What shall I say to this so manifest untruth, but that it confirmeth that I have in 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, diserepant 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 have 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 sentence, 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 maturaliter; 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 error 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 ἴδ naturally in us,” and ground your saying upon Hilary: whereas now, by your own translation, Hilary rejecteth that clearly as an heinous error. 1 And as concerning this word “truly,” it setteth not lively forth a real and substantial 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 perfecta”, in the print which I have of your
[Mutual, Orig. ed. Winch.] [7 As it is here rehearsed, 1551.] [ Trust him, 1551.] [ To deny, omitted in ed. 1580.]]
[T [5 I would say, (if he were another,) an answer [? There, 1580.]]
[imn French, Orig. ed. Winch.) [9 Perfecta or perfect, ed. 1551.]]
[3 [ Join the issue, 1551.].]
[E 11—2]
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 pertain to him, whether they receive the sacrament or no. And as he dwelleth naturally 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 yourself 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, immortality and life everlasting, which is the nature of his Godhead. And so have 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 everlasting 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]
án such sort as I think passeth all men’s capacities, unless yourself make a large commentary 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 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 communicateth and giveth unto us the nature of his eternity or everlasting life. And he dwelleth in us by his incarnation, as St John saith: Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis, “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 life which he had of his Father, and so making us partakers of his godly nature, and uniting us to his Father. And if we attain to the unity ef 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 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 certain 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. 3 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 Hilary himself of whom I learned it, who saith that in both the sacraments the union A 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. J Now come we to Cyril, of whom I write as followeth. 3 And this answer to? Hilarius will serve also unto Cyril, whom they allege to speak after the same sort that Hilarius doth, that Christ is naturally in us. “The words which they recite be these: “We deny not,” saith Cyril against the [ Of, 1551, and Orig. ed.] λέγειν, ὡς οὐδεὶς ἡμῖν συναφείας τῆς κατὰ σάρκα
[m Ὅτι μὲν yap διαθέσει τῇ voovuévg κατὰ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ λόγος, ὁλοκλήρως ἀπᾷδον ταῖς θεο-]
[Te\elav ἀγάπην, ὀρθῇ τε καὶ ἀδιαστρόφωῳ πίστει, πνεύστοις γραφαῖς ἐπιδείξομεν. πῶς yap av ἀμφί-]
[φιλαρέτῳ Te καὶ εἰλικρινεῖ λογισμῷ συνενούμεθα λογον, ἢ τίς ἂν ὁλῶς ἐνδοιασαι ποτὲ τῶν εὖ φρονεῖν]
[πνευματικῶς τῷ Χριστῷ, οὐδαμῶς ἐξαρνήσεται τῶν εἰωθότων, ὡς ἄμπελος μέν ἐστι κατὰ TOV το Χριστός”]
[᾿ς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν δογμάτων ὁ λόγος” συνεροῦμεν γὰρ ὅτε ἡμεῖς γὰρ κλημάτων ἀποτελοῦντες σχῆμα τὴν ἐξ]
[E δή μάλα τοῦτό φασιν ὀρθῶς” τὸ 0€ ye καταθαρσῆσαι αὐτοῦ καὶ παρ αὐτοῦ ζωὴν eis αὐτοὺς κομιζόμεθα”]
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 seriptures. For who doubteth but Christ is so the vine-tree, and we so the branches, 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 hein 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 perfeetly, 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 express words, where he saith’: “A little benediction draweth the whole man to
[καίτοι τοῦ Ilavhov λέγοντος, Οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἕν διὰ ποίαν αἰτίαν μέλη τοῦ Χριστοῦ Td οἰκεῖα,]
[σῶμα ἐσμεν ἐν Χριστῷ, ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος οἱ πολλοὶ μᾶλλον δὲ τὰ πάντων, ὡς αὐτοῦ κατωνόμασε μέλη;]
[ἐσμέν” οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν. γράφει γὰρ οὕτως” οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν]
[λεγέτω γάρ τις ἡμῖν τιν αἰτίαν, kal διδασκέτω μέλη Χριστοῦ ἐστίν; ἄρας οὖν τὰ μέλη τοῦ Χριστοῦ,]
[παρελθὼν τῆς μυστικῆς εὐλογίας τὴν δύναμιν. ποιήσω πόρνης μέλη; μι γένοιτο” ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς]
[γίνεται γὰρ ἐν ἡμῖν διὰ Ti; ἄρ οὐχὶ καὶ σωματικῶς 6 σωτὴρ, ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα, φησὶ, καὶ πίνων]
[ἡμῖν ἐνοικίζουσα τὸν Χριστὸν τῇ μεθέξει καὶ κοινω- pov τὸ αἷμα, ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει, kdyw ἐν αὐτῷ.---Ογτ]}],]
[vía τῆς ἁγίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός; ἀλλ οἶμαι λέγειν In Joannem. Lib. x. cap. 13. Tom. IV. pp. 862,3.—]
[ὀρθῶς” γράφει yap ὁ Παῦλος γεγενῆσθαι τὰ ἔθνη Ed. Aubert. Paris. 1638.]]
[σύσσωμα καὶ συμμέτοχα καὶ συγκληρονόμα Χρι- [! Οὕτως ὀλιγίστη πάλιν εὐλογία σύμπαν ἡμῶν]
[στοῦ σύσσωμα τοιγαροῦν κατὰ ποῖον ἀπεφάνθη ᾿ εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἀναφύρει τὸ σῶμα, καὶ τῆς ἰδίας ἐνεργείας]
[τρόπον; ἀξιωθέντα γὰρ μετασχεῖν τῆς εὐλογίας ἀναπληροῖ, οὕτω τε ἐν ἡμῖν γίνεται Χριστὸς, καὶ]
[τῆς μυστικῆς, ἕν πρὸς αὐτὸν γέγονε σῶμα, καθάπερ ἡμεῖς αὖ πάλιν ἐν αὐτῷ.---Ογτὶ]. in Joannem, Lib.]
[ἀμέλει καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἕκαστος ἀποστόλων. ἐπεὶ 1v. cap. 17. Ib. p. 365.]]
4. OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 167 pe P TREE. God, and filleth him with his grace, and after this manner Christ dwelleth in us, and we in Christ.” j 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 every 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 eorporally,” 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 mot 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:) I will at my peril bring forth Cyril’s own words truly upon 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 corum 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 wniteth 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 mot 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
[1 [ With grace, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] αὐτὸν εὑρίσκεται συνανακιρνάμενος ὥσπερ καὶ]
[J [“Ap οὖν, ws ἕτερόν Twa υἱὸν, kai Χριστὸν ἀναμιγνύμενος αὐτῷ διὰ τῆς μεταλήψεως, ws ἐν]
[παρὰ τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ λόγον, τὸν φαινόμενον εἶναι Χριστῷ μὲν αὐτὸν εὑρίσκεσθαι, Χριστὸν δὲ αὖ]
[διαβεβαιούμενος” ᾧ kai μόνῳ τὸ τῆς ἀποστολῆς πάλιν ἐν αὐτῷ.---Τά. in Joannem, Lib. 1v. cap. ii.]
[“rpocvevéunke χρῆμα, οὐκ ἀνθρωποφαγίαν ἡμῶν Tom. IV. pp. 364, 5.]]
[᾿ς ἀποφαίνει τὸ μυστήριον, παριστὰς ἀνοσίως els [5 Τίνεται μὲν γὰρ ἐν ἡμῖν ὁ υἱὸς, σωματικῶς μὲν]
[ἐξιτήλους ἐννοίας τῶν πιστευσάντων τὸν νοῦν” καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος, συνανακιρνάμενός τε καὶ συνενούμενος]
[λογισμοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις ὑποφέρειν ἐπιχειρῶν, ἃ ᾿ δι εὐλογίας τῆς μυστικῆς” πνευματικῶς δὲ αὖ πάλιν]
[F μόνως kal ἀζητήτῳ πίστει προσλαμβάνεται; — Ib. ws Θεὸς, 1j τοῦ ἰδίου πνεύματος ἐνεργείᾳ, kal χάριτι]
[8 Apologet. adv. Orient. Anath. xi. Def. Cyril. τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν ἀνακτίζων πνεῦμα πρὸς καινότητα ζωῆς,]
[“Tom. VI. p. 193.] καὶ τῆς θείας αὐτοῦ φύσεως κοινωνοὺς καθιστάς.]
[[Ὥσπερ γὰρ εἴτις κηρὸν ἑτέρῳ συνάψειε κηρῷ, σύνδεσμος οὖν dpa τῆς ἑνότητος ἡμῶν τῆς πρὸς]
[᾿ς πᾶντως δήπου καὶ ἕτερον ἐν ἑτέρῳ γεγονότα κατό- Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα διαφαίνεται Χριστὸς, ἑαυτοῦ μὲν]
[1 Ψεται” Tov αὐτὸν, οἶμαι, τρόπον Kai ὁ τὴν σάρκα ἡμᾶς ἐξαρτήσας ὡς ἄνθρωπος, Θεῷ δὲ ὡς Θεὸς ἐνυ-]
[3 δεχόμενος τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ, καὶ πίνων πάρχων φυσικῶς τῷ ἰδίῳ γεννήτορι.---1 ἃ. in Joan-]
[αὐτοῦ τὸ τίμιον αἷμα, καθά φησιν αὐτὸς, ἕν ὡς πρὸς nem. Lib. 1x. cap. xlvii. Ib. pp. 1001,2.]]
in words to deny the eating of a man, and to affirm the receiving in this sacrament to be only by Saith; it shall appear, I doubt mot, 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 Cyril’s 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 GZcolampadius, 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 GZcolampadius 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 GZcolampadius brought forth and published in his name; whereby the reader that understandeth the Greek, as many do at this time, may judge of (Ecolampadius’ conscience in handling this matter. The words of Cyril be alleged of (Ecolampadius to be these in Greek: Ap οὖν ὡς ἕτερόν Twa υἱὸν καὶ Χριστὸν mapa τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ θεὸν λόγον Tov φαινόμενον εἶναι διαβεβαιοῦνται, à καὶ TO τῆς ἀποστολῆς προσνενέμηται χρῆμα, οὐκ ἀνθρωποφαγίαν ἡμῶν ἀποφαίνει τὸ μυστήριον, παριστῶν ἀνοσίως εἰς ἐξιτήλους ἐννοίας τῶν πιστευόντων νοῦν, καὶ λογισμοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις ἐπιχειρῶν, ἃ μόνῃ καὶ ψιλῇ καὶ ἀζητήτῳ πίστει λαμβάνεται.
These words be by GZcolampadius 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 quze sola, et pura, et inexquisita fide capiuntur. his is GEcolam-padius translation of the Greek, as the same is by Fcolampadius alleged. Which, compared 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 διαβεβαιοῦνται, which should be a participle in the singular number διαβεβαιῶν, as παριστῶν, and ἐπιχειρῶν, all which participles depend of the third person reproved of Cyril, and nominative case to the verb ἀποφαίνει, which hath the moun μυστήριον his accusative case; for congruity will not suffer μυστήριον to be the nominative case, as (Fcolampadius maketh it, because παριστῶν and ἐπιχειρῶν should then depend on it, which be the masculine gender, and μυστήριον the neuter: and, besides that, the sense hath so mo good reason to attribute assertion to the mystery by the way of declaration: the mystery of mature 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 attributeth to that is seen in Christ the mature! (meaming 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 “Ἢ absurdity, that is to say, declaretht that mystery of our humanam commixtionem, for so hath the public translation, and not ἀνθρωποφαγίαν, which should signify eating of a man, as. (Ecolampadius would have it, and cannot with this construction to make μυστήριον the accusative case have amy 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 understanded by am only simple, bare, and no curious faith. And this is uttered by Cyril by interrogation, ” Ap οὖν, which continueth unto the last word of all that is here written in Greek, ending in the word λαμβάνεται. But (Ecolampadius, to frame these words to his purpose, corrupteth the participle διαβεβαιῶν, and maketh it διαβεβαιοῦνται, whereby he might cut off the interrogative; and then is he yet fain to add evidently that is mot in the Greek, a copulative causal enim; and then when μυστήριον is, by the cutting off the interrogation and the addition of enim, made the nominative case, then cannot παριστῶν and ἐπιχειρῶν depend of it, because of the gender, and τὸ μυστήριον, because of the article, determineth the principal mystery in Christ’s person; and after? publie translation, it should seem the Greek word was not dvÓpo- ποφαγίαν, but ἀνθρωπομιγίαν, which in the public translation is expressed with these two words, humanam commixtionem. This one place, and there were mo more like, may shew [ The nature of his humanity,” omitting the Orig. ed. Winch.] intermediate words, Orig. ed. Winch. ] [? After the publie, 1551.]
λαμβάνεται at the side is only found in the [ And: here and elsewhere for if.
J OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 169 i with what conscience (Ecolampadivs handled the matter of the sacrament, who was learned dn 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 D all congruities of the speech, against the proper significations of the words, against the convenient connection of the matter, with depravation of the phrase and corruption of certain words, all against the common and publie translation; and when he hath done all this, concludeth 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 welleaning 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 principal 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 sacrament, 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 fathers, 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 QZcolampadius, might take occasion to repent and call home himself, who wonderfully wandereth 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 appear 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 φιλαυτία “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 eorporally contained (as you understand the matter) under the form of bread, (for he meither saith that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread, nor that he dwelleth in them corporal that be not lively members of his body, nor that he dwelleth in -hislively 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 E 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 wpon 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.”] [5 Self-love.]]
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, hy 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. in And although Cyril say that Christ is united unto us corporally by the mystical ro. benediction, yet in that place the material benediction may well be understand of his incarnation, which as Cyril and Hilary both call “an high mystery,” so was it to us a quia marvellous benediction,” that he that was immortal God would become for us a mortal et man; which mystery St Paul saith was without controversy great,” and was hid from δὶς the world, and at the last opened, that gentiles should be made partakers of the procma 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, iy. 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 Christs 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 incarnation. 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 Christs 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.]]
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. Nestorius, 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 concluded 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 eating, 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 Andabatarum 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, (Ecolampadius, for this word ἀνθρωποφαγίαν, which you say would be ἀνθρωπομιγίαν, 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 conjecturing to alter the Greek text without any Greek copy to ground yourself upon, altering ἀνθρωποφαγίαν into ἀνθρωπομιγίαν, and διαβεβαιοῦνται into διαβεβαιῶν, contrary to the translations of (Ecolampadius 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 mt Cologne. And you, using such a licence to alter and change all things at your pleasure, are offended with (Ecolampadius 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 διαβεβαιοῦνται should be διαβεβαιοῦται, (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 Nestorius 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, ᾿ unreverently leading faithful minds unto vain and gross imaginations, and going about
[3 [3 Discussion, 1551. ]]
to compass with man’s phantasy those things which be received only with a pure and simple faith? Where Cyril in these words 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 ὁ And doth not Cyril say also, that this sacrament “is received only with a pure and simple faith?” And yet you find fault with me, because I say that Cyril affirmeth 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 (Ecolampadius, if the printer in the stead of πάριστον made παριστῶν, and for ἐπιχείρον printed ἐπιχειρῶν, which may soon chance in printing, then may μυστήριον be the nominative case, notwithstanding all your vehement inveighing and vain babbling against CEcolampadius.
Yet after your scurrility and railing against (Ecolampadius, 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 corporally 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 whensoever 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 yourself 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 Cyril, you vary three times from your answer unto my fourth book. For here you say no more, but that Christ is corporally 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 worthily 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 partly because they may be easily answered unto, by that which is before declared and often repeated; which is, that a figure hath the name of the thing whereof it is the figure, and therefore of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing itself. And as concerning the eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood, they spake of the spiritual eating and drinking thereof by faith, 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 1 not so much as other do; but that they speak is not discrepant, mor 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 mor hurt. The Anthropomorphites also, who said the virtue of the mystical benediction endured mot to the meat 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 supposal, that Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Nyssen, should take the sacrament to be figurative only, that is to be denied. And likewise it is mot true that this author teacheth,
that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing itself. And that I will declare thus. Of the thing itself, that is, Christ’s very body being present in deed, it may be said, “Adore it, worship it there” which may not be said of the figure. Jt 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 mo 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 omnipoteney 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 impugned 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 corporal 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- - messeth 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 er 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 cavillations 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-]
[T [ Videte ergo, fratres, panem coelestem spiri- mem 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. 1v.]
[E: [ i. e. Fisher’s (bishop of Rochester) book Chap. V. 824; of the Anthropomorphites, ibid.]
[5 against (Ecolampadius, De Veritate Corporis, &c. Cent. x. Chap. V. 84; of the Nestorians, ibid.]
[Colon. 1527. The title of this 13th chapter is: Ex Cent. v. Chap. V. 8ὶ 12.]]
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 13 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 same Eusebius plainly there declareth, as he is in the Lord’s table: which is not carnally and corporally, but by faith and spiritually. 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 conSound 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 amd 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 JSaith 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 mot 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 succowreth 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 wnion 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 sacrament is expressly ministered, where our soul is regenerate amd «ade spiritual, but mot 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 Christ’s manhood by this divinity. But in the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood we be in nature united to Christ as mam, 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. ]:
union vepresenteth 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 glorified, 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 his humanity; although for these respects the ewcellency 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, significth the perfect redemption of our bodies in the general resurrection, which shall be the end and consummation 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 1s esteemed in every end amd 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 our bodies a spiritual effect, not only in our souls: and Christ’s body and flesh is a spiritual body and o. Jiesh, 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 ds 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 f that food bring carnal lusts or desires, carnal fancies or imaginations with them, they receive the same precious food wnworthily 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 Emissen 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 mo 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 P 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. “1 d thou wilt know,” saith Emissen, “how it ought not to seem to thee a thing new and
[E [ Orig. ed. Winch. omits the words isaspi- effectus. Quanta itaque et quam celebranda bene-]
[. ritual body and flesh.”’] ficia vis divine benedictionis operetur, attende: et]
[a [^ Item Eusebius Emisenus, 6.— Recedat ergo ut tibi novum et impossibile videri non debeat, omne infidelitatis ambiguum: quandoquidem qui quod in Christi substantiam terrena et mortalia]
[auctor est muneris, ipse etiam testis est veritatis. convertuntur, teipsum, qui jam in Christo es reNam invisibilis Sacerdos visibiles creaturas in sub- generatus, interroga: Dudum alienus a vita, perestantiam corporis et sanguinis sui verbo suo secreta grinus a misericordia, a salutis via intrinsecus morpotestate convertit, ita dicens, Accipite, et come- tuus exulabas: subito initiatus Christi legibus, et]
[-. dite: hoc est enim corpus meum: et sanctificatione salutaribus mysteriis innovatus, in corpus ecclesiz]
[. repetita, decipite, et bibite: hic est sanguis meus. non videndo sed credendo transiluisti, et de filio]
[Ergo sicut ad nutum pracipientis Domini repente perditionis adoptivus Dei filius fieri occulta puritate]
[. ex nihilo substiterunt excelsa colorum, profunda meruisti: in mensura visibili permanens, major]
[ς fluctuum, vasta terrarum: ita pari potestate in spi- factus es teipso invisibiliter, sine quantitatis aug-]
[E ritualibus sacramentis ubi precipit virtus, servit mento: cum ipse atque idem esses, multo alter fidei]
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 dedd, 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 before, 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 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 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 spititual 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 substance 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 tbis place, and saith that the one is like the other, without putting any difference, 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 ccelestibus 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, prz- 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]
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 bodies shall be spiritual, meaning in the respect of such vileness, filthiness, sin, and corruption, as we be subject unto in this miserable world: yet he saith not that our bodies shall be all spiritual. For notwithstanding such spiritualness as St Paul speaketh οὗ 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 ghould 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.
And now I will come to the saying of St Ambrose, which is always in their mouths. Before the consecration,” saith he?, as they allege, “it is bread, but after the words of the? consecration it is the body of Christ.” Ἷ For answer hereunto, it must be first known what consecration is.
Consecration is the separation of any thing from a profane and worldly use unto a spiritual and godly use.
And therefore when usual and common water is taken from other uses, and 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 — eup, as soon as they be set upon the altar to the use of the holy communion. Y But specially they may be called holy and consecrated, when they be separated 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.” E So that commonly the authors, before those words be spoken, do take —— the bread and wine but as other common bread and wine; but after those L 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,
[τς [‘Soed. 160]. In 1580, the.] Tom. IV. p. 173. Colon. Agrip. 1616.]]
[5 Sed panis iste panis est ante verba sacramen- [? Words of consecration, 1551, and Orig. ed.]]
[torum; ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro [ Vid. supra, p. 151.] E]
[Christi. Ambros. de Sacramentis, Lib. 1v. cap. iv. [5 Of Christ’s own words, 1551, and Orig. ed.]]
[: [Cranmer. ] 1]
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 15 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 transubstantation, 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 Lib. 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 tham St Ambrose speaketh, when he saith these — words? “It is bread before consecration, but after it is Christ’s body.” By the word eon- secratiom” is signified, as it is here placed, God’s ommipotent 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 omnipotency 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 (Ecolampadius, “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 5.” These be Melancthows very words. Now to amswer 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.
“It is bread before the consecration, but after it is the body of Christ.” Can a change be more plainly declared? The mear 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 what it may signify, if it were in another matter; and then to admonish the reader how the bread and wine have mo holiness, which
[T Ante benedictionem verborum colestium spe- dem dixit, sed ἐπιούσιον, hoc est supersubstantialem.]
[cies nominatur, post consecrationem corpus Christi Id. de Sacramentis, Lib. v. cap. iv. Tom.IV. p.175.]]
[significatur.—Ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post [3 Id. Lib. v1. cap. i. Tom. IV. p. 176.]]
[consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. Ambros. de [ The body of Christ. Orig. ed. Winch.]]
[Initiandis, cap. ult. Tom. IV. p. 166.] [5 H»c tam longa recitatio exemplorum clare [^ Memini sermonis mei cum de sacramentis ostendit auctorem [h.e. Ambrosium] sensisse, panem]
[tractarem. Dixi vobis quod ante verba Christi quod non esse tantum signum, sed naturam panis mutari.]
[offertur panis dicatur; ubi Christi verba deprompta — The quotation (as before observed, p. 149), is from]
[fuerint, jam non panis dicitur, sed Christi corpus Melancthon’s Letter to Myconius, p. 55. of (Eco-]
[appellatur. Quare ergo in oratione Dominica que lampadius’s Dialogue.]]
[postea sequitur, ait, Panem nostrum? Panem qui- [5 Nearer, Orig. ed. Winch.]]
i OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 179 LE TE ΜΝ, YE. Jorm of speech not understanded of the people engendereth some scruple that needeth not, being mo sound form of doctrine: Jor St Paul speaketh and teacheth thus, that the creatures be sanctified 3 by the word of God and prayer; and. St Augustine writeth of sanctified bread to be given to them (hat be catechised before they be baptized: and this author himself expoundeth St Cyprian in the 200 hirty-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 fire; 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, unless 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, impugning 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 body 8.”
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 1 third speech, where the word “call” is used before and after both, as thou, reader, mayest see i in this author’s book, in the eighty-third leaf. Now, good reader, was there ever man so overseen as this author is, who seeth not St Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly À as in the first? For in the last speech St Ambrose saith, it is called bread before the conseeration, and called the body of Christ after the consecration. And I would demand of this 1 author, doth not this word “call” signify the truth that is bread in deed before the conj 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, i 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 ἡ 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 word19 “call” signifieth as much Lo 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 afte the consecration, and is so in deed, agreeable to the plain speech of St Ambrose, where he saith: “It 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 1 ignorance, and cannot tell what corporal” meaneth, as I have opened before by the authority ᾿ς 9f Cyril. Now let us see what this author saith to Chrysostom. UNS CANTERBURY. L3 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 conseration, 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 unplain or untrue, than to say of bread after consecration, that it is the body of Christ, wnless 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. P Seebelow, Book 11. chap. 11.] [? Vide supra, p. 178.] ο΄ [5 But after, it is the body of Christ. Orig. ed. [1 This word, Orig. ed. Winch.] Winch] SERRE
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 according to the mind of the old authors, as I will justify.
And for the writing of Melancthon to CEcolampadius, you remain still in your old error, taking Myconius for CEcolampadius. 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 omnipoteney 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 Ambrose 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 joined Ambrose with Clement, and should say that the said books entitled in the name of St Ambrose, de sacramentis, et de mysteriis 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 declared 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 holiness 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 bakers 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, 4Jomines 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. de And the sanctified bread, which St Augustine writeth, to be given to them that be eatechised, was not holy in itself, but was called holy for the use and signification. ap. And I express St Cyprians mind truly, and not a whit discrepant from my docrine here, when I say, that the divinity may be said to be poured, or put sacramen-
[1 Form, 1551.]]
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.” 8 And whereas you rehearse out of my words in another place, that “as hot and j 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 δύναμις, 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 ἀρετὴ), 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 signification 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 nature 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 L it is a memorial of Christ’s death, that by exercise of our faith our souls may receive the more heavenly food. But this is a strange manner of speech, (which nei- 4 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 understandeth 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 j called bread, then were calling of bread a making of bread. And thus is answered E your demand, why this word “call” in the one signifieth the truth, and in the other 1 not: because that the one is a plain speech, and the other a figurative. For else by f your reasoning out of reason, when the cup which Christ used in his last supper was 3 called a cup, and when it was called Christ’s blood, all was one calling, and was of Hike truth without figure: so that the cup was Christ’s blood in deed. 1 And likewise when the stone that flowed out water was called a stone, and when ἢ 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 E 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.] [3 When, omitted in 1580
the body and blood of Christ, this cannot be a like calling, but must needs be understand by a figurative speech. For as Christ in the scripture is called a lamb for his M… innocency and meekness, a lion for his might and power, a door and way, whereby we enter into his Fathers 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 similitude 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 sacraments require,) as all the old writers do plainly teach. And therefore the bread after consecration is not called Christs 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 Zn Sermone de Eucharistia in Enceniis, and the other is De proditione Juda.
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, For 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 liars, 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
[[᾿ Propriety, 1551.] τράπεζαν διακοσμήσας ἐκείνην, οὗτος Kai ταύτην]
[3 Διὸ καὶ προσερχόμενοι μὴ ὡς ἐξ ἀνθρώπου νο- διακοσμεῖ νῦν. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ὁ ποιῶν]
[μίσητε μεταλαμβάνειν τοῦ θείουσώματος. Chrysost. τὰ προκείμενα γενέσθαι σῶμα καὶ αἷμα Χριστοῦ”]
[In sermone de eucharistia in Enceniis. (Ed. Be- ἀλλ αὐτὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν Χριστός.]
[ned. de Penitentia.) Hom. ix. Tom. II. p. 350. ] σχῆμα πληρῶν ἕστηκεν ὁ ἱερεὺς, Ta ῥήματα φθεγ-]
[2 But this place, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] γόμενος ἐκεῖνα” 1) δὲ δύναμις καὶ ἡ χώρις Tov θεῦ ——]
[[^ Πάρεστιν ὁ Χριστὸς. καὶ νῦν ἐκεῖνος ὁ τὴν ἐστι. τοῦτό μού ἐστι τὸ σῶμα, φησί. τοῦτο τὸ]
consecrate, which garnished the table at the maundy or last supper. For jit is not man which maketh of the bread and wine, being set forth to be eonsecrated, 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 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 spoken, doth throughout all churches to this present, and shall to his last 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 conferred 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 sacramentally, as in a sign and figure, he be in the bread and wine, (and so is he also àn the water of baptism;) and in them that rightly receive the bread and wine he 185 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 gendered and increased ever since that time; even so after that Christ said, Eat, this is my body;” and Drink, this is my blood: do this hereafter in 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 1 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 Christ sitting there above.” And where St Chrysostom and other authors do speak of the wonderful operation of God in his sacraments, passing all man’s wit, senses, and reason, they mean not of the working of God in the water, 1 bread, and wine, but of the marvellous working of God in the hearts of them that i receive the sacraments; secretly, inwardly, and spiritually transforming them, re- ᾿ς mewing, feeding, comforting, and nourishing them with his flesh and blood, through his most holy Spirit, the same flesh and blood still remaining in heaven. y 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 à - before, in the matter of transubstantiation.
[N Pipa μεταῤῥυθμίζει τὰ προκείμενα. καὶ καθάπερ τράπεζαν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ἐξ ἐκείνου μέχρι]
[03 φωνὴ ἐκείνη ἡ λέγουσα, Αὐξάνεσθε, καὶ πλη- σήμερον, καὶ μέχρι τῆς αὐτοῦ παρουσίάς, τὴν]
[3 νεθε, ηρώε ὴν γῆν, ἐῤῥέθη μὲν ἅπαξ, θυσίαν ἀπηρτισμένην ἐργάζεται. ---- Chrysostom.]
[διὰ παντὸς δὲ τοῦ χρόνου γίνεται ἔργῳ ἐνδυναμοῦσα de Proditione Jude, Hom. i. Tom. IT. p- 384. Ed.]
[d Φ τὴν ἡμετέραν πρὸς παιδοποιΐαν” οὕτω Bened.]]
[Nu ἡ φὴ ὕτη ἅπαξ λεχθεῖσα καθ ἑκάστην [^ For their purpose, 1551, and Orig. ed. ]]
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 mot 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 concludeth in this book, only figuratively. Turn back, reader, to the thirty-sizth leaf in the author’s book, and read it with this, and so consider upon what principle here is made an ergo. Z will answer that place when I speak of tramsubstantiation, which shall be after answered to the third and fourth book, as the natural order of the matter requireth.
← 9. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ · Contents · 11. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ →