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.