Du if Christ’s similitudes should be so narrowly pressed, as you press here the be… 4 in similitude of the two natures of Christ in the sacrament, collecting that because the body and blood of Christ be truly present in the due administration of the sacra- [! Corpus Juris Canonici. De Consecrat. Dist. [? Gloss. in Corpus Juris Canonici, De Consecrat. 1 ii. cap. 48. “Hoc est.” col. 1937. Ed. Lugd. Dist. ii. col. 1936. Lugd. 1618.] 1618.]. [? Ib. col. 1937.] A
ment, therefore they must be there naturally present, as the two natures of the hu- manity and divinity be in Christ; many wicked errors should be established by them: as if the similitude of the wicked steward were strained as you strain and force this similitude, men might gather, that it is lawful for christian men to beguile their - lords and masters whiles they be in office, to help themselves when they be out of office, because the Lord praised the wicked steward; yet you know that the similitude was not taught of our Saviour Christ for that purpose, for God is no favourer of falsehood and untruth. So you do wrong both to the holy doctors and to me, to gather of our similitude any other doctrine than we mean by the said similitude. Nor any reasonable man can say, that I am forced by confessing two natures in Christ’s person really, naturally, and substantially, to confess also the nature of the body and blood of Christ to be likewise in the sacrament, except he could prove that the holy doctors, and I following their doctrine, do teach and affirm, that the natures of bread and wine are joined in the sacrament with the natural body and blood of Christ in unity of person, as the natures of God and man be joined in our Saviour Christ: which we do not teach, because we find no such doctrine taught by Christ, by his apostles, nor evangelists. herefore take your own collection to yourself, and make yourself answer to such absurdities and inconvenience as you do infer, by abusing and forcing of the doctors similitude to another end than they did use it.
And it is not necessary for our eternal salvation, nor yet profitable for our comfort in this life, to believe that the natural body and blood of Christ is really, substantially, and naturally present in the sacrament. For if it were necessary or comfortable for us, it is without doubt, that our Saviour Christ, his apostles, and evangelists, would not have omitted to teach this doctrine distinctly and plainly. Yea, our Saviour would not have said, Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quicquam; The Spirit giveth life, the flesh availeth nothing.”
But this doctrine, which the holy doctors do teach, is agreeable to holy scripture, necessary for all Christian persons to believe for their everlasting salvation, and profitable for their spiritual comfort in this present life; that is to say, that the sacrament “of Christ’s body and blood in the natures and substances of bread and wine is distributed unto all men, both good and evil which receive it, and yet that only faithful persons do receive spiritually by faith the very body and blood of our Saviour Christ. So that Christ’s natural body is not in the sacrament really, substantially, and corporally, but only by representation and signification, and in his lively members by spiritual and effectual operation.
But it appeareth that you be foul deceived in judgment of the doctrine set out “in my book. And if you were not either utterly ignorant in holy seriptures and doctors, ΠΟΥ not obstinately bent to pervert the true doctrine of this holy sacrament, you would never have uttered this sentence: That there never was man overturned his own assertions more evidently than this author doth.” «For I am well assured that my doctrine is sound, and therefore do trust that I shall be able to stand by mine asserv. before all men that are learned, and be any thing indifferent, and not bent obstinately to maintain errors, as you be, when you, tumbling and tossing yourself in your filthy «fantasies of transubstantiation, and of the real and carnal presence of - Ohrists body, shall be ashamed of your assertions. But I marvel not much of your stout bragging here, because it is a common thing with you, to dash me in the teeth with your own faults.
And it is untrue that you say, that “the sacrifice is perfected before the perception.” For if the sacrifice be perfected before the perception, it is perfected also before the consecration. For between the consecration and perception was no sacrifice made by Christ, as appeareth in the evangelists, but the one followed immediately of the other. And although Christ being in heaven be one of the parts whereof the sacrifice consisteth, and be present in the sacrifice, yet he is not naturally there present, but sacramentally in the sacrament, and spiritually in the receivers.
And by this which I have now answered, I have wrestled with you so in the ἫΝ of Christ’s presence, that I have not “fallen upon my back myself to pull you