12. Book IV. Of the Eating and Drinking, Part 1

. vain And I trust I have either broken your pieces, or pegged

them, that you shall be able to shoot no more: or if you shoot, the shot shall be so faint that it shall not be able to pierce through a paper leaf. And the like I trust to do to all the munition and ordinance laid against my fourth

[[^ The same, Orig. ed. Winch.] E]

Τ 4,

wixcHESTER

i THUS having perused the effect of the third book, I will likewise peruse the fourth, and then shall follow in direct course to speak of the matter of transubstantiation. In this fourth book the author entreateth eating and drinking of Christ’s body and blood: and in the first part thereof travaileth to confirm his purpose, and in the second part answereth as he can. to his adversaries, and so taketh occasion to speak of adoration.

His chief purpose is to prove that evil men receive not the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, which after this author’s doctrine is a very superfluous matter. For if the sacrament be only a figure, and the body and blood of Christ be there only figuratively, whereto should this author dispute of evil men’s eating, when good men cannot eat Christ in the sacrament, because he is mot there? For by the effect of this author’s doctrine the sacrament is but a visible preaching by the tokens and signs of bread and wine; that in believing nd remembering Christ’s benefits, with revolving them in our mind, we should in faith Jeed upon Christ spiritually, believing that, as the bread and wine Jeedeth and nourisheth our bodies, so Christ feedeth and nourisheth our souls: which be good words, but such as the words in Christ’s - supper do not learn us, and yet may be well gathered, not to limit the mystery of the supper, but to be spoken and taught touching the believing and remembering Christ’s benefits, with the revolving of them in our mind, thereby to learn us how to feed upon. Christ continually ment, wherein by faith we be nourished with the word of God and the virtue of Christ’s without the use of the visible sacrament; being called? of St Augustine “the invisible sacra. body and blood, which the true teachWmg of the church calleth spiritual manducation only, without which no man is to be accompted a true member of the mystical body of Christ. And therefore whoso feedeth upon Christ thus spiritually, must needs be a good man, for only good men be true members of Christ’s mystical body: which spiritual eating is so good a fruit as L it declareth the tree necessarily to be good; and therefore it must be and is a certain conclusion, that only good men do eat and drink the body and blood of Christ spiritually, that ds to say, effectually to life. So as this author shall have of me no adversary therein. And if this author had proved that to be the true doctrine, that Christ’s very body and blood is not present in the visible sacrament, then might he have left this fourth book wnwritten. For «fter his doctrine, as I said before, good men do mot eat Christ’s body in the sacrament under - the visible signs, for because it is mot there, and then much less should evil men reach it. LJ the catholic teaching, all the doctrine of eating of Christ is concluded in two manner - of eatings; one in the visible sacrament sacramental, another spiritual without the sacrament. And because in the eating of the visible sacrament St Paul speaketh of unworthy, the same - rue teaching, to open the matter more clearly according to seripture, noteth wnto us three - manner of eatings, one spiritual only, which only good men do, feeding in faith without the visible sacrament. Another is both spiritual and sacramental, which also good men only do, - weceiving the visible sacrament with a true sincere charitable faith. The third manner of eating is sacramental only, which (after St Paul) evil men do wnworthily, and therefore have judgment and condemnation, and be guilty of our Lord’s body, not esteeming our Lord’s body there. And here ariseth the knot of contention with this author, who saith, “evil men eat but us the sacramental bread:” whereunto I reply, No more do good men neither, if this author’s doctrine of the sacrament be true, seeing he will have it but a figure: if this author will say

[: sententiam vult accipere, oportet ut conjuncte cap. 7. Pars rrr. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506.]]

[P And may be, Orig. ed. Winch.] accipiantur omnia tria, ut scilicet quotidianum]

[P Being that called, 1551.] panem simul petamus et necessarium corpori, et [Ὁ Si quis autem etiam illa qua de victu corpo- sacramentum visibile, et invisibile verbi Dei.]

[ris necessario vel sacramento Dominici corporis August. De Sermone Domini in Monte, Lib. rr.]

the effect is other in good men than in evil men, I will not strive therein. But to discuss this matter, evidently we must rightly open the truth, and then must consider the visible sacraments as they be of God’s ordinance, who directeth us where to seek for his gifts, and how: whose working albeit it be not restrained by his sacraments, and therefore God may and doth invisibly sanctify and salve as it pleaseth him; yet he teacheth us of his ordinary working, in the visible sacraments, and ordereth us to seek his gifts of health and life there; whereupon St Augustine ii noteth how baptism, among the christian men of Africa, was very well called health, and the sacrament of Christ’s body called life, as in which God giveth health and life, if we worthily use them. The ordinance of these sacraments is God’s work, the very author of them, who as he is in himself uniform, as St James saith, without alteration,” so, as David saith, his works be true,” which is as much as wniform; for “truth” and “uniform” answereth together. As God is all goodness, so all his works be good. So as considering the substance of God’s works and ordinances as they be in themselves?, they be always uniform, certain, and true in their substance as God ordered them. Among men, for whom they be wrought and ordered, there is variety; good men, evil men, worthy, unworthy; but as St Paul saith, there ds but “ome Lord, one faith, one baptism.” And the parable of the sower, which Christ de- — elared himself, sheweth a diversity of the grounds where the seed did fall; but the seed was all one that did fall in the good ground, and that did fall in the naughty ground, but it Sructified only in the good ground, which seed Christ calleth his word; and in the sixth of St John saith, his word is spirit and life;” so as by the teaching of Christ spirit and life may fall upon naughty men, although for their malice it tarrieth mot, nor fructifieth not in them. And St Augustine?, according hereunto, noteth how Christ’s words be spirit and — life, “although thow dost carnally understand them, and hast no fruit of them; set so they be spirit and life, but mot to thee:” whereby appeareth the substance of God’s ordinance to be one, though we in the using of it vary. The promises of God cannot be disap- ^ pointed by man’s infidelity, as St Paul saith; which place Luther allegeth to shew the unity in the substance of baptism, whether it be ministered to good or evil. But St Paul to the Corinthians declareth it notably in these words: We be the good savour of Christ in them that be saved, and them that perish.” Here St Paul noteth the savour good amd one to divers men; but, after the diversity in men, of divers effects in them, that is to say, the savour of life, and the savour of death: which saying of St Paul the Greek scholies, gathered by CEcwmenius, open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptly. The dove, they say, and the beetle shall feed both upon one ointment, and the beetle die of it, and the dove strengthened by it; the diversity in the effect following of the diversity of them that eat, and not of that is eaten, which is alway one. According hereunto St Augustine, against the Donatists, giveth for a rule the sacraments to be one in all, although they be mot one that receive and use them. And therefore to knit wp this matter for the purpose, I intend and write it; for we must consider thes substance of the visible sacrament of Christ’s body and blood to be always as of itself it is, by Christ’s ordinance: in the understanding whereof this author maketh variance, and would have it by Christ’s ordinance but a figure, which he hath not proved; but and he had proved it, then is it in substance but a figure, and but a figure to good men. For it must be in substance one to good and bad; and so neither to good nor bad this sacrament is otherwise dispensed tham it is truly taught to be by preaching.

Wherefore if it be more than a figure, as it is in deed, and if by Christ’s ordinance it hath present, under the form of those visible signs of bread amd wine, the very body and blood of Christ, as hath been truly taught hitherto, then is the substance of the sacrament one always, as the ointment was, whether doves eat of it or beetles. And this issue I join with this author, that he shall not be able by any learning to make any diversity in the substance of this sacrament, whatsoever diversity follow in the effect. For the diversity of the effect is occasioned in them that receive, as before is proved. And then, to answer this author, I say that only good men eat and drink the body and blood of Christ spiritually, as I have declared, but all, good and, evil, receive the visible sacrament of that substance God hath ordained it, which in it hath no variance, but is all one to good and evil.

[[! Optime Punici Christiani baptismum ipsum [? Quid est, spiritus et vita sunt? spiritaliter]

[nihil aliud quàm salutem, et sacramentum corporis intelligenda sunt, Intellexisti spiritaliter? spiritus —]

[Christi nihil aliud quàm vitam vocant. August. et vita sunt. Intellexisti carnaliter? etiam sic illa E]

[De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione. Lib. 1. spiritus et vita sunt, sed tibi non sunt.—August.]

[cap. 24. Pars vi.] in Evangelium Joannis. Tractat. xxvii. de cap. vi. [? As they be themselves, Orig. ed. Winch. ] Pars ix.]]

3 CANTERBURY. 1 In this book, because you agree with me almost in the whole, I shall not need [ much to travail in the answer; but leaving all your pretty taunts against me, and - glorious boasting of yourself, which neither beseemeth our persons, nor hindereth the truth, nor furthereth your part, but by pompous words to win a vain glory and fame of them that be unlearned, and have more regard to words than judgment of the matter, I shall only touch here and there such things as we vary in, or that be necessary for the defence of the truth. —

First, after the sum of my fourth book, collected as pleaseth you, at the first dash you begin with an untrue report, joined to a subtle deceit or fallax, saying that my chief purpose is to prove that evil men receive not the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament. And hereupon you conclude that my fourth book is superfluous. But of a false antecedent, all that be learned do know that nothing can be rightly concluded. Now mine intent and purpose in the fourth book is not to prove that evil men receive - mot the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, (although that be true,) but my chief purpose is to prove, that evil men eat not Christ’s flesh nor drink not his blood, - neither in the sacrament nor out of the sacrament; as on the other side good men eat - and drink them, both in the sacrament and out of the sacrament.

And in the word “sacrament,” which is of your addition, is a subtle fallax, called double understanding. For when the sacrament is called only a figure, as you rehearse, wherein the body and blood of Christ be only figuratively, there the word sacrament” is taken for the outward signs of bread and wine. And after, when you rehearse that the sacrament is a visible preaching by the tokens and signs of bread and wine, in believing and remembering Christ’s benefits, there the word “sacrament” is taken for - the whole ceremony and ministration of the sacrament. And so when you go about by equivocation of the word to deceive other men, you fall into your own snare, and be deceived yourself, in that you think you convey the matter so craftily that no man can espy you.

But to utter the matter plainly without fallax or cavillation, I teach that no man can eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood but spiritually; which forasmuch as evil men do not, although they eat the sacramental bread until their bellies be full, and drink the wine until they be drunken, yet eat they neither Christ’s flesh, nor drink his blood, neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament, because they cannot be eaten - and drunken but by spirit and faith, whereof ungodly men be destitute, being nothing bnt world and flesh.

This therefore is the sum of my teaching in this fourth book, that in the true - ministration of the sacrament Christ is present spiritually, and so spiritually eaten of - them that be godly and spiritual. And as for the ungodly and carnal, they may eat d the bread and drink the wine, but with Christ himself they have no communion or - company; and therefore they neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood, which whosoever — eateth hath (as Christ saith himself) life by him, as Christ hath life by his Father. — And to eat Christs body or drink his blood,” saith St Augustine, “is to have life” — For whether Christ be in the sacrament corporally, as you say, or spiritually in them - that rightly believe in him, and duly receive the sacrament, as I say, yet certain it is, that there he is not eaten corporally, but spiritually. For corporal eating with the mouth is to chaw and tear in pieces with the teeth, after which manner Christ’s body is of no - man eaten; although Nicholas the Second made such an article of the faith, and compelled Berengarius so to profess. And therefore, although Christ were corporally in the sacrament, yet seeing that he cannot be corporally eaten, this book cometh in good

[[ Qui manducat ejus carnem, et bibit ejus habebis vitam, et integra est vita, Tunc autem hoc]

[sanguinem, habet vitam eternam.—August. In erit, id est, vita unicuique erit corpus et sanguis]

[Evangelium Joannis, ‘lract. xxvi. de cap. vi. Pars Christi, si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur, in]

[ix. ipsa veritate spiritaliter manducetur, spiritaliter biIllud manducare refici est:.illud bibere quid batur.— August. de verbis Apostoli. Serm. ii. cap. i.]]

[. est, nisi vivere? Manduca vitam, bibe vitam: [5 See p. 113, note 4. ]]

place, and is very necessary to know that Christ’s body cannot be eaten but spiritually, by believing and remembering Christ’s benefits, and revolving them in our mind, believing that as the bread and wine feed and nourish our bodies, so Christ feedeth and nourisheth our souls.

And ought this to come out of a christian man’s mouth, “That these be good words, but such as the words of Christ’s supper do not learn us?” Do not the words οὗ Christs supper learn us to eat the bread and drink the wine in the remembrance of his death? Is not the breaking and eating of the bread, after such sort as Christ ordained, a communication of Christ’s body unto us? Is not the cup likewise a communication of his blood unto us? Should not then christian people, according hereunto, in faith feed upon Christ spiritually, believing that as the bread and wine feed and nourish their bodies, so doth Christ their souls with his own flesh and blood? And shall any christian man now say that these be good words, but such as the words in Christ’s supper do not learn us?”

And yet these said words limit not the mystery of the supper: forasmuch as that mystery of eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood extendeth further than the supper, and continueth so long as we be lively members of Christ’s body. For none feed nor be nourished by him, but that be lively members of his body; and so long and no longer feed they of him than they be his true members, and receive life from him. For feeding of him is to receive life.

But this is not that “invisible sacrament” which you say St Augustine speaketh of jn sermone Domini in monte’, the third book. For he calleth there the daily bread, in which we continually pray for, either corporal bread and meat, which is our daily sustenance for the body, or else the visible sacramerit of bread and wine, or the invisible sacrament of God’s word and commandments; of the which sacraments God’s word is daily heard, and the other is daily seen. And if by the invisible sacrament of God’s word St Augustine meant our nourishment by Christs flesh and blood, then be we nourished with them, as well by God’s word as by the sacrament of the Lord’s supper.

But yet whosoever told you that St Augustine wrote this in the third book de sermone Domini in monte, trust him not much hereafter, for he did utterly deceive you. For St Augustine wrote no more but two books de sermone Domini in monte; and if you can make three of two, as you do here, and one of four, as you did before in the substances of Christ, you be a marvellous auditor, and then had all men need to beware of your accompts, lest you deceive them. And you cannot lay the fault here inthe printer; for I have seen it written so both by your own hand, and by the hand of your secretary. hd e

Now when you have wrangled in this matter as much as you can, at length you confess the truth, that whoso feedeth upon Christ spiritually must needs be a good man, (for only good men be members of Christ’s mystical body,) which spiritual eating is 80 good a fruit, as it declareth the tree necessarily to be good: and therefore it must be and is a certain conclusion, that only good men do eat and drink the body and blood of Christ spiritually, that is to say, effectually to life.” This you write in conclusion, and this is the very doctrine that I teach, and in the same terms: marry, I add thereto, that the eating of Christ’s body is a. spiritual eating, and the drinking of his blood is a spiritual drinking; and therefore no evil man can eat his flesh nor drink his blood, as this my fourth book teacheth, and is necessary to be written. For although neither good nor evil men eat Christ’s body in the sacrament under the visible signs, in the which he is not but sacramentally; yet the good feed of him spiritually, being inhabiting spiritually within them, although corporally he be absent ^

[[’ Panis quotidianus aut pro his omnibus dictus ὁ Operamini escam qua non corrumpitur; et illud, ᾿]

[est, quae hujus vite necessitatem sustentant, de Ego sum panis vite, qui de colo descendi.’’— E.]

[quo cum przcipit ait, Nolite cogitare de crastino: August. De Sermone Domini in monte. Lib. 11. 7]

[ut ideo sit additum da nobis hodie: aut pro sacra- Cap. vii. Pars iii.] 2]

[mento corporis Christi, quod quotidie accipimus: [2 Being and, 1551.] fr]

[aut pro spiritali cibo, de quo idem Dominus dicit, T]

. and in heaven; but the evil men neither feed upon him corporally nor spiritually,. (from whom he is both the said ways absent,) although corporally they eat and drink - with their mouths the sacraments of his body and blood. - — Now where you note here three manner of eatings, and yet but two manner of eatings of Christ, this your noting is very true, if it be truly understand. For there - beindeed three manner of eatings, one spiritual only, another spiritual and sacramental both together, and the third sacramental only: and yet Christ himself is eaten but - in the first two manner of ways, as you truly teach. And for to set out this distinction somewhat more plainly, that plain men may understand it, it may thus be termed: that there is a spiritual eating only, when Christ by a true faith is eaten without the sacrament; also there is another eating both spiritual and sacramental, when the visible sacrament is eaten with the mouth, and Christ himself is eaten with a true faith; the third eating is sacramentally only, when the sacrament is eaten, and not Christ himself. So that in the first is Christ eaten without the sacrament; in the second he is eaten with the sacrament; and in the third the sacrament is eaten “without him; and therefore it is called sacramental eating only, because only the. saerament is eaten, and not Christ himself. After the two first manner of ways godly - men do eat, who feed and live by Christ: the third manner of ways the wicked do ᾿ eat; and therefore, as St Augustine? saith, they neither eat Christ’s flesh nor drink. his blood, although every day they eat the sacrament thereof, to the condemnation - ef their presumption.” And for this cause also St Paul saith not, He that eateth - Christ’s body and drinketh his blood unworthily, shall have condemnation, and be guilty of the Lord’s body:” but he saith, He that eateth this bread, and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Lord’s body, and eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he esteemeth not the Lord’s body.”

And here you commit two foul faults. One is, that you declare St Paul to speak of the body and blood of Christ, when he spake of the bread and wine. The other fault is, that you add to St Pauls words this word “there,” and so build your work upon a foundation made by your own self.

And where you say, that if my doctrine be true, neither good men nor evil eat - but the sacramental bread;” it can be none other but very frowardness and mere wil- - fulness, that you will not understand that thing which I have spoken so plainly, and - repeated so many times. For I say, that good men eat the Lord’s body spiritually - to their eternal nourishment, whereas evil men eat but the bread carnally to their - eternal punishment. And as you note of St Augustine^, that “baptism is very well 1 called health, and the sacrament of Christ’s body called life, as in which God giveth: health and life if we worthily use them;” so is the sacramental bread very well called - Christ’s body, and the wine his blood, as in the ministration whereof Christ giveth ^us his flesh and blood, if we worthily receive them. i And where you teach how “the works of God in themselves be alway true and. uniform in all men, without diversity in good and evil, in worthy and unworthy,” you bring in this mystical matter here clearly without purpose or reason, far passing — the capacity of simple readers, only to blind their eyes withal By which kind of - teaching it is all one work of God, to save and to damm, to kill and to give life, o hate and to love, to elect and to reject; and to be short, by this kind of doctrine. God and all his works be one, without diversity either of one work from another, - or of his works from his substance. And by this means it is all one work of God - dm baptism and in the Lord’s supper. But all this is spoken quite besides the matter, and serveth for nothing but to cast a mist before men’s eyes, as it seemeth you seek nothing else through your whole book.

And this your doctrine hath a very evil smack, that “spirit and life should fall

[3 Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, et in magis tanta rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi man-]

[quo non manet Christus, proculdubio nec mandu- ducat et bibit. —August. in Joannem. Tract. xxvi.]

[. cat spiritaliter carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sangui- de cap. vi. Pars ix.]]

[nem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus [ Esteemed, 1551.]]

[E corporis et sanguinis Christi: sed [^ See before, p. 202.]]

upon naughty men, although for their malice it tarry not.” For by this doctrine you ol join together in one man Christ and Belial, the Spirit of God and the spirit of the devil, life and death, and all at one time; which doctrine I will not name what it is, for all faithful men know the name right well, and detest the same. And what ignorance can be shewed more in him that accompteth himself learned, than to gather οὗ Christ’s words, where he saith, “his words be spirit and life,” that spirit and life should be in evil men because they hear his words? For the words which you recite Joh. by and by of St Augustine shew how vain your argument is, when he saith: “The words be spirit and life, but not to thee that dost carnally understand them’” What estimation of learning or of truth would you have men to conceive of you, that bring such unlearned arguments, whereof the invalidity appeareth within six lines after? Which must needs declare in you either much untruth and unsincere proceeding, or much ignorance, or at the least an exceeding forgetfulness, to say any thing reproved again within six lines after. And if the promises of God, as you say, be not disappointed by our infidelity, then if evil men eat the very body of Christ and drink his blood, they mvst needs dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in them, and — by him have everlasting life, because of these promises of Christ, Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum. sanguinem, in me manet et ego in eo. It qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam. eternam: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life. And he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.” And yet the third promise, Qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me: He that eateth me, he shall also live by me.” These be three promises of God, which if they cannot be disappointed by our infidelity, then if evil men eat the very body of Christ and drink his blood, as you say they do in the sacrament, then must it needs follow that they shall have everlasting life, and that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them, because our infidelity, say you, cannot disappoint God’s promises.,

Απᾶ how agreeth this your saying with that doctrine which you were wont under earnestly to teach both by mouth and pen, “that all the promises of God to us be made under condition,” if our infidelity cannot disappoint God’s promises? For then the promises of God must needs have place, whether we observe the condition or not. But here you have fetched a great compass and circuit utterly in vain, to re- — prove that thing which I never denied, but ever affirmed, which is: “That the sub- ^ stance of the visible sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, (which I say is bread and wine in the? sacrament, as water is in baptism,) is all one substance to good and to bad, and to both a figure.” But that under the form of bread and wine is corporal present by Christs ordinance his very body and blood, either to good or to ill, that you neither have nor can prove; and yet thereupon would you bring in your conclusion here, wherein you commit that folly in reasoning, which is called petitio principia.

What need you to make herein any issue, when we agree in the matter? For in the substance I make no diversity, but I say that the substance of Christ’s body and blood is corporally present neither in the good eater, nor in the evil. And as for the substance of bread and wine, I say they be all one, whether the good or evil eat and drink them: as the water of baptism is all one, whether Simon Peter or Simon Magus be christened therein; and it is one word that to the evil is a savour — of death, and to the good is a savour of life; and as it is one sun that shineth upon the good and the bad, that melteth butter, and maketh the earth hard; one flower whereof the bee sucketh honey, and the spider poison, and one ointment (as (Ecumenius saith) that killeth the beetle, and strengtheneth the dove. Nevertheless as all that be washed in the water be not washed with the Holy Spirit, so all that eat the sacramental bread, eat not the very body of Christ. And thus you see that your issue is to no purpose, except you would fight with your own shadow.

Now forasmuch as after all this vain and frivolous consuming of words, you begin to make answer unto my proofs, I shall here rehearse my proofs and arguments, to

[[ See before, p. 202.] [3 In that sacrament, 1551.]:]

“the intent that the reader, seeing both my proofs and your confutations before his eyes, may the better consider and give his judgment therein.

My fourth book beginneth thus

The gross error of the papists is, of the carnal eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood with our mouths.

For they say, that “whosoever eat and drink the sacraments of bread and wine, do eat and drink also with their mouths Christ’s very flesh and blood, be they never so ungodly and wicked persons.” But Christ himself taught clean eontrary in the sixth of John, that we eat not him carnally with our mouths, but spiritually with our faith, saying: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth in me hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and died. This is the bread that eame from heaven, that whosoever shall eat thereof shall not die. I am the lively bread that came from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. And the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

This is the most true doctrine of our Saviour Christ, that whosoever eateth him shall have everlasting life. And by and by it followeth in the same place of St John more clearly: Verily, verily I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting, and I will raise him again at the last day: for my flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, even so he that eateth me shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.”

This taught our Saviour Christ as well his disciples as the Jews at Capernaum, that the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood was not like to the eating of manna. For both good and bad did eat manna; but none do eat his flesh and drink his blood, but they have everlasting life. For as his Father dwelleth in him, and he in his Father, and so hath life by - his Father; so he that eateth Christ’s flesh and drinketh his blood, dwelleth - in Christ, and Christ in him, and by Christ he hath eternal life.

What need we any other witness, when Christ himself doth testify the matter so plainly, that whosoever eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood hath everlasting life; and that to eat his flesh and to drink his blood is to believe - in him; and whosoever believeth in him hath everlasting life? Whereof it — followeth necessarily, that ungodly persons, (being limbs of the devil) do not - eat Christ’s flesh nor drink his blood, except the papists would say that such - have everlasting life.

But as the devil is the food of the wicked, which he nourisheth in all iniquity, and bringeth up into everlasting damnation; so is Christ the very - food of all them that be the lively members of his body, and them he nourisheth, feedeth, bringeth up, and cherisheth unto everlasting life.

And every good and faithful christian man feeleth in himself how he feedeth of Christ, eating his flesh and drinking of his blood. For he putteth the whole hope and trust of his redemption and salvation in that only sacrifice, which Christ made upon the cross, having his body there broken, and

[[? The title of the fourth book runs thus in the drinking of the body and blood of our Saviour]

[Orig. ed.: “The fourth Book is of the eating and Christ.”’]]

his blood there shed for the remission of his sins. And this great benefit of Christ the faithful man earnestly considereth in his mind, chaweth and digesteth it with the stomach of his heart, spiritually receiving Christ wholly into him, and giving again himself wholly unto Christ.

And this is the eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood, the feeling whereof is to every man the feeling how he eateth and drinketh Christ, which none evil man nor member of the devil can do. ur: For as Christ is a spiritual meat, so is he spiritually eaten and digested is not “ον 4 s: ΄ with the spiritual part of us, and giveth us spiritual and eternal life, and is but. 4 not eaten, swallowed, and digested with our teeth, tongues, throats, and bellies.

Therefore saith St Cyprian: “He that drinketh of the holy cup, remembering this benefit of God, is more thirsty than he was before; and lifting up his heart unto the living God, is taken with such a singular hunger and appetite, that he abhorreth all gally and bitter drinks of sin, and all savour of carnal pleasure is to him as it were sharp and sour vinegar. And the sinner being converted, receiving the holy mysteries of the Lord’s supper, giveth thanks unto God, and boweth down his head, knowing that his sins be forgiven, and that he is made clean and perfect, and his soul (which God hath sanctified) he rendereth to God again as a faithful pledge, and then he glorieth with Paul, and rejoiceth saying: Now it is not I that live, but it is Christ that liveth within me. These things be practised and used among faithful people, and to pure minds the eating of his flesh is no horror but honour, and the spirit delighteth in the drinking of the holy and sanctifying blood. And doing this, we whet not our teeth to bite, but with pure faith we break the holy bread’.” These be the words of Cyprian. PR de And according unto the same, St Augustine saith: Prepare not thy jaws Do- 95.? but thy heart” And in another place he saith: “Why dost thou prepare

Ὁ thy belly and thy teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten” But of this matter is sufficiently spoken before, where it is proved, that to eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood be figurative speeches.

And now to return to our purpose, that only the lively members of Christ do eat his flesh and drink his blood, I shall bring forth many other places.. I of ancient authors before not mentioned. ia First, Origen writeth plainly after this manner: “The Word was made

flesh and very meat, which whoso eateth shall surely live for ever, which no evil man can eat. For if it could be, that he that continueth evil might eat the Word made flesh, seeing he is the. Word and bread of life, it should not have been written: Whosoever eateth this bread, shall live for ever!’” These

[[! Hanc Dei gratiam recolens, qui de sacro cera panem sanctum frangimus et partimur. Cy-]

[calice bibit, amplius sitit: et ad Deum vivum prian. (i.e. Arnold. ap. Cyprian. De Cena Do-]

[erigens desiderium, ita singulari fame illo uno ap- mini, p. 471. Ed. Paris. 1574.]]

[petitu tenetur, ut deinceps fellea peccatorum hor- [? Noli parare fauces, sed cor. August. de.]

[reat pocula, et omnis sapor delectamentorum car- Verbis Domini. Sermo. xxxiii. cap. v. Tom. X.]

[nalium sit ei quasi rancidum radensque palatum p.49. Ed. Paris, 1635.]. “m]

[acute mordacitatis acetum. Ad hac inter sacra [? Ut quid paras dentes et ventrem ἢ Crede, et]

[mysteria ad gratiarum actiones convertitur, et in- manducasti. Id. In Joannem, de cap. vi. Tract.]

[clinato capite, munditia cordis adepta, se intelligens xxv. Pars ix. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506.] ἡ]

[consummatum, restitutus peccator sanctificatam Deo [ Πολλὰ δ av καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ λέγοιτο τοῦ]

[animam quasi depositum custoditum fideliter reddit, λόγου, ὃς γέγονε σὰρξ καὶ ἀληθινὴ βρῶσις, ἥν τινα]

[et deinceps cum Paulo gloriatur et letatur dicens: ὁ φαγὼν πάντως ζήσεται εἰς Tov αἰῶνα, obdevos]

[Galat. ii. “Vivo jam non ego, vivit vero in me Christus.” δυναμένου φαύλον ἐσθίειν αὐτήν” el yap οἷόν Te a]

[Hzc in Christi commemoratione retractantur a fide- ἣν ἔτι φαῦλον μένοντα ἐσθίειν τὸν γενόμενον σάρκα ——]

[libus, et defzcatis animis carnis ejus edulium non est λόγον ὄντα, καὶ ἄρτον ζῶντα, οὐκ ἂν ἐγέγραπτο,!]

[horrori, sed honori, potuque sancti et sanctificantis ὅτε πᾶς ὁ φαγωῶν Tov ἄρτον τοῦτον ζήσεται els 1 5]

[sanguinis spiritus delectatur. Hac quotiens agimus, τὸν αἰῶνα. Origen. in Matt. xv. Tom. III. p. 499. »]

[non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide sin- Ed. Bened.] E]

words be so plain, that I need say nothing for the more clear declaration of them. Wherefore you shall hear how Cyprian agreeth with him.

Cyprian in his sermon, ascribed unto him, of the Lord’s supper, saith: “The author of this tradition said, that except we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we should have no life in us; instructing us with a spiritual lesson, and opening to us a way to understand so privy a thing, that we should know, that the eating is our dwelling in him, and our drinking is as it were an incorporation in him, being subject unto him in obedience, joined unto him in our wills, and united in our affections. ~The eating therefore of this flesh is a certain hunger and desire to dwell in him.”

Thus writeth Cyprian of the eating and drinking of Christ. And a little after he saith, that “none do eat of this Lamb, but such as be true Israelites, that is to say, pure christian men, without colour or dissimulation?.”

And Athanasius, speaking of the eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood, saith, that for this cause he made mention of his ascension into heaven, to pluck them from corporal phantasy, that they might learn hereafter that his flesh was called the celestial meat that came from above, and a spiritual food, which he would give. For those things that I speak to you, saith he, be spirit and life Which is as much to say, as that thing which you see, shall be slain and given for the nourishment of the world, that it may be distributed to every body spiritually, and be to all men a conservation unto the resurrection of eternal life.”

In these words Athanasius declareth the cause why Christ made mention of his ascension into heaven, when he spake of the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood. The cause after Athanasius’ mind was this: that his hearers should not think of any carnal eating of his body with their mouths, (for as concerning the presence of his body, he should be taken from them, and ascend into heaven,) but that they should understand him to be a spiritual meat, and spiritually to be eaten, and by that refreshing to give eternal life, which he doth to none but to such as be his lively members.

And of this eating speaketh also Basilius, that we eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood, being made by his incarnation and sensible life partakers of his word and wisdom. For his flesh and blood he calleth all his mystical conversation here in his flesh and his doctrine, consisting of his whole life, pertaining both to his humanity and divinity; whereby the soul is nourished and brought. to the contemplation of things eternal”.”

[[^ Dixerat sane hujus traditionis magister, quod τῷ εἰπεῖν, τὸ μὲν δεικνύμενον kal διδόμενον ὑπὲρ]

[nisi manducaremus ejus carnem, et biberemus ejus τῆς τοῦ κόσμου σωτηρίας ἐστὶν ἡ σὰρξ ἣν éyw]

[sanguinem, non haberemus vitam in nobis: spiritali φορῶ” ἀλλ αὕτη ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ ταύτης αἷμα παρ᾽]

[mos instruens documento, et aperiens ad rem adeo ἐμοῦ πνευματικῶς δοθήσεται τροφὴ, ὥστε πνευ-]

[abditam intellectum, ut sciremus quod mansio nos- ματικῶς ἐν ἑκάστῳ ταύτην ἀναδίδοσθαι, καὶ yive-]

[tra in ipso sit manducatio, et potus quasi quedem σθαι πᾶσιν φυλακτήριον els ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς alw-]

[incorporatio, subjectis obsequiis, voluntatibus junc- viov.—Athanasius, Epist. rv. Ad Serapium, de]

[tis, affectibus unitis. — Esus igitur carnis hujus Peccato in Spiritum Sanctum. Tom. I. Pars ii. p.]

[quedam aviditas est, et quoddam desiderium ma- 710. Ed. Bened. Paris. 1698.]]

[mend in ipso.Una est domus ecclesie, in qua [7 Τρώγομεν yap αὐτοῦ τὴν σάρκα, kal πίνομεν]

[agnus editur: nullus ei communicat, quem Israeli- αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα, κοινωνοὶ γινόμενοι διὰ τῆς ἐναν-]

[tici nominis generositas non commendat.—Cyprian. θρωπήσεως, kai τῆς αἰσθητῆς ζωῆς, τοῦ λόγου kat]

[de Cena Domini, pp. 469-470. Ed. Paris. 1574.) τῆς σοφίας. σάρκα γὰρ καὶ αἷμα πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ [ Διὰ τοῦτο τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀναβάσεως ἐμνη- THY μυστικὴν ἐπιδημίαν ὠνόμασε, καὶ τὴν ἐκ πρακ-]

[μόνευσε τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἵνα τῆς σωματικῆς τικῆς καὶ φυσικῆς καὶ θεολογικῆς συνεστῶσαν δι-]

[ἐννοίας αὐτοὺς ἀφελκύσῃ, καὶ λοιπὸν τὴν εἰρημένην δασκαλίαν ἐδήλωσε, δι ἧς τρέφεται ψυχὴ, καὶ]

[σάρκα βρῶσιν ἄνωθεν οὐράνιον, καὶ πνευματικὴν πρὸς τὴν τῶν ὄντων τέως θεωρίαν παρασκευάζε-]

[τροφὴν παρ αὐτοῦ διδομένην μάθωσιν. A ydp ται.---Βε5}1. Epistola cxli. Tom. III. p. 167. Ed.]

[λελάληκα, φησὶν, ὑμῖν, πνεῦμά ἐστι kal ζωή” ἴσον Paris. 1638.] [cRANMER.] M]

eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life!”

In Hieremi- And in another place St Hierome saith, that hereties do not eat and drink m.

the body and blood of the Lord?”

In Osan, And moreover he saith, that heretics eat not the flesh of Jesu, whose

flesh is the meat of faithful men?”

Thus agreeth St Hierome with the other before rehearsed, that heretics and such as follow worldly pleasures eat not Christ’s flesh nor drink his blood, because that Christ said, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,

hath everlasting life.”

[[^ Omnes voluptatis magis amatores, quam ama- Qui manducaverithoc corpus, fiet ei remissio pecca- — tores Dei, nec comedunt carnem Jesu, neque bibunt torum, et non morietur in zternum.—Id. De Sacra- sanguinem ejus, de quo ipse loquitur: “Qui comedit mentis, Lib. 1v. cap. v. Tom. IV. p. 174.] camem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, habet [ὃ Quotiescumque enim bibis, remissionem vitam zternam”-—Hieron. Comment. in Esaiam. accipis peccatorum.—Id. ib. Lib. v. cap. iii. Tom.: cap Ixvi 17 Tom V p. 215. Ed. Francof. 1684.] IV.p.175. The Benedictine editors maintain that —. [ Non comedent et non bibent, (i.e. hzretici,) the “De initiandis” is a genuine Treatise of St subauditur corpus et sanguinem Salvatoris.— Hieron. Ambrose, and they have also placed the “De - Comment. in Hieremiam. cap. xxii. 15. “Tom. sacramentis” amongst his works, but they have — — V p 264. ] not decided upon its authenticity. There is little — - [? Isti (ie haretici,) multas immolant hostias, question that both are spuwrious Treatises. Vide et comedunt carnes earum, unam Christi hostiam Coci Censura Patrum, p. 266. Helms. 1683. Riveti deserentes, nec comedentes ejus carnem, cujus caro Critica Sacra. p. 294. Genev. 1626. Jo. Geo. Wal- ἶ cibus credentium est—Hieron. Comment. in Osee. chii. Bibl. Patrist. p. 409. Jenze, 1834.] 1 cap. viii. 13 Tom. VI. p. 26.] [? Nam qui discordat a Christo, nec carnem ejus [ Hic ergo panis factus est esca sanctorum. manducat, nec sanguinem bibit; etiam si tante Qui autem accipit, non moritur peccatoris morte, rei sacramentum ad judicium suz presumptionis — quia panis hic remissio peccatorum est. Ambros. quotidie indifferenter accipiat.—August. Lib. Sen- — De benedictionibus Patriarcharum.—cap. ix, Tom. tent. Prosp.341. Tom.Ill.p.435. Ed. Paris. 1635.]: I p 198 Ed. Colon Agripp. 1616.] [^ Sed jam respondeamus etiam illis, qui non [5 Which came from heaven, 1551, and Orig. ed.] solum diabolo et angelis ejus, sicut nec isti, sed ne — [$ Ista autem esca quam accipitis, iste panis ipsis quidem omnibus hominibus liberationem ab E vivus qui descendit de celo, vite zternz substan- eterno igne promittunt; verum eis tantum qui ἢ tiam subministrat: et quicumque hunc panem man- Christi baptismate abluti, et corporis ejus et san- ducaverit, non morietur in eternum; et est corpus guinis participes facti sunt, quomodo libet vixerint M Christi —Id De Initiandis. cap. viii. Tom. IV. in quacumque hzresi vel impietate fuerint.Quam- τς Ρ 166} obrem quod ait Dominus Jesus, & Hic est panis, qui — [7 Deinde manna qui manducavit, mortuus est, de ccelo descendit: si quis ex ipso manduca- ΕΙΣ]

that “as many as were christened, and received the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, should be saved, howsoever they lived or believed, because that Christ said, This is the bread that came from heaven, that whosoever shall eat thereof shall not die^ “1 am the bread of life, which came from heaven, whosoever shall eat of this bread, shall live for ever. Therefore,” said these heretics, all such men must needs be delivered from eternal death, and at length be brought to eternal life.” The other said, that “heretics and schismatics might eat the sacrament of Christ’s body, but not his very body, because they be no members of his body.” And therefore they promised not everlasting life to all that received Christ’s baptism and the sacrament of his body, but to” all such as professed a true faith, although they lived never so ungodly. For such,” said they, do eat the body of Christ, not only in a sacrament, but also in deed, because they be members of Christ’s body.”

But St Augustine, answering to both these heresies, saith: That neither hereties, nor such as profess a true faith in their mouths, and in their living shew the contrary, have either a true faith, (which worketh by charity, and doth none evil,) or are to be counted among the members of Christ. For they cannot be both members of Christ and members of the devil. “Therefore,” saith

he, “it may not be said that any of them eat the body of Christ. For when Christ saith, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him; he sheweth what it is, (not sacramentally, but in deed,) to eat his body and drink his blood: which is, when a man dwelleth so in Christ, that Christ dwelleth in him. For Christ spake those words as if he should say, he that dwelleth not in me, and in whom I dwell not, let him not say or think that he eateth my body, or drinketh my blood.”

“These be the plain words of St Augustine, that such as live ungodly, although they may seem to eat Christ’s body, (because they eat the sacrament οὗ his body,) yet in deed they neither be members of his body, nor do eat his body. -. Also upon the gospel of St John he saith, that “he that doth not eat his flesh and drink his blood, hath not in him everlasting life: and he that eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath everlasting life. But it is not so in those meats, which we take to sustain our bodies: for although without them we cannot live, yet it is not necessary, that whosoever receiveth them shall live; for they may die by age”, sickness, or other chances. But in this meat and drink of the body and blood of our Lord, it is otherwise. For both they that i:

[Y verit non morietur: ego sum panis vivus, qui de malum non operatur.” Nec isti duo ergo dicendi]

[—. eelo descendi: si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in]

[—. yivetin @ternum,’’ quomodosit accipiendum, merito membris computandi sunt Christi. Ut enim alia]

[—. queritur. Et ab istis quidem quibus nunc re- taceam, “non possunt simul esse et membra Christi]

[spondemus, hunc intellectum auferunt illi, quibus et membra meretricis.” Deniqueipse dicens, Qui]

[᾿ς deinde respondendum est: hi sunt autem qui hanc manducat carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum,]

[liberationem, nec omnibus habentibus sacramentum in me manet, et ego in eo,” ostendit quid sit non]

[baptismatis et corporis Christi, sed solis catholicis, sacramento tenus, sed revera corpus Christi man-]

[quamvis male viventibus, pollicentur; quinonsolum ducare, et ejus sanguinem bibere: hoc est enim in]

[(inquiunt) sacramento, sed re ipsa manducaverunt Christo manere, ut in illo maneat et Christus. Sic]

[corpus Christi, in ipso scilicetejus corpore constituti, enim hoc dixit, tanquam diceret: qui non in me]

[«+. Ac per hoc quicunque agunt talia, nisi in sempi- manet, et in quo ego non maneo, non se dicat aut]

[terno supplicio non erunt, quia in Dei regno esse existimet manducare corpus meum, aut bibere san-]

[non poterunt. In his enim perseverando usque in guinem meum.—August. de Civitate Dei. Lib. xx1.]

[hujus vite finem, non utique dicendi sunt in Christo cap. xxv. Pars vir. Ed. Basil. ap. Amerbach.]

[perseverasse usque in finem, quia in Christo per- 1506.]]

[severare est in ejus fide perseverare. Que fides, [ But all such, 1551, and Orig. ed.]]

[ut eam definit idem Apostolus, per dilectionem [/? For age, 1551, and Orig. ed.]]

[operatur. Dilectio autem,” sicut idem alibi dicit,]

[$ 14—2]

eat and drink them not, have not everlasting life: and contrariwise, whosoever eat and drink them, have everlasting life.”

Note and ponder well these words of St Augustine; “That the bread and wine and other meats and drinks, which nourish the body, a man may eat, and nevertheless die: but the very body and blood of Christ no man eateth, but that hath everlasting life.” So that wicked men cannot eat nor drink them, for then they must needs have by them everlasting life.

And in the same place St Augustine saith further: The saerament of the unity of Christ’s body and blood is taken in the Lord’s table, of some men to life, and of some men to death; but the thing itself, (whereof it is a sacrament,) is taken of all men to life, and of no man to death.” And moreover he saith: This is to eat that meat, and drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. And for that cause, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and ἴῃ whom Christ dwelleth not, without doubt he eateth not spiritually his flesh -… oe… nor drinketh his blood, although carnally and visibly with his teeth he bite the

sacrament of his body and blood.”

Thus writeth St Augustine in the twenty-sixth Homily of St John. And in the next Homily following, he saith thus: This day our sermon is of the body of the Lord, which he said he would give to eat for eternal life. And he declared the manner of his gift and distribution, how he would give his flesh to eat, saying: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him? This therefore 1s a token or CE that a man hath eaten and drunken; that is to say, if he dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in him; if he cleave so to Christ, that he 1s not severed from him. This therefore Christ taught and admonished by these mystical or figurative words, that we should be in his body under him our head among his members, eating his flesh, nor? forsaking his unity?.” And in his book, De Doctrina, Christiana, St Augustine saith, as before is at “length declared, “that to eat Christ’s flesh, and to drink his blood, is a figurative speech signifying the participation of his passion, and the delectable remembrance to our benefit and profit, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.”

And in another sermon also, De Verbis Apostoli, he expoundeth what is the — eating of Christ’s body and the drinking of his blood, saying: The eating is to

[[! Qui ergo non manducat ejus carnem, nec in Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, procul-]

[bibit ejus sanguinem, non habet in se vitam: et dubio nec manducat spiritaliter carnem ejus, nec]

[qui manducat ejus carnem, et bibit ejus sanguinem, bibit ejus sanguinem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter]

[habet vitam zsternam. Ad utrumque autem re- premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis]

[spondit quod dixit, eternam. Non ita est in hac Christi; sed magis taniz rei sacramentum ad judi-]

[esca, quam sustentanda hujus corporalis vite causa cium sibi manducat et bibit.— August. In Joannem.]

[sumimus: nam qui eam non sumpserit, non vivet; Tract. xxvi. De cap. vi. Pars 1x. Ed. Basil. ap.]

[nec tamen qui eam sumpserit vivet. Fieri enim Amerbach. 1506.]]

[potest, ut senio, vel morbo, vel aliquo casu, plurimi [? Not, 1551, and Orig. ed.]]

[et qui eam sumpserint, moriantur. In hoc vero [? Est enim (i.e. sermo), de corpore Domini,]

[cibo et potu, id est, corpore et sanguine Domini,non quod dicebat se dare ad manducandum propter]

[ita est: nam et qui eam non sumit, non habet @ternam vitam. Exposuit autem modum attribu-]

[vitam; et qui eam sumit habet vitam, et hanc tionishujus et doni sui, quomodo daret carnem suam]

[utique zeternam. Hujus rei sacramentum, id est, manducare, dicens: « Qui manducat carnem meam,]

[unitatis corporis et sanguinis Christi alicubi quo- et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, et ego in]

[tidie, alicubi certis intervallis dierum in dominica illo.” Signum quia manducavit et bibit, hoc est: si]

[mensa praeparatur, et de mensa dominica sumitur, manet et manetur, si habitat et inhabitatur, si haeret j]

[quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res ut non deseratur. Hoc ergo nos docuit et admo-]

[vero ipsa, cujus et sacramentum est, omni homini nuit mysticis verbis, ut simus in ejus corpore sub]

[ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus parti- ipso capite in membris ejus, edentes carnem ejus,]

[ceps fuerit.. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, non relinquentes unitatem ejus.—August. in Joan- T]

[et illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, et illum nem. Tract. xxv11. De cap. vi. Pars 1x.] 2]

[manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet [^ See p. 115.] I]

be refreshed, and the drinking what is it but to live? Eat life, drink life. And that shall be, when that which is taken visibly in the sacrament, is in very deed eaten spiritually and drunken spiritually.”

By all these sentences of St Augustine it is evident and manifest, that all men, good and evil, may with their mouths visibly and sensibly eat the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood; but the very body and blood themselves be not eaten but spiritually, and that of the spiritual members of Christ, which dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in them, by whom they be refreshed and have everlasting life, —

Cyril, upon St John in his gospel, saith, that those which eat manna died, because they received thereby no strength to live ever, (for it gave no life, but only put away bodily hunger); but they that receive the bread of life, shall be made immortal, and shall eschew all the evils that pertain to death, living with Christ for ever”.” And in another place he saith: Forasmuch as the flesh of Christ doth naturally give life, therefore it maketh them to live that be partakers of it. For it putteth death away from them, and utterly driveth destruction out of them?”

And he concludeth the matter shortly in another place in few words, saying, that “when we eat the flesh of our Saviour, then have we life in us. For if things that were corrupt, were restored by only touching of his clothes, how can it be that we shall not live that eat his flesh?” And further he saith, “That as two waxes be molten together, do run every part into other; so he that receiveth Christ’s flesh and blood, must needs be joined so with him, that Christ must be in him, and he in Christ?.”

Here St Cyril declareth the dignity of Christ’s flesh being inseparably annexed unto his divinity, saying, that it is of such force and power, that it giveth everlasting life. And whatsoever occasion of death it findeth, or let of eternal life, it putteth out and driveth clean away all the same, from them that eat that meat and receive that medicine. Other medicines or plaisters sometime heal, and sometime heal not; but this medicine is of that effect and strength, that

[i [^ Illud manducare refici est. —Illud bibere quid καὶ ἀτελεύτητον βίου Tov κατὰ Χριστὸν ἀναβή-]

[᾿ς δὲ, nisi vivere? Manduca vitam, bibe vitam: habe- covra: pijkos.—Cyril. in Joannem, Lib. rv. cap. x.]

[bis vitam, et integra est vita. “Tunc autem hoc erit, Tom. IV. p. 351. ed. Aubert. Paris. 1638.]]

[᾿ς id est, vita unicuique erit corpus et sanguis Christi, [ Διὰ τοῦτο ζωοποιεῖ τοὺς μετέχοντας αὐτοῦ]

[8i quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa τὸ σῶμα Χριστοῦ. ἐξελαύνει γὰρ τὸν θάνατον,]

[veritate spiritaliter manducetur, spiritaliter biba- ὅταν ἐν τοῖς ἀποθνήσκουσι γένηται, καὶ ἐξίστησι]

[tur.— August. de Verbis Apostoli, Sermo ii. Tom. $0opav.—Id. Lib. 1v. cap. xii. Tom. IV. p. 354.]]

[X. p. 94. Paris. 1635.] [ὃ Kai el διὰ μόνης dus τῆς ἁγίας σαρκὸς [ Illi manducabant panem Dominum, ille (i.e. ζωοποιεῖται τὸ ἐφθαρμένον, πῶς οὐχὶ πλουσιωτέ-]

[Judas,) panem Domini contra Dominum: illi vitam, pav ἀποκερδανοῦμεν τιν ζωοποιὸν εὐλογίαν, ὅταν]

[ille penam.—August. in Joannem, Tract. LIX. De αὐτῆς καὶ ἀπογευσώμεθα;—Ὡσπερ γὰρ εἴτις κηρὸν]

[cap. xiii. Pars rx. Basil. ap. Amerbach. ἑτέρῳ συνάψειε κηρῷ, πάντως δήπου καὶ ἕτερον ἐν [ Οὐκοῦν οἱ μὲν φαγόντες τὸ μάννα, φησὶ, τε- ἑτέρῳ γεγονότα κατόψεται” τὸν αὐτὸν, οἶμαι, τρό-]

[τελευτήκασιν, ὡς οὐδεμιᾶς δηλονότι ζωῆς μετου- πον καὶ ὁ τὴν σάρκα δεχόμενος τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν]

[σίαν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ δεξάμενοι” οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὄντως ζωο- Χριστοῦ, καὶ πίνων αὐτοῦ τὸ τίμιον αἷμα, καθά]

[ποιὸν, λιμοῦ δὲ μᾶλλον ἐπίκουρον σαρκικοῦ, καὶ ws φησιν αὐτὸς, ἕν ὡς πρὸς αὐτὸν εὑρίσκεται συνανα-]

[ἐν τύπῳ τοῦ ἀληθεστέρου παραληφθέν. οἱ δὲ τὸν κιρνάμενος ὥσπερ καὶ ἀναμιγνύμενος αὐτῷ διὰ τῆς]

[ἄρτον ἐν ἑαυτοῖς εἰσκομίζοντες τῆς ζωῆς γέρας μεταλήψεως, ws ἐν Χριστῷ μὲν αὐτὸν εὑρίσκεσθαι,]

[ἕξουσι τὴν ἀθανασίαν, φθορᾶς τε καὶ τῶν ἐκ ταύτης Χριστὸν δὲ αὖ πάλιν ἐν avro.—Id. Lib. 1v. capp.]

[κακῶν παντελῶς ἀλογήσαντες, πρὸς ἀμήρυτόν ve xiv. xvii. Tom. IV. pp. 361, 4, 5.]]

it eateth away all rotten and dead flesh, and perfectly healeth all wounds and sores that it is laid unto..

This is the dignity and excellency of Christ’s flesh and blood, joined to his divinity; of the which dignity Christ’s adversaries, the papists, deprive and rob him, when they affirm, that such men do eat his flesh and reeeive this plaister, as remain still sick and sore, and be not holpen thereby.

Thus hast thou heard, gentle reader, the grounds and proofs, which moved me to write the matter of this fourth book, that good men only eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood. Now shalt thou hear the late bishop’s confutation of the same.

Winchester

And as for the scriptures and doctors which this author allegeth to prove that only good men receive the body and blood of Christ, I grant it without contention, speaking of spiritual manducation and with lively faith without the sacrament. But in the visible sacrament evil men receive the same that good men do, for the substance of the sacrament is by God’s ordinance all one. And if. this author would use for a proof, that in the sacrament Christ’s very body is not present, because evil men receive it, that shall be no argument; for the good seed when it was sown did fall in the evil ground, and although Christ dwelleth not in the evil man, yet he may be received of the evil man to his condemnation, because he receiveth him not to glorify him as God, as St Paul saith, non dijudicans corpus domini, not esteeming our Lord’s body.” And to all that ever this author bringeth to prove, that evil men eat mot the body of Christ, may be said shortly, that spiritually they eat it not, besides the sacrament, and in the sacrament they eat it not effectually to life, but condemnation. And that is and may be called a not eating; as they be said not to hear the word of God, that hear it not profitably. And because the body of Christ of itself is ordained to be eaten for life, those that unworthily eat to condemnation, although they eat in deed, may be said not to eat, because they eat unworthily; as a thing not well done may be in speech called not done, in respect of the good effect wherefore it was chiefly ordered to be done. And by this rule thou, reader, mayest discuss all that this author bringeth forth for this purpose?, either out of scriptures or doctors.. For evil men eat not the body of Christ to have any fruit by it, as evil men be said not to hear God’s word to have any fruit by it; and yet as they hear the words of spirit and life, and nevertheless perish, so evil men eat, in the visible sacrament the body of Christ, and yet perish. And as I said, this answereth the scripture with the particular sayings of Cyprian, Athanase, Basil, Hierome, and Ambrose.

As for St Augustine, which this author allegeth, de civitate Dei, the same St Augustine doth plainly say there in this place alleged, how the good amd evil receive the same sacrament, and addeth, but not with like profit,” which words this author suppresseth, and therefore dealeth not sincerely. As for St Augustine shall be hereafter more plainly declared. Finally, he that receiveth worthily the body and blood of Christ, hath everlasting life, dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him: he that receweth wnworthily, which can be only in the sacrament, receiveth not life, but condemnation.

Canterbury

223. If you “grant without contention” that which I do prove, then you must grant absolutely and frankly without any addition, that only good men eat and drink the body and blood of Christ. For so say all the scriptures and authors plainly, which I have alleged, without your addition of spiritual manducation: and not one of them all say as you do, that “in the visible sacrament evil men receive the same that good men do.”

But I make no such vain proofs as you feign in my name, that “in the sacrament Christ’s very body is not present, because evil men receive it.” But this argument were good, although I make no such: Evil men eat and drink the sacrament, and yet they

[[! Eat condemnation, Orig. ed. Winch.] [? Thus answereth, 1551.],]

[[? For his purpose, 1551.] [^ In the place, 1531. ]::]

J OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 215 eat and drink not Christ’s flesh and blood: ergo, his flesh and blood be not really and corporally in the sacrament.

And when you say that Christ “may be received of the evil man to his condemnai tion,” is this the glory that you give unto Christ, that his whole presence in a man, both with flesh, blood, soul, and spirit, shall make him never the better? and that Christ shall be in him, that is a member of the devil? And if an evil man have Christ in him for a time, why may he not then have him still dwelling in him? For if he may be in him a quarter of an hour, he may be also an whole hour, and so a whole day, and an whole year, and so shall God and the devil dwell together in one house. And this is the crop that groweth of your sowing, if Christ fall in evil men, as good seed falleth in evil ground.:

And where you say, that “all that ever I bring to prove that evil men eat not the body of Christ, may be shortly answered,” truth it is, as you said in one place of me, that all that I have brought may be shortly answered, if a man care not what he answer; as it seemeth you pass not much what you answer, so that you may lay on load of words. For whereas I have fully proved, as well by authority of scripture as by the testimony of many old writers, that although evil men eat the sacramental bread, and drink the wine, which have the names of his flesh and blood, yet they eat not Christ’s very flesh nor drink his blood?: your short and whole answer is this, that evil men may be said not to eat Christs flesh and drink his blood, because they do it not fruitfully, as they ought to do; and that may be called a not eating, as they may be said not to hear God’s word, that hear it not profitably; and a thing not well done, may be in speech called not done, in the respect of the good effect.” I grant such speeches be sometime used, but very rarely; and when the very truth cometh in discussion, then such paradoxes are not to be used. As if it come jin question whether a house be builded, that is not well builded, then the definition of the matter must not be^, that it is not builded” although the carpenters and other workmen have failed in their covenant and bargain, and not builded the house in such sort as they ought to have done. So our Saviour Christ teacheth that all heard the word, whether the seed fell in the highway, or upon the stones, or among the thorns, or in the good ground. Wherefore when this matter cometh in discussion among the old writers, whether evil men eat Christ’s body or no, if the truth had been that evil men eat it, the old writers would not so precisely have defined the contrary, that they eat not, but wonld have said they eat it, but not effectually, not fruitfully, not profitably. But now the authors which I have alleged, define plainly and absolutely, that evil men eat not Christ’s body, without any other addition. But after this sort that you do use, it shall be an easy matter for every man to say what liketh him, and to defend it well enough, if he may add to the scriptures and doctors words at his pleasure, and make the sense after his own phantasy. The scriptures and doctors which I allege do say in plain words, as I do say, “that evil men do not eat the body of Christ nor drink his blood, but only they that have life thereby.”

Now come you in with your addition and gloss, made of your own head, putting thereto this word “effectually.” If I should say that Christ was never conceived nor born, could not I avoid all the scriptures that you can bring to the contrary, by adding this word “apparently,” and defend my saying stoutly? And might not the Valen-. tinians, Marcionists and other, that said that Christ died not for us, defend their error with addition, as they did, of this word “putative” to all the scriptures that were brought against them? And what heresy can be reproved, if the heretics may have that liberty that you do use, to add of their own heads to the words of scripture? —contrary unto God’s word directly, who commandeth us to add nothing to his word, nor to take anything away.

And yet moreover, the authorities, which I have brought to approve my doctrine, do clearly cast away your addition, adding the cause why evil men cannot eat Christ’s flesh nor drink his blood. And you have taught almost in the beginning of your

[[? Nor drink blood, 1551.] [7 After the words, “is not builded,” the 1551 ^ Of the matter must be, 1551.] edition adds, but that it is builded.”]]

book, “that Christ’s body is but a spiritual body, and after a spiritual manner eate by faith.” And now you have confessed, that whoso feedeth upon Christ spiritually, must needs be a good man. How can you then defend now, that evil men eat the body of Christ; except you will now deny that which you granted in the beginning, and now have forgotten it, that Christ’s body cannot be eaten but after a spiritual manner by faith?” Wherein it is marvel, that you, having so good a memory, should forget the common proverb, Mendacem memorem esse oportet.

And it had been more convenient for you to have answered fully to Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil, Hierome, and Ambrose, than when you cannot answer, to wipe your hands of them with this slender answer, saying, that you have answered. And whether you have or no, I refer to the judgment of the reader. de And as concerning St Augustine, De civitate Dei, he saith: “That evil men receive the sacrament of Christs body, although it availeth them not.” But yet he saith in plain words, “that we ought not to say, that any man eateth the body of Christ, that is not in the body’,” And if the reader ever saw any mere cavillation in all his life-time, let him read the chapter of St Augustine, and compare it to your answer, and I dare say he never saw the like.

And as for the other places of St Augustine by me alleged, with Origen and Cyril, for the more ease you pass them over with silence, and dare eat no such meat, it is so hard for you to digest. And thus have you with post haste run over all my scriptures and doctors, as it were playing at the post, with still passing and giving over every game, And yet shall you never be able for your part to bring any scripture that serveth for your purpose, except you may be suffered to add thereto such words as you please.

Then come you to my questions, wherein I write thus.

And now, for corroboration of Cyril’s saying, I would thus reason with the papists, and demand of them: When an unrepentant sinner receiveth the sacrament, whether he have Christ’s body within him or no?

If they say “mo,” then have I my purpose, that evil men, although they receive the sacrament of Christ’s body, yet receive they not his very body. If they say “yea,” then I would ask them further, Whether they have Christ’s Spirit within them or no?

If they say “nay,” then do they separate Christ’s body from his Spirit, and his humanity from his divinity, and be condemned by the scripture as very antichrists, that divide Christ. (

And if they say “yea,” that a wicked man hath Christ’s Spirit in him, then viii. the scripture also condemneth them, saying, that as ‘ he which hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his; so he that hath Christ in him liveth, because he is justified: and if his Spirit that raised up Jesus from death dwell in you, he that raised Jesus from death, shall give life to your mortal bodies, for his Spirit’s sake, which dwelleth in you.”

Thus on every side the scripture condemneth the adversaries of God’s word. And this wickedness of the papists is to be wondered at, that they affirm Christ’s flesh, blood, soul, holy Spirit, and his deity, to be in a man that is subject to sin, and a limb of the devil. They be wonderful jugglers and conjurers, that with certain words can make God and the devil to dwell together in one man, and make him both the temple of God, and the temple of the devil, It appeareth that they be so blind that they cannot see the light from darkness, Belial from Christ, nor the table of the Lord from the table of devils. Thus

[[ Ac per hoc haretici et schismatici ab hujus non dicendum esse eum manducare corpus Christi, — —]

[sacramentum, sed non sibi utile, imo vero etiam gust. De Civitate Dei. Lib. xx1. cap, xxv. Pars ——]

[unitate corporis separati possunt idem percipere qui in corpore non est Christi, non recte, &c.—Au- — —]

[noxium.. Sed rursus etiam isti qui recte intelligunt vir. Ed. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506.]]

is confuted this third intolerable error and heresy of the papists: “That they which be the limbs of the devil, do eat the very body of Christ, and drink his blood;” manifestly and directly contrary to the words of Christ himself, who saith: Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life.” WINCHESTER.

But to encounter directly with this author where he opposeth by interrogation, and would be answered, “whether an unrepentant sinner, that receiveth the sacrament, hath Christ’s body within him or no?” Mark, reader, this question, which declareth that this author talketh of the sacrament, not as himself teacheth, but as the true teaching is, although he mean otherwise: Jor else how can an unrepentant sinner receive Christ’s body, but only in the sacrament unworthily? and how could he receive it wnworthily, and it were not there?? But to answer to this question’, I answer “no;” for it followeth not, he received him, ergo, he hath him in him; Jor the vessel being mot meet, he departed from him, because he was a sinner, in whom he dwelleth not. And where this author, now become a questionist, maketh two questions, of Christ’s body, and his Spirit, as though Christ’s body might be divided from his Spirit; he supposeth other to be as ignorant as himself. For the learned man will answer, that an evil man by force Qf God’s ordinance, in the substance of the sacrament, received in deed Christ’s very body there present, whole Christ, God and man; but he tarried not, nor dwelled not, nor fructified not in him, nor Christ’s Spirit entered mot into that man’s soul, because of the malice and unworthiness of him that received. For Christ will not dwell with Belial nor abide with sinners. And what hath this author won now by his forked question? wherein he seemeth to glory as though he had embraced an absurdity that he hunted for; wherein he sheweth only his ignorance, who putteth no difference between the entering of Christ into an evil man by God’s ordinance in the sacrament, and the dwelling of Christ’s Spirit in an evil man, which by scripture cannot be, ne is by any catholic man affirmed. For St Paul saith: In him that receiveth wnworthily, remaineth judgment and condemnation.” ^ And yet St Paul’s words plainly import, that those did eat the very body of Christ, which did eat unworthily, and therefore were guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Now, reader, consider what is before written, and thow shalt easily see what a fond conclusion this author gathereth in the ninetyseventh. leaf, as though the teaching were, that the same man should be both the temple of Godand the temple of the devil; with other terms, wherewith it liketh this author to refresh himself, and feigneth an adversary such as he would have, but hath none, Jor no catholic man teacheth so, nor it, is not all one to receive Christ and to have Christ dwelling in him. And a figure thereof. was in Christ’s conversation wpon earth, who tarrietht not with all that received im in outward appearance; and there is noted a difference that some believed in Christ, and yet Christ committed not himself to them. And the gospel praiseth them that hear the word of God and keep it, signifying many to have the word of God and not to keep it; as they that receive Christ by his ordinance in the sacrament, and yet because they receive him not according to the intent of his ordinance worthily, they are so much the worse thereby through their own malice. And therefore to conclude this place with the author, whosoever eateth ΐ Christ’s flesh and drinketh his blood, hath everlasting life,” with St Paul’s exposition, if he ἡ doth it worthily; or else by the same St Paul, he hath condemnation. ES i: CANTERBURY.

Here the reader shall evidently see your accustomed manner, that when you be destitute of answer, and have none other shift, then fall you to scoffing and scolding. out the matter, as sophisters sometimes do at their problems. But as ignorant as I am, you shall not so escape me. First you bid the reader mark, that I “talk of the sacrament, not as I teach myself.” But I would have the reader here mark, that you report my words as you list yourself, not as I speak them. For you report my question as I should say, that “an unrepentant sinner should receivo Christ’s body,” whereas I speak of the receiving of the sacrament of the body, and not of the very body itself. εν Moreover, I make my question of the being of Christ’s body in an unpenitent sinner, and you turn “being” into “abiding,” because being” biteth you so sore. ~ P And he were not there, Orig. ed. Winch.] ὀ [ To the question, 1bid.] [4 Tarried, Ibid.]

— First you confess that an unrepentant sinner, receiving the sacrament, hath not Christ’s within body within him; and then may I say that he eateth not Christ’s body, except he eat it without him. And although “it followeth not, he received Christ, ergo, he hath him in him;” yet it followeth necessarily, he receiveth him, ergo, he hath him within him for the time of the receipt; as a bottomless vessel, although it keep no liquor, yet for the time of the receiving it hath the liquor in it. And how can Christ “depart from an unpenitent sinner,” as you say he doth, if he have him not at all? And because of mine ignorance, I would fain learn of you, that take upon you to be a man of knowledge, how an evil man receiving Christ’s very body, and whole Christ, God and man, as you say an evil man doth’; and Christs body being such as it cannot be divided from his Spirit, as you say also; how this evil man, receiving Christ’s Spirit, should be an evil man for the time that he hath Christ’s Spirit within him? Or bow can he receive Christ’s body and Spirit, according to your saying, and have them not in him for the time he receiveth them? Or how can Christ enter into an evil man, as you confess, and be not in him, into whom he entereth, at that present time? These be matters of your knowledge, as you pretend, which if you can teach me, I must confess mine ignorance: and if you cannot, forsomuch as you have spoken them, you must confess the ignorance to be upon your own part.

And St Paul saith not, as you untruly recite him, that “in him that receiveth unworthily remaineth judgment and condemnation,” but that he eateth and drinketh condemnation. And where you say, that “St Pauls words plainly import, that those did eat the very body of Christ, which did eat unworthily,” ever still you take for a supposition the thing which you should prove. For St Paul speaketh plainly of the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, and not one word of eating of the body and drinking of the blood of Christ. And let any indifferent reader look upon my questions, and he shall see that there is not one word answered here directly unto them, except mocking and scorning be taken for answer.

And where you deny, that of your doctrine it should follow, that one man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the devil,” you cannot deny but that your own teaching is, that Christ entereth into evil men, when they receive the sacrament. And if they be his temple into whom he entereth, then must evil men be his temple, for the time they receive the sacrament, although he tarry not long with them. And for the same time they be evil men, as you say, and so must needs be the temple of the devil. And so it followeth of your doctrine and teaching, that at one time a man shall be the temple of God and the temple of the devil. And in your figure of Christ upon earth, although he tarried not long with every man that received him, yet for a time he tarried with them. And the word of God tarrieth for the time with many, which after forget it, and keep it not. And then so must it be by these examples in evil men receiving the sacrament, that for a time Christ must tarry in them, although that time be very short. And yet for that time, by your doctrine, those evil men must be both the temples of God and of Belial.

And where you pretend to conclude this matter by the authority of St Paul, it is no small contumely and injury to St Paul, to ascribe your feigned and untrue gloss unto him that taught nothing but the truth, as he learned the same of Christ. For he maketh mention of the eating and drinking of the bread and cup, but not one word of the eating and drinking of Christ’s body and blood.

Now followeth in my book my answer to the papists in this wise:

But lest they should seem to have nothing to say for themselves, they allege St Paul in the eleventh to the Corinthians, where he saith: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, not discerning the Lord’s body.”

But St Paul in that place speaketh of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine, and not of the corporal eating of Christ’s flesh and blood, as it is manifest to every man that will read the text. For these be the words of

St Paul: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup; for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his H own damnation, not discerning the Lord’s body.” — 5 In these words St Paul’s mind is, that forasmuch as the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper do represent unto us the very body and blood of our Saviour Christ, by his own institution and ordinance, therefore, although he sit in heaven at his Father’s right hand, yet should we come to this mystical bread and wine with faith, reverence, purity, and fear, as we would do if we should come to see and receive Christ himself sensibly present. For unto the faithful Christ is at his own holy table present, with his mighty Spirit and grace, and is of them more fruitfully received, than if corporally they should receive him bodily present: and therefore they that shall worthily come to this God’s board, must after due trial of themselves consider first, who ordained this table; also what meat and drink they shall have that come thereto, and how they ought to behave themselves thereat. He that prepared the table is Christ himself: the meat and drink wherewith he feedeth them that come thereto as they ought to do, is his own body, flesh, and blood. They that come thereto, must occupy their minds in considering how his body was broken for them, and his blood shed for their redemption; and so ought they to approach to this heavenly table with all humbleness of heart and godliness of mind, as to the table wherein Christ himself is given. And they that come otherwise to this holy table, they come unworthily, and do not eat and drink Christ’s flesh and blood, but eat and drink their own damnation; because they do not duly consider Christ’s very flesh and blood, which be offered there spriritually to be eaten and drunken, but despising Christ’s most holy supper, do come thereto as it were to other eommon meats’ and drinks, without regard of the Lord’s body, which is the spiritual meat of that table. ‘

Winchester

In the ninety-seventh leaf and the second column, the author beginneth to traverse the words of St Paul to the Corinthians, and would distinct unworthy eating in the substance of the sacraent received, which cannot be. For our unworthiness cannot alter the substance of God’s - Sacrament, that is evermore all ome, howsoever we swerve from worthiness to unworthiness. And this I would ask of this author, why should it be a fault in the unworthy not to esteem the Lord’s body, when he is taught, if this author’s doctrine be true, that it is not there at all? If the bread? after this author’s teaching be but a figure of Christ’s body, it is then but as manna was, the eating whereof wnworthily and unfaithfully was no guilt3 of Christ’s “body. Erasmus noteth these words of St Paul, “to be guilty of our Lord’s body,” to prove the presence of Christ’s body there, who compareth such an offender to the Jews, that did shed 3 Christ’s blood maliciously, as those do profame it unprofitably; in which sense the Greek ey commentaries do also expound it. And where this author bringeth in the words of St Paul ^£ Las it were to point out the matter: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and [1 drink of the cup, for he that eateth unworthily, &c.” these words of examining and so eating declare Winch the thing to be one ordered to be eaten, and all the care to be used on our side, to eat worthily, or else St Paul had not said, “and so eat.” And when St Paul saith, “eat judgment,” and this author well remember himself, he must call judgment the effect of that is eaten, and not the thing eaten; for judgment is neither spiritual meat nor corporal, but the effect of the eating of Christ in evil men, who is salvation to good, and judgment to evil. And therefore, as good men eating Christ have salvation, so evil men eating Christ have condemnation; and so for the diversity of the eaters of Christ’s body, followeth, as they be worthy or unworthy, the effect of condemnation or life; Christ’s sacrament and his work also, in the substance of that sacrament, being always one. And whatsoever this author talketh otherwise in this matter, is mere trifles.

[A r ta, Pre, ed.) m t 1551. In 1580 it is printed gifz, by]

[I 1;: 3 - oy.:]

Canterbury

As touching mine answer here to the words of St Paul, you would fain have them hid with darkness of speech, that no man should see what I mean. For, as Christ ^ said, Qui male agit, odit lucem; and therefore, that which I have spoken in plain speech, you darken so with your obscure terms, that my meaning can not be understand. For I speak in such plain terms, as all men understand, that when St Paul said, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation;” in that place he spake of the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, and not of the corporal eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood. These my plain words you do wrap up in these dark terms, that I would distinct the unworthy eating in the substance of the sacrament received.” ^ Which your words vary so far from mine, that no man can understand by them my meaning, except you put a large comment thereto. For I distinct the unworthy eating none otherwise, than that I.say, that when St Paul speaketh of unworthy eating, he maketh mention of the unworthy eating of the bread, and not of the body of Christ.

And where you ask me this question, Why it should be a fault in the unworthy, not to esteem the Lord’s body, when it is not there at all?” there is in my book a full and plain answer unto your question already made, as there is also to your whole book. So that in making of my book, I did foresee all things that you could object against it: insomuch that here is not one thing in all your book,.but I can shew you a sufficient answer thereto, in one place or other of my former book. And in this your question here moved, I refer the reader to the words of my book in the same place.

And where you say, “That if the bread be but a figure, it is like manna:;” as concerning the material bread, truly it is like manna; but as concerning Christ himself, he said of himself: Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead; he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.” And as concerning Erasmus and the Greek commentaries, neither of them saith upon the place of St Paul, as you allege them to say. And whatsoever it pleaseth you to gather of these words, examining and so eating,” yet St Paul’s words be very plain, that he spake not of the eating of the very body of Christ, but of the eating of the material bread in the sacrament, which is all one, whether the good or evil eat of it; and all the care is on our side, to take heed that we eat not that bread unworthily. For as the eating of the bread unworthily, not of Christ himself, (who can not be eaten unworthily,) hath the effect of judgment and damnation; so eating of the same bread worthily hath the effect of Christ’s death and salvation. And as he that eateth the bread worthily may be well said to eat Christ and life; so he that eateth it unworthily may be said to eat the devil and death, as Judas did, into whom with the bread entered Satan. For unto such it may be called Mensa daemoniorum, non mensa Domini; “not God’s board, but the devil’s.” And so in the eaters of the bread worthily or unworthily, followeth the effect of everlasting life or everlasting death. But in the eating of Christ himself is no diversity, but whosoever eateth him hath everlasting life; forasmuch as the eating οἵ him can be to none damnation but salvation, because he is life itself. And whatsoever you babble to the contrary, is but mere fables, devised without God’s word, or any sufficient ground.

Now followeth mine answer unto such authors as the papists wrest to their purpose.

But here may not be passed over the answer unto certain places of ancient authors, which at the first shew seem to make for the papists’ purpose, that evil men do eat and drink the very flesh and blood of Christ. But if. those places be truly and throughly weighed, it shall appear, that not one of them maketh for their error, that evil men do eat Christ’s very body. Lib The first place is of St Augustine, contra Cresconium Grammaticum, M

E OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. Fro where he saith: That although Christ himself say, He that eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood, shall not have life in him,’ yet doth not his apostles teach, that the same is pernicious to them which use it not well? For he saith: “Whosoever eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord!”

In which words St Augustine seemeth to conclude, that as well the evil as the good do eat the body and blood of Christ, although the evil have no benefit, but hurt thereby.

But consider the place of St Augustine diligently, and then it shall evidently appear, that he meant not of the eating of Christ’s body, but of the sacrament thereof. For the intent of St Augustine there is to prove that good things avail not to such persons as do evil use them; and that many things which of themselves be good, and be good to some, yet to other some they be not good. As that light is good for whole eyes, and hurteth sore eyes: that meat which is good for some, is evil for other some: one medicine healeth some, and maketh other sick: one harness doth harm one, and cumbereth another: one coat is meet for one, and too strait for another. And after other examples, at the last St Augustine sheweth the same to be true in the sacraments, both of baptism and the Lord’s body, which he saith do profit only them that receive the same worthily.

And the words of St Paul, which St Augustine citeth, do speak of the sacramental bread and cup, and not of the body and blood. And yet St Augustine called? the bread and the cup the flesh and blood, not that they be so indeed, but that they signify, as he saith in another place, contra “In sacraments,” saith he, “is to be considered, not what they be, but what they shew. For they be signs of other things, being one thing and signifying another?.”

Therefore, as in baptism those that come feignedly, and those that come unfeignedly, both be washed with the saeramental water, but both be not washed with the Holy Ghost, and clothed with Christ: so in the Lord’s supper both eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, but both eat not Christ himself, and be fed with his flesh and blood, but those only which worthily receive the sacrament.

And this answer will serve to another place of St Augustine, against the Donatists, where he saith, that Judas received the body and blood of the Lord.” For as St Augustine in that place speaketh of the sacrament of bap-cn-9. tism, so doth he speak of the sacrament of the body and blood, which nevertheless he calleth the body and blood, because they signify and represent unto “us the very body, flesh, and blood.

[[’ Quamvis ipse Dominus dicat, Nisi quis significantia.—August. contra Maximin. Lib. 111.]

[manducaverit carnem meam, et biberit sanguinem cap. xxii. Pars xr.]]

[meum, non habebit in se vitam”; nonne idem Apo- [ Sicut enim Judas, cui buccellam tradidit]

[stolus docet etiam hoc perniciosum male utentibus Dominus, non malum accipiendo, sed male acci-]

[fieri? Ait enim: Quicunque manducaverit panem, piendo locum in se diabolo prebuit: sic indigne]

[et biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis quisque sumens Dominicum sacramentum non]

[et sanguinis Domini.” August. contra Cresconium efficit, ut quia ipse malus est malum sit, aut quia]

[Grammaticum, Lib. 1. cap. xxv. Pars vi. Basil. non ad salutem accipit, nihil acceperit. Corpus]

[ap Amerbach. 1506.] enim Domini et sanguis Domini nihilominus erat]

[[? Calleth, Orig. ed.] etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus, Qui man-]

[[? Hac enim sacramenta sunt in quibus non ducat indigne, judicium sibi manducat et bibit,”]

[quid sint, sed quid ostendant semper attenditur: August. De baptismo contra Donatistas, Lib, v.]

And yet he goeth about, because he will make all things clear, to answer such authors “as the papists,” he saith, “bring for their purpose.” And first he beginneth with St Augustine, who writeth as plainly against this author’s mind as I would have devised it, if I had no conscience of truth more than I see some have, and might with a secret wish have altered St Augustine as I had list. And therefore here I make a plain issue with this author, that in the searching of St Augustine he hath trusted his man or his friend over-negligently in so great a matter, or he hath willingly gone about to deceive the reader. For in the place of St Augustine against the Donatists, alleged here by this author, which he would with the rest assail, de St Augustine hath these formal words in Latin: Corpus Domini et sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus, Qui manducat indigne, judicium sibi manducat et bibit;” which words be thus much in English: It was nevertheless the body of our Lord and the blood of our Lord also unto them to whom the apostle said, He that eateth unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself” These be St Augustine’s words, who of writeth notably and evidently, that it was nevertheless the body and blood of Christ to them that received unworthily, declaring that their unworthiness doth mot alter the substance of that Sacrament, and doth us to understand therewith the substance of the sacrament to be the body and blood of Christ; and nevertheless so, though the receivers be unworthy: wherein this author is so overseen, as I think there was never learned man before that durst in a commonwealth, where learned men be, publish such an untruth as this is, to be answered in a tongue that all men knew. Yet Peter Martyr wrote in Latin, and rejoiceth not, I think, to have his de lies in English. I will bring in here another place of St Augustine to this purpose: lllud ’ etiam, quod ait, ‘ Qui manducat carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et ego in illo quomodo intellecturi sumus? Nunquid etiam illos sie? poterimus accipere, de quibus dixit? Apostolus, quod judicium sibi manducent et bibant quum ipsam carnem manducent, et ipsum sanguinem bibant? Nunquid et Judas Magistri venditor et traditor impius, quamvis primum ipsum manibus ejus confectum sacramentum carnis et sanguinis ejus cum ceteris discipulis, sicut apertius Lucas Evangelista declarat, manducaret et biberet, mansit in Christo, aut Christus in eo? Multi denique, qui vel corde fieto carnem illam manducant, et sanguinem bibunt, vel quum manducaverint et biberint, apostate fiunt, nunquid manent in Christo, aut Christus in eis? Sed profecto est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem, et bibendi illum sanguinem: quomodo qui manducaverit et biberit, in Christo. manet et Christus in eo. Non ergo quocunque modo quisquam manducaverit carnem Christi, et biberit sanguinem Christi, manet in Christo, et in illo Christus; sed certo quodam modo, quem modum utique ipse videbat, quando ista dicebat, The English of these words is this: That same that he also saith, Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him; how shall we understand it? May we understand also of them of whom the apostle speak, that they did eat to themselves, and drink, judgment, when they did eat the same flesh and drink the same. blood, the flesh itself, the blood itself? Did not Judas, the wicked seller and betrayer of his master, when he did eat and drink (as Lucas the Evangelist declareth) the first sacrament of the flesh and blood of Christ made with his own hands, dwell in Christ, and Christ in him? Finally, many that with a feigned heart eat that flesh and drink the blood, or when they have eaten and drunken become apostates, do not they dwell in Christ, or Christ in them? But undoubtedly there is a certain manner of eating that flesh and drinking that blood; after which manner whosoever eateth and drinketh, dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him. Therefore, not in whatsoever manner any man eateth the flesh of Christ, and drinketh the blood of Christ, he dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him, but after a certain manner, which manner he saw when he said these words.” This is the sense of St Augustine’s saying in Latin, whereby appeareth the faith of St Augustine to be, in the sacrament to be eaten and drunken the very body and blood of Christ, which for the substance of the sacrament evil men receive as good men do; that is to say, as St Augustine doth point it out by his words, the same flesh and the same blood of Christ, with such an expression of speech as he would exclude all difference that device of figure might imagine, and therefore saith, Ipsam carnem, ipsum sanguinem; which signify9 the self-same in deed, not by name only, as the

[[ Know, 1551.] Paris. 1635.] [? Hic,” and dicit,” in the above edition of [ Spake, Orig. ed. Winch.]]

[Op. August.] [^ An express speech, Orig. ed. Winch. ]. [? August. de verbis Domini, in Evang. secun- [9 Signifieth, 1551.] JR]

[dum Matth. Sermo. xi. cap. xi. Tom. X. p. 18. /]

---

← 11. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ · Contents · 13. Book IV. Of the Eating and Drinking →