The second place of Chrysostom that this author bringeth forth, he gramteth it soundeth much against him, and favowreth his adversaries, but with conferring and considering he trusteth to alter it from the true understanding. And mot to expound, but confound the matter, he joineth in speech the sacrament of baptism with this sacrament, (which shift this author used untruly in Hilary,) and would mow bear in hand, that the presence of Christ were mone otherwise in this sacrament than in baptism, which is mot so; for in this sacrament Christ’s humanity and Godhead is really present, and in baptism his Godhead with the effectual virtue of his blood, in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any real presence thereof for dispensation of that mystery, as I have before touched discussing e. the amswer to Emissenel; whereas Chrysostom speaking of this sacrament, whereof I have before spoken, and Melancthon alleging it to GZcolampadius, saith thus: The great miracle and great benevolence of Christ is, that he sitteth above with his Father, and is the same howr in our hands here to be embraced of ws.” And therefore, where this author would note the wonder of God’s work in the sacrament to be wonderful for the work and effect in man, this is one piece of truth; but in the sacrament of the body amd blood of Christ, the old fathers wonder at the work in the sacrament, how bread is changed into the body of Christ, how Christ sitting in heaven, God and man, is also man and God in the sacrament, and being worthily received, dwelleth in such carnally and naturally, as Hilary saith, and corporally, as Cyril saith. How this can be mo man can tell, no faithful man should ask; and set it is the true catholic faith to be truly so wrought. For, as Emissene saith: “he that is the author of it, he is the witness of it.” And therefore I will make it an issue with this author, that the old fathers, speaking of the wonderful operation of God in this sacrament, refer it mot only to the virtue and effect of this sacrament, mor to the virtue specially, but chiefly to the operation of God in the substance of this sacrament, and the sacrament self; for such a difference St Augustine maketh, saying: Aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti, “The sacrament is one, the virtue of the sacrament is another.” Finally, in answering to Chrysostom, this author doth nothing but spend words in vain, to the more plain declaration of his own ignorance, or worse.
Canterbury
As concerning Chrysostom, you have spent so many taunting and scornful words in waste, without cause, that I need to waste no words here at all to make you answer: but refer the reader to my book, the twenty-fifth leaf and thirty-sixth leaf, and to the thirty-second, thirty-third, and thirty-fourth leaf, where the reader shall find all that is here spoken fully answered unto”.
But always you be like yourself, proceeding in amplification of an argument against me, which you have forged yourself, and charge me therewith untruly. For I use not this speech, that we receive not the body of God at all, that we receive it but in a fgure. For it is my constant faith and belief, that we receive Christ in the sacra-
[[ Of Emissene, Orig. ed. Winch.] second book Of the Error of ‘Transubstantiation,""]
[3 All these references are to passages in the as well as those alluded to above by Winchester. y]
ment verily and truly; and this is plainly taught and set forth in my book. But that “verily” as I with Chrysostom and all the old authors take it, is not of such a sort as you would have it. For your understanding of “verily” is so Capernaical, so gross, and so dull in the perceiving of this mystery, that you think a man cannot reeeive the body of Christ verily, unless he take him corporally in his corporal mouth, flesh, blood, and bones, as he was born of the virgin Mary. But it is certain, that Chrysostom meant not, that we receive Christs body verily after such a sort, when he saith, “Do not think that you receive by a man the body of God.” And yet, because I deny only this gross understanding, you misreport my doctrine, that I should say, we “receive not Christ at all, but in a figure, and no body at all;” wherein you untruly and slanderously report me, as my whole book and doctrine can witness against you. For my doctrine is, that the very body of Christ, which was born of the virgin Mary, and suffered for our sins, giving us life by his death, the same Jesus, as concerning his corporal presence, is taken from us, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father; and yet is he by faith spiritually present with us, and is our spiritual food and nourishment, and sitteth in the midst of all them that be gathered together in his name. And this feeding is a spiritual feeding, and an heavenly feeding, far passing all corporal and carnal feeding; and therefore there is a true presence and a true feeding in deed, and not “in a figure only, or not at all” as you most untruly report my saying to be. This is the true understanding of the true presence, receiving and feeding upon the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, and not, as you deprave the meaning and true sense thereof, that the receiving of Christ truly and verily is the receiving corporally with the mouth corporal, or that the spiritual receiving is to receive Christ only by his divine nature, which thing I never said nor meant. Turn, I pray thee, gentle reader, to the thirty-sixth leaf of my book, and note these words there, which I allege out of Chrysostom. “Do not think,” saith he, “that you receive by a man the body of God.” “Then turn over the leaf, and in the twentieth line, note again my saying that, in the holy communion Christ himself is spiritually eaten and drunken, and nourisheth the right believers.” Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignorant lawyer, and thou shalt evidently perceive, that either he will not, or cannot, or at the least he doth not understand what is meant in the book of common prayer, and in my book also, by the receiving and feeding upon Christ spiritually.
But it is no marvel, that Nicodemus and the Capernaites understand not Christ, before they be born anew, and forsaking their papistical leaven, have learned another lesson of the Spirit of God, than flesh and blood can teach them. Much talk the papists make about this belief, that we must believe and have a stedfast faith, that Ohrist’s body is corporally there, where the visible forms of bread and wine be: of which belief is no mention made in the whole scripture, which teacheth us to believe and profess, that Christ (as concerning his bodily presence) hath forsaken the world, and is ascended into heaven, and shall not come again until the restitution of all i things that be spoken of by prophets. But whereas, in the feeding upon Christ’s body and drinking of his blood, there is no mouth and teeth can serve, but only the i inward and spiritual mouth of faith, there the papists keep silence like monks, and speak very little. And the cause why, is flesh and blood, which so blindeth all the Nicodemes and Capernaites, that they cannot understand what is spiritual nativity, spiritual circumcision, spiritual hunger and thirst, and spiritual eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ: but they hang all together so in the letter, that they cannot enter into the kingdom of the spirit; which knowledge if that you had, you should soon perceive upon what principle my ergo were made. And where You pervert the order of the books, setting the cart before the horse, that is to say, the third and fourth book before the second, saying that the natural order of the matter so requireth, here the reader may note an evident mark of all subtle papists, which is under the pretence and colour of order to break that order, whereby the falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected, and the truth brought to light. For when they perceive a window open, whereby the light may shine in, and the
truth appear, then they busily go about to shut that window, and to draw the reader from that place to some mystical and obscure matter where more darkness is, and less light can be seen. And when, besides the darkness of the matter, they have by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist over the reader’s eyes, that he is become blind, then dare they make him judge, be the matter never so untrue. And no marvel, for he is now become so blindfold and subject unto them, that he must say whatsoever they bid him, be it never so much repugnant to the evident truth. In such sort it is in the matter of the sacrament. For the papists perceiving that their error should easily be espied, if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined, the plain words of the scripture, the consent of ancient writers, the articles of our faith, the nature of a sacrament, reason, and all senses making so evidently against it, therefore none of the subtle papists will be glad to talk of transubstantiation, but they will always bear men in hand, that other matters must first be examined, as the late bishop doth here in this place.
Now, in the second place of Chrysostom, where you say, that “in this sacrament Christ’s humanity and Godhead is really present, and in baptism his Godhead with the effectual virtue of his blood, in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any real presence thereof for the dispensation of that mystery,” in this matter I have joined an issue with you before in the answer unto Origen, which shall suffice for answer here also.
And where St John Chrysostom speaketh of the great miracle of Christ, that he sitteth above with his Father, and is the same hour here with us in our hands,” truth it is, that Christ sitteth above with his Father in his natural body, triumphant in glory, and yet is the same hour in our hands sacramentally, and present in our hearts by grace and spiritual nourishment. But that we should not think, that he is corad porally here with us, St Augustine! giveth a rule in his epistle ad.Dardanwm, saying: Cavendum, est ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus: “We must foresee that we do not so affirm the divinity of him that is man, that we should thereby take away the truth of his body.” And forasmuch as it is against the nature and truth of a natural body to be in two places at one time, therefore you seem to speak against the truth of Christ’s natural body, when you teach that his body is in heaven naturally, and also naturally in the sacrament. For whosoever affirmeth that Christ’s body is in sundry places as his Godhead is, seemeth δά to deify Christs body by St Augustines rule. But like as it is not to be thought, that Quicquid est in Deo, est putandum ubique ut Deus, “that whatsoever is in God, is every where as God is;” so must we ποὺ think that his body may be at one time every where, where his Godhead is. But Christ is, saith Augustine, Ubique per id quod est Deus, in colo autem per id quod est homo; Every where in that he is God, but in heaven in that he is man.” Wherefore his presence here of his body must be a sacramental presence; and the presence of his divinity, of his grace, of his truth, of his majesty and power, is real and effectual in many places, according to his word. is Now, as concerning your issue, I refuse it not, but say, that the great miracle whereat the Jews wondered, and which our Saviour Christ meant, and the old fathers speak of, is of the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his blood, and how by flesh and blood we have everlasting life. Now, if you can bring good testimony for you, that the sacrament eateth Christ’s flesh and drinketh his blood, and that it shall live for ever, which never had life, and that God’s operation and work is more in dumb creatures than in man, then I must needs and will confess the issue to pass with you. And when I hear your testimonies, I shall make answer; but before I hear them, I should do nothing else but spend words in vain, and beat the wind to no purpose.
Now hear what I have answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus. Yet furthermore, they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus, who, as they allege, saith thus?: Christ giving thanks, did break, which also we do,
[[ August. ad Dardanum. Pars viii. cap. iii. iv. λασε Tov ἄρτον. ὕπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς ποιοῦμεν, εὐχὰς]
[Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506. ] ἐπιλέγοντες. τοῦτό ἐστι TO σῶμά pov, τοῦτο ὃ]
[[? Εὐλογήσας δὲ, ἀντὶ τοῦ εὐχαριστήσας, ἔκ. νῦν λαμβάνετε. οὐ γὰρ ἀντίτυπος “τοῦ κυριακοῦ]
adding thereto prayer. And he gave unto them, saying, Take, this is my. body; this that I do now give, and that which ye now do take. For the bread is not a figure only of Christ’s body, but it is changed into the very body of Christ. For Christ saith: The bread which I will give you is my flesh.’ Nevertheless the flesh of Christ is not seen for our weakness, but bread and wine are familiar unto us. And surely if we should visibly see flesh and blood, we could not abide it. And therefore our Lord, bearing with our weakness, doth retain and keep the form and appearance of bread and wine, but he doth turn the very bread and wine into the very flesh and blood of Christ.”
These be the words which the papists do cite out of Theophilus upon the gospel of St Mark. But by this one place it appeareth evidently, either how negligent the papists be in searching out and examining the sayings of the authors, which they allege for their purpose, or else how false and deceitful they be, which willingly and wittingly have made in this one place, and as it were The first is, that because they would give the more authority to the words with one breath, two loud and shameful lies.: by them alleged, they (like false apothecaries that sell quid pro quo) falsify the - authors name; fathering such sayings upon Theophilus Alexandrinus?, an old and ancient author, which were indeed none of his words, but were the words of “Theophylaetus, who was many years after Theophilus Alexandrinus. But such hath ever been the papistical subtilties, to set forth their own inventions, dreams, and lies, under the name of antiquity and ancient authors.
The second lie or falsehood is, that they falsify the author’s words and meaning, subverting the truth of his doctrine. For where Theophylactus, (according to the catholic doctrine of ancient authors,) saith, that ‘ almighty God, condescending to our infirmity, reserveth the kind of bread and wine, and yet - turneth them into the virtue of Christ’s flesh and blood;” they say, that he reserveth the forms and appearances of bread and wine, and turneth them into the verity of his flesh and blood;” so turning and altering kinds into forms and - appearances, and virtue into verity, that of the virtue of the flesh and blood - they make the verity of his flesh and blood. And thus they have falsified as - well the name as the words of Theophylactus, turning verity into plain and — flat falsity.
But to set forth plainly the meaning of Theophylactus in this matter. As hot and burning iron is iron still, and yet hath the force of fire; and as the flesh of Christ still remaining flesh giveth life as the flesh of him that is God; so the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their proper kinds, and yet to them that worthily eat and drink them they be turned not into the corporal presence, - but into the virtue of Christ’s flesh and bloods And although Theophylactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ, — and the drinking of his very blood, (and not only of the figures of them,) and of — the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; yet Ἢ he meaneth not of a gross, carnal, corporal and sensible conversion of the bread
[σώματός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος” ἀλλ els αὐτὸ ἐκεῖνο λάνθρωπος τὸ μὲν εἶδος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου φυλάτ-]
[μεταβάλλεται τὸ σῶμα Tov Χριστοῦ. καὶ ὁ Tet εἰς δύναμιν δὲ σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος μετα-]
[Κύριος γὰρ λέγει” ὁ ἄρτος ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω, ἡ σάρξ στοιχειοῖ.---ΤΉΘΟΡΗ. in Marcum, cap. xiv. Tom. I.]
[μου ἐστίν. οὐκ εἶπεν, ἀντίτυπός ἐστι τῆς σαρκός p. 349. Ed. Venet. 1754.]]
[μου, ἀλλ ἡ σάρξ pov ἐστί------καὶ πῶς φησὶν, οὐ [8 Theophilus was Patriarch of Alexandria, A.D.]
[γὰρ σὰρξ καθορᾶται; διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν, ὦ dv- 385. Theophylact was Archbishop of Bulgaria, A.D.]
[θρωπε, ἀσθενείαν. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ μὲν ἄρτος καὶ 1071. His Commentaries on the Gospels were ge-]
[6 οἶνος συνήθη ἡμῖν, αἷμα δὲ προκείμενον καὶ nerally supposed to be compiled from Chrysostom]
[᾿ σάρκα ὁρῶντες, οὐκ ἂν ἠνέγκαμεν, ἀλλ ἀπεναρ- and other of the fathers. Vid. Cave Hist. Lit. &c.]]
[Bwieaner, διὰ τοῦτο συγκαταβαίνων ἡμῖν ὁ φι- [ One, 1551; Orig. ed. reads with ed. 1580. ]]
and wine, nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, (for so not only our stomachs would yearn, and our hearts abhor to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, but also such eating and drinking could nothing profit or avail us;) but he spake of the celestial and spiritual eating of Christ, and of a sacramental conversion of the bread, calling the bread not only a figure, but also the body of Christ, giving us by these words! to understand, that in the sacrament we do not only eat corporally the bread, (which is a sacrament and figure of Christ’s body,) but spiritually we eat also his very body, and drink his very blood. And this doctrine of Theophylactus is both true, godly and comfortable.
Winchester
Now followeth, as it is entitled, Theophylact, being the words in deed mot of Theophylact, ἃς he writeth upon Mark, and therefore they were not alleged as his words, but as the words of Theophilus Alexandrinus, wherein this author traverseth a falsehood on the alleger’s part to wrong name the author. In which allegation, I say, if there be a fault, as I know none, it is mo lie, but a probable error for a man to believe another better learned than himself; and as I found it alleged I reported it again, so as having mine author learned whom I followed, I am discharged of malice, being the author such whom I followed, as might possibly have had such a work of Theophilus, containing those words as théy be alleged, the negative whereof how this author should prove I cannot tell, because of the common saying, Bernardus non vidit omnia; and therefore, there may be a Theophilus Alexandrinus having these words alleged in their form, for any demonstration this author can make to the contrary. Whether there be or no any such to be shewed, it is not material, being so many testimonies besides. «48 for Theophylact’s words, I grant they be mot, for he wrote his mind more plainly in another place of his works, as I shall hereafter shew, and by the way make qn issue with this author, that no catholic writer among the Greeks hath more plainly set forth the truth of the presence of. Christ’s body in the sacrament, than Theophylact hath; as shall appear by and by, after I have noted to the reader this, how Ecolampadius of Germany, about a two year before he impugned the truth of Christ’s presence in the sacrament, he gpqnslated out of Greek into Latin the works. of the said Theophylact, and gave the Latin church thereby some weapon wherewith to destroy his wicked folly afterward, not unlike the chance in this author, translating into English, two years by-past, the catechism of Germany: and as (Ecolampadius hath since his jolly or madness against the sacrament confessed, (as appeareth,) that he did translate Theophylact, so as we need mot doubt of it; so this author hath mow in this work confessed the translation of the catechism, which one in communication would needs have made me believe had been his man’s doing, and mot his. Hear now, reader, how plainly Theophylact speaketh upon. the Gospel of St John, expounding the sixth chapter?:
“Take heed that the bread which is eaten of us in the mysteries, is mot only a certain 4 uration of the flesh of our Lord, but the flesh itself of our Lord; for he said mot, The bread which I shall give is the figure of my flesh, but it is my flesh. For that bread, by the mystical benediction, is transformed by the mystical words and presence of the Holy Ghost into the flesh of our Lord. And it should trouble no man, that the bread is to be believed flesh: for whilst our Lord walked in flesh and received nourishment of bread, that bread he did eat was changed into his body, and was made like to his holy flesh; and as. it is customably in man’s feeding served to the sustentation and increase of it, therefore the
[[! Giving us those words, Orig. ed. Giving us προσιεμένου, ὁ ἄρτος ἐκεῖνος ὁ ἐσθιόμενος els σῶμα —]
[by those words, 1551. ] αὐτοῦ μετεβάλλετο, kai συνεξωμοιοῦτο τῇ ἁγίᾳ [3 Πρόσχες δὲ ὅτι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐν τοῖς μυστηρίοις αὐτοῦ σαρκὶ, καὶ εἰς αὔξησιν καὶ σύστασιν συνε-]
[οὐ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐσθιόμενος οὐκ ἀντίτυπόν ἐστι τῆς Tov. βάλλετο κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον” καὶ νῦν οὖν ὁ ἄρτος —]
[Κυρίου σαρκὸς, ἀλλ duri ἡ τοῦ Κυρίου σάρξ. εἰς σάρκα τοῦ Κυρίου μεταβάλλεται. καὶ πῶς]
[οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν, ὄτι ὁ ἄρτος ὃν éyw δώσω, ἀντί- φησιν, οὐχὶ καὶ σὰρξ φαίνεται ἡμῖν, ἀλλ &pros;]
[πυπόν ἐστι τῆς σαρκός μου, ἀλλ ἡ σάρξ pov διὰ τὸ μὴ ἡμᾶς ἀηδίζεσθαι πρὸς τὴν βρῶσιν. εἰ]
[ἐστί. μεταποιεῖται γὰρ ἀποῤῥήτοις λόγοις ὁ μὲν γὰρ σὰῤξ ἐφαίνετο, ἀηδῶς ἂν διεκείμεθα πρὸς]
[ἄρτος οὗτος Oii τῆς μυστικῆς εὐλογίας, καὶ ἐπι- τὴν μετάληψιν, νῦν δὲ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ἀσθενείᾳ ovy- r]
[φοιτήσεως τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, εἰς σάρκα. τοῦ καταβαίνοντος Tov Κυρίου τοιαύτη φαίνεται ἡμῖν —]
[Κυρίου. Καὶ μή τινα θροείτω τὸ τὸν ἄρτον σάρκα ἡ μυστικὴ βρῶσις, ola ἔστὶν ἡ συνήθης ἡμῖν.-τ- —]
[πιστεύεσθαι, καὶ γάρ τοι καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ περιπα- Theoph. in Joannem. cap. vi. Tom. I. p. 594. -]
[ποῦντος τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ τὴν ἐξ ἄρτου τροφὴν Ed. Venet. 1754.] vy v]
bread now also is changed into the flesh of our Lord. And how is it then that it appeareth not flesh but bread? That we should mot loathe the eating of it; for if flesh appear, we should be unpleasantly disposed to the communion of it. Now our Lord conde-. scending to our infirmity, the mystical meat appeareth such to ws, as those we have been accustomed unto.” Hitherto I have faithfully expressed Theophylact’s words out of Latin ef Ecolampadiug translation, without terming the substantial points otherwise than the words purport in Latin. By which may appear what was Theophylact’s meaning, what doctrine he giveth of the sacrament, and how his own words upon St Mark be to be understanded, when he saith, Speciem quidem panis et vini servat, in virtutem autem carnis et sanguinis transelementat: in corrupting of which words this author maketh a great matter, when they avere not alleged for his; but as they be his, servare speciem may be well translate form and appearance because upon St John, before alleged, he saith of the bread, “it appeareth.” And as for these words, “the virtue of Christ’s flesh and blood” must be understanded to agree with the plain place of Theophylact upon St John, and upon St Mark also, to signify not only virtue, but verity of the flesh and blood of Christ. For if Theophylact by that speech meant “the virtue of the body of Christ,” and not the “verity of the very body,” as this author saith he did, why should Theophylact, both upon St Mark, and also upon St John, ask this question, “Why doth not the flesh appear?” if himself by those words should teach there were only present the virtue of the flesh; who, and he had meant so, would not have asked the question; or if he had, would have answered it thus accordingly, There is no flesh in deed, but the wirtue of the flesh,” and. that had been a plain answer and such as he would have made. This author will ask then, Why doth Theophylact use this phrase to say, “changed into the virtue ef the body of Christ?” Hereunto I answer, that this word “virtue” in phrase of speech «any times only filleth the speech, and is comprehended in the signification of his genitive Jollowing; and therefore, as Luke in the twenty-second chapter saith, a dextris virtutis Dei, 30 in the Acts in the same sentence? is spoken a dextris Dei, both out of one pen; and a dextris virtutis Dei is no more to say than a dextris Dei; and so is virtutem carnis et sanguinis qo more to say but in carnem et sanguinem, which sentence the same Theophylact hath upon St John before alleged, in this saying, The bread is changed into flesh;” and in Mark in this phrase, into the virtue of flesh,” being like these speeches, a dextris Dei, and a dextris virtutis i Dei. Which and it had liked this author to have considered, he should have taken Theophylact’s speech as Theophylact wnderstandeth himself, and said the words alleged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus were not Theophylacts words, and then he had said for so much true, (which would do well among,) and the words be not indeed Theophylact’s words, nor were not alleged for his. Now when this author saith, “they were not Theophilus Alezandrinus’s words;” that is a large negative, and will be hardly proved otherwise than by addition of the author’s knowledge for any thing that he can find, and so there shall be no absurdity to grant it. And thus 1 return to mine issue with this author, that Theophylact himself hath no such meaning expressed in words as this author attributed^ unto him, but an evident contrary meaning, saving herein I will agree with this author, that Theophylact meant not grossly,” “sensibly,” and “carnally,” as these words sound in carnal men’s judgments. For we may not so think of God’s mysteries, the work whereof is not carnal nor corporal, for the manner of it; but the manner spiritual, and yet dn the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, because Christ is in his very true flesh present, he may be said so carnally present, and naturally, after Hilary, and corporally, after Cyril; understanding the words of the truth of that is present, Christ’s very body and flesh, and L mot of the manner of the presence, which is only spiritual, supernatural, and above man’s capacity: and therefore a high mystery, a great miracle, a wonderful work, which it is wholesome to believe simply with a sincere faith, and dangerous to search and examine with — €« curious imagination, such as idleness and arrogancy would tempt a man unto, and by Ó devising of a figure or metaphor bring it within the compass of our busy reason. δ CANTERBURY.
This is a pretty sleight of you to pass over the author’s name, saying that you found it so alleged in an author, and tell not in what author. There is surely some hid mystery in this matter, that you would not have his name known. For if you had found any approved author who had fathered these words upon Theophilus Alexandrinus,
[(P. In the Acts the same sentence, Orig. ed. Winch.] [ Attributeth, Orig. ed. Winch.]]
I doubt not but I should have heard him here named, it should have served so much for your purpose. For to what purpose should you conceal his name, if you had any such author? But shall I open the mystery of this matter? Shall I by conjectures tell the author which you followed, as you by conjecture gathered of him the name of Theophilus? Thomas de Aquino, in his Catena Aurea, citeth the words by you “alleged in these letters, ’ Theoph.”; which letters be indifferent, as well to Theophilus as to Theophylact’s, so that you might have christened the child whether you would by the name of Theophilus or of Theophylactus. And because Theophilus was a more ancient author, and of more learning and estimation than was Theophylact, therefore the name pleased you better, to give more credit to your sayings, and so of Theoph.” you made the whole name Theophilus.” And because one Theophilus was a bishop of Alexandria, you added as it were his surname, calling him Theophilus Alexandrinus.” And if Thomas was not the author which you followed in this matter, peradventure it might be doctor Fisher, sometime bishop of Rochester, who, writing jin the same matter that you do, was, or would be deceived as you be. But what author soever you followed, you shall not honestly shake off this matter, except you tell his name. For else I will say that you be fain to bring in for you feigned authors, whispered in corners. And yet, that Theophilus wrote not the words alleged upon Mark, this is no small proof,—that Theophylact hath the same sentences, word by word, and that neither St Hierome, Gennadius, Eusebius, Trithemius, nor any other that ever wrote hitherto, made ever any mention that Theophilus wrote upon the gospel of St Mark.
And as concerning your issue, thus much I grant without issue, that no catholic writer among the Greeks hath more plainly spoken for you than Theophylact hath; and yet when that shall be well examined, it is nothing at all as I have plainly declared, shewing your untruth as well in allegation of the authors words, as in falsifying his name.
And as for “the catechism of Germany” by me translated into English, to this I have answered before; and truth it is, that either you understand not the phrase of the old authors of the church, or else of purpose you will not understand me. But hereunto you shall have a more full answer when I come to the proper place thereof, in the fourth part of my book.
And as concerning the words of Theophylact upon the gospel of John, he speaketh to one effect, and useth much like terms upon the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, whereunto I have sufficiently answered in my former book. And because the answer may be the more present, I shall rehearse some of my words here again. Although,” said I, Theophylactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ, and the drinking of his very blood, and not only of the figures of them, and of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, yet he meaneth not of a gross, carnal, corporal, and sensible conversion of the bread and wine, nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, (for so not only our stomachs would yearn, and our hearts abhor to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, but also such eating and drinking could nothing profit and avail us;) but he spake of the celestial and spiritual eating of Christ, and of a sacramental conversion of the bread, calling the bread not only a figure, but also the body of Christ; giving us by those words to-understand, that in the sacrament we do not only eat corporally the bread, (which is a sacrament and figure of Christ’s body,) but spiritually we eat also his very body, and drink his very blood. And this doctrine of Theophylactus is both true, godly, and comfortable.” This I wrote in my former book, which is sufficient to answer unto all that you have here spoken.
And as. concerning the bread that Christ did eat and feed upon, it was naturally eaten, as other men eat, naturally changed, and caused a natural nourishment, and yet the very matter of the bread remained, although in another form; but in them that duly receive and eat the Lord’s holy supper all is spiritual, as well the eating as the change and nourishment, which is none impediment to the nature of bread, but that it may still remain.
And where you come to the translation of this word species, to signify “appearance,” arance.
this is a wonderful kind of translation, to translate specie in “appearance” because apparet is truly translated appeareth:” with like reason awrum might be translated meat,” because edere signifieth “to eat.”. And your other translation is no less wonderful, where you turn the virtue” of Christ’s body into the “verity.” And yet to cloak your folly therein, and to cast a mist before the reader’s eyes, that he should not see your untruth therein, you say that by “virtue” in that place must be understanded verity.” First, whatsoever be understand by the word virtue,” your faith in translation is broken. For the sense being ambiguous, you ought in translation to have kept the word as it is, leaving the sense to be expended by the indifferent reader, and not by altering the word to make such a sense as please you; which is so foul a fault in a translator, that if (Ecolampadius had so done, he should have been called a man faulty and guilty, a eorrupter, a deceiver, an abuser of other men, a perverter, a depraver, and a man without faith: as he might be called that would translate verbum. caro factum. est, “the second person became man;” which although it be true in meaning, yet it is not true in translation, nor declareth the faith of the translator.
But now as your translation is untrue, so is the meaning also untrue and unexeusable. For what man is so far destitute of all his senses, that he knoweth not a difference between the verity of Christ’s body and the virtue thereof? Who can ᾿ς pretend ignorance in so manifest a thing? Doth not all men know, that of every thing the virtue is one, and the substance another?—except in God only, who is of that simplicity without multiplication of anything in him, or diversity, that his virtue, his power, his wisdom, his justice, and all that is said to be in him, be neither qualities mor accidents, but all one thing with his very substance. And neither the right hand ef God, nor the virtue of God, (which you bring for an example, and serveth to no purpose, but to blind the ignorant reader,) be any thing else but the very substance of God, (although in diversity of respects and considerations they have diversity of names,) except you will divide the most single substance of God into corporal parts and members, following the error of the Anthropomorphites. But the like is not in the body of Christ, which hath distinction of integral parts, and the virtue also, and qualities distinct from the substance. ἡ And yet, if the example were like, he should be an evil translator, or rather a corrupter, that for a dextris virtutis Dei would translate a dextris Dei, or contrariwise. And therefore all translators in those places follow the words as they be, and be not 50 arrogant to alter one title in them, thereby to make them one in words, although the thing in substance be one. For words had not their signification of the substances, or of things only, but of the qualities, manners, respects, and considerations. And à “so may one word signify divers things, and one thing be signified by divers words. And therefore he that should for one word take another, because they be both referred to one substance, as you have done in this place, should make a goodly piece οἵ work of it; not much unlike to him that should burn his house, and say he made it, because the making and burning was both in one matter and substance.: - Kt is much pity that you have not bestowed your time in translation of good i authors, that can skill so well of translation, to make speciem. to signify appearance, — and that take virtue sometime for verity, and sometime for nothing; and a dextris wirtutis Dei to signify no more but «a dextris Dei, and virtutem carnis to signify no more but carnem, and virtutem sanguinis, sanguinem. And why not? seeing that such words signify ad placitum, that is to say, as please you to translate them.
And it seemeth to be a strange thing, that you have so quick an eye to espy other men’s faults, and cannot see in Theophylact his plain answer, but to take upon you to teach him to answer. For when he asketh the question, Why doth not the flesh appear?” he should have answered, say you, that the flesh is not there in deed, but the virtue of the flesh:” I pray you, doth not he answer plainly the same in effect? Is not his answer to that question this, as you confess yourself, “that the forms of bread and wine be changed into the virtue of the body of Christ?” And what would you require more? Is not this as much to say, as the virtue of the flesh is there, but not the substance corporally and carnally? i And yet another third error is committed in the same sentence, because one sen-
tence should not be without three errors at the least in your translation. For whereas Theophylact hath but one accusative case, you put thereto other two more of your own head. And as you once taught Barnes’, so now you would make Theophylact your scholar, to say what you would have him. But that the truth may appear, what Theophylact said, I shall rehearse his own words in Greek: συγκαταβαίνων ἡμῖν ὁ φιλαν- Opwmos τὸ μὲν εἶδος ἄρτου kal otvov φυλάττει, εἰς δύναμιν δὲ σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος μετα- στοιχειοῖ; which words translated into Latin be these: Condescendens nobis benignus Deus speciem, quidem panis et vini servat, in potestatem autem carnis et sanguinis transelementat. And in English they be thus much to say: “The merciful God, condescending to our infirmity, conserveth still the kind of bread and wine, but turneth them into the virtue of his flesh and blood.” To this sentence you do add of your own authority these words “the bread and wine,” which words Theophylact hath not, which is an untrue part of him that pretendeth to be a true interpreter. And by adding those words, you alter clearly the authors meaning. For where the author’s meaning was, that we should abhor to eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood in their proper form and kind, yet Almighty God hath ordained that in his holy supper we should receive the forms and kinds of bread and wine, and that those kinds should be turned (unto them that worthily receive the same) into the virtue and effect of
201. — Christ’s very flesh and blood, although they remain still in the same kind and form of bread and wine. And so by him the nature and kind of bread and wine remain; and yet the same be turned into the virtue of flesh and blood. So that the word forms” is the accusative case, as well to the verb turneth, as to the verb conserveth: but you, to make Theophylact serve your purpose, add of your own head two other accusative cases, that is to say, “bread and wine,” besides Theophylact’s words; wherein all men may consider how little you regard the truth, that to maintain your untrue doctrine once devised by yourselves, care not what untruth you use besides to corrupt all doctors, making so many faults in translation of one sentence.
And if the words alleged upon Mark were not Theophylact’s words, but the words of Theophilus Alexandrinus, as you say, at the least Theophylact must borrow them of Theophilus, because the words be all one, sixteen lines together, saving this word “verity,” which Theophylact turneth into ” virtue.” And then it is to be thought that he would not alter that word, (wherein all the contention standeth,) without some consideration. And specially when Theophilus speaketh of the verity of Christs body, as you say, if Theophylact had thought the body had been there, would he have refused the word, and changed verity into virtue, bringing his own faith into suspicion, and giving occasion of error unto other?
And where, to excuse your error in translation, you say that the words by you alleged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus be not Theophylact’s words, and I deny that they be Theophilus words; so then be they nobody’s words, which is no detriment to my cause at all, because I took him for none of my witness; but it is in a manner a clear overthrow of your cause, which take him for your chief and principal witness, saying that no catholic writer among the Greeks hath more plainly set forth the truth of the presence of Christs body in the sacrament than Theophylactus hath,” and hereupon you make your issue.
And yet have I a good cause to call them Theophylact’s words, forasmuch as I find them in his works printed abroad, saving one word which you have untruly corrupted, because that word pleaseth you not. And yet am I not bound to admit that your witness is named Theophilus, except you have better proofs thereof than this, that one saith he hath him in a corner, and so allegeth him. It is your part to prove your own witness, and not my part that stand herein only at defence. And yet to every indifferent man I have shewed sufficient matter to reject him. Hear now my answer to St Hierome. Tisanmwerto Besides this, our adversaries do allege St Hierome upon the epistle ad Titum,
[super epistol. -----.------------ Οὺ-.-.-.—Ἐ—]
[i ’ [! Vide Burnet’s Hist. of the Reformation, Vol. 1. inter imaginem et veritatem, inter exemplaria futu-]
[p. 592. Oxford, 1829, and Foxe’s Acts and Monu- rorum, et ea ipsa qua per exemplaria prefiguraban-]
[ments, Vol. 11. p. 525. Lond. 1631.] tur. Jerom. Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, cap. i. antum interest inter propositionis panes et 8, 9. Tom. IX. p. 199. Ed. Francof. 1684.]]
[eornus Christi. auantum inter nmbram et corpora.]
. that there is as great difference between the loaves called panes propositionis, and the body of Christ, as there is between the shadow? of a body and the body itself; and as there is between an image and the thing itself, and between &n example of things to come and the things that be prefigured by them. p These words of St Hierome, truly understand, serve nothing for the intent of the papists. For he meant that the shew-bread of the law was but a dark Shadow of Christ to come; but the sacrament of Christ’s body is a clear testimony that Christ is already come, and that he hath performed that which was promised, and doth presently comfort and feed us spiritually with his precious body and blood, notwithstanding that corporally he is ascended into. heaven. WINCHESTER.
This author travaileth to answer St Hierome, and to make him the easier Jor him to deal with, he cutteth off that followeth in the same St Hierome, which should make the matter open and manifest, how effectually St Hierome speaketh of the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood. “There is,” saith St Hierome, “as great difference between the loaves called panes propositionis, end the body of Christ, as there is between the shadow of a body and the body itself; and as there is between an image and the true thing itself, and between an example of things to come and the things that be prefigured by them. Therefore as meekness, patience, sobriety, moderation, abstinence of gain, hospitality also, and liberality should be chiefly in a bishop, and among all laymen an excellency in them; so there should be in him a special chastity, and as I should say, chastity that is priestly, that he should not only abstain from unclean work, but also from the cast of his eye, and his mind free from error of thought, that should make the body of Christ5.” These be St Hierome’s words in this place. By the latter part whereof eppeareth plainly how St Hierome meaneth of Christ’s body in the sacrament, of which the loaves that were panes propositionis were a shadow, as St Hierome saith; that bread being “the image, and this the truth,” that “the example, and this that was prefigured.” So as if Christ’s body in the sacrament should be there but figuratively, as this author teacheth, then were the bread of proposition figure of a. figure, and shadow of a shadow, which is over great am absurdity in our religion. Therefore there cannot be a more plain proof to shew, that by St Hierome’s mind Christ’s body is verily in the sacrament and not JSiguratively only, than when he noteth panes propositionis £o be the figure and the shadow of Christ’s body in T the sacrament. For, as Tertullian? saith, figura non esset, nisi veritatis esset corpus: The L other were not to be called a figure, if that” answered unto it, were not of truth,” which is D he sense of Tertullian’s words. And therefore St Hierome could with no other words have empressed his mind so certainly and plainly, as with these, to confess the truth of Christ’s body im the sacrament. And therefore regard not, reader, what this author saith: for St - dHierome affirmeth plainly Christ’s true body to be in the sacrament, the consecration whereof although St Hierome attributeth to the minister, yet we must understand him, that he taketh - God for the author and worker, notwithstanding by reason of the ministry in the church the doing is ascribed to man as minister, because Christ said, Hoc facite, after which speech salvation, remission of sin, and the work in other sacraments is atiribute to the minister, being nevertheless the same the proper and special works of God. 1 7 And this I add, because some be unjustly offended to hear that man should make the body Of Christ. And this author findeth fault before at the word “making,” which veligiously E. heard and reverently spoken should offend no man; for man is but a minister, wherein he should not glory. And Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread, nor maketh himself 80 oft of bread a mew body; but sitting in heaven doth, as our invisible priest, work in the ministery of the visible priesthood of his church, and maketh present by his ommipotency his glorified body and blood in this high mystery, by conversion of the visible creatures of bread and wine, as Emissene saith, into the same. This author of this book, as thou, reader, mayest i. [ A shadow, 1551, and Orig. ed.] ut non solum ab opere se immundo abstineat, sed [ An unclean work, Orig. ed. Winch. ] etiam a jactu oculi, et cogitationis errore, mens N [^ Quomodo itaque mansuetudo, patientia, so- Christi corpus confectura sit libera. 1b. p. 199.]. brietas, moderatio, abstinentia lucri, hospitalitas quo- [9 Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset 1 ^ jque, et benignitas, precipue esse debent in episcopo, corpus. Tertul. adversus Marcionem. Lib. 1v. p. [EM et (ut ita dixerim) pudicitia sacerdotalis, [7 If that, that answered, &c. 1551.] 13.. et inter cunctos laicos continentia: sic et castitas 458. Ed. Lutet. Paris. 1644.]
[UE rou: 3 K]
perceive, applicth the figure of the breads, called panes propositionis, to the body of Christ to come, whereas St Hierome calleth them the figure of Christ’s body in the sacrament, and therefore doth fashion his argument in this sense. If those breads, that were but a figure, required so much cleammess in them that should eat them, that they might not eat of them, which a day or two before had lien with their wives; what cleanness is required in him that should make the body of Christ! Whereby thou mayest see how! this author hath reserved this notable place of St Hierome to the latter end, that thow shouldest in the end, as well as in the midst, see him evidently snarled, for thy better remembrance.
Canterbury
To these words of St Hierome I have sufficiently answered in my former book. And now to add something thereto, I say that he meaneth not that panes propositionis be figures of the sacrament, but of Christ’s very body. And yet the same body is not only in the sacrament figuratively, but it is also in the true ministration thereof spiritually present and spiritually eaten, as in my book I have plainly declared. But how is it possible that Caius Ulpian, or Scevola, Batholus, Baldus or Curtius, should have knowledge what is meant by the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament, and of the spiritual eating of his flesh and blood, if they be void of a lively faith, feeding and comforting their souls with their own works, and not with the breaking of the body and shedding of the blood of our Saviour Christ?
The meat that the papists live by is indulgences and pardons, and such other remission of sins as cometh all from the pope, which giveth no life, but infecteth and poisoneth: but the meat that the true christian man liveth by, is Christ himself, who is eaten only by faith, and so eaten is life and spirit, giving that life that endureth and continueth for ever. God grant that we may learn this heavenly knowledge of the spiritual presence, that we may spiritually taste and feed of this heavenly food!
Now, where you say that there cannot be a more plain proof to shew that Christ’s body is verily in the sacrament, and not figuratively only,” than when St Hierome noteth panes propositionis to be the figure and shadow of Christ’s body in the sacrament. “For,” as Tertullian saith, the other were not to be called a figure, if that which answereth to it were not of truth.” Here your “for” is a plain fallax a non causa ut causa, and a wondrous subtlety is used therein. For where Tertullian proveth that Christ had here in earth a very body, which Marcion denied, because that bread was instituted to be a figure thereof, and there can be no figure of a thing that is not, you allege Tertullians words, as though he should say, that Christs body is in the sacrament under the form of bread; whereof neither Tertullian entreated in that place, nor it is not required, that the body should be corporally where the figure is, but rather it should be in vain to have a figure when the thing itself is present. And therefore you untruly report both of St Hierome and Tertullian: for neither of them both do say, as you would gather of their words, that Christs body is in the sacrament really and corporally. the And where you say, “that Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread,” ^ either you be very ignorant in the doctrine of the sacrament, as it hath been taught these five hundred years, or else you dissemble the matter. Hath not this been the teaching of the school divines, yea, of Innocent himself, that the matter of this sacrament is bread of wheat, and wine of grapes? Do they not say, that the substance of bread is turned into the substance of Christ’s flesh, and that his flesh is made of bread? And who worketh this, but Christ himself? And have you not confessed all this in your book of the Devil’s Sophistry? Why do you then deny here that which you taught before, and which hath been the common approved doctrine of the papists so many years? And because it should have the more authority, was not this put into the mass-books, and read every year, Dogma datur Christianis, quod in carnem, transit. panis, et vinum in sanguinem? Now, seeing that you have taught so many years, that the matter and substance of bread is not consumed to nothing,
[[! Here, Orig. ed. Winch.]. [? Ad causam, 1551. P]
j OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 195 but is changed and turned into the body of Christ, so that the body of Christ is made of it, what mean you now to deny that Christ is made of the matter of bread? When water was turned into wine, was not the wine made of the water? And when the rod was turned into a serpent, and water into blood, the earth into a man, and his rib into a woman, were not the woman, man, blood, and serpent, made of the matter of the rib, the earth, the water, and the rod? And is not every thing made ef that which is turned into it? As bread is made of corn; wine of grapes; beer of water, hops, and malt; and so of all things like? And when you have confessed yourselves, so many years past, that Christ is made of bread in the sacrament, what moveth you now to say, that Christ maketh not himself of the matter of bread, except that either you will say, that the priest doth it and not Christ, which were an intolerable blasphemy; or that the truth is of such a nature that even the very adversaries thereof, sometime unwares, acknowledge it; or else that force of arguments constraineth you to confess the truth against your will, when you see none other shift to escape? But if you take upon you to defend the received doctrine of the papists, you must affirm that doctrine which they affirm, and say that bread in the sacrament is the matter whereof Christ’s body is made; whereof must then needs follow, ez consequenti, that he hath from time to time a new body, made of new bread, besides the body which was incarnated, and never but once made, nor of none other substance but of his mother. So that it is but a vain cavillation, only to elude simple people, or to shift off the matter, to say, as you do, that Christ is not made of the bread, but is made to be present there.” For then should he have said, There is my body,” and not, “This is my body.” And to be present requireth no new making: but to be present by conversion requireth a new making: as the wine that was bought at the marriage in the Cane of Galilee, if there were any such, was present without conversion, and so without new making; but the wine that was made of water, was present by conversion, which could not be without new making. And so must Christ’s body be newly made, if it be present by corporal conversion of the substance of bread into the substance of it. And now I refer to every indifferent reader, to judge between us both, which of us is most snarled.
Now let us examine the other authors following in my book.
And the same is to be answered unto all that the adversaries bring of St Augustine, Sedulius, Leo, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Gregorius, and other, con- eerning the eating of Christ in the sacrament.
Which thing cannot be understanded plainly as the words sound, but figuratively and spiritually, as before is sufficiently proved, and hereafter shall be more fully declared in the fourth part of this book. WINCHESTER.
Because this author, who hitherto hath answered none substantially, would nevertheless be seen Lo answer all, he windeth up siz of them in one fardell, St Augustine, Sedulius, Leo, Fulgentius, Augustinus, 3 Cassiodorus, and Gregorius, and dispatcheth them all with an ut supra: and among them I think Te ᾿ς δὲ would have knit up all the rest of the learned men of all ages, amongst whom I know none that Cassodoms, write as this author doth of the sacrament, or impugneth the catholic faith as this author doth by Gregorius the envious name of papists. Since Christ’s time there is no memory more than of six, that have? affirmed that doctrine, which this author would have called now the catholic doctrine, and yet not written by them of one sort, neither received in belief in public profession; but secretly, when it happened, begun by conspiration, and in the end ever hitherto extinct and quenched. First was Bertram, then Berengarius, then Wicliff, and in our time, CGEcolampadius, Zuinglius, and Joa-chimus Vadianus. I will not reckon Peter Martyr, because such as know him saith he is not Peter learned; nor this author, because he doth but as it were translate Peter Martyr, saving he roveth at solutions, as liketh his phantasy, as I have before declared. Which matter being thus, it is a stramge title of this book, to call it the true catholic doctrine.
[e [ Hath, 1551.]]
Canterbury
All that you have these many years gathered together for your purpose, or that can be gathered, may be well trussed up in a very small fardell, and very easily borne and carried away, for any weight that is therein. For your doings be like to him, that would fain seem to have something, and having nothing else, filleth a great mail full of straw, that men should think he carried something, where indeed a little budget had been sufficient for so much in value.
And as for your own doctrine, it is so strange, that neither it agreeth with the scripture, nor with the old catholic church, nor yet with the later church or congregation of the papists: but you stand post alone, after the fall of the papistical doctrine, as sometime an old post standeth when the building is overthrown.
And where you say, “that since Christ’s time there is no more but six that have affirmed the doctrine that I have taught;” all that have been learned, and have read the old authors of the catholic church, may evidently see the contrary, that sithens Christs time the doctrine of my book was ever the catholic and publie rethe ceived faith of the church, until Nicholas the second’s time, who compelled Beren-rius garius to make such a devilish recantation, that the papists themselves be now ashamed of it. And since that time, have many thousands been cruelly persecuted only for the profession of the true faith. Kor no man might speak one word against the bishop of Rome determination herein, but he was taken for an heretice, and so condemned, as Wicliff, Huss, and an infinite number more.:
And as for Bertram, he was never before this time detected of any error that ever I read, but only now by you. For all other that have written of him, have spoken much to his commendation and praise. But I know what the matter is: he hath written against your mind, which is a fault and error great enough.
As for Dr Peter Martyr, he is of age to answer for himself: but concerning him, that told you that he was not learned, I would wish you to leave this old rooted fault in you, to be light of credit. For I suppose, that if his learning that told you that lie, and yours also, were set both together, you should be far behind Master Peter Martyr. Marry, in words I think that you alone would overlay two Peter Martyrs; he is so sober a man, and delighteth not in wasting of words in vain. And none do say that he is not learned, but such as know him not, or be not learned themselves, or else be so malicious or envious, that they wittingly speak against their own conscience. And, no doubt, that man bringeth himself out of the estimation of a learned man, which hath heard him reason and read, and saith that he is not learned. And whosoever misreporteth him, and hath never heard him, may not be called so well momus as sycophanta, whose property is to misreport them whom they neither see nor know.
Now. resteth only Damascene, of whom I write thus.
But here John Damascene may in no wise be passed over, whom for his authority the adversaries of Christ’s true natural body do reckon as a stout champion, sufficient to defend all the whole matter alone. But neither is the et authority of Damascene so great that they may oppress us thereby, nor his words so plain for them, as they boast and untruly pretend. For he is but a young new author in the respect of those, which we have brought in for our party. And in divers points he varieth from the most ancient authors, &f he mean as they expound him;) as when he saith, that “the bread and wine be not figures,” whieh all the old authors call figures; and that the bread and wine consume not, nor be avoided downward,” which Origen and St Augustine affirm; or that “they be not called the examples of Christ’s body after the consecration,” which shall manifestly appear false by the liturgy ascribed unto St Basil.
And moreover the said Damascene was one of the bishop of Rome’s chief
[[! Latter, 1551.] ἯΙ]
[ia E]
proctors against the emperors, and as it were his right hand, to set abroad all idolatry by his own hand-writing. And therefore, if he lost his hand, as they say he did, he lost it by God’s most righteous judgment, whatsoever they feign and fable of the miraculous restitution of the same. And yet whatsoever the said Damascene writeth in other matters, surely in this place, which the adversaries do allege, he writeth spiritually and godly, although the papists either of ignorance mistake him, or else willingly wrest him and writhe him to ^ their purpose, clean contrary to his meaning.
The sum of Damascene his doctrine in this matter is this?: That as Christ, being both God and man, hath in him two natures; so hath he two nativities, one eternal, and the other temporal. And so likewise, we, being as it were double men, or having every one of us two men in us, the new man and the old man, the spiritual man and the carnal man, have a double nativity; one of our first carnal father Adam, (by whom, as by ancient inheritance, cometh unto us maledietion and everlasting damnation,) and the other of our heavenly Adam, that is to say, of Christ, by whom we be made heirs of celestial benedietion and everlasting glory and immortality.
And because this Adam is spiritual, therefore our generation by him must J ’ j [? For the account of this restoration of Damas- xai ὁ οἶνος ToU σώματος kal αἵματος Tov Xpi-cene’s hand, vide Winchester’s “Detection of the στοῦ” μὴ γένοιτο” ἀλλ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα TOU κυρίου Devil’s Sophistry,” f, 35.] i τεθεωμένον, αὐτοῦ τοῦ κυρίου εἰπόντος, Τοῦτό [ ᾿Επειδὴ διπλοῖ τινὲς ἐσμὲν καὶ σύνθετοι, δεῖ μου ἐστὶ, οὐ τύπος τοῦ σώματος, ἀλλὰ τὸ σῶμα” καὶ τὴν γέννησιν διπλῆν εἶναι, ὁμοίως καὶ τὴν καὶ οὐ τύπος τοῦ αἵματος, ἀλλὰ τὸ αἷμα.----.τιμή- βρῶσιν σύνθετον” ἡ μὲν οὖν γέννησις riuiv δι’ ὕδατος. σωμεν αὐτὸ πάσῃ kaÜapomtyri ψυχικῇ Te καὶ σω- καὶ πνεύματος δέδοται, φημὶ δὲ τοῦ ἁγίου βαπ- ματικῇ” διπλοῦν γάρ ὅδτι,-.----ἄνθρακα cider’ Ἢ σαΐας” τίσματος” ἡ δὲ βρῶσις, αὐτὸς ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς, ἄνθραξ δὲ ξύλον λιτὸν οὐκ ἔστι, ἀλλ ἡνωμένον ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πυρί” οὕτω καὶ ὁ ἄρβς τῆς κοινωνίας οὐκ ἄρτος «arafds.—Damascenus, de Fide Orth. Lib. 1v. λιτός ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ ἡνωμένος θεότητι σῶμα δὲ A cap. 14. Ed. Basil. 1559. Tom. I. p. 315. ἡνωμένον θεότητι οὐ μία φύσις ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ μία Ι Ἄρτος δὲ καὶ οἶνος παραλαμβάνεται” οἷδε γὰρ μὲν τοῦ σώματος, τῆς δὲ ἡνωμένης αὐτῷ θεότητος
[1 ὁ Θεὸς τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἀσθένειαν, ws τὰ πολλὰ ἑτέρα ὥστε TO συναμφότερον οὐ μία φύσις,]
[i: Td μὴ κατὰ Tiv συνήθειαν τετριμμένα ἀποστρέ- ἀλλὰ δύο. —ττ-Σῶμά ἐστι kai αἷμα Χριστοῦ, els]
[1 derat Ovaxepaívovca τῇ οὖν συνήθει συγκαταβά- σύστασιν τῆς ἡμετέρας Ψυχῆς TE kal σώματος]
[Ἷ σει κεχρημένος, διὰ τῶν συνηθῶν τῆς φύσεως χωροῦν, οὐ δαπανώμενον, οὐ φθειρόμενον, οὐκ εἰς]
[ποιεῖ τὰ ὑπὲρ φύσιν” καὶ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ βαπ- ἀφεδρῶνα χωροῦν, μὴ γένοιτο” ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τιν ἡμῶν
[τίσματος, ἐπειδιὶ ἔθος ἀνθρώποις ὕδατι λούεσθαι, οὐσίαν kal συντήρησιν, βλάβης παντοδαποῦς duvv-]
[«al ἐλαίῳ χρίεσθαι, συνέζευξε τῷ ἐλαίῳ kal ὕδατι τήριον, ῥύπου παντὸς καθαρτήριον. ------- Οὗτος ὁ]
[4 τὴν χάριν τοῦ πνεύματος, kal ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ Xov- ἄρτος ἐστὶν ἡ ἀπαρχὴ ToU μέλλοντος ἄρτου, ὅς]
[1 τρὸν ἀναγεννήσεως, οὕτως ἐπειδιὶ ἔθος τοῖς dv- ἐστιν ὁ ἐπιούσιος” τὸ yap ἐπιούσιον δηλοῖ, ἢ]
[D θρώποις ἄρτον ἐσθίειν, ὕδωρ τε καὶ οἶνον πίνειν, τὸν μέλλοντα, τουτέστι τὸν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶ-]
[᾿ς συνέζευξεν αὐτοῖς τὴν αὐτοῦ θεότητα, καὶ πεποίη- νος, ἢ τὸν πρὸς συντήρησιν τῆς οὐσίας ἡμῶν λαμ-]
[ο κεν αὐτὰ σῶμα καὶ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, ἵνα διὰ τῶν συν- βανόμενον᾽ εἴτε οὖν οὕτως, εἴτε οὕτως τὸ τοῦ κυρίου]
[᾿ς ηθῶν καὶ κατὰ φύσιν ἐν τοῖς ὑπὲρ φύσιν γενώμεθα. σῶμα προσφυῶς λεχθήσεται” πνεῦμα γὰρ ζωοποιοῦν]
[Σῶμά ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ἡνωμένον θεότητι, τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἐστιν ἡ σὰρξ Tov κυρίου. διότι ἐκ τοῦ ζωοποιοῦ]
[᾿ς ἁγίας παρθένου σῶμα, οὐχ ὅτι τὸ ἀναληφθὲν πνεύματος συνελήφθη” τὸ γὰρ γεγεννημένον ἐκ]
[7 σῶμα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατέρχεται, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστι” τοῦτο δὲ λέγω οὐκ]
[m ἄρτος kal οἶνος μεταποιοῦνται els σῶμα καὶ αἷμα ἀναιρῶν τὴν τοῦ σώματος φύσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ζωο-]
[᾿ς θεοῦ. εἰ δὲ τὸν τρόπον ἐπιζητεῖς πῶς γίνεται, ποιὸν καὶ θεῖον τούτου δηλῶσαι βουλόμενος. El]
[—. ἀρκεῖ σοι ἀκοῦσαι; ὅτι διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίον, ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ τινὲς ἀντίτυπα τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος]
[Ἢ - al ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ κυρίου τὸν ἄρτον καὶ τὸν οἶνον ἐκάλεσαν, ὡς]
[ly E. ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὁ κύριος σάρκα ὑπεστήσατο” ὁ θεοφόρος ἔφη Βασίλειος, οὐ μετὰ τὸ ἁγιασθῆναι]
[hM καὶ πλέον οὐδὲν γινώσκομεν, ἀλλ ὅτε ὁ λόγος εἶπον, ἀλλὰ πρὶν ἁγιασθῆναι, αὐτὴν τὴν προσ-]
[ἣ - ποῦ Θεοῦ ἀληθής ἐστι καὶ ἐνεργὴς καὶ παντοδύ- φορὰν οὕτω καλέσαντεςς Μετάληψις δὲ λέγεται”]
[-— Ψάμος, ὁ δὲ τρόπος ἀνεξερεύνητος” οὐ χεῖρον δὲ καὶ δι’ αὐτῆς γὰρ τῆς Ιησοῦ θεότητος μεταλαμβά-]
[AN τοῦτο εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ὥσπερ φυσικῶς διὰ τῆς βρώσεως νομεν. κοινωνία δὲ λέγεταΐ τε καὶ ἐστὶν ἀληθῶς]
[ὁ ἄρτος, καὶ ὁ οἶνος καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ διὰ τῆς πόσεως, εἰς διὰ τὸ κοινωνεῖν ἡμᾶς 0v αὐτῆς τῷ Χριστῷ, καὶ]
[i σῶμα καὶ αἷμα τοῦ ἐσθίοντος καὶ wivovros μεταβάλ- μετέχειν αὐτοῦ τῆς σαρκός Te καὶ τῆς θεότητος”]
[a Xov at, Kal οὐ γίνονται ἕτερον σῶμα apa τὸ πρότε- κοινωνεῖν δὲ kal ἑνοῦσθαι ἀλλήλοις δι αὐτῆς. ἐπεὶ]
[ο΄ pov αὐτοῦ σῶμα’ οὕτως ὁ τῆς προθέσεως ἄρτος οἶνός γὰρ ἐξ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μεταλαμβάνομεν οἱ πάντες ἕν]
[x τε καὶ ὕδωρ διὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως καὶ ἐπιφοιτήσεως σῶμα Χριστοῦ καὶ ἕν αἷμα, καὶ ἀλλήλων μέλη]
[ο΄ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ὑπερφυῶς μεταποιοῦνται els γινόμεθα, σύσσωμοι Χριστοῦ χρηματίζοντες.---1Ὁ.]
[5 τὸ σῶμα TOU Χριστοῦ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶ δύο, pp. 317, 18, 19.]]
[ἃ ἀλλ᾽ €» καὶ τὸ αὐτό.-----Οὐκ ἔστι τύπος ὁ ἄρτος]
be spiritual, and our feeding must be likewise spiritual. And our spiritual generation by him is plainly set forth in baptism; and our spiritual meat and food is set forth in the holy communion and supper of the Lord. And because our sights be so feeble that we cannot see the spiritual water wherewith we be
207. washed in baptism, nor the spiritual meat wherewith we be fed at the Lord’s table; therefore to help our infirmities, and to make us the better to see the same with a pure faith, our Saviour Christ hath set forth the same, as it were before our eyes, by sensible signs and tokens, which we be daily used and accustomed unto.
And because the common custom of men is to wash in water, therefore our spiritual regeneration in Christ, or spiritual washing in his blood, is declared unto us in baptism by water. Likewise our spiritual nourishment and feeding in Christ is set before our eyes by bread and wine, because they be meats and drinks which chiefly and usually we be fed withal; that as they feed the body, so doth Christ with his flesh and blood spiritually feed the soul.
And therefore the bread and wine be called examples of Christ’s flesh and blood; and also they be called his very flesh and blood, to signify unto us, that as they feed us carnally, so do they admonish us, that Christ with his flesh and blood doth feed us spiritually, and most truly, unto everlasting life.
And as Almighty God by his most mighty word and his holy Spirit and infinite power brought forth all creatures in the beginning, and ever sithens hath preserved them; even so by the same word and power he worketh in us, from time to time, this marvellous spiritual generation and wonderful spiritual nourishment and feeding, which is wrought only by God, and is comprehended and recelved of us by faith.
And as bread and drink by natural nourishment be changed into a man’s body, and yet the body is not changed, but is the same! that it was before: so, although the bread and wine be sacramentally changed into Christ’s body, yet his body is the same, and in the same place that it was before; that is to say, in heaven, without any alteration of the same.
And the bread and wine be not so changed into the flesh and blood of Christ that they be made one nature, but they remain still distinct in nature; so that the bread in itself is not his flesh, and tlie wine his blood, but unto them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine, to them the bread and wine be his flesh and blood; that is to say, by things natural, and which they be accustomed unto, they be exalted unto things above nature. For the sacramental bread and wine be not bare and naked figures, but so pithy and effectuous, that whosoever worthily eateth them, eateth spiritually Christ’s flesh and blood, and hath by them everlasting life.
Wherefore, whosoever cometh to the Lord’s table, must come with all humility, fear, reverence, and purity of life, as to receive not only bread and wine, but also our Saviour Christ, both God and man, with all his benefits, to the relief and sustentation both of their bodies and souls.
This is briefly the sum and true meaning of Damascene concerning this matter.
Wherefore, they that gather of him either the natural presence of Christ’s body in the sacraments of bread and wine, or the adoration of the outward and visible sacrament; or that after the consecration there remaineth no bread, nor wine, nor other substance, but only the substance of the body and blood of Christ; either they understand not Damaseene, or else of wilful frowardness
[[! But the same, 1551, and Orig. ed.] ἣν]
: M OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 199 they will not understand him: which rather seemeth to be true by such colJections as they have unjustly gathered and noted out of him.
For although he say that Christ is the spiritual meat; yet as in baptism the Holy Ghost is not in the water, but in him that is unfeignedly baptized; so Damascene meant not, that Christ is in the bread, but in him that worthily eateth the bread.
And though he say that the bread is Christ’s body, and the wine his blood, yet he meant not that the bread, considered in itself, or the wine in itself, being not received, is his flesh and blood: but to such as by unfeigned faith worthily receive the bread and wine, to such the bread and wine are called by Damascene the body and blood of Christ, because that such persons, through the working of the Holy Ghost, be so knit and united spiritually to Christ’s flesh and blood, and to his divinity also, that they be fed with them unto everlasting life.
Furthermore, Damascene saith not that the sacrament should be worshipped and adored, as the papists term it, which is plain idolatry; but that we must worship Christ, God and man. And yet we may not worship him in bread and wine, but sitting in heaven with his Father, and being spiritually within ourselves.
Nor he saith not, that there remaineth no bread nor wine, nor none other substance, but only the substance of the body and blood of Christ; but he saith plainly, “that as a burning coal is not wood only, but fire and wood joined together; so the bread of the communion is not bread only, but bread joined to the divinity.” But those that say, that there is none other substance but the substance of the body and blood of Christ, do not only deny that there is bread and wine, but by force they must deny also, that there is either Christ’s divinity or his soul. For if the flesh and blood, the soul and divinity, of Christ be four substances, and in the sacrament be but two of them, that is to say, his flesh and blood, then where is his soul and divinity? And thus these men divide Jesus, separating his divinity from his humanity: of whom St John saith: Whosoever divideth Jesus, is not of God, but he is antichrist.”
And moreover, these men do separate Christs body from his members - in the sacrament, that they leave him no man’s body at all. For as Damascene saith, that the distinction of members pertain so much to the mature of man’s? body, that where there is no such distinction, there is no perfeet man’s body: but by these papists’ doctrine, there is no such distine- 4ion of members in the sacrament; for either there is no head, feet, hands, arms, legs, mouth, eyes, and nose at all; or else all is head, all feet, all: hands, all arms, all legs, all mouth, all eyes, and all nose. And so they make of Christ’s body no man’s body at all.
Thus being confuted the papists’ errors, as well concerning transubstan- tiation, as the real, corporal, and natural presence of Christ in the sacrament, which were two principal points purposed in the beginning of this work; now it is time something to speak of the third error of the papists, which is concerning the eating of Christ’s very body, and drinking of his blood.
[Thus endeth the third Book.)
[[ Of a man’s body, 1531, and Orig. Ed.] [ Orig. Ed.]]
Winchester
Last of all, the author busicth himself with Damascene, and goeth about to answer him by making of a sum; which sum is so wrong accompted, that every man that readeth Damascene may be auditor to control it. And this will I say, Damascene writeth so evidently in the matter, that Peter Martyr, for a shift, is fain to find fault in his Judgment and age; and yet he is eight hundred years old at the least, and I say at the least, because he is reckoned of some half as old again. And whatsoever his Judgment were, he writeth (as Melancthon saith) his testimony of the faith of the sacrament as it was in his time. I would write in here Damascene’s words, to compare them with the sum collected by this author, whereby to disprove his particulars plainly; but the words of Damascene be to be read, translated already abroad.
As for the four substances which this author by accompt nwmbereth of Christ, might have been left unreckoned by tale, because among them that be Jaithful, and understand truly, awheresoever the substance of Christ’s very body is, there is also understanded by concomitance to be present the substance of his soul, as very man, and also of the Godhead as very God. And in the matter of the sacrament therefore, contending with him that would have the substance of bread there, it may be said there is in the sacrament the only substance of Christ’s body, because the word “only” thus placed excludeth other strange substances, and mot the substances which without contention be known and confessed unite with Christ’s body. And 80 a man may be said to be alone in his house when he hath no strangers, although he hath a number of his own men. And Erasmus noteth how the evangelist writeth Christ to have prayed alone, and yet certain of his disciples were there. And if in a contention raised, whether the father and son were both killed in such a field or mo, I defended the father to have been only killed there, and thereupon a wager laid, should I lose, if by proof it appeared, that not only the father, but also three or four of the father’s servants were slain, but the son escaped? And as in this speech the word only ” served to exclude that was in contention, and mot to reduce the number to one; mo more is it in the speech that this author would reprove, and therefore needed not to have occupied himself in the matter, wherein I heard him once say in a good audience, himself was satisfied. In which mind I would he had continued; and having so slender stuff as this is, and the truth so evident against him, not to have resuscitate this so often reproved untruth, wherein never hitherto any one could prevail.
Canterbury
As for Damascene needeth no further answer than I have made in my former book. But I pray the reader, that he will diligently examine the place, and so to be an indifferent auditor betwixt us two.
Now when you be called to accompt for the number of substances in the sacrament, l perceive by your wrangling, that you be somewhat moved with this audit, for because you be called to accompt. And I cannot blame you, though it somewhat grieve you; for it toucheth the very quick. And although I myself can right well understand your numbers, that when you name but one, you mean four; yet you should have considered beforehand, to whom your book was written. You wrote to plain simple people in the English tongue, which understand no further but one to be one, and four to be four. And therefore when you say there is but one, and mean four, you attemper not your speech to the capacities of them to whom you write. Now have I answered to all your frivolous cavillations against my third book, and fortified it so strongly, that you have spent all your shot and powder in
← 10. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ · Contents · 12. Book IV. Of the Eating and Drinking →