xii he might be suffered to worship the true living God, but that God appointed him a strange country, almost clearly desolate and unhabited, where he and a few other, contrary to the usage of the world, honoured one God. And after the great benefits of God shewed unto his people of Israel, and the law also given unto them, whereby they were taught to know him, and honour him,. 407. Ecclus. xlix. 1 Kings xix. Jer. xxv. & Xxix. Acts xiv. Matt. xiii. Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. 1 Kings xix. 408. 378 THE ANSWER TO SMITH’S PREFACE. yet how many times did they fall from him! Did they not, from time to time, make them new Gods, and worship them? Was not the open face of the church so miserably deformed, not only in the wilderness, and in the time of the Judges, but also in time of the Kings, that after the division of the kingdom, amongst all the kings of Judah there was but only three in whose times the true religion was restored, and among all the kings of Israel not so much as one? Were not all that time the true priests of God a few in number? Did not all the rest maintain ido- latry and all abominations in groves and mountains, worshipping Baal and other false Gods? And did they not murder and slay all the true prophets that taught them to worship the true God? Insomuch that Ehas the prophet, knowing no more of all the whole people that followed the right trade, but himself alone, made his complaint unto Almighty God, saying: “O Lord, they have slain thy prophets, and overthrown thine altars, and there is no more left but I alone, and yet they lie in wait to slay me also.” So that although Almighty God suffered them in their cap- tivity at Babylon no more but seventy years, yet he suffered them in their idolatry, following their own ways and inventions, many hundred vears, the merey of God being so great, that their punishment was short and small, in respect of their long and grievous offences. And at the time of Christ’s coming, the high priests came to offices by such fraud, simony, murder, and poisoning, that the like hath not been often read nor heard of, except only at Rome. And when Christ was come, what godly religion found he? what Annases and Caiphases! what hypocrisy, superstition, and abomination before God, although to men’s eyes things appeared holy and godly! Was not then Christ alone and his apostles, with other that believed his doctrine, the holy and true church? Although they were not so taken, but for heretics, seditious persons, and blasphemers of God, and were extremely persecuted and put to villanous death, by such as accounted themselves and were taken for the church, which fulfilled the measure of their fathers that persecuted the prophets: upon whom came all the righteous blood that was shed upon the earth, from the blood of just Abel, unto the blood of Zachary, the son of Barachi, whom they slew between the temple and the altar. And how many persons remained constantly in the true lively faith, at the time of Christ’s passion? I think, Master Smith will say, but a very few, seeing that Peter denied Christ his master three times, and all his apostles fled away, and one for haste without his clothes. What wonder is it then, that the open church is now of late years fallen into many errors and corruption, and the holy church of Christ is secret and unknown ? seeing that Satan, these five hundred years, hath been let loose, and antichrist reigneth, spoiling and devouring the simple flock of Christ. But as Almighty God said unto Elias, “I have reserved and kept for mine own self seven thousand, which never bowed their knee to Baal;’ so it is at this present. For although Almighty God hath suffered these four or five hundred years the open face of his church to be ugly deformed, and shamefully defiled by the sects of the papists, (which is so manifest that now all the world knoweth it,) yet hath God of his manifold mercy ever preserved a good number, secret to himself, in his true religion, although antichrist hath bathed himself in the blood of no small number of them. And although the papists have led innumerable people out of the right way, yet the church is to be followed: but the church of Christ, not of antichrist ; the church that concerning the faith containeth itself within God's word, not that deviseth daily new articles contrary to God’s word; the church, that by the true interpretation of scripture and good example gathereth people unto Christ, not that by wrasting of the scripture and evil example of corrupt living draweth them away from Christ. And now, forasmuch as the wicked church of Rome, counterfeiting the church of our Saviour Christ, hath in this matter of the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of our Saviour Christ varied from the pure and holy church in the apostles’ time, and many hundred years after, (as in my book I have plainly declared and manifestly proved,) it is an easy matter to discern, which church is to be followed. And I cannot but marvel that Smith allegeth for him Vincentius Lirenensis, who, contrary to Doctor | THE ANSWER TO SMITH’S PREFACE. 379 Smith, teacheth plainly that “the canon of the bible is perfect and sufficient of itself for the truth of the catholic faith ;’ and that “the whole church cannot make one article of the faith, although it may be taken as a necessary witness for the réceiving and establishing of the same, with these three conditions, that the thing which we would establish thereby hath been believed in all places, ever, and of all men’.” Which the papistical doctrine in this matter hath not been, but came from Rome since Be- rengarius’ time by Nicolas the second, Innocentius the third, and other of their sort : whereas the doctrine, which I have set forth, came from Christ and his apostles, and was of all men every where with one consent taught and believed, as my book sheweth plainly, until the papists did transform and transubstantiate the chief articles of our christian faith. Thus is an answer made unto the false calumniations of Smith in the preface of his book, or rather unto his whole book, which is so full of bragging, boasting, slan- dering, misreporting, wrangling, wrasting, false construing, and lying, that, those taken out of the book, there is nothing worthy in the whole book to be answered. Never- theless in answering to the late bishop of Winchester’s book, I shall fully answer also D. Smith in all points that require answer. And so with one answer shall I despatch them both. And in some places where one of them varieth from another, as they do in many great matters, and in the chief and principal points, I shall set them together Bithum cum Bacchio, et Esernium cum Pacidiano’, to try which of them is more stout and va- liant to overthrow the other. @ Here endeth the answer unto the Preface of Master Smith’s book, which he wrote against the defence of the true and catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour CHRIST. [! Cum sit perfectus scripturarum canon, sibique | quod ab omnibus creditum est.—Ibid. cap. iii. ] ad omnia satis superque sufficiat, quid opus est ut Plerumque propter intelligentie lucem, non ei ecclesiastice intelligentie jungatur auctoritas? | novum fidei sensum nove appellationis proprietate —Vincent. Lirin. Commonit. I. cap. ii. Bibl. Vet. | signando.—Ibid. cap. xxxii. p. 246.] Patr. Colon. 1618. Tom. V. Pars ii. p. 238. ] [{? Two pairs of gladiators, equally matched.— In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curan- | Horace, Sat. 1. vii. 20, Cicero, Tusc. Qu. rv. 2].] dum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, 410. MATTERS WHEREIN THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER VARIED FROM OTHER PAPISTS'. OrneR say, that the body of Christ is made of bread. He saith, that the body of Christ is not made of bread, nor was never so taught, but is made present of bread, p- 72, line 14, and p. 178, line 10. He saith that Christ made the demonstration of the bread, and called it his body, when he said, “‘This is my body,” p. 257, line 27. And in the Devil’s Sophistry, fol. 27. Other say contrary. And Smith, fol. 53. He saith, that “this is my body,” is as much to say as, “this is made my body.” And so he taketh es¢ for jit, p. 295, line 35. Other say, that est is taken there substantive, that is to say, only for “‘is,” and not for “is made.” Marcus Antonius, fol. 171, facie 2, consideratione 6. He saith, that Christ is present in the sacrament after the same manner that he is in heaven, p. 141, line 6. Other say contrary, that he is in heaven after the manner of quantity, and that he is not so in the sacrament. He saith, that where the body of Christ is, there is whole Christ, God and man; and that when we speak of Christ’s body, we must understand a true body, which hath both form and quantity, p. 71, line 37. Smith saith, that Christ’s body in the sacrament hath not his proper form and quantity, fol. 106. He saith, we believe simply, that Christ’s body is naturally and corporally in the sacrament, without drawing away his accidences or adding, p. 353, line 1. Smith saith, we say that Christ’s body is in the sacrament against nature with all his qualities and accidents, fol. 105. He saith, that God’s works be all seemliness without confusion, although he can- not locally distinct Christ’s head from his foot, nor his legs from his arms, p. 70, line 27°. Other say, that Christ’s head and foot and other parts be not indeed locally distinct in the sacrament, but be so confounded, that wheresoever one is, there be all the rest. They teach that the body of Christ is made of bread: he saith, it was never so taught, p. 79, line 6, &c. He saith, that Christ’s body is in the sacrament sensibly, naturally, carnally, and corporally, p. 159, line 9, &c. Other say contrary, Smith, fol. 39. Other say, that Christ’s feet in the sacrament be there, where his head is: he saith, that whosoever say so may be called mad, p. 61, line 34. He saith, that Christ’s body is in the sacrament naturally and carnally, p. 156, line 6. Other say, that corporally Christ goeth into the mouth or stomach, and no fur- ther. He saith contrary, p. 52, line 36. He saith, that Christ dwelleth corporally in him that receiveth the sacrament worthily, so long as he remaineth a member of Christ, p. 53, line 1, p. 56, line 31, &c. Other say contrary, but that Christ flieth up into heaven so soon as the bread is chawed in the mouth or changed in the stomach, Smith, fol. 64, p. 65, line 2, and 25. He saith, that no creature can eat the body of Christ, but only man, p. 66, line 30. Other say clean contrary. He saith, that an unrepentant sinner receiving the sacrament hath not Christ's body nor spirit within him, p. 225, line 36. Smith saith, that he hath Christ’s body and spirit within him, fol. 136. [? This table of matters, &c. is only appended to | referring to the passages according to the direction the 1580 ed. As the paging of that edition has been | of archbishop Cranmer. ] carefully noted in the margin of this re-print, it has [2 Thus in ed. 1580. It is, however, a misprint, been thought advisable to give it as it stands in the | and should be p, 61, line 30. ] original copy. The reader will find no difficulty in MATTERS WHEREIN HE VARIETH FROM HIMSELF. 38] He saith, that of the figure it may not be said, “Adore it, worship it,” and that is not to be adored, which the bodily eye seeth, p. 178, line 40, p. 239, line 32. Marcus Antonius, fol. 176, fac. 2. Smith saith contrary, fol. 145, fac. 2. He saith, that reason will agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation well enough, p. 264, line 47. Smith saith, that transubstantiation is against reason and natural operation, fol. 60. Other say, that worms in the sacrament be gendered of accidences. He saith, that they be wrong borne in hand to say so, p. 355, line 3. He saith, that the accidences of bread and wine do mould, sour, and w1x vinegar, p- 265, line 11, and 355, line 8. And Marcus, fol. 168, fac. 1. Smith saith thus: “I say that the consecrated wine turneth not into vinegar, nor the consecrated bread mouldeth nor engendereth worms, nor is burned, nor receiveth into it any poison, as long as Christ's body and blood are under the forms of them which do abide there, so long as the natural qualities and properties of bread and wine tarry there in their natural disposition and condition, that the bread and wine might be naturally there, if they had not been changed into Christ’s body and blood; and also as long as the host and consecrated wine are apt to be received of man, and no longer; but go and depart thence by God’s power, as it pleaseth him. And then a new substance is made of God, which turneth into vinegar, engendereth worms, mouldeth, is burned, feedeth men and mice, receiveth poison,” &c. fol. 64 and 105. He saith, “‘ Every yea containeth a nay in it naturally, so as whosoever saith, This is bread, saith it is no wine. For in the rule of common reason, the grant of one substance is the denial of another: and therefore reason hath these conclusions throughly, whatsoever is bread is no wine, whatsoever is wine is no milk, &c. So Christ saying, ‘This is my body,’ saith it Lis] no bread,” p. 256, line 38, and p. 265, line 5. Smith saith, a boy “‘which hath only learned the sophistry,” will not dispute so fondly, fol. 77. Other say, that the mass is a sacrifice satisfactory by devotion of the priest, and not by the thing that is offered. He saith otherwise, p. 80, line 43. He saith, that the only immolation of Christ in himself upon the altar of the cross is the very satisfactory sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankind to the favour of God, p. 437, line 1, 2, and 31. Smith saith, “ What is it to offer Christ’s body and blood at mass, to purchase thereby everlasting life, if it be not the mass to be a sacrifice to pacify God’s wrath for sin, and to obtain his mercy?” Smith, fol. 24, 148, 164. Priests do offer for our salvation to get heaven and to avoid hell, fol. eodem. MATTERS WHEREIN THE BISHOP VARIED FROM HIMSELF. “Tue body of Christ in the sacrament is not made of bread, but is made present of bread,” p. 79, line 6, &c., and p. 202, line 40, &c. “Of bread is made the body of Christ,” p. 344, line 8. “The catholic faith hath from the beginning confessed truly Christ’s intent to make bread his body,” p. 26, line 40. “Christ gave that he made of bread,” p. 257, line 50. “And of many breads is made one body of Christ,” p. 144, line 23. “ And faith shew- eth me that bread is the body of Christ, that is to say, made the body of Christ,” p- 295, line 30. “Christ spake plainly, ‘This is my body,’ making demonstration of the bread, when he said, ‘This is my body,” in the Devil's Sophistry, fol. 27. ‘I will pass over the phantasies of them who wrote the principal chief text, ‘This is my body,’ from con- secration of the sacrament, to the demonstration of Christ’s body, &c.” in the devilish Deyil’s Sophistry, fol. 70. “The demonstration ‘this,’ may be referred to the invisible substance,” p. 106, line 42. “The ‘is,’ was of his body and blood, and not of the bread and wine,” p. 251, line 8. ene ; : jb ee Tilis verbis, “ Hoc est corpus meum,” substantia corporis significatur, nec de pane 411. 382 MATTERS WHEREIN HE VARIETH FROM HIMSELF. quicquam intelligitur, quum corpus de substantia-sua, non aliena predicetur, fol. 24, fac. 2. Mar. Ant. Constant. “When Christ said ‘ This is my body,’ the truth of the literal sense hath an absurdity in carnal reason,” p. 138, line 19. “What can be more evidently spoken of the presence of Christ’s natural body and blood in the most blessed sacrament of the altar, than is in these words, ‘This is my body’ ?” in the Devil’s Sophistry, fol. 5. “Where the body of Christ is, there is whole Christ, God and man. And when we speak of Christ’s body, we must understand a true body, which hath both form and quantity,” p. 71, line 47. ‘‘ And he is present in the sacrament as he is in heaven,” p- 141, line 6, &c. “We believe simply the substance of Christ’s body to be in the sacrament without drawing away of accidents, or adding,” p. 353, line 1. “Christ is not present in the sacrament after the manner of quantity, but under the form and quantity of bread and wine,” p. 71, line 50, p. 90, line 43. “In such as receive the sacrament worthily Christ dwelleth in them corporally, and naturally, and carnally,” p. 166, line 19, and p. 173, line 54, and p. 191, line 47. “The manner of Christ’s being in the sacrament is not corporal, not carnal, not natural, not sensible, not perceptible, but only spiritual,” p. 159, line 17, and p. 197, line 32. “We receive Christ in the sacrament of his flesh and blood, if we receive him wor- thily,” p. 167, line 9, and p. 174, line 1. “When an unrepentant sinner receiveth the sacrament, he hath not Christ's body within him,” p. 225, line 43. “He that eateth verily the flesh of Christ, is by nature in Christ, and Christ is naturally in him,” p. 17, line 38, &c. ‘* An evil man in the sacrament receiveth indeed Christ’s very body,” p. eadem, line 7. “« Evil men eat verily the flesh of Christ,” p. 225, line 47. “ Christ giveth us to be eaten the same flesh that he took of the virgin,” p. 241, line 27. “‘ We receive not in the sacrament Christ’s body that was crucified,” p. 243, line 16. “ Saint Augustine’s rule, De Doctrina Christiana, pertaineth not to Christ’s supper,” p- 117, line 21. “The sixth of John speaketh not of any promise made to the eating of a token of Christ’s flesh,” p. 4, line 40. ““St Augustine meaneth of the sacrament,” p. 119, line 24. “The sixth of John must needs be understand of corporal and sacramental eating,” p- 17, line 48. ‘‘ Reason in place of service (as being inferior to faith) will agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation well enough,” p. 265, line 1. ‘“* And as reason, received into faith’s service, doth not strive with transubstantiation, but agreeth well with it; so man’s senses be no such direct adversaries to transubstantiation, as a matter whereof they can no skill, for the senses can no skill of substances,” p. 271, line 24, &c. “Thine eyes say, there is but bread and wine: thy taste saith the same. Thy feeling and smelling agree fully with them.” ‘‘ Hereunto is added the carnal man’s understanding, which because it taketh the beginning of the senses, proceedeth in reasoning sensually,” in the Devil's Sophistry, fol. 6. “The church hath not forborne to preach the truth, to the confusion of man’s senses and understanding,” fol. 15. “It is called bread because of the outward visible matter,” p. [257.] “‘ When it is called bread, it is meant Christ the spiritual bread,” p. 284, line 25. “The fraction is in the outward sign, and not in the body of Christ,” p. 144, line 39, and p. 348, line 21. And in the Devil’s Sophistry, fol. 17. “That which broken is the body of Christ,” p. 348, line 18. “The inward nature of the bread is the substance,” p. 286, line 23. “Substance signifieth the outward nature,” p. 359, line 22. “The substances of bread and wine be visible creatures,” p. 285, line 48, and p. 286, line 44. “ Accidents be the visible natures and visible elements,” p. 363, line 39. CONCESSA. 383 “Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully, and hath paid our whole debt to God the Father, for the appeasing of his wrath against us,” p. 81, line 39. “The act of the priest done according to God’s commandment must needs be pro- pitiatory, and ought to be trusted on to have a propitiatory effect,” p. 437, line 131, “The demonstration ‘this, may be referred to the invisible substance,” p. 106, Contrary in line 44. “The ‘is, was of his body and blood, and not of the bread and wine,” Sophistry, Pp: 251), line 8. Contrary in “When Christ said, ‘This is my body, the truth of the literal sense hath an ab- sophistry, 5. surdity in carnal reason,” p. 138, line 19. “ And it is a singular miracle of Christ understanded as the plain words signify in their proper sense,” ibidem, line 21. “The sacrifice of our Saviour Christ was never reiterate,” p. 368, line 46. “Priests do sacrifice Christ,” p. 381, line 42, &c. “And the catholic doctrine 413. teacheth the daily sacrifice to be the same in essence that was offered on the cross,” p- 436, line 11. “The Nestorians granted both the Godhead and manhood always to be in Christ continually,” p. 309, line 18. “The Nestorians denied Christ conceived God or born God, but that he was afterward God, as a man that is not born a bishop is after made a bishop. So the Nestorians said, that the Godhead was an accession after by merit, and that he was conceived only man,” p. 309, line 12. “Christ useth us as familiarly as he did his apostles,” p. 83, line 54. “Christ is not to be said conversant in earth,” p. 101, line 16. CONCESSA. “On what part thou, reader, seest craft, sleight, shift, obliquity, or in any one point an open manifest lie, there thou mayest consider, whatsoever pretence be made of truth, yet the victory of truth not to be there intended,” p. 12, line 19. “When Christ had taught of the eating of himself, being the bread descended from heaven, declaring that eating to signify believing, then he entered to speak of the giving of his flesh to be eaten,” p. 27, line 7. “Christ must be spiritually in a man before he receive the sacrament, or he cannot receive the sacrament worthily,” p. 48, line 46, and p. 140, line ultima, and p- 172, line 28, and 181, line 28. “How Christ is present,” p. 61, line 10, and p. 71, line 41, and p. 90, line 44, p- 57, line 17, and p. 197, line 30. “By faith we know only the being present of Christ’s most precious body, not the manner thereof,” p. 61, line 43. “What we speak of Christ’s body, we must understand a true body, which hath both form and quantity,” p. 71, line 34. “ Although Christ's body have all those truths of form and quantity, yet it is not present after the manner of quantity,” p. 71, line 37. “For the worthy receiving of Christ we must come endued with Christ, and clothed with him seemly in that garment,” p. 92, line 31. “ Really, that is to say, verily, truly, and in deed, not in phantasy or imagination,” p- 140, line 21. “ All the old prayers and ceremonies sound as the people did communicate with the priest,” p. 145, line 9’. “< Really’ and ‘sensibly’ the old authors in syllables used not, for so much as I have read; but ‘corporally’ and ‘naturally’ they used, speaking of this sacrament,” p. 155, line 13. “Christ may be called sensibly present,” p. 155, line 26, and p. 159, line 10. “ By faith Christ dwelleth in us spiritually,” p. 158, line 16. “Our perfect unity with Christ is to have his flesh in us, and to have Christ rata. {' Thus in ed. 1580. It should be p. 387, line 13. ] [? Ibid. It should be line 13. } 414. Falsum, Falsum. Falsum. 384 CONCESSA. bodily and naturally dwelling in us by his manhood,” p. 166, line 30, &c., and p. 17, line 34. “Evil men eat the body of Christ, but sacramentally, and not spiritually,” p. 222, line 47. “‘Christ’s flesh in the sacrament is given us to eat spiritually, and therefore there may be no such imaginations to eat Christ’s body carnally, after the manner he walked here, nor drink his blood as it was shed upon the cross; but spiritually understanded it giveth life,” p. 241, line 18. “To eat only in faith is specially to remember Christ’s flesh as it was visibly cruci- fied,” p. 243, line 28. “We eat not Christ as he sitteth in heaven reigning,” p. 243, line 32. “The word ‘transubstantiation’ was first spoken of by public authority in a general council, where the bishop of Rome was present,” p. 250, line 28. “The word ‘nature’ signifieth both the substance and also property of the nature,” p- 291, line 27. “The sensible thing after the capacity of common understanding is called ‘substance,’ but the inward nature in learning is properly called ‘substance, ” p. 338, line 31. “In common bread the substance is not broken at all,” p. 257, line 32. “The catholic doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christ's most precious body and blood to be an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the cross, but a sacrifice that representeth the sacrifice, and sheweth it also before the faithful eyes,” p. 386, line 20. “The effect of the offering on the cross is given and dispensed in the sacrament of baptism,” p. 386, line 30. “By virtue of the same offering on the cross, such as fall be relieved in the sacrament of penance,” p. eadem, line 16. “The daily sacrifice of the church is also propitiatory, but not in that degree of propitiation, as for redemption, regeneration, or remission of deadly sin, (which was once purchased, and by force thereof is in the sacraments ministered,) but for the increase of God’s favour, the mitigation of God’s displeasure provoked by our infirmities, the sub- duing of temptations, and the perfection of virtue in us,” p. 387, line 15, &c. “ All good works, good thoughts, and good meditations, may be called sacrifices, and sacrifices propitiatory also, forasmuch as in their degree God accepteth and taketh them through the effect and strength of the very sacrifice of Christ’s death,” p. eadem, line 19, &c. “To call the daily offering a sacrifice satisfactory, must have an understanding that signifieth not the action of the priest, but the presence of Christ’s most precious body and blood, the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered being propitiatory and satisfactory for all the world,” p. eadem, line 43’, &c. “Or else the word ‘ satisfactory’ must have a signification and meaning that declareth the acception of the thing done, and not the proper countervail of the action. For other- wise the daily sacrifice in respect of the action of the priest cannot be called satisfactory, and it is a word indeed that soundeth not well so placed, although it might be saved by a signification,” p. eadem, line 46°, &c. “JT think this speech to be frequented, that the only immolation of Christ in himself upon the altar of the cross is the very satisfactory sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankind to the favour of God,” p. eadem, line 50°. “JT have not read the daily sacrifice of Christ’s most precious body to be called a ‘sacrifice satisfactory, ” p, eadem, line 52*. “But this speech hath indeed been used, ‘that the priest should sing satisfactory,’ which they understood of the satisfaction of the priest’s duty to attend the prayer he was required to make,” ibid. line 53°. “In the sacrifice of the church Christ’s death is not iterated, but a memory daily renewed of that death, so as Christ’s offering on the cross once done and consummate is now only remembered,” p. 391, line 5. “The same body is offered daily on the altar that was once offered upon the cross, [* It should be line 32.] [? line 35. ] [® line 43.] [* line 47.] [5 line 48. ] LT CONCESSA. 385 but the same manner of offering is not daily that was on the altar of the cross. For the daily offering is without blood-shedding, and is termed so, to signify that blood- shedding once done to be sufficient,” p. eadem, line 8, &e. MATTERS WHEREIN THE BISHOP VARIETH FROM THE TRUTH AND FROM THE OLD AUTHORS OF THE CHURCH. “Tf we eat not the flesh of the Son of man, we have not life in us, because Christ hath ordered the sacrament,” &c. p. 17, line 12. “When Christ said, ‘Take eat, this is my body,’ he fulfilled that which he pro- mised in the sixth of John, that he would give his flesh for the life of the world,” p- 27, line 28. Mar. Ant. fol. 168. Nota. “When Christ said, ‘the flesh profiteth nothing, he spake not of his flesh as it is united unto his divinity,” p. 27, line 53, and p. 329, line 24. “God in baptism giveth only the Spirit of Christ, and in the sacrament of the altar the very body and blood of Christ,” p. 34, line 44. “Unworthy receivers of the sacrament receive Christ’s body with mouth only, the Concessum. worthy receivers both with mouth and heart,” p. 54, line 47, &c. “We must believe Christ’s words to be most perfectly true according to the truth Coneessum. of the letter, where no absurdity in scripture driveth us from it, howsoever it seem repugnant to reason,” p. 62, line 20. “The fathers did eat Christ’s body, and drink his blood in truth of promise, not Concessum. in truth of presence,” p. 74, line 23, &c. “The fathers did eat Christ spiritually, but they did not eat his body present sacraments spiritually and sacramentally,” p. eadem, line 26. fuerunt di- “Their sacraments were figures of the things, but ours contain the very things,” te paria. ibid., line 27. “ Albeit in a sense to the learned men it may be verified, that the fathers did eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, yet there is no such form of words in scrip- ture. And it is more agreeable to the simplicity of scripture to say, the fathers be- fore Christ's nativity did not eat the body and drink the blood of Christ,” p. 78, line 28. “And although St Paul in the tenth to the Corinthians be so understanded of some, that the fathers should eat and drink the spiritual meat, and drink that we do, yet to that understanding all do not agree,” ibid., line 34, &c. “Their sacraments contained the promise of that which in our sacraments is given,” ibid., line 36. “And although that willing obedience was ended and perfected upon the cross, (to the which it continued from the beginning,) yet as in the sacrifice of Abraham the earnest will and offering was accompted for the offering in deed, so the declara- tion of Christ’s will in his last supper was an offering of himself to God the Father,” p- 82, line 2, &c. “Tn that mystery he declared his body and blood to be the very sacrifice of the 416, world, by the same will that he said his body should be betrayed for us,” ibid., line 12. “ As Christ offered himself upon the cross in the execution of his will, so he offered himself in his supper in declaration of his will,” p. 82, line 13, &c. “Christ’s body in the supper or communion is represented unto us as a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, and it is the only sacrifice of the church, and the pure and clean sacrifice whereof Malachi spake,’ p. 84, line 4; p. 88, line ultima, &c. “As Christ declareth in the supper himself an offering and sacrifice for our sin, offering himself to his Father as our mediator; so the church at the same supper, in their offering of lauds and thanks, join themselves with their head Christ, represent- ing and offering him,” p. 89, line 10. “The sun-beams be of the same substance with the sun,” p, 92, line 5. “We have in earth the substantial presence of the Son,” ibid., line 7. b> or Loeranurn. ] Nota. i= Al7. Coneessum etiam. Concessum. Coneessum. Concessum etiam. Concessum, Concessum. 386 MATTERS WHEREIN HE VARIETH “When Christ said, ‘ This is my body,’ this word ‘This, may be referred to the invisible substance,” p. 106, line 44. “To eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood is of itself a proper speech,” p. 112, line 35; “‘carnally,” ibid., line 50; “with teeth and mouth,” p. 112, line 8, and p- 34, line 38. “To eat Christ's body carnally may have a good signification,” p. 113, line 4. “Origen doth not mean to destroy the truth of the letter in these words of Christ, ‘Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” &c. p. 114, line 40. “St Augustine taketh the same for a figurative speech, because it seemeth to com- mand in the letter, carnally understanded, an heinous and wicked thing, to eat the flesh of a man,” p. 116, line 40. “The said words of Christ, ‘Except you eat, &c. is to the unfaithful a figure, but to the faithful they be no figure, but spirit and life,” ibid. line 48. “The fathers called it a figure, by the name of a figure reverently to cover so great. a secresy, apt only to be understand of men believing,” p. 117, line 3. “That is spiritual understanding, to do as is commanded,” ibid. line 13. “This word ‘represent’ in St Hierome and Tertullian signifieth a true real exhi- bition,” p. 120, line 27, and p. 128, line 11. “The word eucharistia cannot well be Englished,” p. 161. “In God’s word, and in baptism, we be made participant of Christ’s passion by his Spirit, but in the Lord’s supper we be made participant of his Godhead by his hu- manity exhibited to us for food. So as in this mystery we receive him as man and God, and in the other by mean of his Godhead we be participant of the effect of his passion suffered in his manhood. In this sacrament we receive a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the general resurrection spiritual with our soul: in baptism we have been made spiritual by regeneration of the soul,” p. 158, line 45, &c. “In baptism Christ’s humanity is not really present, though the virtue and effect of his most precious blood be there,” p. 159, line 4. “The manner of Christ’s being in the sacrament is only spiritual,” ibid., line 16. “To understand Christ’s words spiritually is to understand them as the Spirit of God hath taught the church,” ibid., line 34. “Our perfect unity with Christ is to have his flesh in us, and to have Christ bodily and naturally dwelling in us by his manhood,” p. 166, line 32. “ By Christ’s flesh in the sacrament we be naturally in him, and he is naturally in us,” ibid., lin. 45, &c. “Christ dwelleth naturally in us, and we be corporally in him,” ibid., line 35. “Christ’s flesh is very spiritual and in a spiritual manner delivered unto us,” p. 167, line 12, and p. 243, line 11, and p. 243, line 28, and p. 295, line 33. “Christ dwelleth in us naturally for the natural communication of our body and his,” p. 167, line 19. “When Christ united himself unto us as man, (which he doth giving his body in the sacrament to such as worthily receive it,) then he dwelleth in them corporally,” p- 172, line 27. “In baptism man’s soul is regenerate in the virtue and effect of Christ’s passion and blood, Christ's Godhead present there without the real presence of his humanity,” p. 181, line 16, &c. “Tn baptism our unity with Christ is wrought without the real presence of Christ's humanity, only in the virtue and effect of Christ’s blood,” p. 181, lines 2 and 16. “In baptism our soul is regenerate and made spiritual, but not our body in deed, but in hope only,” p. 181, line 6. “In baptism we be united to Christ's manhood by his divinity, but in the Lord’s supper we be in nature united to Christ as man, and by his glorified flesh made par- takers also of his divinity,” p. 181, line 8. “Christ's body and flesh is a spiritual body and flesh, and is present in the sa- crament after a spiritual manner, and is spiritually received,” p. eadem, 26, [p.] 351, line 19. FROM THE TRUTH AND FROM OLD AUTHORS. 387 “Jn this sacrament Christ’s humanity and Godhead is really present, and in bap- tism his Godhead with the effectual virtue of his blood (in which we be washed), not requiring any real presence thereof,” p. 191, line 35. “Spirit and life may fall upon naughty men, although for their malice it tarrieth not,” p. 211, line 17. “Christ’s words were not figurative, but true and proper, when he said, ‘This is my body’,” p. 9, line 1, p. 257, line 1 and 14. Marcus Antonius, fol. 24, fa. 1. “All the naming of bread by Christ and St Paul and all other must be under- stand before sanctification, and not after,” p. 258, line 15. “When St Paul said, ‘We be partakers of one bread, he speaketh not of mate- rial bread,” p. 258, line 7. “No man knoweth the difference between the substance of bread, cheese, and ale,” p- 271, line 39; p. 272, line 23; p. 339, line 33. “The accidents of bread may be called the visible part of bread, the outward kind and form of bread, the appearance of bread, a true sensible part of bread, bread, the nature of bread, the matter of bread, the visible matter of bread, not that it is pro- perly bread, but after the common speech and capacity of men,” p. 272, line 16, and p- 273, line 25, p. 283, line 11, and p. 289, line 31, and 290, line 7, and 292, line 16, and p. 396, line 43, &c., and p. 305, line 44, &c., and p. 243, line 45, p. 359, line 22. “The accidents of bread do corrupt, putrify, and nourish,” p. 273, line 30, p. 290, line 7, and p. 296, line 48, and p. 358, line 28. “The glorified body of Christ is of the own nature neither visible nor palpable,” p- 273, line 40. “In baptism the whole man is not regenerated, but the soul,” p. 286, line 10. “The soul only of man is the substance of man,” ibidem. “The soul only is made the Son of God,” p. 286, line 23. “It is called meat because of the outward visible matter,” p. 290, line 9. “As really and as truly as the soul of man is present in the body, so really and so truly is the body of Christ present m the sacrament,” p. 296, line 5, and p. 396, line 15. “The sacrifice of the church is perfected before the perception,” p. 396, line 32. “In the sacrament, being a mystery ordered to feed us, is the truth of the presence of the natures earthly and celestial. The visible matter of the earthly creature in his property and nature for the use of signification is necessarily required,” p. 310, lines 44, 48. “This saying of Gelasius, ‘The substance or nature of bread and wine cease not to be there still,’ may be verified in the last, and nature he taketh for the propriety,” p- 310, line 50. “'Theodorete’s saying, that ‘the substance of bread remaineth,’ seemeth to speak of substance after the common capacity, and not as it is truly in learning understanded, an inward, invisible, and not palpable nature,” p. 321, line 2. “Christ in his supper fulfilled this promise, Panis quem ego dabo,’ &c., p. 329, line 25. “ Accidents in common understanding be called substances,” p. 339, line 31. “In common bread the substance is not broken at all,” ibidem, line 39. “ Accidents be broken without substance,” p. 339, line 6, &c. “All alteration is in accidents and the corruption of accidents in the generation of new accidents,” p. 355, line 4. “Substance in Theodorete signifieth the outward visible nature, that is to say, acci- dents,” p. 359, line 20. “One thing is but one substance, saving ‘only in the person of Christ,” p. 359, line 41. “Baptism is not' wondered at, how the Holy Ghost is there; but the wonder in this sacrament is specially directed to the work of God in the visible creatures, how [' This word “not” is not found in the passage referred to. ] aye 95 —9 418. ’ Ve 388 MATTERS WHEREIN HE VARIETH, ETC. they be changed into the body and blood of Christ, which is wrought before we re- ceive the sacrament,” p. 366, line 45. 419. “Priests do offer daily Christ’s flesh and blood,” p. 384, line 26. “Christ offered himself in his supper,” p. eadem, line 27. “ Otherwise than Christ did cannot be now done,” p. 384, line 28. “The daily offering by the priest is daily offered for sin, because we daily fall,” p. eadem, line 30. “That is done in the altar is a sacrifice, and the same that is offered once, and daily to be the same,” Libid.] ‘¢ Visible priests, ministers to our invisible priest, offer the daily sacrifice in Christ’s church,” p. 392’, line 46. “The body and blood of Christ is properly sacrificed by the priests, and is there offered for the effect of increase of life in us, as it was offered upon the cross to achieve life unto us,” p. 390, line 46, &c. “The same body is offered daily upon the altar that was once offered upon the cross, but the same manner of offering is not daily that was on the altar of the cross ; for the daily offering is without bloodshedding, and is termed so to signify that blood- shedding once done to be sufficient,” p. 391, line 7, &c. “The sacrifice of the church is propitiatory,” p. 391, line 8. “The sacrifice of the church is a sacrifice giving life,” ibidem, line 8. “Our sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving cannot be said a pure and clean sacrifice to fulfil the prophecy of Malachi,” ibidem, line 10. {! Thus in the original text; the paging being by mistake printed 392 instead of 389. ] wt Del SoBe UP AT LOUNLS AT OXFORD. i eee — re A (7 6 Wo Waste UA wa SD = « oe} 7 GF a pa oe” fen eds ian oe lla slp han Mia ape inal Wiis oy I 2 ens iewme rgd He ott & pe POyaieg i —_ 4 urate 70>, awd ENS a. . : angele wise ft q HOW THOMAS CRANMER, ARCHBISHOP, BISHOP RIDLEY, AND M. LATIMER, WERE SENT DOWN TO OXFORD TO DISPUTE, WITH THE ORDER AND MANNER, AND ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, UNTO THE SAID DISPUTATION, AND ALSO TO THEIR CONDEMNATION, APPERTAINING. [This Disputation is found in Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, and is extracted from Ed. 1583, p. 1428, et sqq. | Axsour the tenth of April, Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, Ridley bishop of Foxe, Acts, é 0 “ ve. Hd. 1583, London, and Hugh Latimer bishop also sometime of Worcester, were conveyed as p. 1428. pril 10. prisoners from the Tower to Windsor; and after, from thence to the university of D. opus Oxford, there to dispute with the divines and learned men of. both the universities, and M. Lati- Oxford and Cambridge, about the presence, substance, and sacrifice of the sacrament. down to The names of the university doctors and graduates appointed to dispute against them dispute, were these: of Oxford, Doctor Weston, prolocutor, Doctor Tresham, Doctor Cole, Doctor sity doctors Oglethorpe, Doctor Pie, Master Harpsfield, Master Fecknam: of Cambridge, Doctor eae Yong, vice-chancellor, Doctor Glin, Doctor Seaton, Doctor Watson, Doctor Sedgewicke, aeububoe Doctor Atkinson, &c. The articles or questions whereupon they should dispute were ange these : I. Whether the natural body of Christ be really in the sacrament after the words spoken by the priest, or no ? II. Whether in the sacrament, after the words of consecration, any other substance do remain, than the substance of the body and blood of Christ ? III. Whether in the mass be a sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the quick and the dead ? * * * co * x * On Saturday, being the 14th of April, at eight of the clock, the aforesaid vice-chan- cellor of Cambridge, with the other doctors of the same university, repaired to Lincoln college again, and found the prolocutor above in a chapel, with the company of the house, singing Requiem mass, and tarried there until the end. Then they, consulting all toge- ther in the master’s lodging, about nine of the clock came all to the university church called St Mary’s; and there, after a short consultation in a chapel, the vice-chancellor, the prolocutor, &c. of Oxford, caused the vice-chancellor of Cambridge, and the rest of the doctors of that university, to send for their scarlet robes, brought from Cambridge ; rhe doctors save that doctors Seton and Watson borrowed of the Oxford men. And in this time, nee the regents in the congregation-house had granted all the Cambridge doctors their graces, to be incorporate there; and so they went up, and were admitted immediately. Doctor Oglethorpe presenting them, and the proctor reading the statute, and giving them their oaths, That done, they came all into the quire, and there held the convocation of the univer- was; in sity. They had mass of the Holy Ghost solemnly sung in prick-song by the quire-men ates of Christ’s church. But first, the cause of the convocation was opened in English, p28; partly by the vice-chancellor, and partly by the prolocutor, declaring that they were See cote sent by the queen, and wherefore they were sent; and caused master Say, the register, “°c! openly to read the commission. That done, the vice-chancellor read Cambridge letters campriage openly, and then concluded, that three notaries, master Say for the convocation, a beadle (ys 02": of Cambridge for that university, and one master White for Oxford, should testify of "®*s#e" their doing ; and then willed the said notaries to provide parchment, that the whole 392 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. Subscribing assembly might subscribe to the articles, save those that had subscribed before in the articles. convocation-house at London and Cambridge. And so the vice-chancellor began first ; after him the rest of the Oxford men, as many as could in the mass-time. Procession in The mass being done, they went in procession: first, the quire in their surplices Oxford. ~ The array of followed the cross; then the first-year regents and proctors; then the doctors of law, Ecomian, and their beadle before them; then the doctors of divinity of both universities inter- mingled, the divinity and art beadles going before them, the vice-chancellor and prolocutor going together: after them bachelors of divinity, regentes, et non regentes, in their array ; and last of all, the bachelors of law and art; after whom followed a great company of scholars and students not graduate. And thus they proceeded through the street to Christ’s church ; and there the quire sang a psalm, and after that a collect was read. This done, departed the commissioners, doctors, and many others to Lincoln college, where they dined with the mayor of the town, one alderman, four beadles, master Say, and the Cambridge notary. After dinner they went all again to St Mary’s Another church ; and there, after a short consultation in a chapel, all the commissioners came into oe ne doctors the quire, and sat all on seats before the altar, to the number of thirty-three persons ; and first they sent to the mayor, that he should bring in doctor Cranmer, which within a while was brought to them with a great number of rusty-bill-men. Sesh Thus the reverend archbishop, when he was brought before the commissioners, ranme . *)* . . . . brought reverenced them with much humility, and stood with his staff in his hand, who, not- doctors and withstanding having a stool offered him, refused to sit. Then the prolocutor, sitting Ace i a the midst ina scarlet gown, began with a short preface or oration in praise of unity, there ewe and especially in the church of Christ ; declaring withal his bringing up, and taking and be- degrees in Cambridge, and also how he was promoted by king Henry, and had been ae i his councillor, and a catholic man, one of the same unity, and a member thereof in them. times past; but of late years did separate and cut off himself from it, by teaching and setting forth of erroneous doctrine, making every year a new faith: and therefore it pleased the queen’s grace to send them of the convocation, and other learned men, to bring him to this unity again, if it might be. Then shewed he him, how they of the convocation-house had agreed upon certain articles, whereunto they willed him to subscribe. The answer The archbishop answered to the preface very wittily, modestly, and learnedly, shewing archbishop that he was very glad of an unity, forasmuch as it was conservatrix omnium rerum publicarum, tam ethnicorum quam Christianorum ; i.e., “the preserver of all common- wealths, as well of the heathen as of the Christians:” and so he dilated the matter with one or two stories of the Romans’ commonwealth. Which thing when he had done, he said that he was very glad to come to an unity, so that it were in Christ, and agreeable to his holy word. When he had thus spoken his full mind, the prolocutor caused the articles’ to be read unto him, and asked if he would grant and subscribe unto them. Then the bishop of Canterbury did read them over three or four times, and touching the first article, he asked what they meant by these terms, Verwm et naturale ; i.e. “true and natural.” “Do you not mean,” saith he, “corpus organicum; i.e. a sensible body?” Some answered, Idem quod natum est ex virgine; i.e. “the same that was born of the virgin ;” and so confusedly some said one thing, some another. Then the bishop of Fee ee Canterbury denied it utterly : and when he had looked upon the other two, he said they archbishop. were all false, and against God’s holy word; and therefore he would not agree, he said, Scarborough in that unity with them. Which done, the prolocutor, first willing him to write his warning given to mind of them that night, said moreover, that he should dispute in them, and caused a Cranmer to . . . apie . dispute. copy of the articles to be delivered him, assigning him to answer thereunto on Monday next; and so charged the mayor with him again, to be had to Bocardo, where he was |) The following are the articles : panis et vini, neque alia ulla substantia, nisi sub- 1. In sacramento altaris, virtute verbi Domini | stantia Christi, Dei et hominis. a sacerdote prolati, preesens est realiter sub speciebus 3. In missa est vivificum ecclesie sacrificium pauis et vini naturale corpus Christi conceptum de | pro peccatis tam vivorum quam mortuorum propi- virgine Maria: item, naturalis ejusdem sanguis. tiabile. Harl. MSS. 3642. ] 2. Post consecrationem non remanet substantia DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 393 kept before ; offering moreover unto him to name what books he would occupy, and should have them brought unto him. The archbishop was greatly commended of every body for his modesty ; insomuch that some masters of art were seen to weep for him, which in judgment were contrary to him. * * * * * * * On Sunday after Master Harpsfield preached at St Mary’s, the university church, at nine of the clock, where were divers of the doctors of the university in their robes, and placed accordingly. After the sermon they went all to dinner to Magdalene college, and there had a great dinner. They supped at Lincoln college with the pro- locutor, whither Doctor Cranmer sent answer of his mind upon the articles in writing. b) Lo) On Monday, being the 16th of April, Master Say and Master White, notaries, went April 16. Y> 2 2 r 2 Subscription about in the morning to the colleges, to get subscriptions to the articles. And about eight of the clock the prolocutor with all the doctors and the vice-chancellor met together at Exeter college, and so they went into the schools; and when the vice-chancellor, the prolocutor, cad doctors were placed, and four appointed to be exceptores argu- Four Exeep- tores argu- mentorum set at a table in the midst, and four notaries sitting with them, D. Cranmer mentorum. 2 Cranmer set came to the answerer’s place, the mayor and aldermen sitting by him: and so the inthe : : . respondent's Disputation began to be set a-work by the prolocutor with a short praludiwn. Doctor piace. ), Cranmer Chedsey teen to argue first, and ere he left, the prolocutor divers times, Doctors ciosed in by th Tresham, Gehan Marshall, vice-chancellor, Pie, Cole, and Harpsfield did inter- anaalder- d i ie Ane thei hee ] Bees aids That py, ee Oe rupt and press him with their arguments; so that every man said somewhat, as the ning away. . e 5 o d 5 : sputers prolocutor would suffer, disorderly, sometime in Latin, sometime in English; so that autre three hours of the time was spent ere the vice-chancellor of Cambridge began, who Pst. also was interrupted as before. He began with three or four questions subtilly. Here the beadles had provided drink, and offered the answerer; but he refused with Thearch- ishop offerec thanks. drink. * * * * * %* Thus the Disputation continued until almost two of the clock, with this applausion audientium, ‘Vicit veritas. Then were all the arguments, written by the four appointed, delivered into the hand of Master Say, register. And as for the prisoner, he was had D. Cranmer : . fter dispu- away by the mayor; and the doctors dined together at the University college. tation return- And thus much concerning the general order ea manner of these Disputations, with eee such circumstances as there Pepecned! and things there done, as well before the Dis- putation, and in the preparation thereof, as also in the time of their disputing. Now followeth to infer and declare the orations, arguments, and answers, used and brought forth in the said Disputations on both parts. THE ARGUMENTS, REASONS, AND ALLEGATIONS USED IN THIS DISPUTATION. On Monday, Doctor Weston, with all the residue of the visitors, censors, and op- Aprit is. ponents, repairing to the Divinity school, each one installed themselves in their places. Doctor Cranmer with a rout of rusty bills was brought thither also, and set in the answerer’s place, with the mayor and aldermen sitting by him: where Doctor Weston, prolocutor, apparelled in a scarlet gown, after the custom of the uni- versity, began the Disputation with this oration. His words in Latin, as he spake them, were these: Convenistis hodie, fratres, profiigaturi detestandam illam hwresin de veritate corporis D- Nation Christi in sacramento, §c.: that is, “ Ye are assembled hither, brethren, this day, to trues than he confound the detestable heresy of the verity of the body of Christ in the sacrament,” &c. . At which words, thus pronounced of the prolocutor unawares, divers of the ferme men there present, considering and well weighing the words by him uttered, burst out into a great laughter, as though even in the entrance of the disputations he had bewrayed himself and his religion, that termed the opinion of the verity of Christ’s body in the sacrament a “ detestable heresy.” The rest of his oration tended all to ” 394 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. this effect, that it was not lawful by God’s word to call these questions into con- troversy: for such as doubted of the words of Christ, might well be thought to doubt both of the truth and power of God. Whereunto Doctor Cranmer, desiring licence, answered in this wise. D. Cranmer's ““We are assembled,” saith he, ‘to discuss these doubtful controversies, and to preface. lay them open before the eyes of the world; whereof ye think it unlawful to dis- pute. It is indeed no reason,” saith he, “that we should dispute of that which is determined upon before the truth be tried. But if these questions be not called into controversy, surely mine answer is looked for in vain.” This was the sum and effect of his answer; and this done he prepared himself to disputations. D. Chedsey- Then Chedsey, the first opponent, began in this wise to dispute. ““Reverend Master Doctor, these three conclusions are put forth unto us at this present to dispute upon: ATHiclcs. 1. In the sacrament of the altar is the natural body of Christ conceived of the virgin Mary, and also his blood, present really under the forms of bread and wine, by virtue of God’s word pronounced by the priest. 2. There remaineth no substance of bread and wine after the consecration, nor any other substance but the substance of [Christ,]' God and man. 3. The lively sacrifice of the church is in the mass, propitiatory as well for the quick as the dead. These be the conclusions propounded, whereupon this our present controversy doth rest. Now, to the end we might not doubt how you take the same, you have already given up unto us your opinion thereof. I term it your opinion, in that it disagreeth from the catholic. Wherefore thus I argue: Argument. Your opinion differeth from the scripture : Ergo, You are deceived. Cranmer :—I deny the antecedent. Chedsey :—Christ, when he instituted his last supper, spake to his disciples, ‘* Take, eat; this is my body which shall be given for you:” But his true body was given for us: Ergo, His true body is in the sacrament. The right form of this argumeut is thus to be framed. Da- The same which was given for us, is in the sacrament : vi- But his true body was given for us: a Ergo, His true body is in the sacrament. Answer. Cranmer :—Uis true body is truly present to them that truly receive him; but How Christ's Spiritually. And so is it taken after a spiritual sort. For when he said, “ This is my eat eceey) body,” it is all one as if he had said, This is the breaking of my body; this is the abr shedding of my blood: as oft as you shall do this, it shall put you in remembrance of the breaking, of my body, and the shedding of my blood; that as truly as you receive this sacrament, so truly shall you receive the benefit promised by receiving the same worthily. erenoeal oe _Chedsey :—Your opinion differeth from the church, which saith, that the true body ofthe is in the sacrament : Ergo, Your opinion therein is false. Answer. Cranmer :—I say and agree with the church, that the body of Christ is in the sacrament effectually, because the passion of Christ is effectual. Chedsey :—Christ, when he spake these words, ‘This is my body,” spake of the substance, but not of the effect. Christ’s body Cranmer :—\ grant he spake of the substance, and not of the effect, after a sort: ety and yet it is most true, that the body of Christ is effectually in the sacrament. But paysite T deny that he is there truly present in bread, or that under the bread in his organ- ical body. And because it should be too tedious, he said, to make discourse of the whole, he delivered up there his opinion thereof to D. Weston, written at large, with answers to every one of their three propositions; which he desired D. Weston, [! See the article in Latin, p. 382, note 2. | DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 395 But Papists false sitting there on high, to read openly to the people; which he promised to do. eh it was not the first promise that such papists have broken. The copy of this writing, although it were not there read, yet the contents thereof here we have drawn out as followeth. AN EXPLICATION OF CRANMER UPON THE AFORESAID CONCLUSIONS, EXHIBITED IN WRITING’. Cranmer :—In the assertions of the church and of religion, trifling and new- the contents fangled noyelties of words, so much as may be, are to be eschewed, whereof riseth SRVeRtiGH i nothing but contention and brawling about words; and we must follow, so much as Cena a we may, the manner of speaking of the scripture. In the first conclusion, if ye understand by this word “really,” ve ipsa, i. e. How christ “in very deed and effectually,” so Christ, by the grace and efficacy of his passion, is ee in deed and truly present to all his true and holy members. But if ye understand by this word “really,” corporaliter, i. e. “ corporally,” so that by the body of Christ is understanded a natural body and organical; so Organica! is the first proposition doth vary, not only from usual speech and phrase of scripture, Seer but also is clean contrary to the holy word of God and christian profession: when Ravingall the as both the scripture doth testify by these words, and also the catholic church hath Henares professed from the beginning, Christ to have left the world, and to sit at the right Pe cnatel hand of the Father till he come unto judgment. pn And likewise I answer to the second question; that is, that it swerveth from answer to the accustomed manner and speech of scripture. caclager The third conclusion, as it is intricate and wrapped in all doubtful and am- Answer to biguous words, and differing also much from the true speech of the scripture, so, as cortelinion! the words thereof seem to import in open sense, it is most contumelious against our The third only Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, and a violating of his precious blood, which ernest: upon the altar of the cross is the only sacrifice and oblation for the sins of all Christ. mankind, Chedsey :—By this your interpretation which you have made upon the first con- clusion, this I understand; the body of Christ to be in the sacrament only by the way of participation, insomuch as we communicating thereof, do participate the grace of Christ; so that you mean hereby only the effect thereof. But our conclusion standeth upon the substance, and not the efficacy only, which shall appear by the testimony both of scriptures and of all the fathers a thousand years after Christ. And first, to begin with the scripture, let us consider what is written in Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. and 1 Cor. xi. Matthew saith, “‘ As they sat at supper, Jesus took bread,’ &c. In Mark there is the same sense, although not the same words; who also for one part of the sacrament speaketh more plainly, “Jesus taking bread,” &c. After the same sense also writeth Luke xxii. “And when Jesus had taken bread,” &c. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses,” saith the scripture, Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. [*? Doctor Cranmerus :—“ In ecclesiasticis dog- matibus immanes yocum novitates (quoad licet) tantur scripture et ab initio professa est ecclesia catholica. fugiend# sunt, (ex quibus oriuntur contentiones et pugne verborum,) et scripture loquendi modus maxime imitandus est. In prima conclusione, si per verbum ‘realiter’ intelligatur ‘reipsa et effectualiter,’ sic Christus cum passionis sue gratia et effectu adest omnibus vere plis et sanctis illius membris. Sin per ‘rea- liter’ intelligatur ¢ corporaliter,’ et per ‘Christi cor- pus” intelligatur ‘corpus naturale et organicum ;’ prima propositio non tantum a more loquendi sa- cre scripture aliena est, sed etiam sancto Dei verbo et professioni Christiane plane contraria, quum Christum hoc modo mundum reliquisse ac ad dexteram Patris usque ad judicium sedere, et tes- Ad secundam conclusionem similiter respondeo. Tertia quoque conclusio prorsus aliena est et a scripture locutione et veritate. Quarta demum conclusio, ut ambiguis vocibus obvoluta est et a scripture loquendi phrasi ac ye- ritate longe diversa, ita, ut verba ipsa proprium sensum habent, in Servatorem nostrum unicum Jesum Christum summe contumeliosa est, et san- guinis illius pretiosissimi conculcatio ; cujus effusio in sanctissima ara crucis unicum est totius mundi sacrificium et oblatio pro omnibus omnium homi- num peccatis.”—Harl. MSS. 3642. The Latin originals in this note and the following are sup- plied from Dr Jenkyns’s edition. | Substance and efficacy both granted in the sacra- ment. Another explication tor answer, exhibited in writing by the Arch bishop. 396 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. “standeth all truth.” Here we have three witnesses together, that Christ said that to be his body, which was given for many; and that to be his blood, which should be shed for many; whereby is declared the substance, and not only the efficacy of his body. rgo, it is not true that you say there to be, not the substance of his body, but the efficacy alone thereof. Cranmer :—Thus you gather upon mine answer, as though I did mean of the efficacy, and not of the substance of the body; but I mean of them both, as well of the efficacy as of the substance. And forsomuch as all things come not readily to memory, to a man that shall speak extempore, therefore, for the more ample and fuller answer in this matter, this writing here I do exhibit. AN EXPLICATION EXHIBITED BY CRANMER'’. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, at the time of his maundy, preparing himself to die for our cause, that he might redeem us from eternal death, to forgive us all our sins, and to cancel out the handwriting that was against us; that we through ungrateful oblivion should not forget his death, therefore at the time of his [! Responsio domini Cranmeri ad articulos su- pra recitatos, in scriptis exhibita et per eum sub- scripta. 1. Dominus et Servator noster Jesus Christus in sancta Parasceue, nostra causa obiturus, ut nos a morte redimeret zterna, condonaret omnia delicta, ac chirographum quod contra nos erat deleret, ne mortis sue ingrati unquam oblivisceremur, per- petuam illius memoriam apud Christianos in pane et vino celebrandam pridie passionis in sacratissima sua instituebat cena; juxta illud: ‘ Hoc facite in mei memoriam :”’ et, *‘ Quotienscunque manduca- bitis panem hunc et calicem bibetis, mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat.’’ Atque hanc passionis sue, id est, cesi corporis et fusi sanguinis in pane et vino memoriam sive sacramentum omnes Chris- tianos jussit sumere, juxta illud: ‘ Accipite, et manducate, et bibite ex hoc omnes.’? Quicunque igitur propter traditionem humanam laicis sanguinis poculum denegant, palam Christo repugnant, prohi- bentes fieri quod Christus fieri jussit, et similes sunt Scribis illis ac Phariszis, de quibus Dominus dicebat, <¢ Trritnm fecistis mandatum Dei propter traditionem vestram. Hypocrite, bene prophetavit de vobis Esai- as, dicens, Populus hic labiis me honorat; cor autem eorum longe est a me. Sine causa autem colunt me, docentes doctrinas mandata hominum.” Panis ille sacramentalis seu mysticus, fractus et distri- butus juxta Christi institutionem, et vinum mysti- cum eodem modo haustum et acceptum, non tantum sacramenta sunt vulnerate pro nobis carnis Christi et fusi cruoris, sed certissima sunt nobis sacra- menta et quasi signacula divinarum promissionum ac donorum; ut, communionis nostre cum Christo ac omnibus membris ejus; ccelestis nutritionis, qua alimur ad vitam eternam, «stuantisque conscientie sitis restinguitur ; ineffabilis letitie, qua fidelium corda perfunduntur, et ad omnia pietatis officia ro- borantur. “ Unus panis,” inquit Paulus, “et unum corpus multi sumus, omnes qui de uno pane et de uno calice participamus.” Et, “ Manducate,” in- quit Christus, ‘‘ hoc est corpus meum 3 bibite, hic est sanguis meus.”” Et, ‘‘ Ego sum panis vivus qui de colo descendi. Qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me.”’ Manent igitur in eucharistia, donec a fidelibus consumantur, verus panis verumque yinum : ut quasi signacula divinis promissionibus affixa divinorum donorum nos efficiant certiores. Manet et Christus in illis, et illi in Christo, qui illius carnem edunt et sanguinem bibunt, sicut Christus promisit : ‘‘ Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, et ego in eo.”” Manet denique et Christus in illis, qui digne externum sacramentum suscipiunt, et non discedit statim consumpto sacramento; sed continuo manet, nos pascens et nutriens, quamdiu nos illius capitis corpora manemus et membra. Nullum agnosco corpus Christi naturale, quod solum spirituale sit, intellectuale, et insensibile, quod nullis membris aut partibus sit distinctum: sed illud tantum cor- pus agnosco ac veneror, quod ex virgine natum est, quod pro nobis passum est, quod visibile, palpa- bile, ac omnibus humani ac organici corporis formis in partibus absolutum est. 2. Christus non de substantia aliqua incerta, sed de substantia certa panis, quem et manibus tenebat, et discipulorum oculis demonstrabat, dixit: ** Co- medite, hoc est corpus meum.” Et similiter de vero vino dixit: ‘‘ Hic est sanguis meus.” Nimi- Tum de pane, qui est creatura hujus conditionis que est secundum nos, qui ex fructibus terre ac- ceptus est, de multorum granorum adunitione con- gestus, quiab hominibus fit, et per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducitur, qui rotunde est figura sensusque omnis expers, qui corpus nutrit et confortat cor hominis; de tali, inquam, pane, non de substantia aliqua incerta et vaga, aiunt ve- teres Christum dixisse: ‘‘ Comedite, hoc est corpus meum.”’? Perinde ac de vino, quod est creatura Vitis, fructus vitis, de botris atque acinis plurimis expressa, et letificat cor hominis, dicebat Chris- tus: “ Bibite, hic est sanguis meus.”” Adeoque Christi locutionem vocant veteres figuratam, tropi- cam, anagogicam, allegoricam ; quod ita interpretati sunt, ut quamvis panis vinique substantia maneat, et a fidelibus sumatur, Christus tamen ideo appel- lationem mutavit, et panem quidem carnis, vinum vero sanguinis nomine appellavit, non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio: ut non quid sint, sed que ostendant, consideraremus, non carnaliter, sed spiri- tualiter sacramenta intelligeremus, non ad visibilem sacramentorum naturam attenderemus, non humili- ter ad panem et poculum intenti essemus, non puta- remus nos nihil quam oculis panem et vinum videre, sed exaltatis mentibus Christi corpus et sanguinem aspiceremus fide, mente contingeremus, atque inte- , a _— DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 397 holy supper did institute a perpetual memory of this his death, to be eelebrated among Christians in bread and wine; according as it is said, “Do this in remem- brance of me:” and, “So often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, you shall shew forth the Lord’s death till he come.” And this remembrance or sacrament of his holy passion, that is, of his body slain, and blood shed, he would all Christians to frequent and celebrate in bread and wine; according as he said, “Take, eat, and drink ye all of this.” Therefore whosoever for man’s tradition demeth the cup of Christ’s blood to laymen, they manifestly repugn against Christ, forbidding that which Christ commandeth to be done, and be like to those scribes and Pharisees of whom the Lord spake, “‘ Ye hypocrites, ye have rejected the commandments of God for your traditions. Well did Esay prophesy of you, saying, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Without cause do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and precepts of men.” The sacrament and mystical bread being broken and distributed after the institution of Christ, and the mystical wine likewise being taken and received, be not only sacraments of the flesh of Christ wounded for us, and of his bloodshedding, but also be most certain sacraments to us, and, as a man would say, seals of God’s promises and gifts, and also of that holy fellowship which we have with Christ and all his members. Moreover, they be to us memorials of that heavenly food and nourishment, wherewith we are nourished unto eternal life, and the thirst of our boiling conscience quenched, and, finally, riore homine hauriremus; ut aquile in hac vita facti ad ipsum celum sursum cordibus evolemus, ubi ad dexteram Patris residet Agnus ille, qui tollit peccata mundi, cujus amore sanamur, cujus passione in hac mensa satiamur, cujus sanguinem e divino ilius latere haurientes eternum vivimus, Christique hospites effecti, ipsum in nobis vere nature gratia virtuteque ac totius passionis efficacia habitantem habemus : nec minus certi efficimur, Christi carne erucifixa et fuso cruore, necessario animorum pa- bulo, nos spiritualiter pasci ad vitam eternam, quam cibo et potu in hac vita corpora pascuntur. Atque hujus rei pyynpdcvvov, pignus, symbolum, sacramentum, signaculum nobis sunt mysticus in Christi mensa panis mysticumque vinum juxta Christi institutionem administrata et accepta. Hine est quod Christus non dixit, “‘ Hoc est corpus meum, edite:”” sed ubi jussisset edere, postea addidit, “ Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur.”’ Quod perinde est, ac si dixisset, ‘‘In edendo hoc pane, considerate illum non communem esse, sed mysticum ; non aspicite quod corporeis oculis vestris proponitur, sed quid intus vos pascat. Considerate corpus meum pro vobis cruci affixum, hoc animis vestris devorate, satiemini morte mea, Hic verus est cibus, hic inebrians potus, quo vere saturati et inebriati #ternum vivetis. Quz ob oculos vobis proponuntur, panis et vinum, mei duntaxat symbola sunt; ego vero ipse «ternus pastus sum. Proinde cum in mensa mea sacramenta aspicietis, non tam ad illa respicite, quam quid per ea vobis pollicear, nempe meipsum pabulum vite eterne.”’ 3. Christi unica oblatio, qua seipsum Deo Patri obtulit in mortem semel in ara crucis pro nostra redemptione, tante fuit efficacia, ut nullo alio sacrificio opus sit pro totius mundi redemptione. Sed omnia veteris legis sacrificia sustulit, id re vera prestans quod illa figurabant et promittebant. Quisquis igitur salutis sue spem in ullo alio con- Stituerit sacrificio, is a Christi excidit gratia, et con- tumeliosus est in sanctum Christi sanguinem. ‘ Ipse enim vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras, at- tritus est propter scelera nostra.” ‘‘Omnes nos quasi oves erravimus, unusquisque in viam suam declinavit; et posuit Dominus in eo iniquitates omnium nostrum.’’ ‘Ille enim non per sangui- nem hircorum aut vitulorum, sed per proprium san- guinem introivit semel in sancta, eterna redemp- tione inventa.” Et ‘in ipsum celum intravit, ut appareret nune vultui Dei pro nobis, non ut sepe offerat seipsum : alioqui oportebat eum frequenter pati: nunc autem semel ad destructionem peccati per hostiam suam apparuit. Et quemadmodum constitutum est hominibus semel mori, sic et Chiris- tus semel oblatus est.’’ ‘‘ Ile unam offerens pro peccatis hostiam in sempiternum sedet in dextra Dei.”’ ‘* Una enim oblatione consummavit in sem- piternum sanctificatos. Ubi enim peccatorum re- missio est, jam non est amplius oblatio pro peccato.” Propter* hoc Christi sacrificium quisquis aliud que- Sierit pro peccatis sacrificium propitians, invalidum et inefficax efficit Christi sacrificium. Si enim hoc ad remittenda peccata sufficiens est, alio non est opus ; alterius enim necessitas hujus arguit infir- mitatem ac insufficientiam., Faxit Deus Omnipo- tens ut uni Christi sacrificio vere innitamur, ac illi rursus rependamus sacrificia nostra, gratiarum ac- tiones, laudis, confessionis nominis sui, vere resi- piscentie ac peenitentia, beneficentiz in proximos, aliorumque omnium pietatis officiorum. Talibus enim sacrificiis exhibebimus nos nec in Deum in- gratos, nec Christi sacrificio indignos. Ecce habetis, ex sacrarum scripturarum et vete- rum ecclesiz doctorum sententia, verum et sincerum dominic cene usum, ac veri sacrificii Christi fructum. Que quisquis tortis interpretationibus aut humanis traditionibus aliter quam Christus or- dinavit mutare aut transubstantiare voluerit, ipse respondebit Christo in novissimo die, quando intel- liget, sed sero nimis, nihil sibi cum Christi corpore esse et sanguine, sed ex wxternw vite cena se xter- nam damnationem manducasse ac bibisse. Thomas Cranmer. Vide official report in the British Museum, Collier. Vol. II. No. 71. MSS. C.C.C.C. 340, p- 266, under the title ‘‘ Prefatio et Protestatio Thome Cranmeri scripta et tradita propria manu in schola publica.” Harl. MSS, 422. f. 44,] * Preter, MS. C.C. C. C. The final cause why the supper was ordained. Matt. xv. Luke vii. Sacraments seals of God's promise. 398 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. whereby the hearts of the faithful be replenished with unspeakable joy, and be cor- roborated and strengthened unto all works of godliness. ‘We are many,” saith St Paul, “one bread, and one body, all we which do participate of one bread and one cup.” And Christ saith, “Eat ye; this is my body:” and, “Drink ye; this is my blood:” and, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. He that eateth me shall also live for me. Not as your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. He that eateth me shall also live for me.” Thus therefore true bread and true wine remain still in the eucharist, until they be consumed of the faithful, to be signs, and as seals unto us, annexed unto God’s promises, making us certain of God’s gifts towards us. Also Christ remaineth in them, and they in Christ, which eat his flesh, and drink his blood, as Christ himself hath promised: ‘ They that eat my flesh, and drink my blood, abide in me, and I in them.” Moreover, he abideth also in them which worthily receiveth the outward sacrament; neither doth he depart so soon as the sacrament’ is consumed, but continually abideth, feeding and nourishing us so long as we remain bodies of that head, and members of the same. I acknowledge not here the natural body of Christ, which is only spiritual, intelli- gible, and unsensible, having no distinction of members and parts in it: but that body only I acknowledge and worship, which was born of the virgin, which suffered for us, which is visible, palpable, and hath all the form and shape and parts of the true natural body of man. 2. Christ spake not these words of any uncertain substance, but of the certain substance ‘of bread, which he then held in his hands, and shewed his disciples, when he said, “Eat ye; this is my body:” and likewise of the cup, when he said, “Drink ye; this is my blood:” meaning verily of that bread, which by nature is usual and common with us, which is taken of the fruit of the ground, compacted by the uniting of many grains together, made by man, and by man’s hand brought to that visible shape, being of a round compass, and without all sense or life, which nourisheth the body, and strengtheneth the heart of man: of this same bread, I say, and not of any uncertain and wandering substance, the old fathers say that Christ spake these words, “‘ Eat ye; this is my body.” And likewise also of the wine, which is the creature and fruit of the vine, pressed out of many clusters of grapes, and maketh man’s heart merry: of the very same wine, I say, Christ spake, ‘‘ Drink ye; this is my blood.” And so the old doctors do call this speaking of Christ tropical, figurative, anagogical, allegorical; which they do interpret after this sort, that although the sub- stance of bread and wine: do remain, and be received of the faithful, yet notwithstanding, Christ changed the appellation thereof, and called the bread by the name of his flesh, and the wine by the name of his blood, non ret veritate, sed significante mysterio ; i.e. “not that it is so in very deed, but signified in a mystery: so that we should consider, not what they be in their own nature, but what they import to us and signify; and should understand the sacrament, not carnally, but spiritually; and should attend, not to the visible nature of the sacraments, neither have respect only to the outward bread and cup, thinking to see there with our eyes no other things but only bread and wine; but that, lifting up our minds, we should look up to the blood of Christ with our faith, should touch him with our mind, and receive him with our inward man; and that, being like eagles in this life, we should fly up into heaven in our hearts, where that Lamb is resident at the night hand of his Father, which taketh away the sins of the world; by whose stripes we are made whole; by whose passion we are filled at his table; and whose blood we receiving out of his holy side, do live for ever; being made the guests of Christ, having him dwelling in us through the grace of his true nature, and through the virtue and efficacy of his whole passion; being no less assured and certified that we are fed spiritually unto eternal life by Christ’s flesh crucified, and by his blood shed, the true food of our minds, than that our bodies be fed with meat and drink in this life: and hereof this said mystical bread on the table of Christ, and the mystical wine, being administered and received after the institution of Christ, be to us a memorial, a pledge, a token, [! Sacraments, Ibid.] DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 399 a sacrament, and a seal. And thereof is it that Christ saith not thus, “This is my body ; eat ye:” but after he had bidden them eat, then he said, “This is my body, which shall be given for you.” Which is to mean, as though he should say, ‘ In Whatis eating of this bread, consider you that this bread is no common thing, but a mystical Bae the matter; neither do you attend that which is set before your bodily eyes, but what tad, feedeth you within. Consider and behold my body crucified for you; that eat and digest in your minds. Chaw you upon my passion, be fed with my death. This is the true meat, this is the drink that moisteneth, wherewith you being truly fed and inebriate shall live for ever. The bread and the wine which be set before your’ eyes are only declarations of me, but I myself am the eternal food. Wherefore, whensoever What the at this my table you shall behold the sacraments, have not regard so much to them, bony of as consider ye what I promise to you by them, which is myself, to be meat for you a ounecu™ of eternal life.’ 3. The only oblation of Christ (wherewith he offered himself to God the Father once to death upon the altar of the cross for our redemption) was of such efficacy, The sacrifice that there is no more need of any sacrifice for the redemption of the whole world; paapfenes but all the sacrifice of the old law he took away, performing that in very deed, which Ai liane a they did signify and promise. Whosoever therefore shall fix the hope of his salvation in any other sacrifice, he falleth from the grace of Christ, and is contumelious against the blood of Christ. For “he was wounded for our transgressions, and was broken Isai. liii. for our iniquities. All we like sheep have wandered astray; every man hath turned after his own way; and the Lord hath laid all our iniquities upon him.” “ For he Heb. ix. hath entered once for all into the holy place, by the blood, not of goats or calves, but by his own blood, finding eternal redemption ;” and “hath entered into heaven, to appear now in the sight of God for us; not to offer himself oftentimes, (for so should he have suffered many times:) but now hath he appeared once to put away sin through his own oblation. And as it is appointed to all men once to die, so also Heb. ix. Christ once was offered:” ‘who offering up one oblation for sins, sitteth now for Heb. x. ever on the right hand of God. For by one oblation hath he made perfect for ever those that be sanctified.” For “‘ where is remission of sins, there is now no more oblation for sin,” but this only sacrifice of Christ. Whosoever shall seek any other sacrifice pro- No sacrifice pitiatory for sin, maketh the sacrifice of Christ of no validity, force, or efficacy. For }urone if it be sufficient to remit sins, what need is there of any other? for the necessity of another argueth and declareth this to be insufficient. Almighty God grant that cnrist sacri- we may truly lean to one sacrifice of Christ, and that we to him again may repay Sn: wessen" our sacrifices of thanksgiving, of praise, of confessing his name, of true amendment, {Muka of repentance, of mercifulness towards our neighbours, and of all other good works of uuear charity! For by such sacrifices we shall declare ourselves neither ungrateful to God, “*" nor altogether unworthy of this holy sacrifice of Christ. And thus you have, out of the testimonies of holy scripture and of the ancient doctors of the church, the true and sincere use of the Lord’s holy supper, and the fruit of the true sacrifice of Christ: which whosoever, through captious or wrested interpretations, or by men’s traditions, shall go about, otherwise than Christ ordained them, to alter or transubstantiate, he shall answer to Christ in the latter day, when he shall understand, (but then too late,) that he hath no participation with the body and blood of Christ, but that out of the supper of eternal life he hath eaten and drunken eternal damnation to himself. Weston :—Because we will not consume and spend the time in waste, this your writing which you exhibit hereafter shall be read in his place. In the mean season let us now fall to the arguments. Chedsey :—The scriptures in divers places do affirm, that Christ gave his natural gseument. body, Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. : Firgo, 1 do conclude that the natural body is in the sacrament. Cranmer :—To your argument I answer, If you understand by the body natural, answer. {? Foxe, ed. 1583, has owr, which is undoubtedly a misprint. ] Argument. Answer. This word “ contained” distinguish- ed. The body of Christ con- tained not really, but sacrament- ally. C hrist saith not, ‘This is my body which is here contained ;’ but, “This is my body which shall be giv en for you.” Argument. Answer. D.Oglethorpe breaketh Priscian’s head, and speaketh talse Latin. Cranmer answereth to Oglethorpe. 400 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. organicum, that is, having such proportion and members as he had living here, then I answer negatively. Furthermore, concerning the evangelists, thus I say and grant, that Christ took bread, and called it his body. Chedsey :—The text of the scripture maketh against you; for the circumstance thereto annexed doth teach us, not only there to be the body, but also teacheth what manner of body it is, and saith, ‘* The same body which shall be given.” Ba- That thing is here contained that is given for us: ro- But the substance of bread is not given for us: co. Hrgo, The substance of bread is not here contained. Cranmer :—I understand not yet what you mean by this word “ contained :” if ye mean really, then I deny your major. Chedsey :—The major is the text of scripture. He that denieth the major, denieth the scripture: for the scripture saith, “ This is my body which shall be given for you.” Cranmer :—I grant he said it was his body that should be given; but he said it was not his body which is here contained, but “the body,” saith he, “that shall be given for you.” As though he should say, “This bread is the breaking of my body, and this cup is the shedding of my blood.” What will ye say then? Is the bread the breaking [of his body,]' and the cup the shedding of the blood, really? If you so say, I deny it. Chedsey:—If you ask what is the thing therein contained; because his apostles should not doubt what body it was that should be given, he saith, “ This is my body which shall be given for you,” and “my blood which shall be shed for many.” rgo, here is the same substance of the body, which the day after was given, and the same blood which was shed. And here I urge the scripture, which teacheth that it was no phantastical, no feigned, no spiritual body, nor body in faith, but the substance of the body. Cranmer :—You must prove that it is contained ; but Christ said not, “ which is contained.” He gave bread, and called that his body. I stick not in the words of the scripture, but in your word, which is feigned and imagined of yourself. Chedsey :—When Christ took bread and brake it, what gave he? Cranmer :—He gave bread: the bread sacramentally, and his body spiritually ; and the bread there he called his body. Chedsey :—This answer is against the scripture, which saith, that he gave his body. Cranmer :—It did signify that which they did eat. Chedsey:—They did not eat the body as the Capernaites did understand it, but the selfsame body which was given for the sins of the world. Hrgo, It was his body which should be given, and his blood which should be shed. { In some other copies I find this argument to be made by Chedsey: Ba- The same body is in the sacrament, which was given for us on the cross: yo- But bread was not given on the cross for us: co. Ergo, Bread is not given in the sacrament. Cranmer :—I deny the major, which is, that the same natural body is given in the sacrament, which was given on the cross ; except you understand it spiritually. And after, he denied also the argument as utterly naught, as he well might do, the major in the second figure cae not universal. When M. Chedsey had put forth this argument, and prosecuted the same, and doctor Cranmer answered as before is shewed, doctor Oglethorpe, one of those doctors which the prolocutor called Censores, (belike to be arbiters, to order the disputations,) said on this wise. D. Oglethorpe :—You come in still with one evasion or starting-hole to flee to. He urgeth the scriptures, saying that Christ gave his very body. You say that he gave his: body in bread. Quomodo predicatur corpus? qualis est corpus? qualis est pradi- catio? panis est corpus. Cranmer :—You should say, Quale corpus. I answer to the question; it is the [! These words are not in Foxe, ed. 1583. ] DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 401 same body which was born of the virgin, was crucified, ascended ; but tropically, and Dr Cranmer might have by a figure. And so I say, Panis est corpus is a figurative speech, speaking sacra- found fault with this mentally ; for it is a sacrament of his body. argument, as well as with Oglethorpe :—This word “body,” being pradicatum, doth signify ‘“ substance :” his Latin, But substantia is not predicated denominatively : in no mode Ergo, It is an essential predication; and so it is his true body, and not the oe figure of his body. Cranmer :—Substantia may be predicated denominatively in an allegory, or in a metaphor, or in a figurative locution. Oglethorpe:—It is not a likely thing that Christ hath less care for his spouse, the church, than a wise householder hath for his family in making his will or testa- ment. Cranmer :—Your reason is drawn out of the affairs of men, and not taken out of the holy scriptures. | Oglethorpe :—But no householder maketh his testament after that sort. Cranmer :—Yes, there are many that so do. For what matter is it, so it be Tropes may : : : : . be used in understood and perceived? I say, Christ did use figurative speech in no place more men’s testa- . . . . . : ments. than in his sacraments, and specially in this his supper. Why not? Oglethorpe:—No man of purpose doth use tropes in his testament; for if he do, he deceiveth them that he comprehendeth in his testament: therefore Christ useth none here. Cranmer :—Yes, he may use them well enough. You know not what tropes are. Oglethorpe:—The good man of the house hath a respect, that his heirs after his departure may live in quiet, and without brabbling: But they cannot be in quiet, if he do use tropes: Therefore, I say, he useth no tropes. Cranmer :—I deny your minor. Weston :—Augustine, in his book entitled De Unitate Ecclesiw*, the tenth chapter, hath these words following : Quid hoe est, rogo? Cum verba novissima hominis morientis audiantur ituri ad A place of Augustine inferos, nemo eum dicit esse mentitum ; et illius non judicatur heres, qui forte ea any prolo- contempserit. Quomodo ergo effugiemus iram Dei, si vel non credentes, vel contem- CH nentes, expulerimus verba novissima, et unici Filii Dei et Domini nostri Salvatoris, et Beelesiw. ituri in coelum, et inde prospecturi, quis ea negligat, quis non observet, et inde venturi ut de omnibus judicet ?° That is to say: “What a thing is this, I pray you? When the last words of one lying upon his death-bed are heard, which is ready to go to his graye, no man saith that he hath made a lie; and he is not accounted his heir which regardeth not those words. How shall we then escape God’s wrath, if either not believing, or not regarding, we shall reject the last words both of the only Son of God and also of our Lord and Saviour, both ascending into heaven, and beholding from thence who despiseth, and who ob- serveth them not; and shall come from thence to judge all men ?” The argument is thus formed : Bar- Whosoever saith that the testator did lie, is a wicked heir: Argument. ba- But whosoever saith that Christ spake by figures, saith that he did lie: ra. Ergo, Whosoever saith that Christ here spake by figures, is a wicked heir. Cranmer :—I deny the minor: as who say it is necessary that he which useth answer. to speak by tropes and figures should lie in so doing? Oglethorpe:—Your judgment is disagreeing with all churches. {® This authority is stated in the Cambridge | not x, as quoted by Weston,) of the letter de Manuscript to have been alleged by Oglethorpe: | Unitate Hcclesiz, (i.e. contra Donatistas Epistola, vide Jenkyns’s Cranmer, Vol. IV. p. 24.] in the Benedictine arrangement,) Tom. VII. p. 148. {® The passage will be found in cap. xi, (and | Ed. Paris. 1635.] [craNMER. | 26 Argument. 402 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. Cranmer :—Nay, I disagree with the papistical church. Oglethorpe:—This you do through the ignorance of logic. Cranmer :—Nay, this you say through the ignorance of the doctors. Weston :—I will go plainly to work by scriptures. Cranmer :—Bread. Weston :—What gave he? Cranmer :—Bread. Weston :—What brake he? Cranmer :—Bread. Weston :—What did they eat? Cranmer :—Bread. What took he? Weston :—He gave bread; therefore he gave not his body. He gave not his body ; therefore it is not his body verily, in deed and in truth. Cranmer :—I deny the argument’. = aber Cole: —This argument holdeth a disparatis. It is bread; ergo, it is not the term.mean- Hody: and it is such an argument or reason as cannot be dissolved. substances | ie i : 1 : i substances = Cranmer:—The like argument may be made: he is a rock; ergo, he is not dered in Christ. nature that one can never be said to be Cole :—It is not like. BGM, Weston :—He gave not his body indeed; ergo, it was not his body indeed. ent ees Cranmer :—He gave his death, his passion, and the sacrament of his passion. ance for) Anrd, in very deed, setting the figure aside, formally it is not his body. not Christ's Weston :—Why ? then the scripture is false. body. : £ Cranmer :—Nay, the scripture is most true. uae Weston :—This saith Chrysostom, Homil. txt. ad Populum Antiochenum. e- cessarium est, dilectissimi, mysteriorum dicere miraculum, quid tandem sit, et quare sit datum, et que rei utilitas’, &e. That is to say: “‘ Needful it is, dear friends, to tell you what the miracle of the mysteries is, and wherefore it is given, and what profit there is of the thing. We are one body, and members of his flesh and of his bones. We that be in the mystery, let us follow that thing which was spoken. Wherefore, that we may become this thing, not only by love, but also that we may become one with that flesh indeed, that is brought to pass by this food which he gave unto us, minding to shew his great good-will [' ‘According to the Cambridge manuscript, the Disputation up to this point was conducted in Latin. Cole first spoke English, and the dialogue appears to have been carried on in that language till Chedsey resumed the Latin.” Jenkyns.] [? Avo Kat avayKaiov pabety to Batya Tav puvotnpiwy, TL TOTE EoTL, Kal dtaTi E600n, Kat Tis 4 WpédEla TOU THAYLATOS. Ev Capa yivoueba MEAN, nol, €k TOU capKos. avTOU, Kal EK TaY doTéwY auTou. of dé pepunpevor TapaKkoovleitwoay Tors Neyouevois. "Iv otv py povov Kata tiv ayarny yevaucba, a@\Xa Kai kat’ ait TO Tpayua, eis Exeivnv dva- Kepac0@pmev THY capKa. dLa THS Tpopas yap TOUTO yiverat 4s €xapicato, Bovdpevos yuiv detEar Tov aolov ov Exet Wept nuas* dia ToUTO dvéuiEev Eav- TOV 1)tv, Kal avédpupe TO GHma aio eis rpmas, va €v te vrapEwpev, Kabatep cHpa Kepay cuv- nppevov. TY yap opodpa TolotvTwY éati ToUTO Oetypa. TovTO youv Kai 6 1wB aivitTomevos Eheye qTepi T@Y EavToOU oikeTav, ois Hv o'Tw pel’ WreEp- Borys wobevos, ws mpoopivat Tats capEly aitou éwiOupetv. Exetvor yap Tov Toby aiTa@y évdctK- vipevor To0ov bv elyov’ Tis av dun Hutv TeV cap- K@v avTov, edeyov, éumAnobHvar; dd Oi) Kui 6 Xpioros aire merroinxen, cis Piriav yuas evaywv peiGova, Kal Tov avTou mobov éertdekvis TOV TEpt nas, ox ldeiy aiTov jovov Tapéaxe Tots embu- povct’ ad\a kai dacOat, kai payeiv, Kal éuTriEae Tovs dddvTas TH Gapkl, Kai cuuTAaKiHvat, Kal Tov molov éumA\noat wavta. ws éovtes Toivuy Tp TVéovTES, OUTWS ATO TIS TpaTEeCns avaxwpanev éxeivns, poBepol Tw diafohw ywopevor, Kal TIP Kepaniv trv nhuetépay evvoouvTes, Kal Ti aya- Ty iv wept was emedeiEaTo. of péev ovv yev- vijoavtes aoANdKis Erépois Tpépew Oiddacr Ta texbévta’ éyw dé obX oTw, dnalv, adda Tais capti Tpépw Tais éuats’ euauTov buty wapaTtiby- pl, mavTas pas evyevels elvat Bovopevos, Kat Xpnoras bpiv mepl tev pe\A\dvTwy broTEivwY Eh= midas. 6 yap évtavla wiv éexdo’s Eavtov wo\XG BaXov év tw pédNovTL. adeAPos HUEAnoa UpueTe= pos yivecBar’ éxowdvnca capkds Kai aluatos ov Uuas' mahi adtiy buiv tiv cadpKa Kai TO aia, bv wy cvyyevijs éyevouny, éxdidwut.—Chrysost. in Joan. Hom, xlvi. (al. 45.) Tom. VIII. p. 272. Ed. Bened. Paris. 1728. It must be remembered however, that Weston did not quote from this homily on St John, but from the Hom. ixr. ad Pop. Antioch. in the Latin edition, parts of which certainly are composed of the Greek homily on John. ] DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 403 that. he hath toward us: and therefore he mixed himself with us, and united his own body with us, that we should be made all as one thing together, as a body joined and annexed to the head; for this is a token of most ardent and perfect love. And the same thing Job also insinuating, said of his servants, of whom he was de- sired above measure; insomuch that they, shewing their great desire toward him, said, ‘Who shall give unto us to be filled with his flesh? Therefore also Christ did the same, who, to induce us into a greater love toward him, and to declare his desire toward us, did not only give himself to be seen of them that would, but also to be handled and eaten, and suffered us to fasten our teeth in his flesh, and to be united together, and so to fill all our desire. Like lions therefore, as breathing fire, let us go from that table, being made terrible to the devil, remembering our Head in our mind, and his charity which he shewed unto us. For parents many times give their cbil- dren to other to be fed; but I do not so, saith he, but feed you with mine own flesh, and set myself before you, desiring to make you all jolly people, and pretend- ing to you great hope and expectation to look for things to come, who here give myself to you, but much more in the world to come. I am become your brother ; I took flesh and blood for you. Again, my flesh and blood, by the which I am made your kinsman, I deliver unto you.” Thus much out of Chrysostom. Out of which words I make this argument: The same flesh, whereby Christ is made our brother and kinsman, is given of p. weston’s : argument Christ to us to be eaten: aif ° . 0 . . true form or Christ is made our brother and kinsman by his true, natural, and organical flesh: figure. Frgo, His true, natural, and organical flesh is given to us to be eaten. Cranmer :—I grant the consequence and the consequent. Weston :—Therefore we eat it with our mouth. Cranmer :—I deny it. We eat it through faith. Weston: —He gave us that same flesh to eat, whereby he became our brother p. weston’s and kinsman: ee denied: . . : We eat the But he became our brother and kinsman by his true, natural, and organical true body of Christ: krgo, flesh : We eat it ; : ith Therefore he gaye his true, natural, and organical flesh to be eaten. win . fi 2} eS: = Cranmer : —1 grant he took and gave the same true, natural, and organical flesh giment. wherein he suffered; and yet he feedeth spiritually, and that flesh is received spiritually. Weston :—He gave us the same flesh which he took of the virgin: But he took not his true flesh of the virgin spiritually, or in a figure: Fallacia a dicto secun- dum quid ad Firgo, He gave his true natural flesh, not spiritually. aes” Cranmer :—Christ gave to us his own natural flesh, the same wherein he suf- fered, but feedeth us spiritually. Weston :—Chrysostom is against you, Hom. txxxmt. in cap. xxvi. Matt., where Answer. : . via \s 3 ° , Chrysostom he saith: Veniat tibi in mentem quo sis honore honoratus, qua mensa fruaris. Ha alleged by ° +3 Doctor Wes- namque re nos alimur, quam angeli®, &e. ton. . Hom. !xxxiii. That is: in 26 cap. : . . Matt. “Let it come into thy remembrance, with what honour thou art honoured, and what table thou sittest at: for with the same thing we are nourished, which the [®? The whole passage, as quoted in the text in | movtes pitrovot, Kai ovdé avTiBéWar ToApaow several divisions, runs thus in Chrysostom: Ovct | adea@s did trv éxeiOev éxpepoucvny dorpariy, Yap iipkecev alti TO yevécVar dvOpwaor, ode TH | TOUTH ruets TpEpouela, TObTH advapupdpela, Kal pamicbjvar Kal opayivat, d\d\ad Kal dvapbpe | yeyovapev rpets Xpiotov capa ev kal odpE pla. €avTov ijpiv, Kal ob TH Tiare: pdvov, d\d\a Kal | Tis Nadioer Tas duvactelas Tov Kupiov, dKou- Psal. ev. aUTO TH TpdypaTte copa mas abTou KaTacKEvd~ fer. tivos obv ok eer Kabapwrepoy elvar tov TaiTns amohabovta THs Quotas; motas 1j\LaKns aktivos thy Xetpa tiv TabTHy dtatéuvovcay THY cdpka, TO ordua TO TAnpobmevoy mupds mvev- Hatikov, THv yN@ooay tiv owiccoméevny alate PpikwoectaTw; évvoncov molav eripyOns Tyujv, Toias dmwodavers tpanctys. bmrep ol ayyedou BXé- oTas Woince. Tacas Tas aivécers ai’Tov; Tis Tony Tots oikeiows pédeor Tpéet Ta TPdBaTa ; kat Ti Néyw, Troinjy; pntépes TohdaGxis eiciv, at pera Tds wolvas Erépais EKdLOdact Tpodots Ta Tatdla* ats 6& TOUT odK HvéaxeTO, aX’ adTos nuas Tpépet oikeiw aluati, Kal did TavTwY ijpas €avT@ cupumdéxer.—Chrysost. in Matt. cap. xxvi. Hom. 1xxxii. (al. 83.) Tom. VIL. p. 788.] 26—2 Another false argument, where in the third figure the minor is a Negative. Answer. Argument. Christ nou- risheth us both with bread and with his body: with bread our bodies, with his body our souls. A gross saying. Chrysostom alleged by D. Weston. Chrysost. in Psal. 1. Item Hom. 83. in 26 cap. Matt. Chrysostom alleged by D. Weston. Hom, 29. in epist. 2. Cor. eap. 13. The words of Chryso- stom expounded. 404 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. angels do behold and tremble at; neither are they able to behold it without great fear, for the brightness which cometh thereof: and we be brought and compact into one heap or mass with him, being together one body of Christ and one flesh with him. Who shall speak the powers of the Lord, and shall declare forth all his praises? What pastor hath ever nourished his sheep with his own members? Many mothers have put forth their infants after their birth to other nurses; which he would not do, but feedeth us with his own body, and conjoineth and uniteth us to himself.” Whereupon I gather this argument: Like as mothers nurse their children with milk, so Christ nourisheth us with his body: But mothers do not nourish their infants spiritually with their milk: Therefore Christ doth not nourish those that be his spiritually with his blood. Cranmer :—He gave us the wine for his blood. Weston :—If he gaye the wine for his blood, as you say, then he gave less than mothers do give: But Chrysostom afiirmeth, that he gave more than mothers give : Therefore he gave not the wine for his blood. Cranmer :—You pervert mine answer. He gave wine, yet the blood is con- sidered therein. As for example: when he giveth baptism, we consider not the water, but the Holy Ghost, and remission of sins. We receive with the mouth the sacra- ment; but the thing and the matter of the sacrament we receive by faith. Weston :—When Christ said, “ Eat ye,” whether meant he, by the mouth or by faith ? Cranmer :—He meant that we should receive the body by faith, the bread by the mouth. Weston :—Nay, the body by the mouth. Cranmer :—That I deny. Weston :—I prove it out of Chrysostom, writing upon the fiftieth Psalm: Erubescit fieri nutrix, que facta est mater. Christus autem non ita: ipse nu- tritor est noster: ideo pro cibo carne propria nos pascit, et pro potu suum sanguinem nobis propinavit. Item, in 26 cap. Matthei, Homil. txxxm.: Mon enim sufficit ipsi hominem fieri, flagellis interim cadi; sed nos secum in unam, ut ita dicam, massam reducit, neque id fide solum, sed re ipsa nos corpus suum efficit.” That is: “She that is a mother shameth sometime to play the nurse. But Christ, our nurse, doth not so play with us. Therefore, instead of meat, he feedeth us with his own flesh; and, instead of drmk, he feedeth us with his own blood’.” Likewise, upon the twenty-sixth chapter of Matthew, the eighty-third Homily, he saith: “ For it shall not be enough for him to become man, and in the meanwhile to be whipped ; but he doth bring us into one mass or lump with himself, as I may so call it, and maketh us his body, not by faith alone, but also in very deed’.” Cranmer :—I grant we make one nature with Christ: but that to be done with mouth we deny. Weston :—Chrysost. 2 Cor. cap. xiii. Hom. xxrx. hath these words: “‘ Von vul- garem honorem consequutum est os nostrum, accipiens corpus Dominicum ;” i.e. “No little honour is given to our mouth, receiving the body of the Lord’*.” Cranmer :—This I say, that Christ entereth into us both by our ears and by our eyes. 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. Wherefore I say and [' Chrysost. in Psal. 1. Tom. V. p. 578. Tixrer | this homily is doubted by Sir H. Saville, and by ptnp, Kal ob yiverat Tpopos* aicytverar yap | Fronto Duceus and Montfaucon it is rejected as yevécOar Tpoos 7 yevouevyn untyp*’ 0 6 Xpiotos | spurious. ] ovx oUTws’ EyEevyNnoe Yap mas, Kal abTos Tpopeds [2 See the note on the preceding page. ] iju@v eyéveto. 61d ToUTO Kai avTl BowuaTtwy TV [> Ovby ws Eruvxe Td oTdua nuwy TeTipynTat, idiav cdpKa ijpas EOpeye, Kal avTi Tomatos TO idtov | dexopevoy TO cHma TO SeorroTiKdv.—Chrysost. in airov aipa judas éerdticev.— The genuineness of | Epist. 11. ad Cor. Hom. xxx. Tom. X. p. 680.] DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 405 affirm, that the virtue of the sacrament is much: and therefore Chrysostom many times speaketh of sacraments no otherwise than of Christ himself, as I could prove, if I might have liberty to speak, by many places of Chrysostom, where he speaketh of the sacrament of the body of Christ. With the which word, “ of the sacrament of the body,” &c., doctor Cole being ECO highly offended, denied it to be the sacrament of the body of Christ, save only of the sacrament mystical body, which is the church. crament of E the body of Cranmer :—And why should we doubt to call it the sacrament of the body of Christ, but . , : : 5 : only a sa- Christ, offered upon the cross, seeing both Christ and the ancient fathers do so call it ? erament of Bonne: ‘ole: —How gather you that of Chrysostom ? gation, that * : . ee S, OF Cranmer : —Chrysostom declareth himself, Lib. m1. De Sacerdotio, cap. 11. mystical . te ° . 5 body of miraculum! O Dei in nos benevolentia! qui sursum sedet ad deateram Patris, sa- Christ. as . 7 9 5 ° Chrysostom crificii tamen tempore hominum manibus continetur, traditurque lambere cupientibus aiieged vy eum. Fit autem id nullis prestigiis, sed apertis et circumspicientibus circumstantium ease omnium oculis. peng That is: “OQ miracle! O the good-will of God towards us! which sitteth above at the right hand of the Father, and is holden in men’s hands at the sacrifice-time, and is given to feed upon, to them that are desirous of him. And that is brought to pass by no subtlety or craft, but with the open and beholding eyes of all the standers-by *.” Thus you hear Christ is seen here in earth every day, is touched, is torn with the teeth, that our tongue is red with his blood; which no man having any judg- ment will say or think to be spoken without trope or figure. Weston :—What miracle is it, if it be not his body, and he spake only of the sacrament, as though it were his body ? But hearken what Chrysostom saith®: Quod summo honore dignum est, id tibi in terra ostendo. Nam quemadmodum in regis non parietes, non lectus aureus, sed regium corpus in throno sedens omnium prestantissimum est; Uta quoque in celis regium corpus, quod nunc in terra proponitur. Non angelos, non archan- gelos, non celos celorum, sed ipsum horum omnium Dominum tibi ostendo. Animad- vertis, quonam pacto quod omnium maximum est atque precipuum in terra, non conspicaris tantum, sed tangis, neque solum tangis, sed comedis, atque eo accepto do- mum redis. Absterge igitur ab omni sorde animam tuam. That is: “T shew forth that thing on the earth unto thee, which is worthy the greatest honour. For like as in the palace of kings, neither the walls, nor the sumptuous bed, but the body of kings sitting under the cloth of estate, and royal seat of ma- jesty, is of all things else the most excellent; so is in like manner the king’s body in heaven, which is now set before us on earth. I shew thee neither angels nor arch- angels, nor the heaven of heavens, but the very Lord and Master of all these things. Thou perceivest after what sort thou dost not only behold, but touchest, and not only touchest, but eatest, that which on the earth is the greatest and chiefest thing of all other; and when thou hast received the same, thou goest home: wherefore cleanse thy soul from all uncleanness®.” Chrysostom alleged by D. Weston, Hom. xxxiv. [*7°Q tis Tov Ocov piiavOpwrias’ 6 peta Tov matpos avw Kabywevos, Kata Tilv Wpav éxelvyv THV amavTwy KaTéxeTat Xepol, Kal didwow avToy Tots BovXopéevors wWepitTiEacbat Kal wepitaPetv. rot- ovat 06 TOUTO TavTES dia THY Oplapav THs Tic- tews.—Chrysost. de Sacerdotio, Lib. 111. ‘om. I. p. 382. | [® What follows is said by a scholar of Oxford, who was present, to have been “‘ the strongest argu- ment which was thought to blank him.’’—Foxe, Acts, Ist edit. p. 933. See Jenkyns.] [° Té ydp ravrwy Exel TYysLwTEpov TOUTE coL émi THs yas OciEw Keipevov. Worep yap év Tots Baot\elows TO TavTwY cenvoTEpov ov TorxXoL, OK 7 A aan oe 1 j dpocpos Xpucous, d\\@ TO Bacthikdy capa TO Kabyj- frevov émi Tov Opdvou" otTw Kat év Tots o’pavots 70 TOU Bacthéws cwpa. aa TOUTO cot vUV é~eo- Tw éml yas idetv. ob yap ayyéX\ous, ode apxay- yéXous, o6é oipavods Kai odpavods obpavav, aXX’ autov Tov ToUTwWY GoL OEikVUML OEeaTrOTHY. EldEs Kal Sd aoa ir SACRE ie Ween olX opas povov, a\\a Kal amTH; Kat OVX amTH TOS TO TaVTWY TLuLWTEpOY Opas él Yis; povov, dda Kal éobiers; Kai KaBwu oixadc dvayw- pets ; dtdopnye Tolvuy tHv Wuxyv.—Hom. xxiv. (al. 34.) Tom. X. p. 218.] 406 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. How the Upon this I conclude that the body of Christ is shewed us upon the earth. Christ is Cranmer :—What! upon the earth? No man seeth Christ upon the earth: he shewed us Se ‘ . . . oe uponthe jg seen with the eyes of our mind, with faith and spirit. sl Weston: —I pray you, what is it that seemeth worthy highest honour on the earth? It is the sacrament, or else the body of Christ ? Cranmer :—Chrysostom speaketh of the sacrament, and the body of Christ is shewed forth in the sacrament. Weston :—Ergo, Then the sacrament is worthy greatest honour. Cranmer :—I deny the argument. This word | Weston :—That thing is shewed forth and is now in the earth, ostenditur et est, in Chryso- which is worthy highest honour : 2 But only the body of Christ is worthy highest honour: This argu- Ergo, The body of Christ is now on the earth. Weston, Cranmer :—I answer, the body of Christ to be on the earth, but so as in a only upon sacrament, and as the Holy Ghost is in the water of baptism. in the second Weston :—Chrysostom saith, ostendo, “T shew forth;” which noteth a substance figure, hath no perfect to be present. ea Cranmer :—That is to be understanded sacramentally. Weston:—He saith, ostendo in terra, “I shew forth on the earth;” declaring also the place where. Cranmer :—That is to be understand figuratively. Weston :—He is shewed forth and is now on the earth, &c. as before. Cranmer Cranmer :—Your major and conclusion are all one. answereth to = 5 A ° 5 the place of Weston :—But the major is true. rgo, the conclusion also is true. Chrysostom, ° : . : . how Christ is That thing is on the earth, which is worthy of most high honour : shewed forth on the earth, But no figure is worthy of highest honour : not bodily, 5 A ° but ina sa- Ergo, That which is on the earth is no figure. crament, that : is, sacrament- Cranmer :—I answer, that is true sacramentally. ally and . . “77° . figuratively. Here Weston crieth to him that he should answer to one part, bidding him repeat his words. Which when he went about to do, such was the noise and crying out in the school, that his mild voice could not be heard. For when he went about to Weston falsi- declare to the people how the prolocutor did not well English the words of _Chryso- Epa stom, using for ostenditur in terra, “he is shewed forth on the earth,” est in terra, “he is on the earth;”’ whereas Chrysostom hath not est, nor any such word of being on the earth, but only of shewing, as the grace of the Holy Ghost in baptismo osten- ditur, i.e. “is shewed forth in baptism ;” and oftentimes did inculcate this word, ostenditur: then the prolocutor, stretching forth his hand, set on the rude people to cry out at him, filling all the school with hissing, clapping of hands, and noise ; Unreverend calling him indoctum, imperitum, impudentem ; i.e. “ unlearned, unskilful, impudent :” words used in “ . . . the School Which impudent and reproachful words this reverend man most patiently and meekly torcranmer. did abide, as one that had been inured with the suffering of such like reproaches. And when the prolocutor, not yet satisfied with this rude and unseemly demeanour, did urge and call upon him to answer the argument, then he bade the notary repeat his words again. Notary :—That which is worthy most high honour, here I shew forth to thee in earth: The body of Christ is worthy highest honour: Ergo, He sheweth forth the body of Christ here in earth. Bie Doay of Cranmer : — That is shewed forth here on the earth which may be seen, which shewed forth may be touched, and which may be eaten; but these things be not true of the to us here in earth divers body. realing of Cole: —Why should not these things be true of the body of Christ ? e scrip- . . . tures, some- Cranmer: —The major out of Chrysostom is true, meaning of the sacrament: times in hear- S - 85 . ing sermons, for in the sacrament the true body of Christ, and not the figurative body, is set and alsoin sacraments ; forth 5 and yet nei- = = ° ther the Weston :—Shew me somewhat in earth worthy greatest honour. scriptures, - ° ‘ nor sermons, Cranmer :—I cannot, but in the sacrament only. DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 407 Weston :—Ergo, The sacrament is worthy greatest honour. Cranmer :—So it is. Judges :—Let it be written. Cranmer : —I pray you, let my answer be written likewise. I affirm, that the body of Christ is shewed forth unto us. It is our faith that seeth Christ. Weston: — Ostendo tibi, i.e. “I shew it to thee,” saith Chrysostom, not to thy faith. Cranmer :—He speaketh sacramentally. Weston :—Ergo, Chrysostom lieth. For he, speaking of shewing, saith, yo Chrysostomus ostendo; i. e. “I Chrysostom do shew.” But he can shew nothing sacramentally. Chedsey:—By force of argument we are brought to this point, that the body of Christ is proved to be on earth, not only sacramentally, but in very deed also, by this reason, that it is worthy highest honour. The reason is indissoluble. Cranmer :—I never heard a more vain argument, and it is most vain: also it hath mine answer unto it. Chedsey :—Will you affirm, that it is absurd which Chrysostom saith, that the body of Christ is touched ? I touch the body of Christ in the sacrament, as Thomas touched Christ : Thomas touched Christ, and said, Dominus meus, Deus meus; “My Lord, my God :” Ergo, That which he touched was the Lord God. q This argument, as I received it out of the Notary’s book, is not formal; but rather he should conclude in the third figure thus : Da- As Thomas touched the body of Christ, so we touch it in the sacrament: ti- Thomas touched the body of Christ corporally : si. Ergo, We touch the body of Christ corporally in the sacrament. Cranmer :—I deny your argument. He touched not God, but him which was God. Neither is it sound doctrine to affirm, that God is touched. Chedsey :—This is because of the union: so that God is said to be touched, when Christ, which is both God and man, is touched. . Tertullian, De Carnis Resurrectione, saith: Videamus de propria christiani ho- minis forma, quanta huic substantie frivole et sordide apud Deum prerogativa sit. Lisi sufficeret Whi quod nulla omnino anima salutem posset adipisci, nisi dum est in carne crediderit: adeo caro salutis cardo est, de qua cum anima Deo alligatur, ipsa est que efficit ut anima alligari possit ; sed et caro abluitur, ut anima emaculetur ; caro inungitur, ut anima consecretur ; signatur, ut anima muniatur; caro manus impositione adumbratur, ut anima Spiritu Uluminetur ; caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut anima de Deo saginetur'. That is to say: “Let us consider, as concerning the proper form of the christian man, what great prerogative this vain and foul substance of ours hath with God. Although it were sufficient to it, that no soul could ever get salvation, unless it believe while it is in the flesh: so much the flesh availeth to salvation, by the which flesh it cometh, that whereas the soul so is linked unto God, it is the said flesh that causeth the soul to be linked: yet the flesh moreover is washed, that the soul may be cleansed ; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed, that the soul may be defended ; the flesh is shadowed by the imposition of hands, that the soul may be illuminated with the Spirit; the flesh doth eat the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fed of God.” Whereupon I gather this argument: The flesh eateth the body of Christ : Firgo, The body of Christ is eaten with the mouth. [' Tertullian. De Resurrectione Carnis, cap. viii. p. 330. Ed. Paris. 1664. ] nor sacra- ments are to be worship- ped. The argu- ment of Ched- sey is not formal. God cannot be touched. Tertull. de Resurree- tione Carnis. Quod sym- bolorum est, rei attribu- itur. Argument. Photius, 1 Cor. xi. Photius alleged by Chedsey. Answer to Tertullianus. D. Weston urgeth him with the words of Tertullian. Inwardly we eat the body, outwardly the sacra- ment. The form of this argu- ment which he repeateth, stood better before: for the form of 408 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. Item Phocéus, ] ad Cor. cap. xi. upon these words: Reus erit corporis et san- guinis', &e. ‘O Boyos Tov GwyaTos Kal Tov aiwaros, TovTO Onroi, bt: KabdrEp TapédwKe pev avtov 0 ‘lovéas, tapwvncav eis avtov ot “lovéato1, ovTws atyaCovew [Lavrov oi to Tavayiov @UTOV caLa xeprw] axabaptos dexomevor, ws “lovdator KpaTouvTes aUTOV TOTE, Kal KaTapaTo m poapepovTes oTomatt dia 6€ TO el7eEW TOANaKIS, Tov FwpaTos Kal Tov aiuatos Tov Kupiov, énAot, O71 Loux ] av0pwros Wirtos o Bvopevos, GAN aitos o Kupios 6 momtis Tavtwv, ws onbev Sia TovTwy ExpoBwv avtous: i.e. Quod ait, * Reus corporis et sanguinis, istud declarat, quod sicuti Judas ipsum quidem tradidit, Judai contu- meliose in ipsum insaniebant ; sic ipsum inhonorant qui sanctissimum ipsius corpus impuris manibus suscipiunt, Let] tanquam Judai ipsi tenent et execrabili ore reci- piunt. Quod crebro mentionem facit corporis et sanguinis Domini, manifestat, quod non sit simplex homo qui sacrificatur, sed ipse Dominus omnium factor, tanquam per hac quidem ipsos perterrefaciens. That is to say: ““ Whereas he saith, ‘Is guilty of the body and blood, this he declareth, that like as Judas betrayed him, and the Jews were fierce and spiteful against him ; so do they dishonour him, which receive his holy body with their impure hands, and as the Jews did hold him then, do now receive him with unpure mouths. And whereas he often maketh mention of the body and blood of the Lord, he declareth that it is not simply man that is sacrificed, but even the Lord himself, being the Maker of all things ; hereby, as it were, making them afraid.” Ergo, (as it is hereby gathered,) the body of Christ is touched with the hands. Cranmer :—You vouch two authors against me upon sundry things. First, I must answer Tertullian, and then the other. Chedsey :—They tend both to one meaning. Cranmer :—Unto Tertullian I answer, (because our disputation is wandering and uncertain,) that he calleth that the flesh which is the sacrament. For although God work all things in us invisibly, beyond man’s reach, yet they are so manifest, that they may be seen and perceived of every sense. Therefore he setteth forth baptism, unction, and last of all the supper of the Lord unto us, which he gave to signify his operation in us. The flesh liveth by the bread, but the soul is inwardly fed by Christ. Weston :—Stick to those words of Tertullian, Corpus vescitur, ut anima sagi- netur ; i.e. “The body eateth, that the soul may be fed.” Chedsey :—The flesh eateth the body of Christ, that the soul may be fed therewith. Weston :—Here you see two kinds of food, of the soul and of the body. Chedsey :—He saith, that not only the soul, but the flesh is also fed. Cranmer :—The soul is fed with the body of Christ, the body with the sacrament. Chedsey :—Is the soul fed with the body of Christ, and not with the sacrament ? Cranmer :—Read that which followeth, and you shall perceive, that by things external an operation internal is understand. Inwardly we eat Christ’s body, sid outwardly we eat the sacrament. So one thing is done outwardly, another inwardly: like as in baptism the external element, whereby the body is washed, is one; so the internal thing, whereby the soul is cleansed, is another. Chedsey :—The soul is fed by that which the body eateth: But the soul is fed by the flesh of Christ : Ergo, The body eateth the flesh of Christ. Cranmer :—We eat not one thing outwardly and inwardly: inwardly we eat Christ’s body ; outwardly we eat the sacrament. Chedsey :—I will repeat the argument. The flesh eateth Christ’s body, that the soul may be fed therewith: The soul is not fed with the sacrament, but with Christ’s body : Ergo, The flesh eateth the body of Christ. [! Photius apud Ccumen. Tom. I. p. 632. Paris. 1631.) [? Not in Foxe, Ed. 1583.) — | | { DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 409 Cranmer :—The sacrament is one thing; the matter of the sacrament is another. this con- nexion an- Outwardly we receive the sacrament ; inwardly we eat the body of Christ. swereth to Chedsey :—\ prove that we receive that outwardly wherewith the soul is fed. ete The soul is fed with the body of Christ : of syllogisms. Ergo, We eat the body of Christ outwardly. Consequence. The flesh eateth Christ his body : Consequence. Ergo, The soul is fed therewith. Cranmer: —The flesh, I say, eateth the sacrament; it eateth not Christ’s body, Answer. For Tertullian speaketh of the sacrament; and the place hath not inde, “ thereof,” but de Deo, “ of God.” Chedsey :—What say ye to Photius’ saying? ‘They which receive the body with impure hands are guilty of the Lord’s blood, as Judas was.” Weston :—That which followeth in Tertullian doth take away your shift, where as he saith, Non possunt ergo separari in mercede, quos opera conjungit; i.e. “ They cannot be separated in reward, whom one work joineth together.” But manducation is the work or labour: Hrgo, &c. The form of this argument may be thus collected: Da- One work or labour joineth body and soul together : vi- Manducation is a work or labour: i. Ergo, One manducation joineth together both body and soul. C= To the major of which argument thus it may be answered, . 4s the body and soul are joined 5 7 ? in the work of baptism, so are they xpounding the saying of Tertullian, Una opera conjungit ” , joined in the communion of the exp g t aying a) Uf YELLS) sed non Lord’s supper. For as the flesh is idem operandi modus. Again, opera here in Tertullian may be washed with water, that the soul may be purged spiritually; so our taken for temptations and afflictions. body eateth the outward sacrament, that the soul may be fed of God. Cranmer :—Your authority, I suppose, is taken out of the book De Reswr- Answer to rectione Carnis, i.e. “Of the Resurrection of the Flesh.” And the meaning thereof De Hesurrect. is this: Tertullian goeth about there to prove, that the flesh shall rise again, because it is joined together in one work with the soul. Through baptism in this world the body is washed, and the soul is washed: the body outwardly, the soul inwardly ; the work is one. In this work they are joined. And he speaketh of signs. Weston :—He speaketh of eating in a sign: firgo, The reward is in a sign. Cranmer :—They are coupled in one work, namely, in the sacrament. Weston :—There are two works: Ergo, There are two rewards. If the work be in a figure ; Ergo, The reward is in a figure. Cranmer :—He speaketh not of two works. Two works are but one work. -And yet he saith not, Quos una opera conjungit, i.e. “Whom one work Joineth to- gether;” but opera, i.e. “a work:” as in baptism the soul and the body are joined in understanding. Weston :—The flesh and soul shall have one and the selfsame reward, because they have one work. Cranmer :—Because they be joined together in one work. Tresham :—Forasmuch as the reverend doctors here have impugned and over- p. tresham thrown your assertion and your answers sufficiently, I will fall to another matter, “?'t™ not altogether impertinent to the purpose, and that in a few words, against a Berni sequel of your opinion. The sequel is this: that between us and Christ there is no further conjunction, whiles we receive the eucharist, than a conjunction of the mind or a spiritual conjunction, whereby we are united and knit unto Christ through faith and love. As for the presence of Christ, concerning the substance, that you utterly deny. Whereupon in very deed you leave but a spiritual union and joining together of mind. Howbeit you would seem to think otherwise by your subtle an- swers. But I will declare by manifest testimonies of the fathers, that this your sequel, which you account so sure, is far wide from the truth. And I will begin Hilary. Conjunction between Christand us. Answer to Hilary. Bucer con- tra Abrin- censem alleged by Tresham. Christ com- municated and united to us by birth, by unity of the church, by the com- munion, by baptism, by faith. 410 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. with St Hilary, who is both an ancient and a learned author. For disputing against the Arians, octavo De Trinitate, he saith, that this was their opinion, that the Father and the Son are conjoined only through unity of will, Whereupon Arius himself, when scripture was alleged against him, did (as you do now) elude the right meaning of it by his false interpretations. But the catholic church hath always believed, and ever maintained, that Christ is one with the Father in nature, and not by con- sent of will only. To the proof whereof when the catholics vouched this testimony of John, Pater et ego unum sumus, i.e. “The Father and I are one;” the Arians answered, that wnwm sumus was to be understand by the assent of their wills and agreement of their minds, not by unity of their natures. Thus it happeneth now-a- days, where men do doubt of the sacrament. But Hilary going on, and proving the natural conjunction between the Father and the Son a@ fortiori, questioneth with his adversaries after this manner: “I demand of them now, which will needs have the unity of will only between the Father and the Son, whether Christ be now in us truly by nature, or only by the agreement of wills? If,” saith he, “the Word be incarnate in very deed, and we receive at the Lord’s table the Word made flesh, how then is he to be thought not to dwell in us naturally, who, being born man, hath both taken the nature of our flesh upon him, that is now inseparable, and hath also mingled the nature of his own flesh unto the nature of eternity under the sacrament of his flesh to be communicated unto us'?” Thus much hath Hilary. Whereupon I ask of you this question: How Christ dwelleth now in us? according to faith, or ac- cording to nature ? Cranmer :—\ say that Christ dwelleth verily in us carnally and naturally, for that he hath taken of the virgin our flesh upon him, and because he hath communi- cated his nature unto us. Tresham :—Bucer, Contra Abrincensem, referreth these words only to the eucha- rist, saying, “Christ doth exhibit all this unto us in his holy supper ;” and according to the holy fathers, saith he, “Christ liveth thereby in us, not only by faith and love, as absent, but naturally, corporally, and carnally*.”. Wherefore he is not absent, neither are we joined to Christ only by a spiritual union, as you suppose, but also by a cor- poral and carnal union. Cranmer :—\ know that Master Bucer was a learned man: but your faith is in good case, which leaneth upon Bucer. Tresham :—I do not bring Bucer as a patron of our faith, but because he is a man of your sort, and yet bringeth this place of Hilary for that union which we have by the sacrament, and confesseth that by it we are carnally united to Christ, whereas you think that we are joined by it only through faith and love. Cranmer :—I1 say that Christ was communicated unto us, not only by faith, but in very deed also, when he was born of the virgin. We have fellowship with Christ, when we are united in the unity of the church, when we are made flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones; and so we are united in the communion, in baptism, and in faith. Tresham:—I pray you, what fellowship have we with Christ, in that he is made man? Are not the Turks and Jews therein joined with him? for they are men as we are, and are joined with him in man’s nature, in that he was born of a woman. I speak now of a more near unity: we are made one with Christ by the communion in a perfect unity. p- 133. Ed. Basil. 1535. ] [2 Bucer. Script. Angl. p. 616. Ex quo loco et iis que Dominus in Joan. v1. de manducatione car- [} Eos nunc qui inter Patrem et Filium vo- luntatis ingerunt unitatem, interrogo utrumne per nature veritatem hodie Christus in nobis sit, an per concordiam voluntatis? Si enim vere Verbum caro factum est, et nos vere Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quomodo non na- turaliter manere in nobis existimandus est, qui et naturam carnis nostre jam inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpsit, et naturam carnis sue ad naturam zwternitatis sub sacramento nobis communicande carnis admiscuit ?—Hilar. de Trinitate, Lib. v111. nis sue disseruit, sancti patres Hilarius, Chryso- stomus, Cyrillus, et ceteri affirmarunt Dominum Jesum in nobis habitare et vivere non jam per fidem solum et dilectionem, ceu absens, sed etiam natu- raliter, carnaliter, et corporaliter, quia suam naturam et carnem nobis communicat, suaque nos membra esse efficit, idque omne nobis in sacra eucharistia exhibet.] DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 41] Cranmer :—We are made so, I grant: but we are made so also by baptism ; Weare and the unity in baptism is perfect. Christ by Tresham :—We are not made one by baptism in a perfect unity, as Hilary there nion, #0 as speaketh, but by the communion, by which we are carnally made one, but not like- ae! wise by baptism: wherefore you understand not Hilary. You shall hear his words, Objeetion which are these: “He had now declared afore the sacrament of his perfect union, pales saying, ‘As the living Father sent me, so do I also live by the Father; and, ‘ He that eateth my flesh, shall also live through me.’” And a little after that he writeth thus: “ This truly is the cause of our life, that we have Christ dwelling by his flesh in us that are fleshly, which also by him shall live in such sort as he liveth by his Father*®.” Wherefore of these words it is manifest, that we obtain this perfect unity by means of the sacrament, and that Christ by it is carnally united unto us. Cranmer :—Nay, Hilary in that same place doth teach, that it is done by bap- Answer to . . ° the place of tism: and that doctrine is not to be suffered in the church, which teacheth, that we Hite ne are not joined to Christ by baptism. Weston:—Repeat the argument. Cranmer :—You must first make an argument. Tresham :—It is made already, but it shall be made again in this form: Da- As Christ liveth by his Father, so they that eat Christ’s flesh live by the same Argument. flesh : ti- But Christ liveth by the Father, not only by faith and love, but naturally : si. Ergo, We live, not through the eating of Christ’s flesh by faith and love only, but naturally. Cranmer :—We live by Christ, not only by faith and love, but eternally indeed. Tresham :—Nay, naturally. I prove it thus: The papists As Christ liveth by the Father, so live we by his flesh eaten of us; one word ie . “naturally” But Christ liveth not by his Father only by faith and love, but naturally : confound emselves. Therefore we do not live by eating of Christ’s flesh only by faith and love, as xOnetoe natural body of Christ 7ou suppose, but naturally. ‘ a we ; ‘ were eaten, Cranmer :—The minor is not true. eae Tresham:—This is the opinion of Arius, that Christ is united to his Father into our by conjunction of mind, and not naturally. should ee Cranmer :—I say not so yet, neither do I think so. But I will tell you what the nature of I like not in your minor. You say, that Christ doth not live by his Father only being imma- by faith and love: but I say, that Christ liveth not at all by his faith. i now ais immortal, Weston :—Mark and consider well this word “by faith,” lest any occasion of our bodies, cavilling be given. Haniel Tresham:—Let that word “by faith” be omitted. Neither did I mean, that Panera Christ liveth by his Father through faith. Yet the strength of the argument remain- eae aaa eth in force. For else Hilary doth not confute the Arians, except there be a greater nor die. ; conjunction between us and Christ, when he is eaten of us, than only a spiritual con- remaineth, i junction. You do only grant an union. As for a carnal or natural union of the tural uniting : en, mae ‘ to Christ’s substance of flesh, by which we are joined more than spiritually, you do not grant. body cometh not by the But our Lord Jesus give you a better mind, and shew you the light of his truth, boaily eating of the sacra- that you may return into the way of righteousness ! oi Mevsacts Weston :—We came hither to dispute, and not to pray. puT bey), Tresham:—Is it not lawful to pray for them that err? po enaleer Weston :—It is not lawful yet. But proceed. a lbagth un, Tresham :—Again I reason thus : As Christ liveth by his Father, after the same eee manner do we live by the eating of his flesh : Hence But Christ liveth not by his Father only in unity of will, but naturally : be granted Tread oa bodies never die, nor see [? Perfecte autem hujus unitatis sacramentum _ ergo vita nostra causa est, quod in nobis carnalibus ¢o™UPtiOn. superius jam docuerat, dicens: “‘Sicut me misit The same manentem per carnem Christum habemus; victuris argument vivens Pater, et ego vivo per Patrem, et qui man- | nobis per eum ea conditione qua vivit ille per agen Le i : : hie : peated. ducat meam carnem, et ipse vivet per me.”’..,... Hac | Patrem.—Hilar. de Trinitate, Lib. vii. p. 134. ] ee 412 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. Answer. Ergo, We do not live, when we eat the flesh of Christ, only by faith and unity The arch- . bishop re. Of will, but naturally. Lecetorn ag Cranmer :—This is my faith, and it agreeth with the scripture: Christ liveth Christ not by his Father naturally, and maketh us to live by himself in deed naturally, and manhood; that not only in the sacrament of the eucharist, but also in baptism. For infants, divinena- when they are baptized, do eat the flesh of Christ. ture, liveth separa ly BY Weston :—Answer either to the whole argument, or to the parts thereof. For which divine this areument is strong, and cannot be dissolved. nature of his 5 ss FEC UNEES Cranmer :—This is the argument : in his man- aye r es hood anim. As Christ liveth by his Father, after the same manner do we live by his flesh, our spirit being eaten of us: and soul, > ae oe But Christ liveth not by his Father only in unity of will, but naturally: of Christ in Ergo, We eating his flesh do not live only by faith and love, but naturally. the mysteries, - 5 ? ’ bye) But the major is false; namely, that by the same manner we live by Chmist, fieusnie of as he liveth by his Father. that is, his Weston :—Hilary saith, ‘“‘ After the same manner;” these be his words: “He Justification, that eateth my flesh shall live by me:” rgo, Christ liveth by his Father; and as operation he liveth by his Father, after the same manner we shall live by his flesh. Here redounding you see that Hilary saith, “ After the same manner.” qur bodies, Cranmer :—* After the same manner” doth not signify, “like in all things,” but “in the same also deed and eternally :” for so do we live by Christ, and Christ liveth by his Father. For tesa "in other respects Christ liveth otherwise by his Father, than we live by Christ. ory 2 immortality. Weston :—He liveth by his Father naturally and eternally: is true, that Ergo, We live by Christ naturally and eternally. Tveth natu. Cranmer: — We do not live naturally, but by grace, if you take “naturally” for rally by his . Father, so the manner of nature. As Christ hath eternal life of his Father, so have we of him. Lea Weston :—I stick to this word “ naturally.” b th bod: . . . . . ob Christ Cranmer :—I mean it touching the truth of nature: for Christ liveth otherwise eaten in the taysteries, Dy his Father, than we live by Christ. having re- = . a se . . aus . . . spect both to Weston : — Hilary, in his eighth book De Trinitate, denieth it, when he saith, the manhood ¢¢ ena “He liveth therefore by his Father; and as he liveth by his Father, after the same of us shor Manner we shall live by his flesh.” raped ot Cranmer :—We shall live after the same manner, as concerning the nature of the ba fet flesh of Christ: for as he hath of his Father the nature of eternity, so shall we have pe Of. iris joined to Weston :—Answer unto the parts of the argument: so our fea As Christ liveth by his Father, after the same manner shall we liye by his flesh: naturally by Bata hnst doth not live by his Father only in unity of will, but naturally: recess Ergo, We, eating his flesh, do not live only by faith and love, but naturally. (forthen Cranmer :—I grant, as I said, we live by Christ naturally ; but I never heard CLs yas that Christ liveth with his Father in unity of will. eae Weston: — Because it seemeth a marvel unto you, hear what Hilary saith: naturally by ¢é¢ ino = s : a . . . a nauraly 2, hese things are recited of us to this end; because the heretics, feigning an unity ee sg of will only between the Father and the Son, did use the example of our unity pee ae with God; as though that we being united to the Son, and by the Son to the truly eatet® Father, only by obedience and will of religion, had no propriety of the natural com- alla ae munion by the sacrament of the body and blood !.” om But answer to the argument. _Christ liveth by his Father naturally and eter- faithful 6 nally: therefore do we live by Christ naturally and eternally. the body of Cranmer :—Cyril and Hilary do say, that Christ is united to us, not only by as ee will, but also by nature: he doth communicate to us his own nature, and so is Christ natural pro- perties of te Boas of [! Hee autem idcirco a nobis commemorata | ac voluntate religionis unitis, nulla per sacramen- SNanITE sunt, quia yoluntatis tantum inter Patrem et Fi- | tum carnis et sanguinis naturalis communionis pro- ae ed. Jium unitatem heretici mentientes unitatis nostre | prietas indulgeretur.— Hilar. de Trinitate. Lib. e argu- ment the ad Deum utebantur exemplo, tanquam nobis ad | vuit. p. 139.) thing ae Filium et per Filium ad Patrem obsequio tantum repeated. DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 413 made one with us carnally and corporally, because he took our nature of the virgin Mary. And Hilary doth not say only that Christ is naturally in us, but that we also are naturally in him and in the Father; that is, that we are partakers of their nature, which is eternity, or everlastingness. For as the Word, receiving our nature, did join it unto himself in unity of person, and did communicate unto that our na- ture the nature of his eternity; that like as he, being the everlasting Word of the Father, had everlasting life of the Father, even so he gave the same nature to his flesh: likewise also did he communicate with us the same nature of eternity, which he and the Father have, and that we should be one with them, not only in will and love, but that we should be also partakers of the nature of everlasting life. Weston :—Hilary, where he saith, “Christ communicated to us bis nature,” meaneth that, not by his nativity, but by the sacrament. Cranmer :—UHe hath communicated to us his flesh by his nativity. Weston:—We have communicated to him our flesh when he was born. Cranmer :—Nay, he communicated to us his flesh when he was born, and that I will shew you out of Cyril upon this place, Ht homo factus est. Weston :—Ergo, Christ, being born, gave us his flesh. Cranmer :—TIn his nativity he made us partakers of his flesh. Weston :—Write, sirs?. Cranmer :—Yea, write. Chedsey :—This place of Hilary is so dark, that you were compelled to falsify it in your book, because you could not draw it to confirm your purpose: “Tf Christ have taken verily the flesh of our body, and the man that was verily born of the virgin Mary is Christ, and also we do receive under the true mys- tery the flesh of his body, by means whereof we shall be one, (for the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us,) how shall that be called the unity of will? when tbe natu- ral property, brought to pass by the sacrament, is the sacrament of unity. We must not speak in the sense of man, or of the world, in matters concerning God ; neither must we perversely wrest any strange or wicked sense out of the wholesome meaning of the holy scripture, through impudent and violent contention. Let us read those things that are written, and let us understand those things that we read, and then we shall perform the duty of perfect faith. For as touching that natural and true being of Christ in us, except we learn of him, we speak foolishly and ungodly that thing that we do speak. For he saith, ‘My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink in- deed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.’ As touching the verity of his flesh and blood, there is left no place of doubt: for now, both by the testimony of the Lord, and also by our faith, it is verily flesh, and verily blood’.” Here you have falsified Hilary ; for you have set vero sub mysterio for vere sub mys- terio, “we receive truly under a mystery.” Hilary thrice reporteth cere sub mysterio, and you interpret it twice cere sub mysterio, but the third time you have vero for vere. Cranmer :—Assuredly I am not guilty of any deceit herein. It may be that the copy which I followed had sub vero mysterio, i.e. “ under a true mystery ;” although touching the sense it differeth little. God I call to witness, I have alway hated falsifying ; and if you had leisure and lust to hear false citations, I could recite unto you six hundred. [? A direction to the notaries. | [* Si vere igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit, et vere homo ille qui ex Maria natus fuit Christus est, nosque vere sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, et per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est, et ille in nobis; quomodo perversitas est. Que scripta sunt legamus, et que legerimus intelligamus, et tune perfecte fidei officio fungemur. De naturali enim in nobis Christi veritate que dicimus, nisi ab eo discimus, stulte atque impie dicimus. Ipse enim ait: ‘* Caro mea vere est esca, et sanguis meus vere est potus. Qui voluntatis unitas asseritur, cum naturalis per sacra- mentum proprietas perfecte sacramentum sit uni- tatis? Non est humano aut seculi sensu in Dei rebus loquendum, neque per violentam atque im- pudentem predicationem ccelestium dictorum sani- tati aliene atque impiz intelligentie extorquenda edit carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et ego in eo.” De veritate carnis et sanguinis non relictus est ambigendi locus; nunc enim et ipsius Domini professione et fide nostra vere caro est, et vere sanguis est.—Hilar. de Tri- nitate, Lib. vit. pp. 133, 34.] Ex exemplari manu Cranmeri descripto. “Naturally” expounded ; that is, our bodies do participate the nature and proper- ties of Christ’s holy and im- mortal body. Then had Christ a sin- ful fiesh. That is, made us partakers of the proper- ties, life, in- noceney, and resurrection of his body. D. Chedsey again dis- uteth. ilar. 8. De Trinitate. Thus far was their talk in English. Seeing Master Cranmer had twice ‘‘ vere,” and but onee “vero,” they had no cause to be grieved, but that they were disposed to finda knot in a rush. Here D. Cole beginneth to carp. D. Yong cometh in with his socratical in- terrogations. D. Yong’s sophistical interroga- tories. This syllo- gism, speak- ing of a figure, hath no perfect “form nor figure. 414 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. Weston :—Here shall be shewed you two copies of Hilary, the one printed at Basil; the other at Paris. Cranmer :—I1 suppose that Doctor Smith’s books hath vero. Weston :—Here is Doctor Smith; let him answer for himself. M. Smith, M. Doctor, what say you for yourself? Speak, if you know it. Here Doctor Smith, either for the truth in his book alleged, or else astonied with Doctor Weston’s hasty calling, staid to answer: for he only put off his cap, and kept silence. Weston :—But your own book, printed by Wolfe your own printer, hath vere’. Cranmer :—That book is taken from me, which easily might have ended this controversy. I am sure the book of Decrees hath vero. Cole :—Now you admit the book of Decrees, when it maketh for you. Cranmer :—Touching the sense of the matter there is little difference. of one letter for another is but a small matter. Weston:—No is? Pastor, as you know, signifieth a “bishop,” and pistor sig- nifieth a “baker.” But pastor shall be pistor, a bishop shall be a baker, by this your change of one letter, if cere and vero do nothing change the sense. Cranmer :—Let it be so, that in pistor and pastor one letter maketh some dii- ference ; yet let pistor be either a baker or maker of bread, ye see here the change of a letter, and yet no great difference to be in the sense”. Yong:—This disputation is taken in hand, that the truth might appear. I per- ceive that I must go another way to work than I had thought. It is a common saying, Against him that denieth principles we must not dispute. Therefore, that we may agree of the principles, I demand, whether there be any other body of Christ than his instrumental body ? Cranmer :—There is no natural body of Christ but his organical body. Yong :—Again I demand, whether sense and reason ought to give place to faith ? Cranmer :—They ought. Yong :—Thirdly, whether Christ be true in all his words? Cranmer :—Yea, he is most true, and truth itself. Yong :—Fourthly, whether Christ at his supper minded to do that which he spake, or no? Cranmer :—Dicendo dixit, non fecit dicendo ; sed fecit discipulis sacramentum ; i.e. In saying he spake, but in saying he made not ; but made the sacrament to his disciples. Yong :—Answer according to the truth. Whether did Christ that, as God and man, which he spake, when he said, “This is my body”? Cranmer :—This is a sophistical cavillation. Go plainly to work. There is some deceit in these questions. You seek subtleness. Leave your crafty fetches. Yong:—I demand, whether Christ by these words wrought any thing or no? Cranmer :—He did institute the sacrament. Yong :—But answer, whether did he work any thing? Cranmer :—He did work in instituting the sacrament. Yong :—Now I have you; for before you said it was a figurative speech: But a figure worketh nothing: Ergo, It is not a figurative speech. The change A liar ought to have a good memory. [! Several editions of Foxe, 1570, 1576, 1583, 1641, 1684, read here vero, but that of 1563 has vere. As to Cranmer’s “own book printed by Wolfe,” the “ Defence” printed by him in 1550 does net contain the original passage of Hilary, but it stands in the translation ‘‘under the true mystery,’’ which of course assumes vero to be in the original. In Cranmer’s “ Reply to Gardiner,” printed by Wolfe in 1553. It will be seen from the above reference, that Gardiner had first quoted vero from his “first copy,’’ as he calls it, which he afterwards corrected to vere (see p. 162.); but what that “first copy” was, or how the wrong reading got into it, it is not now easy to ascertain. In five editions of Gratian which have been examined, viz. Paris 1517 and 1528, Antwerp 1573, and Lugd. 1525 and 1624, the in 1551, the original passage is not cited by Cran- mer, but is inserted in Cranmer’s work as quoted by Gardiner, and there read correctly vere. (See p. 161. of this volume.) The same reading appears also in the Latin edition of the “ Defence’’ published reading is uniformly vere.—See further the extracts from Foxe printed below, p. 428.] [2 This answer of Cranmer is not found in the first edition of Foxe. ] DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 415 Cranmer :—I1 understood your sophistry before. You by working understand converting into the body of Christ: but Christ wrought the sacrament, not in con- verting, but in instituting. Yong:—Woe to them that make Christ a deceiver! Did he work any other thing than he spake, or the selfsame thing ? Cranmer :—He wrought the sacrament, and by these words he signified the effect. Fes- Yong :—A figurative speech is no working thing : ti- But the speech of Christ is working: no. Ergo, It is not figurative. Cranmer :—It worketh by instituting, not by converting. Yong:—The thing signified in the sacrament, is it not in that sacrament ? Cranmer :—It is. For the thing is ministered in a sign. He followeth the letter, Ane that taketh the thing for the sign. Augustine separateth the sacrament from the thing®, St Austin. “The sacrament,” saith he, “is one, and the thing of the sacrament another.” Weston :—Stick to this argument. It is a figurative speech : Ergo, It worketh nothing. Yong :—But the speech of Christ is a working thing: Ergo, It is not figurative. Cranmer :—Oh, how many crafts are in this argument! They are mere fallacies. I said not, that the words of Christ do work, but Christ himself; and he worketh by a figurative speech. Weston :—If a figure work, it maketh of bread the body of Christ. Cranmer :—A figurative speech worketh not. Weston :—A figurative speech, by your own confession, worketh nothing: But the speech of Christ in the supper, as you grant, wrought somewhat: Ergo, the speech of Christ in the supper was not figurative. Cranmer :—I answer, these are mere sophisms: the speech doth not work, but the figura- Christ by the speech doth work the sacrament. Saree I look for scriptures at your hands; for they are the foundation of disputations‘. Christ by Yong :—Are not these words of scripture, “This is my body;” “The word of Heenan Christ is of strength;” and “ By the Lord’s words the heavens were made”? He Seis said, “This is my body :” Ergo, He made it. Cranmer :—He made the sacrament; and I deny your argument. Yong:—If he wrought nothing, nothing is left there. He said, “This is my body.” You say, contrary to the scriptures, it is not the body of Christ; and fall from the faith. Cranmer :—You interpret the scriptures contrary to all the old writers, and feign a strange sense. Yong :—Ambrosius, De iis qui initiantur Sacris, cap. ix., saith: De totius mundi ambros. de operibus legisti, quia “ Ipse diait, et facta sunt ; ipse mandavit, et creata sunt.” Sermo pa re Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea que sunt in id? * mutare que non erant 2 Non enim minus est novas res dare, quam mutare naturas. Sed quid argumentis utimur? Suis utamur exemplis, incarnationisque exemplo ad- struamus mysteri. veritatem. Numquid nature usus precessit, cum Dominus Jesus ex Maria nasceretur? Si ordinem querimus, viro mixta foemina generare consuevit. Liquet igitur, quod preter nature ordinem virgo generavit; et hoe quod conficimus corpus ex virgine est. Quid hic queris nature ordinem in Christi corpore, cum preter naturam sit ipse Dominus Jesus partus ea virgine? Vera utique caro Christi, que crucifixa est, que sepulta est: vere ergo illius sacramentum est. Clamat Dominus Jesus, “ Hoe est corpus meum.” Ante benedictionem verborum colestium (alia’) species nominatur ; post consecrationem corpus significatur. Ipse dicit sanguinem suum. [3 Decret. Gratian. in Corpus Juris Canon. De [* Afters doctores, expecto scripturas.—Cambr. Consecr. Dist. ii. “ Hoc est.” Tom. 1. col. 1936. | MS. Kk. 5.14. Jenkyns’s Cranmer, Vol. IV. p. 51.] Ed. Lugd. 1618.) [° Not in original text. ] 416 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. Ante consecrationem aliud dicitur: post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. Et tu dicis, ‘Amen,’ hoc est, ‘ Verum est.’ Quod os loquitur, mens interna fateatur: quod sermo sonat, affectus sentiat?. That is to say; “Thou hast read of the works of all the world, that ‘He spake the word, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created. Cannot the word of Christ, which made of nothing that which was not, change those things that are into that they were not? For it is no less matter to give new things than to change natures. AsChrist But what use we arguments? Let us use his own examples, and let us confirm the Jesus was . as . . conceived Verity of the mystery by example of his incarnation. Did the use of nature go before, against the . orderof When the Lord Jesus was born of Mary? If you seek the order of nature, conception nature, so . ee . . inthein- is wont to be made by a woman joined toa man. It is manifest therefore, that contrary stituting of Aste a 5 0 . thissacra-. to the order of nature a virgin did conceive; and this that we make is the body of? the Greece virgin. What seekest thou here the order of nature in the body of Christ, when against hottobe the order of nature the Lord Jesus was conceived of a virgin? It was the true flesh noua of Christ which was crucified, and which was buried: therefore it is truly the sacra- ment of him. The Lord Jesus himself crieth, ‘This is my body.’ Before the blessing of the heavenly words it is named another kind; but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified. He calleth it his blood. Before consecration it is called another thing: after consecration it is called blood. And thou sayest, ‘Amen; that is, ‘It is true. That the mouth speaketh, let the inward mind confess; that the word soundeth, let the heart perceive.” Ambrosius, The same Ambrose, in his fourth book of Sacraments, the fourth chapter, saith thus: mentis. cap. Panis iste panis est ante verba sacramentorum ; ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane : fit caro Christi. Hoc agitur adstruamus. Quomodo potest, qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? consecratione. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis est, et cujus sermonibus? Do- mini Jesu. Nam (ad*) reliqua omnia que dicuntur, laus Deo defertur, oratione petitur* pro populo, pro regibus, pro ceteris. Ubi venitur ut conficiatur venerabile sacramentum, jam non suis sermonibus sacerdos utitur, sed sermonibus Christi’. Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit sacramentum. Quis sermo? Nempe is quo facta sunt omnia. Jussit Dominus, et factum est coelum; jussit Dominus, et facta est terra; jussit Dominus, et facta sunt maria, &§c. Vides ergo quam operatorius sit sermo Christi. Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini, ut inciperent esse que non erant, quanto magis operatorius est, ut (sint®) que erant, et in aliud commutentur®? That is to say: The words “This bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when the consecration fr English; cometh to it, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Let us confirm this therefore. How can that which is bread, by consecration be the body of Christ? By what words then is the consecration made, and by whose words? By the words of our Lord Jesus. For touching all other things that are said, praise is given to God, prayer is made for the people, for kings, and for the rest. When it cometh that the reverend sacrament must be made, then the priest useth not his own words, but the words of Christ: therefore the word of Christ maketh this sacrament. What word? That But the Lord word by which all things were made. The Lord commanded, and heaven was made ; ised notsuch the Lord commanded, and the earth was made; the Lord commanded, and the seas used not such een were made; the Lord commanded, and all creatures. were made. Dost thou not see tince then, how strong in working the word of Christ is? If therefore so great strength ation i ere be in the Lord’s word, that those things should begin to be, which were not before; ‘fiat hoc cor) ow much the rather is it of strength to work, that these things which were, should pus meum,” op ea be changed into another thing ?” &e. ‘ Ambrose saith, that the words are of strength to work. [} Ambros. de Initiandis. Tom. IV. p. 166. | pro populo. Orig. text.] Ed. Colon. 1616. Vide supra, p. 210.] [° Jam non suis sermonibus sacerdos, sed utitur [? Of, i.e. from.] sermonibus Christi. Ibid.] [? Not in the original text. ] [® Ambros. de Sacramentis. Lib. 1v. cap. iv. [4 Laudem Deo deferunt: oratio premittitur | Tom. IV. p. 173. Vide supra, p. 210.] ———=— | DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 417 Weston: —You omit those words which follow, which maketh the sense of Ambrose plain. Read them. Yong :—Celum non erat, mare non erat, terra non erat. Sed audi dicentem : Ambros. de “ Inse dixit, et facta sunt; ipse mandavit, et creata sunt.” Kirgo tibi ut respondeam, nae non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem, sed post consecrationem. Dico tibi quod Aiwoiosis jam corpus Christi est’. That is: “ Heaven was not, the sea was not, the earth was not. Frobolordni: But hear him that said, ‘He spake the word, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created.’ Therefore, to answer thee, it was not the body of Christ before consecration, but after the consecration. I say to thee, that now it is the body of Christ.” Cranmer : — All these things are common. I say, that God doth chiefly work in the sacraments. Yong :—How doth he work ? Cranmer :—By his power, as he doth in baptism. Yong:—Nay, by the word he changeth the bread into his body. This is the truth: acknowledge the truth, give place to the truth. Cranmer :—O glorious words! you are too full of words. Yong:—Nay, O glorious truth! you make no change at all. Cranmer :—Not so, but I make a great change: as in them that are baptized is there not a great change, when the child of the bond-slave of the devil is made the son of God? So it is also in the sacrament of the supper, when he receiveth us into his protection and favour. Yong :—If he work in the sacraments, he worketh in this sacrament. Cranmer :—God worketh in his faithful, not in the sacraments. Weston:—In the supper the words are directed to the bread; in baptism, to the Spirit. He said not, The water is the Spirit; but of the bread he said, “This is my body.” Cranmer :—He called the Spirit a dove, when the Spirit descended in likeness As the dove of a dove. Spirit, a ae Weston®:—He doth not call the Spirit a dove; but he saith, that “he descended cehedye as a dove:” “he was seen in the likeness of a dove.” As in baptism the words are directed to him that is baptized, so in the supper the words are directed unto the bread. Cranmer : — Nay, it is written, “Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit Jonni. descending.” Ue calleth that which descended “the Holy Spirit.” And Augustine calleth the dove the Spirit. Hear what Augustine saith in Johni.: Quid volwit per August. in columbam, id est, per Spiritum Sanctum? Docere, qui miserat eum®. That is, “ What” i meant he by the dove, that is, by the Holy Ghost? Forsooth, to teach who sent him.” Yong:— He understandeth of the Spirit descending as a dove: the Spirit is invisible. If you mind to have the truth heard, let us proceed. Hear what Ambrose saith: Vides quam operatorius sit sermo Christi. Si ergo tanta vis in sermone Ambrose Domini, &c. ut supra. That is, “ You see what a working power the word of Christ peated. De hath. Therefore, if there be so great power in the Lord’s word, that those things 4°" “” “which were not begin to be; how much more of strength is it to work, that those things that were should be changed into another thing?” And in the fifth chapter: Antequam consecretur, panis est: ubi autem verba Christi accesserint, corpus est Christi'®: i.e. “ Before it is consecrated, it is bread; but when the words of Christ come to it, it is the body of Christ.” But hear what he saith more: Accipite, edite...hoc est corpus meum: “Take ye, eat ye; this is my body.” Ante verba Christi caliv est vini et aque plenus. [7 Ibid. cap. v.] [° In Joann. Evang. cap. i. Tractat. v. 9. Tom. [* “The MS. in the Public Library at Cam- | III. Pars ii. col. 324. August. Op. Par. 1679- bridge attributes this explanation to Cole, and | 1700.) the following argument from Ambrose to Weston.” ["? Ambros. de Sacramentis, Lib. rv. cap. v. Vide Jenkyns’s Cranmer, Vol. IV. p. 55. ] Tom. LV. p. 173.] [CRANMER. | 27 Answer to Ambrose. Mark how D. Weston expoundeth to eatina similitude. If this syllo- gism be in the second figure, as by standing of the terms appeareth, then is it false, because it coneludeth affirmatively. Ambros. de Sacramen- tis, Lib. vi. eap. 1. Operari. Mutare. Answer to Ambrose. 418 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. Uli verba Christi operata fuerint, whi sanguis (Christi') efficitur, qui redemit plebem* : i.e. ‘* Before the words of Christ, the cup is full of wine and water; when the words of Christ have wrought, there is made the blood of Christ which redeemed the people.” What can be more plain? Cranmer :—Nay, what can be less to the purpose? The words are of strength to work in this sacrament, as they are in baptism. Pie:—The words of Christ, as Ambrose saith, are of strength to work. What do they work? Ambrose saith, they make the blood which redeemed the people : Ergo, The natural blood is made. Cranmer :—The sacrament of his blood is made. The words make the blood to them that receive it: not that the blood is in the cup, but in the receiver. Pie :—“There is made the blood which redeemed the people.” Cranmer :—The blood is made, that is, the sacrament of the blood, by which he redeemed the people. /t, “it is made;” that is to say, ostenditur, “it is shewed forth there®.” And Ambrose saith, we receive in a similitude: “‘ As thou hast received the similitude of his death, so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious blood*.” Weston:—He saith, ‘in a similitude,” because it is ministered under another likeness. And this is the argument: There is made the blood which redeemed the people : But the natural blood redeemed the people: Ergo, There is the natural blood of Christ. You answer, that words make it blood to them that receive it; not that blood is in the cup, but because it is made blood to them that receive it. That all men may see how falsely you would avoid the fathers, hear what Ambrose saith in the sixth book and first chapter : Forte dicas,...quomodo vera? Qui similitudinem video, non video sanguinis verita- tem. Primo omnium diai tibi de sermone Christi, qui operatur, ut possit mutare et convertere genera instituta nature’. Deinde ubi non tulerunt sermonem Christi dis- cipuli ejus, audientes quod carnem suam daret manducari’, et sanguinem suum daret bibendum, recedebant: solus tamen Petrus dixit, “ Verba vite wternw habes, et ego a te quo recedam?” Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent, veluti quidam esset horror cruoris, sed maneret gratia redemptionis, ideo in similitudinem’ quidem accipis sacramentum, sed vere nature gratiam virtutemque consequeris*. That is to say: ‘“‘Peradventure thou wilt say, how be they 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 kinds ordained of nature. After- ward, when the disciples could not abide the words of Christ, but hearing that he gave his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink, they departed: only Peter said, Thou hast the words of eternal life; whither should I go from thee? Lest therefore mo should say this thing, as though there should be a certain horror of blood, and yet the grace of redemption should remain; therefore in a similitude thou receivest the sacrament, but indeed thou obtainest the grace and power of his nature.” Cranmer :—These words of themselves are plain enough. (And he read this place again:) “Thou receivest the sacrament for a similitude.” But what is that he saith, “Thou receivest for a similitude?” I think he understandeth the sacrament to be the similitude of his blood’. Chedsey:—That you may understand, that truth dissenteth not from truth, to [) Not in original text.] {© Manducandum. Ibid.] [? Qui plebem redemit. Orig. text.] [7 Similitudine. Ibid.] [? Cant. “Fit sanguis, id est, ostenditur san- [8 Ambros. de Sacramentis. Lib. vi. Cap. i. guis. Ex hoc responso orta sunt sibila.” MS. | Tom. IV. p.176. Ed. Colon. 1616.] Public Library, Cambridge. Vide Jenkyns’s Cran- [® Here is added in the manuscript in the Public mer, Vol. IV. p. 57.] Library at Cambridge, [* See the quotation on the following page. | Weston :—Are ye not weary ? [° Convertere in aliud instituta nature. Orig. Cranmer :—No, Sir. ] text. ] ‘ =i DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 419 overthrow that which you say of that similitude, hear what Ambrose saith, Lib. tv. cap. 4. De Sacrament. Si operatus est sermo coelestis in aliis rebus, non operatur in sacramentis coeles- qabeae dee tibus'°? Ergo didicisti quod e pane corpus fiat Christi, et quod vinum et aqua iniv. calicem mittitur, sed fit sanguis consecratione verbi celestis. Sed forte dices", Speciem sanguinis non video. Sed habet similitudinem. Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis ; ut nullus horror cruoris sit, et pretium tamen operetur redemptionis. Didicisti ergo, quia quod accipis corpus est Christi™. That is to say: “Tf the heavenly word did work in other things, doth it not work in the hea- venly sacraments? Therefore thou hast learned, that of bread is made the body of Christ, and that wine and water is put into that cup, but by consecration of the heavenly word it is made blood. But thou wilt say peradventure, that the likeness of blood is not seen. But it hath a similitude. For as thou hast received the simili- Note, that tude of his death, so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious blood; so that saith, We there is no horror of blood, and yet it worketh the price of redemption. Therefore militude of thou hast learned, that that which thou receivest is the body of Christ.” lool Cranmer :—WHe speaketh of sacraments sacramentally. He calleth the sacraments Answer to the place o: by the names of the things; for he useth the signs for the things signified: and there- ambrose. fore the bread is not called bread, but his body, for the excellency and dignity of be cae by the thing signified by it. So doth Ambrose interpret himself, when he saith, In the things. mbrose. cujus typum nos calicem mysticum sanguinis ad tuitionem corporis et anime nostre 1 Cor. cap.xi. percepimus. 1 Cor. xi." That is to say: “For a type or figure whereof we receive the mystical cup of his blood, for the safeguard of our bodies and souls.” Chedsey:—A type! he calleth not the blood of Christ a type or sign; but the blood of bulls and goats in that respect was a type or sign. Cranmer :—This is new learning ; you shall never read this among the fathers. Chedsey :—But Ambrose saith so. Cranmer :—He calleth the bread and the cup a type or sign of the blood of Christ and of his benefit. Weston :—Ambrose understandeth it for a type of his benefit, that is, of re- demption ; not of the blood of Christ, but of his passion. The cup is the type or sign of his death, seeing it is his blood. Cranmer :—He saith most plainly, that the cup is the type of Christ’s blood. Acapee Chedsey:—As Christ is truly and really incarnate, so is he truly and really in 3°84 the sacrament : pes But Christ is really and truly incarnate : Ergo, The body of Christ is truly and really in the sacrament. Cranmer :—I deny the major. Chedsey:—I prove the major out of Justine, in his second apology : “Ov ztpozov Justin. bia AXoyou Oeov capxorrombets *Incous Xpicros 0 owrnp NOV, Kal capka Kal aia U7rep cwTnpias nuwy exxev, odTw Kal THY OC EVyHS oYou Tov Tap’ avToU eiyapicTHOEicay Tpopny, €& ns aina Kat oapKes KaTa perafsoAnv TpepovTat HIL@V, EKElVOU TOU oapkoToin- Oév ros Incov Kal capka Kal aipa ecoayOnpev €ivat uy Cranmer :—This place hath been falsified by Marcus Constantius’. Justin [(’° In celestibus sacramentis. Orig. text. | p- 83, Ed. Bened. Paris. 1742.] [}! Dicis. Ibid. ] [?® “ Marcus Constantius was the fictitious name [? Ambros. de Sacramentis. Lib.1v.Cap.iv. | under which Gardiner published his Confutatio Tom. IV. p. 173. Ed. Colon. 1616.] Cayillationum, &c. ‘The following is his transla- ['* Ambros. in Epist. I. ad Cor. Cap. xi. | tion: ‘Cibum illum, ex quo sanguis et carnes Tom. II. p. 184. Ed. Colon. 1616. But these | nostre per mutationem nutriuntur, postquam per commentaries are certainly spurious. ] verbum precationis fuerit ab eodem benedictus, {'* Justin Martyr. Apologia I. (Vulg. II.) | edocti sumus esse carnem et sanguinem illius Jesu, 27—2 Answer to the place of Justinus. Mutationem. Mutation. Of thanks- giving. Answer. Ala Kat wapKes, 1. e. “blood and flesh.” Treneeus. Argument. lrenzus answered by Tertul- lian. 420 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. meant nothing else, but that the bread which nourisheth us is called the body of Christ. Chedsey:—To the argument. supra. Cranmer :—I deny your major. Chedsey :—The words of Justin are thus to be interpreted word for word: Quemadmodum per verbum Dei caro facius Jesus Christus Salvator noster car- nem habuit et sanguinem pro salute nostra; sic et cibum illum consecratum per ser- monem precationis ab ipso institute, quo sanguis carnesque nostra per communionem nutriuntur, ejusdem Jesu, qui caro factus est, carnem et sanguinem esse accepimus. That is to say: “As by the word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour being made flesh had both flesh and blood for our salvation; so we are taught, that the meat consecrated by the word of prayer instituted of him, whereby our blood and flesh are nourished by communion, is the flesh and blood of the same Jesus which was made flesh.” Cranmer :—You have translated it well; but I deny your major. This is the sense of Justin; that that bread is called the body of Christ, and yet of that sanc- tified meat our bodies are nourished. Chedsey :—Nay, he saith, of that sanctified meat both our bodies and souls are nourished. Cranmer :—We saith not so; but he saith that it nourisheth our flesh and blood: and how can that nourish the soul, that nourisheth the flesh and blood ? Cole:—It feedeth the body by the soul. Cranmer :—Speak uprightly. Can that which is received by the soul and the spirit, be called the meat of the body ? Weston :—Hear then what Ireneus saith: Hum calicem qui est creatura, suum corpus confirmavit, ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando et mixtus calix, et fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit eucharistia sanguinis et corporis Christi; ex quibus augetur et consistit carnis nostre substantia‘. “This, the same cup which is a crea- ture, he confirmed to be his body, by which be increaseth our bodies. When both the cup mixed, and the bread. broken, hath joined to it the word of God, it is made the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is increased and consisteth.” The substance of our flesh is increased by the body and blood of Christ: Ergo, Our body is nourished by the body and blood of Christ.” Cranmer:—I deny your argument. He calleth it the flesh and blood for the sacrament of the body and blood, as Tertullian also saith: Nutritur corpus pane symbolico, anima corpore Chrisii: that is, “Our flesh is nourished with symbolical — or sacramental bread, but our soul is nourished with the body of Christ.” Weston :—Look what he saith more: Qwomodo carnem negant capacem esse do- nationis Dei que est vita wterna, que sanguine et corpore Christi nutritur®? Lib. vy. post duo fol. a principio. That is, “How do they say, that the flesh cannot receive the gift of God, that is, eternal life, which is nourished with the blood and body of Christ?” That is in the fifth book, two leaves from the beginning. Cranmer :—The body is nourished both with the sacrament and with the body As Christ is truly and naturally incarnate, &c. ut — qui pro nobis fuit incarnatus.’ Peter Martyr’s | a6 ris xticews dptov tdiov o@pa dreBeBarwdaoaTo, complaint against it is, that the clause ‘ex quo— nutriuntur’ is transposed, for the purpose of ayoid- ing the inference which may be drawn from the original expressions of Justin, that the bread and wine after consecration, as well as before, nourish our bodies by the ordinary process of digestion, — Gardiner, Confutat. Object. 151; P. Martyr, De Eucharist. p. 311.” Jenkyns, Cranmer, Vol. IV. p- 60.] [1 Td awd tis Kricews ToTHptoy aipa tovoy Wpoddoynse, && 00 TO ijuétepov deter aia, Kal Tov Saas bh ACW, » , ‘ , > A Pp ov Ta rjpéTepa avEer cWuaTta. “OroTe obv Kat a ik. 0 KeKpapévov ToTijptov Kal 6 Yeyovws apTos éTt- , : O€xeTat Tov Néyov Tov Oeov, Kal yiveTat 4 ebxa- piotia capa Xpiotov, ex TovTwy OE avEer Kat cuvictaTar THS capKos Hu@Y brdcTacts.—lre- neus adversus Hereses. Valent. Lib. V. Cap. 2. p. 294. Ed. Bened. Par. 1710.] [? ILa@s dexrixny ju) etvar Néyoust THv cadpKa TIS dwpeas Tov Ocov, ijtis éoTi Gwrj aiwvios, THY amd Tov cwpatos Kal alwatos Tov Kupiou tpepopevyy, kal pédos abrou brdpxovcav ;—Ireneus. Ibid.] DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 421 of Christ: with the sacrament to a temporal life; with the body of Christ to eternal The boty is life. with the sacrament to Chedsey:—I cannot but be sorry when I see such a manifest lie in your writings. temporal lite, ss with the body For where you translate Justin on this fashion, ‘that the bread, water, and wine of Christ to eternal life. are not so to be taken in this sacrament, as common meats and drinks are wont t0 Note, that . . one the arch- be taken of us; but are meats chosen out peculiarly for this, namely, for the giving pishop here of thanks; and therefore be called of the Greeks eucharistia, that is, ‘thanksgiving : Canoe they are called moreover the blood and body of Christ;” (so have you translated (ySwors it:) the words of Justin are thus: “ We are taught, that the meat consecrated by een the word of prayer, by the which our flesh and blood is nourished by communion, {eGing” is the body and blood of the same Jesus which was made flesh.” Cranmer :—I did not translate it word for word, but only I gave the meaning ; Camm and I go nothing from his meaning. himself, Harpsfield:—You remember, touching Justin, to whom this apology was written, namely, to an heathen man. The heathen thought that the Christians came to the church to worship bread. Justin answereth, that we come not to common bread, but as to, &c. as is said before. Weigh the place well; it is right worthy to be noted. Our flesh is nourished according to mutation. Cranmer :—We ought not to consider the bare bread ; but whosoever cometh to the In eating he sacra- sacrament, eateth the true body of Christ. mene He Weston:—You have corrupted* Emissenus ; for instead of cibis satiandus, that considered, : : ; “7 . 56 : : but only is, “to be filled witn meat,” you have set cibis satiandus spiritualibus, that is, “ to the true body of Christ. be filled with spiritual meats.” Cranmer :—I have not corrupted it; for it is so in the Decrees*. De Congertat Weston:—You have corrupted another place of Emissenus; for you have omitted “Qua.” these words: Mirare, cum reverendum altare cibis spiritualibus satiandus ascendis : sacrum Dei iui corpus et sanguinem fide respice; honorem mirare; merito continge, &e. that is, “Marvel thou, when thou comest up to the reverend altar to be filled with spiritual meats: lvok in faith to the holy body and blood of thy God; marvel at his honour; worthily touch him.” Cranmer :—This book hath not that. Weston :—Also, you have falsified this place by evil translating: Honora corpus Cranmer Dei tui, i. e. “Honour the body of thy God.” You have translated it, Honora eum with false qui est Deus tuus, i. ce. “Vonour him which is thy God:” whereas Emissenus hath cr not “honour him,” but “honour the body of thy God*.” Cranmer :—1 have so translated him; and yet no less truly, than not without Cranmer a weighty cause: else it should not have been without danger, if I had translated it himnselt. thus, “‘ Honour the body of thy God;” because of certain that, according to the error of the Anthropomorphites, dreamed that God had a body. Weston:—Nay, you most of all have brought the people into that error, which so long have taught that he sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, and counted me for an heretic, because I preached, that God had no right hand. Then I will oppose you in the very articles of your faith. Christ sitteth at the right hand of God the Father: Argument. But God the Father hath no right hand : Ergo, Where is Christ now ? Cranmer :—1 am not so ignorant a novice in the articles of my faith, but that The right I understand, that to sit at the right hand of God doth signify, to be equal in the Gol, whet glory of the Father. cea Weston: —Now then take this argument: Wheresoever God’s authority is, there is Christ’s body : But God’s authority is in every place: Ergo, What letteth the body of Christ to be in every place ? Moreover, you have also corrupted Duns. Cranmer charged with mis- translating Duns. [* Vide supra, p. 268.] {* Supra, p. 269.] D. Cranmer challenged for setting forth the Catechism in the name of the convoea- tion. D. Cranmer purgeth him- self concern- ing the Catechism. D. Cranmer Charged with mistrans- lating Tho. Aquinas. 422 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. Cranmer :—That is a great offence, I promise you. Weston :—For you have omitted secundum apparentiam, i.e. “as it appeareth ;” where his words are these: Ht si queras, quare voluit ecclesia eligere istum intel- lectum ita difficilem hujus articuli, cum verba scripture possent salvari secundum intellectum facilem et veriorem, secundum apparentiam, de hoc articulo’, &e. That is, “Tf you demand why the chureh did choose this so hard an understanding of this article, whereas the words of scripture may be salved after an easy and true under- standing, as appeareth, of this article,” &c. Cranmer :—It is not so. Weston :—Also, you have set forth a Catechism in the name of the synod of London, and yet there be fifty which, witnessing that they were of the number of that convocation, never heard one word of this Catechism. Cranmer :—I was ignorant of the setting to of that title; and as soon as I had knowledge thereof, I did not like it: therefore, when I complained thereof to the council, it was answered me by them, that the book was so entitled, because it was set forth in the time of the convocation’. Weston :—Moreover, you have in Duns translated Jn Romana ecclesia, pro ecclesia catholica ; “In the church of Rome,” for “the catholic church.” Cranmer :—Yea, but he meant the Romish church. Weston :—Moreover, you have depraved St Thomas’; namely, where he hath these words: In quantum vero est sacrificium, habet vim satisfactivcam: sed in satisfactione attenditur magis affectio offerentis, quam quantitas oblationis. Unde Dominus dicit apud Lucam de vidua que obtulit duo wra, quod plus omnibus misit. Quamvis ergo hac oblatio ex sui quantitate sufficiat ad satisfaciendum pro omni pena; tamen fit satisfactoria illis pro quibus offertur, vel etiam offerentibus, secundum quantitatem suce devotionis, et non pro tota pena. That is, ‘‘ Inasmuch as it is a sacrifice, it hath the power of satisfaction: but in satisfaction the affection of the offerer is more to be weighed than the quantity of the oblation. Wherefore the Lord said in Luke’s gospel of the widow which offered two mites, that ‘she cast in more than they all’.” There- fore although this oblation of the quantity of itself will suffice to satisfy for all pain, yet it is made satisfactory to them for whom it is offered, or to the offerers, accord- ing to the quantity of their devotion, and not for all the pain.” You have thus turned it: Quod sacrificium sacerdotis habet vim satisfactivam, &c. that is, “That the sacrifice of the priest hath power of satisfaction,” &c. And therefore in this place you have chopped in this word, sacerdotis, ‘‘of the priest ;’ whereas in the translation of all the New Testament you have not set it, but where Christ was [! Vide supra, p. 302. ] Cranmer, to Ridley: but Ridley himself, though he [? Dr Jenkyns, in his edition of Cranmer’s works, | admitted that he noted many things for it and con- (Vol. IV. p. 65) has given the following note on | sented to it, denied that he was its author. It has this passage: been ascribed also to Ponet, bishop of Winchester, ‘A different explanation of this title was given | and to Alex. Nowell. Ward, one of the English by Philpot; who in the convocation of the preced- | divines sent to the Synod of Dort, believed it to be ing October, ‘stood up, and spake concerning the | Nowell’s; and Strype, in his later publications, ex- catechism, that he thought they were deceived in | presses the same opinion. But it must be confessed the title of the catechism, in that it beareth the title | that his reasons are not convincing. See Burn. Ref. of the Synod of London last before this, although | Vol. III. p. 410. Strype, Cranm. p. 294; Memor. many of them which were then present, were never | Vol. II. p. 368; Annals, Vol. I. p. 353. Preface to made privy thereof in setting it forth; for that this | Cranmer’s Catechism, Oxford, 1829.” house had granted the authority to make ecclesiasti- It may be added, that the idea that bishop Ponet cal laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the | was the author of this Catechism seems to be the king’s majesty ; and whatsoever ecclesiastical laws | most correct. It is strengthened by the following they, or the most part of them, did set forth, accord- | passage in a letter, obtained from Zurich by the ing to a statute in that behalf provided, it might | Parker Society, written by Sir John Cheke to Bul- well be said to be done in the Synod of London, | linger, dated June 7, 1553: ‘‘ Nuper etiam J. Win- although such as be of this house now had no notice | toniensis Episcopi [ Ponet] Catechismum auctoritate thereof before the promulgation.’ Foxe, Vol. III. | sua scholis commendavit, et articulos synodi Londi- p. 20. See also Lamb, Hist. of the XXXIX. Ar- | nensis promulgavit, quos tu si cum Tridentina ticles, p. 8. It isa question who was the author of | compares, intelliges spiritus spiritui quid prestet.””] this Catechism. By the Oxford disputants it was [? Vide supra, p. 84.] attributed, on the assertion, as they pretended, of : DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 423 put to death. And again, where St Thomas hath pro omni pena, “for all pain,” your book omitteth many things there‘. Thus you see, brethren, the truth stedfast and invincible: you see also the craft eo and deceit of heretics: the truth may be pressed, but it cannot be oppressed. There- petra fore ery all together, Vincit veritas; i.e. “The truth overcometh’.” This Geerder disputation, sometime in Latin, sometime in English, continued almost till two of the clock. Which being finished, and the arguments written, and delivered to the hands of Master Say, the prisoner was had away by the mayor, and the doctors dined together at the University college. HARPSFIELD DISPUTETH TO BE MADE DOCTOR. It followed furthermore, after disputation of these three days being ended, that proxe, acts Mr Harpsfield, the next day after, which was the nineteenth of April, should dispute ments for his form, to be made doctor. To the which disputation the archbishop of Canter- ta tses |" bury was brought forth, and permitted, among the rest, to utter an argument or two in defence of his cause, as in sequel hereof may appear. DISPUTATION OF MASTER HARPSFIELD, BACHELOR OF DIVINITY, ANSWERING FOR HIS FORM TO BE MADE DOCTOR’. [Weston argued for some time against Harpsfield, who concluded with reference to a passage from Fulgentius. | After these words, not waiting Harpsfield’s answer, he offered M. Cranmer to dispute ; who began in this wise’: Cranmer :—I have heard you right learnedly and eloquently entreat of the dignity of the scriptures, which I do both commend and have marvelled thereat within myself. But whereas you refer the true sense and judgment of the scriptures to the catholic gy opinion church, as judge thereof, you are much deceived ; specially, for that under the name fii repo of the church you appoint such judges as have corruptly judged, and contrary to () terns the sense of the scriptures. I wonder likewise why you attribute so little to, the tasciptue diligent reading of the scriptures, and conferring of places; seeing the scriptures do tre/udsment so much commend the same, as well in divers other places, as also in those which (iit) tsa. you yourself have already alleged. And as touching your opinion of these questions, (8 3n' so" it seemeth to me neither to have any ground of the word of God, nor of the primi- ?!*¢: tive church. And to say the truth, the schoolmen have spoken diversely of them, and do not agree therein among themselves. Wherefore, minding here briefly to shew my judgment also, I must desire you first to answer me to a few questions, which I shall demand of you. Which being done, we shall the better proceed in our dis- putation. Moreover, I must desire you to bear also with my rudeness in the Latin tongue, which, through long disuse, is not now so prompt and ready with me as it hath been. And now, all other things set apart, I mind chiefly to have regard to the [* “ Cranmer :—Because 1 would not write all that long treatise. MS. Public Library.’’] [° Vide MS. in which it seems Cranmer, hav- ing responded, now required that he should become the opponent. ‘“Cranmer :—Oppono : vos respondete scripturis. Weston:—Habebis alium diem ad opponen- dum. This day was the following Thursday, April 19 ; Tuesday and Wednesday having been occupied by the disputations with Ridley and Latimer.’”? Vide Jenkyns’s Cranmer, Vol. IV. p. 66.] [° “The title of this disputation in the manu- script in the Public Library, Cambridge : “ Disputationes habite Oxonie de vera pre- sentia naturalis et organici corporis Christi in sacra- mento altaris. “¢ Defendit D. Harpsfield veritatem, respondentis agens partes. “QOpponit primum D. Weston disputandi gra- tia, deinde D. Cranmerus ex sue opinionis fide.” Jenkyns’s Cranmer, p. 67. | [7 “An Oxford scholar, who was present at this disputation, relates, that Cranmer ‘passed all men’s expectation in doing the same. I myself, which did ever think that he was better learned than many reported he was, yet would I have thought he could not have done so well, nor would not have believed it, if I had not heard him myself.’ Foxe, Acts, &c. Ist edit. p. 935.” Tbid.] 424 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. truth. My first question is this: How Christ’s body is in the sacrament, according to your mind or determination ? Then answered a doctor, He is there as touching his substance, but not after the manner of his substance. Harpsfield :—He is there in such sort and manner as he may be eaten. Cranmer :—My next question is, Whether he hath his quantity and qualities, form, figure, and such like properties ? Harpsfield :—Are these your questions? said Master Harpsficld. I may likewise ask you, When Christ passed through the virgin’s womb, an ruperit necne ? When they had thus a while contended, there were divers opinions in this matter. All the doctors fell in a buzzing, uncertain what to answer: some thought one way, some another; and thus master doctors could not agree}. Then Master Cranmer said thus: You put off questions with questions, and not with answers; I ask one thing of you, and you answer another. Once again I ask, Whether he have those properties which he had on the earth ? Tresham :—No, he hath not all the quantities and qualities belonging to a body. Smith :—Stay you, Master Tresham. I will answer you, Master Doctor, with the words of Damascene: TZvransformatur panis, &c.; “The bread is transformed,” &c. But if thou wilt inquire how, Modus impossibilis ; “The manner is impossible.” Then two or three others added their answers to this question, somewhat doubtfully. A great hurly-burly was among them, some affirming one thing, and some another. Cranmer :—Do you appoint me a body, and cannot tell what manner of body ? Either he hath not his quantity, or else you are ignorant how to answer it. Harpsfield :—These are vain questions, and it is not meet to spend the time on them. Weston :—Hear me awhile: Lanfrancus, sometime bishop of Canterbury, doth answer in this wise unto Berengarius, upon such like questions: Salubriter credi possunt, Jideliter queri non possunt; i.e. “They may be well believed, but never faithfully Christ pre- sent in the sacrament in substance, but not after the manner of substance. The rabbins could not agree among themselves. Christ's body without his properties in the saecra- ment. The doctors in a doubt. Lanfraneus contra Beren- garium, asked?.” Cranmer :—If ye think good to answer it, some of you declare it. Harpsfield :—NHe is there as pleaseth him to be there. Cranmer :—I would be best contented with that answer, if that your appointing of a carnal presence had not driven me of necessity to have inquired, for disputation’s sake, how you place him there, since you will have a natural body. When again he was answered of divers at one time; some denying it to be a quantum, some saying it to be guantitaticwm ; some affirming it to have modum quanti, some denying it; some one thing, some another: up starts D. Weston, and doughtily decided, as he thought, all the matter, saying, “It is corpus quantum, sed non per modum quanti;” i.e. “It is a body,” saith he, “ having quantity,” but not “according to the manner of quantity.” Whereunto Master Ward, a great sophister*, thinking the matter not fully an- swered, did largely declare and discourse his sentence: how learnedly and truly I cannot tell, nor I think he himself neither, ne yet the best learned there. For it was said since, that far better learned than he laid as good ear to him as they could, and yet could by no means perceive to what end all his talk tended. Indeed he told a formal tale to clout up the matter. He was full of quantum and quantitativum. This that follows was, as it is thought, the effect ; yet others think no. Howbeit we will rehearse the sum of his words, as it is thought he spake them. Ward :—We wust consider, saith he, that there are du@ positiones, “two positions.” The one standeth by the order of parts, with respect of the whole; the other in respect The papists would bage Christ’s body in the sacra- ment, but they cannot tell how. M. Ward in the misty clouds of Duns his quiddities. [! “According to the account of the Oxford scho- lar, ‘they were mad with him for asking, whether there were in the natural body of Christ a propor- tion, space, or distance betwixt member and mem- ber.” Foxe, Acts, &c. Ist edit. p. 935.”’ Jenkyns’s Cranmer, Vol. 1V. p. 68.] [? Si queris modum quo id fieri possit, breviter ad presens respondeo: Mysterium fidei credi salu- briter potest, vestigari utiliter non potest.—Lan- franc. de Corp. et Sang. Domini, cap. x. fin. p. 179, Venet. 1745. ] [® “In the first edition of Foxe, ‘ philosopher’ is read in the place of ‘sophister,’ p. 988.” Jenkyns’s | Cranmer, Vol. IV. p. 70.] DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 425 of that which containcth. Christ is in the sacrament in respect of the whole. This proposition is, in one of Aristotle’s Predicaments, called situs. I remember I did entreat Raia os these matters very largely, when I did rule and moderate the philosophical disputations tell us how in the public schools. This position is sine modo quantitativo, as, by an ensample, you the sacra- can never bring heaven to a quantity. So I conclude that he is in the sacrament Christ “sine quantum, sine modo quantitativo. titative in These words he amplified very largely ; and so high he climbed into the heavens ae with Duns’ ladder, and not with the scriptures, that it is to be marvelled how he could come down again without falling. To whom M. Cranmer said, “Then thus do I make mine argument.” Cranmer :—In heaven his body had quantity; in earth it hath none, by your D. Cranmer's saying : oo aes He hath two bodies; the one in heaven, the other in earth. Here some would have answered him, that he had quantity in both, and so put off the antecedent ; but thus said M. Harpsfield: Harpsfield :—1 deny your argument: (though some would not have had him say so.) Cranmer :—The argument is good: it standeth upon contradictories, which is the most surest hold. Harpsfield :—I deny that there are contradictions. Cranmer :—I thus prove it: Habere modum quantitativum et non habere, sunt contradictoria : Sed Christus in ceclis, ut dicitis, habet modum quantitaticum, in terra non habet : Ergo, Duo sunt corpora ejus, in que cadunt hae contradictoria: nam in idem cadere non possunt. Axistotle 4, Weston:—I deny the minor. Eee bile Harpsfield :—I answer, that the major is not true: for habere quantum, et non Stivr.. habere, non sunt contradictoria, nisi considerentur ejusdem ad idem, eodem modo et PD ese” simpliciter. Weston :—I confirm the same: for one body may have modum quantitativum, and not have; and idem corpus was passible and impassible; one body may have wounds, and not wounds. Cranmer :—This cannot be at one time. Weston :—The ensample of the potter doth prove that which I say ; who, of that which is clay now, maketh a pot or cup forthwith. Cranmer :—But I say again, that it is so, but at divers times; as one piece of meat to be raw and sodden cannot be at one time together. But you would have it otherwise, that Christ should be here and in heaven at one time, and should have modum quantitativum, and not have: which cannot be, by such argument as I have shewed you. Weston :—But I say, Christ's body was passible and not passible at one instant. 5, ie ana Scaton :—You may ask as well other questions, How he is in heaven? Whether ianee DEES he sit or stand? and, Whether he be there as he lived here ? together in Cranmer :—You yourself, by putting a natural presence, do force me to question cima how he is there. Therefore next I do ask this question, Whether good and evil men do cS rciaet eat the body in the sacrament ? pore, propter ‘ Z 3 rerum pug- Harpsfield:—Yea, they do so, even as the sun doth shine upon kings’ palaces and nantiam.’ Christ’s body on dung-heaps. to bepassible, = A Ci A 5 and not Cranmer :—Then do I inquire, How long Christ tarrieth in the eater? impassible, at ki ins the supper, Harpsfield :—These are curious questions, unmeet to be asked. it appeareth C : F ; by these ‘ranmer :—\ have taken them out of your schools and school-men, which you words, “That 7 Drea : . shall be yourselves do most use: and there also do I learn to ask, How far he goeth into the given for body? That remai g hat remain- Harpsfield :—We } 1 ist is recei oe arpsfield :—We know that the body of Christ is received to nourish the whole unproved. ° 3 . f Harpsfiel man, concerning both body and soul: /o usque progreditur corpus quousque species. beamed a : 3 Eitke tt Cranmer :—Ilow long doth he abide in the body ? ORE tes Seaton :—St Augustine saith, our flesh goeth into his flesh. But after he is whore he said, that the flesh of Christ, to them that receive him not worthily, is not present. “© Sed species non progre- ditur usque ad animam : ergo nee corpus Christi pascit corpus et animam.” [These men would needs have a bodily presence, yet would they not, or else could not bring any reason how. ] D. Cranmer's argument in the second figure and second mode. Answer insufficient. Evil men do not eat the body of Christ. The sixth chapter of John is to be referred partly to the supper, partly to faith, after the papists. Comparison between eating of manna and eating the body of Chnist. 426 DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. once received into the stomach, it maketh no matter for us to know how far he doth pierce, or whither he is conveyed. Here Master Tresham and one Master London answered, that Christ being given there under such form and quantity as pleased him, it was not to be inquired of his tarrying, or of his descending into the body. Harpsfield :—You were wont to lay to our charge, that we added to the scripture; saying always, that we should fetch the truth out of the scripture: and now you yourself bring questions out of the school-men, which you have disallowed im us. Cranmer :—I say, as I have said alway, that I am constrained to ask these questions, because of this carnal presence which you imagine; and yet I know right well that these questions be answered out of the scriptures. As to my last question, How long he abideth in the body, &c., the scripture answereth plainly, that Christ doth so long dwell in his people, as they are his members. Whereupon I make this argument : Ba- They which eat the flesh of Christ, do dwell in him, and he in them: vo- But the wicked do not remain in him, nor he in them: co. Ergo, The wicked do not eat his flesh, nor drink his blood. Harpsfield :—I will answer unto you, as St Augustine saith; not that howsoever aman doth eat, he eateth the body ; but he that eateth after a certain manner. Cranmer :—I cannot tell what manner ye appoint, but I am sure that evil men do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, as Christ speaketh in the sixth of John. : Harpsfield:—In the sixth of John some things are to be referred to the godly, and some to the ungodly. Cranmer :—Whatsoever he doth entreat there of eating, doth pertain unto good men. Harpsfield:—If you do mean only of the word of eating, it is true; if concerning the thing, it is not so: and if your meaning be of that which is contained under the word of eating, it may be so taken, I grant. Cranmer :—Now to the argument: ‘He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” Doth not this prove sufficiently, that evil men do not eat that the good do? Tresham :—You must add, Qui manducat digne, “ He that eateth worthily.” Cranmer :—I speak of the same manner of eating that Christ speaketh of. Weston :—Augustinus Ad fratres in Eremo', Sermon. xxvut. Est guidam mandu- candi modus; that is, “‘ There is a certain manner of eating.” Augustine speaketh of two manners of eating; the one of them that eat worthily, the other that eat unworthily. Harpsfield :—All things in the sixth of John are not to be referred to the sacra- ment, but to the receiving of Christ by faith. The fathers do agree, that there is not entreaty made of the supper of the Lord before they come unto, Panis quem dabo vobis, caro mea est, &c. Cranmer :—There is entreating of manna both before and after. Harpsfield :—I will apply another answer. This argument hath a kind of poison in it, which must be thus bitten away; that manna and this sacrament be not both one. Manna hath not his efficacy of himself, but of God. Cranmer :— But they that did take manna worthily, had fruit thereby ; and so, [! These sermons are not considered to be Ergo, Est figura. Augustine’s. See edit. Bened. Tom. VI. James’ Corruption of Scripture, &c.p.61. Ed. Lond. 1848. ] [2 ** Cranmer :—Sacramentum hoc est figura: Ergo, Non est verum corpus Christi in eo. Harpsfield : —Negatur antecedens. Cranmer :—Probatur: Sacramentum hoc non plus valet quam figura : Harpsfield :—Negatur antecedens. Cranmer :—Probatur: Sacramentum hoc non plus valet quam manna in veteri testamento valebat : Sed manna fuit figura tantum : Ergo, Sacramentum hoc non plus valet quam figura. Harpsfield :— DISPUTATIONS AT OXFORD. 427 by your assertion, he that doth eat the flesh of Christ worthily, hath his fruit by that. Therefore the like doth follow of them both, and so there should be no dif- ference between manna and this sacrament, by your reason. Harpsfield:—When it is said, that they which — j¢m. Harpsfield do mean of bodily life, they which eat the did eat manna are dead, it is to be understand Seem te Oras 00, nh ianicd at that they did want the virtue of manna, Serer an cance ine ea ere Cranmer :—They then which do eat either of Caen eee ache Hanes Cae ieee Greets boty them worthily, do live. fore, asthe effect is spiritual, which Christ speaketh of im this Y> ; ; , pe Harpsfield:—They do live, which do eat manna srelneth; which is our spinitual believing in him, and not our worthily, not by manna, but by the power of God Poaly cating ofhim. given by it. The other, which do eat this sacrament, do live by the same. Cranmer :—Christ did not entreat of the cause, but the effect which followed: he doth not speak of the cause whereof the effect proceedeth. Harpsfield:—I do say the effects are divers, life and death, which do follow the worthy and the unworthy eating thereof. Cranmer :—Sithens you will needs have an addition to it, we must use both in manna and in the sacrament indifferently, either worthily or unworthily. Christ spake absolutely of manna and of the supper; so that, after that absolute speaking of the supper, wicked men can in no wise eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood. Further, Augustine upon John, Tractat. xxvi. upon these words, Qui manducat, August. in &c. saith : “There is no such respect in common meats as in the Lord’s body. For who pea any that eateth. other meats hath still hunger, and needeth to be satisfied daily: but he that doth eat the flesh of Christ, and drinketh his blood, doth live for ever’.” But you know wicked men not to do so: Ergo, Wicked men do not receive. Harpsfield:—St Augustine meaneth, that he who eateth Christ's flesh, &c., after a certain manner, should live for ever. Wicked men do eat, but not after that manner. Cranmer :—Only they which participate Christ, be of the mystical body: But the evil men are not of the mystical body : Therefore they do not participate Christ. Weston :—Your wonderful gentle behaviour and modesty, good Master D. Cranmer, p, cranmer is worthy much commendation: and that I may not deprive you of your right and just omen" deserving, I give you most hearty thanks in mine own name, and in the name of all OSE my brethren. At which saying, all the doctors gently put off their caps*. Harpsfield :—Negatur major. Cranmer :—Probatur : Qui manna habuerunt, habuerunt vitam zternam : [* Non ita est in hae esca, quam sustentande hujus temporalis vite causa sumimus. Nam qui eam non sumserit, non vivet: nec tamen qui eam Sed qui hoc sacramentum digne sumunt, non plus habent : Ergo, Hoc sacramentum non plus valet quam manna in veteri testamento valebat. Harpsfield :—Non habuerunt Israelite vitam eternam ex manna per se, aut ex ipso cibo, sed de gratia Dei propter fidem recipientium: nos autem ex corpore Christi habemus ; quia, ut dixit Cyrillus, vivificam salutem ex ipso corpore Christi habemus : ideo fit, ut plus valeat hoc quam manna. Cranmer :—Nihil interest quoad effectum : Ergo, Non plus hoc valet quam alterum.”— MS. Public Library, Cambridge. Vide Jenkyns’s Cranmer, Tom, IV, p. 74.] sumserit vivet....In hoc vero cibo et potu, id est, corpore et sanguine Domini, non ita est: nam et qui eam non sumit, non habet vitam; et qui eam sumit, habet vitam, et hanc utique «ternam...Cum enim cibo et potu id appetant homines, ut neque esuriant neque sitiant; hoc veraciter non prestat nisi iste cibus et potus, qui eos a quibus sumitur immortales et incorruptibiles facit—August. in Jo- annem. Tractat. xxvi. de cap. vi. Tom. IX. p. 94. Ed. Paris. 1635. ] [4 For the remainder of this Disputation, which was wholly between Weston and Harpsfield, see Foxe, Acts, &c. p. 1462. Ed. 1583.) A NOTE CONCERNING DR CRANMER IN HIS DISPUTATION, [Foxe, Acts, &c., 1684, Vol. III. p. 839.—See before, p. 414.] Tuat day wherein Doctor Cranmer, late bishop of Canterbury, answered in the divinity school at Oxford, there was alleged unto him by Doctor Weston, that he the said Cranmer, in his book of the Sacrament, falsely falsified the saying of the doctors, and specially the saying of Saint Hilary in these words, vero for vere, shew- ing a print or two thereof, to have defaced his doings therein: but Doctor Cranmer with a grave and fatherly sobriety answered, that the print of 8. Hilary’s works, whereout he took his notes, was verbatim according to his book, and that could his books testify if they were there to be seen: saying further, that he supposed D. Smith in that order rehearsed it in his book of the Sacrament; to the which D. Smith there present (though he were demanded the answer thereof) stood in silence, as canis mutus non calens latrare. But by and by D. Weston without shame, to shadow D. Smith’s silence, spitely said to Cranmer, ‘ Belike you took your learning out of Master D. Smith’s book.” All this already is testified before. It chanced at that present to be in the school one William Holcot, gentleman, then a sojourner in the University college: he hearing the same untruth, and remembering that he had amongst his books in his study the said book of Doctor Smith, at his return to his said study, desirous to see the truth therein, found it agreeable to the writing and afhrmation of Doctor Cranmer. And the said Holceot, then and there better remembering himself, found amongst his books the book of Stephen Gardiner, intituled ‘“‘The Devil's Sophistry :’ in which book was the said saying of Hilary alleged by the said Stephen verbatim, both in Latin and English, according to Doctor Cran- mer’s confirmation. Then the said William Holcot, intending (for the manifest opening and trial of the truth therein) to have delivered the said Gardiner's book to Doctor Cranmer, brought it to Bocardo, the prison in Oxford, where Doctor Cranmer then remained ; but there in the delivery thereof he was apprehended by the bailiffs, and by them brought before Doctor Weston and his colleagues (then at dinner at Corpus Christi college), who straightways laid treason to the charge of the said William Holcot for the maintenance of Cranmer in his naughtiness, as they called it. A DECLARATION OF THE REVEREND FATHER IN CHRIST THOMAS ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, CONCERNING THE UNTRUE REPORT AND SLANDER OF SOME, WHICH REPORTED, THAT HE SHOULD SET UP AGAIN THE MASS IN CANTERBURY”. As the devil, Christ’s ancient adversary, is a liar and the father of lying, even so he hath ever stirred up his servants and members te persecute Christ and his true word [’ This Declaration is here published from the MS. in the Library of Emmanuel College, Cam- bridge, 2. 2.15., which has been carefully collated for this edition. Dr Jenkyns, whose copy differs considerably from this, and agrees more nearly with the C.C.C.C. MS., states that he printed from the Emm. Coll. MS. but refers also to MSS. C.C.C.C. cv. p. 821. Harl. Collect. 417. Coverdale, Letters of | the Martyrs. Foxe, Acts, &c. vol. iii. p. 94. Cran- mer’s Answer, &c. edit. 1580. Strype, Cranmer, p. 305. Acta Disputationis Londinensis, &c., edita a Valerando Pollano, 1554. Burn. Ref. App. vol. ii. B. ii. No. 8.] {2 There can be no doubt that this Declaration was the ‘seditious bill”’ referred to in the follow- ing minute from the council book. On the 8th of DECLARATION CONCERNING THE MASS. 429 and religion, which lying he feareth not to do most earnestly at this present. For whereas a prince of famous memory, king Henry the Highth, seeing the great abuses of the Latin mass, reformed some things therein in time; and after, our late sovereign lord Edward the Sixth took the same wholly away for the manifold errors and abuses thereof, and restored in the place thereof Christ's holy supper according to Christ’s insti- tution, and as the apostles in the primitive church used the same in the beginning : now goeth the devil about by lying to overthrow the Lord’s holy supper again, and to restore his Latin satisfactory mass, a thing of his own invention and device. And to bring the same the more easily to pass, some of his inventors have abused the name of me, Thomas archbishop of Canterbury, bruiting abroad that I have set up the mass again in Canterbury, and that I offered myself to say mass at the burial of our late sovereign prince king Edward the Sixth, and also that I offered myself to say mass before the queen’s highness at Paul’s church in London, and I wot not where. And although I have been well exercised these xx years in suffering and bearing evil bruits, reports, and lies, and have not been much grieved thereat, but have borne all things quietly ; yet when untrue reports and lies turn to the hinderance of God’s truth, then are they in no wise tolerate or to be suffered. Wherefore this is to signify to the world, that it was not I that did set up the mass in Canterbury, but it was a false, flattering, and lying monk*, with a dozen of his blind adherents, which caused the mass to be set up there, and that without mine advice or counsel. eddat uli Dominus in die illo. And as for offering myself to say mass before the queen’s highness at Paul's, or in any other place, I never didit, as her grace well knoweth. But if her grace will give me leave, I will and by the might of God shall be ready at all times to prove against all that would say the contrary, that all that is said in the holy communion, set forth by the most innocent and godly prince, king Edward the Sixth, in his court of parliament, is conformable to that order that our Saviour Christ did both observe and command to be observed ; which also his apostles and primitive church used many years: whereas the mass in many things not only hath no foundation of Christ’s apostles nor the primitive church, but also is manifestly contrary to the same, and containeth in it many horrible abuses. Whereabout though that many do maliciously report of Mr Peter Martyr, that he is a man of no learning’, and therefore not to be credited ; yet, if the queen’s highness will grant it, I with the said Mr Peter, and other four or five which I will choose, will by God’s grace take upon us to defend, that not only the common prayers of the church, the ministration of the sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies, but also that all the doctrine and religion set forth by our sovereign lord king Edward the Sixth is 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 the judge, and that the reasons and proofs upon both parties may be set out in writing; to the intent that all the world may judge therein, and that no man shall start back from their writings. And where they boast of the faith of the church in the olden time these xv hundred years, we will joi with them in this point, that that doctrine and usage is to be followed, which was in the church fifteen hundred years past. And we shall prove, that the order of the church set out in this realm by our said sovereign lord king Edward the Sixth, by act of parliament, is the same that was used fifteen hundred years past. And so shall they never be able to prove theirs. September, 1553, “‘ Thomas archbishop of Canter- bury appeared before the lords, as he was the day before appointed. After long and serious debating of his offence by the whole board, it was thought convenient that as well for the treason committed by him against the queen’s majesty, as for the aggravating of the same his offence, by spreading about seditious bills moving tumults to the dis- quietness of the present state, he should be com- mitted to the tower, there to remain and be referred to justice, or further ordered as shall stand with the queen’s pleasure.”’—Extracts from the Proceed- ings of the Privy Council, printed in Archeologia, vol. xviii. p. 175. According to Foxe, the Decla- ration was circulated in London on the 7th of September; according to Burnet’s Latin copy, it was “lecta publice in vico mercatorum ab amico qui clam autographum surripuerat, 5Septemb. anno Dom. 1553.’ Jenkyns.] [? “ Whom the archbishop afterward named to be Thornton.” Foxe, Acts, &c. Ist edit. p. 1478.] {* This reporthad been circulated, and contra- dicted by Cranmer two years before. See Answer to Gardiner, p. 195, and Answer to Smith, p. 373, of this volume. ] Foxe, Acts, &e. ed. 1576, p. 1395. [Many copies of the foregoing Declaration were hastily written out and dispersed abroad. Foxe states that every scrivener’s shop almost was occupied in writing and copying it out (see p. xxi. of the present volume); which accounts for numerous small variations. Strype (p. 436) states that it was sent by Grindal to Foxe, and gives it more nearly to the form in which it appears in the Acts and Monuments, and which is here subjoined from p. 1395, of the edition of 1576.] A PURGATION OF THOMAS ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, AGAYNST CERTAINE SCLAUNDERS FALSELY RAYSED UPON HYM. As the devil, Christ’s ancient adversary, is a liar and the father of lies, even so hath he stirred up his servants and members to persecute Christ and his true word and religion with lying ; which he ceaseth not to do most earnestly at this present time. For whereas the prince of famous memory, king Henry the eight, seeing the great abuses of the Latin mass, reformed some things therein in his lifetime; and after our late sovereign lord king Edward V1. took the same whole away for the manifold and great errors and abuses of the same, and restored in the place thereof Christ’s holy supper according to Christ’s own institution, and as the apostles used the same in the primitive church: the devil goeth about now by lying to overthrow the Lord’s holy supper again, and to restore his Latin satisfactory mass, a thing of his own invention and devise. And to bring the same more easily to pass, some have abused the name of me, Thomas archbishop of Canterbury, bruiting abroad that I have set up the mass again at Canter- bury, and that I offered to say mass at the burial of our late sovereign prince king Edward the VI., and that I offered also to say mass before the queen’s highness, and at Paul’s church, and I wot not where. And although I have been well exercised these xx years to suffer and bear evil reports and lies, and have not been much grieved thereat, but have borne all things quietly ; yet when untrue reports and lies turn to the hinderance of God’s truth, they are in no wise to be suffered. Wherefore these be to signify unto the world, that it was not I that did set up the mass at Canterbury, but it was a false flattering, lying, and dissembling monk, which caused mass to be set up there without mine advice or counsel. Reddat illi Dominus in die illo. And as for offering myself to say mass before the queen’s highness, or in any other place, I never did it, as her grace well knoweth. But if her grace will give me leave, I shall be ready to prove against all that will say the contrary, that all that is contained in the holy communion set out by the most innocent and godly prince king Edward the VI., in his high court of parliament, is conformable to that order which our Saviour Christ did both observe and command to be observed, and which his apostles and primitive church used many years: whereas the mass in many things not only hath no foundation of Christ, his apostles, nor the primitive church, but is manifestly contrary to the same, and containeth many horrible abuses in it. And although many, either unlearned or malicious, do report, that M. Peter Martyr is unlearned, yet, if the queen’s highness will grant thereunto, I with the said M. Peter Martyr, ‘and other four or five which I shall choose, will by God’s grace take upon us to defend, not only the common prayers of the church, the ministration of the sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies, but also all the doctrine and religion set out by our said sovereign lord king Edward the VI., to be more pure and according to God’s word, than any other that hath been used in England these 1000 years: so that God’s word may be judge, and that the reasons and proofs of both parties 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 writing. And where they boast of the faith that hath been in the church these 1500 years, we will join with them in this point, and that the same doctrine and usage is to be followed, which was in the church 1500 years past. And we shall prove, that the order of the church set out at this present in this realm by act of parliament, is the same that was used in the church 1500 years past, and so shall they be never able to prove theirs. EN DEX. (The asterisks denote the paging of the Latin Version of the Defence.) ABSURDITIES, Gardiner rejects conclusions from, 333. Accidents, of the bread and wine in the sacrament remain ; but, the papists say, they hang alone in air, 45, 256, 328; no philosopher ever said that they might stand without any substance, 254, 6; Gardiner’s joke upon them, 256; cannot be the nature of substances, and the very substances themselves, 260, 1, 7, 73, 4, 84, 301, 235; sub- stances cannot be without them, 326; cannot be broken, eaten, &c., 324. Adam, his creation out of clay; Gardiner’s argu- ment from, 266. Adminicles, helps, supports, 37. Adnihilation of the sacramental bread, 305, 6; can only be wrought by the power of God, 306. Adoration in the sacrament, 228, 9, 34, 5. /Epinus, or Hippinus, quoted by Gardiner as sup- porting the real presence, although an enemy of the Church of Rome, 20, 159; says that ewcha- ristia is called a sacrifice, because it is a remem- brance of the true sacrifice which was offered upon the cross, and that in it is dispensed the very body and blood, yea, the very death of Christ, 160; Gardiner alleges that he considered the Lord’s supper a sacrifice propitiatory, 365; Cranmer asserts that he wrote to reprove the papists for feigning the mass to be propitiatory, ibid. Agrippa, Cornelius, agrees with Cranmer about the king’s divorce, xi. ‘AXnOijs and a\nbas, (John vi.) 24. Algerus on the sacrament, commended by Erasmus, 20. Aliud and aliud, diversity of nature, 290, 4. Alius and alius, diversity of person, 290, 4. Altar, the calling it reverend does not prove the real presence of Christ there, 228. Ambrose, his words upon the eating of Christ’s body to be understood figuratively, 55; says that we must not seek Christ upon earth, nor in earth, but in heaven, 96, *49; that before the conse- cration, in the sacrament, another kind is named, but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified ; and again he writes, ‘ thou dost receive the sacrament for a similitude of the flesh and blood of Christ, but thou dost obtain the grace and virtue of his true nature,’ 122, 178,9, *59; other passages from his writings upon this si- militude, ibid.; says that the bread is bread before the consecration, but after the words of the consecration it is the body of Christ, 177, 8, *72; affirms that the body of Christ is a spiritual meat, and spiritually eaten, 179; speaks figu- ratively of the bread after consecration, 179; Erasmus judges that the books de sacramentis, et de mysteriis, ascribed to Ambrose, were none of his, and Melancthon suspected the same thing, 180; says, Jesus is the bread that is the meat of saints, and he that taketh this bread dies not a sinner’s death, 210, *81; that this bread of life which came down from heaven doth minister everlasting life, and is the body of Christ; and how it dif- fers from manna, ibid. ; his words upon the wor- shipping of God’s footstool, 236, 7; says that if the word of God can make things of nought, much more can it change things that were before into other things, 276, *31; his words de initiandis, upon which the papists rely to support their tran- substantiation, 318, *41 5 it is doubtful whether the book de initiandis is his, 319; but it only says that the nature of the bread and wine, not the substance, is changed, ibid.; tells how the sacra- mental bread is changed, by adding to it the grace of Christ’s body, 320; says the forms of bread and wine are changed, the papists say they remain, 323. Angels cannot be at one time in two places, 97. Anthropomorphites, their heresy, 172, 3, 91. Apollinaris, a heretic, 262, 77 ; maintained that the Godhead and manhood in Christ were so mixed and confounded together that they both made but one nature, 286, 338. Aquinas, Thomas, speaks of the body of Christ going no farther than the stomach, 56; says that the whole of Christ’s body is in every part of the bread and wine, 64; asserts that, if a mouse or dog eat the sacramental bread, it is the body of Christ, 68; says that the sacrifice of the priest is satisfactory in proportion to his devotion, 84. Argument, a good one, but nothing to the purpose, (Gardiner) 316. Arians denied Christ to be of the same substance with his Father, 63, 7, 273, 339. Aristotle cited by Gardiner on transubstantiation, 251; his philosophy referred to, 331. Arselacton, Nottinghamshire, the birth-place of Cranmer, vii. Artemon, held that Christ was very man, and not God, 278. Athanasius, speaking of the eating of Christ’s flesh, and drinking of his blood, says, for this cause he made mention of his ascension into heaven, to pluck them from corporal phantasy, 209, *80. Augustine, cited by Gardiner, 22, 26, 59; his inter- pretation of Christ’s words in the sacrament, 24 ; speaks the same words as St Cyprian, and as Christ himself, 27; declares the eating of Christ’s flesh to be only a figurative speech, in the mind, not with the mouth, ibid.; cited by Gardiner as saying that we receive in the sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth, 55; his words about eating the body of Christ to be understood figu- ratively, ibid. ; says that the Lord’s supper was the same to Peter and to Judas, but that the effect differed in them, 57; that the ways of evil men do not obstruct the sacraments of God, but that the sacraments hinder the ways of evil men, 58; declared it to be figuratively only that Christ carried himself in his own hands, 61; says that the sacraments worthily used bring reward, un- worthily, judgment, 68, 9 ; proves that Christ is gone hence, as concerning his manhood, 73 ; marks this difference, that the sacraments of the fathers of the old testament contained the promise of that which in our sacrament is given, 74, 7; says that both we and the prophets received one thing in the diversity of sacraments, 75 ; his exposition of St Paul, 1 Cor. x., and Psalm Ixxvii., 76; thinks those mad who see diversity of things be- cause of diversity of signs in the old and new testament, ibid. ; says the memorial of the true sacrifice made upon the cross is called by the name of a sacrifice, 87 ; says that we may not think Christ everywhere in his man’s nature, but that he is every where as God, 94, 5, 6, *48; observes that, as a body must needs be in some place, if it is not within the compas of a place, it is nowhere ; and if it be nowhere, then it is not, 97,101, *50; says that we call that the body and blood of Christ 432 which is taken of the fruit of the earth, and con- secrated by mystical prayer; and also that Jesus called meat his body, and drink his blood, 105, *54; his rules to discern a proper speech from a figurative one, 115, 137 ; says that to keep in our minds that Christ was crucified and shed his blood for us, is to eat his flesh and drink his blood, 115, *57; says, ‘prepare not your mouth, or jaws, but your heart; believe, and thou hast eaten,’ 118, 208; meant that Christ’s flesh is not to be eaten carnally, but spiritually, at the Lord’s supper as well as at all other times, ilid.; his reply to Boniface, who asked him how parents and friends could answer for an infant in bap- tism, 124, *59; says that a thing which signifies is wont to be called by the name of the thing which it signifies, 125, 351; writes, that in the sacraments we must not consider what they be, but what they signify, 126,221; says that he serves under a sign, who worketh or worshippeth any sign, not knowing what it signifieth, and that every man, when he receives the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper, knows that we may not worship with a carnal bondage their visible signs, 134; says Christ reigns not car- nally in heaven, 139; declares that our resurrec- tion, although it shall be of true flesh, yet it shall not be carnally, (Gardiner) ibid.; says that Christ’s body is circumscribed and contained in one place, 140; declares that the gospel is to be received or heard with no less fear and reverence than the body of Christ, 146; says, contrary to Chrysostom, that we touch not Christ with our hands, 153; did not reprove the Messalians, 173; gives as a rule, that we must foresee that we do not so affirm the divinity of him that is man, that we should thereby take away the truth of his body, 186; says that Christ is every- where in that he is God, but in heaven in that he is man, ibid. ; speaks of the visible and invi- sible sacrament, 201, 4; declares that to eat Christ’s body, and to drink his blood, is to have life, 203; says, the wicked neither eat Christ’s flesh nor drink his blood, although every day they eat the sacrament thereof, to the con- demnation of their presumption, 205; declares the words of Christ to be spirit and life, though not to him that carnally understands them, 206; declares that he that agreeth not with Christ, doth neither eat his body nor drink his blood, 210, *81; that neither heretics, nor hypocritical professors have either a true faith, or are to be counted among the members of Christ, 211, *81; that a man may eat and drink the bread and wine, and nevertheless die; but the very body and blood of Christ no man eateth but that hath ever- lasting life, 212, *82; says that the sacrament is taken in the Lord’s table, of some men to life, and of some men to death, but the thing itself (whereof it is a sacrament) is taken of all men to life, and of no man to death, 212; that this is to eat that meat, and drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in him ; and this is a token or knowledge that a man hath eaten and drunken, if he dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in him, tbid.; declares that to eat Christ’s flesh and to drink his blood is a figurative speech, signifying the participation of his passion, ibid. ; says that the eating is to be refreshed, and the drinking is but to live, tbid. ; that when the apus- tles did eat bread, that was the Lord, Judas did but eat the bread of the Lord, and not the bread that was the Lord, 213, 224; says that evil men receive the sacrament of Christ’s body, although it availeth them not, 216; his words contra Cresconium, 221, *85 ; his words on baptism against the Donatists, 221, 2; his words on the text ‘‘ who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him,” cited by Gardiner, 222 ; says that, after a certain manner, the sacrament of Christ’s body is INDEX. Christ’s body, 225; when he says, no man doth eat the flesh of Christ, unless he first worship him, speaks of worshipping in heaven, 230; de- clares that although the sacrament be visibly ministered, yet it must be invisibly understood, 230, 1, *87; his words that Christ has given us a sacrament of the eating of his body, to be un- derstood invisibly and spiritually, 231; declares plainly, in many places, that Christ body is not corporally present, nor corporally eaten in the sacrament, 232; says that to eat Christ’s flesh is fruitfully to remember that the same flesh was crucified for us, 232; his exposition of Psalm xeviii., where it is commanded to worship the earth, God’s footstool, by which may be under- stood the flesh of Christ, 236; says that some- times, in scripture, a thing is told after that was done before, 248 ; writes, with other old authors, that St Paul (1 Cor. x.) spake of such bread as is made of a great multitude of grains of corn united into one material loaf, as the spiritual members of Christ be joined together into one mys- tical body of Christ, 249; says that that which you see in the altar is the bread and the cup, which also your eyes do shew you; but faith sheweth further, that the bread is the body of Christ, and the cup his blood, 277, *31; declares the sacrifice of the church consists of two things, of the visible kind of the element, and of the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord, tbid., 282; proves, that as the heavenly bread, which is Christ’s flesh, after a manner is called the body of Christ, so is the sacrament of faith, which is baptism, faith, 282 ; says that Nestorius taught that Christ was man only, and that Eutyches denied Christ’s manhood, 293; writes that that which men call a sacrifice is a sign or representation of the true sacrifice, 351, *95. Baldus, 194. Baptism: the washing outwardly teacheth the wash- ing God worketh inwardly, 17; injury to from popish doctrines, 25, 34, 45; in every part of the water in baptism is whole Christ and the Holy Spirit sacramentally, 64; the Holy Ghost doth not only come to us in baptism, and Christ there clothe us, but they do so long as we dwell in Christ, 71; Christ given in the sacrament of, as in the sacrament of his flesh and blood, 76; Christ pre- sent as well in baptism as in the Lord’s supper, 92, 228, 342, 356, 366; how parents and friends can answer for an infant in, 124; Christ not only in them that duly receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, but in them that duly receive the sacrament of baptism, and in all other true chris- tian people at other times, 140; Christ and the Holy Ghost not in the water of, 148; how water called agua regenerans and aqua sanctificans in, yet it doth not regenerate indeed, 150 ; because it is the sacrament of regeneration and sanctification, ibid., 153; Christ manifested and exhibited in, spiritually, 156 ; how we are made new therein, 176; regenerated as well in baptism as in the sa- crament of the body and blood of Christ, ibid. ; the water is changed in nature therein, 180, 308; those that come feignedly, and those that come un- feignedly, both be washed with the holy water, but both be not washed with the Holy Ghost, 221; sacramentally, 254, 322; there is none without water, as well as the Holy Ghost, spi- ritually regenerating, 304; Nazianzen, Emissen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and all the ancient authors, speak of the change in this sacrament, 311; Gardiner’s statement respecting the effect of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross dispensed in, 360. Barrett, Dr, rejected by Cranmer at Cambridge, viii. Basil, proves that the Holy Ghost is God by being in several persons at one time, 97, *50; says we eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood, being made, by his incarnation and sensible life, par- ae INDEX. takers of his word and wisdom, 209; a passage from him about a separation of the accidents to discover the substance by itself alone, 324, 6. Basilides, a heretic, 277. Batholus, 194. Berengarius, his recantation, 13; was constrained by Nicholas II. to recant, 14, 46, 196, 203; his confession that the body of Christ was torn in pieces by the teeth of the faithful, 46 n., 48, 113 x; Smith’s exposition of his meaning, 48, 9. Bernardus, de cana Domini, 41 3; says as Christ gave his life for us, so he gave his flesh, the one to redeem, the other to feed us, 63. Bertram, cited by Gardiner, 13 ; only wrote of the sacrament at the request of King Charles [the bald], 14; his doctrine of the old and new sacra- ments, 78; did not write secretly but openly what the doctrine of the church then was, 173; was never charged with error but by Gardiner, 196. Biel, see Gabriel. Bishops do not lose their original names upon their consecration, and in like manner the sacramental bread remains bread still, though called the Lord’s body, 275. Bocardo, the prison at Oxford, Cranmer confined therein, xxii. xxiii., 392. Body of Christ, present spiritually, not corporally, in those that receive the sacrament, 3; not really given by the priest, 182. Bonaventure speaks of the body of Christ going no further than the stomach, 56. Bread, wine, and water, not holy, but holy tokens ; not bare tokens, 11; miscalled for the figures of them, 53,4, 323; bread is not Christ’s body, 110, 179; bread and wine not holy before the con- secration, 180; the divinity may be said to be poured sacramentally into the bread, as the Spirit of God is said to be in the water of baptism, 181 ; bread may have another use than to feed the body, ibid. ; whether Christ’s body be made of the mat- ter of bread, 194; Smith’s doctrine of the cor- ruption in the sacramental bread and wine, 381. Bucer, cited by Gardiner, as professing the faith of the real and substantial presence, 19; his words upon the similitude of the sun and Christ’s pre- sence in the sacrament, 90; says faith must relieve the default of our senses, ibid. ; his exposition of St Augustine’s words upon the sacrament of the body of Christ, 126; denies that Christ is really and substantially present in the bread of the sa- crament, but in the ministration, 225; dissents " nothing from Ccolampadius and Zuinglius, ibid. Butts, Dr, the king’s physician, informs the king of the shameful treatment of Cranmer by the council, xviii. ae whether it means making, 106, 7, 181, 23. Canon-law, purposely corrupts the truth of God’s word, 33. Canons of the apostles respecting priests at the communion, disregarded by the papists, 353, *96. Capharnaites murmured at eating man’s flesh, 116, 231, 249; cannot understand any action taken Spiritually, 185. Carnally and corporaily, how these terms are used, 139, 40. Cart, putting it before the horses, 371. Cassiodorus, 195, *75. Catechism, of Germany, translated by Cranmer, 188, 90; says that with our bodily mouths we receive the body and blood of Christ, 226; Gar- diner refers to a picture contained in it, to prove what it taught, 227; it was not put there by Cranmer, but by some idle painter, ibid. Catherine, queen, Cranmer consulted by Henry VIII. about her divorce, ix. Catholic faith, Gardiner’s and Cranmer’s definition of it, 12, 31, 51, 2; Gardiner’s doctrine of it [cranmer. ] 433 not true by his own definition, 13; papists the cause of its hinderance of late, 14; church of Rome not its true mother, 18; the papistical faith wrongly called catholic, 113; has taught from the beginning that as in the sacrament there are two diverse natures, bread and wine; so in the person of Christ remain two natures, his divinity and his humanity, 297; the true ca- tholic faith upon the sacrament, 337; the true faith was in the church from the beginning, and not first taught by Berengarius, 376. Cautels, cautions, chicaneries, 337, 48. Cerdon, a heretic, 277. Chantries, dissolution of, during the king’s non- age, resisted by Cranmer, xii. Christ, his real presence should prove no transubstan- tiation of the bread and wine, 4; why he came into the world, and how the benefits of his coming are perverted and obscured by the papists, 5; how he is present in his sacraments, 11] ; is spiritually present, though corporally in heaven, 12, 46, 7, 54, 74, 87, 127, 203; offering of, every day by the priest, not in scripture, nor any ancient author, 13; his doctrine and St John Baptist’s no worse because they were put to death for it, 15; did not give his body, but the figure of it, to be eaten, ibid.; does not make his body corporally to be in many places at one time, 16; the real and substantial presence of his body and blood in the sacrament is truly the faith of the papists, 21, 46; the eating of his body and blood, quoted from John vi., 24, *15; distinction between the giving his flesh on the cross, and in the last sup- per, 24; received whole, body and soul, manhood and godhead, in baptism as well as in the holy communion, 25; did not speak of corporal eat- ing in John vi., ibid. ; there is no will of his set forth in scripture, that he is really, carnally, cor- porally, and naturally, under the forms of bread and wine, 34, 61; cannot be eaten again now, nor could his body have been crucified on the morrow, if it had been so eaten up, as the papists say, in the last supper, 35; if he fulfilled his promise of life at his last supper, as the papists say he did, he needed not to die for us afterwards, ibid.; his ambiguous speeches not always ex- pounded by the evangelists, 36; told his disciples of another kind of eating and drinking than that which belongs only to the preservation of tempo- ral life, 39 ; there is no kind of meat that is com- fortable to the soul but the death of Christ’s blessed body, nor drink that can quench her thirst, but only the blood-shedding of our Saviour Christ, 40; far excels all corporal meats and drinks, ibid.; unity of his mystical body, 42; does not feed Jews, Turks, and infidels, if they receive the sacrament, 45; his daily sacrifice an error of the papists, 47 ; is not in the sacramental bread and wine, but in them that worthily eat and drink it, 52, 3; is present corporally in heaven only, and spiritually in them that worthily take the bread and wine, 54, 5, 93; is received in the heart, and not in the mouth, as the papists say, 57, 373; remains in the man that worthily re- ceives the bread, as long as he remains a member of Christ, 59; whether a beast or a bird eat his body, 67; whether evil men eat his body, 69 ; whether the fathers and prophets of the old testa- ment ate Christ’s flesh and drank his blood, 75 ; whether his body is every day many times made, and of bread and wine; or never but once, and then of the substance of his blessed mother, 79, 194; his declaration of his willingness to die was not a sacrifice propitiatory for sin, or else his death was in vain, 85, 6; not his body, but the cruci- fying of it, and the effusion of his blood unto death, was the very sacrifice for our sins, 88 ; did not declare in his supper that he was then a sacrifice, but that a sacrifice should be made of his body, which was done the day after, ibid. ; 28 434 whether he is corporally in many places at one time, or only, like the sun, in heaven, and no- where else, 89, &c. 186, 3715 is corporally in heaven, and there shall continue until the last judgment, 93; his presence in this world, in his divinity, 945; is in heaven as concerning his man- hood, and everywhere as concerning his godhead, 94, 5, 6,7; how it may be true that he is with us, and yet gone from us, 102; interpretation of his words, ‘‘ this is my body,” 103, 261; whe- ther he called bread his body, 108, 9, 10, 370; eating his body horrible to be heard of any Chris- tian, 110, 12; ‘*to eat his body and drink his blood,” and ‘to call bread his body, and wine his blood,” are figurative speeches, 110, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 132, 145, 181, 232 ; why Christ’s body is not always to be taken as a figure, 120; his humanity not changed from the very nature of man after his resurrection, 129; all passages which declare Christ to be here on earth, and to be eaten and drunken of christian people, are to be understood either of his divine nature, or else figuratively, or spiritually, 138, 40, 185 ; is pre- sent in the sacrament as he is in heaven (Gar- diner), 140; whether he is in heaven only after a spiritual manner, 141; his unity with us, 162, 3, 4,5; no man can eat his flesh and drink his blood but spiritually, 203 ; spirit and life not in evil men because they hear Christ’s words, 206 ; the godly only eat Christ, 207; is not eaten with the teeth, but with faith, 208; the eating his flesh gives everlasting life, 213; when an unre- pentant sinner receives the sacrament, whether he have Christ’s body within him or no, 216, 17, 18; his body, in the sacrament, is the same, however described, the diversity is in the eating thereof, no man eating it carnally; but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritually, and the evil only sacramentally, that is, figuratively, 224; what kind of body he has in the sacrament, 228 ; of the manner and form of worshipping him in the sacrament, ibid.; although continually in heaven, yet he is worshipped here also, at all times, and in all places, 230; at his transfigura- tion, and after his resurrection, remained like a man in all proportions and members, 233; his humiliation, his incarnation and conversation with us here on earth, 235; whole Christ, God and man, ought to be honoured with one entire and godly honour, 236; whether by the earth, God’s footstool, was meant the flesh of Christ to be wor- shipped, 236, 7; is not in any wise to be wor- shipped as being corporally in the bread in the sacrament, 238; his body must have been burnt, if the papist’s doctrines are true, as in the old church they burned all the sacramental bread that remained uneaten, 250 ; retained his divine nature after his incarnation, 278; two examples given by the old catholic writers of his two-fold nature —one the body and soul, in man,—and the other the bread and wine, and the body and blood of Christ, in the sacrament, ibid., 284; how bread is his body, 281; his divine nature rests in his body, 228; he is the spiritual pasture and food of our souls, as meat and drink is of our bodies, 304; his body is whole in every part of the bread divided sacramentally, as it is in the whole undivided, 327 ; it is not necessary that his manhood should be where his divinity is, 340; we may now look for no other priest, nor sacrifice, than him, to take away our sins, 347 ; his priest- hood cannot pass to another, 363; no ancient council or doctor says that his very body is eaten in the sacrament, 370; it was upon the cross that he gave his flesh for us, not at his supper, 372; is present with his holy church, 376. Christians in the latter days so dazzled by the Romish antichrist as to believe whatever he prescribed to them, 46. Chrysostom and other old authors do not speak as INDEX. Berengarius does about Christ’s flesh, 49; his words upon the eating of Christ’s body to be un- derstood figuratively, 55; says with the other Greek writers, that Christ’s calling bread his body means making (Gardiner), 106; affirms, that, if any man understand the words of Christ carnally, he shall surely profit nothing thereby, 114; says that Christ ordained the table of his holy supper for this purpose, that in that sacrament he should daily shew unto us bread and wine for a simili- tude of his body and blood, 122; not only says that Christ is in our hands, but also that we see him with our eyes, touch him, feel him, and grope him, fix our teeth in his flesh, taste it, break it, eat it, and digest it; make red our tongues, and dye them with his blood, &c. ; which things cannot be understood of the body and blood of Christ, but by a figurative speech, 153, 226; his writings are full of tropes and figures, 182 ; says, speaking of the Lord’s supper, When you come to these mysteries, do not think that you receive by a man the body of God, meaning of Christ, 182; affirms that it is not man which makes the bread and wine, being consecrated, the body and blood of Christ; but it is Christ him- self that makes himself to be there present, by which he means present in such sort as he is in heaven only, 183; makes no difference between receiving Christ in the holy communion and in baptism, ibid.; says we ascend into heaven, and do eat Christ sitting there above, meaning by the marvellous working of God in the hearts of them that receive the sacraments, ibid.; where he speaks of the great miracle of Christ, that “he sitteth above with his Father, and is the same hour here with us in our hands,” it is true that he sits above in his natural body, and yet is in our hands sacramentally and in our hearts by grace and spiritual nourishment, 186; says that the true worshippers of Christ ascend up and feed upon him where he sitteth in his high throne of glory with his Father, 235; writes, against those who use only water in the sacrament, that Christ, minding to pluck up that heresy by the roots, used wine as well before his resurrection, when he gave the mysteries, as after at his table without mysteries, 274; says that the bread, when it is sanctified by means of the priest, is delivered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the Lord’s body, although the nature of the bread still remains, ibid.; his epistle ad Casarium Monachum, ibid. n.; proves the unity of the two natures of Christ, 286; Cranmer translated his words from a copy at Florence not in print, 287 ; his words cited to prove transubstantiation by the papists, 312; but he adds, ‘do not think that you receive by a man the body of God,’ &c. ibid., 313, 14, 15; was much addicted to the use of nega- tives by comparison, 314 ; his admonition to with- draw our minds at the Lord’s table from sensible to heavenly and godly things, 315; says that Christ is both gone up into heaven, and yet is here received of us; for he is gone up to heaven car- nally, but is here received spiritually, 341 ; after speaking of the sacrifice of Christ, says, that which we do is done for a remembrance of that which was done by Christ, for Christ says, ‘do this in remembrance of me,’’ 352; speaking of christian people ever offering one sacrifice of christ, corrects himself by saying, “but rather we make a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice,” ibid. Church of Rome, not the true mother of the catholic faith, 18. Church, God preserves the true faith in his holy church, 376 ; never wholly errs, 377 ; no man can discern it, but God alone, tid. ; cannot make new articles of faith, ibid.; compared to a registry for keeping men’s wills, ibid. ; the holy church but a small flock in comparison with the followers of antichrist, ibid.; Christ and his apostles were INDEX. 435 in their time the only true church, 378; the open church has been for four or five hundred years de- filed by the papists, did. ; the church of Christ, not antichrist, is to be followed, ibid. Clement, Saint, alleged to say that if any portion of the host remain it must be consumed by the clerks, with fear and trembling, and that they must fast for some hours afterwards, lest the resi- due should mix with other common meats digested by the belly, 141; his epistles were feigned before the papists had run so far into errors as now, 144 ; his epistles not mentioned by Eusebius, St Jerome, nor Gennadius, 144; Peter could not have made him his successor, as said in his epistles, ibid. Cockle among clean corn, 360. Cole, Dr, ordered to prepare a sermon for Cranmer’s execution-day, and visits him in prison, xxii. Common Prayer, book of, alleged by Gardiner to teach the doctrine of the real presence, 51, 5, 62, 3, 79, 83, 92, 229, 325; Cranmer denies that it so teaches, 53, 6, 64, 327; we do not there pray that the bread and wine be made the body and blood of Christ, but that unto us, in that holy mystery, they may be so, 79, 271. Communion, holy, a short instruction thereto, 354. Consecration defined, 177, 8, 80. Constantius, Marcus, (Gardiner’s assumed name), 67n., 419. Council, Ephesine, cited by Gardiner, 23 ; Cyril and this council decreed truly that Christ’s flesh, when eaten, must be joined to his divinity, or it could not give everlasting life, 27 ; words of perverted by Smith, 369; the controversy therein was not of uniting Christ’s flesh to the forms of the bread and wine, but to his divinity in his incarnation, 370; of Lateran, the fourth, transubstantia- tion first named there, a.p. 1215, 239, 40, 376 ; of Nice, its decree respecting priests at the com- munion, disregarded by the papists, 353, *96; its doctrine on the sacrifice of Christ set forth by Gardiner, 355; speaks of a sacrifice of lauds and thanksgivings, and not of propitiation, 356 ; does not say that Christ is corporally in the bread and rd but intimates that he is gone up to heaven, ibid. Cranmer, his life, vii. ; born at Arselacton, Notting- hamshire, ibid. ; chosen fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, ibid.; married and became reader in Buckingham College, ibid. ; slanderous report of his being hosteler of the Dolphin inn, at Cam- bridge, viii. ; rechosen into Jesus College upon the death of his wife, and made reader of divinity there, and public examiner in the University, ibid. ; refuses Wolsey’s fellowship, ibid.; confers with Drs Gardiner and Foxe, at Waltham, upon Queen Catherine’s divorce, ibid.; is sent for by the king upon the subject, and tells him that the pope cannot dispense with the word of God, ibid. ; is assigned by the king to consider the question of his divorce, and is sent ambassador to Rome upon the subject, x.; made penitentiary to the pope, tbid. ; goes ambassador to the emperor, and confers with Cornelius Agrippa, upon the subject of the divorce, xi.; is made archbishop of Can- terbury, ibid.; his qualifications for the office, studies, and habits, ibid. ; opposes Gardiner on the Six Articles, xii.; Cromwell and the lords sent to dine and console with him under his disap- pointment thereon, ibid. ; resists the dissolving of chantries during the king’s non-age, ibid.; his character for patience, xiii. ; releases from the Fleet a priest who had been sent there for calling him an hosteler, xiv.; his liberality and justice in paying his debts before his attainder, xv.3 re- lieves the sick poor returned from the wars at Boulogne, xvi. ; opposes the king’s wishes about the Six Articles, and, at length, wins him to his side, xvii. ; Gardiner and others urge the king to commit him to the Tower for exciting heresy, ibid. ; the king consents, but tells Cranmer to appeal to him by his signet, xvili.; is treated with great indignity by the council, but the king rebukes them for their malice, and they are glad to make friends with him again, xix. ; was always defended by the king, Henry VIII. ibid.; ad- vances in the royal favour under Edward VI. ibid.: confers with bishop Ridley upon the holy sacrament, and sets forth the true doctrine thereof in five books, xx.; is answered by Gardiner, in his “‘Explication,” to which he replies, ibid. ; some of his other works, ibid. ; is condemned for high treason under Queen Mary, but is pardoned of this, and accused of heresy, xxi. ; is taken from the Tower to dispute with the divines at Oxford, ibid. ; is condemned as a heretic, and thrown into gaol, xxii.; is induced to recant, but the queen orders Dr Cole to prepare a sermon for his ex- ecution-day, ibid.; is visited in prison by Cole and a Spanish friar, and prevailed upon to write his recantation in his own hand, but also writes secretly a contrary address to the people, xxiii. ; is taken to St Mary’s church and placed upon a stage to hear Cole’s sermon, ibid.; the substance of the sermon, xxiv. ; is exhorted to die patiently, and promised diriges and masses for his soul, xxv.; his prayer and last exhortation to the people at his death, xxvi.; he renounces his re- cantation, and is led to the stake, xxviii.; his appearance at the place of execution, ibid.; the Spanish friars try to bring him back to their faith, and one Ely, a priest, chides the people for shaking hands with him, idid.; his behaviour in the flames, xxix.; a list of his writings, xxx. ; his motives for writing against the errors of popery, 6; his answer to Gardiner’s ‘‘ Expli- cation,” 9; his catechism mistaken by ignorant men, 14, 374; asserts that Gardiner concludes his book with blasphemous words against both sacraments, 45; says Gardiner changed the order of his books to avoid coming first to transub- stantiation, because of its having so much less appearance of truth than the doctrine of the real presence, 50, 185; asserts that the true catholic faith is not that Christ is in the bread and wine, which is Luther’s doctrine, but that his body and blood is present under the form of bread and wine, 51 ; acknowledges his former ignorance, and Says it is good at all times to turn from error to truth, 64; compares Gardiner’s doctrines to a third part in a voluntary descant out of tune, 92 ; taunts him with being an ignorant lawyer, 157, 185, 235, 7, 48, 301, 685; ridicules Gardiner’s absurdities by a play upon ‘‘lies’’ and adverbs in “ly,” 157; affirms that his doctrine is not new, but was the public faith of the Catholic church till the time of Nicholas IT., 196; says, that in writing his book, he foresaw all the objec- tions that Gardiner could make to it, 220 ; repels Gardiner’s insinuation that he was prompted by some ‘** man” or “‘ friend,’’ 221; declares he writes in English, which all men know, in order that the truth may no longer lie hid under a bushel, 224, 357; confesses that formerly he was in darkness, and defended the error of transubstanti- ation, 241, 374; denies that his second book, against transubstantiation, was written when he intended to maintain Luther’s opinion only, 285 ; charges Gardiner with being more full of words than learning, 301; his answer to Smith’s pre- face, 368; congratulates himself that Gardiner and Smith have taken up their pens against him, but wishes it had been persons more learned, ibid. ; Smith perverts the words of the Ephesine council against him, 369 ; agrees with Smith and the council that the mass is a sacrifice, but denies that it is propitiatory, ibid.; asserts that he ad- mits that the same body of Christ, born of the virgin Mary, is received in the sacrament, but contends only about the manner of receiving it, 370; acknowledges his former errors and details 28—2 436 his conversion, 374; disclaims worldly motives for the change, and asserts that he sought only the glory of God, ibid.; his disputation at Ox- ford, before Dr Weston and the vice-chancellor of Cambridge, with other members of both uni- versities, 391; three notaries are appointed, and the articles of belief are subscribed to, ibid. ; after a procession and dinner, Cranmer is brought from Bocardo, the gaol, before the commissioners in St Mary’s church, 392 ; his reply to Weston’s exhortation to unity, ibid.; the articles are read to him, and utterly denying their truth, he refuses to subscribe to them, ébid.; has a copy of the articles given to write his mind upon them, and is remanded to Bocardo, ibid.; the modesty of his demeanour before the assembly, 393 ; sends his answer the next day, ibid.; on the third day Cranmer is brought to answer the articles, closed in by the mayor and aldermen for security, 2bid. 5 Dr Chedsey, the first opponent, begins, and is followed by several others, whom Cranmer answers amid much interruption and disorder, ibid. ; he refuses the drink offered him, and at the conclu- sion is taken back to Bocardo, ibid.; sketch of the arguments, and Weston’s mistake at the beginning, ibid.; Cranmer’s answer to him on the folly of disputing that which was determined before the truth was tried, 394; his argument with Chedsey upon the presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, ibid. ; his explication, in wri- ting, upon the conclusions, 395; Chedsey con- troverts his explication, ébid. ; Cranmer replies to him, and puts in a further explication upon the ordinance of the Lord’s supper, 396; the dis- putation resumed by Chedsey, 399; Cranmer denies that Christ’s organic body is in the sacra- ment, ibid.; grants that Christ said his body should be given, but denies that it was contained in the bread, 400 ; Oglethorpe charges Cranmer with evasion; Cranmer corrects Oglethorpe’s Latin, ibid.; Weston takes up the argument with a passage from Augustine, 401 ; Cranmer refutes him, ibid.; Weston cites St Chrysostom, 402 ; Cranmer answers him, 403; Weston quotes other passages from Chrysostom, and Cranmer replies, ibid. ; Cranmer is interrupted by clamour excited by Weston, 406 ; Chedsey interposes, 407 ; Cran- mer denies his argument, ibid. ; Chedsey quotes Tertullian and Photius, #bid.; Cranmer answers him on Tertullian, 408 ; Weston interposes, ibid. ; Cranmer replies to both, ibid.; Tresham starts another argument, 409; Cranmer answers him, 410; Tresham refers to Bucer, contra Abrincen- sem, ibid. ; Cranmer retorts upon his relying on Bucer, ibid. ; Tresham admonishes Cranmer, but Weston tells him to dispute, and not to pray, 411; Cranmer refutes them by Cyril and Hilary, 412; Chedsey again takes up the argument, and charges Cranmer with falsifying Hilary, 413; Weston calls on Smith to speak to the point, but Smith keeps silence, 414; Yong demands whether there is any body of Christ but his instrumental body, ibid. ; Cranmer answers him, and he puts other sophistical questions, 2bid. ; Cranmer charges him with perverting the scrip- tures, 415; Yong quotes from Ambrose, ibid. ; Cranmer replies to him, 417; argument upon the Holy Ghost in the likeness of a dove, : ut deinceps fellea peccatorum horreat pocula, et omnis sapor delectamentorum carnalium fit ei quasi rancidum radensque palatum, acute mordacitatis acetum. Ad hee, inter sacra mysteria ad gratiarum actiones convertitur, et inclinato capite, munditia cordis adepta, se intelligens consummatum, restitutus peccator sanctificatam Deo animam . . . . . . e > quasi depositum custoditum, fideliter reddit, et deinceps cum Paulo gloriatur et letatur dicens: ‘ Vivo jam non ego, vivit vero in me Christus.’ Heec in Christi commemoratione retractantur a fidelibus: et defsecatis animis carnis ejus edulium non est horrori, sed honori, potuque sancti et sanctificantis sanguinis spiritus delectatur. He quoties *op. 173. agimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide sincera panem sanctum frangi- mus et partimur.” Hee Cyprianus. His similia Augustinus: “Noli parare fauces, sed cor.” Et alio in loco (quem- *Ob. 89. : pa 3 Augus. de admodum de eo commemoratur) sic scribit: “Ut quid paras dentes et ventrem? erede, yoo. et manducasti.” Sed de hac re satis multa dicta sunt, ubi confirmabatur has de Sob. 244 carne et sanguine Christi edendo et bibendo voces figuratas esse. ta ean. Aug. in Joan. Tract. xxvi. ‘Credere in eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum. Qui credit in eum, manducat, invisibiliter saginatur, quia et invisibiliter renascitur. Infans intus est, novus intus est; ubi novellatur, ibi satiatur.” Idem Psal. Xxi. in expositione prima: ‘ Sacramenta corporis et sanguinis mei reddam coram timentibus eum. dent pauperes et saturabuntur, edent humiles et contemptores seculi, August. et imi- Clemens. Orig. in. Matt. cap. xv. Ob. 169. Cyprian. in Serm. de Ccena Domi- ni. Athanas. de Peceato in Spiritum sanctum. *Ob. 180. Joar. vi. Basilius, Epist. 141. *Ob. 184. Hieron. in Esai. cap. 1xvi. *Ob. 207. *Ob. 208. . 80 DE VERA CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS PERCEPTIONE. [ Lr. tabuntur. Ita enim nec copiam hujus seculi concupiscent, nec timebunt inopiam. Et laudabunt Dominum, qui requirunt eum: nam laus Domini est ernctatio saturi- tatis ilius. Vivunt corda eorum in seculum seculi, nam cibus ille cordis est.” Clemens Alexandrinus in Pedagogo, Lib. ii. cap. 2. ‘‘ Hoc est bibere Jesu sangui- nem, esse participem incorruptionis Domini.” De Consecra. Dist. 2. ‘“*Utrum. Quia Christum fas vorari dentibus non est,” &e. CAPUT IV. BONOS TANTUM CHRISTUM EDERE. ATaQueE ut ad propositum nostrum reyertamur, tantum vera et vitalia Christi mem- bra carnem et sanguinem ejus edere et bibere, ex permultis antiquorum locis, minime adhue citatis, comprobabo. Origenes aperte de ea re scribit hoe modo: ‘“ Verbum factum est caro, verusque cibus, quem qui comederit, omnino vivet in e#ternum; quem nullus malus potest edere. Etenim si fieri possit, ut qui malus adhuc_perseveret, edat Verbum factum carnem, quum sit Verbum et panis vivus, nequaquam scriptum fuisset, ‘Quisquis ederit panem hunc, vivet in «#ternum’.” Hee ita perspicua sunt, ut longioris explicationis non egeant. Itaque quomodo cum hoc conyeniat Cyprianus, videamus. Is in sermone de Ceena Domini (qui illi ascribitur) sic ait: “ Dixerat sane hujus traditionis magister, quod nisi manducaremus et biberemus ejus sanguinem, non haberemus vitam in nobis; spirituali nos instruens documento, et aperiens ad rem adeo abditam intellectum, ut sciremus quod mansio nostra in ipso sit manducatio, et potus quasi quedam incorporatio, subjectis obsequiis, voluntatibus junctis, affectibus unitis. Ksus igitur carnis hujus quedam aviditas est, et quoddam desiderium ma- nendi in ipso, per quod sic imprimimus et eliquamus in nos dulcedinem caritatis ut heereat.” Hee Cyprianus de esu et potu corporis et sanguinis Domini. Et paulo post ait: “Nullus huic agno communicat, quem Israelitici nominis generositas non commendat.” Athanasius autem de carnis et sanguinis Christi perceptione refert, “ideo Christum ascensus sui in ccelum meminisse, ut illos a corporali cogitatione avelleret; et post- hac discant, carnem dictam cibum ccelestem, superne venientem, et spiritualem alimo- niam, quam ipse det. Nam ‘que locutus sum vobis, inquit, spiritus sunt et vita.’ Quod idem est perinde ac dicat, Quod quidem ostenditur, occiditur, pro mundi dabitur alimonia, ut spiritualiter in unoquoque distribuatur, ac fiat omnibus conser- vatorium in resurrectionem vite eterne.” Hic Athanasius causam ostendit, cur Christus suze in coelum ascensionis mentionem fecerit, cum de esu et potu carnis et sanguinis sui loqueretur. Causa autem hee fuit, ut auditores de nulla carnali Christi perceptione ore adhibenda cogitarent, (cum quod ad corporis presentiam pertineret, ab illis tollendus et in ceelum subyehendus esset,) sed intelligerent illum spiritualem cibum esse, spiritualiter percipiendum, et hoc pastu vitam «ternam nobis donandam, quod nullis nisi vitalibus membris suis facit. De hac perceptione similiter Basilius: ‘ Edimus (inquit) Christi carnem, et bibi- mus ipsius sanguinem, per incarnationem participes fientes et sensibilis vite, verbi et sapientie. Carnem enim et sanguinem totam suam mysticam conversationem in carne nominat, et doctrinam ex activa et naturali ac theologica constantem indicavit, per quam nutritur anima, et interim ad veritatis speculationem praeparatur.” Hic nos docet Basilius, quomodo carnem et sanguinem Christi percipiamus, quod ad vera et fidelia Christi membra pertinet. Hieronymus autem hee habet: “ Omnes voluptatis magis amatores quam Dei non comedunt carnem Jesu, neque bibunt sanguinem ejus, de quo ipse loquitur: ‘ Qui comedit carnem meam et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aternam’.” Atque alio loco Hieronymus: ‘“ Heretici non comedunt nee bibunt corpus et san- guinem Domini.” ea DE VERA CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS PERCEPTIONE. 81 Addit praterea: “THeretici non comedunt carnem Jesu, cujus caro cibus ereden- tium est.” Itaque Hieronymus cum superioribus in hoc consentit, hereticos ceterosque, qui carnis su libidines sequuntur, carnem et sanguinem Christi non percipere; Christus enim ait, “Qui edit meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, vitam eternam habet.” Ambrosius autem “Jesum ait esse panem qui est esca sanctorum, quem qui ac- cipit non moritur peccatoris morte, quia panis hic remissio peccatorum est.” Et alibi quodam in libro, qui illi ascribitur, sic loquitur: “ Iste panis vivus qui descendit de colo, vite eternee substantiam subministrat. Et quicumque hunc panem manduca- verit, non morietur in ewternum, et corpus est Christi.” In alio autem libro (qui sub nomine illius prodit) his verbis usus est: “ Manna qui manducavit, mortuus est: qui manducayerit hoc corpus, fiet ei remissio peccatorum, et non morietur in eternum.” Et alio loco: “ Quotiescunque bibis, remissionem accipis peccatorum.” Hz Ambrosii sententie ita perspicue sunt, ut repetitionis tantum, non etiam ex- plicationis, egeant. Augustinus permultis in locis hance dubitationem explicuit. Itaque quodam in loco sic ait: “Qui discordat a Christo, nec panem ejus manducat nec sanguinem bibit, etiamsi tantze rei sacramentum ad judicium sue presumptionis quotidie indif- ferenter accipiat.” Sed planissime Augustinus in libro de Civitate Dei hac de re sententiam suam pronuntiavit: ubi adversus duo hereticorum genera disputat, quorum hi omnibus baptismo lotis, et sacramento corporis et sanguinis Christi pastis, vitam eternam pro- mittebant, qualescunque tandem fides aut mores eorum essent, quia Christus dixit: “Tlic est panis qui de ccelo descendit. Si quis ex ipso manducaverit, non morietur. Ego sum panis vivus, qui de ccelo descendi. Si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, vivet in eternum.” Ex hoc Christi dicto colligebant, omnes hujus sacramenti participes ab externa morte liberandos, et tandem ad xternam vitam perducendos. Ahi vero dicebant, quod heretici et schismatici, etsi sacramentum corporis Christi comederent, verum tamen corpus Christi percipere non possent, quia membra corporis ejus non sunt. Ideoque non omnibus, baptismo et sacramento corporis Christi initiatis, vitam eternam pollicebantur, sed illis qui fidem veram pre se ferrent, etsi mores impii essent: affirmabant enim tales, non tantum in sacramento, sed etiam reipsa corpus Christi manducare, quia membra sint corporis Christi. At Augustinus utrosque confutans ait, neque hereticos, neque eos quorum vita a fidei professione dissideat, aut veram habere fidem, (que per caritatem efficax est, et malum non operatur,) aut in membris Christi consendos esse: non enim possunt simul esse et membra Christi et membra diaboli. “Qui ergo est,” inquit, “‘in corporis Christi unitate, id est, in christianorum compage membrorum, (cujus corporis sacra- mentum fideles communicantes de altari sumere consueverunt,) ipse vere dicendus est manducare corpus Christi et bibere sangninem Christi. Ac per hoe heretici et schis- matici, ab hujus unitate corporis separati, possunt idem percipere sacramentum, sed non sibi utile, imo vero etiam noxium.” Et mox: “Recte intelligunt, non dicendum eum manducare corpus Christi, qui in corpore non est Christi.” Et mox: “Nee isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi. Ut enim alia taceam, non possunt simul esse et membra Christi et membra meretricis. Denique ipse dicens, ‘Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet et ego in eo,’ ostendit quid sit, non sacramento tenus, sed revera corpus Christi manducare, et ejus sanguinem bibere; hoc est enim in Christo manere, ut in illo maneat et Christus. Sic enim hoe dixit, tanquam diceret, Qui non in me manet, et in quo ego non maneo, non se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meum, aut bibere sanguinem meum.” His verbis Augustinus apertissime asseverat, illos qui vitam impiam et sccleratam degunt, quanquam Christi corpus edere videantur, quia sacramentum corporis ejus percipiunt, revera tamen neque membra corporis sui esse, neque corpore illius vesci. In Evangelium autem Joannis hee scribit: “Qui non manducat ejus carnem, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, non habet in se vitam. Et qui manducat ejus carnem, et *6 [cranmer. ] *Ob. 209. In Hiere. cap. XXil. *Ob. 194. Ambros. de Benedictio. Patriarch. eap. 9. *Ob. 195. De his qui mysteriis ini- tiantur, eap.6. De Sacra- mentis, Lib. iv. eap. 5. *Ob. Toa. Lib. v. cap. 3. Aug. in Sententiis Prospe. de- cerptis, cap. 339. +Ob. 233. De Civit. Dei, Lib. xxi. cap. 25. Joan. vi. *Ob. 224. In Joan. Tract. 26. In Joan. Tract. 27. *Ob. 226. De Doetr. Christiana, Lib. iii. cap. 14. De Verbis Apostoli, Serm. 2. *Ob. 236. In Joan. Tract. 59. *Ob. 235. Psal. xxii. 82 DE VERA CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS PERCEPTIONE. [iiz. bibit ejus sanguinem, habet vitam eternam. Ad utrumque autem respondit, quod dixit eternam. Non ita est in hac esca, quam sustentande hujus corporis vite causa sumimus: nam qui eam non sumpserit, non vivet, nec tamen qui eam sumpserit, vivet. Fieri enim potest, ut senio, ut morbo, vel aliquo casu, plurimi et qui eam sumpserint, moriantur. In hoc vero cibo et potu, id est, corpore et sanguine Domini, non ita est : nam et qui eam non sumit, non habet vitam, et qui cam sumit, habet vitam, et hance utique «ternam.” Et mox: “Hunce itaque cibum et potum societatem vult intelligi corporis et membrorum suorum, quod est sancta ecclesia in preedestinatis, et vocatis, et justificatis, et glorificatis, sanctis et fidelibus ejus.” Et mox: ‘“‘ Hujus rei sacra- mentum, id est, unitatis corporis et sanguinis Christi, alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis intervallis dierum, im dominica mensa preparatur, et de mensa dominica sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res vero ipsa, cujus et sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus particeps fuerit.” Deinde his ista subjungit: ‘“‘ Hoc est manducare illam escam, et illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, et illum manentem in se habere.” Ac per hoc, “qui non manet in Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, proculdubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi, sed magis tante rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat.” ° Hee Augustini verba diligenter ponderanda sunt: panem et vinum ceterosque cibos et potiones, quibus corpus sustentatur, ab hominibus posse percipi, nihilominus morituris ; verum autem corpus et sanguinem Christi neminem posse percipere, wisi qui sempiternam vitam habeat: atque adeo impios illa percipere non posse; ex e0 enim futurum, ut vitam eternam haberent. Hee ille xxvi. homilia in Joannem. In homilia autem sequenti hee habet: ‘ Ho- dierna die sermo est de corpore Domini, quod dicebat se dare manducandum propter eternam vitam. Exposuit autem modum attributionis hujus et doni sui, quomodo daret carnem suam manducare, dicens: ‘Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et ego in illo.” Signum quia manducavyit et bibit hoc est, si manet et manetur, si habitat et inhabitat, si heret ut non deseratur. Hoc ergo nos docuit et admonuit mysticis verbis, ut simus in ejus corpore, sub ipso capite, in membris ejus, edentes carnem ejus, non relinquentes unitatem ejus.” Et in libro de Doctrina Christiana tertio scribit, quod “ manducare carnem Christi et bibere ejus sanguinem est figura, preecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, atque utiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit.” In alio autem sermone de Verbis Apostoli, que sit corporis et sanguinis Christi perceptio, docet his verbis: “ Ilud manducare refici est, sed sic reficeris, ut non deficiat unde reficeris. Illud bibere quid est, nisi vivere? Manduca vitam, bibe vitam, habebis vitam, et integra est vita. Tunc autem hoc erit, id est, vita unicuique erit corpus et sanguis Christi, si quod in sacramento visibile sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducetur, spiritualiter bibatur.” Ex his omnibus Augustini sententiis intelligitur, omnes tum bonos tum malos posse ore visibiliter et sensibiliter corporis et sanguinis Christi sacramentum edere, ipsum autem corpus et sanguinem nisi spiritualiter percipi non posse, idque a spiritualibus Christi membris, qui in Christo habitant, et Christum in se habitantem habent, per quem reficiuntur, et sempiterna vita fruuntur. Qua de causa Augustinus ait, quod “cum ceteri apostoli manducabant panem Dominum, Judas panem Domini, non panem Dominum, comedebat. Ceteri itaque apostoli cum sacramentali pane Christum etiam ipsum ederant, quem Judas non ederat.” Permulta sunt ejusmodi apud Augustinum, que ego fastidii vitandi gratia hoc tem- pore pretermitto, et ad Cyrillum me confero. Augustinus in Psal. xxi. in expositione 2. ‘Vota mea reddam coram timentibus eum. ‘Que sunt vota sua? Sacrifictum quod obtulit Deo. Nostis quale sacrificium ? Norunt fideles vota que reddit coram timentibus eum. Nam sequitur: ‘ Edent pau- peres et saturabuntur.’ Beati pauperes, quia ideo edunt, ut saturentur. Edunt enim EMi.1] DE VERA CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS PERCEPTIONE. 83 pauperes ; qui autem divites sunt, non satiantur, quia non esuriunt. Comedent pau- peres: inde erat piscator ille Petrus, inde erat alius piscator Joannes et Jacobus frater ipsius, inde erat etiam publicanus Matthzus de pauperibus. Ipsi erant qui come- derunt et saturati sunt, talia passi, qualia manducaverunt. Coenam suam dedit, pas- sionem suam dedit. Ile saturatur qui imitatur. Imitati sunt pauperes, ipsi enim sic passi sunt, ut Christi vestigia sequerentur,” &c. Et mox: “Sacrificium pacis, sacrificium caritatis, sacrificium corporis sui norunt fideles; disputari inde modo non potest. ‘ Vota mea reddam coram timentibus eum. Edant publicani, edant piscatores, manducent, imitentur Dominum, patiantur, saturentur.” Idem de Verbis Domini, sermone liii. ‘ Quicunque in corpore ejus et membrorum ejus esse voluerit, non miretur quia odit eum mundus. Corporis autem ejus sacra- mentum multi accipiunt, sed non omnes qui accipiunt sacramentum, habituri sunt apud eum etiam locum promissum membris ejus. Pene quidem sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt, quia omnes in pascuis ejus simul pascunt; sed venturus est qui dividat, et alios ponat ad dexteram, alios ad sinistram.” Beda in Homilia quadam Paschali: ‘ Aderit nobis Christus in fractione panis, cum sacramenta corporis ejus, videlicet panis et vini, casta et simplici conscientia sumimus.” Cyrillus in Evangelium Joannis hec habet: ‘“ Majores qui manna comedebant, nature tamen concesserunt ; non enim vivificabat, sed famem solummodo corporalem removebat: sed qui panem vit suscipiunt, immortalitatem consequentur, et omnia interitus mala effugient, cum Christo zternaliter viventes.” Et alio loco ait: “ Quia Verbum humanitati conjunctum totam in seipsum ita reduxit, ut indigentia vite possit vivificare, sic interitum a natura humana expulit, et mortem que peccato plurimum poterat, destruxit. Quare qui carnem Christi manducat, vitam habet «ternam.” Et alio loco paucis in hune modum coneludit: ‘Quando carnem Christi comedi- mus, tunc vitam habemus in nobis. Quod si solo tactu suo corrupta redintegrantur, quomodo non vivemus, qui carnem illam et gustamus et manducamus?” Et preeterea dicit: “Quemadmodum si quis liquefacte cere aliam ceram infuderit, alteram cum altera per totum commisceat necesse est: siquis carnem et sanguinem Domini recipit, cum ipso ita conjungatur, ut Christus in ipso, et ipse in Christo inveniatur.” Hic Cyrillus carnis Christi dignitatem, inseparabiliter divinitati adjunctam, vim hane et naturam habere dicit, ut vitam eternam afferat ; et quamcunque vel mortis occasionem, vel vite eterne impedimentum reperit, illud protinus tollit, atque ex his expellit, qui hune vel cibum capiunt, vel medicinam percipiunt. Cetere medicine cum admoventur, interdum sanant, interdum non sanant. Hee medicina autem ejus- modi vim habet, ut omnem vel putrescentem vel emortuam carnem exedat, omnia vulnera ulceraque, quibus admovetur, ad perfectam sanitatem integritatemque de- ducat. Hee carnis et sanguinis Christi cum divinitate ejus conjuncti dignitas est et excellentia, qua papiste, infensissimi hostes Christi, illum spoliant, cum affirmant illum hominem carnem ejus percipere, et ejusmodi medicamento uti, qui eger adhuc infirmitate valetudinis Janguet, neque quicquam inde ad sanitatem adipiscendam juvatur. JAPUT V. Ap corroborandam autem Cyrilli sententiam, libenter a papistis quererem, utrum nulla peccator poenitentia ductus, et sacramentum percipiens, Christi corpus in se habeat, necne ? Si negant, satis dant, malos, etiamsi sacramentum corporis Christi percipiant, verum ejus corpus minime tamen percipere. Sin affirment, libenter illos etiam rogarem, utrum Christi Spiritum in se habeant, necne? Hoc si negant, Christi corpus a Spiritu, humanitatem a divinitate ejus, separant, et quasi antichristi ipsi, Christum dividentes, a scriptura condemnantur. Sin affirmaverint, impium in se Spiritum Christi habere, etiam hic scriptura illos condemnat, his verbis : “ Qui non habet Spiritum Dei, hic non est ejus.” In quo autem *R 6—2 * Ob, 212. Cyrillus in Evangelium Joannis, Lib. iv. cap. 10. Cap. 15. *Ob. 214. In Joan. cap. 14. *Ob. 215. Cap. 17. *Ob. 216. Num pecca- tor impceni- tens Chris- tum in se habeat. *Ob. 95. Rom. viii. *Ob. 97. 1 Cor. xi, 84 - DE VERA CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS PERCEPTIONE. [Lr. Christus est, vivit propter justificationem : “Quod si spiritus ejus, qui exsuscitavit Jesum ex mortuis, habitat in vobis, qui exsuscitavit Jesum ex mortuis, vita afficiet mortalia corpora vestra, propter illius Spiritum in vobis inhabitantem. Ita undique scriptura verbi divini adversarios condemnat. Hee autem papistarum impietas monstrosa est, dicere Christi carnem, sanguinem, animam, Spiritum et Deitatem, in homine esse sub peccatum subjecto, et membrum jam diaboli effecto. Admirabiles sunt hi prestigiatores et exorciste, qui, verbulis quibusdam adhibitis, Deum faciunt et diabolum simul eodem in homine habitare, et templum simul Dei ac diaboli esse. Itaque videtur illos sic occecatos esse, ut lucem a tenebris, Belial a Christo, mensam Domini a mensa diabolorum, nequeant discernere. Sic ergo a nobis hoe tempore papistarum immanis atque intolerabilis error refutatur, qui eos, qui membra diaboli sunt, edere verum corpus Christi, et ejus sanguinem bibere affirmant, longe con- tra sententiam et auctoritatem Christi, cujus hee verba sunt: “Qui edit meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem, vitam eternam habet.” CACUT, VL RESPONDETUR QUIBUSDAM PAPISTARUM OBJECTIONIBUS. Ne autem videantur papiste tam misero in loco esse, ut nihil habeant, quod pro se afferre queant, Paulum in undecimo ad Corinthios citant: ait enim, “Qui bibit et edit indigne, judicium sibi edit et bibit, non dijudicans corpus Domini.” Paulus autem hoc loco de panis et vini perceptione, et non de perceptione corporis et sanguinis Domini, loquitur, sicuti satis constat singulis verba Pauli recte conside- rantibus. Hee enim Paulus: “ Exquirat seipsum homo, atque adeo de pane illo edat, et de poculo bibat. Qui enim edit et bibit indigne, judicium sibi edit et bibit, non dijudicans corpus Domini.” Paulus hoc loco hane habet sententiam, quoniam in cena Domini panis et vinum verum corpus et sanguinem Christi Seryatoris representant, quemadmodum ille ipse instituit et decrevit, ideo quamvis in ccelo ad dexteram Patris Christus consideat, ad hee tamen mysteria panis et vini tanta fide, reverentia, puritate, timore, accedere de- bemus, ac si Christum ipsum sensibus nostris objectum reciperemus. Ita enim Christus fidelibus in coena adest magnitudine Spiritus et gratiz su, et fructuosius ab illis perci- pitur, quam si corporaliter illum presentem perciperent. Qui igitur digne ad coenam hane accedunt, post diligentem ac debitam sui ipsorum inquisitionem, debent accurate considerare, quis hance ccenam instituit, quem cibum et potionem percepturi sint, et quemandmodum seipsos gerere in hoc munere debeant. Qui ccenam instituit, Christus ipse est; cibus autem et potio (quibus convivas suos digne et accommodate accedentes pascit) caro et sanguis ejus sunt. Accedentes autem hoc diligenti et attenta animi consideratione tenere debent, quod corpus ejus pro illis cruci affixum, et sanguis pro illorum redemptione profusus sit. Itaque ad has sublimes et ccelestes epulas summissis et religiosis animis ita accedere debent, ac si Christus ipse in illis propositus esset. Qui aliter hue accedunt, indigne hue accedunt, nec corpus et sanguinem Christi, sed suam ipsorum condemnationem, percipiunt ; quia non satis officiose ac convenienter intuentur in verum Christi corpus et sanguinem (que nobis spiritualiter ad cibum offeruntur), sed, despecta Christi coena, quasi ad communem et vulgarem pastum accedunt, nulla corporis Christi (qui spiritualis hujus mens cibus est) ratione habita. CAPUT VII. RESPONDETUR SCRIPTORIBUS ILLIS QUOS PAPISTH PRO SE CITANT. Neave vero hic transeundi hi loci sunt, quos ex antiquis scriptoribus papiste pro se inducunt, qui primo aspectu videntur pro illis facere, qui malos corpus et sanguinem Domini percipere dicunt. Quod si diligenter hi loci perpendantur, inyeniemus ne unum quidem ex illis hune errorem ulla ex parte defendere. 1) DE VERA CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS PERCEPTIONE. 85 Primus locus ex Augustino contra Cresconium grammaticum est: verba hae sunt : ““Quamvis ipse Dominus dicat, ‘ Nisi quis manducayerit carnem meam et biberit sangui- nem meum, non habebit in se vitam;’ tamen nonne apostolus docet, hoe perniciosum male utentibus fieri? Ait enim, ‘Quicunque manducaverit panem et biberit sanguinem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini’.” Ex quibus Augustinus efficere videtur, tum bonos tum malos corpus et sanguinem. Christi percipere, quamvis mali nullum inde beneficium, sed incommodum habeant. Sed paulo altius in hunc locum intueamur, et videbimus eum non de perceptione corporis Christi, sed sacramenti ejus verba fecisse. Hoc enim Augustini propositum est, bona nihil prodesse male utentibus, et quedam per se et quibusdam bona, aliis bona non esse. Lumen integris oculis bonum est, laborantes autem oculos ledit : cibus aliis salubris, aliis noxius habetur: eadem medicina alios sanos, alios languentes efficit. adem arma aliis usui, aliis impedimento sunt: et eadem vestis satis laxa uni, et nimis astricta alteri. Denique, post multa exempla producta, Augustinus eadem demonstrat in sacramentis baptismi et corporis Domini vera esse, que illis tamen prod- esse ait, qui ea digne percipiunt. Pauli verba, que Augustinus citat, de sacramentali pane et poculo, non autem de corpore et sanguine Domini, mentionem faciunt. Hic tamen Augustinus panem et poculum corpus et sanguinem Domini vocat, non quod illa sint, sed quod illa signifi- cent: quemadmodum alio in loco contra Maximinum disputat. “In sacramentis,” in- quit, “non quid sint, sed quid ostendant semper attenditur, quoniam signa sunt rerum aliud existentia, et aliud significantia.” Itaque quemadmodum in baptismo, qui ficte accedunt, et qui sincere, ambo sacra- mentali aqua abluuntur, sed ambo Spiritu sancto non tinguntur, nec Christo vestiuntur ; sic in cona Domini ambo sacramentalem panem et scyphum percipiunt, sed ambo Christo non vescuntur, nec carne et sanguine ejus pascuntur, sed hi soli, qui digne sacramentum percipiunt. Atque hoc responsum alio etiam loco adversus Donatistas satisfacere potest, ubi “Judam,” ait, “corpus et sanguinem Domini percepisse.” Quem- admodum enim Augustinus eo in loco de sacramento baptismi loquitur, ita etiam de sacramento corporis et sanguinis Domini verba facit: quod tamen corpus et sangui- nem ejus vocat, quia nobis verum corpus, carnem, et sanguinem Christi representat. CAPUT VIII. FIGURE ILLARUM RERUM NOMINIBUS APPELLANTUR QUAS SIGNIFICANT. Figura (quemadmodum superius multis a me explicatum est) nomen ejus rei habet quam significat. Sic hominis, leonis, avis, arboris, stirpis simulacrum, homo, leo, avis, arbor, stirps, nominatur. Ita dici solitum est, “ Diva Maria Walsinghamica,” “ Guipsiaca,” “Maria gratie,” “Maria miserationis,” “divus Petrus Mediolanensis,” “divus Joannes Ambianus,” atque hujus generis nonnulla; quibus tamen res ipsas non intelleximus, sed simulacra ipsa nominibus rerum quas representabant appellabamus. Itemque sermone omnium usitatum hoc et contritum est, “ Magnus Christophorus Eboracensis, Lincolniensis,” “beata virgo ridet,’” “agitat in cunis infantem,” “ pere- grinando visamus Petrum Rome, Jacobum Compostelle ;’ et sexcenta alia sunt hujusmodi, que non de rebus ipsis, sed de simulacris rerum intelligi solent. Que res Chrysostomum etiam adduxit, ut diceret nos Christum oculis intueri, tangere, tractare et palpare manibus, in carne ejus dentes nostros defigere, eam de- gustare, interere, comedere, concoquere, sanguine ejus lingnas nostras colorare atque inficere, eum haurire atque ebibere. Hee verba et his similia nonnuila (que ex Chrysostomo citavi) minime de vera carne et sanguine Christi Servatoris intelligenda sunt, que re vera neque in tactum neque in aspectum nostrum cadunt, sed ca qua erga panem et vinum geruntur: figurate erga carnem et sanguinem Christi geri dicuntur, quia vera signa, figure, mo- numenta a Christo instituta sunt, ad carnem ejus et sanguinem nobis representandum. Quemadmodum autem corporis oculis, manibus, et ore panem et vinum (que signa et sacramenta corporis et sanguinis Christi sunt) corporaliter videmus, tractamus, Aug. contra Cresconium Lib. ii. cap. 25. > Mar. An. fol. 214. Contra Maximi. Lib. iii. cap. De Baptismo, eontra Dona- tist. Lib. v. eap. 8. Mar. An. fol. 215. Fusebius Emiss. in Sermo. de Eucharist. *Ob. 39. Rudi populo a papistis imponitur. 86 DE VERA CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS PERCEPTIONE. [Lis. gustamus, percipimus; ita spiritualibus oculis, manibus, ore, spiritualiter veram ejus carnem et sanguinem videmus, tractamus, gustamus, et percipimus. Sic Eusebius Emissenus: “Cum reverendum altare cibis spiritualibus satiandus ascendis, sacrum Dei tui corpus et sanguinem fide respice, honore mirare, mente continge, cordis manu suscipe, et maximo haustu interioris hommais assume. Hecque spiritualia nullam Christi ipsius corporalem presentiam requirunt, perpetuo ad dexteram Dei Patris in ccelo considentis.” Et quemadmodum hee, que dicimus, verissima sunt, ita plenam et justam continent ad ea omnia responsionem, que cum ulla probabilitate papiste pro se afferre queant. CAPUT IX. DE VENERATIONE SACRAMENTI. JAM vero necessarium in primis est, aliquid de veneratione Christi explicare, ne qui sacramentum percipiunt, loco Christi sacramentum ipsum venerentur. Quemad- modum enim humanitas ejus cum divinitate conjuncta, et ad dexteram Patris in celum sublata, ab omnibus creaturis ccelestibus, terrenis, et subterraneis veneranda est; ita si pro Christo signa et sacramenta cultu ac veneratione prosequamur, in max- imam et teterrimam idololatriam incurrimus, et horribilissimum ac nefandissimum coram Deo scelus admittimus. Antichristi hi tamen, infensissimi et callidissimi Christi hostes, magna ingeniorum subtilitate et scholasticis commentis, quibus abundant, multos simplices ac modestos deceperunt, et ad tam immanem idololatriam abduxerunt, ut res sub aspectum cadentes, atque ipsorum manibus formatas, adorarent, et creaturas pro creatore et opifice Deo Optimo Maximo colerent. Quid enim alioqui transversos illos in insaniam agebat, ut ab altaribus ad altaria, et ab uno sacrifico ad alium, dum elevabatur hostia, currerent, et fixis, intentis, atque hiantibus quasi oculis lustrarent, quod sacerdotis manibus elevabatur, nisi ut quod oculis atque aspectu capiebant, illud omni mente atque animo colerent? Quid sacerdotes ipsos commovit, ut sacramentum tam alte supra caput tollerent? aut quid plebem concitavit, ut levanti sacerdoti acclamarent, “Tolle altius, tolle altius?” Aut quid illos promovit qui longius ab elevante sacrifico distabant, ut eos qui propius adstabant se inclinare rogarent, ne erecti aspectum impedirent? Aut quid sibi volunt he vulgi voces, Hodie Servatorem aut Creatorem meum vidi? aut, Quo die Servatorem meum non videro, quieto et sedato animo esse non possum? Cur tum sacerdos tum plebs ipsa tam reverenter genu terram tangerent, pectora duris et frequentibus ictibus pul- sarent ? Que horum omnium causa, nisi quod aspectabile illud, quod oculis intuebantur, adorarent, et pro Deo etiam haberent? Si enim Christum solummodo spiritu vene- rabantur, ad dexteram Patris in ccelo sedentem, quid opus esset seipsos suis sedibus movere? quid oculos in rem visam defigere, perinde ac apostoli fecerant, cum Christum in ceelum subvectum intuerentur? Si nihil aspectabile venerantur, cur ad aspiciendum surgunt? Simplex sine dubio populus, quod videbat, colebat, et in eo venerationis ac cultus sui summam collocavit. Neque me latet, quod tegere hoc et dissimulare papiste vellent, dicentes, se hoc quod oculis complectuntur sacramentum non venerari, sed illud quod fide credunt reipsa et corporaliter sacramento inesse. Cur ergo de loco in locum vagantur ad ea ipsa tam avide oculis haurienda, que nullo religioso cultu et honore prosequuntur ? Certe hoe suo exemplo ignaris hominibus atque imperitis magnam occasionem prebent earum rerum colendarum, quas sub aspectum subjectas habent. Cur non quiete se suis sedibus continent, et populum ad hance moderationem revocant; et Deum (sicuti debent) spiritu et veritate colunt; potius quam ita cursitent ad ea videnda, qua illi ipsi fatentur nulla veneratione colenda esse ? Atque dum hoe absurdum devitant, quod de veneratione objicitur, in aliud «que yanum incidunt, ut nihil omnino colant. Tllud enim se venerari dicunt, quod reipsa et corporaliter, non aspectabiliter, sub specie panis et vini subjicitur; quod sane (uti TY DE VERA CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS PERCEPTIONE. 87 ante docuimus) nihil est. Itaque imperitis et crassis hominibus occasionem afferunt panis et vini adorandi, cum illi ipsi nihil ibi prorsus adorent. Sed papistze, ut ad suum ipsorum lucrum populum etiamnum in idololatria contineant, quendam locum Augustini in Psalmos citant, ubi scribitur: ‘“ Nemo carnem Christi manducat, nisi prius adoraverit. Et non solum non peccamus adorando, sed peccamus non adorando.” Ac sane yerum est, quod eo in loco Augustinus habet. Quotus enim quisque est, qui Christum profitetur, et spiritualiter illius carne et sanguine pascitur, quin illum ad dexteram Dei Patris sedentem omni religionis veneratione afficiat, illique toto (ut dicitur) pectore laudationes et gratiarum actiones pro immensa ejus et clementissima redemptione attribuat ? Et ut negari non potest, verissimum esse quod ex Augustino depromitur, sic contra falsissimum est, quod illorum verborum auctoritate, de panis et vini aut alicujus aspectabilis rel in sacramento veneratione, probare contendunt. Tantum enim