author of the book would have St Augustine understanded; and when that appeareth, as it is. most manifest, that Judas received the same, being wicked, that good men do, how the same is. before the receipt by God’s omnipoteney present in the visible sacrament, and so not received by - the only instrument of faith, which in evil men is not lively; but by the instrument of the mouth, wherein it entereth with the visible element; and yet, as St Augustine saith, dwelleth not in him that so unworthily receiveth; because the effect of dwelling of Christ is not in him that receiveth by such a manner of eating as wicked men use. Whereby St Augustine teacheth the diverse effect to ensue of the diversity of the eating, and not of any diversity of that which is eaten, whether the good man or evil man receive the sacrament. If I would here encumber the reader, I could bring forth many more places of St Augustine to the confusion and reproof of this author’s purpose; and yet, notwithstanding, to take away that he might say of me, that I weigh not St Augustine, I think good to allege and bring forth the judgment of Martin Bucer touching St Augustine, who understandeth St Augustine clear contrary to this author, as may plainly appear by that the said Bucer writeth in few words in his epistle dedicatory of the great work he sent abroad of his enarrations of the gospels, where his judgment of St Augustine in this point he uttereth thus: Quoties scribit etiam Judam ipsum corpus et sanguinem Domini sumsisse! Nemo itaque auctoritate S. patrum dicet Christum in sacra cona absentem esse. The sense in English is this: How often writeth he,” speaking of St Augustine, Judas also to have received the self body and blood of our Lord! No man therefore, by the authority of the fathers, can say Christ to be absent in the holy supper.” Thus saith Bucer, who understandeth St Augustine, as I have before alleged him, and gathereth thereof a conclusion, that no man can by the fathers sayings prove Christ to be absent in the holy supper. And thereJore, by Bucer’s judgment, the doctrine of this author can be in no wise catholic, as dissenting Jrom that hath been before taught and believed. Whether Bucer will still continue in that he hath so solemnly published to the world, and by me here alleged, I cannot tell; and whether he. do or no, it maketh no matter: but thus he hath taught in his latter judgment with a great protestation, that he speaketh without respect other than to the truth, wherein, because he seemed to dissent from his friends, he saith: φίλος μὲν Σωκράτης, ἀλλὰ φιλτάτη ἡ ἀλήθεια, τιμιωτάτη ἡ ἐκκλησία: which words have an imitation of am elder saying, amd be thus much to say; “Socrates is my friend, truth is my best beloved, and the church most regarded.” And with this Bucer closeth his doctrine of the sacrament, after he knew all that Zuinglius and (Ecolampadius could say in the matter. And here I will leave to speak of Bucer, and bring forth Theodoretus?, a man most extolled by this author, who saith plainly in his commentaries upon St Paul, how Christ delivered to Judas his precious body and blood; and declareth further therewith in that sacrament to be the truth. So as this author can have no foundation upon either to maintain his figurative speech, or the matter of this fourth book, which his words plainly impugn. St Hierome in his commentaries upon the prophet Malachi hath first this sentence: Polluimus panem, id est corpus Christi, quando indigne accedimus ad altare, et sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus?: We defile the bread, that is to say, the body of Christ, when we come unworthy to the altar, and being filthy drink the clean blood.” Thus saith St Hierome, who saith, Men filthy drink the clean blood;” and in another place after, the same St Hierome saith: Polluit [enim] Christi mysteria indigne accipiens corpus ejus et sanguinem; - He that wnworthily receiveth the body and blood of Christ, defileth the mysteries.” Can any E- receive wnworthily, which be evil men, the body and blood of Christ? words be more manifest and evident to declare St Hierome s mind, how in the visible sacrament L CANTERBURY. is In this point I will join a plain issue with you, that I neither willingly go about -. to deceive the reader in the searching of St Augustine, (as you use to do in every place,) nor I have not trusted my “man or friend” herein, (as it seemeth you have done overmuch,) but I have diligently expended and weighed the matter myself. For although in such weighty matters of scripture and ancient authors you must needs trust your
[ἡ [7 Ἀνέμνησεν αὑτοὺς τῆς ἱερᾶς ἐκείνης καὶ παν- pp. 237, 8. Ed. Hale, 1769-94.]]
[aylas νυκτὸς, ἐν jj και τῷ τυπικῷ πάσχα TO [ Much, Orig. ed. Winch.]]
[τέλος ἐπέθηκε, καὶ τοῦ τύπου τὸ ἀρχέτυπον ἔδειξε, [9 Hieronymi Opera. Comment. in Malachiam.]
[αὶ οῦ ωτηρίου μυστηρίου τὰς θύρας ἀνέῳξε, kal capp. i. iii. Tom. VI. pp. 233, 237. Ed. Francof.]
[οὐ μόνον τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἀποστόλοις, ἀλλὰ kal τῷ προ- 1684.]]
[9órg, ῦ ιμί μετέδωκε σώματός τε kal αἵ- [’ Unworthily, Orig. ed. Winch. ]]
[ματος. “Theodoretus, in Epist. i. Cor. xi. Tom. III.]
men, (without whom I know you can do very little, being brought up from your tender age in other kinds of study,) yet I, having exercised myself in the study of scripture — and divinity from my youth, (whereof I give most hearty lauds and thanks to God,) have learned now to go alone, and do examine, judge, and write all such weighty — matters myself; although, I thank God, I am neither so arrogant nor so wilful, that I will refuse the good advice, counsel, and admonition of any man, be he man or master, friend or foe. e. But as concerning the place alleged by you out of St Augustine, let the reader Tib. diligently expend mine whole answer to St Augustine, and he shall, I trust, be fully catisfied. For St Augustine in his book, De baptismo contra Donatistas, (as 1 have declared in my book!,) speaketh of the morsel of bread and sacrament which Judas also Tn, did eat, as St Augustine saith. And in this speech he considered (as he writeth contra — Maziminum), not what it is, but what it signifieth; and therefore he expresseth the matter by Judas more plainly in another place, saying, that “he did eat the bread of the Lord, not the bread being the Lord,” (as the other apostles did,) signifying thereby that the evil eat the bread, but not the Lord himself: as St Paul saith that they eat and drink panem et calicem. Domini, the bread and the cup of the Lord,” and not that they eat the Lord himself. And St Augustine saith not, as you feign of him, that the substance of this sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, but the substance of this sacrament is bread and wine, (as water is in the sacrament of baptism,) and the same be all one, not altered by the unworthiness of the receivers. And although St Augustine, in the words by you recited, call the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood his body and blood, yet is the sacrament no more but the sacrament thereof, and yet is it called the body and blood of Christ, as “sacraments have the names of the things whereof they be sacraments;” as the same St Augustine teacheth most plainly ad Bonifacium.
And I have not so far overshot myself or been overseen, that T would have attempted — to publish this matter, if I had not before-hand excussed the whole truth therein from the bottom. But because I myself am certain of the truth, (which hath been hid these many years, and persecuted by the papists with fire and fagot, and should be so yet still if you might have your own will) and because also I am desirous that all my countrymen of England, (unto whom I have no small cure and charge to tell the truth,) should no longer be kept from the same truth; therefore have I published the truth which I know in the English tongue, to the intent that I may edify all by that tongue, which all do perfectly know and understand. Which my doing, it seemeth, you take in very evil part, and be not a little grieved thereat, because you would rather have the light. οἵ truth hid still under the bushel, than openly to be set abroad that all men may Y) see it. And I think that it so little grieveth M. Peter Martyr, that his book is im English, that he would wish it to be translated likewise into all other languages.; de Now, where you gather of the words of St Augustine, De verbis Domini, that - both the evil and good eat one body of Christ, the self-same in substance, “excluding 1] difference that device of figure might imagine;” to this I answer, that although you and express the body of Christ with what terms you can devise, calling it, as you do in - deed, the flesh that was born of the virgin Mary, the same flesh, the flesh itself, yet I confess that it is eaten in the sacrament. And to express it yet more plainly than. peradventure you would have me, I say, that the same visible and palpable flesh, that was for us crucified, and appeared after his resurrection, and was seen, felt, and groped,: and ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at his Fathers right hand, and at the last day shall come to judge the quick and the dead; that self-same body, having. all the parts of a man’s body, in good order and proportion, and being visible and tangible, I say, is eaten of christian people at his holy supper: what will you now. require more of me concerning the truth of the body? 1 suppose you be sorry that I grant you so much, and yet what doth this help you? For the diversity is not in the body, but in the eating thereof, no man eating it carnally; but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritually, and the evil only sacramentally, that is to say, ΕἸ [! Vide p. 221.] [? Vide p. 222.] p ------:-:----Ξ.—::-:—:-ς- ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΙ͂ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ-:Ξ- Th
Ἷ OF THE EATING AND DRINKING. 25 iiw. And therefore hath St Augustine these words, certo quodam modo, after & certain manner,” because that the evil eat the sacrament, which after a certain maner is called the very body of Christ; which manner St Augustine himself declareth most truly and plainly in an epistle ad Bonifacium, saying: “If sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of those things whereof they be sacraments, they could in.no wise be sacraments. And for their similitude and likeness, they have commonly the name of the things whereof they be sacraments. Therefore after a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood?” This epistle is set out in my book, the sixty-fourth leaf’, which I pray the reader to look upon for a more full answer unto this place. And after that manner Judas and such like did eat the morsel of the Lord’s bread, but not the bread that is the Lord, but a sacrament thereof which is called the Lord, as St Augustine saith. So that with the bread entered not Christ with his Spirit into Judas, (as you say he doth into the wicked,) but Satan entered into him, as the gospel testifieth. And if Christ entered then into Judas with the bread, as you write, then the devil and Christ entered into Judas both at once.
As concerning M. Bucer, what mean you to use his authority, whose authority you never esteemed heretofore? And yet Bucer varieth much from your error: for he denieth utterly that Christ is really and substantially present in the bread, either by conversion or inclusion, but in the ministration he affirmeth Christ to be present: and so do I also, but not to be eaten and drunken of them that be wicked and members of the devil, whom Christ neither feedeth nor hath any communion with them. And to conclude in few words the doctrine of M. Bucer in the place by you alleged, he dissenteth in nothing from (Ecolampadius and Zuinglius. Wherefore it seemeth to me somewhat strange, that you should allege him for the confirmation of your untrue doctrine, being so clearly repugnant unto his doctrine.
The words of Theodoretus, if they were his, be so far from your report, that you be ashamed to rehearse his words as they be written, which when you shall do, you shall be answered. But in his dialogues he declareth in plain terms not only the figurative speech of Christ in this matter, but also wherefore Christ used those figurative speeches, as the reader may find in my book, the sixty-seventh, sixty-eighth, sixtyninth, and seventieth leaves. By which manner of speech it may be said, that Christ delivered to Judas his body and blood, when he delivered it him in a figure thereof.
And as concerning St Hierome, he calleth the mysteries or mystical bread and wine Christs flesh and blood, as Christ called them himself, and the eating of them he ealleth the eating of Christ’s flesh and blood, because they be sacraments and figures, which represent unto us his very flesh and blood. And all that do eat the said sacraments be said to eat the body of Christ, because they eat the thing which is a representation thereof. But St Hierome meant not, that evil men do indeed eat the very body of Christ; for then he would not have written upon Esay, Jeremy, and Osee the contrary, saying, that heretics and evil men neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood, which whosoever eateth and drinketh hath everlasting life. Non comedunt carnem Jesu, saith he upon Esay, neque bibunt sanguinem, ejus, de quo ipse loquitur: Qui comedit carnem. meam. et bibit meum. sanguinem, habet. vitam. eternam.” And yet he that cometh defiled unto the visible sacraments, defileth not only the sacraments, but the contumely thereof pertaineth also unto Christ himself, who is the author of the sacraments; and as the same St Hierome saith: Dum sacramenta violantur, ipse, cujus sunt sacramenta, violatur’: When the sacraments, saith he, be violated, then is he violated also to whom the sacraments appertain.”
Now hear what followeth in the order of my book.
And, as before is at length declared, a figure hath the name of the thing that is signified thereby. As a man’s image is called a man, a lion’s image a Figures lion, a bird’s image a bird, and an image of a tree and herb is called a tree or names ROI o A Lu they? Vide p. 124, note 1.] Tom. V. p.215. Francof. 1684.]
[ Vide pp. 123, 4.] [^ Vide pp. 128—130.] [7 Id. Comment. in Malachiam, cap. i. Tom. VI. [ Hieron. Comment. in Esaiam, cap. lxvi. p. 233.]
lcRANMER.] 15
herb; so were we wont to say, Our lady of Walsingham,” “our lady of Ipswich,” “our lady of grace,” our lady of pity,” “St Peter of Milan,” St John of Amias’,” and such like; not meaning the things themselves, but calling their images by the name of the things by them represented. And likewise we were wont to say, “Great St Christopher of York or Lincoln;” “our lady smileth, or rocketh her child;” “let us go in pilgrimage to St Peter at Rome, and St James in Compostella;” and a thousand like speeches, which were not understand of the very things, but only of the images of them. So doth St John Chrysostom say, that we see Christ with our eyes, touch him, feel him, and grope him with our hands, fix our teeth in his flesh, taste it, break it, eat it, and digest it, make red our tongues and die them with his blood, and swallow it, and drink it? E And in a catechism by me translated and set forth, I used like manner of speech, saying, that with our bodily mouths we receive the body and blood of Christ. Which my saying divers ignorant persons, not used to read old ancient authors, nor acquainted with their phrase and manner of speech, did: carp and reprehend for lack of good understanding? For this speech, and other before reltearsed of Chrysostom, and all other like, be not understand of the very flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ, (which in very deed we neither feel nor see,) but that which we do to the bread and wine, by a figurative speech is spoken to be done to the flesh and blood, because they be the very signs, figures, and tokens instituted of Christ, to represent unto us his very flesh and blood. And yet as with our corporal eyes, corporal hands, and mouths, we do corporally see, feel, taste, and eat the bread, and drink the wine, (being the sign and sacraments of Christ’s body,) even so with our spiritual eyes, hands, and mouths, we do spiritually see, feel, taste, and eat his very flesh, and drink his very blood.; As Eusebius Emissenus saith: When thou comest to the reverend altar to be filled with spiritual meats, with thy faith look upon the body and blooc of him that is thy God; honour him, touch him with thy mind, take him with the hand of thy heart, and drink him with the draught of thine inward man.”” And these spiritual things require no corporal presence of Christ himself, who sitteth continually in heaven at the right hand of his Father. And as this is most true, so is it full and sufficient to answer all things tl T the papists can bring in this matter, that hath any appearance for their party.
WINCHESTER. 9 And yet these plain places of authority dissembled of purpose, or by ignorance passed over, — £his author, as though all things were by him clearly discussed to his intent, would by mang conceits furnish and further his matters, and therefore playeth with our lady’s smiling, rocking her child, and many good mowes, so unseemly for his person, as it maketh me almost forge him and myself also. But with such matter he filleth his leaves, and forgetting himself”, make /
! Amiens, where John the Baptist’s skull, as man original.
[it is called, is still preserved. ] [ἢ Ita cum reverendum altare colestibus cib:]
[[? Οὐκ ἰδεῖν αὐτὸν μόνον παρέσχε τοῖς ἐπιθυ- satiandus ascendis, sacrum Dei tui corpus, et san:]
[μοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ kal ἅψασθαι, καὶ φαγεῖν, kai ἐμπῆ- guinem fide respice, honora, mirare, mente continge]
[Ear τοὺς ὀδόντας τῇ σαρκὶ, kai συμπλακῆναι, καὶ cordis manu suscipe, et maxime haustu interiore as:]
[τὸν πόθον ἐμπλῆσαι wavTa.—Chrysost. in Joann. sume.—Corpus Juris Canonici. Gratiani decret]
[Hom. xlvi. Tom. VIII. p. 272, Ed. Bened. Paris. tertia pars. De consecrat. Dist. i. cap. xxxv. ’ Quit]
[1728.] corpus.” Tom. col. 1928. Ed. Lugd. 1618.]]
[[? This paragraph is entirely omitted in the Emb. [^ Mowes, i.e. wry-mouths, distorted faces, gri-]
[edition, 1557.— The catechism referred tois that set maces.]; ow]
[forth in the year 1548, translated from the Latin of -[$ That it maketh, Orig. ed. Winch.] Ἢ]
[Justus Jonas, who had translated it from its Ger- [7 His leaves forgetting, Orig. ed. Winch.]. -]
- mention of the catechism by him translate, the original whereof confuteth these two parts of — his book in few words, being printed in Germany, wherein, besides the matter written, is set forth in picture the manner of the ministering of this sacrament; where is the altar with cm light set. forth, the priest apparelled after the old sort, and the man to receive kneeling, - bare-head, and holding wp his hands, whiles the priest ministereth the host to his mouth, a mat- - er as clear contrary to the matter of this book, as is light and darkness, which now this author would colour with speeches of authors in a book written to instruct rude children; which is as slender an excuse as ever was heard, and none at all, when the original is looked on.: Emissen, to stir up men’s devotion coming to receive this sacrament, requireth the root. and foundation thereof in the mind of man as it ought to be, and. therefore exhorteth men to take the sacrament with the hand of the heart, and drink with the draught of the inward man, which men must needs do that will worthily repair to this feast. And as Emissen speaketh these devout words of the inward office of the receiver, so doth he in declaration of the mystery shew how the invisible priest with his secret power by his word doth convert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood, whereof I have before entreated. The author upon these words devoutly spoken by Ewmissen saith: There is required no corporal presence of Christ’s precious body in the sacrament;” continuing in his ignorance what “the word corporal” meaneth. But to speak of Emissen, if by his faith the very body and “blood of Christ were not present upon the altar, why doth he call it a reverend altar? Why to be fed there with spiritual meat8? and why should faith be required to look upon the body “and blood of Christ that is not there on the altar, but, as this author teacheth, only in heaven? And why should he that cometh to be fed, honour these mysteries? there? And why should Emissen allude to the hand of the heart, and draught of the inward man, if the hand of the body and draught of” the outward man had mone office there? All this were vain eloquence, and a mere abuse and illusion, if the sacramental tokens were only a figure. And if there were mo presence but in figure, why should mot Emissen rather have followed the plain speech of the angel to the women that sought Christ, Jesum queeritis, non est hic; “Ye seek Jesus, he is not here;” and say as this author doth, This is only a figure, do no worship here, go up to heaven; amd down with the altar, for fear of illusion?—which Emissen did not, but called it a reverend altar, and inviteth him that should receive to honour that Jfood with such good words as before, so far discrepant from this author’s teaching as may be; “and yet from him he taketh occasion to speak against adoration.: CANTERBURY. 4 Here for lack of good matter to answer, you fall again to your. accustomed manner, trifling away the matter with mocking and mowing. But if you thought your doctrine good, and mine erroneous, and had a zeal to the truth and to quiet men’s. consciences, you should have made a substantial and learned answer unto my words. For dallying and playing, scolding and mowing, make no quietness in men’s consciences. And all men that know your conditions, know right well, that if you had good matter to answer, -you would not have hid it, and passed over the matter with such trifles as you use m this place. And St John Chrysostom you skip over, either as you saw him not, or “as you cared not how slenderly you left the matter.
And as concerning the Catechism, I have sufficiently answered in my former book. But in this place may appear to them that have any judgment, what pithy arguments “you make, and what dexterity you have in gathering of authors minds, that would rather my mind and make an argument here of a picture, neither put in my book, nor by me devised, but invented by some fond painter or carver, which paint and grave whatsoever their idle heads can fancy. You should rather have gathered your argument upon the other side, that I mislike the matter, because I left out of my book the picture that was in the original before. And I marvel you be not ashamed to allege 0 vain a matter against me, which indeed is not in my book, and if it were, yet were it nothing to the purpose. And in that Catechism I teach not, as you do, that the body and blood of Christ is contained in the sacrament, being reserved, but that in the ministration thereof we receive the body and blood of Christ; whereunto if it may please you to add or understand this word spiritually,” then is the doctrine of my Catechism sound and good in all men’s ears, which know the true doctrine of the sacraments. E [ Meats, Orig. ed. Winch.] [ “Those mysteries, ibid.] P 15—2
As for Emissen, you agree here with me, that he speaketh not of any receiving of - Christ’s body and blood with our mouths, but only with our hearts. And where you say, that you have entreated before, “how the invisible priest with his secret power doth — convert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood,” I have in that same place made answer to those words of Emissen, but most plainly of all in my former book, the twenty-fifth leaf’. And Emissen saith not that Christ is corporally - present in the sacrament, and thereof you be not ignorant, although you do pretend the contrary, which is somewhat worse than ignorance.
And what this word “corporal” meaneth, I am not ignorant. Marry, what you mean Ω “by “corporal” I know not, and the opening thereof shall discuss the whole matter. - Tell therefore plainly without dissimulation or coloured words, what manner of body it 1 is that Christ hath in the sacrament? Whether it be a very and perfect man’s body, with all the members thereof, distinct one from another, or no? For that understand I = to be a man’s corporal body, that hath all such parts, without which may be a body, - but no perfect man’s body: so that the lack of a finger maketh a lack in the perfection of a man’s body. Marry, if you will make Christ such a body as bread and cheese is, — (wherein every part is bread and cheese, without form and distinction of one part from another,) I confess mine ignorance, that I know no such body to be a man’s body.. Now have I shewed mine ignorance: declare now your wit and learning. For sure I am that Christ hath all those parts in heaven; and if he lack them in the sacrament, then lacketh he not a little of his perfection. And then it cannot be one body that ] hath parts and hath no parts. Ἶ And as concerning the words of Emissen, calling the altar a “reverend altar,” those 1 words prove no more the real presence of Christ in the altar, than the calling of the font —. of baptism a “reverend font,” or the calling of marriage “reverend matrimony,” should conclude that Christ were corporally present in the water of baptism, or in the celebration of matrimony. And yet is not Christ clearly absent in the godly administration of his holy supper, nor present only in a figure, (as ever you untruly report me to say;) but ἢ by his omnipotent power he is effectually present by spiritual nourishment and feeding, -: as in baptism heis likewise present by spiritual renewing and regenerating. Therefore T. where you would prove the corporal presence of Christ by the reverence that is to be used at the altar, as Emissen teacheth, with no less reverence ought he that is baptized. } to come to the font, than he that receiveth the communion cometh to the altar: and yet is that no proof that Christ is corporally in the font. And whatsoever you have 3 here said of the coming to the altar, the like may be said of coming to the font. For Y although Christ be not corporally there, yet, as St Hierome saith, if the sacraments be violated, then is he violated whose sacraments they be. = Now followeth after in my book the manner of adoration in the sacrament. 3 Now it is requisite to speak something of the manner and form of wor- — shipping of Christ? by them that receive this sacrament, lest that in the stead of Christ himself be worshipped the sacrament. For as his humanity, joined D^ to his divinity, and exalted to the right hand of his Father, is to be worshipped — of all creatures in heaven, earth, and under the earth; even so if in the stead
4,5+, thereof we worship the signs and sacraments, we commit as great idolatry as — ever was, or shall be to the world’s end. i And yet have the very antichrists (the subtlest enemies that Christ hath) Ἢ be.:.. el. 4 b by their fine inventions and crafty scholastical divinity deluded many simple souls, and brought them to this horrible idolatry, to worship things visible, and made with their own hands, persuading them that creatures were their Creator, 1 their God, and their Maker. LU -[ This occurs in the second book, against the [? Christ himself, 1551. Orig. ed. reads with 4 [? Hieron. in Malachiam, cap. i. Tom. VI. [ See note, p. 173.] y! Error of Transubstantiation, See below, p. 268.] 1580. ] LA
[p. 233. Ed. Francof. 1638.] bd]
E For else what made the people to run from their seats to the altar, and - from altar to altar, and from sacring (as they called it) to sacring, peeping,. tooting, and gazing at that thing which the priest held up in his hands, if P they thought not to honour that thing which they saw? What moved the — priests to lift up the sacrament so high over their heads; or the people to ery nm the priest, “Hold up! hold up!” and one man to say to another, “Stoop -— down before;” or to say, “This day have I seen my Maker;” and, “I cannot “be quiet, except I see my Maker once a-day?” What was the cause of all “these, and that as well the priest as the people so devoutly did knock and kneel at every sight of the sacrament, but that they worshipped that visible thing which they saw with their eyes, and took it for very God? For if they worshipped in spirit only Christ, sitting in heaven with his Father, what needed they to remove out of their seats to toot and gaze, as the apostles did after Christ, when he was gone up into heaven? If they worshipped nothing that they saw, why did they rise up to see? Doubtless, many of the simple people “worshipped that thing which they saw with their eyes.
And although the subtle papists do colour and cloke the matter never so finely, saying that they worship not the sacraments which they see with their “eyes, but that thing which they believe with their faith to be really and corporally in the sacraments; yet why do they then run from place to place, to -gaze at the things which they see, if they worship them not, giving thereby occasion to them that be ignorant to worship that which they see? Why - do they not rather quietly sit still in their seats, and move the people to -do the like, worshipping God in heart and in spirit, than to gad about from n to plaee to see that thing, which they confess themselves is not to be »worshipped?
And yet, to eschew one inconvenience, (that is to say, the worshipping of the sacrament,) they fall into another as evil, and worship nothing there at all. For they worship that thing (as they say) which is really and corporally, and yet invisibly present under the kinds of bread and wine, which (as before s expressed and proved) is utterly nothing. ^ Amd so they give unto the ignorant occasion to worship bread and wine, and they themselves worship nothing there at all. r WINCHESTER.: As touching the adoration of Christ’s flesh in the sacrament, which adoration is a true ~ confession of the whole man, soul and body, if there be opportunity of the truth of God in » work, is in my judgment well set forth in the book of common prayer, where the priest ἡ ordered to kneel and make a prayer in his own, and the name of all that shall commu- -micate, confessing therein that is prepared there; at which time nevertheless that is mot adored “that the bodily eye seeth, but that which faith knoweth to be there invisibly present, which and there be nothing, as this author mow teacheth, it were not well. I will not answer this author’s eloquence, but his matter, where it might hurtE CANTERBURY.. — Whereas I have shewed what idolatry was committed by means of the papistical doctrine concerning adoration of the sacrament, because that answer to my reasons you cannot, and confess the truth vou will not, therefore you run to your usual shift, passing it over with a toy and scoff, saying, that you “will not answer mine eloquence, but the matter;” and yet indeed you answer neither of both, but under pretence of mine eloquence you shift off the matter also. And yet other eloquence I used not, but the accustomed speech of the homely people, as such a matter requireth.
Sacring, i.e. consecrating. But technically bread for the people to worship.
[it is applied to the lifting up of the consecrated [$ Whole man’s soul, Orig. ed. Winch.]]
And where you say, that “it were not well” to worship Christ in. the sacrament, “if nothing be there,” (as you say I teach,) if you mean that Christ cannot be worshipped - but where he is corporally present, (as you must needs mean, if your reason should be - to purpose,) then it followeth of your saying, that we may not worship Christ in bap- tism, in the fields, in private houses, nor in no place else where Christ is not corpo-. rally and naturally present. But the true teaching of the holy catholic church is, that although Christ, as concerning his corporal presence, be continually resident in - heaven, yet he is to be worshipped not only there, but here in earth also, of all faithful people, at all times, in all places, and in all their works.
Hear now what followeth further in my book. cn But the papists, for their own commodity to keep the people still in. in idolatry, do often allege a certain place of St Augustine upon the Psalms, where he saith, that “no man doth eat the flesh of Christ, except he first worship it,” — and that “we do not offend in worshipping thereof, but we should offend if we - should not worship it’.”? That is true which St Augustine saith in this place. For who is he that - professeth Christ, and is spiritually fed and nourished with his flesh and blood, - but he will honour and worship him, sitting at the right hand of his Father, - and render unto him from the bottom of his heart all laud, praise, and thanks, 3 for his merciful redemption? iy And as this is most true, which St Augustine saith, so is that most false, = which the papists would persuade upon St Augustine’s words, that the sacra-. mental bread and wine, or any visible thing, is to be worshipped in the sacra-. ment. For St Augustine’s mind was so far from any such thought, that he. forbiddeth utterly to worship Christ’s own flesh and blood alone, but in consideration and as they be annexed and joined to his divinity. How much less then could he think or allow that we should worship the sacramental bread and wine, or any outward or visible sacrament, which be shadows, figures, and - representations of Christ’s flesh? and blood! bAnd St Augustine was afraid, lest in worshipping of Christ’s very body — we should offend; and therefore he biddeth us, when we worship Christ, that y we should not tarry and fix our minds upon his flesh, which of itself availeth — nothing, but that we should lift up our minds from the flesh to the spirit, which giveth life: and yet the papists be not afraid by crafty means to induce., us to worship those things which be signs and sacraments of Christ’s body. 5 But what will not the shameless papists allege for their purpose, when they — be not ashamed to maintain the adoration of the sacrament by these words of St Augustine? Wherein he speaketh not one word of the adoration of the sacrament, but only of Christ himself. Y And although he say, that Christ gave his flesh to be eaten of us, yet he - meant not that his flesh is here corporally present, and corporally eaten, but only spiritually. As his words declare plainly, which follow in the same place, - where St Augustine, as it were in the person of Christ, speaketh these words:
]t is the spirit that giveth life, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I have spoken unto you be spirit and life. “That which I have } spoken, understand you spiritually. You shall not eat this body which you see, and drink that blood which they shall shed that shall crucify me. I hay: i commended unto you a sacrament: understand it spiritually, and it shall giv ον [ Nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius August. in Psalm. xcviii. Tom. VIII. p. 452. Ed tale scabellum pedum Domini, et non solum non [? Christ’s. very flesh, 1551, and Orig. ed. adoraverit: inventum est quemadmodum adoretur Paris. 1635.] m
[peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non adorando. Winch.) L4]
you life And although it must be visibly ministered, yet it must be invisibly understand” ” m
These words of St Augustine, with the other before recited, do express his mind plainly, that Christ is not otherwise to be eaten than spiritually, (which spiritual eating requireth no corporal presence, and that he intended not to teach here any adoration, either of the visible sacraments or of any (d ing that is eorporally in them, For indeed there is nothing really and corporally in the bread to be worshipped, although the papists say that Christ js in every consecrated bread. As in the wrong report of St Augustine, who speaking of the adoration of Christ’s flesh, given to be eaten, doth so fashion his speech, as it cannot with any violence be drawn to such m understanding, as though St Augustine should mean of the adoring of Christ’s flesh in heaven,. «8 this author would have it. St Augustine speaketh of the giving of Christ’s flesh to us to eat, nd declareth after that he meaneth in the visible sacrament; which must be invisibly underste and spiritually, not as the Capernaites did understand Christ’s words, carnally to that body cut in pieces; and therefore there may be mo such imaginations to eat Christ’s body after the manner he walked here, nor drink his blood as it was shed upon the cross; but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of God’s work, supernatural above man’s understanding, and therefore spiritually understanded shall give life, which life carnal understanding must needs exclude. And by these my words I think I declare truly St Augus-dines meaning of the truth of this sacrament, wherein Christ giveth truly his flesh to be eaten, the flesh he spake of before taken of the virgin. For the spiritual understanding that St Augustine speaketh of, is not to exclude the truth of God’s work in the sacrament, but to exclude carnal imagination from musing of the manner of the work, which is in mystery such as a carnal man. cannot comprehend. In which matter if St Augustine had had such a faith of the visible sacrament, as the author saith himself hath now of late, and calleth it eatholie; St Augustine would have uttered it, as an expositor, plainly in this place, and said, there is but a figure of Christ’s body: Christ’s body and flesh is in heaven, and mot in this visible sacrament: Christ’s speech that was esteemed so hard, was but a figurative speech: end where Christ said, This is my body,” he meant only of the figure of his body: which nanner of saying St Augustine useth not in this place; and yet he could speak plainly, and 8 doth he, declaring us first the truth of the flesh that Christ giveth to be eaten, that is to say, the same flesh that he took of the virgin. And yet because Christ giveth it not in a visible manner, nor such a manner as the Capernaites thought on, nor such a manner as any carnal man can conceive; being also the flesh in the sacrament, given not a common flesh, but a lively, godly, and spiritual flesh; therefore St Augustine useth words and speech whereby he denieth the gift of that body of Christ which we did see, and of the blood that was shed, so as by affirmation and denial so near together of the same to be given, and the same not to be given, the mystery Should be thus far opened, that for the truth of the thing given it is the same, and touching the manner of the giving and the quality of the flesh given it is not the same. And because it is the same, St Augustine saith before we must worship it; and yet because it is now an hidden - godly mystery, we may not have carnal imaginations of the same, but godly, spiritually, and invisibly understand it. Eo CANTERBURY. ^. As concerning the words of St Augustine, which you say I do wrong report, let πὸ very indifferent reader judge, who maketh a wrong report of St Augustine, you or I: lo I have reported his words as they be, and so have not you. For St Augustine saith not, that Christ’s body is eaten in the visible sacrament, as you report, but that “Christ hath given us a sacrament of the eating of his body,” which must be.
[E [ “Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro autem nihil davi: spiritaliter intellectum vivificabit vos. Etsi]
[proces: Verba qua locutus sum vobis, spiritus est necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen]
[ftvita” Spiritaliter intelligite quod locutus sum. invisibiliter intelligi. Ib.]]
[N Yon hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, et [ This author, 1551.]]
[Ἵ il illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me [ The flesh given in the sacrament, Orig. ed.]
[= Sacramentum aliquod vobis commen- Winch.]]
understand invisibly and spiritually, as you say truly in that point. But to the spiritual eating is not required any local or corporal presence in the sacrament, nor - St Augustine saith not so, as you in that point unjustly report him: and although - the work of God in his sacraments be effectual and true, yet the working of God in the sacraments is not his working by grace in the water, bread, and wine, but in them. that duly receive the same, which work is such as no carnal man can comprehend. E And where you say, that “if St Augustine had meant as I do, he would in this. place have declared a figure, and have said, that here is but a figure, and we eat only - a figure, but Christ himself is gone up into heaven and is not here,” it is too much arrogancy of you to appoint St Augustine’s words, what he should say in this place, - as you would lead an hound in a line where you list, or draw a bear to the stake. - And here still you cease not untruly to report me. For I say not, that in the Lord’s - supper is but a figure, or that Christ is eaten only figuratively; but I say, “that there is a figure, and figurative eating.” And doth not St Augustine sufficiently declare - a figure in Christ’s words, when he saith, that they must be understand spiritually?”. And what man can devise to express more plainly, both that in Christ’s speech is a — figure, and that his body is not corporally present, and corporally eaten, than St Au-. gustine doth in a thousand places, but specially in his epistle ad Bonifacium, ad. Dardanum, ad Januarium, de Doctrina Christiana, de Catechisandis rudibus, in Quest. super Levit. de Civitate Dei, contra Adimantum, contra Adversarium legis et prophetarum, ὦ in Epistolam et Evangelium Johannis, in Sermone ad infantes, et de Verbis apostoli? The flesh of Christ is a true flesh, and was born of a woman, died, rose again, as- i cended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father; but yet is he eaten of Ἵ us spiritually, and in the manner of the eating, there is the mystery and secret, and. yet the true work of God. ἢ, And where you understand the invisible mystery, which St Augustine speaketh of, to be in the diversity of the body of Christ, seen or not seen, you be far deceived. For St Augustine speaketh of the mystery that is in the eating of the body, and not. in the diversity of the body, which in substance is ever one without diversity. The i meaning therefore of St Augustine was this, that when Christ said, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, you shall not have life in you,” he meant of spiritual — and not carnal eating of his body. For if he had intended to have described the di- τὸ versity of the manner of Christ’s body visible and invisible, he would not have said, = “This body which you see,” but this body in such manner as you see it, or in such.— like terms, you shall not eat. But to eat Christ’s flesh, saith St Augustine, is fruit- — fully to remember that the same flesh was crucified for us. And this is spiritually — io eat his flesh and drink his blood. ” WINCHESTER. D. And because St Hierome, who was of St Augustine’s time, writeth in his commentaries upon ad St Paul, ad Ephesios, that may serve for the better opening hereof, I will write it in here. The — ^ Cords be these: The blood and Sesh of Christ is two ways wnderstanded, either the spiritual and godly, of which himself said, My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drinks — and unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye shall mot have everlasting life? or the — flesh which was crucified and the blood which was shed by the spear. According to this division, the diversity of flesh amd blood is taken in Christ’s saints, that there is one flesh that shall see the salvation of God, another flesh and blood that cannot possess the kingdom of heaven,” ] i These be St Hieromé’s words. In which thou, reader, seest a denial of that flesh of Christ to be given, to be eaten, that was crucified, but the flesh given to be eaten to be a godly and spiritual Sesh; c and a distinction made between them, as is in our flesh; of which it may be said, that the ἢ flesh we walk in here shall not see God, that is to say, as it is corruptible, according to the text a [} Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi et caro intelli- est, et qui militis effusus est lancea. Juxta V
[gitur, vel spiritualis illa atque divina, de qua ipse divisionem et in sanctis ejus diversitas sanguinis]
[dixit, Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus carnis accipitur, ut alia sit caro que visura est salu- —]
[vere est potus;” et, nisi manducaveritis carnem tare Dei, alia caro et sanguis que regnum Dei non]
[meam, et sanguinem meum biberitis, non habebitis queant possidere. Hieron. in Ephesios, cap. i.]
of St Paul, Flesh and blood shall not possess heaven,” and yet? we must believe and hope with
4. Job truly, “that the same our flesh shall see God in heaven?” after which division likewise we 1 receive mot in the sacrament Christ’s flesh that was erucified, being so a visible and mortal T flesh, but Christ’s flesh glorified, incorruptible, and impassible, a godly and spiritual flesh. And so that is but one in substance, and always so that same one is nevertheless for the alteration in the manner of the being of it divided, and so called not the same; wherein St Hierome and St Augustine used both one manner of speaking: and. St Hierome, resembling the division that he rehearseth of Christ’s flesh to the division of owr flesh in the resurrection, doth more plainly open how the same may be called not the same, because we believe certainly the resurrection of the same flesh we walk in, and yet it shall be by the garment of incorruptibility not the same in quality; and so be verified the scriptures “that flesh shall not possess heaven,” and, “I shall see God in my flesh.” And here I will note to the reader, by the way, St Hierome writeth this distinction of Christ’s flesh as a matter agreed on, and then in catholic doctrine received, not of his invention, but in the catholic faith as a principle established; which declareth the belief to have been of that very godly and spiritual flesh given really in the sacrament: for else to eat only in faith is specially? to remember Christ’s flesh as it was visibly crucified, wherein was accomplished the oblation for our sin; and St Paul willeth us in the supper to shew forth and profess the death of Christ, for so Christ would have his death continually expressed till his coming: and if St Hierome with other should have meant of the eating of I Christ as he sitteth in heaven reigning, this distinction of Christ’s flesh were an idle matter and out of purpose, to compare the distinction in it to be like the distinction of our flesh to enter into heaven, and mot to enter into heaven, the same and not the same. And thus I say that this place of St Hierome sheweth so evidently both his and St Augustine’s faith, that wrote at the same time, as there cannot be desired a more evident matter.
Canterbury
[[? And yet notwithstanding, Orig. ed. Winch.] [ For our sins, Ibid.] [Is spiritually, Ibid.]]
and immortal, as well the holy fathers did eat before he was born, and his apostles and disciples whiles he lived with us here in earth, as we do now when he is glorified. But what availeth all this to your purpose, except you could prove, that to a spiritual eating is required a corporal presence?
And where you say, that “St Hierome and St Augustine use both one manner of speaking,” that is not true. For St Hierome speaketh of the diversity of the body of Christ, and St Augustine of the diversity of eating thereof. And yet here is to be noted by the way, that you say, we receive not in the sacrament Christ’s flesh that was crucified: which your words seem to agree evil with Christ’s words, who the night before he was crucified declared to his disciples, that he gave them the same body that should suffer death for them. And the apostles received the body of Christ, yet passible and mortal, which the next day was crucified; and if we receive not in the sacrament the body that was crucified, then receive we not the same body that the apostles did. And here in your idle talk you draw by force St Hierome’s words to the sacrament, when St Hierome speaketh not one word of the sacrament in that place: let the reader judge.
And here, for the conclusion of the matter, you fantasy and imagine such novelties, and wrap them up in such dark speeches, that we had need to have Joseph or Daniel to expound your dreams. But to make a clear answer to your dark reason, the body of Christ is glorified and reigneth in heaven; and yet we remember with thankful minds, that the same was crucified and emptied of blood for our redemption: and by faith to chaw and digest this in our hearts is to eat his flesh and to drink his blood. But your brain rolleth so in fantasies, that you wot not where to get out, and one of your sayings impugneth another. For first you say, that we receive not in the sacrament the flesh that was crucified,” and now you say that “we receive him not as he sitteth in heaven and is glorified,” and so must you needs grant that we receive him not at all. ‘
Winchester
But to return to St Augustine touching adoration: if the very flesh of Christ were not in the sacrament truly present, which is as much to say, as in substance present; if it were not in deed present, that is to say really present; if it were not corporally present, that is to say, oy. the very body of Christ there present, God and man; if these truths consenting in one were not there, St Augustine would never have spoken of adoration there. No more he doth, saith this author, there, but in heaven: let St Augustine’s words, quoth I, be judge, which be these: No man eateth that flesh but he first worshippeth it. It is found out how such a footstool of the Lord’s foot should be worshipped, and not only that we do not sin in worshipping, but we do sin in not worshipping it.” These be St Augustine s words, which, I said before, cannot be drawn to an understanding of the worshipping of Christ’s flesh in heaven, where it remaineth continually glorified, and is of all men christened continually worshipped. For as St Paul Saith: “Christ is so exalted that every tongue should confess, that our Saviour Christ is in the glory of his Father.” So as the worshipping of Christ there, in the estate of his glory where he reigneth, hath neither afore” me “after,” but an “ever” continual worshipping in glory. Wherefore St Augustine, speaking of a “before,” must be understanded of the worshipping of Christ’s flesh present in the sacrament, as in the dispensation of his humility, which Christ ceaseth mot to do reigning in glory: for although he hath finished his humble patible conversation, yet he continueth his humble dispensation in the perfection of his mystical body; and as he is our invisible priest for ever, and our advocate with his Father, and so for ws to him a mediator, to whom he is equal; so doth he vouchsafe in his supper which he continueth to make an effectual remembrance of his offering for us, of the mew testament confirmed in his blood, and by his power maketh himself present in this visible sacrament, to be therein of us truly eaten, and his blood truly drunken, not only in faith, but with the truth and ministry of our bodily mouth, as God hath willed and commanded us to do: which presence of Christ in this humility of dispensation to relieve us and feed us spiritually, we must adore, as St Augustine saith, before we eat; and “we do not sin in adoring, but we sin in not adoring,” remembering the divine nature unite unto Christ’s flesh, and therefore of flesh not severed from the Godhead. Which admonishment of St Augustine declareth he meant not of the worshipping of Christ’s flesh in heaven, where can be no danger of such a thought, where all tongues confess Christ to be in the
glory of his Father; of which Christ, as he is there in glory continually to be worshipped, it were a cold saying of St Augustine to say, “We do not sin in worshipping Christ in heaven, but sin in not worshipping him!” as though any could have doubted whether Christ should be worshipped in his humanity in heaven, being inseparably unite to the divinity. And when I say, in his humanity, I speak not properly as that mystery requireth; for as Christ’s person is but one of two perfect natures, so the adoration is but one, as Cyril declareth it, and therefore abhorreth the addition of a syllable to speak of co-adoration. And will this author attribute to St Augustine such a grossness to have written and given for a lesson, that no man sinneth to worship Christ’s flesh in heaven reigning in glory? Wherefore taking this to be so far from all probability, I said before, these words of St Augustine cannot be drawn with any tenters to stretch so far as to reach to heaven, where every christian man knoweth and professeth the worshipping of Christ in glory, as they be taught also to worship him in his dispensation? of his humility, when he maketh present himself in this sacrament, whom we should not receive into our mouth before we adore him. And by St Augustine’s rule, we not only not sin in adoring, but also sin in not adoring him.
Canterbury
Where you speak of the adoration of Christ in the sacrament, saying, “that if he were not there present, substantially, really, and corporally, St Augustine would never have spoken of adoration there;” in this word there,” you use a great doubleness and fallax, for it may be referred indifferently either to the adoration, or to the presence. If it be referred to the presence, then it is neither true, nor St Augustine saith no such thing, that Christ is really, substantially, and corporally present there. If it be referred to the worshipping, then it is true, according to St Augustine’s mind, that there in the receiving of the sacrament in spirit and truth, we glorify and honour Christ sitting in heaven at his Father’s right hand. But to this adoration is required no real, substantial, and corporal presence, as before I have declared: for so did Jacob worship Christ before he was born, and all faithful christian people do worship him in all places wheresoever they be, although he carnally and corporally be far distant from them; as they daily honour the Father and pray unto him, and yet say, Qui es in ceelis, confessing him to be in heaven. And therefore, to avoid all the ambiguity and fallax of your speech, I say, that we being here do worship here Christ, being not corporally here, but with his Father in heaven.
And although all christian men ought of duty continually to worship Christ being in heaven, yet because we be negligent to do our duties therein, his word and sacraments be ordained to provoke us thereunto: so that, although otherwise we forgat our duties, yet when we come to any of his sacraments, we should be put in remembrance thereof. And therefore said Christ, as St Paul writeth, As often as you shall eat this bread and drink this cup, shew forth the Lord’s death until he come.” And, “Do this,” said Christ, “in remembrance of me.” And the worshipping of Christ in his glory should be ever continual, without either before” or “after.” Nevertheless, forasmuch as by reason of our infirmity, ingratitude, malice, and wickedness, we go far from our offices and duties herein, the sacraments call us home again, to do that thing which before we did omit, that at the least we may do at some time that which we should do at all times.
And where you speak of the humiliation of Christ in the sacrament, you speak without the book. For the scripture termeth not the matter in that sort, but calleth his humiliation only his incarnation and conversation with us here in earth, being obedient even unto death, and for that humiliation he is now from that time forward exalted for ever in glory: and you would pluck him down from his glory to humiliation again. And thus is Christ entreated, when he cometh to the handling of ignorant lawyers, blind sophisters, and popish divines; but the true worshippers of Christ worship him in spirit, sitting in his high glory and majesty, and pluck him not down from thence, corporally to eat him with their teeth, but “spiritually in heart ascend up,” as St Chrysostom saith, “and feed upon him where he sitteth in his high throne of glory with his Father.” To which spiritual feeding is required no bodily
[[’ Worshipping, as though, Orig. ed. Winch.] [? In this dispensation, Ibid.]]
presence, nor also mouth nor teeth; and yet they that receive any sacrament, must adore Christ, both before and after, sitting in heaven in the glory of his Father. And this is neither, as you say it is, a cold nor gross teaching of St Augustine in this place, to worship the flesh and humanity of Christ in heaven: nor your teaching is not so far from all doubts, but that you seem so afraid yourself to stand to it, that when you have said, that Christ is to be worshipped in his humanity,” as it were to excuse the matter again, you say you “speak not properly.”
And this doctrine of St Augustine was very necessary for two considerations. One ^ is for the exposition of the psalm, which he took in hand to declare, where in one verse is commanded to worship the earth, being God’s footstool; and this he saith may be understand in the flesh of Christ, which flesh being earth, and the food of faithful christian people, is to be worshipped of all that feed and live by him. For notwithstanding that his flesh is earth of earth, and a creature, and that nothing ought to be worshipped but God alone; yet is found out in Christ the explication of this great doubt and mystery, how flesh, earth, and a creature, both may and ought to be worshipped: that is to say, when earth and flesh being united to the Godhead in one person, is one perfect Jesu Christ, both God and man. And this is neither a cold nor gross saying of St Augustine, but an explication of the divine and high mystery of his incarnation.
The other cause, why it is necessary both to teach and to exhort men to honour Christ’s flesh in heaven, is this, that some know it not, and some do it not. For some heretics have taught, that Christ was but a man, and so not to be honoured. And some have said, that although he be both God and man, yet his divinity is to be honoured, and not his humanity. For extirpation of which errors, it is mo gross nor cold saying, that Christ’s flesh in heaven is to be honoured. And some know right well, that whole Christ, God and man, ought to be honoured with one entire and godly honour, and yet forgetting themself in their facts, do not according to their knowledge; but treading the Son of God under their feet, and despising the blood, — whereby they were sanctified, crucify again the Son of God, and make him a mockingstock to all the wicked. And many professing Christ, yet having vain cogitations and fantasies in their heads, do worship and serve antichrist, and thinking themselves wise, become very fools indeed. And count you it then a cold and a gross saying, that Christ in heaven is to be honoured; wherein so many old authors have travailed and written so many books, and wherein all godly teachers travail from time to time? And yet bring you here nothing to prove, that St Augustine spake of the real presence of Christ’s flesh in the sacrament, and not of Christ being in heaven, but this your “cold and gross” reason.
And this will serve to answer also the place here following of St Ambrose, who spake not of the worshipping of Christ only at the receiving of the sacrament, but at all times and of all reasonable creatures, both men and angels.
Winchester
And for the more manifest confirmation that St Augustine ought thus to be understanded, Al shall bring in St Ambrose’s saying, of whom it is probable St Augustine to have learned that he writeth in this matter.
St Ambrose’s words, in his book De Spiritu. Sancto, Lib. iii. cap. 12., be these: Non mediocris igitur queestio, et ideo diligentius consideremus quid sit scabellum. Legimus enim 12 alibi: Coelum mihi thronus, terra autem scabellum pedum meorum.” Sed nec terra adoranda nobis, quia creatura est Dei. Videamus tamen ne terram illam dicat adorandam propheta, quam Dominus Jesus in carnis assumptione suscepit. Itaque per scabellum terra intelligitur, per terram autem caro Christi, quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus, et quam apostoli in Domino Jesu, ut supra diximus, adorarunt. Neque enim divisus Christus, sed unus!. Which words may be Englished thus: “It is therefore mo mean question, and therefore we should more diligently consider, what is the footstool. For we read in another
[[! Ambros. de Spiritu Sancto, Lib. iii. cap. 12. Tom. IV. p. 123. Ed. Col. Agrip. 1616. The Orig.]
[ed. Winch. omits the words be these.”]
place, Heaven is my throne, and the earth the footstool of my feet” But yet the earth is not to be worshipped of us, because it is a creature of God. And yet let us see though lest the prophet mean that earth to be worshipped, which our Lord Jesus took in the taking of flesh. So then by the footstool let the earth be understanded, and then by the earth the flesh of Christ, which we do now worship also in the mysteries, and which the apostles, as we have before said, worshipped in our Lord Jesu; for Christ is not divided, but one.” Hitherto St Ambrose, whereby may appear how St Ambrose and St Augustine took occasion to open their faith and doctrine touching adoration, upon discussion of the self-same words of the prophet David. And St Ambrose expressly noteth our adoration in the mysteries where we worship Christ’s flesh invisibly present, as the apostles did, when Christ was visibly present with them. And thus with these so plain words of St Ambrose consonant to those of St Augustine, and the opening of St Augustine’s words as before, I trust I have made manifest, how this author travaileth against the stream, and laboureth in vain to writhe St Augustine to his purpose in this matter. The best is in this author, that he handleth St Augustine no worse than the rest, but all after one sort, because they be all of like sort against his new catholic faith, and confirm the old true catholic faith, or do not improve it. For of this high mystery the authors write some more obscurely and darkly than other, and use diversities of speeches and words, wherewith the true doctrine hath been of a very few impugned, but ever in vain, as I trust in God this shall be most in vain?, having this author uttered such untruths with so much blind ignorance, as this work well weighed and considered, (that is to say, who made it, when he made it, and of like how many were, or might have been and should have been, of counsel in so great a matter, who, if they were any3, be all reproved in this one work,) all such circumstances considered, this book may do as much good to relieve such perplexity, as alteration hath engendered, and so do as good service in the truth, as was meant thereby to hinder and impair it. And this shall suffice for an answer to this fourth book.
Canterbury
Here appeareth your sincerity in proceeding in this matter. For you leave out those words of St Ambrose, which maketh his meaning plain, that the prophet spake of the mystery of Christ’s incarnation: Si negant quia in Christo etiam incarnationis adoranda mysteria sunt, &c.: “If they deny,” saith he, “that the mysteries of the incarnation in Christ be to be honoured, &c.” And a little after: Qua ratione ad incarnationis dominice saeramentum spectare videatur, quod ait propheta, Adorate scabellum. pedum gus, consideremus: “Let us consider by what means this saying of the prophet, Worship his footstool,” may be seen to pertain to the sacrament of Christ’s incarnation.” And after the words by you rehearsed, followeth by and by: Cum igitur incarnationis adorandum, sit sacramentum, &c.: “Seeing then that the sacrament of the incarnation is to be honoured.” In these words sheweth St Ambrose plainly, that the worshipping of Christ’s flesh is understand of the mystery of his incarnation. So that St Ambrose meant, not only that men should worship Christ when they receive the sacrament, but that all creatures, at all times, should worship him. And therefore, he expresseth there by name, how the angels did worship him, and also Mary Magdalene and the apostles after his resurrection, when they received not the sacrament. And so did also the shepherds and the wise men worship him, yet being in his infancy: and the prophet, after the mind of St Augustine and St Ambrose, commanded to honour him before his incarnation; and we likewise honour him sitting now in heaven after his ascension. For so far is faith able to reach, without either tentering or stretching.
Thus have I answered to all that you have brought against my fourth book, not obscurely, as you like a cuttle have done, hiding yourself in your dark colours, but plainly to the capacity of all men as much as I can. And this have I done with some pain of writing, but little or no study for the matter, being a very easy thing for defence of the truth to answer by God’s word, and ancient authors, to an ignorant lawyer, being well exercised in neither of both, but making such divinity as he can dream in his sleep, or devise of his own brain, or hath sucked out of the papistical laws and decrees, and, for lack of arguments, furnishing up his book with pretty toys, with glorious boasting, and scornful taunting; and with picking out of my book such
[2 [ In God shall be most in vain, Orig. ed. [ If there were any, 1bid.]]
[Winch.] [ To the truth, 1551.]]
sentences, as he persuadeth himself, that he can make some colour of apparent answer, to deceive the reader. And such places as he seeth his rhetoric will not serve, he passeth them away slightly, because he is afraid to file his hands therewith. Wherefore, I may now right well and justly conclude here mine answer to his confutation, with the words of my fourth book, which be these:
. But our Saviour Christ himself hath given us warning beforehand, that such false Christians and false teachers should come, and hath bid us to beware of them, saying: “If any man tell you that Christ is here, or Christ is there, believe him not. For there shall rise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew many signs and wonders, so that if it were possible, the very elect should be brought into error. Take heed, I have told you beforehand.”
Thus our Saviour Christ, like a most loving Pastor and Saviour of our souls, hath given us warning beforehand of the perils and dangers that were to come, and to be wise and ware, that we should not give credit unto such teachers as would persuade us to worship a piece of bread, to kneel to it, to knock to it, to creep to it, to follow it in procession, to lift up our hands to it, to offer to it, to light candles to it, to shut it up in a chest or box, to do all other honour unto it, more than we do unto God; having alway this pretence or excuse for our idolatry, Behold, here is Christ.” But our Saviour Christ calleth them false prophets, and saith: Take heed, I tell you before; believe them not. If they say to you, Behold, Christ is abroad, or in the wilderness, gonot out: and if they say, that he is kept in close places, believe them not.” ie And if you will ask me the question, Who be these false prophets and that seducers of the people? the answer is soon made: The Romish antichrists ”^ and their adherents; the authors of all error, ignorance, blindness, superstition, hypocrisy, and idolatry.
For Innocentius the third, one of the most wicked men that ever was in the see of Rome, did ordain and decree, that the host should be diligently kept under lock and key’. And Honorius the third not only confirmed the same, but commanded also, that the priests would diligently teach the people from time to time, that when they lifted up the bread, called the host, the people should ther reverently bow down; and that likewise they should do when the priest carrieth the host unto sick folks?.” These be the statutes and ordinances of Rome, under pretence of holiness, to lead the people unto all error and idolatry; not bringing them by bread unto Christ, but from Christ unto bread. -
But all that love and believe Christ himself, let them not think that Christ js corporally in the bread; but let them lift up their hearts unto heaven, and worship him, sitting there at the right hand of his Father.. Let them worship him in themselves, whose temples they be, in whom he dwelleth and liveth spiritually: but in no wise let them worship him, as being corporally in the bread. For he is not in it, neither spiritually, as he is in man, nor corporally, as he is in heaven, but only sacramentally, as a thing may be said to be in the figure, whereby it is signified. Thus is sufficiently reproved the third principal error of the papists concerning the Lord’s supper, which is, “That. wicked members of the devil do eat Christ’s very body, and drink his blood.”
← 12. Book IV. Of the Eating and Drinking · Contents · 14. Book II. Against Transubstantiation →