But as you speak of substances and accidents against scripture, sense, reason, experience, and all learning, so do you also speak manifestly against yourself. For you say, that “every thing that is must have a substance wherein it is stayed, and that every natural visible thing is of two parts, of substance and accidents;” and yet by. your transubstantiation you leave no substance at all, to stay the accidents of the bread and wine. 9)
And, moreover, this is a marvellous teaching of you, to say that the accidents of bread be one part of bread, and be called “the outward kind of bread, the sensible part of bread, the nature and matter of bread, and very bread.” Was there ever any such learning taught before this day, that accidents should be called parts of substances, the nature of substances, and the matter of substances, and the very substances themselves? If ever any man so wrote, tell who it is, or else knowledge the truth, that all these matters be invented by your own imagination, whereof the rude man may right well say, Here is sophistry indeed, and plain juggling. But you convey not your juggling so craftily but that you be taken (as the Greeks term it) ἐπαντοφώρῳ, even. with the manner.
Now, as concerning your expert lapidary, if his senses be deceived, how shall he judge a true stone from a counterfeit? Doth he not diligently look upon it with his sight, to discern truly of it? For tell me, I pray you, how a man without senses ’ shall judge a true diamond? Put out his eyes, and is not a white sapphire, a diamond, and a glass, all one - in his judgment? Marry, if he be a man of clear sight, of true knowledge and expe-. rience in the judgment of stones, and be therewithal a man of good faith and honesty, as you tel the tale, they that be ignorant will be ashamed to control his judg- ment. But if he be blind, or be a man neither of faith nor honesty, but his experi- - ence hath been ever exercised to deceive all that trust him, and to sell them white. sapphires for diamonds, then no man that wise is will take a glass or sapphire at his #1 hands of trust, although he say it be a true diamond. Even so likewise the papists, Ὁ (being so accustomed with these” merchandises of glistering glasses and counterfeit drugs to deceive the world), what wise men will trust them with their feigned transubstan- tiation, being so manifestly against the plain words of scripture, against all reason, sense?, and ancient writers? And although you have taken never so great labour and pains in this place to answer mine arguments, (wherein you do nothing else but shew your ignorance in philosophy and logic,) yet all is in vain, except you could prove tran-
[[’ Their, 1551.] [? Dredges, 1551.] [ Senses, 1551.]]
] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 261 substantiation to be a matter of our faith; which being not proved, all that you have spoken here serveth to no purpose, nor concludeth nothing. For you are not so ignorant in sophistry but you know well enough, that of a false antecedent can no i consequent directly follows. And as concerning these words of Christ, “This is my body,” by your own teaching in these words he called bread his body, which can be no formal and proper Speech, but spoken by a figure, as the order of the text plainly declareth, and all the old authors do testify.
And where you say, that “although the substance of bread and wine be gone, yet the senses have their proper object still remaining,” as they had before, that is to say, the colours, greatness, thickness, weight, savour, and taste; express then, I pray you, plainly, what thing it is that is coloured, great, thin or thick, heavy or light, savoury or tasted. For seeing you confess that these do remain, you must confess also that there remaineth bread: for that greatness, thickness, thinness, coours, and weight, be not in the body of Christ, nor in the air, which cannot be weighed; and in something they must needs be: for by your own saying, ever thing hath a substance to stay it;” therefore they must needs be in the substance of bread and wine. And to say that the accidents of bread be the natures, matters, - and substances thereof, is nothing else but to declare to the world that you make words to signify at your pleasure.
But other shift have you none to defend your transubstantiation, but to devise such monstrous kinds of speeches as were never heard of before. For you say, that the nature, matter, and substance of bread and wine remain not, but be changed into the body and blood of Christ:” the old writers say directly contrary, that the nature, matter, and substance remain. Christ,” saith Theodoret, called bread and wine his body and blood, and yet changed not their natures.” And again he saith: “The bread and wine after the consecration lose ποὺ their proper nature, but keep their former substance, form, and figure, which they had before.” And Origen saith, that “the matter of bread availeth nothing, but as concerning the material part thereof it goeth down into the belly, and is avoided downward?.” And Gelasius saith, that the nature and substance of bread and wine cease not to be.” Now seeing that your - doctrine (who teach that the nature, matter, and substance of bread and wine be -ehanged and remain not) is as clean contrary to these old writers, with many other, - as black is contrary to white, and light to darkness, you have no remedy to defend your error and wilful opinion, but to imagine such portentous and wonderful kinds of speeches to be spoken by these authors, as never were uttered before by no man, — that is to say, that the outward appearance and accidents of any thing should be called the nature, matter, and substance thereof. But such monsters had you rather — bring forth, than you would in one jot relent in your error once by you uttered, and undertaken by you? defended. And yet bring you nothing for the proof of your — saying, but that if the authors words should be understand as they be spoken, this — should follow thereof, that bread and wine should be seen and felt; which as no — man doubteth of, but all men take it for a most certain truth, so you take it for - a great inconvenience and absurdity. So far be you forced in this matter to vary in speech and judgment from the sentence and opinion of all men.
And as touching the belief of St Thomas, although he believed certainly that Christ was a man, yet he believed not that Christ was risen and appeared to the apostles, but thought rather that the apostles were deceived by some vision or spirit, which appeared to them in likeness of Christ, which he thought was not he in deed. And so thought the apostles themselves until Christ said: Videte manus meas et pedes, quia ego ipse sum: palpate et videte, quia spiritus carnem. et ossa non habent, sicut me videtis habere. “See my hands and my feet, for I am he: grope and see, for a spirit hath no flesh and bones, as you see that I have.” And so thought also St Thomas, until such time as he put his hands into Christ’s side and felt his wounds, [ See above, p. 133.] [5 See below, p. 266.] Nest. Sect. v. Pars iii. p. 671, in Biblioth. Pa-P [ Et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel trum, Colon. 1518.] m natura panis et vini, — Gelasii adv. Eutych. et [7 Undertaken to be by you, 1551. ]
and by his sense of feeling perceived that it was Christ’s very body, and no spirit nor phantasy, as before he believed. And so in St Thomas the truth of feeling depended not upon the true belief of Christ’s resurrection, but the feeling of his senses brought — him from misbelief unto the right and true faith of that matter. And as for St Gregory, he speaketh no such thing as you report, that the glorified body of Christ was of the own nature neither visible nor palpable,” but he saith clean contrary, that “Christ shewed his glorified body to St Thomas palpable, to declare that it was of the same nature that it was of before his resurrection:” whereby it is plain, after St Gregory’s mind, that if it were not palpable, it were not of the same nature. And St Gregory saith further in the same homily: Egit miro modo superna clementia, ut discipulus ille dubitans, dum in magistro suo vulnera. palparet carnis, in nobis vulnera sanaret infidelitatis. Plus enim nobis Thome infidelitas ad fidem, quam fides — credentium. discipulorum. profuit: quia dum ille ad fidem palpando reducitur, nostra mens omni dubitatione postposita. in fide solidatur. “The supernal clemency wrought marvellously, that the disciple which doubted, by groping the wounds of flesh in his master, should heal in us the wounds of infidelity. For the lack of faith in Thomas profited more to our faith than did the faith of the disciples that believed. For when he is brought to faith by groping, our mind is stablished in faith without all doubting.” And why should St Gregory write thus, if our senses availed nothing unto our faith, nor could nothing judge of substances? And do ποὺ all the old catholic authors prove the true humanity of Christ by his visible conversation with us here in earth; that he was heard preach, seen eating and drinking, labouring and sweating? Do they not also prove his resurrection by seeing, hearing, and groping of him? which if it were no proof, those arguments were made in vain against such heretics that denied his true incarnation. And shall you now take away the strength of their arguments, to the maintenance of those old condemned heresies, by your subtile sophistications? The touching and feeling of Christs hands, feet, and wounds was a proof of his resurrection, not, as you say, to them that believed, but, as St Gregory saith, to them that doubted.
And if all things that Christ did and spake to our outward senses prove not that he was a natural man, as you say with Marcion, Menander, Valentinus, Apollinaris, - with other like sort, then I would know how you should confute the said heresies? Marry, will you say peradventure, by the scripture, which saith plainly, Verbum caro. factum, est. But if they would say again, that he was called a man and flesh because. he took upon him the form of a man and flesh, and would say that St Paul so declareth 1ὖ, saying, Formam. servi accipiens, and would then say further, that form is the aeci-. dence of a thing, and yet hath the name of substance,” but is not the substance in deed, what would you then say unto them? If you deny that the forms and accidences - be called substances,” then go you from your own saying. And if you grant it, then will they avoid all the scriptures that you can bring to prove Christ a man, by this. cavillation, that the appearances, forms, and accidences of a man may be called a man, - as well as you say that the forms and accidences of bread be called bread. And so. prepare you certain propositions and grounds for heretics to build their errors upon, which after, when you would, you shall never be able to overthrow. P. And where you say that Thomas touched truly Christ’s body glorified, how could. that be, when touching, as you say, is not of the substance but of the accidents only ἐς and also Christ’s body glorified, as you say, is neither visible nor palpable. And whereas indeed you make Christ’s acts illusions, and yet in words you pretend the contrary; call you not this illusion of ourselves, when a thing appeareth to our senses which is. nok the same thing in deed? When Jupiter and Mercury, as the comedy telleth, appeared to Alcumena in the similitude of Amphitryo and Sosia, was not Alcumena. deceived thereby? And poticaries that sell juniper-berries for pepper, being no pepper indeed, deceive they not the buyers by illusion of their senses? Why then is not in - the ministration of the holy communion an illusion of our senses, if our senses take for bread and wine that which is not so indeed? D Finally, whereas I required earnestly all the papists to lay their heads together, and — to shew one article of our faith so-directly contrary to our senses, that all our senses
. by daily experience shall affirm a thing to be, and yet our faith shall teach us the contrary thereunto; where, I say, I required this so earnestly of you, and with such cirE eumstances, and you have yet shewed none, I may boldly conclude that you can shew i none. For sure I am if you could, being so earnestly provoked thereunto, you would not have failed to shew it in this place. As for the article of our resurrection, and ii of the feeding of angels, serve nothing for this purpose. For my saying is of the daily. experience of our senses, and when they affirm a thing to be; but the resurrection of — our flesh, and the feeding of angels, be neither in daily experience of our senses, nor our senses affirm them not so to be. Now after the matter of our senses followeth in my book the authorities of ancient writers in this wise.
Now forasmuch as it is declared how this papistical opinion of transubstantiation is against the word of God, against nature, against reason, and against all our senses, we shall shew furthermore, that it is against the faith and doctrine of the old authors of Christ’s church, beginning at those authors which were nearest unto Christ’s time, and therefore might best know the truth herein.
First, Justinus, a great learned man, and an holy martyr, the oldest author that this day is known to write any treaty upon the sacraments, and wrote not much after one hundred years after Christ’s ascension.
He writeth in his second Apology, that the bread, water, and wine in this sacrament are not to be taken as other common meats and drinks be, but they be meats ordained purposely to give thanks to God, and therefore be called Eucharistia, and be called also the body and blood of Christ; and that it islawful for none to eat or drink of them but that profess Christ, and - live according to the same. And yet the same meat and drink,” saith he, is changed into our flesh and blood, and nourisheth our bodies!.”
By which saying it is evident, that Justinus thought that the bread and wine remained still; for else it eould not have been turned into our flesh and — blood to nourish our bodies. WINCHESTER.
I will spend no more words herein, but having avoided this author’s reasoning against transubstantiation, now let us examine his authorities. First he beginneth with Justin the Martyr, whose words be not truly by this author here reported, which be these truly translate out of the Greek: “When the priest hath ended his thanksgiving and prayers, and all the people hath said “Amen,” they whom we call deacons give to every one then present a part of the bread and of — the wine and water consecrated, and carry part to those that be absent; and this is that food E: in remission of sins, and ordereth his life after the manner which Christ hath taught. which is among us called Eucharistia, whereof it is lawful for no man to be partaker, except 7 he be persuaded those things to be true that be taught us, and be baptized in the water of regeneFor we do not take these for common bread or drink; but like as Jesus Christ our Saviour, incarnate by the word of God, had flesh and blood for owr salvation, even so we be taught the food, wherewith our flesh and blood be nourished by alteration, when it is consecrate by the ~ prayer of his word, to be the flesh and blood of the same Jesus incarnate. For the apostles din those their works, which be called gospels, teach that Jesus did so command them, and after — he had taken the bread, and ended his thanksgiving, said, Do this in my remembrance, This ds my body;” and likewise taking the cup after he had given thanks, said, This is my blood,” and did give them to his apostles only. And here I make an issue with this author, that he
[[’ Καὶ καὶ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται παρ ἡμῖν εὐχα- σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας]
[ριστία, ἧς οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ μετασχεῖν ἐξόν ἐστιν, ἢ ἡμῶν ἔσχεν, οὕτως καὶ τὴν δι εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ]
[τῷ πιστεύοντι ἀληθῆ εἶναι τὰ δεδιδαγμένα ὑφ ᾿ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφὴν, ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ]
[ἡμῶν, καὶ λουσαμένῳ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτιῶν σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου]
[καὶ εἰς ἀναγέννησιν λουτρὸν, καὶ οὕτως βιοῦντι ὡς Tob σαρκοποιηθέντος Ιησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα]
[ὁ Χριστὸς παρέδωκεν” οὐ γὰρ ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον ἐδιδάχθημεν elvar—Justin. Martyr. Apologia 11.]
[οὐδὲ ὸ όμα ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν, ἀλλ ὃν τρόπον (Ed. Bened. i.) p. 162. Ed. Paris. 1551.]]
[: διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεὶς Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ]
wittingly corrupteth Justin in the allegation of him, who writeth not in such form of words as this author allegeth out of his second Apology, nor hath any such speech: “The bread, water, and wine in this sacrament are meats ordained purposely to give thanks to God, and therefore be called Eucharistia;” nor hath not these words, They be called the body and blood of Christ;” — but hath in plain words, That we be taught this food consecrate by God’s word to be the flesh and blood of Christ, as Christ in his incarnation took flesh and blood;” nor hath not this form of words placed to have that understanding, how the same meat and drink is changed into owr flesh and blood. For the words in Justin speaking of alteration of the food, have an wunderstanding of the food as it is before the consecration, shewing how Christ used those creatures in this mystery, which by alteration nourish owr flesh and blood.
For the body of Christ, which is the very celestial substance of the host consecrate, is mot changed, but without all alteration spiritually nourisheth the bodies and souls of them that worthily receive the same to immortality: whereby appeareth this author’s conclusion, that bread and wine remain still, which is turned into our flesh and blood, is not deduced upon Justin’s words truly wnderstanded, but is a gloss invented by this author, and a perverting of Justin’s words, and their true meaning. Whereupon I may say and conclude, even as this author erreth in his reasoning of mother wit against transubstantiation, even so erreth he in the first allegation of his authorities by plain misreporting; let it be further named or thought on as the thing deserveth.
Canterbury
In this holy martyr Justinus I do not go about to be a translator of him, nor I bind not myself precisely to follow the form of his words, which no translator is bound unto, but I set forth only his sense and meaning. For where Justin hath a good long process in this matter, I take no more but that is directly to the purpose of transubstantiation, which is the matter being here in question. And the long words of Justin I knit up together in as few words as I can, rendering the sense truly, and not varying far from the words. And this have I done, not willingly to corrupt Justin, as you Mineisue. maliciously deprave, (and thereupon will I join with you in your issue,) but I do it to recite to the reader Justin’s mind shortly and plainly; whereas you, professing to observe scrupulously the words, observe indeed neither the words nor the sentence of Justin. But this is your fashion when you lack good matter to answer, then, to find something to fill up your book, you turn the matter into trifling and cavillation in words. You say that Justin hath not this speech, “the bread, water, and wine in this sacrament are meats ordained purposely to give thanks to God;” and yet by your own translation he hath the same thing in effect: and yet indeed the words be neither as you nor as I say; and as they be in Greek, they cannot be expressed in English but by a. paraphrasis. The words be these in Greek, τοῦ εὐχαριστηθέντος ἄρτου kal οἴνου kak ὕδατος, and in our tongue, as near as may be Englished, signify thus: The bread. and wine and water of thanksgiving,” or, as lrenzus saith, in which thanks be
281. given.” And neither hath Justin this word “sacrament,” as I say, nor this word - “consecrated,” as you say. May not all men therefore evidently see that your chief study is to make cavillations and dallying in words? And all the rest of my sayings which you deny to be in Justin, be there very plainly in sense, as I will be judged by - the indifferent reader.
And what need I willingly to corrupt Justin, when his words, after your allegation, - serve more for my purpose against your feigned transubstantiation, than as I allege them myself? For if the deacons give to every one present a part of the bread, wine, and. water consecrated, and send part to them that be absent, as you report Justin’s words, do not then bread, wine, and water, remain after consecration, seeing that they be distributed to divers men in parts? For I think you will not say that the body of Christ is divided into parts, so that one man receiveth an hand, and another a leg. And Justin saith further, that the same food of bread, wine, and water, called Eucharistia, nourisheth our flesh and blood by alteration, which they could not do if no bread, wine, nor water, were there at all. T
[[’ Meanings, Orig. ed. Winch. ];]
Dy But here is not to be passed. over one exceeding great craft and untruth in your translation, that to cast a mist before the reader’s eyes you alter the order of Justin’s T. words in that place, where the pith of the matter standeth. For where Justin saith Be of the food of bread, wine, and water, after the consecration, that they nourish our flesh and blood by alteration, the “nourishment” which Justin putteth after consecration,” 3 you untruly put it before the “consecration,” and so wilfully and craftily alter the order ef Justin’s words, to deceive the reader; and in this point will I join an issue with T you. Is such craft and untruth to be used of bishops, and that in matters of faith and religion, whereof they pretend and ought to be true professors? But I marvel not so much at your sleights in this place, seeing that in the whole book throughout you seek nothing less than the truth. And yet all your sleights will not serve you; for how can the food, called Eucharistia, nourish before the consecration, seeing it is not eaten until after the consecration?
The next author in my book is Irene, whom I allege thus.
Next him was Irenmus, above one hundred and fifty years after Christ, who, as it is supposed, could not be deceived in the necessary points of our faith, for he was a disciple of Polycarpus, which was disciple to St John the Evangelist.
This Irenzus followeth the sense of Justinus wholly in this matter, and almost also his words, saying, that the bread wherein we give thanks unto God, although it be of the earth, yet when the name of God is called upon it, dt is not then common bread, but the bread of thanksgiving, having two things in it, one earthly, and the other heavenly?” What meant he by the heavenly thing, but the sanctification which cometh by the invocation of the name of God? And what by the earthly thing, but the very bread which, as he said before, is of the earth; and which also, he saith, doth nourish our bodies, as other bread doth which we do use? WINCHESTER.
Next Justin is Irene, im the allegation of whom this author maketh also an untrue report, who hath not this form of words in the fourth book contra Valentinum, that “the bread wherein we give thanks unto God, although it be of the earth, yet when the name of Gd is called upon, it is not then common bread, but the bread of thanksgiving, having two 1 things in. it, one earthly, and the other heavenly.” This is Irene, alleged by this author, who, I say, writeth not in such form of words. For his words be these: Like as the bread which is of the earth, receiving the calling of God, is now no common bread, but eucharistia, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, receiving eucharistia, be no more A. corruptible.” These be Irene’s words, where Irene doth not call the bread, receiving the callC ing of God,” the bread of thanksgiving, but eucharistia; and in this eucharistia he sheweth 1 how that, that he calleth the heavenly things3, is the body and blood of Christ, and therefore j saith in his fifth book: When the chalice mixt, and the bread broken, receive the word of God, it ὦ made eucharistia, of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh — ds stayed and increased. And how say they that our flesh is not able to receive God’s gift, - who is eternal life, which flesh is nourished with the body and blood of Christ?” These be «so lrenés words, whereby appeareth, what he meant by the heavenly thing in eucharistia, which is the very presence of Christ’s body and blood. And for the plain testimony of this i Jaith, this Irene hath been commonly alleged, and specially of Melancthon and (Ecolampadius, as one most ancient and most plainly testifying the same. So as his very words, truly alleged, overthrow this author in the impugnation of Christ’s real presence in the sacrament, nd therefore can nothing help this author’s purpose against transubstantiation. Is mot this goodly and godly entry of this author, in the first two authorities that he bringeth in to corrupt them both? A: [3 Ὡς γὰρ ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρτος, προσλαμβανόμενος ἐπιγείου τε καὶ ovpaviov.—Irenzus adversus Hareses 5 τὴν Seni τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐκέτι κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστὶν, Valent. Lib. Iv. cap. 34. p. 327. Ed. Oxon. 1792.]
[i Χαριστία, ἐκ δύο πραγμώτων συνεστηκυῖα, [5 Thing, 1551.]]
Canterbury. Rilo
Who seeth not, that as you did before in Justin, so again in Irene, you seek nothing else but mere cavillations and wrangling in words? Is not ecuckaristia called in — English, “thanksgiving?” If it be not, tell you what it is called in English. And doth not Irene say, Panes in quo gratie acte sunt? that is to say, “bread wherein thanks be given?” What have I offended then in Englishing ewcharistium, thanksgiving?” Do not I write to Englishmen, which understand not what this Greek word, eucharistia, meaneth? What great offence is it then in me to put it into English, that Englishmen may understand what is said? Should I do as you do, put Greek for English, and write so obscurely that the Englishmen should not know the authors meaning?
And do you not see how much the words of Ireneus, by you alleged, make against yourself? These be his words after your citation: When the chalice mixt, and the bread broken, receive the word of God, it is made eucharistia of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is stayed and increased.” Doth not Irene — say here plainly, that “the chalice mixt, and the bread broken, after the word of God, which you call the words of consecration, is made eucharistia of the body and blood of Christ,” and not the body and blood of Christ? And saith he not further, that “they stay and increase the substance of our bodies?” But how can those things stay and increase our bodies, which be transubstantiated and gone before we receive them? And have you forgotten now in Irene, what you said in the next leaf before in Justin, that “the alteration and nourishment by the food of bread and wine was understand before the consecration?” which you confess now to be after the consecration. And when you thus obscure the authors words, perverting and corrupting both the words and sentences, yet shall you conclude your untrue dealing with these words concerning me: “Is not this a goodly and godly entry of this author, in the first two authorities that he bringeth in to corrupt them both?”
Now followeth Origen next in my book.
Shortly after Irenzus was Origen, about two hundred years after Christ’s Cap ascension; who also affirmeth that the material bread remaineth, saying that the matter of the bread availeth nothing, but goeth down into the belly, and
js avoided downward; but the word of God spoken upon the bread is it that availeth!.” vit WINCHESTER. 1 As for Origen in his own words saith,. the matter of the bread vemaineth;” which, as [ I have before opened, it may be granted, but yet he termeth it mot as this author doth, to call it material bread. When God formed Adam of clay, the matter of the clay remaine Orig. in Adam, and et the material clay remained mot; for it was altered into another substance: which I speak mot to compare equally the forming of Adam to the sacrament, but — to shew it mot to be all one to say the material bread and the matter of bread. For the accidents of bread may be called the matter of bread, but not the material bread, as I have somewhat spoken thereof before; but such shifts be used in this matter, notwithstanding the importance of it. r CANTERBURY.. y What should I tarry much in Origen, seeing that you confess that he saith, “the. matter of bread remaineth;” and Origen saith, that “the meat which is sanctified - ju«ta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit,” that is to say, “as concerning the material -
[[ To ἁγιαζόμενον βρῶμα διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ καὶ αἴτιον διαβλέψεως, ὁρῶντος ἐπὶ τὸ ὠφελοῦν” καὶ ὦ]
[. ἐντεύξεως, κατ αὐτὸ μὲν τὸ ὑλικὸν εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν οὐχ ἡ ὕλη τοῦ ἄρτου, ἀλλ ὁ ἐπ αὐτῷ εἰρημένος]
[χωρεῖ, καὶ εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται” κατὰ δὲ τὴν λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ ὠφελῶν τὸν pij ἀναξίως τοῦ Κυρίου]
[^ ἐπιγενομένην αὐτῷ εὐχὴν, κατὰ THY ἀναλογίαν ἐσθίουτα αὐτόν.---Οτίρομοβ, Comment. in Matt. xv.]
[τῆς πίστεως, ὠφέλιμον γίνεται, καὶ τῆς ToU νοῦ ’ “Tom. IIL p. 499. Ed. Bened. Paris. 1733-59.] i]
IL AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 907 i part thereof goeth into the belly?” So that by Origen’s teaching both the bread and the material part of bread remain. So that your example of clay relieveth you nothing in this your answer unto Origen. d But when you see that this shift will not serve, then you fly to another, and say, Ἢ “that the accidents of bread be called the matter of bread;” which is so shameful a shift, as all that have any manner of knowledge may plainly see your manifest impudency. But many “such shifts you use in this matter, notwithstanding the importance of it.”
Now let us come to Cyprian, of whom I write in this manner.
After Origen came Cyprian the holy martyr, about the year of our Lord
A
250, who writeth against them that ministered this sacrament with water only, and without wine. Forasmuch,” saith he, “as Christ said, ‘I am a true vine, therefore the blood of Christ is not water, but wine; nor it can not be thought that his blood, whereby we be redeemed and have life, is in the cup, when wine is not in the cup, whereby the blood of Christ is shewed?.”
What words could Cyprian have spoken more plainly, to shew that the wine doth remain, than to say thus: “If there be no wine, there is no blood of Christ? ”
And yet he speaketh shortly after as plainly in the same epistle. — Christ,” saith he, taking the cup, blessed it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Drink ye all of this: for this 1s the blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins, say unto you, that from henceforth I will not drink of this ereature of the vine, until I shall drink with you new wine in the kingdom of my Father.” By these words of Christ,” saith St Cyprian, we perceive that the eup which the Lord offered was not only water, but also wine, and that it was wine that Christ called his blood; whereby it is clear that Christ’s blood is not offered, if there be no wine in the chalice.” And after it followeth: How shall we drink with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine, if in the sacrifice of God the Father and of Christ we do not offer wine?”
In these words of St Cyprian appeareth most manifestly, that in this sacrament is not only offered very wine that is made of grapes that come of the vine, but also that we drink the same. And yet the same giveth us to understand, that if we drink that wine worthily, we drink also spiritually the very blood of Christ, which was shed for our sins.
Winchester
St Cyprian’s words do not impugn transubstantiation, for they tend only to shew that wine is the creature appointed to the celebration of this mystery, and therefore water only is — mo due matter according to Christ’s institution. And as the name wine must be used before the consecration to shew the truth of it then, so it may also be used Jor a name of it after i to shew what it was; which is often used. And in one place of Cyprian by this author here x alleged it appeareth, St Cyprian by the word wine signifieth the heavenly wine of the vine- — yard of the Lord of Sabaoth, calling it new wine, and alluding therein to David. And
[[^ Nam cum dicat Christus, Ego sum vitis peccatorum. Dico vobis, non bibam a modo ex ista]
[vera;”’ sanguis Christi non aqua est utique, sed creatura vitis, usque in diem illum, quo vobiscum]
[vinum, Nec potest videri sanguis ejus, quo re- bibam novum vinum in regno patris mei” Qua]
[dempti et vivificati sumus, esse in calice, quando in parte invenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem]
[vinum desit calici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur.— Dominus obtulit, et vinum fuisse quod sanguinem]
[Cyprian. ad Ceacilium de Sacramento Dominici suum dixit. Unde apparet sanguinem Christi non]
[Calicis. Epist,.x1irr. (Lib. ii. Epist. 3.) p. 143. offerri, si desit vinum calici.— Ib. p. 145.]]
[Ed. Paris. 1574.] [ Quomodo autem de creatura vitis novum vi- [? Calicem etenim sub die passionis accipiens, num cum Christo in regno Patris bibemus, si in]
[benedixit, et dedit discipulis suis, dicens: Bibite sacrificio Dei Patris et Christi vinum non offerimus,]
[ex hoc omnes: hic est enim sanguis novi testa- nec calicem Domini dominica traditione misce-]
[menti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem mus?-—Ib. p. 145.]]
this doth Cyprian shew in these words: How shall we drink with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine, if, in the sacrifice to God the Father and Christ, we do not offer wine?” Is not here mention of mew wine of the creature of the vine? What new wine can be but —— the blood of Christ, the very wine consecrate by God’s omnipoteney, of the creature of the — — vine offered? And therefore this one place may give us a lesson in Cyprian, that as he useth the word “wine” to signify the heavenly drink of the blood of Christ, made by con- — secration of the creature of wine, so when he nameth the bread “consecrate bread,” he meameth the heavenly bread Christ, who is the bread of life. And so Cyprian can make nothing by — those words against transubstantiation, who writeth plainly of the change of the bread by — God’s omnipotency into the flesh of Christ, as shall after appear, where this author goeth — about to answer to him.
Ntrbuy
Cyprian’s words tend not only to shew that wine is the creature appointed to the celebration of the mystery, but that it is also there present, and drunken in the mystery. - For these be his words: It cannot be thought that Christ’s blood is in the cup, when wine is not in the cup, whereby the blood of Christ is shewed.” And again - he saith: “It was wine that Christ called his blood;” and that “it is clear, that Christs — blood is not offered, if there be no wine in the chalice.” And further he saith: How shall we drink with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine, if in the sacrifice - οὗ God the Father and of Christ, we do not offer wine?” In these words Cyprian - saith not, that Christ is the wine which we drink, but that with Christ we drink wine, that cometh of the vine-tree; and that Christ’s blood is not there, when wine is not there. And where is now your transubstantiation, that taketh away the wine? For take away the wine, and take away by Cyprian’s mind the blood of Christ also. 1 But, lest any man should stumble at Cyprian’s words, where he seemeth to say - that the blood of Christ should be really in the cup, he saith nor meaneth no such - thing, but that it is there sacramentally or figuratively. And his meaning needeth none other gathering, but of his own words that follow next after in the same sentence, that “by the wine the blood of Christ is shewed.” And shortly after he saith, that “the cup which the Lord offered was wine,” and that “it was wine that Christ called his blood.” Now come we to Emissene, your principal stay, in whom is your chief glory. Of him thus I write.
285. Eusebius Emissenus, a man of singular fame and learning, about three Kmienu. hundred years after Christ’s ascension, did in few words set out this matter so
[plainly, (both how the bread and wine be converted into the body and blood of.]
[Christ, and yet remain still in their nature; and also how, besides the outward.]
[receiving of bread and wine, Christ is inwardly by faith received in our hearts,).]
[all this, I say, he doth so plainly set out, that more plainness cannot be reason-.]
[ably desired in this matter. For he saith, that “the conversion of the visible -]
[creatures of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is like unto our]
[conversion in baptism, where outwardly nothing is changed, but remaineth the 9]
[same that was before; but all the alteration is inwardly and spiritually.” “i]
[De consecr. “If thou wilt know,” saith he!, “how it ought not to seem to thee a ΠΟΙ͂]
[Istinetion.]
[ii. Quia. τ΄. [ Et ut tibi novum et impossibile videri non cessibus extitisti: in exteriori nihil additum est, et]
[debeat, quod in Christi substantiam terrena et totum in interiori mutatum est: ac sic homo Chris-]
[mortalia convertuntur, teipsum, qui jam in Christo ti filius effectus, et Christus in hominis mente for-]
[es regeneratus, interroga. Dudum alienus a vita, matus est. Sicut ergo sine corporali sensu, prete- -]
[peregrinus a misericordia, a salutis via intrinsecus rita vilitate deposita, subito novam indutus es]
[mortuus exulabas: subito initiatus Christilegibus, dignitatem: et sicut hoc, quod in te Deus lesa]
[et salutaribus mysteriis innovatus, in corpus eccle- curavit, infecta diluit, immaculata detersit, non -]
[size nou videndo, sed credendo transiluisti, et defilio sunt oculis nec sensibus tujs credita: ita cum]
[perditionis adoptivus Dei filius fieri occulta puritate reverendum altare colestibus cibis satiandus as-]
[meruisti: in mensura visibili permanens, majorfac- cendis, sacrum Dei tui corpus et sanguinem fide -]
[tus es teipsoinvisibiliter, sine quantitatis augmento, respice, honora, mirare, mente continge, cordis -]
[cum ipse atque idem esses, multo alter fidei pro- manu suscipe, et maxime haustu interiore as-]
. thing and impossible, that earthly and corruptible things be turned into the t substance of Christ, look upon thyself, which art made new in baptism: when thou wast far from life, and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of salvation, and inwardly wast dead, yet suddenly thou begannest another life in Christ, and wast made new by wholesome mysteries, and wast turned into the body of the church, not by seeing, but by believing: and of the child of damnation, by a secret pureness, thou wast made the chosen son of God. Thou visibly didst remain in the same measure that thou hadst before, but invisibly thou wast made greater, without any increase of thy body. Thou wast the self-same person, and yet by the increase of faith thou wast made another man. Outwardly nothing was added, but all the change was inwardly. And so was man made the son of Christ, and Christ formed in the mind of man. Therefore as thou, putting away thy former vileness, didst receive a new dignity, not feeling any change in thy body; and as the curing of thy disease, the putting away of thine infection, the wiping away of thy filthiness, be not seen with thine eyes, but are believed in thy mind: so likewise when thou dost go up to the reverend altar, to feed upon spiritual meat, in thy faith look upon the body and blood of him that is thy God; honour him, touch him with thy mind, take him in the hand of thy heart, and ehiefly drink him with the draught of thy inward man.”
Hitherto have I rehearsed the sayings of Eusebius, which be so plain that no man can wish more plainly to be declared, that this mutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is a sacramental mutation, and that outwardly nothing is changed. But as outwardly we eat the bread, and drink the wine with our mouths, so inwardly by faith we spiritually eat the very flesh, and drink the very blood of Christ.
Winchester
As touching Emissene, by whose words is expressly testified the truth of the real presence 9f Christ in the sacrament, and also the sense of the doctrine of transubstantiation, this author maketh himself bold over him, and so bold that he dare corrupt him; which Emissene writeth not, that man is turned into the body of the church.” And here I make an issue with this author, that Emissene hath not that word of “turning” in that place, and man to be turned into the body of the church is mo convenient speech, to signify a change in him that is regenerate by baptism. He indeed that is thrust out of the chancel for his misdemeanour in service- — time may be said turned into the body of the church. But Emissene speaketh mot so here; — but because the same Emissene, declaring the mystery of the sacrament, saith, “the visible sound gaily well, to the confusion of that true doctrine of turning, to speak in baptism of creatures be turned into the substance of the body of Christ,” this author thought it would the turning of a man into the body of the church. And it may be commonly observed in this author, when he allegeth any authority of others, he bringeth forth the same in such νην of words as he would have them, and not as they be, for the most part or very often; ἱ and once of purpose were over often in so high a matter as this is. And yet in this Emis- — senes authority, after all the pain taken to reforge him, Emissene’s doctrine plainly confound eth this author’s teaching. This author maketh a note, that there is in man, baptized, nothing - changed outwardly, and therefore in the sacrament neither; and it must be granted: for the doctrine of tramsubstantiation teacheth not in the sacrament any outward change. For the substance of the bread and wine is an inward nature, and so is substance of one deined. And to speak of the thing changed then, as in man the change is in the soul, which 4s the substance of man; so, for the thing changed in the visible creatures, should be also
[sume.—Eusebius Emissenus. (Corpus Juris Cano- condemned as such. Vid. James’ Corruption of]
[mici De Consecrat. Dist. 11. Cap. xxxv. Quia Scripture, ἄς. Lond. 1843. p. 72. Cave’s His.]
[corpus.” Tom. I.col 1927, 8. Ed. Lugd. 1618.) Lit. Coci Censura Patrum. pp. 227-232. Ed.]
[Many of the writings ascribed to Eusebius Emis- Helmst. 1683. Riveti Critica Sacra. pp. 228-231.]
[, senus are thought to be spurious, and have been Genev. 1626.]]
changed, and is changed, the substance of the bread and wine to answer therein to the other. And we must consider how this comparison of the two changes is made as it were by proportion, wherein each change hath his special end and term, “whereunto,” and therefore, ac- — cording to the term and end, hath his work of change, special amd several, both by God’s work. Thus I mean: the visible creatures hath their end and term whereunto” the change — is made, the very body and blood of Christ, which body being a true body, we must say, is — a corporal substance. The soul of man hath his end and term, a spiritual alteration, in- — corporal, to be regenerate the son of God. And then the doctrine of this Emissene is plain this, that each change is of like truth; and then it followeth, that if the change of man’s soul in baptism be true and not in a figure, the change likewise in the sacrament is also true and not in a figure. And if man’s soul by the change in baptism be in deed, that is to say, really, made the son of God, then is the substance of the bread, which is as it were the soul of the bread, (I am bold here in speech to wse the word soul, to express proportion of the comparison,) but even so is the inward nature of the bread, which is substance, turned and changed into the body of Christ, being the term amd end of that change. And here I say “30,” mot to declare the manner, but the truth of the end, that is to say, as really and in deed the change is im the substance of bread as in the soul of man: both these changes be marvellous, and both be in the truth of their change, whereunto they be changed, of like truth and reality to be done indeed: they resemble one another in the secrecy of the mystery and the ignorance of our senses, for in neither is amy outward change at all; and thereJore there was never man tripped himself more handsomely to take a fall, than this author doth in this place, not only in corrupting evidently and notably the words of Emissene without purpose, whereby nevertheless he shewed his good-will, but also by setting forth such matter, as — overturneth all his teaching at once.
For now the author must say the change in man’s soul by baptism, to be there made the son of God, is but in figure and signification, not true and real in deed; or else grant — the true catholic doctrine of the turn of the visible creatures into the body and blood of Christ, to be likewise not in figure and signification, but truly, really, and in deed: and for the thing changed, as the soul of man, mans! inward nature, is changed; so the inward nature of the bread is changed.
And then is that evasion taken away, which this author useth in another place, of sacramental change, which should be in the outward part of the visible creatures to the use of signification. This author noteth the age of Ewmissene, and I mote withal, how plainly he writeth for confirmation of the catholic teaching, who indeed, because of his amcient amd - plain writing for declaration of the matter in form of teaching without contention, is one - whose authority the church hath much in allegation used to the conviction of such as have impugned the sacrament, either in the truth of the presence of Christ’s very body, or tram- - substantiation; for the speaking of the inward change doth point as it were the change of 3 the substance of bread, with resembling thereunto the soul of man changed in baptism. This one author, not being of any reproved, and of so many approved, and by this in the alle- - gation after this manner corrupt, might suffice for to conclude all brabbling against the P sacrament.
Canterbury
287. Where I have corrupted Emissene, let the reader be judge. But when Emissene Tuming. speaketh godly of the alteration, change, and turning of a man from the congregation of the wicked unto the congregation of Christ, which he calleth “the body of the church,” and from the child of death unto the child of God, this must be made a matter of scoffing, to turn light fellows out of the chancel into the body of the church.” Such trifling now-a-days becometh gaily well” godly bishops. What if in the stead o “turning” I had said “skipt over,” as the word /ransiluisti signifieth, which, although peradventure the books be false and should be ramsisti, I have translated “turning?” should I have so escaped a mock, trow you? You would then have said, he that so doth, goeth not out of the chancel door into the body of the church, but skippeth over the stalls. But that Emissene meant of turning is clear, as well by the words that go before, as those which go after; which I refer to the judgment of the indifferent reader.
’ The soul of man in man’s, ἄς. Orig. ed. Winch.
But forasmuch as you would persuade men, that this author maketh so much for your purpose, I shall set forth his mind plainly, that it may appear how much you be deceived. FEmissene’s mind is this, that although our Saviour Christ hath taken his body hence from our bodily sight, yet we see him by faith, and by grace he is here present with us; so that by him we be made new creatures, regenerated by him, and fed and nourished by him, which generation and nutrition in us is spiritual, without any mutation appearing outwardly, but wrought within us invisibly by the omnipotent power of God. And this alteration in us is so wonderful, that we be made new creatures in Christ, grafted into his body, and of the same receive our nourishment and increasing. And yet visibly with our bodily eyes we see not these things, but they be manifest unto our faith by God’s word and sacraments. And Emissene declareth none other real presence of Christ in the sacrament of his body and blood, than in the sacrament of baptism, but spiritually by faith to be present in both.
And where Emissene speaketh of the conversion of earthly creatures into the substance of Christ, he speaketh that as well of baptism as of the Lord’s supper, as his own words plainly declare. “If thou wilt know,” saith he, “how it ought not to seem to thee a new thing and impossible, that earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ, look upon thyself, which art made new in baptism.” And yet he meant not, that the water of baptism in itself is really turned into the substance of Christ, nor likewise bread and wine in the Lord’s supper; but that in the action water, wine, and bread, as sacraments, be sacramentally converted, unto him that duly receiveth them, into the very substance of Christ. So that the sacramental conversion is in the sacraments, and the real conversion is in him that receiveth the sacraments; which real conversion is inward, invisible, and spiritual. For the outward corporal substances, as well of the name as of the water, remain the same that they were before. And therefore saith Emissene: “Thou visibly didst remain in the same measure that thou hadst before, but invisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body; thou wast the self-same person, and yet by the increase of faith thou wast made another man. Outwardly nothing was added, but all the change was inwardly.” In these words hath Emissene plainly declared, that the conversion in the sacraments, whereof he spake when he said, that earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ, is to be understand in the receivers by their faith, and that in the said conversion the outward substance remaineth the self-same that was before. And that Emissene meant this, as well in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, as in the sacrament of baptism, his own words plainly declare. So that the substance of Christ, as well in baptism as the Lord’s supper, is seen, not with our eyes, but with our faith; and touched not with our bodies, but with our minds;. and received not with our hands, but with our hearts; eaten and drunken not with eur outward mouths, but with our inward man. 1 And where Emissene saith, that Christ hath taken his body from our sight into — heaven, and yet in the sacrament of his holy supper he is present with his grace { through faith, he doth us to understand, that he is not present in the forms of bread - and wine out of the ministration, (except you will say, that faith and grace be in - the bread when it is kept and hanged up,) but when the bread and wine be eaten ς and drunken according to Christ’s institution, then, to them that so eat and drink, the bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ, according to Christ’s words: ᾿ς Edite, hoc est corpus meum. Bibite, hic est caliv sanguinis mei. And therefore in the book of the holy communion, we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine may be the body and blood of Christ; but that they may be to us the body and blood of Christ; that is to say, that we may so eat them, and drink them, that we may be partakers of his body crucified, and of his blood shed for our redemption.
Thus have I declared the truth of Emissene’s mind, which is agreeable to God’s word and the old catholic church. But now what illusions and dreams you fantasy of Emissenes words, it is a wonder to hear. First, that the substance of bread and wine is “an inward nature,” and that in baptism the whole man is not regenerated,
[“T [? Vid. p. 79.]]
THE SECOND BOOK. ^ but “the soul” only; and that the soul of man is the substance” of man, “and made the son of God. And now, when it serveth for your purpose, the body of Christisa corporal substance, which in all your book before was but a spiritual body, and the substance of bread and wine be visible creatures, which were wont with you to be inward and invisible natures: and now is the inward nature of the bread the substance of the bread, whereas in other places the outward forms be the substance: so little substance is in your doctrine, that from time to time you thus alter your sayings. This is no tripping, but so shameful a fall, and in so foul and stinking a place, that you shall never be able to sponge the filthiness out of your clothes, and to make yourself sweet again.
And you appoint at your pleasure both terminum a quo, terminum ad quem, and the changes, and the things that be changed, altogether otherwise than Emissene doth. For in Emissene the changes be regeneration, and nourishing or augmentation; the thing that is changed is the man, both in regeneration, and in nutrition or augmentation; and in regeneration terminus a quo is the son of perdition; and terminus ad quem is the son of God. And in nutrition terminus a quo is the hunger and thirst of the man; and terminus ad quem is the feeding and satisfying of his hunger and thirst. But you appoint the changes to be transubstantiation and regeneration, and the things that be changed in transubstantiation you say is the substance of bread and wine, and the same to be zerminum a quo, and the flesh and blood of Christ, say you, is terminus ad quem. And in regeneration you assign terminum a quo, to be the soul of man only; and terminum. ad quem, to be regenerated the son of God. And so being eight things in these two mutations, in each of them the change, the thing that is changed, the thing from whence it is changed, and the thing whereunto it is changed, you have missed the butt clearly in all, saving two, that is to say, regeneration and the thing whereunto regeneration is made, and in all other six you missed the cushion quite. And yet if the change were in the substance of bread and wine proportionably to the.change of the soul, being the substance of man, as you say; if you should make the proportions agree, then as the soul, being the man’s substance, remaineth without transubstantiation, so must the bread and wine remain without transubstantiation. And if the substance of the bread and wine be not the visible sign in the Lord’s supper, because “substance”, as you say, “is a thing invisible,” then is not the substance of water the visible sign in baptism, being no more visible the substance of the one, than the substance of the other.
Now of Hilary I write thus.
Hilarius also in few words saith the same. There is a figure,” saith he, “for bread and wine be outwardly seen. And there is also a truth of that figure, for the body and blood of Christ be of a truth inwardly believed!” And this Hilarius was within less than three hundred and fifty years after Christ.
Winchester
But I will examine more particularities. I have before answered to Hilary, to whom nevertheless I would aptly have said somewhat now, to mote how he distincteth outwardly an inwardly by belief and corporal sight. For outwardly, as Emissene saith, we see no change, and therefore we see after consecration, as before, which we may therefore call bread; but we believe that inwardly is, which, as Emissene saith, is the substance of the body of Christ, whereunto the change is made of the inward nature of bread, as by the comparison of Ewmissene doth appear. J CANTERBURY. 1 Your distinction made here of “outwardly” and “inwardly,” is a plain confusion of Hilarius mind, and contrary to that which you wrote before in Emissene. For there a [} Corpus Christi, quod sumitur de altari, figura Consecrat. Dist. 11. cap. Ixxix. “Corpus Christi.” i est, dum panis et vinum extra videtur: veritas Tom. II. col. 1956. Ed. Lugduni. 1618. By a note
[autem, dum corpus et sanguis Christi in veritate at this placein the Corpus Jur. Canon.” itappears]
[interius creditur. — Corpus Juris Canonici. De that this passage is not to be found in Hilary.] fj]
Ἢ you said, that the visible creatures be changed,” meaning by the visible creatures — the substances of bread and wine; and now, when Hilary saith that bread and wine be seen,” you say that their substances be not seen, but the outward forms only,” which, you say, “be called bread and wine.” But here appeareth into how narrow a strait you be driven, that be fain for a shift to say, “that the accidents of bread without the substance be called bread.”
Epiphanius is next in my book.
And Epiphanius, shortly after the same time, saith, that the bread is meat, but the virtue that is in it is it that giveth life.” But if there were no bread at all, how could it be meat?
Winchester
These words of Epiphanius do plainly overturn this author’s doctrine of a figurative speech; for a figure cannot give life, only God giveth life: and the speech of this Epiphanius of the sacrament doth necessarily imply the very true presence of Christ’s body, author of life. And then, as often as the author is overthrown in the truth of the presence, so often is he, by Zuinglius rule, overthrown in transubstantiation. As for the name of bread is granted because it was so, and transubstantiation doth not take away, but it is meat because of the visible matter remaining.
These? sayings be sought out by this author only to wrangle, mot taken out where the mystery is declared and preached to be taught as a doctrine thereof, but only signified by the way, and spoken of upon occasion, the sense whereof faithful men know otherwise than appeareth at the first readings to the carnal man: but by such like speeches the Arians impugned the divinity of Christ.
Canterbury
Epiphanius, speaking of the bread in the Lord’s supper, and the water in baptism, saith, that they “have no power nor strength of themselves, but by Christ:” so that the bread feedeth, and the water washeth the body; but neither the bread nor water give life, nor purge to salvation, but only the might and power of Christ that is in them: and yet not in them reserved, but in the action and ministration, as it is manifest of his words. And therefore, as in baptism is neither the real and corporal presence of Christ’s body, nor transubstantiation of the water; no more is in the Lord’s supper either Christ’s flesh and blood really and corporally present, or the bread and wine fransubstantiated. And therefore Epiphanius calleth not bread by that name because it was so, but because it is so in deed, and nourished the body. As Hilary said, “there is a figure, for bread and wine be openly seen:” he saith not, there was a — figure, for bread and wine were openly seen. And the figure giveth not life, nor washeth not inwardly, but Christ that is in the figure, tanquam. signatum. in signo. — And where you be fain to say, that “accidents be meat without substance,” all the ja world may judge how shameful a shift this is, and how contrary to this principle of d philosophy, Jv eisdem. sunt et nutriuntur omnia. Oh, what absurdities you be driven unto for the defence of your papistical inventions! E Now cometh St John Chrysostom, of whom in my book is thus written. à About the same time, or shortly after, about the year of our Lord 400, St John Chrysostom writeth thus against them that used only water in [? Ἐνταῦθα ἐν Χριστῷ τῷ ἰσχυροποιουμένῳ τῆς αὐτῷ εἰς {woydvmow.—Epiphanius, adversus Hee-a οὐκ ἄρτος ἡμῖν γένηται δύναμις, ἀλλὰ δύναμις 1622.] δυνάμεως τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τῆς ToU ὕδατος ἰσχύος” reses. Lib, rrr. Tom. I. p. 1098, ed. Patav. Paris. ἄρο” ὶ βρῶ μὲν ὁ ἄρτος, ἡ δὲ δύναμις ἐν [ This, 1551.] [ Nourisheth, 1551.] o EenaNuER.] 18 LAU
the sacrament. Christ,” saith he, “minding to pluck up that heresy by the roots, used wine as well before his resurrection, when he gave the mysteries, as after at his table without mysteries. For he saith, Of the fruit of the vine; which surely bringeth forth no water, but wine!.”:
These words of Chrysostom declare plainly, that Christ in his holy table both drank wine and gave wine to drink, which had not been true if no wine had remained after the consecration, as the papists feign. And yet more plainly St Chrysostom declareth this matter in another place, saying: “The bread before it be sanctified is called bread, but when it is sanctified by the means of the priest, it is delivered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the Lord’s body, although the nature of bread doth still reain”
“The nature of bread,” saith he, doth still remain,” to the utter and manifest confutation of the papists, which say, that the accidents of bread do remain, but not the nature and substance.”
Winchester
Chrysostom speaketh in this place of wine; as, Cyprian did before, against those that offer no wine, but water. Chrysostom saith thus: Christ used wine;” and I grant he did so. For — he did consecrate that creature, and, as Emissene saith, turned it in the celebration and dispensation of these mysteries.” But this saying toucheth nothing the doctrine of tramsubstan- — tiation. The second saying of Chrysostom, which I never read but in Peter Martyr’s book, — who saith it is not printed, toucheth this author’s doctrine much, if the bread by consecration be “delivered from the name of bread, and exalted to the name of our Lords body.” Now consider, reader: if this manner of speech by Chrysostom here meaneth an effectual naming, to make the substance of the body of Christ present, (as Chrysostom in his public approved works — is understanded of all to teach,) then is the deliverance from the name of bread of like effect, to take away the reason of the name of bread, which is the change in substance thereof. Or =~ if the author will say that by the name of bread Chrysostom wnderstandeth the bare name, how can that stand without reproof of St Paul, who, after this author’s mind, calleth it — bread after consecration? and so do many other by this author alleged. Here percase may be said, “What should I reason what he meant, when he saith plainly the nature of bread still remaineth 2” — To this I say, that as Chrysostom, in this place of an epistle not published by credit, saith “that the nature of bread remaineth:” so Cyprian, that was older than he, saith, “the nature of bread is changed,” which Chrysostom in his other works, by public credit set. abroad, seemeth mot to deny. Now the word “nature” signifieth both the substance and also sig- propriety of the nature. The substance therefore, after Cyprian, by the word of God is changed, but yet the proper effect is not changed, but in the accidences remain without illusion; by which ὦ divers signification and acception of the word nature,” both the sayings of St Cyprian and St Chrysostom (if this be his saying) may be accorded, and, notwithstanding the contrariety in letter, agree mevertheless in sense between themselves, and agree with the true doctrine of tram- τὸ substantiation. Add to this, how the words of Chrysostom next following this sentence, alleged..— by this author, and as it seemeth of purpose left here out, dv both confound this author’s enter- ὦ prise, and confirm the true doctrine: which words be these, And is not called two bodies, but one body of the Son of God.” Of Chrysostom I shall speak again hereafter. 4
[[! Tivos ἕνεκεν οὐχ ὕδωρ ἔπιεν ἀναστὰς, ἀλλ dem ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus]
[οἶνον; ἄλλην αἵρεσιν πονηρὰν πρόῤῥιζον ἀνασπῶν. Dominici Corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura]
[ἐπειδὴ γάρ εἰσίν τινες ἐν τοῖς μυστηρίοις ὕδατι panis in ipso permansit —Id. Ad Cesarium Mo- -]
[κεχρημένοι, δεικνὺς ὅτι ἡνίκα τὰ μυστήρια Tapé- nachum. Tom. IIL. p. 743. The authenticity]
[δωκεν, οἶνον παρέδωκε, kai ἡνίκα ἀναστὰς χωρὶς of this book, which was brought by P. Martyr to —]
[μυστηρίων ψιλὴν τράπεζαν παρετίθετο, οἴνῳ éxé- England and given to Cranmer, is much disputed;]
[Xpuro ἐκ Tov γεννήματός, φησι, τῆς ἀμπέλου. 5 a Latin version only being extant, with the excep-.]
[ἄμπελος δὲ οἶνον, οὐχ ὕδωρ yewa.—Chrysostom. tion of a few passages in Greek. Vid. Chrysost. Op. -]
[In Matt. cap. xxvi. Hom. rxxxrir. (al. 83.) Tom. ed. Bened. Tom. III. p. 736. Jo. Geo. Walchius.]
[VII. p. 784. ed. Bened.] Bibl. Patrist. pp. 194, 295. Ed. Jenae 1834. Bur- -]
[[? Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, net’s Hist. of the Reformation, Tom. III. p. 736. —]
[panem nominamus; divina autem illum sanctifi- Ed. Oxford, 1829. Dupin. Eccl. Writers, Cent. V.]]
[cante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est qui-! j]
Canterbury
The first place of Chrysostom by me alleged, you say, toucheth not the doctrine of transubstantiation.” But you rehearse but a piece of Chrysostom’s words. For he saith not only that Christ used wine, but also drank wine in the mysteries, and the very wine of the grape. And how could then the wine be transubstantiate, except it were transubstantiate after it was drunken?
Now as touching the second part of Chrysostom, where he saith, that the bread, when it is consecrated, is delivered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the Lord’s body, and yet the nature of bread doth still remain,” he meaneth that the bread is delivered from the bare name of bread, to represent unto us the body of Christ, according to his institution, which was crucified for us; not that he is present or crucified in the bread, but was crucified upon the cross. And the bread is not so clearly delivered from the name of bread, that it is no bread at all, (for he saith, “the nature of bread doth still remain,”) nor that it may not be called by the name of bread; but it is so delivered, that commonly it is called by the higher name of the Lord’s body, which to us it representeth. As you and I were delivered from our surnames, when we were consecrated bishops, sithens which time we have so commonly been used of all men to be called bishops, you of Winchester, and I of Canterbury, that the most part of the people know not that your name is Gardiner, and mine Cranmer. And I pray God that we, being called to the name of lords, have not forgotten our own baser estates, that once we were simple squires. And yet should he have done neither of us wrong, that should have called us by our right names, no more than St Paul doth any injury to the bread in the sacrament, calling it bread, although it have also an higher name of dignity, to be called the body of Christ. And as the bread, being a figure of Christ’s body, hath the name thereof, and yet is not so in deed; so I pray God, that we have not rather been figures of bishops, bearing the name and title of pastors and bishops before men, than that we have in deed diligently fed the little flock of Christ with the sweet and wholesome pasture of his true and lively word.
And where you allege Cyprian, to avoid thereby the saying of Chrysostom in the. epistle by me cited, you take Cyprian clearly amiss, as I have plainly opened here- - after in the eleventh chapter of this book, whereunto for to avoid the tediousness of repeating, I refer the indifferent reader; unto which mine answer there, helpeth much that you grant here, that the word “nature” signifieth both the substance and also — the propriety. For in Cyprian it is not taken for the substance, as you would fain L have it, but for the property. For the substance of bread still remaining in them - that duly receive the same, the property of carnal nourishment is changed into a Spi- — ritual nourishment, as more largely in mine answer to you in that place shall be i declared. b /. And where you would somewhat relieve yourself by certain words of Chrysostom, — which immediately follow the sentence by me alleged, which words be these, ^ that the bread after consecration is ποὺ called two bodies, but one body of the Son of - God,” upon which words you would gather your transubstantiation; how effectual your argument is in this matter, may appear by another like. Stephen Gardiner, after he? was consecrated, was called the bishop of Winchester, and not two bishops but one Ἶ bishop: ergo Stephen Gardiner was transubstantiate. And a counter laid by an auditor — for a thousand pounds, is not then called a counter but a thousand pounds: ergo, it Js transubstantiated. And the man and wife after marriage be called but one body: ergo, there is transubstantiation. This must be the form of your argument, if you will prove transubstantiation by these words of Chrysostom.
Now come we to St Ambrose.
At the same time was St Ambrose, who declared the alteration of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, not to be such, that the nature and
[A [ See p. 308, &c.]]
substance of bread and wine be gone, but that through grace there is a spiritual mutation by the mighty power of God, so that he that worthily eateth of that bread, doth spiritually eat Christ, and dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him.
“For,” saith St Ambrose’, speaking of this change of bread into the body — — of Christ, if the word of God be of that force that it can make things of nought,
.. E “n et de and. those things to be which never were before, much more it can make things — cap.” that were before, still to be, and also to be changed into other things.”
And he bringeth for example hereof the change of us in baptism, wherein a man is so changed, as is before declared in the words of Eusebius, that he is made a new creature, and yet his substance remaineth the same that was before.
Winchester
St Ambrose doth not, as this author would have it, impugn transubstantiation, but confirmeth it most plainly, because he teacheth the true presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, which, he saith, is by change, and things still remaining, and that may be verified in the outward: visible matter, that is to say, the accidents remaining with their proper effects, which there- — fore may worthily be called things. And here I would ask this author, if his teaching, as — he pretendeth, were the catholic faith, and the bread only signified Christ’s body, what should need this force of God’s word that St Ambrose speaketh of, to bring in the creation of the — world, whereby to induce man’s faith in this mystery to the belief of it? As for the example — of baptism to shew the change in man’s soul, whereof I have spoken, declaring Emissene, serveth for am induction not to lean? to our outward senses, ne to mistrust the great miracle — of God in either, because we see mone outward experience of it; but else it is mot necessary — that the resemblance shall amswer in equality, otherwise tham as I said afore, each part answering his convenient proportion, and as for their comparison of resemblance, baptism with the sacrament, this author in his doctrine specially reproveth, in that he cannot, I think, deny, but man by regeneration of his soul in baptism is the partaker of holiness; but as for the bread, he specially admonisheth, that it is mot partaker of holiness by this consecration: but howsoever this author in his own doctrine snarleth himself, the doctrine of St Ambrose is plain, that before the consecration it is bread, and after the consecration the body of Christ; which is an undoubted affirmation then to be no bread, howsoever the accidents of bread do remain.
Canterbury
St Ambrose teacheth not the real and corporal presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, as I have proved sufficiently in my former book, the sixty-fourth, eightyfirst, and eighty-second leaves?, and in mine answer unto you in this book. But against - transubstantiation he teacheth plainly, that after consecration not only things remain, but also that the things changed still remain. And what is this but a flat condem- 1 nation of your imagined transubstantiation? For if the things changed in the sacra- - ment do still remain, and the substances of bread and wine be changed, then it followeth that their substances remain, and be not transubstantiated; so that your untrue and crafty shift will not relieve your matter any whit, when you say, that the. accidence of bread is bread, wherein all the world knoweth how much you err from the truth. And better it had been for you to have kept such sayings secret unto yourself, which no man can speak without blushing, except he be past all shame than to shew your shameful shifts open unto the world, that all men may see them: and specially when the shewing thereof only discovereth your shame, and easeth you
[[! Quod si tantum valuit humana benedictio, ut Agrip 1616.— Vides ergo quam operatorius sit ser-]
[naturam converteret; quid dicimus de ipsa consecra-, mo Christi, Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone 0:]
[tione divina, ubi verba ipsa Domini salvatoris ope- mini Jesu, ut inciperent esse qua non erant: quanto]
[rantur >—Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo magis operatorius est, ut qua erant, in aliud -]
[facere quod non erat, non potest ea qua sunt, in id mutentur. Id. De Sacramentis, Lib. 1v. cap. iv.]
[mutare quod non erant? Non enim minus est no- Ib. See p. 210.] l]
[vas rebus dare quam mutare naturass—Ambros. [3 To leave, Orig. ed. Winch.] »]
[De initiandis, cap. ix. Tom. IV. p. 166. Colon. [3 See pp. 122, 177, 8.] 1]
1 nothing at all. For the accidences be not changed, as you say yourself, but the substances. And then if the things that be changed remain, the substance must remain,. - and not be transubstantiated. And St Ambrose bringeth forth to good purpose the creation of the world, to shew the wonderful work of God, as well in the spiritual regeneration, and spiritual feeding and nourishing of the lively members of Christ’s body, as in the creation and conservation of the world. And therefore David calleth the spiritual renovation of man by the name of creation, saying: Cor mundum crea in me Deus, O God, create in me a new heart.” And as for any further answer here unto Ambrose needeth not, but because you refer you here to Emissene, they which be indifferent may read what I have answered unto Emissene a little before, and so judge.
Now let us examine St Augustine.
And St Augustine about the same time wrote thus: That which you see in the altar is the bread and the cup, which also your eyes do shew you. But faith sheweth further, that bread is the body of Christ, and the cup his blood.” [Here he declareth two things: that in the sacrament remaineth bread and wine which we may discern with our eyes; and that the bread and wine be called the body and blood of Christ.] And the same thing he declareth also as plainly in another place, saying: “The sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things, of the visible kind of the element, and of the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesu Christ, both of the sacrament and of the thing signified by the sacrament: even as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man, forasmuch as he is very God and very man. For every thing containeth in it the very nature of those things whereof it consisteth. Now the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things, of the saerament, and of the thing thereby signified, that is to say, the body of Christ. Therefore there is both the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament, which is Christ’s body.”
What can be devised to be spoken more plainly against the error of the papists, which say that no bread nor wine remaineth in the sacrament? For as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures, that is to say, of his manhood and of his Godhead, and therefore both those natures remain in Christ; even. 80, saith St Augustine, the sacrament consisteth of two natures, of the elements 9f bread and wine, and of the body and blood of Christ, and therefore both these natures must needs remain in the sacrament. ἣ For the more plain understanding thereof, it is to be noted, that there were ἢ certain heretics, as Simon, Menander, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, 1 Manes, Eutyches, Manichzus, Apollinaris, and divers other of like sorts, which said, that Christ was very God, but not a very man, although in eating, drink- ἢ ing, sleeping, and all other operations of man, to men’s judgments he appeared like unto a man.
[M - Ca τ UNO]
[. [ Quod videtis, panis est et calix, quod vobis Christi; sicut Christi persona constat et conficitur]
[etiam oculi vestri renuntiant: quod autem fides Deo et homine, cum ipse Cliristus verus sit Deus,]
[vestra postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi, et verus homo: quia omnis res illarum rerum natu-]
[calix sanguis Christi, Augustin. Ad Infantes, ram et veritatem in se continet, ex quibus conficitur.]
[Serm. celxxii, Tom. V. p. 1103. ed. Bened. Instead Conficitur autem sacrificium ecclesiz sacramento]
[of the passage within brackets, the Orig. ed. reads etre sacramenti, id est, corpore Christi. Estigitur]
[thus: Here he declareth four things to be inthe sacramentum, et res sacramenti, id est, corpus]
[sacrament: two that we see, which be bread and Christi. August. in Lib. sent. Prosperi. (Corpus]
[wine; and other two, which we see not, but by Juris Canonici. De consecrat. Dist. ii. cap. 48.]
[faith only, which be the body and blood of Christ.”] Hoc est. Col. 1936, 37. Lugd. 1618.) Cranmer [ Sacrificium seilicet ecclesie duobus confici, quoted this passage from the Master of the]
[Quobus constare, visibili elementorum specie, et in- Sentences: it is not found in the Appendix either]
[visibili Domini nostri Jesu Christi came et san- of the Benedictine or Louvain editions of the]
[s Bumne, sacramento, et re sacramenti id est, corpore works of St Augustine.]]
JMÓ THE SECOND BOOK. ud Other there were, as Artemon, Theodorus, Sabellius, Paulus Samasatenus, Marcellus, Photinus, Nestorius, and many other of the same sects, which said, that he was a very natural man, but not very God, although in giving the blind their sight, the dumb their speech, the deaf their hearing, in healing suddenly — with his word all diseases, in raising to life them that were dead, and in all other works of God, he shewed himself as he had been God.
Yet other there were, which seeing the scripture so. plain in those two matters, confessed that he was both God and man, but not both at one time. For before his incarnation, said they, he was God only, and not man, and after his incarnation he ceased from the Godhead!, and became a man only, and not God until his resurrection or ascension; and then, say they, he left his manhood and was only God again, as he was before his incarnation. So that when he was man, he was not God; and when he was God, he was not man.
But against these vain heresies the catholic faith, by the express word of God, holdeth and believeth, that Christ after his incarnation left not his divine nature, but remained still God, as he was before, being together at one time, as — he is still, both perfect God and perfect man.
And for a plain declaration hereof, the old ancient authors give two examples. One is of man, which is made of two parts, of a soul and of a body, and each of these two parts remain in man at one time: so that when the soul by the almighty power of God is put into the body, neither the body nor soul perisheth thereby, but thereof is made a perfect man, having a perfect soul and a perfect body, remaining in him both at one time. The other example, which the old authors bring in for this purpose, is of the holy supper of our Lord, which consisteth, say they, of two parts, of the sacrament or visible element of bread and wine, and of the body and blood of Christ. And as in them that duly receive the sacrament, the very natures of bread and wine cease not to be there, but remain there still, and be eaten and drunken corporally, as the body and blood of Christ be eaten and drunken spiritually; so likewise doth — the divine nature of Christ remain still with his humanity.
Let now the papists avaunt themselves of their transubstantiation, that there remaineth no bread nor wine in the ministration of the sacrament, if they will defend the wicked heresies before rehearsed, that Christ is not God and man. both together. But to prove that this was the mind of the old authors, beside the saying of St Augustine here recited, I shall also rehearse divers other. WINCHESTER.; In the twenty-sixth leaf’? this author bringeth forth two sayings of St Augustine, which ὦ when this author wrote, it is like he neither thought of the third or first book of this work. For these two sayings declare most evidently the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament, affirming the same to be the sacrifice of the church, whereby appeareth it is — no figure only. In the first saying of St Augustine is written thus: “how faith sheweth me — that bread is the body of Christ.” Now whatsoever faith sheweth is a truth, and then it Jolloweth that of a truth 4t is the body of Christ: which speech, bread is the body of Christ,” — is as much to say as it is made the body of Christ, and made mot as of a matter, but, as Ewmissene wrote, by conversion of the visible creature into the substance of the body of Christ; — and, as St Augustine in the same sentence writeth, “it is bread before the consecration, and - after the flesh of Clirist.” As for the second saying of St Augustine, how could it with more plain words be written, than to say that “there is both the sacrament and the thing of the — sacrament,” which is Christ’s body, calling the same the sacrifice of the church? Now if Christ’s body be there, it is truly there, and in deed there, which 4s really there: as for there im @ — — figure, were as much to say as mot there? in truth and in deed, but only signified to be -
[[’ His Godhead, 1551, and Orig. ed.] —.[? Vid. p. 277.] [3 Were to say not there, Orig. ed. Winch. ] E A]
absent which is the nature of a figure in his proper and special speech. But St Augustine saith, as the author bringeth him forth, and yet he gave his privy nip by the way (0 hus: “It is said of St Augustine there be two things in the sacrifice, which be contained (0 dn it, whereof it consisteth, so as the body of Christ is contained in this sacrifice by St Augustings mind.” According whereunto, St Augustine is alleged to say in the same book, from whence this author took this saying, also these words following: Under the kinds of bread and wine which we see, we honour things invisible, that is to say, the flesh and blood of Christ; nor we do mot likewise esteem these two kinds as we did before the conseeration, for we must faithfully confess before the consecration to be bread and wine that mature formed, and after consecration, the flesh and blood of Christ, which the benediction hath consecrate.” Thus saith St Augustine, as he is alleged out of that books, which in deed I have not, but he hath the like sense in other places; and for honouring of the invisible heavenly things there, which declare the true and real presence, St Augustine hath the like in his book, De Catechisandis Rudibus, and in the ninety-eighth psalm, where he speaketh of adoration. This may be notable to the reader, how this author concludeth himself in the Jaith of the real presence9 of Christ’s body, by his own collection of St Augustine’s mind, which i as he confesseth in his own words, noting St Augustine, that “as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures, so the sacrament consisteth of two natures, of the elements of bread and wine, and of the body and blood of Christ, and therefore both these natures do remain tn the sacrament.” These be this author's own words, who, travailing to confound transubStantiation, confoundeth evidently himself by his own words touching the real presence. For he saith the nature of the body and blood of Christ must remain in the sacrament, and as Uruly as the natures of the manhood and Godhead were in Christ, for thereupon he argueth. And now let this author choose whether he will say any of the natures, the manhood or the Godhead, were but figuratively in Christ; which and he do, then may he the better say for the agreement of his doctrine, the nature of the body and blood of Christ is but figuratively in the sacrament. And if he say, as he must needs say, that the two natures be in Christ's person really, naturally, substantially, then must he grant by his own collection the truth of the being of the nature of the body and blood of Christ to be likewise in the sacraent, and thereby call back all that he hath written against the real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, and abandon his device of a presence by signification, which is in truth a plain absence as himself also speaketh openly, which open speech cannot stand, and ds improved by this open speech of his own. i Likewise where he saith “the nature of the body and blood of Christ remain in the sacrament,” the word “remain” being of such signification, as it betokeneth mot only to be there, j but to tarry there, and so there is declared the sacrifice of the church, which mystery of sacrifice is perfected before the perception; and so it must be evident how the body of Christ i is there, that is to say, on the altar before we receive it, to which altar, St Augustine saith, — we come to receive it. There was never man overturned his own assertions more evidently, Lo than this author doth here in this place; the like whereof I have observed in other that have written against this sacrament, who have by the way said somewhat for it, or they have - brought their treatise to an end. It will be said here, Howsoever this author doth overthrow himself in the real presence of Christ's very body, yet he hath pulled down transubstantiation, and done? as crafty wrestlers do, falling themselves on their back, to throw their fellow over them. But it is not like; Jor as long as the true faith of the real presence standeth, so long transubstantiation standeth, not by authority of determination, but by a necessary consequence of the truth, as I said before, and ] as Zuinglius defendeth plainly: and as for these places of St Augustine may be answered unto, Jor they speak of the visible nature and element, which remain truly in the propriety of their — mature, for so much a remaineth, so as there is true real and bodily matter of the accidents of bread and wine, not in Jantasy or imagination, whereby there should be illusion in the senses, but so in deed as the experience doth shew, and the change of substance of the creatures into a better substance should not impair the truth of that remaineth, but that remaineth doth in deed remain, with the same natural effects by miracle that it had when the substance was there; which ds one marvel in this mystery, as there were diverse more in manna, the figure of it. And then E [ He have, Ibid.] [9 In the real presence, Ibid.]
[ Magister Sententiarum, Lib. iv. Dist. x. fol. [? And do as, Ibid.] i ed Col. 1576] [? So long standeth transubstantiation, 1551.]
a miracle in God’s working doth not impair the truth of the work. And therefore I noted — before, how St Thomas did touch Christ after his resurrection truly, and yet it was by miracle, — as St Gregory writeth. And further we may say, touching the comparison, that when a resemblance is made of the sacrament to Christ’s person, or contrariwise of Christ’s person to — declare the sacrament, we may not press all parts of the resemblance, with a thorough equality in — ^ consideration of each part by itself, but only have respect to the end wherefore the resemblance — is made. In the person of Christ be joined two whole perfect natures inseparably unite, (which — Jaith the Nestorians impugned,) and yet unite without confusion of them, (which confusion the Eutychians in consequence of their error affirmed,) and so arguments be brought of the sacrament, wherewith to convince both, as I shall shew, answering to Gelasius. But in this place St Augustine useth the truth most certain of the two natures in Christ’s person, whereby to declare his belief in the sacrament; which belief, as Hilary before is by this author alleged to — say, is of that is inwardly. For that is outwardly of the visible creature, “we see,” he saith, — “with our bodily eye,” and therefore therein is no point of faith that should need such a decla- — ration, as St Augustine maketh. And yet making the comparison, he rehearseth both the truths on both sides, saying: As the person of Christ consisteth of God and man, so the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things, the visible kind of the element, and the invisible flesh and blood,” finishing the conclusion of the similitude, that therefore there is in the sacrifice of the — church both the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament, Christ’s body, that which is invisible, — and therefore required declaration, that is by St Augustine opened in the comparison; that is to — say, the body of Christ to be there truly, and therewith, that needed no declaration, that is to say, — the visible kind of the element is spoken of also as being true, but not as a thing which was in- — tended to be proved, for it needed mot any proof as the other part did. And therefore it is not necessary to press both parts of the resemblance so, as because in the nature of Christ’s humanity there was mo substance converted in Christ, which had been contrary to the order of — that mystery, which was to join the whole nature of man to the Godhead in the person of Christ, that therefore in this mystery of the sacrament, in which by the rules! of our faith Christ’s body — is mot impanate, the conversion of the substance of the visible elements should mot therefore be. — If truth answereth to truth for proportion of the truth in the mystery, that is sufficient. For else the matures be not so unite in one hypostasy in the mystery of the sacrament, as there be? in — Christ’s person, and the flesh of man in Christ by union of the divinity is a divine spiritual Sesh, and is called and is a lively flesh; and yet the author of this book is not afraid to teach — the bread in the sacrament to have no participation of holiness, wherein I agree not with him, but reason against him with his own doctrine; and much I could say more, but this shall suffice. The words of St Augustine for the real presence of Christ’s body be such as no man can wrest or writhe to another sense, and with their force have made this author to overthrow? himself in his own words. But that St Augustine saith, touching the nature of bread and the visible element of the sacrament, without wresting or writhing, may be agreed in convenient understanding with the doctrine of transubstantiation, and therefore is an authority familiar with ὦ. wm.. those writers that affirm transubstantiation by express words, out of whose quiver this author hath pulled out his bolt, and as it is out of his bow sent, turneth back and hitteth himself on the forehead; and yet after his fashion, by wrong and untrue translation, he sharpened it somewhat, not without some punishment of God, evidently by the way by his own words to overthrow ὦ himself.
In the second column of the twenty-seventh leaf, and the first of the twenty-eighth leaf, this.— author maketh a process in declaration of heresies in the person of Christ, for conviction whereof, this author saith, the old fathers used arguments of two examples, in either of which examples were two natures together, the one mot perishing me confounding the other. One example is in the body and soul of man: another example of the sacrament, in which be. two natures, an inward heavenly, and an outward earthly, as in man there is a body and a soul. ] I leave out this author’s own judgment in that place, and of thee, O reader, require thine, whether those fathers that did use both these examples to the confutation of heretics, did not believe, as appeareth by the process of their reasoning in this point, did they mot, I say, believe, that even as really and as truly, as the soul of man is present in the body, so really an so truly is the body of Christ, which in the sacrament is the inward invisible thing, as the soul is in the body, present in the sacrament? For else, and the body of Christ were not as truly and - [᾿ In the which by the rule, Orig. ed. Winch.] [? This author overthrow, Orig. ed. Winch.]
[5 As they be, 1551.] [ This bolt, Ibid.] [^ Vid. pp. 277,.]
End AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 281 really present in the sacrament, as the soul is in man’s body, that argument of the sacrament had mot two things present, so as the argument of the body and soul had, whereby shew how two things may be together without confusion of either, each remaining in his nature: for if the — teaching of this author in other parts of this book were true, then were the sacrament like a body lying in a trance, whose soul for the while were in heaven, and had no two things, but — ene bare thing, that is to say, bread, and bread never the holier with signification of another thing so far absent, as is heaven from earth; and therefore, to say as I probably think, this part of this second book against transubstantiation was a collection of this author when he minded to maintain Luther’s opinion against transubstantiation only, and to strive for bread only, which notwithstanding the new enterprise of this author to deny the real presence, is so fierce and vehement, as it overthroweth his new purpose ere he cometh in his order in his book to entreat of it. For there can no demonstration be made more evident for the catholic faith of the real presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, than that the truth of it was so certainly believed, as they took Christ’s very body as verily in the sacrament, even as the soul is present in the body of man.
Canterbury
When you wrote this, it is like that you had not considered my third book, ~ wherein is a plain and direct answer to all that you have brought in this place, or elsewhere, concerning the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament. And how slender proofs you make in this place, to prove the real presence because of the sacrifice, every man may judge, being neither your argument good, nor your antecedent true. For St Augustine saith not, that the body and blood of Christ is the sacrifice of the church; and if he had so said, it inferreth not this conclusion, that the body of Christ should be really in the bread, and his blood in the wine.
And although St Augustine saith, that “bread is Christ’s body,” yet if you had well marked the sixty-fourth, sixty-fifth, and sixty-sixth leaves of my book”, you should there have perceived how St Augustine declareth at length, in what manner of speech that is to be understand, that is to say figuratively, in which speech the thing that signifieth and the thing that is signified have both one name, as St Cyprian manifestly teacheth’. For in plain speech, without figure, bread is not the body of Christ by your own confession, who do say, that the affirmation of one substance is the negation of another. And if the bread were made the body of Christ, as you say it is, then must you needs confess, that the body of Christ is made of bread, which before you said was so foolish a saying, as were not tolerable by a scoffer to be devised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.” And seeing that the bread is not annihilate and consumed into nothing, as the school authors teach, then must.it needs follow, that the body of Christ is made of the matter of bread; for that it is made of the form of bread, I suppose you will not grant. i And as touching the second place of St Augustine, he saith not that the body and blood of Christ be really in the sacrament, but that in the sacrifice of the church, — that is to say, in the holy administration of the Lord’s supper, is both a sacrament — and the thing signified by the sacrament, the sacrament being the bread and wine, T and the thing signified and exhibited being the body and blood of Christ. But St — Augustine saith not, that the thing signified is in the bread and wine, to whom it - is not exhibited, nor is not in it, but as in a figure; but that it is there in the true - ministration of the sacrament, present to the spirit and faith of the true believing man, and exhibited truly and in deed, and yet spiritually, not corporally.
And what need any more evident proofs of St Augustineés mind in this matter, how bread is called Christ’s body, than St Augustines own words cited in the same place, where the other is de Consecratione, Dist. ii, Hoc est quod dicimus?” These be St Augustines words there cited: Sicut coestis panis, qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum revera. sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius vide- - licet, quod visibile, quod palpabile, mortale, in cruce positum, est, vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, que sacerdotis. manibus Jit, Christi passio, mors, crucifizio, non rei
[i [ Vid. pp. 123—127.] [ Vid. p. 121.]]
veritate, sed significanti mysterio: sic sacramentum. fidei, quod baptismus intelligitur, Sides est’. “As the heavenly bread, which is Christ’s flesh, after a manner is called the body of Christ, where in very deed it is a sacrament of Christ’s body, that is to say, of that body which being visible, palpable, mortal, was put upon the cross; and as that offering of the flesh which is done by the priest’s hands, is called the passion, the death, the crucifying of Christ, not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery; so is the sacrament of faith, which is baptism, faith.” These words be so plain and manifest, that the expositor, being a very papist, yet could not avoid the matter, but wrote thus upon the said words: Zmmolatio, que fit a presbytero, improprie appellatur. Christi passio, vel mors, vel crucifizio: non quod sit illa, sed quia illam. significat. And after he saith: Cwleste sacramentum, quod vere reprwsentat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed improprie. Unde dicitur, suo modo, sed non rei veritate, sed significant mysterio; «ut sit sensus, vocatur Christi corpus, id est, significat?. “The offering which the priest maketh, is called improperly the passion, death, or crucifying of Christ, not that it is that, but that it signifieth it.” And “the heavenly sacrament, which truly representeth Christ’s flesh, is called Christ’s body, but impro-. perly. And therefore is said, after a manner, but not in the truth of the thing, but in the signifying mystery: so that the sense is this, it is called the body of Christ, that is to say, signifieth.” Now the words of St Augustine being so plain, that none can be more, and following the other words within ten lines, so that you can allege no ignorance, but you must needs see them, it can be none other but a wilful blindmess, that you will not see, and also a wilful concealing and hiding of the truth from. other men, that they should not see neither.
And this one place is sufficient at full to answer whatsoever you can bring οὗ the presence of Christ in the sacrament of bread and wine. For after consecration the body and blood of Christ be in them but as in figures, although in the godly receivers he is really present by his omnipotent power, which is as great a miracle. in our daily nourishing, as is wrought before in our regeneration. And therefore is Christ no less to be honoured of them that feed of him in his holy supper, than of. them that be grafted in him by regeneration. A Q And whereas I said upon St Augustine’s words,.that “the sacrament consisteth of two natures,” in that place I collected more of St Augustine’s words in your favour, than indeed St Augustine saith, because you should not say that I nipped him. For St Augustine saith not, that the sacrament consisteth of two natures, and therefore both these natures must needs remain in the sacrament; but he saith that the sacrifice. consisteth of two things, which he calleth also natures, and thereof it followeth, that. those two things must be in the sacrifice, which is to be understand, in the ministration, not in the bread and wine reserved. 1 And very true it is, as St Augustine saith, that “the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two things, of the sacrament, and of the thing thereby signified, which. is Christ’s body, as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man.” But yet ] this resemblance is not altogether like, as you say truly for so much; for the person of Christ consisteth so of his Godhead and manhood, they they be both in him in real presence and unity of person. But in the sacrifice it is otherwise, where neither is any such union between the sacrament and the truth of the sacrament, nor any such presence of the body of Christ. For in the bread and winell Christ is but figuratively, as I said before, and in the godly receivers spiritually, in. whom also he tarrieth and remaineth so long as they remain the members of his body. ᾽,
← 14. Book II. Against Transubstantiation · Contents · 16. Book II. Against Transubstantiation →